wrongful infraction

RobertKK

Hi, I got an infraction from humanji who wrongly accused me of taking a topic off topic and for trolling.
I was not the person who had taken the topic off topic and in PM I showed him quotes, and then humanji said The previous quote was replying to something you had posted.
The previous quotes was by other people who were the ones who had taken it off topic.
I had not trolled, but humanji simply chose to see what he wanted and allowed the real culprits who supports his views in the topic and who had taken the thread off topic and who had trolled away scot free.

I was not trolling and I was not the one who had taken it off topic.

Penn

Hi RobertKK,

I'll look into this and get back to you.

Regards,
Penn

RobertKK

Penn wrote: »

Hi RobertKK,

I'll look into this and get back to you.

Regards,
Penn

Thank you.

Penn

Hi RobertKK,

There were posts made in the thread by others which were essentially flippant remarks discussing how things which are considered "unnatural" aren't necessarily bad/wrong, which makes sense in the context of the thread. Some people consider same-sex relations to be "unnatural". The posts you were responding to were using flippancy to make that point.

When one of the posters responded with:

You know what else isn't natural? Religion.

We must ban religion.

You responded:

RobertKK wrote: »

A scientist on Newstalk today said there are genes associated with religious belief and it is an advantage to have those genes as one will live longer and will be healthier.

This post was off-topic, as it's not in relation to the subject of the thread. This is the post which caused the thread to be somewhat derailed for a while.

You then followed it up with this post:

RobertKK wrote: »

Life is about living and being healthy is an advantage.
Letting atheists think they are more intelligent is the best way to fool them.

This comes across as nothing more than an unwarranted, off-topic dig at atheists, which stemmed from your previous off-topic post.

As such, I think an infraction was justified. You may ask for an admin to review this decision if you wish.

RobertKK

I want an admin if that is the case.

In that thread the mods allowed name calling of people like calling people bigots and homophobic if simply against same sex marriage.
This broke the rule of personal abuse and how one should "Attack the post and not the poster"
Fairness of moderation has not been a top priority in that thread. Rules have not applied to everyone, especially if for same sex marriage, you are allowed to attack the poster with name calling in that thread.
Should I report all the posts by others in that thread that have broken this rule? Given the mod who infracted me chose to pick and choose what rules that are to implemented, and in a very harsh way.

I think it is wrong to be unable to defend oneself.

I was actually asked for evidence which lead to the post in question that got infracted:

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Geez, if a scientist said it then it must be true...http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

Any chance of some actual evidence for this and all your other spurious claims? Sometime before the referendum would be preferable.

This was after I had responded to

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

You know what else isn't natural? Religion.

We must ban religion.

Which was taking it off topic as the person knew I am religious. That person got no infraction for trolling and taking it off topic.

The same person was allowed post this and not get infracted:

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I'm fine with Robert believing exactly what that scientist has said. Science has also shown us that atheists are more intelligent than theists. I'm sure he is perfectly fine with that conclusion also.

I'm perfectly fine living a few months shorter in return for being more intelligent.

It is ok for people to say people like me lack the same level of intelligence because I believe in a God. that person said they were perfectly fine with living a few months less because that are more intelligent.
Again saying I am being told I inferior when it comes to intelligence.
Again that person got no infraction for trolling and off topic.

I responded with

RobertKK wrote: »

Life is about living and being healthy is an advantage.
Letting atheists think they are more intelligent is the best way to fool them.

I do believe if anyone thinks they are more intelligent than someone else it is themselves they are fooling, because it is looking down on the person one is presuming to be less intelligent.

I got infracted for this viewpoint and it was called trolling.

Having someone say I am less intelligent than they are because they are atheist was acceptable.

I am happy to keep the infraction if we get the admission the level of moderation on that topic has been very poor with trolling, name calling and off topic posts by pro-ssm people being allowed and acceptable to the mods who dealt with that topic.

Is one allowed to say to someone else they are less intelligent knowing that person is religious?
I was simply pointing out when one said religion is not natural, when it had been said on the radio that there are genes associated with religious belief.
I just pointed out they were wrong, and what the scientist had said, got told I was less intelligent because I am a theist and got infracted by humanji, who seemed to have no problem with people saying people like me are less intelligent.
If I was to be infracted, the case for infracting others was equal if not far stronger.

So yes I want an admin to look at this. I don't want to post on a forum where it is Animal Farm.

RobertKK

Penn wrote: »

Hi RobertKK,

There were posts made in the thread by others which were essentially flippant remarks discussing how things which are considered "unnatural" aren't necessarily bad/wrong, which makes sense in the context of the thread. Some people consider same-sex relations to be "unnatural". The posts you were responding to were using flippancy to make that point.

When one of the posters responded with:


You responded:


This post was off-topic, as it's not in relation to the subject of the thread. This is the post which caused the thread to be somewhat derailed for a while.

You then followed it up with this post:


This comes across as nothing more than an unwarranted, off-topic dig at atheists, which stemmed from your previous off-topic post.

As such, I think an infraction was justified. You may ask for an admin to review this decision if you wish.

I should add I never said anything about unnatural.

However there is a severe problem on AH where religion and people of religious belief are allowed to be ridiculed.
Given people had complained about religion earlier in that thread, the ban religion should also be taken in that context.

Earlier in that thread we got this sensible post..it also refers to the name calling that has been allowed toward people of religious belief.

Woodville56 wrote: »

What if a Catholic or other religious persuasion votes no in conscience because of their church's teaching, that's a good and valid reason in their book. Doesn't mean that they are bigoted, homophobic, stupid or idiots ( words uses in this thread) to describe opponents of the SSM referendum. In my view a distinction must be drawn between those who hold anti SSM views on a personal level and those who publicly campaign against the legislation.

I want to say I did see one post that humanji infracted for calling people homophobes. I just seen it, and I want to apologise for that to humanji for saying none.
But I was called a bigot and homphobic more times on that topic based on nothing of substance.
But I still believe the level of moderation lacked the normal standard where a warning in the title thread to both sides should have been issued.


There was an anti-religion stance in the thread and that should be put into the context of the 'ban religion' comment and 'theists' being 'less intelligent'
It makes my infraction unfair.

Penn

RobertKK,

While you may have only seen one infraction, there was more than that handed out, and several more posts deleted.

You were not banned for your opinion. As per a later mod warning on the thread:

General point to all. RobertKK may have an opinion in the minority but he is entitled to express it as long as it remains within the rules.

The thread was incredibly quick-moving, and is an emotive topic for many people. Many of your own posts skirted the line of acceptability (claiming same-sex marriage would allow heterosexual men to get married and adopt children for the purposes of sexually abusing them) but were allowed in order to allow you to give your opinion.

Your opinion on the topic does not matter in the context of the infraction. Your infraction was for taking the thread off-topic, and then replying with a dig at other people. You were also not banned, meaning you could continue posting on the thread.

An admin will review this when they get a chance.

RobertKK

Thanks for your reply.

It may have come across that I skirted the line of acceptability on how same sex marriage and adoption will be abused, but in real life this is why Russia banned adoption to countries that allow same sex marriage, after two men adopted a Russian baby and according to the police in Australia they used same sex marriage as a cover - and I had a link to ABC Australia to back that up.

I do believe my opinion on the topic does matter, one can look at something in isolation as if other factors earlier in the thread did not exist. Given religion was an issue earlier in the topic, the ban religion because it is unnatural should be seen in that context.
I, for the record said in that topic that homosexuality was 'natural', as one is born that way, it was not a choice, and what I had heard on the Pat Kenny show was religious people too were born that way as they said there are genes to prove it. They also said it was advantageous as people with these genes lived longer.
It is strange how saying one will live one if on has faith was seen as trolling but it is ok for an atheist to say theists are less intelligent.
When someone did have a problem with my comment I did post I meant nothing bad by it, and that was and still is the truth.

At best it should have been a warning as it was not intentional, not an infraction. Yet people can make one out to be less intelligent based on religion and not even a warning.
I have stopped posting in that forum based on how that topic has been moderated. If people wanted to say religion is unnatural because someone else thought homosexuality was not natural (I disagree with that as I stated), why is it ok to leave such a statement - religion is unnatural unchallenged - should questionable statements be forbidden a reply?, for the religious users of the forum to be described as less intelligent and not even a warning, because I can't believe that was on topic and not trolling.

I look forward to an Admin reviewing it, until then I have imposed on myself a ban on that forum because I do feel double standards have applied in that thread and that is why I believe it is a wrongful infraction.

Thank you Penn, for the work you put into reviewing this, sorry we cannot agree.

RobertKK

At this moment one can see in the SSM thread how the dicussion right now is about religion, claims Jesus was bipoplar, Mohammed was hallucinating or lying, Buddha, the divinity of Christ.
Yes I could report but given that thread has been highlighted here, I want to see if this kind of trolling and off topic talk receives the punishment as I got for replying to a person who had taken the thread off topic, and where I had not being trolling.
One person even told another poster to go to the Gardai and report blasphemy.

I just responded to a post about religion being unnatural given what I had heard on the radio, with no ill intent and got an infraction.
Banning religion was not deemed off topic or trolling which was interesting...

I would report but I have posted how that thread needed better moderation.

Penn

RobertKK

The DRP function is related to your post only. Other people's posts are not up for discussion, and should be reported as per usual to bring it to the attention of the mods (as this forum is mostly for CMods and Admin).

This thread is for dealing with the infraction given for your posts and your posts only.

Please wait for an Admin to review.

Regards,
Penn

Dades

Looking at this now...

RobertKK

Penn wrote: »

RobertKK

The DRP function is related to your post only. Other people's posts are not up for discussion, and should be reported as per usual to bring it to the attention of the mods (as this forum is mostly for CMods and Admin).

This thread is for dealing with the infraction given for your posts and your posts only.

Please wait for an Admin to review.

Regards,
Penn

I don't feel I am in a position to use the report function against anyone, while I am under an infraction in the same thread.
I just wanted to highlight inconsistencies in the moderation standards, which makes my infraction unfair.
This I believe makes it relevant to my post which was infracted.

Dades

RobertKK, I've discussed the infraction with humanji and Penn and have lifted the card.

While your post was technically off-topic, I feel the posts that preceded yours may have goaded you in to into that response. In future if you believe a post directed at you (or anyone) is dragging a thread off topic - report it and don't take the bait.