Infraction in Legal Discussion

LiamoSail

Hi, I was infracted in the legal forum and I'd like to appeal, having being directed here by the Moderator.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057618176

The OP fell on a path that was cracked, and wants to sue the state. She asked for advice. I replied suggesting she get her eyes checked so as to be able to see future cracks in paths, given she obviously hadn't seen this one.

Being a path, I'm assuming the crack has been some time developing, and that like most paths, it's subject to considerable foot traffic. Given many others have apparently managed to walk the path without issue, I don't think it's outrageous or uncivil, as the moderator suggested, to suggest that perhaps the issue lies with the OP, rather than the council.

Toots

Hi LiamoSail, I will look into this for you. Can you please either forward me the PM exchange between yourself and the mod who infracted you, or else copy and paste it here?

LiamoSail

Pat Mustard wrote:

Dear LiamoSail,

You have been infracted for being uncivil.

Typically, this means that you are posting in a needlessly aggressive or confrontational manner being disruptive on the forum or causing stress for the other members. We don't want that here.

For more information please refer to the Boards.ie FAQ.

If you wish to appeal this infraction you can see details on how to do so here.

Pat Mustard

Your post:

LiamoSail wrote: »

Dragonfly13 wrote: »

So the night before last I fell on a bit of foot path that is raised and cracked, think a root from a tree is growing underneath, my boyfriend went and took pictures the next day as I felt a bit silly, he said the path is very bad all along and he's not surprised I fell, I was taken to hospital, fractured my ankle in two places and tore a ligament. They put in a metal plate and I have stitches on both sides of my ankle. I am also self employed so will be out of work for at least six weeks..could someone advise me what is the best way to go about this? Should I get any documents from the hospital before I'm discharged, thank you

You should probably get your eyes checked if you couldn't notice the broken path.

.

LiamoSail

Pat Mustard wrote:

LiamoSail wrote:

Uncivil? The OP asked for advice and I gave advice. Just because the OP may not have liked the advice, doesn't make it uncivil. I'd like to appeal this infraction

You are free to appeal it to the DRF or one of the CMods.

.^^^ that's all the PM's

LiamoSail

I'd also like to point out the warning I got following that on the thread.

A moderator devoted a full paragraph in a post to criticising my apparent moral standards, to which I replied questioning the moderators. Off topic perhaps, but each of us was sailing as close to the wind in that regard as the other, yet the warning on thread is addressed only at me?

This just seems like a case of the Internet police having a hard on for authority. If that's the case, then fine. It's your site, your rules, but all they're doing in driving people away with this sort of unnecessary, one sided approach

Toots

Ok, I've read through the thread and I'm not really seeing a reason why the infraction should be reversed. The OP came on asking for advice, and you pretty much told her to go back to Specsavers. The Legal Discussion forum isn't the place for flippant posts like that, and the charter also says that posters should be civil, and also considerate towards posters who may be new to the forum/site.

With regards to the paragraph criticising your moral standards, it appears that was in response to your (now deleted) post suggesting that the OP find someone to sue because it wasn't daylight. It's not a case of anyone having a boner for authority, it's a case of a poster asking for advice and then essentially being called stupid and a scrounger

LiamoSail wrote: »

You should probably get your eyes checked if you couldn't notice the broken path.

LiamoSail wrote: »

It seems ludicrous to expect to be able to walk anywhere without looking where you're going and expecting compensation for your own stupidity, but that seems to be the way it is.

We've less nurses, less hospital beds, less Gards, less social housing etc in a large part because of these scroungers.

TBH it's responses like that which are more likely to put people off using the site. Regardless of whether the OP of that thread is entitled to sue the council or not, you could have answered her questions without resorting to insults.

LiamoSail

Toots wrote: »

Ok, I've read through the thread and I'm not really seeing a reason why the infraction should be reversed. The OP came on asking for advice, and you pretty much told her to go back to Specsavers. The Legal Discussion forum isn't the place for flippant posts like that, and the charter also says that posters should be civil, and also considerate towards posters who may be new to the forum/site.

With regards to the paragraph criticising your moral standards, it appears that was in response to your (now deleted) post suggesting that the OP find someone to sue because it wasn't daylight. It's not a case of anyone having a boner for authority, it's a case of a poster asking for advice and then essentially being called stupid and a scrounger





TBH it's responses like that which are more likely to put people off using the site. Regardless of whether the OP of that thread is entitled to sue the council or not, you could have answered her questions without resorting to insults.

This is a joke. I didn't even know that post got deleted, obviously the Mod deleted and said nothing.

I posted on he thread again there a few minutes ago and that got deleted too. Not even a PM stating why? I mean wtf, are we not grown ups here? Can we not disagree on a topic yet display a level of common courtesy?

The OP asked for advice, and I gave advice. I didn't call her stupid though I absolutely believe she is a scrounger. There's a serious claim culture in this country and a lot of people have an issue with it, myself included. This is a discussion forum? Well what's the problem, let's discuss the claim.

A mod questioned my moral standards, yet I'm getting hassle for replying? Can you not see how ****ing ridiculous that is? I mean we're grown adults here, I'm getting a warning for answering a criticism? It's absolutely ridiculous.

Toots

I'd imagine it was deleted because it was argumentative and would most likely derail the thread.

A mod warned you in this post to stay civil and on topic or not to bother posting. Your latest post was not civil, which is why it was deleted. You're asking can we not disagree on something while still displaying a level of courtesy, however your posts are not courteous.

If you wish, I can ask for an admin to review my decision.

LiamoSail

Toots wrote: »

I'd imagine it was deleted because it was argumentative and would most likely derail the thread.

A mod warned you in this post to stay civil and on topic or not to bother posting. Your latest post was not civil, which is why it was deleted. You're asking can we not disagree on something while still displaying a level of courtesy, however your posts are not courteous.

If you wish, I can ask for an admin to review my decision.

Yea I'd like someone who can see the wood from the trees to review this.

I suggested someone get their eyes checked. if you're infracting comments like that for being uncivil it's going to be a very quiet forum when everyone's banned

Toots

OK, I'll flag this for Admin review.

The Hill Billy

Hi there:

Simply put - your initial post was off-topic & unhelpful. A yellow may have been more appropriate in the circumstances. However, despite an 'official' mod warning from Pat Mustard & a clear explanation of forum ethos from hullaballoo you chose to challenge them on forum moderation. You are here long enough to know that is not on & you were lucky not to receive a short ban for the latter.

That being the case - I find no reason to reverse the infraction.

Please give careful consideration to what you choose to post in that forum again.

tHB

LiamoSail

The Hill Billy wrote: »

Hi there:

Simply put - your initial post was off-topic & unhelpful. A yellow may have been more appropriate in the circumstances. However, despite an 'official' mod warning from Pat Mustard & a clear explanation of forum ethos from hullaballoo you chose to challenge them on forum moderation. You are here long enough to know that is not on & you were lucky not to receive a short ban for the latter.

That being the case - I find no reason to reverse the infraction.

Please give careful consideration to what you choose to post in that forum again.

tHB

So the post is off topic and unhelpful now? Yet It got the red for being uncivil?

You've said yourself a yellow may have been more appropriate, yet cite subsequent posts for upholding the red. Those posts are irrelevant to the appeal of the initial post given they were made after the post that was warned.

Additionally you cite mod warnings by hullabaloo. Hullabaloo never stated in the post that it was a mod warning, nor did he/she gave any indication they were posting as a mod. I can't read minds, I wasn't to know it was a mod warning.

The post I was given a red for by your own admission didn't deserve to be given a red. Perhaps in your own little corner of the Internet you can justify it as a red with a loose reference to the charter, but in the context of light hearted discussion, which I had assumed boards was, it's entirely undeserving of a red.

I had multiple posts subsequently deleted on that thread. Others who veered off topic didn't, and still I was never informed about them being deleted. As I said before, it's your site and your rules, but your killing the site with overbearing Internet police nonsense. You can ram your warning about future conduct in that forum, I wont be posting in a forum run like that again. It's no wonder this site is dying

The Hill Billy

'Uncivil' is one of the options selectable when applying the card. It was the closest match to the rationale for applying the card.

As for who gave the mod warning, please read my post again...

The Hill Billy wrote: »

...an 'official' mod warning from Pat Mustard
...a clear explanation of forum ethos from hullaballoo

As for whether you should have received a yellow or a red...
For the original post - yes, a yellow would have been more appropriate in my opinion. However, I also think that you should have been banned for carrying on to challenge moderation on thread.

So, here's the deal...
Accept the red as a compromise between what should have been a yellow & the ban I feel is deserved for subsequent posts.
OR
I reverse the red, reapply a yellow & a ban (3 days).

Your call.

LiamoSail

The Hill Billy wrote: »

'Uncivil' is one of the options selectable when applying the card. It was the closest match to the rationale for applying the card.

As for who gave the mod warning, please read my post again...


As for whether you should have received a yellow or a red...
For the original post - yes, a yellow would have been more appropriate in my opinion. However, I also think that you should have been banned for carrying on to challenge moderation on thread.

So, here's the deal...
Accept the red as a compromise between what should have been a yellow & the ban I feel is deserved for subsequent posts.
OR
I reverse the red, reapply a yellow & a ban (3 days).

Your call.

Where did I challange a moderator or moderation on thread? My posts were deleted a few times, I didn't know by who yet I didn't question it on thread as I know you can't do that.

Granted, I responded to hullabaloo, but that was under the assumption I was responding to a normal poster that specifically addressed and criticised me. How was I to know hullabaloo was posting as a moderator when the two standard mod post characteristics, bold font and a mod warning note, were absent?

LiamoSail

Any chance this could be addressed? I argued a point with a moderator who gave no indication whatsoever that they were acting in the capacity of moderator and that apparently justifies infraction. It's ridiculous that this can be the case

The Hill Billy

Apologies for the delay - this slipped my mind.

Regardless of your interaction with hullaballoo, you were given a clear mod warning by Pat Mustard & you came back with this gem in your next post:
"My suggestion would be to look where you're ****ing going."

Challenging mods by blatantly ignoring their instruction is not on. You're here long enough to know that.

My offer still stands. Your choice.

Taltos

Admin note
Post deleted.

You may not post in a thread that is not related to you, even if you think you’re being helpful, without being invited to do so by the CMod or Admin looking after the issue at hand. This applies to all members of the site.

LiamoSail

The Hill Billy wrote: »

Apologies for the delay - this slipped my mind.

Regardless of your interaction with hullaballoo, you were given a clear mod warning by Pat Mustard & you came back with this gem in your next post:
"My suggestion would be to look where you're ****ing going."

Challenging mods by blatantly ignoring their instruction is not on. You're here long enough to know that.

My offer still stands. Your choice.

I had forgotten all about that post as it had been deleted by a mod.

You've agreed that the initial post which was carded was harsh but that the infraction was justified on the basis of the following posts.

The following posts wouldn't have been necessary had the moderator acted properly in the first place. I was given a needless red and then, without explanation, kept having my posts deleted. The mod was trolling me and I reacted to it. The above example you cite I agree does justify the card, but it doesn't reflect my posting style. The mod acted the dick, and I responded to the bait. I'm sure most who get unfair reds followed by a series of posts deleted without explanation or any indication would feel a bit pissed off too.

Do what you want with the cards, there's two posts there that obviously deserve the yellows. It's pretty irrelevant anyway as I won't be posting there again. Really is a mystery why the site is getting much quieter

The Hill Billy

LiamoSail wrote: »

You've agreed that the initial post which was carded was harsh...

Yes.

LiamoSail wrote: »

...but that the infraction was justified on the basis of the following posts.

No. I feel a 3 day ban is in order for this.

However, I offered to go for the middle ground of an infraction.

And rather than letting this drag out I'm upholding the infraction & leaving it at that.

tHB