Clare Forum Infraction

Cosmo Kramer

Hi - following an unsuccessful attempt to discuss an infraction in the Clare forum with a moderator there I have been re-directed here...so here I am. Apologies for the length of the post.

My post relates to two specific issues regarding the Shannon Airport 2014 thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057132113&page=2

1) I received an infraction for the following post:

Well, now we know. 9,000 'passengers' who flew nowhere other than in and out of Shannon Airport free of charge at the airport's expense had to be counted twice to artificailly manipulate the annual passenger statistics to make it appear as though more passengers used the airport in year one under the new management than under the DAA the year previously. In fact we now know that 2013 was, in fact, the seventh successive year of passenger decline at Shannon Airport.

These flights were an incredible waste of public money given the extent of the bailout provided to Shannon just one year ago - make no mistake, the Irish taxpayer paid for this through the airport bailout. I know that the Shannon propaganda machine on here will do all they can to sweep this under the carpet but there should be no denying that this would be an incredibly embarrassing news story for the airport were it to be picked up by the wider media. That Leo Varadkar lauded the 2013 passenger 'increase' through social media also raises real concerns over his ability to manage and understand the workings of his government department.

This post relates to an issue where Shannon Airport, along with Ryanair, organised flights for 4,500 people to meet Santa in the sky before Christmas. On the face of it, this was a harmless event - but in actual fact it now appears that each person on these flights, which took off from Shannon, flew around for a few minutes and landed back at Shannon again, was counted twice in their annual passenger statistics. This had the effect of turning what would have been an annual passenger decline into a small gain and this gain has been used extensively for PR purposes of late by both the airport and the government. This raises the question as to what was the real reason for the flights and also whether they amounted to appropriate spending of public money (Shannon has received a recent government bailout of anywhere between 100 and 300 million euro according to various reports).

A poster on the thread took personal offence at my use of the phrase 'propaganda machine' and decided that it was a direct attack on him or her. One of the mods - Mr. G infracted the post and in subsequent PM correspondence stated that it was because the post was a personal attack on the same poster. He did so without asking for any further clarification on the post.

As I explained in response to Mr G, the post was not a personal attack on this particular poster but a summary of my view of the thread and its predecessor based on posts made by numerous individuals. The thread is in the Clare forum and it would be putting it mildly to state that people down there are very defensive when it comes to anything to do with the airport. Feel free to view the thread and its predecessor to get a feel for what I am talking about. Anything negative about Shannon is denied and swept under the carpet as fast as possible so the thread can quickly move back to posts about its amazing history and just how wonderful the place is as a whole...which is where my 'propaganda machine' comment stems from - it is not an attack on any individual poster.

This was explained to the mod and I asked him on this basis to remove the infraction as it was not a personal attack on a poster as was accused (in any event the use of 'they' in the sentence rather than 'he' or 'she' ought to have made that clear). The mod has refused to do so and as I result I am here asking for a review of that decision. I see nothing in that post that merited an infraction - I was purely debating the figures that had been released into the public domain.

2) The releasing of these figures by Shannon Airport had the effect of inflaming the thread as those who had, on the previous thread, suggested an ulterior motive to the Santa flights and had been shot down in flames (myself included) pointed out that this viewpoint had now been back up by statistics while those who generally post in defence/favour of Shannon tried to play down the significance of the stats.

In post #65 moderator Mr G stated the following:

...We don't want a repeat of the arguments of the last thread, so please take it handy. Please remember to report any posts which break the rules and remember to attack the post not the poster. Thanks!

Fair enough I thought. I had received a ban for a week on the previous thread (only my second ever in five years on boards) for reacting to personal provocation from another poster - imurdaddy - and had also been told that the appropriate action in future should be to report any post I was unsatisfied with rather than react. So that is what I did.

In post #54 the same poster, imurdaddy, had written:

Sad to see the oul irish thing of "if we cant have it nether will they" shannon has a great past and a greater future, if the naysayers looked at why there airports are not on par, instead of posting boil on every thread on shannon they'd be better served, but I suppose nobody wants to listen to the waffel which flows from your mouth

I didn't think it was appropriate for the posters who had concerns over Shannon's actions on this issue to be labelled as purveyors of 'boil' (bile), in fact I found this term to be extremely aggressive in the context of the thread - so, in good faith and as requested, I reported the post. Now, it is of course the moderators decision and not mine to decide whether any action is warranted over the post but what I didn't expect was that I would be personally attacked by a moderator just for reporting it.

Mr G, the same moderator that requested that we reported any posts we felt broke the rules, in his pm response to me regarding my infraction used the fact I reported another post as a further stick to beat me with, accusing me of being 'out to get other posters' by stating:

I note a reported post last night which you reported. It is clear as day that you are out to get other posters on that thread. I treated other posters fairly, and this reported post illustrates your aim to get others infracted. You're not happy for a poster to call you a "clown" (this is true, I am not) and yet you're happy to call someone a "propaganda machine" (I didn't). For these reasons is why you got the warning.

Now, I am extremely unhappy with this response for the following reasons. Firstly, it was Mr G himself who requested that offensive posts were reported - for him to then turn around and attack me for reporting a post is ridiculous and completely out of order in this context. Secondly, he again accused me of calling another poster a propaganda machine (which I did not). And thirdly, he used my reporting of another post as further justification for giving me a warning, having - as already noted - previously specifically asked that we report any posts we found offensive.

You cannot have it both ways - you can't tell us to report offensive posts and then personally attack us when we do just that, yet that is exactly what Mr G , in his position as moderator, has done in this case. I am actually more annoyed about that than the original infraction. I believe this was a hugely unfair personal attack on me by Mr G - which is particularly ironic as he initially infracted me for a supposed personal attack that I did not actually make.

So, in summary, I believe that my initial post was misunderstood and misrepresented by the moderator, Mr G, and I do not believe it deserved an infraction.

I also am extremely unhappy with the response i have received in relation to this matter from Mr G, in particular with regard to his use of my reporting of another post (as requested by him) as a means to further personally attack me off thread.

Could someone take a look at this for me please?

Thanks, Cosmo.

The Hill Billy

Hi Cosmo:

It is clear that you have already discussed this with the moderator, so I will now give you my take on this. But to clear up a few things first...

1. You received a warning - not an infraction.
2. This forum is for dispute of warnings, infractions & bans. I will therefore limit my response to discuss the warning that you received.
3. The actions of other posters are not relevant to your appeal. We are dealing solely with your actions that lead to the warning being issued here.

I am, of course, willing to discuss your other issues via PM.

So, back to your warning...

Your statement 'I know that the Shannon propaganda machine on here will do all they can to sweep this under the carpet...' is a general pop at a group of other posters who happen to disagree with your point of view.

You say above - 'in subsequent PM correspondence stated that it was because the post was a personal attack on the same poster'. Now I don't fully understand how Mr. G came to this conclusion - but to me this is irrelevant. You took a broad swipe at some people on the thread - inferring that anyone who disagreed with you were part of a collective mouth-piece for Shannon. This is quite insulting.

Statements like that only serve to further inflame an already bad-tempered thread. You already aknowledged that you were aware of the warnings previously given, yet you still went ahead & posted the above.

In all honesty, a warning is just that - a warning. It is kind of a 'Ah, here - will you ever stop that.'

The warning stands.

You may appeal to an Admin if you wish.