Recent Ban was lifted then a New Ban was issued

walrusgumble

I was posting in the After Hours Section of the Site, on a thread concerning Joe Brolly and Organ Donations

I received a ban, "1 week" from , moderator, Lizy T

However,yesterday evening I recevied a message that stated my "ban from After Hours has been automatically lifted."

Upon reading this, I took, in good faith, that I served my ban and was entitled to return to ALL areas of After Hours, and that ALL bans had expired.

I returned to the thread this morning. I posted 2 messages on the thread in question that did not contravene any rules on how posters should conduct themselves. There was nothing to suggest to me that I was under any ban.

I received a message from Lizzy T informing me that was was banned from After Hours, contrary to the earlier message

I asked her What rules permit her to overrule a decision to lift the ban.

When I recived the original ban, I was informed that I was banned for 1 week. I am not told by the Moderator that

"Your thread ban was permanent, your AH ban was not."

Despite the Moderator claiming that the thread ban was permanent and that the AH ban was not, the moderator made NO statement that the ban was permanent . The moderator, when asked, has failed to provide a link to the statement where the moderator did state that the ban was a permanent one

I am unable to access the entire area of After Hours. In the Moderators own words, I am banned from a particular thread yet the moderator saw fit to ban me from the entire After Hours Section, despite the comment ""Your thread ban was permanent, your AH ban was not." The moderator has failed and refused to explain this. The moderator has failed to cite the precise rules that permit the Moderator to take this course

1. I received a Ban, I serve the ban, I receive a message that states that the ban had expired

2. I read this, take it on good faith, that in absence of any conditions, I can return to the entire After Hours Section

3. The Moderator has failed to state what powers she had to over rule the message that permitted me to return to the area

4. The Moderator has failed to explain how her ban , which she stated is "a thread ban" and NOT an "AH ban" (the thread being in the AH section) now permits the moderator from banning me from the entire area, in circumstances that I was lead to believe that all bans expired

5. The Moderator only perfers to a "permanent" ban this morning. However, at the time of the ban, the ban was only for 1 week. I was later informed that the ban was lifted. What rules permit the moderator to change tact? I am informed that she had no control over the message conveying the ban. This is not my problem. If there are no written rules allowing her to take the action that she did, then her decision to issue a NEW ban was ultra vires.

Even when attempting to give a ban, this site has failed to communicate the correct details. A return to the thread occurred on the basis that there was a reasonable belief that the ban was lifted

Good Day

Micky Dolenz

Hello walrusgumble

A Cmod will look into this and get back to you.

Thanks.

Micky Dolenz

Hi walrusgumble


I'll run through the time line here.

First general on thread warning.

whoopsadaisydoodles wrote: »

Mod

This is understandably a very emotive topic. Keep the sensationalism out of it please. Keep the discussion civil. Don't get personal.

Go forth and discuss!

Second general on thread warning.

LizT wrote: »

Mod

Another reminder folks, let's keep the personal insults out of this.

Now this, from you.

walrusgumble wrote: »

How do you opt out when your dead? People can die suddenly

I assume, like thousands of others, you never bothered to physically go and apply for a donor card, you were too selfish to get it

You have no right to comment or determine what another person does.

You should not be forced to take affirmative action to prevent someone from interfering with your body when you die.

If people want to be do gooders, they are prefectly entitled to get a donor card


Consent means express consent. Not implied and not consent based on pressure or bastards like you classing people who don't wish to donate, as bastards


I trust that you are down for donating your eyes and kidney's? Maybe give the brain for research , ya?

You are rightly infracted with a note:

Ignored 2 mod notes to keep personal insults out of the thread. "or bastards like you" Keep it civil or don't post in the thread.

This makes 3 warnings you would have read.

The next mod:

LizT wrote: »

Mod

walrusgumble, don't post in this thread again.


I understand this is an emotive discussion for everyone but please, keep it civil, report any posts that cross the line and keep the personals out of it.

This isn't a normal modding procedure, a ban is normally warranted at this point. However The mod acknowledges that the subject is emotive. This is your chance to step away, unsub to the thread and let it go.

You don't. You post. It's 6 minutes after the warning. The mod deletes it as they give you the benefit of the doubt, you may not have seen the thread ban notice. You post on the thread again 15 minutes later. You post 3 more times after that and are banned for 1 day for Ignoring a mod instruction,

That mod instruction was "Don't post in this thread again".

Once your one day ban was up, you wrongly assumed you could post on the thread again. You couldn't. "Don't post on this thread again" means just that.

My opinion, this thread was modded exceptionally well, you were given every chance to participate but refused to do so in a civil manner. The mod had no option but to follow the course they did.


You may ask an Admin to look over it.

Thanks

walrusgumble

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Hi walrusgumble


I'll run through the time line here.

First general on thread warning.



Second general on thread warning.

The warning was to keep things civil. No more!

"This is understandably a very emotive topic. Keep the sensationalism out of it please. Keep the discussion civil. Don't get personal.

Go forth and discuss!"

"Another reminder folks, let's keep the personal insults out of this."

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Now this, from you.

Excuse me, but, where are the personal insults there. The points and questions, if you actually read the thread in full, as oppose to biased administration, was in response to other poster's statements, that could be taken as insulting. There was clearly, no insult directed to any poster, in my statement which you have highlighted.

The statement merely deals with statements made by other posters and their labelling of certain people. None of my statements were directed at any poster. Any poster who took offence , yet they having no problem labelling others, clearly went out of their way to get offended.


Point out the precise offending statement /line that ignored the warning to keep matters civil. The poster was open to respond , which he did, civilly . I didn't see any public warning on him or two other posters that made insulting remarks.

Your reply is completely generalised.

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

You are rightly infracted with a note:

""or bastards like you"

As explained fully, to the moderator, the term bastard was NOT my statement, but the statement of another poster (whom I was not petty enough to report when they made that statement), all I did was quote that poster. No personal insult, direct or indirect.

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

This makes 3 warnings you would have read.

The warnings to remain civil, to which I actually complied with.

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

The next mod:


This isn't a normal modding procedure, a ban is normally warranted at this point.

There was absolutely nothing to warrant a ban in the first place. The initial warning was also completely uncalled for, never mind the second and third.

Like the moderator, you have failed to point out the precise offending statement and take it in the context of how it was said.

Like the moderator , you just saw one word, half a sentence, and immediately threw logic out of the window and started to call the shots.

Thirdly, the moderator and yourself claim to warn people to stay civil and given them a chance, however, that is rubbish. You sought to ban that person immediately, even when they complied with the warning.

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

However The mod acknowledges that the subject is emotive. This is your chance to step away, unsub to the thread and let it go.

I was complying with the warnings to stay civil.! The warning was not justified

I was perfectly entitled to remain on the third, like every other poster, who themselves raised insulting and sectarian comments. I made a lengthy response thereafter, that clearly highlighted that I was one of few posters that could actually deal comprehensively with the topic and the problems arising out thereof.

Unless you can provide the rules in the Charter, the moderator had no right to treat a warning to stay civil into a request to leave the thread when the poster , who continues to discuss on the thread , actually heeds the warnings.

THe moderator acted heavy handed

So far, you have admitted that asking posters to leave the thread, without actually banning them, is not usual. The moderator acted excessively in light of the fact that I actually did continue to post, but, in compliance with the warnings to stay civil.



You don't. You post. It's 6 minutes after the warning. The mod deletes it as they give you the benefit of the doubt, you may not have seen the thread ban notice. You post on the thread again 15 minutes later. You post 3 more times after that and are banned for 1 day for Ignoring a mod instruction,

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

That mod instruction was "Don't post in this thread again".

Moderator had no power to do this, and the basis for doing so was incorrect as well, in light of complying with the actual warnings to stay civil.

If the moderator had power , they would have banned the poster in the first place.

Provide the provisions in the charter that allows you to act in this manner.

Can't be making the rules up as ye go along boys.

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Once your one day ban was up, you wrongly assumed you could post on the thread again. You couldn't. "Don't post on this thread again" means just that.

Now, provide the guidelines and rules for the website charter that supports your view

I got a ban. I was told that the ban was lifted. There was no differentiation in the message (informing me of the ban lift) what it applied to or not.

The message informing me of the ban, stated CLEARLY , with NO limitations, that I was entitled to return to After Hours, ALL threads

You and the moderator have provided NO sources that allow you to overrule that ban lift.

There is a difference between "wrongly assuming" and the websites failure to communicate between moderators or how bans are in place and lifted and where it applies too.

In absence of this, the Moderator had no right to over rule the ban lift and impose a new ban.

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

My opinion, this thread was modded exceptionally well, you were given every chance to participate but refused to do so in a civil manner.

Which, you and the moderator have failed to explain how that is the case.

The reference to "Bastards" came before the first warning to be civil. That reference was not a direct or indirect insult in the first place, but a highlight of the precise words used by another poster and no more

Thereafter, the warnings were complied with.

And, despite the discussion with the moderator, who has failed to point out the source of her right to take certain actions, you too have failed to point those out as well.

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

The mod had no option but to follow the course they did.

The mod acted heavy handily in the first place. The second and third warnings were NOT justified. The decision to revoke the ban lift was not justified and neither of ye have actually stated the rules and provisions that allow ye to introduce the new ban

The powers exercised were excessive .

Like the moderator, your replies are generalised and have completely failed to answer the specific points that I raised. It merely highlights the fact that the moderator acted excessively and well beyond her powers in this case

The the moderator's own words, the ban was a thread ban and not a ban on after hours. She has failed to point out the actual charter rules that allows her to differentiate between bans (you yourself confirmed that the action was unusual) that entitled her to ban a poster from the whole After Hours Site

Micky Dolenz

Hi walrusgumble,

I am not against you.

I'd like to say we are not against you but that would probably only serve to create an even bigger divide in this situation.

It's the truth, even if you don't choose to believe it.
This all boils down to you ignoring a mod instruction, if you didn't agree with that call, ignoring it wasn't the way to go.
This is why we are here.