Please remove this hurtful mod post

Notavirus.exe

Ok, I'm not Judge Judy. But when I make a thread asking a genuine question regarding the law and it gets closed with this kind of horrible and untrue post, it makes me sick. I've been told that not only was my thread an "insane" thread, it was "another insane thread". My only other thread was about a "United Ireland", but even though he thinks it was also insane (which it's definitely not), it's still open. He then states that I'm not allowed to make a thread for three weeks! Finally, this moderator finishes his poem by calling me a troll.

I have contacted him already and he has refused to remove his post. Not only am I offended by his post, I'm embarrassed by the fact that it's sitting there for everyone to see.

I want that horrible post either edited or removed, I would also like an apology.
If that post isn't edited/removed, I may consider closing this account because of the embarrassment. I refuse to be a laughing stock.

Thank you.

Spear

Then discuss it the cmods in question. This has nothing to do with DRP and is being closed.

Edit: and I've been asked to point out that is says inane, not insane. Something quite different.

Spear

Re-opened as the OP wants it handled as a complaint.

Notavirus.exe

Both moderators seemingly ignored the questions I had asked them both numerous times - What part of the charter says I'm not allowed to ask a genuine question such as the one I did? And why was I warned not to make another thread for 3 weeks after my thread was closed when 1. my thread was in-line with the charter and 2. I only ever made two threads in total, the other was about a United Ireland?

My thread was closed and the moderator called my thread "inane" and "vacuous", and I was accused of being a troll and told not to make another thread for 3 weeks. I don't care what happens to my thread, I want that disgraceful and libelous post removed. Next time I want to ask a genuine question about the legal system, I'll know not to go to the Legal Discussions forum.

Pat Mustard

You were trolling.

What you do is that you open a thread, pretending not to understand some issue, then when your question is answered, you make a pointless observation or ask another stupid question.

Here's your Three Questions on Burglars thread. You insisted that you were not trolling, in your very first post there.

Notavirus.exe wrote: »

I'm not trolling, I'm just paranoid because of the "rise" in house break-ins.

So you asked your questions and when they were answered you made some pointless and off topic comments about not feeling safe and being paranoid. Then you came out with this:

Notavirus.exe wrote: »

Another question. If someone intrudes on my property who has no reason to be there and is more than likely looking for something to put in the back of their Transit, do I have the right to beat the crap out of them even if they pose no immediate threat to me?

I sound like a crazy psycho, but I'm just curious about these things.

Not crazy psycho stuff. Just mundane, low-level trolling, by means of stupid questions.

You also opened other threads in other forums, to include: "How do you atheists live with yourselves?" which title was amended to read "Is 'Dublin' a real place?". Your OP was as follows:

Notavirus.exe wrote: »

I know the title looks insulting to atheists but I am not attacking atheist beliefs.

I respect that you don't believe in God but I don't understand how you can cope with life believing that when you die, that's it.
If I had 100% definitive proof that there was no God, I'd turn into a depressed psycho murderer. That's if I didn't kill myself in a depression fulled rage.

Can you please explain how you live life believing there is no God without going insane?

It's the same modus operandi the whole time. You pretend that you are not trolling and that perhaps you are a bit simple. Then you pose your question. When you get your answer, you ask another stupid question, just to move the goalposts a bit.

It's silly, inane, vacuous carry-on.

Getting back to your more recent thread in the Legal Discussion forum, entitled: "Why's the law strict on what's on paper?", you were asked if you were taking the p1ss, which you were. Again. By way of response to this, you wrote:

Notavirus.exe wrote: »

No, I just don't understand why the government can't step in and make verbal statements when things like this happen.

Yet again, you pretend not to understand. You pretend the same thing over and over and over again.

Then you follow up with this:

Notavirus.exe wrote: »

My question is very vague. Why is there no common sense in this?

It's not a major surprise that you would have a vague question. After all, you have no interest in the answers.

You state that both moderators ignored your questions about the charter. That's just not true at all though.

Notavirus.exe wrote: »

Both moderators seemingly ignored the questions I had asked them both numerous times - What part of the charter says I'm not allowed to ask a genuine question such as the one I did?

You had not asked anything about the charter at all, previously. This is the first time that you have mentioned it. In any event, you will note the link to the section of the charter which does not allow trolling. That's the section which you now request.

We don't want trolling of any sort on the forum, even your style of persistent low-level trolling. Therefore, you were asked not to open any further threads on the forum for three weeks.

Notavirus.exe

Pat Mustard wrote: »

You state that both moderators ignored your questions about the charter. That's just not true at all though.

Oh really? Can an admin reading this please check all PM exchanges between me and Taltos and confirm that I have sent multiple unanswered PMs asking what part of my thread broke the charter rules.

Pat Mustard wrote: »

You had not asked anything about the charter at all, previously. This is the first time that you have mentioned it. In any event, you will note the link to the section of the charter which does not allow trolling. That's the section which you now request.

Define trolling. I think you'll find it has nothing to do with asking a genuine question.

Pat Mustard wrote: »

We don't want trolling of any sort on the forum, even your style of persistent low-level trolling. Therefore, you were asked not to open any further threads on the forum for three weeks.

Again, I wasn't trolling.

Notavirus.exe

Pat Mustard wrote: »

You were trolling.

No I was not.

Pat Mustard wrote: »

What you do is that you open a thread, pretending not to understand some issue, then when your question is answered, you make a pointless observation or ask another stupid question.

A pointless observation as in? What do you mean ask another stupid question? Those "stupid questions" I ask are things that I don't understand. I'm retarded, ok? I'm not as knowledgeable on legal things as a Legal Discussions moderator such as yourself is.

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Here's your Three Questions on Burglars thread. You insisted that you were not trolling, in your very first post there.

Telling people you're not trolling kinda defeats the purpose of trolling, if I wanted to troll (which I didn't).

Pat Mustard wrote: »

So you asked your questions and when they were answered you made some pointless and off topic comments about not feeling safe and being paranoid. Then you came out with this:

I did not make any "off-topic" comments. Asking on an internet forum whether it is ok to shoot burglars or not is bound to raise eyebrows. I didn't want anyone to think I was crazy or anything. I really am paranoid. I really do not feel safe in my own home. You probably wouldn't understand what that feels like because you live in a heavily guarded fortress.
Not too long ago I went outside to find that someone had opened my outdoor garage's door. Luckily it was empty. My house isn't empty though and it's certainly not 100% safe.

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Not crazy psycho stuff. Just mundane, low-level trolling, by means of stupid questions.

Those "stupid questions" were my way of putting myself in different situations. I was asking about what I can do to protect my life. If you had a problem with the thread then you would have taken the appropriate action at the time instead of using it against me now.

Pat Mustard wrote: »

You also opened other threads in other forums, to include: "How do you atheists live with yourselves?" which title was amended to read "Is 'Dublin' a real place?". Your OP was as follows:

THAT IS NOT WHAT MY THREAD WAS CALLED!
Now you're manipulating my thread's name to make me look bad. The name of my thread was "How do you atheists live life?" NOT "How do you atheists live with yourselves?". That is a sick title, I did not use that title. How dare you lie just to make me look bad when I'm reporting you for abuse?
Now, the moderators had no problem with that thread when I made it. I do not know why you are bringing up random things to put against me, not to mention the fact you're twisting them. The thread was renamed by a moderator to "Is Dublin a real place?" just because near the end of the thread I pointed out that a user was from Dublin and was an atheist and I asked was there a correlation between living in a city and being atheist. I had put Dublin in "s like this ""Dublin"" and everyone kept trolling me because they thought I was doubting the existence of Dublin.

Pat Mustard wrote: »

It's the same modus operandi the whole time. You pretend that you are not trolling and that perhaps you are a bit simple. Then you pose your question. When you get your answer, you ask another stupid question, just to move the goalposts a bit.

Where? You're a Legal Discussions moderator, you should know that when in court you need to backup your claims, the same can be said here.

Note: Let's not forget that you lied about my thread's title, sophism is a bad thing. Please backup all of your claims.

Taltos

You are both wrong I'm afraid, with my super cmod powers I can view the note from the original mod.
Title was actually: "How can you atheists live life?" - which is fairly damn close to Pat's recollection of the title.

As to asking the admin to check our PM exchange - I had sent it onto some of them as I am afk for the next while and thought they deserved to know the type of nonsense I was receiving so that when escalated they are in receipt of the full PM exchange.

Per my last PM to you where I explained I wouldn't entertain your future tirades, you are a troll. Now either you are an innocent troll who doesn't realise the nonsense you are posting which can happen. Or you are fully aware and are just enjoying the ride trying to get under peoples skin. Personally I don't mind which camp you fall into, it's not my job to educate you. And as I explained the approach taken by the mod in Legal was more than fair. Instead of banning or carding you for being a troll (or for posting below standard) they instead told you not to create another thread for 3 weeks. That is the time you are meant to hang back and get used to the forum, read and participate in other threads so that you can be a constructive influence. Instead what have you chosen to do?
Had you approached me or the mods in a calm hands up fashion we'd be more likely to take you seriously, but your over-reaction and the "who me" approach doesn't cut it.



For the record here is the last PM I sent you, I stand by it and as above suggest you really look to yourself here. You can still be a constructive participant on this site but only you can shape others views of you by your general interactions.

Hi

Sorry but I have to agree with the mod who closed the thread.
Your own reply here sums it up perfectly.
"My question is very vague. Why is there no common sense in this?"

On it's own your thread might be fine in other forums but it isn't what's expected in the Legal forum.

I'm going to be blunt now NaV. I'm going to ask you to carefully look at how you are interacting on this site. As well as not being asked to create a new thread in Legal (which is normally below cmod/admin radar, and is a gentle way of asking posters to learn the ropes) you've also been the recipient of a fair few mod actions in a short space of time, namely a permanent ban from Politics. I am only a cmod for Politics and Soc so I can only speak to those but I can see you are generating an inordinate amount of work for volunteers.

Now - either they are all wrong in their perception or there is some grand conspiracy at play here. The only common denominator here is you though, so I am going to ask you to cool your jets, take a step back and figure out how you want to participate on boards.

In line with this I am going to send this PM onto the Admin team so that if flagged by the other category mods they'll know you've been asked to have a look at how you are participating on this site.

- Regrettably,
Taltos

Spear

I've removed the PM in the short term, as unless the OP agrees to have it posted, then normal sitewide rules prohibit them. The DRP rules allowing for them don't apply in Helpdesk.

Notavirus.exe

Taltos wrote: »

You are both wrong I'm afraid, with my super cmod powers I can view the note from the original mod.
Title was actually: "How can you atheists live life?" - which is fairly damn close to Pat's recollection of the title.

It's fairly damn closer to what I had said - "How do you atheists live life?".
This is a blatant case of sophism. There is absolutely no reason for that thread to be mentioned here, it's also suspicious that he can remember the thread from long ago, I had forgotten about it long ago. In After Hours, I made a post that was misinterpreted and I got an infraction. I explained that I didn't mean what the moderator thought I meant but they didn't believe me, I'm a stranger behind a screen of course. This type of horrendous bull**** lying should not be let off.
That thread in the Atheism forum was me asking atheists what they feel their purpose in life is and I was asking how they can be happy in life believing that death is the total end of them. There is no reason for that thread to be mentioned here. If the thread's title wasn't something that can be easily and cleverly manipulated into something as horrible as what Pat said it was then I'm sure it would not have been mentioned and twisted here.

Taltos wrote: »

As to asking the admin to check our PM exchange - I had sent it onto some of them as I am afk for the next while and thought they deserved to know the type of nonsense I was receiving so that when escalated they are in receipt of the full PM exchange.

Nonsense? I was questioning your decision to agree with a moderator's rude post. So no one is allowed to disagree with you?

Taltos wrote: »

Per my last PM to you where I explained I wouldn't entertain your future tirades, you are a troll. Now either you are an innocent troll who doesn't realise the nonsense you are posting which can happen. Or you are fully aware and are just enjoying the ride trying to get under peoples skin. Personally I don't mind which camp you fall into, it's not my job to educate you. And as I explained the approach taken by the mod in Legal was more than fair. Instead of banning or carding you for being a troll (or for posting below standard) they instead told you not to create another thread for 3 weeks. That is the time you are meant to hang back and get used to the forum, read and participate in other threads so that you can be a constructive influence. Instead what have you chosen to do?

I'm not a troll full stop. Where does it say there's a standard to making threads in the Legal Discussions forum? This is exactly what I've asked you many times. I was asking a genuine question. How is that "getting under people's skin"?

Taltos wrote: »

Had you approached me or the mods in a calm hands up fashion we'd be more likely to take you seriously, but your over-reaction and the "who me" approach doesn't cut it.

Had Pat approached me in a calm fashion via PM or at least by way of a nicer post I wouldn't be here complaining about an abusive post.

Spear wrote: »

I've removed the PM in the short term, as unless the OP agrees to have it posted, then normal sitewide rules prohibit them. The DRP rules allowing for them don't apply in Helpdesk.

It's ok with me, maybe someone reading it can point out to me where he answered the question I asked him many times.

Shield

Hello Notavirus.exe

CMod Taltos has now weighed in with his verdict, which is to uphold the comments made by Legal Discussion Moderator, Pat Mustard.

You now have a choice to either accept his verdict, or to request a Site Administrator to review the complaint from the ground up. Admin reviews are final, and do not carry a right of appeal.

If you would like to have some time to think about it, the Help Desk rules allow 14 days before a thread is deemed to have been abandoned by the Complainant.

-Shield.

Notavirus.exe

Shield wrote: »

Hello Notavirus.exe

CMod Taltos has now weighed in with his verdict, which is to uphold the comments made by Legal Discussion Moderator, Pat Mustard.

You now have a choice to either accept his verdict, or to request a Site Administrator to review the complaint from the ground up. Admin reviews are final, and do not carry a right of appeal.

If you would like to have some time to think about it, the Help Desk rules allow 14 days before a thread is deemed to have been abandoned by the Complainant.

-Shield.

I just want the post removed. I will never return to the Legal Discussions forum again. I have read the post and have no interest in reading it again. The post was unnecessarily provocative. I was just innocently asking a question and was trying to start a discussion on loopholes in the legal system. The thread went dead for a while and disappeared off the front page of the Legal Discussions forum only to be "bumped" by Pat insulting my thread and calling me a troll for everyone to see.

I do not want an admin here until someone justifies the closure of my thread and (more importantly) the post that came with it.
Supposedly, I didn't follow the charter/I didn't follow the standards. Here is a link to the charter that I have read multiple times and have not seen anything that states that my thread doesn't meet any standards. In fact, there is no mention whatsoever of any standards: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057083888

If the moderator told me in a respectful way in his post that my thread didn't meet the (unwritten) standards then I would have been fine with it. But instead the moderator made a post that embarrasses me and offends me just because of my lack of legal knowledge.

I just asked a question and I was publicly named a troll. I was not trolling, I was asking a genuine question. Look, I might be a bit mentally slow because I sometimes find it hard to communicate what I'm thinking at times. My question would have been clearer if I had given examples of loopholes in the legal like I gave to Taltos in a PM and I'm sorry that I didn't but I find it upsetting to be called a troll. I am socially disordered in the sense that I can be very vague at times.

Please just remove the post.

Shield

I don't have the permissions to remove posts outside of the forums I moderate. The only people who can do that now are those with the permissions, i.e., the Site Admin team.

I shall inform the Site Admin team of your comments, and they will review your complaint from the ground up.

If they agree with your assertions, then the post will be removed.

As this is the weekend, and all Site Admins are volunteers, please allow time for someone to view this thread, and to familiarise themselves with the other threads that have been mentioned.

Thank you.

-Shield.

Pat Mustard

Notavirus.exe wrote: »

Those "stupid questions" I ask are things that I don't understand. I'm retarded, ok? I'm not as knowledgeable on legal things as a Legal Discussions moderator such as yourself is.

Notavirus.exe wrote: »

If the moderator told me in a respectful way in his post that my thread didn't meet the (unwritten) standards then I would have been fine with it. But instead the moderator made a post that embarrasses me and offends me just because of my lack of legal knowledge.

Notavirus.exe wrote: »

I find it upsetting to be called a troll. I am socially disordered in the sense that I can be very vague at times.

Same old routine again. Load of rubbish.

In any case, I have no difficulty with my PM exchange with you being posted on this thread.

Notavirus.exe

Due to the fact that Boards is currently ****ed again, I cannot quote your post. You don't know me, I'm a stranger to you likewise you are to me. Boards.ie can be viewed by anyone with a web browser and an internet connection and I've just admitted multiple times that I have a social disorder. What makes you say it's "rubbish"? Why would I ruin my reputation by declaring myself mentally slow? Do you want a doctor's letter to go with it?

What's "rubbish" is the possibility of you making a mistake when "remembering" a thread I made long ago. I put "remembering" in quotes because you probably have some record of all of my threads and all of their name changes. Nice try at sophism there. An uninformed reader of your post would have believed that I implied that atheists are sad people that should kill themselves or something.

Now, instead of intentionally not mentioning the atheist thread in the hope that I forget about it, please tell me why you brought up my "How can you atheists live life?" thread. It seems obvious to me that you purposely called it "How can you atheists live with yourselves?" to make me look bad.
There was a genuine discussion going on about what was the driving force that kept atheists optimistic despite believing that there was nothing to look forward to after death.

I'm looking back at your first post on this thread now. All you have been doing is quoting statements made by me from random threads that are completely irrelevant to Legal Discussion.
How come you've quoted and highlighted the statements I made when I was explaining my reason for asking a particular question? You're using sophism, again.
Your arguments are completely fallacious, they have no merit at all.
I'm just looking at one of your arguments, I stated:

No, I just don't understand why the government can't step in and make verbal statements when things like this happen.

Then you come up with this:

Yet again, you pretend not to understand.

What do you mean I "pretend not to understand"? How can you verify what I do/don't understand? Sophism, sophism, sophism.

Look back on all of your arguments, they have no merit, no proof, nothing. It's complete sophism.

Here's another example of your sophism:

Getting back to your more recent thread in the Legal Discussion forum, entitled: "Why's the law strict on what's on paper?", you were asked if you were taking the p1ss, which you were. Again. By way of response to this, you wrote:

I'm getting angry now. You're making groundless claims. I was not "taking the piss", I was asking a question. I asked in my OP of that thread why loopholes can happen and why nothing can be done about them. I gave the example of the time ecstasy and a few other drugs became legal due to some f*** up. Then some fella asked me was I taking the piss. I replied "No" and I gave a reason why I created the thread. I created the thread because I simply didn't understand why the government couldn't say "A mess up happened, Ecstasy is still illegal despite what is officially on paper (or whatever the official rules are kept on, you know what I mean)".

Don't forget to explain why you brought that atheism thread up. Guilty people usually hang their head in shame and keep quiet when they're caught out.

Notavirus.exe

Ok, looking at other treads in the Legal Discussions suggests to me that the forum is meant for people who are in a legal situation. Maybe that's what you meant by my thread not meeting the "standards", which are not mentioned in the charter.

It appears I have made a mistake in my OP. The 'United Ireland' thread was actually made in the Politics Cafe and I must have got mixed up. Anyway, that only leaves my burglars thread. If you did have a problem with that thread then you could have acted professionally and warned me about it, you didn't say anything to me about the thread at the time and it was never closed. Nobody had a problem with it. If you had a problem with any of my other threads on the legal discussion forum, you would have approached me about them.

Final note:
I think we can come to an agreement without an admin. How was I supposed to know that my posting habits in the Legal Discussions forum didn't meet the "standard"? If you had told me right there and then when I made the first thread (the burglars thread) that my posting style didn't meet the standard then I wouldn't have created the second thread. There may be an unwritten but obvious standard to posting in the Legal Discussions thread that I am too new to know about but I also think that if you had told me earlier on that I wasn't following the standard then the amount of irrelevant posts I made would have been significantly lower and you wouldn't have as big of a rant post as you had.

I would still like the post edited/removed. There was no reason for you to suddenly lash out at me, as you failed to tell me my posts weren't meeting the standard. If you had warned me about my posting habits in the forum and I had still created that second thread then your post would have been justified.

Shield

Just so you're aware, Pat Mustard will not be replying to any more of your posts, and neither will anyone else. However, you are free to make as many new posts on this thread as you wish.

You must now decide whether you would like an Admin to review your complaint from the very beginning, or whether you would like the thread closed.

-Shield.

Notavirus.exe

Shield wrote: »

Pat Mustard will not be replying to any more of your posts

Of course not. :rolleyes:

Yes, I would like an admin to look at this. This is no longer a case of some random guy bitching about a post, this is a case of sophism and constructive moderating (that's not really a term). 'Constructive moderating' as in, I keep going around making posts that I think are ok on that particular forum and I do this for quite a while but it turns out that my posts don't meet the "standards" but a LD moderator has never said anything to me about my posting habits until this particular moderator makes a very provocative post.

This moderator failed to warn me early on that my posts weren't meeting these so called "standards". A very provocative post made out of the blue isn't a very professional way of dealing with this issue. The reason I had made a lot of below "standard" posts in the Legal Discussion forum is because this moderator waited a while before saying anything to me about how I should be posting there. The only time I was told I wasn't posting in the way I should was when he lashed out at me in an unprofessional manner. In fact, there are quite a few moderators on the forum, some of them have even replied to my questions, none of them told me that my posts weren't meeting "standards".

I've come this far to get a post removed, I hope that we can all learn a lesson from this - Don't sit back and let someone unknowingly continue to fail to meet "standards" and then suddenly attack and embarrass them.

You might call me silly for coming this far, but I hope you can sympathise with me because nobody bothered to tell me I hadn't been meeting "standards" in my posts. If these "standards" were mentioned in the charter, I would have followed them.

I just want the moderator to admit that it's not my fault I've made numerous below "standard" posts on that particular forum they moderate, mainly due to the fact nobody said anything to me about it until that provocative and libelous post that I'm reporting.

BuffyBot

Enough of this nonsense.

OP, I'd suggest reviewing your posting style. Your signal vs noise ratio is tipping dangerously into noise territory. To clarify, that's not good.