Ridiculous Infraction

The Corinthian

Very briefly, while the moderators on tGC in general and I have never seen eye to eye, this particular moderator has recently taken warning/infracting me for the slightest perceived transgression.

I would also question why this moderator, Sauve, has been allowed to moderate both tGC on tLL, despite there being a pretty clear conflict of interests there?

The infraction that took the biscuit, not to mention the piss, was the last in the following exchange:

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's your opinion that you read it carefully, despite getting completely wrong what it was talking about? Fair enough - you're entitled to your opinion.

Bananatop wrote: »

I'm glad to see that my opinion that the article is unbalanced is accepted.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I said you're entitled to your opinion; I never said you're entitled to have your opinion accepted or even respected.

I stand by that last, infracted, post; everyone is entitled to an opinion - and I respect that entitlement. But no one is entitled to have that opinion accepted or even respected, just because they have it and can express it.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the language I used, but apparently "needlessly aggressive or confrontational manner being disruptive on the forum or causing stress for the other members", despite the fact that I was responding to a poster who had just parachuted into the discussion to do just that - of course, if you check further in the thread, you'll also note that Sauve agreed with that other poster, which I would allege was more than a minor reason for her moderation decision.

Seriously, are people just supposed to agree with everything that's said without fear of being infracted, or just certain people, as seemingly by her logic Bananatop also posted in a "needlessly aggressive or confrontational manner" by quipping that by my saying that (s)he is entitled to his/her opinion, I must agree with it (an inflammatory post conveniently ignored by Sauve).

In short, I really do not think it appropriate for this moderator to be one of both tLL and tGC, for obvious reasons and I would appreciate not being over-moderated, far beyond other posters, because of what appears to be a personality clash or a conflict of political opinions - indeed, she appears to go out of her way to do so at this stage.

The Corinthian

Apparently, this infraction has now become a six month ban, since my posting here.

Zaph

Are you appealing the infraction and/or ban, or complaining about the moderator. If it's the former I'll move this to the DRF.

The Corinthian

Zaph wrote: »

Are you appealing the infraction and/or ban, or complaining about the moderator. If it's the former I'll move this to the DRF.

Realistically both, as even if the ban were overturned, I'm likely to receive the same special treatment until I can be banned again.

Zaph

OK, I'll move this to the DRF so, and a CMod can review the infraction and ban for starters.

Scofflaw

OK, I'll take this one.

First off, Sauve is not the only moderator to have infracted you for a very similar pattern of behaviour over the last month or so. That tends to suggest that rather than some kind of vendetta, what's happening is that you've been more than usually unpleasant to other posters recently.

Because, being rather blunt, I think we both know you're no angel. In fact, you're very regularly condescending and caustic. You get away with it because you're also worth reading. That's neatly summed up in one of your recent infraction messages from awec:

You really need to knock the condescending posting style on the head. You're a good contributor to this forum - at times you let yourself down a bit. You're starting to approach temporary ban territory - so please improve the attitude in some of your posts.

Unfortunately, that's a balancing act, and one which recently, judging by a rash of mod actions, seems to tipped over into negative balance, as has happened before.

So, details:

• The infraction: is incorrect. I can see that having painted yourself as a villain, your motives are going to be judged harshly, and from that I can see how your post can be taken as belittling the other poster. And, being blunt again, it does belittle the other poster, but the other poster deserved it, for putting words in your mouth. Personally, I'd have yellow carded Bananatop there if anything. I would overturn this.

• The ban: is trickier. It's a lengthy ban to make the point that you're currently failing to maintain an adequate balance of constructive and destructive posting, and that that's being taken seriously. I would only consider overturning a ban if I felt that there would be a corresponding and genuine change in your behaviour, which I'm afraid I don't. On the other hand, I don't feel that that's all that likely no matter how long the ban is, and it's really only a question of how you feel when and if you return to the forum. However, the sooner you return to the forum - assuming no change in behaviour - the likelier a permaban is, so while for purely procedural reasons I'd be happier to see a three-month ban here, the question is whether that puts you back in the firing line too soon, which may not work out for you or for the mods. A month is definitely too short. So I could argue for a three-month ban here if you like, but am ambivalent about recommending that to you.

• Mod bias: dismissed as per the first point. Sauve may find you less worth reading than other mods, but she's definitely not making up the central issue here, nor alone in spotting it.

As usual, you're free to appeal to the Admins.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Corinthian

Scofflaw wrote: »

First off, Sauve is not the only moderator to have infracted you for a very similar pattern of behaviour over the last month or so. That tends to suggest that rather than some kind of vendetta, what's happening is that you've been more than usually unpleasant to other posters recently.

Or a decision was made to infarct for the slightest of reasons, so as to have a pretext to ban me, while showing leniency to others. Feel free to check out the other infractions/warnings by Suave, for example, not to mention the various cases where others have simply received general warnings for misbehaviour, I've been infracted; you yourself have accepted this most recent infraction should have been overturned and questioned why the other poster was not infracted. If you see a few more examples, might you consider the possibility of bias?

Now, despite the fear of my falling into the paranoid, conspiracy theory category, it's no secret that I've held the moderation of that board in contempt for years and have been quite vocal about this whenever there's a feedback thread on the subject. So it hardly requires much of a conspiracy if some (or all) of the moderators (and ex-moderators) of that board would be more than happy if I never returned to it.

So I'll completely admit that I can be quite aggressive and acerbic in my posting style and the moderators there have personal reasons to dislike me, but TBH, just because I'm no angel, that does not mean I'm the devil either. And neither does it disprove existence of bias.

Unfortunately, that's a balancing act, and one which recently, judging by a rash of mod actions, seems to tipped over into negative balance, as has happened before.

In essence, reversal of a warning, which has been cited as a tipping point to justify a ban. Yet, the warning you would overturn, is not, and the ban that it precipitated remains in place. Strictly speaking the former should have been actioned at least, presuming the process here holds any meaning.

As usual, you're free to appeal to the Admins.

I've been around long enough here to know when to stop beating my head against a wall and bow to the status quo.

Scofflaw

The Corinthian wrote: »

Or a decision was made to infarct for the slightest of reasons, so as to have a pretext to ban me, while showing leniency to others. Feel free to check out the other infractions/warnings by Suave, for example, not to mention the various cases where others have simply received general warnings for misbehaviour, I've been infracted; you yourself have accepted this most recent infraction should have been overturned and questioned why the other poster was not infracted. If you see a few more examples, might you consider the possibility of bias?

I would - but you in turn would have to consider the possibility that I might look at the examples and not agree with what you see any more than I looked at your infracted post and agreed with what Sauve saw. It would also be worth factoring in that I have looked at your recent posts and particularly your infractions before forming an opinion here.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Now, despite the fear of my falling into the paranoid, conspiracy theory category, it's no secret that I've held the moderation of that board in contempt for years and have been quite vocal about this whenever there's a feedback thread on the subject. So it hardly requires much of a conspiracy if some (or all) of the moderators (and ex-moderators) of that board would be more than happy if I never returned to it.

So I'll completely admit that I can be quite aggressive and acerbic in my posting style and the moderators there have personal reasons to dislike me, but TBH, just because I'm no angel, that does not mean I'm the devil either. And neither does it disprove existence of bias.

No, that's true, but I didn't see evidence of bias, and my points about your posting style are by way of an alternative explanation rather than as a disproof of bias.

The Corinthian wrote: »

In essence, reversal of a warning, which has been cited as a tipping point to justify a ban. Yet, the warning you would overturn, is not, and the ban that it precipitated remains in place. Strictly speaking the former should have been actioned at least, presuming the process here holds any meaning.

Sure. It's not the Soccer forum, after all, and the reasons for the ban stand independently of the warning.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I've been around long enough here to know when to stop beating my head against a wall and bow to the status quo.

I guess I have to take that as a "resolution". If you want to take up the offer of infraction reversal or ban shortening and this thread is closed, let me know by PM.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Many thanks scofflaw for dealing with this. Rather than have this continue either here or via PM, let's clarify what's going to happen.

We're going to apply scofflaw's offer to overturn the infraction because as outlined above - viewed on its own - its probably unwarranted. The ban will also be reduced to three months as a form of final warning.

I say final warning as The Corinthian has already been requested some months back at Admin level to stop being a timesink for tGC moderators, so any future and final communication is going to be at this level.