Infraction in Politics for 'personal' abuse?

jank

I received an infraction from one of the Politics Mod for this post.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93706759&postcount=477

It was a response to this post.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93706599&postcount=475

The reasons for the infraction were as follows

Too personal and abusive.

With these partial sentences of my own post were highlighted.

• you are using every emotional blackmailing trick...
• your post is as racist and angry...
• You strike me as a very angry person

Of course when you take out a sentence from a paragraph from its underlying context one can make anything look like anything you want...
So lets tackle those sentances one by one..

1) "you are using every emotional blackmailing trick... "
This was in response to the other poster using this the Magdalene Laundries as a way to win the argument purely using emotions knowing that the wounds of the Magdalene Laundries are still raw in this country without actually substantiating or even proving his assertion in any way.

The initial claim

I have no doubt in my mind that the same people defending Direct Provision and the like would have defended the Magdalene laundries.

My actual response was..

Wow, you are using every emotional blackmailing trick in the book aren't you. Yet nothing to substantiate any claim.

The poster is of course free to hold this opinion but they are not free to not be called out on it after the fact. In the politics forum it is customary for people who make bold claims to be asked to back them up some how.

2)..your post is as racist and angry...
Full Sentence this time.

TLDR, your post is as racist and angry as they come and I would question your influences and the methods of communicating your views

I think it is clear given the full sentence what I was trying to say, but as this is a TLDR summary one has to look at the entire post first to see why I came to this conclusion.

The poster used the 'White Irish male' three times in his post as a caricature boggy man as a way to explaining their opinion that Ireland is a systemically racist country that deports asylum seekers due to do nothing more than pure institutional racism. This is all the fault of White Irish heterosexual males apparently....
If you read my full post you will see that I did take the effort to take on the posters claim bit by bit so it was not some drive by post with no effort.

To elaborate the point, the following is used by the poster to make their point.

they're basically a bunch of privileged white Irish people arguing over an experience they'll never have

People can have racist, socially conservative, right wing views largely because they live in bubbles

in reality they are often extremely sheltered, or inherent the views of those that are. They generally also want the freedom to be bad people(racists) without being called bad people(racists), amongst other things

Of course from the point of view of a privileged, socially unconscious, white Irish man the system looks like it's "working"

people rallying against Asylum Seekers here for the most part lead sheltered lives and have not seen first hand how these people live. You are not educated, you are not enlightened. Because of your immense white(and most likely male and heterosexual/cisgender, thus making you blind to the issues faced by women and LGBTs in some of these nations) entitlement

There's a convenient lie that makes it comfortable for conservatives and racists to sleep at night,

If a poster is going to make huge sweeping generalisations on almost half the population of Ireland, that they are..

'racist',
exist with 'white entitlement',
not 'educated',
not 'enlightened',
extremely 'sheltered',
live in 'bubbles',
'privileged',
socially 'unconscious',
lie to themselves so that they can 'sleep at night'....

If a poster makes these accusation against white Irish males, is that not in itself racist?
Does he include white males of British origin or White males of Eastern European origin in this claim as well? He doesn't mention them, only White Irish males...

All one has to do is swap white with Protestant, Asian, Muslim, black etc.. and they would be rightly called out on it by a poster. Yet, when I call out his post for what it is its 'personal abuse' Is one not allowed to call out the posters main modus operandi of argument. I know in other forums like AH the 'your a racist' flies around like confetti often with no basis. I took the time and effort to confront the poster on each point. Is calling someone a racist now personal abuse, regardless of whether they are or not?

By the way, the poster is allowed to use the term 'racist' term 8 times in their post in the manner and context described above.

Lastly, the final reason for my infraction
3)You strike me as a very angry person..

Again, what I actually said is

You strike me as a very angry person who wants to perpetuate this 'white guilt' ethos into Ireland as some excuse to give asylum seekers a free pass.

The poster uses highly emotive language to try and win a point regarding asylum seekers coming to Ireland which the blame is put on white males. It is a common theme of the poster. Not only that he uses similar language in other posts concerning anything that does not conform to his political or socially approved outlook.

Examples.
In the Libitarianism in Ireland thread we have these posts.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93706685&postcount=16
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93706683&postcount=15

Yet again, more mentions of 'White privileged males'..

In the Leftists on the road to ruin thread we have this post
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93706635&postcount=78
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93714859&postcount=92

Surprise, surprise more mentions of the arch-typical 'white privileged male' in making their point. Further on we have mentions of boards.ie attracting ' pretentious, amoral sociopaths'..

That is what I was referring to when I described the poster as 'angry'. Note the poster has not substantiated or linked any evidence to prove any of their points or opinions.

To be clear, I do not want the other poster to be infracted, carded or banned. I did not report any of his posts, nor did I use the posters name. This is not about me pulling them down with me. I actually welcome strong debate and people who hold views different than my own, but we should have the framework to call out other posters if their views skirt the line without fear of being pinged for personal abuse.

This is about the mods decision to hand out an infraction to me and appealing the fairness of the infraction which I think was hugely heavy handed, where bits were taken out of context deliberately in some effort to prove 'personal abuse' form me to that other poster when in fact I was merely highlighting the contradictory, racist and overly aggressive tone of the poster in question.

Taltos

Ok,

Let me look into this and I'll come back to you.
Please forward your PM exchange with the relevant mod where you tried to resolve this before coming to DRF.

Taltos

jank

Hello,

I have forwarded the PM's that were sent to me. I deleted the PM's in my sent items as my PM box was full (Doh!). You can ask the mod in question to forward them onto you for clarification.

Jank.

Taltos

Thanks jank, got them.

Ok let me go through the thread in question as well as the numerous PM's, the number of which surprised me to be honest. Will try to get back shortly.

jank

Thank You.

Taltos

Hi jank

sorry for taking so long to come back to you on your review of the Infraction.

There are a few things that concern me here, and I am going to be brutally blunt here jank. Unless the mods of the forum see a significant improvement from you in how you contribute to the forum, based on your not inconsiderate history of warnings/infractions/bans I am instructing them to seriously consider their next moderator action to be a ban, and if necessary a lengthy one. To cut to the heart of your interactions in Politics and the subfora you have either wittingly or not become a timesink for the volunteer mods and that is not something I am willing to close my eyes to.

In terms of the infraction itself. This stands.
I know you will argue that the post was not personal, but the following direct quotes from you make it blatantly obvious it is:

Wow, you are using every emotional blackmailing trick in the book aren't you. Yet nothing to substantiate any claim.

&

You strike me as a very angry person

The irony here is with some tweaking of your post you could have really helped shaped the direction of the argument here, you actually had me on your side for a while, but once you crossed the line any points you had won were just thrown away. And that is what is getting me here, personally I didn't like the points from the other poster and I really did read your post with the "cool glad to see this" frame of mind, at least at first. But then you jumped across the line, from a newbie you know we'd shrug our shoulders and say "hey, they'll learn", but from your PM exchange with the mod and the subsequent posts in feedback and rules I am worried you won't. If you genuinely don't see where the line is here then I am at a loss. And as above, based on some of your arguments on the thread that really really angers me, not at you directly but at the fact that you really could help shape the forum in a constructive way but for some reason you are not doing so.

After that post though where was there to go? The snipped post with the image? That was a low blow, which elsewhere may have been humerous but not in this forum, and was rightly snipped by the mod. I actually challenged them why based on your history that post alone was not a reason to ban you and the answer I got from the mod was that such an action with the infraction wouldn't be fair to you. Please think on that, despite the fact that you are erring on timewasting territory in Politics the very mod that pulled you up on personal abuse has gone to bat for you and basically told me politely to back off. That defense is the only thing stopping me from applying a ban right now.

Anyway, this has turned into a much longer post than I am comfortable with or intended.
You have a choice here - you can choose to accept the infraction and work with the mod team to turning your contributions around there or if you are still dissatisfied with the Infraction and my ruling above you can request an Admin review.

Please have a think about it and reply here letting us know if you want to escalate this to Admin or not.

(p.s. if you do accept, please step back for a bit, follow the threads and the normal flow before you interact again, it could just be you have gotten too close to things, happens to us all).

Thanks and apologies for being so blunt
Taltos

jank

Thanks for the response and no need to appolgise for being blunt. I find it much more constructive that feedback is blunt rather than being wishy washy.

On reflection, I can get where you are coming from regards myself calling the poster angry. It is a comment on the persons state of mind and even though its flung around elsewhere without repercussions (been called it myself) the politics forum has a higher standard, so I will take that on the chin. Perhaps the language should have been a little more moderate there or avoided altogether, fair enough on that one.

However, I do not understand saying that the poster is using emotional blackmail in his post which then equates to personal abuse of that poster. Sorry, I just can't see but I am willing to listen.
I have seen the term used on boards, even in the politics forum and the term has has not been carded.
e.g. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=90343386


If there is precedent where that term was carded then I would understand more but right now I cannot see it, especially given the the way the Magdalene Laundries was thrown in there.
To see why I was upset by that remark and to hear my point of view you should my see post here.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90699846&postcount=960
I can elaborate as well in a PM as it goes much deeper than that, as I can explain.

On the picture, OK it was stupid. However, with the introduction of the Politics Cafe it can be quite confusing for posters to differentiate on what rule set is permitted on each thread as there is a huge cross over in topic and where even the same topic is discussed in both places. This is not your concern, as the politics cafe is a work in progress and I have given my feedback in the relevant thread. I will cop this one too.

Finally, I note that you did not reference me calling the poster's post racist. Not sure if this was an oversight or that you agree/disagree this in off itself was not personal abuse?

One can use this term to describe other posters in many other forums on boards, freely without being carded. See here for example where similar rhetoric is used backwards and forwards.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057322759&page=2

Politics sees itself as have a certain standard, fair enough so have also asked in the appropriate feedback thread if this is on or not. You referenced this (negatively? but the question was genuine) but again I am not being obtuse, merely looking for clarification. No such clarification as of yet is forthcoming although one mod of another forum stated that they would see it as back seat modding but didn't clarify if it was/wasn't personal abuse.

It seems to be a common area of discussion in the politics thread on what words are or are not allowed. The latest being 'shinnerbot' which is apparently allowed due to it being in the mainstream media lexicon. Calling people racists is very much in the public mainstream vernacular, so again I am looking for guidance.

Thanks again,
Jank

Taltos

Look the picture is just an example as I see it as poor judgement (at best) from you. Just as in my opinion raising your concerns on the other threads instead of prudently waiting for this before then trying to come to some understanding with the mods and the other forum users. None of which is wrong, but just speaks to your interactions in the forum. There isn't anything wrong in asking the questions you did, in fact that is normally how forums change and grow and is the whole reason those threads exist. But it's the timing, look at it from my point of view for a moment, you raise a DRF and instead of just waiting for this to go to its normal conclusion, either in your favour or not you at the same time post questions pertinent to this review. All of these items just speak to my earlier point on judgement.

My suggestion at this point is in my opinion you really need to look carefully at how you are choosing to interact with the forums, posters and mods. I get you have history, and being just as blunt many of us have baggage in one way or another, but only you can choose how you let others affect you. As above you really were making a great point in your post, almost 99.9% of it was perfectly fine, but once you made it personal, and let's stop dancing here you did, you crossed a line.
And yes sometimes that line can be a difficult one, mods are tasked to make calls on a daily basis on whether posts are appropriate or not, and are greatly helped in this task by posters who flag posts they have issues with (as you maybe should have done) or who seek to change how the forums work through the feedback threads and fora.

My final word on this is please do take care jank, I do think you have a lot to offer the forum, but as long as you let your emotions control you or blind you to those boundaries you are at risk of talking yourself out of continuing to shape the discussions.

Now, are you accepting the infraction or do you want to escalate this to an admin review?
Your call here.

(and thanks for accepting my bluntness).
Taltos

jank

Hello Taltos,

Thanks again for reviewing this.

I was asked by the mod to raise a DRP, which I did. If I thought posting subsequently in a thread about the rules that affect the forum in question was not wise or ill judged I would not have done so. If it was an issue, the mod could have deleted it, pm'd me etc and told me to wait. All which would have been perfectly fine.

You must understand my frustration in this matter when doing simple things like looking for clarification leads to a black mark against me. This frustration is continued when I have demonstrated that words I have used in that post is used by other users in the same forum but for them it does not constitute 'personal abuse'. This as of yet has not been clarified as it seems the focus is primarily on my previous record or my general judgement rather than addresses the key issues of the post itself.

Jank

Taltos

OK jank

I am not going to spend anymore time on this DRP. I have been clear that it stands. As you seem to want to continue the discussion though (which this isn't) I will request an admin review at this time.

Whether the mod thought your post elsewhere was ill advised, I have no clue. I did, but that is just my input on your style of posting, a style which I am trying to tell you is going to get you in trouble if you don't change it, again my opinion based on this DRF.

Best of luck.
Admins - over to you please.