Unnecessary moderation

Deleted User

Hi there,

The following post was moderated and yellow carded. I brought the conversation to PM and was further accused of "low level trolling" and "whataboutery" which I wasn't doing at all. It was suggested that I take any further complaint here.

This occurred in the sports/rugby union forum.

Deleted User wrote: »

No.

Preciousness is saying that a spear tackle was the fault of the recipient being lifted and dropped and not doing enough to prevent the tackler getting a red.

Preciousness is a scrum half running to the media in tears after getting tackled in a game two weeks before we face many of the same players in an international.

That's preciousness and totally handing over ammunition and a perception of weakness to our game-day foes.

Pointing out that people are completely and perpetually clueless as to the massive influence a player like Heaslip adds to the team both physically, psychologically and tactically isn't precious. It's highlighting either ignorance, provincialism or blind jealousy. You take your pick.

Beasty

OK, I'll take a look

Could you please forward your PM exchange(s) with the mod

Thanks

Beasty

Thanks for forwarding your conversation with the mod. I'll have a look at that together with any other background to the yellow card you received and get back here.

Beasty

This is the post for which you received a yellow:

Deleted User wrote: »

No.

Preciousness is saying that a spear tackle was the fault of the recipient being lifted and dropped and not doing enough to prevent the tackler getting a red.

Preciousness is a scrum half running to the media in tears after getting tackled in a game two weeks before we face many of the same players in an international.

That's preciousness and totally handing over ammunition and a perception of weakness to our game-day foes.

Pointing out that people are completely and perpetually clueless as to the massive influence a player like Heaslip adds to the team both physically, psychologically and tactically isn't precious. It's highlighting either ignorance, provincialism or blind jealousy. You take your pick.

That was in response to this post:

Mahatma Geansai wrote: »

There's an incredible amount of preciousness about Heaslip. No matter how deserved any criticism may be, there is a group that will take the opinion that the poster has an irrational hatred of him.

Here's an extract from the mod note accompanying your yellow card:

you have a habit of winding up Munster posters with low level trolling. Your latest post was in the same vein. I believe you knew exactly what you were doing by ignoring the point about Heaslip and criticising two Munster players when responding to the Munster poster - it was clear inter-provincial trolling.

The post receiving the yellow was in the Scotland v Ireland match thread over the weekend.

Given your own record of doing this, are you suggesting your post was not likely to wind up the Munster fan?

Beasty

Beasty wrote: »

This is the post for which you received a yellow:



That was in response to this post:



Here's an extract from the mod note accompanying your yellow card:



The post receiving the yellow was in the Scotland v Ireland match thread over the weekend.

Given your own record of doing this, are you suggesting your post was not likely to wind up the Munster fan?

Many thanks for replying to my post.

Firstly, the players identified in my response both played in the same game as the player highlighted in the original post. Their relevance was that they all just played for Ireland, regardless of which province they were from.

What tied them to my point is that they are two players specifically highlighted from a media perspective as having made complaints which have been questionably received by the media, and in particular, the Scottish media in recent weeks.

Secondly there is a reference in your post to my own record. Are there specific instances here I should be aware of?

Beasty

The instances are clear from prior sanctions you have received in the forum. Looking back I've also seen in-thread mod warnings to you about inter-provincial stuff. I also believe one of the mods may have dropped you a PM about it. You seem to manage to choose your examples carefully, with specific reference to the province they represent.

The most telling point in my mind though was another post you made in the match thread yesterday which you chose to edit this evening 4 minutes before starting this appeal thread, which had been another very clear effort at inter-provincial stirring.

When I look at everything here I'm thinking you are very lucky to have got away with a single yellow in that thread

Beasty

Beasty wrote: »

The instances are clear from prior sanctions you have received in the forum. Looking back I've also seen in-thread mod warnings to you about inter-provincial stuff. I also believe one of the mods may have dropped you a PM about it. You seem to manage to choose your examples carefully, with specific reference to the province they represent.

The most telling point in my mind though was another post you made in the match thread yesterday which you chose to edit this evening 4 minutes before starting this appeal thread, which had been another very clear effort at inter-provincial stirring.

When I look at everything here I'm thinking you are very lucky to have got away with a single yellow in that thread

So you are basing your decision on an un-moderated post which I rephrased at a later point that you describe as "stirring" to uphold the original moderation?

Fair enough. Still nothing which is in breach of the charter but I'll accept your decision. I'll make sure that I find a way to make my points both within the charter and within the "stirring" charter moving forward. I feel very much encouraged to be as continually balanced in my comments as I have been.

Beasty

I am using that post as evidence of your behaviour supporting the view taken by the mods in sanctioning you. I actually think that "rephrased" note (which was actually a deletion of a number of paragraphs with no rephrasing involved) could equally have been sanctioned. That stands even though you chose to amend it nearly a day later

So in summary I'm upholding the yellow card, and as you indicate you accept my decision can this now be marked as resolved?

Beasty

Beasty wrote: »

I am using that post as evidence of your behaviour supporting the view taken by the mods in sanctioning you. I actually think that "rephrased" note (which was actually a deletion of a number of paragraphs with no rephrasing involved) could equally have been sanctioned. That stands even though you chose to amend it nearly a day later

So in summary I'm upholding the yellow card, and as you indicate you accept my decision can this now be marked as resolved?

I don't believe it's resolved and the original post I made still in no way breaches the charter.

What you have casually ignored is that the amended post you referred to happened after the infraction so I fail to see how it becomes part of any decision relating to this dispute.

There is also nothing in the charter about combining posts to form an opinion on an infraction. If you want to infract the amended post then go ahead and we can discuss it then. I can't do anything about your decision, but I believe I've been fair and reasonable and the yellow card was unwarranted.

I will continue to comment and post as I have been to date. Let's hope there aren't further issues and everyone has a more fair and reflective approach to posts and opinions.

Beasty

Very well, I'm going to change my decision and upgrade this to a red based on the subsequent post you have amended as both posts were guilty of stirring up inter-provincial rivalry

You may appeal my decision to an Admin if you wish

Beasty

Beasty wrote: »

Very well, I'm going to change my decision and upgrade this to a red based on the subsequent post you have amended as both posts were guilty of stirring up inter-provincial rivalry

You may appeal my decision to an Admin if you wish

Yes I'd like to request an Admin investigation. Many thanks.

Venjur.

Taltos

CMod decision upheld.

I note with concern the following from your Venjur.

Deleted User wrote: »

I will continue to comment and post as I have been to date. Let's hope there aren't further issues and everyone has a more fair and reflective approach to posts and opinions.

Choosing to ignore the warnings you've received as well as the advice from the cmod here is only going to lead very shortly to bans from the forum. That is your choice though, and while I'm shaking my head at that choice it's your mistake to make.

Infraction upheld. Thread closed.