Banned for calling people Fine Gael supporters

James Brown

Hello,
I was banned for soap boxing, that being overly discussing Fine Gael in the Politics forum and for personal insults, inferring some posters were Fine Gael supporters, those who consistently post defending Fine Gael policy. I did not name anyone specifically.

This is my post:

Leo cherry picks when he's in charge of things. He took a back seat regarding the Justice Ministers and the whistle blower muck up and practically disowned the DoJ like it was a rogue element distantly related to government, by marriage.

To have Fine Gael supporters on here arguing that the country being neutral is something you can take of leave, to save Leo's blushes, (who thinks we were) is a mite pathetic. We are making enemies of Russia. Right or wrong the nation and it's government need own it not fudge it. Be interesting to see how FF/FG farmyard spit on the hand politics plays out against Russia mind.

Moderator Note

Soap boxing + personal attacks.

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're a Fine Gael supporter.

Tone it down and play the man, not the ball when you're back.

Is this a wind up?

*EDIT* I was/am not allowed post in (prison) the link I was given to call this out for the shenanigans it is.

dudara

Have you attempted to contact the mod and work it out with them first?

James Brown

I have. To be fair it's only been a few hours.
I cannot see how this can be debated. Is stating that posters who support Fine Gael, by referring to those posting in support of Fine Gael, (without naming anybody) a personal attack?
I mean if you aren't constantly posting in defense of FG, I'm not referring to you. If you are and take um-bridge, well you my friend are a FG supporter and I don't see an insult there any way. Also keep in mind I don't point anyone out. "To have Fine Gael supporters on here arguing that..."

I always post on specific issues and differing issues at that. The soap boxing rule is metered out unfairly in my view. I can see no resolution to that. I do however have issue with being associated with personal attacks.

dudara

I’m not here to debate your ban with you, not at this juncture. I’m here to apply the process. And right now the process requires that we give the mod a chance to respond to you and see if you can work it out between you.

If this doesn’t happen, we can move to the next step in the process, which will involve a CMod.

James Brown

I've received a response and it is more of the same and not satisfactory.
I am accused of not engaging, rather shouting down. The hole in that argument is I don't post as much as most others and my supposed 'personal insult' referrers to my criticism of the response posters gave on an issue. Both cannot be true.
And again, referring to unnamed posters as 'Fine Gael supporters', cannot be shown to be a personal insult.

dudara

Thanks for confirming that you have received a response from the mod. I'll ask the CMods to take a look now.

James Brown

Thank you.

James Brown

Hello,
Any news?

dudara

Hi Matt, I’m sorry about this. Will remind the CMods now

Pat Mustard

Hi Matt. I will look at this. If you have not already done so, would you please post up all of the relevant PMs with the mod on this thread.

Also, you might link to the relevant post in which you were banned.

James Brown

Here you go. Thanks;

Baron de Charlus wrote:

Dear Matt Barrett,

You have been banned from Politics for one day for a breach of the forum charter.

Every forum on Boards.ie has a charter which lists any specific rules that forum may have and it is really important that you read this as it'll help you familiarise yourself with how that forum works. You should also understand that every forum is different and that charters are how you learn the differences.

Please see the Boards.ie FAQ for more details.

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

Baron de Charlus

Moderator Note

Soap boxing + personal attacks.

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're a Fine Gael supporter.

Tone it down and play the man, not the ball when you're back.

Your post:

Matt Barrett wrote: »

charlie14 wrote: »

If those concerns are not addressed I imagine they most likely will.

Unless there has been a change I haven`t heard about, then he is still Taoiseach and leader of FG.
The main government party putting forward the proposals in this referendum.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Does the Taoiseach get to decide on the states neutrality?

Ireland is now a fully-fledged participant in 'modern Cold War' as Varadkar says we can't be neutral

Leo cherry picks when he's in charge of things. He took a back seat regarding the Justice Ministers and the whistle blower muck up and practically disowned the DoJ like it was a rogue element distantly related to government, by marriage.

To have Fine Gael supporters on here arguing that the country being neutral is something you can take of leave, to save Leo's blushes, (who thinks we were) is a mite pathetic. We are making enemies of Russia. Right or wrong the nation and it's government need own it not fudge it. Be interesting to see how FF/FG farmyard spit on the hand politics plays out against Russia mind.

Original post was deleted, see above in bold.
Here is my response;

Re: You have been banned
By supporter, I mean supporting Fine Gael/Government, not necessarily a signed up dues paying member. Affiliating someone to FG is a personal attack now?
Soap boxing is a very loose term that seems to be used at will rather than due to any defined acts. Again, the government party of the day are bound to receive more posts. they make policy.
This is a bit of a joke, no? I mean I hate to get all 'whatabout' but you've career stirrers on Sinn Fein constantly. They aren't even in the top two political parties.

Re: You've been banned
Hi Matt,
I'm afraid it is a personal attack. Rather than engage with what the posters were actually saying, you instead resorted to name calling, saying they were "Fine Gael supporters" and "pathetic".

Soap boxing means saying the same thing, over and over again, without actually engaging in the debate. It's trying to shout everyone down rather than actually discuss anything. It's not the opinion, but the repetition ad nauseum. Most of us don't need quite so much reminding that Fine Gael are awful.

We've shown you considerable leeway on this and it's only the third time we've resorted to a sanction. And you're right, you're not the only one who's run afoul of this rule. I can think of at least one person who's banned outright for it. And there's a few of those people who have a bee in their bonnets about SF who've been hauled up over it, and one in particular who's in the last chance saloon, not just in Politics, but sitewide. There's a few more in the abortion threads who we've now have had to start gently reminding of this rule too.

People are entitled to their views, but equally other users are entitled to have a decent environment for discussion without having to deal with some posters just endlessly repeating the same thing. There's a line.

Hope this explains the sanction and I sincerely hope you can take this on board and move on.

regards

Charlus

My response;

You have to read the context. I was commenting on there saying Ireland was never really neutral, even though Varadkar said we had been. Calling them out for what they are, FG supporters is not a personal insult.

As for soap boxing; have you seen ***** who only joins discussions to shut down any anti-government sentiment with little digs, have you seen ***** who is in there after any post putting FG in a bad light? These are some of the people need responding to. With people like that who don't engage in policy debate, the conversation gets coloured in a away that, if, for example, you commend Eamon Ryan of the Greens you are now supposed to defend every Green policy just to justify agreeing with a speech he made summing up Varadkar's style of government. That's the environment you have in there.

You cannot show a personal insult. What has me annoyed if I'll be marked down as having personally insulted someone. It's complete nonsense.

Mod:

Hi Matt,
You said you were "calling them out for what they are". First of all, you've no idea of "what they are" and secondly, and more importantly, that's not debating. Rather than engaging you opted to call them Fine Gael supporters and suggest they were pathetic.

With regard to the general environment in the forum, I've already pointed out that you're not the only person guilty of this and you're by no means the worse. We're already well aware of the conduct of other posters and have to engage with them as well.

Regards

Charlus

My response:

You are reading something sinister that isn't there. People were posting supporting fine gael. I referee to them as supporting fine gael. They were, so they are. I'm not getting what your reading into this or how on earth it's personal insult. The soap boxing is at your direction and heavily skewed. I don't see they constant sf posts getting deleted.

Mod:

Hi Matt,
I don't know how you can infer they were Fine Gael supporters, when nobody declared that fact (and at least one took exception to it). In future, the best approach is to respond to the content of people's posts rather than try to dismiss it by suggesting they're saying as much because they're a supporter of a particular party.

Regards

Charlus

My response:

I inferred the posters supporting the FG stance on neutrality no longer being a thing, were supporting FG; on the understanding we were never really neutral anyway, and I called that stance a mite pathetic after Varadkar acknowledged we were neutral. That's what happened in context. I think you or whomever, over reacted. It's ridiculous. I'm carrying on to C-Mod through Dispute. I'll not take 'personal insults' on my record lightly. Thanks.

Thanks.

Added:

Just to mention, the charge of 'soap boxing' is also in dispute. I'm clearly taking part in a line of discussion. The fact that I refer to the posts of others and like the A-Team before me, then get accused of something I didn't do.

Pat Mustard

Thanks, Matt.

I had a look at the thread and the PM exchange and my view is as follows.

First, I think that the personal insult aspect of it is not something that stands up by itself. The message itself was on the tame side and it was not specifically directed at anybody.

However, the matter cannot be overlooked because there was a mod warning on the thread and there is the issue of the forum charter with regard to soapboxing.

The mod warning on the thread was as follows:

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Right, this thread has started to go downhill into trench warfare.

So everyone take a deep breath and go read the charter. If you're just here to take pucks out the other, this isn't the forum for you.

Serious, substantive posts please.

Don't say you haven't been warned.

The forum charter states the following:

Repeated one liner, low quality style posts will result in a ban. Threads (and posts) that are not based on serious and legitimate Political discussion will be deleted without warning.

Posters are allowed to criticise Fine Gael and Leo Varadkar, especially in a thread entitled "Leo is the new King of Ireland". However, the forum charter and mod warnings must be observed.

You have a history of repeated "one-liner" type comments which criticize FG, which criticisms tend to lack substance beyond an obvious disapproval of FG. They may not be one-liners as such but they often tend to be short, simple, unsubstantiated criticisms without much in the way of depth or explanation. There is a high standard of posting in the Politics forum and that needs to be observed by all posters.

My view is that your post and your history of posting required mod action, based on breach of mod warning and forum charter.

Furthermore, the principle of escalating sanction allows moderators to increase sanction. You got a red card on the last occasion and now you have received a one-day ban.

However, your record is not that bad. It's not a spotless record but it's not bad. So I spoke to the mods and they may agree to reduce the ban to a lesser sanction, provided that you can show insight into your behaviour in relation to this continuing issue and also provided that you try to improve on it.

You might consider this and come back to me to let me know what you think.

James Brown

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Thanks, Matt.

I had a look at the thread and the PM exchange and my view is as follows.

First, I think that the personal insult aspect of it is not something that stands up by itself. The message itself was on the tame side and it was not specifically directed at anybody.

However, the matter cannot be overlooked because there was a mod warning on the thread and there is the issue of the forum charter with regard to soapboxing.

The mod warning on the thread was as follows:


The forum charter states the following:
Posters are allowed to criticise Fine Gael and Leo Varadkar, especially in a thread entitled "Leo is the new King of Ireland". However, the forum charter and mod warnings must be observed.

You have a history of repeated "one-liner" type comments which criticize FG, which criticisms tend to lack substance beyond an obvious disapproval of FG. They may not be one-liners as such but they often tend to be short, simple, unsubstantiated criticisms without much in the way of depth or explanation. There is a high standard of posting in the Politics forum and that needs to be observed by all posters.

My view is that your post and your history of posting required mod action, based on breach of mod warning and forum charter.

Furthermore, the principle of escalating sanction allows moderators to increase sanction. You got a red card on the last occasion and now you have received a one-day ban.

However, your record is not that bad. It's not a spotless record but it's not bad. So I spoke to the mods and they may agree to reduce the ban to a lesser sanction, provided that you can show insight into your behaviour in relation to this continuing issue and also provided that you try to improve on it.

You might consider this and come back to me to let me know what you think.

Thanks for looking into it.
So there was no case for 'personal insult'?

I'm not clear on what constitutes "one-liner" type comments.
Is it literally repeating the same line or same point?
My impression is I comment on a topic. the bigger the topic and the more debate on it, the more I comment on it. I am not going into the Trump thread and discussing homelessness.
Anytime I criticise the government I give my reasons. I provide links when possible.
Can you clarify what "one-liner" answers are?

...comments which criticize FG, which criticisms tend to lack substance beyond an obvious disapproval of FG.

I've been accused of this before alright. I would like an example of any of my posts simply saying 'FG are bad' and leaving it there. There's plenty of substance. This makes no sense to me.

Also;

not based on serious and legitimate Political discussion

Is the inference that I'm posting casually on topics I'm not too fussed about? Is there any examples any Mod would like to point out?

The suggestion seems to be that you can criticise the same government party but on varying topics, sparingly and be sure to change up the syntax. It's odd and difficult considering we've a lot of the same ongoing issues and most of us, the same opinions.

So I spoke to the mods and they may agree to reduce the ban to a lesser sanction, provided that you can show insight into your behaviour in relation to this continuing issue and also provided that you try to improve on it.

I'm genuinely confused; It sounds like the Mods want me to think about what I've done, but to me, nobody has been quiet clear what that is specifically, with an example, but I should be mindful not to keep doing it.

Pat Mustard

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Thanks for looking into it.
So there was no case for 'personal insult'?

In my view, no.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The suggestion seems to be that you can criticise the same government party but on varying topics, sparingly and be sure to change up the syntax. It's odd and difficult considering we've a lot of the same ongoing issues and most of us, the same opinions.

That's not it, Matt. The mods have told me that they have had PM conversations with you about this topic, previously.

The issue is not that you are criticizing FG and it isn't a syntax issue either. Look at the message below:

Leo cherry picks when he's in charge of things. He took a back seat regarding the Justice Ministers and the whistle blower muck up and practically disowned the DoJ like it was a rogue element distantly related to government, by marriage.

That comment is just dropped there without an effort to engage in or add to debate. It is something that arises regularly and the mods have taken a view on it that I support.

I know that you are asking for various examples and it seems that you want to debate what is going on here but what you are being asked to do is to stop soapboxing by (repeatedly) posting short and insubstantial comments without depth or explanation and to engage in substantive discussion, instead.

If you outline your proposals for dealing with the issue, we can see if there is anything that can be done here. If not, I'm inclined to uphold the ban and you can request Admin review, or not.

I'm not in a position to engage in a debate with you in relation to the issues, unfortunately.

James Brown

Pat Mustard wrote: »

In my view, no.


That's not it, Matt. The mods have told me that they have had PM conversations with you about this topic, previously.

The issue is not that you are criticizing FG and it isn't a syntax issue either. Look at the message below:


That comment is just dropped there without an effort to engage in or add to debate. It is something that arises regularly and the mods have taken a view on it that I support.

I know that you are asking for various examples and it seems that you want to debate what is going on here but what you are being asked to do is to stop soapboxing by (repeatedly) posting short and insubstantial comments without depth or explanation and to engage in substantive discussion, instead.

If you outline your proposals for dealing with the issue, we can see if there is anything that can be done here. If not, I'm inclined to uphold the ban and you can request Admin review, or not.

I'm not in a position to engage in a debate with you in relation to the issues, unfortunately.

Thank you.
I get what you're saying.

I was once PM'd about discussing my preference for social housing builds. Posters asked for costing/funding and I either 'couldn't or refused to provide it'. I thought that unfair and have had difficulty staying in line as it were. I have since found the money

As regards the post kicked all this off, it was in direct response to another poster who was commenting on Varadkar's style. It was not me posting in a vacuum.

Originally Posted by Johnny Dogs
Does the Taoiseach get to decide on the states neutrality?

That said, I'll keep an eye and ensure nothing I say can be remotely taken as stirring for the sake of it.
As a former FG voter, on a first name basis with a FG TD I've known all my life, I know the pain of being associated with them

Pat Mustard

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'll keep an eye and ensure nothing I say can be remotely taken as stirring for the sake of it.

If you can demonstrate insight into the problematic behaviour and confirm genuine intentions to resolve those problems, I can ask the forum mods to look at this. I can't go back to them with a proposal based on avoiding stirring for the sake of it. It's not enough.

For my part, I need to reach the end of this dispute. You can make a genuine effort to deal with the issue, or not. That's a matter for you. Therefore, whatever your next response may be, I'll go back to the mods and I'll leave it with them.

We'll wrap this up anyway.

James Brown

Pat Mustard wrote: »

If you can demonstrate insight into the problematic behaviour and confirm genuine intentions to resolve those problems, I can ask the forum mods to look at this. I can't go back to them with a proposal based on avoiding stirring for the sake of it. It's not enough.

For my part, I need to reach the end of this dispute. You can make a genuine effort to deal with the issue, or not. That's a matter for you. Therefore, whatever your next response may be, I'll go back to the mods and I'll leave it with them.

We'll wrap this up anyway.

I believe I was incorrectly and unjustly sanctioned so it's difficult for me to accept any problematic behaviour from that post. If it's a broader issue, that has not been shown either.
The post was not in a vacuum. It followed a line of discussion. I believe Varadkar does indeed cherry pick what he'll discuss in public forum/take action on. Citing my posting that as anything but genuine opinion based on my take of the facts, as problematic, speaks more about the environment in the Politics forum, where opinion, it seems, needs meet an unspecified criteria.
When FG are out of government, they'll garner little attention from me, as do Labour now.

The idea that MODS need believe your opinion and rate it as important, is simply bizarre.

Pat Mustard

Okay Matt, thanks for getting back to me on this.

As you know, I had a chat with the forum mods and I had thought that there was scope for resolution of the issue. In order for this to happen, movement would be required from both sides. The difficulty is that I really don't have anything to bring to the forum mods, from this side.

The one-day ban is upheld.

You may request Admin review of this decision if you want.

James Brown

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Okay Matt, thanks for getting back to me on this.

As you know, I had a chat with the forum mods and I had thought that there was scope for resolution of the issue. In order for this to happen, movement would be required from both sides. The difficulty is that I really don't have anything to bring to the forum mods, from this side.

The one-day ban is upheld.

You may request Admin review of this decision if you want.

I'll leave it. You don't think it was a personal insult and the MODS seemed willing to concede that if I promised to not repeat behaviors, not proven to be a breach of charter. Pretty much a waste of both our time.

Beasty

Very well. Marking this Resolved