appeal AH ban

hullo

id like to appeal my AH ban received from nosnon for incivility and/or trolling.

grounds for appeal are that i was uncivil to nobody and that nothing in the post can fairly be called trolling.

ive spoken to them and they wont be lifting it.

posting from phone, c/p of pms might therefore be a pain but let me know.

(ive picked a prefix from memory, apologies if incorrect)

Tokyo

I've updated the prefix, and let the CMods know that this DRP is pending.

LEIN

Deleted User wrote: »

hullo

id like to appeal my AH ban received from nosnon for incivility and/or trolling.

grounds for appeal are that i was uncivil to nobody and that nothing in the post can fairly be called trolling.

ive spoken to them and they wont be lifting it.

posting from phone, c/p of pms might therefore be a pain but let me know.

(ive picked a prefix from memory, apologies if incorrect)

Morning snoopsheep,

Will you please post the pm conversation here so I can review?

A link to the thread/post would be helpful also.

Thanks,

LEIN

mornin lein.

post is zapped but in quote below.

ive done what i can from phone re copying messages in a comprehensible format.


From: Nosnon
Date: 08/07/2019 | 21:14
Dear snoopsheep,

You have been banned from After Hours for one day 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 ban you can see details on how to do so here.

Nosnon

Moderator Note

If I thought a longer ban would hold up you'd be getting it.

Your post:Quote: snoopsheep
hey

biffos wife and kids

stop reading this thread unless you want yo hear what people think of your fella

a public figure well paid for his service who bears huge responsibility for a disaster that affected literally millions of people

ok thats said

anyone who hereafter pleads moral authority on behalf of the mans wife and kids can rest safely and let adults post on a public event involving a public figure



//////


From: Nosnon
Date: 08/07/2019 | 21:22
We only have so many options we pick from a drop down. It was a toss up between trolling and uncivil so went with uncivil.

Quote: snoopsheep
noted re longer ban. i dont think it holds up regardless of length tbh.

to whom am i held to have been uncivil?

///////



From: Nosnon
Date: 08/07/2019 | 21:54
Well I disagree so the DRP is where you need to go to get the higher ups to decide.
https://www.boards.ie/...umdisplay.php?f=1397
You can say in your opening message that you spoke to me and I'm not lifting the ban. It'll speed the process along for you.


Quote: snoopsheep
im sincere and consistent on two relevant items:

- discussion of public events shouldnt be subject to small c conservative hushing on boards by the lamentably shallow "imagine the relatives reading it"

- the person in question is public figure and totally undeserving of any show of false care or respect

so ive not been uncivil and its not trolling

im not claiming its good parishioner behaviour and im not asking a mod to endorse it

you shouldn't be actioning it imo

LEIN

Many thanks, I will review this later this evening.

LEIN

Deleted User wrote: »

hey

biffos wife and kids

stop reading this thread unless you want yo hear what people think of your fella

a public figure well paid for his service who bears huge responsibility for a disaster that affected literally millions of people

ok thats said

anyone who hereafter pleads moral authority on behalf of the mans wife and kids can rest safely and let adults post on a public event involving a public figure

Ok, I have reviewed this.

To make a statement to his wife and kids on a public forum is uncivil and uncalled for, there was no need to make it personal with his family, who may read that thread. Can you see why the Mod might have taken action here?
To then go an and backseat moderate at the end of your post also didn't help.

This is a slam dunk action for me and I feel the appropriate action was taken.

Ban upheld.

what are my options in terms of challenging two interpretations there, both of which are key?

1- The rhetorical position of addressing biffo's wife/kids is pretty clearly a parody of the position the post is taking issue with- that boards ought to be censoring content based on people intimate with or caring about a public figure (or a figure connected with public events)

i am not addressing biffos wife or kids, for gods sake. i am addressing the position taken on the thread that we all have to write as if they were reading and no other consideration is valid.

i was pointing out the ridiculous nature of this, leading to:

2- its not my understanding that 'back seat modding' can be a fair description of my taking issue with posters telling posters what they can or cannot discuss.

if my reaction to that is backseat modding then its a clear and obvious case of backseat modding by the other posters in the first instance.

in any case, the passage to which you have referred is also not an instruction to anyone posting or otherwise, its again pointing out that the very position of "you cant post anything a public figure's family wouldnt like" is nonsense.


ive to be honest, lein. i reckon the initial post was actioned because it offended a mod's sense of decency.

thats their business but its exactly the type of call that the recent feedback threads have agreed that mods ought to avoid making.

i have already stated that i amnt asking any mod to endorse my position but they have zero business in actioning it on the above.

its clearly not actionable and they had zero response to my challenging, in utmost sincerity and imo in fair spirit, either of the actual causes they chose.

i appreciate the time youve taken to review but the two items youve chosen to highlight look pretty poor imo. grasping at straws stuff. the kind of review that really does feel like you had to find something and an absurdly literal and strange misreading of the post was what you had to do to get it done.

maybe thats unfair to you, im not sure if you get to review the post in original thread context or not seeing as the thread was zapped, as far as i can tell.

ive a few actions against me now and im beginning to agree 100% with the view that when the mods decide you're going to get done, then you are under a microscope with no chance in the medium run.

its a stitch up and its very unfair imo.

LEIN

Admin review, please.

hullaballoo

I will review this. Please bear with me as I have quite a lot on but I hope to get back to this tonight at some stage. If not, I will review in the morning.

thanks, no rush.

lein, i am genuinely interested in whether or not you could or would re-interpret the two things raised, but i know im not entitled to your engagement beyond what time youve already given or if the process has scope for that type of discussion.

im not tryin to be a pain in anyone's ass (tho it happens naturally bytimes, ill admit) but this is very much a case of a few building now that i feel i could continue to let go until my 'checkered history' gets used against me, and i genuinely dont think i deserve that (i spose nobody on death row feels fairly treated either, that said)

hullaballoo

Either I'm very stupid or you're talking complete rubbish in your polemic against Lein above.

You cannot seriously be taking the position that because you're post doesn't offend your own moral standpoint, that a moderator can't interfere with your post because it offends theirs? (This is a rhetorical question.)

It's not about individual thresholds, it's about community thresholds and that's what the rules are for. That's how the moderation of this site works and has done for 20ish years.

For clarity on the question, posting publicly that the wife and family of a dying man should stop reading if it bothers them is outside of the permitted community standards, which have, always and forever in my memory, been articulated as concisely as they can be in the number one rule of AH: "Don't be a dick."

Normally, I would increase the ban at this point for essentially being an abuse of process, particularly in light of your above polemic. But since the ban has expired, I am not going to add another on top of it.

im fairly surprised that the response to lein is being treated as some sort of attack when it was a attempted clarification of a misrepresentation of two projections of my post

if my (genuine) feeling that this misrepresentation was unjust and a bit of a deliberate reach came across in the post, im sorry but at the same time i have the right to attempt to clarify that, to ask for a contextualised look in light of my response. i still dont feel that has actually happened tbh

i followed the process, and ive explained why (to continue to accept actions that seem unfair to me opens me up to the 'consistent offender' bracket, a complaint manys the poster has made under current processes)

i was infracted for incivility. i was told upon pm query it couldve been trolling. i responded to both and got no response but escalation.

i appealed as can be seen above and was told backseat moderation was being added and disputed that, as above. no response but escalation.

the escalation makes no reference to any of my explanation or defences, introduces "dont be a dick" as the offence and describes my input to the process as an abuse of that process.

aside from everything else, that last swipe is completely unfair. ive been engaged, civil and interested in resolution here despite feeling hard done by throughout.

if following the process as well as i can opens me up to an accusation like that then whats the message?

hullaballoo

I don't know whether you are expecting me to get into the granular detail of your arguments with you?

Certainly, if you believe you are hard done by I can expand on my reasoning. I can multi-quote and reply to each of the allegations you are making. I can do this here or in response to your collateral attack on this particular DRP resolution in the Feedback thread. Is this an attempt to re-argue your case or have people agree with how wronged you have been by this process?

I really think you are turning this whole thing on its head, though. As if the point is so worth proving to you that you will go to any lengths so to do, even to your own great detriment. Over a one-day ban. From a webpage.

hullaballoo

hullaballoo wrote: »

I don't know whether you are expecting me to get into the granular detail of your arguments with you?

Certainly, if you believe you are hard done by I can expand on my reasoning. I can multi-quote and reply to each of the allegations you are making. I can do this here or in response to your collateral attack on this particular DRP resolution in the Feedback thread. Is this an attempt to re-argue your case or have people agree with how wronged you have been by this process?

I really think you are turning this whole thing on its head, though. As if the point is so worth proving to you that you will go to any lengths so to do, even to your own great detriment. Over a one-day ban. From a webpage.

well for my part i dont know whether you expect me to thank yis for the infraction and call the whole thing a success. ive made my case, i clearly disagree with everything decided.

i don't expect any engagement with any of my arguments on this specific thread at this stage.

the fact that its informed my arguments on the other thread isnt here nor there imo, thats a thread about the moderation of the site after all.

its only a one day ban this time until its a week ban next time because i accepted a one day ban this time- ive said that numerous times so why youd muse over my motivation in attempting an appeal is beyond me

the threat of further infraction over abuse of process strikes me as one item that sits there looking pretty odd, but again its probably more suited to a discussion of moderation as a whole.

hullaballoo

Just to clarify - there was no threat. Had your ban not already expired by the time the review came up, it would have been lengthened because what you posted in response to Lein's review was nothing short of a tirade against him and, in stark contrast to the complaints you make about moderation of this site, you were the one who decided to invoke never before seen reasoning to explain your very clearly wrong post. You moved the goalposts, in other words. Then you accused Lein, and then later, me, of moving the goalposts.

As for your record being used against you, I'll say this. You have received a one-day ban from AH. All anyone will ever know about it is that you got a one-day ban from AH, together with whatever reasons the moderator might have added to the text-box when he banned you. Frankly, I would discount a one-day ban immediately from my assessment of a member's record as, like things like thread bans, it is not really worth considering.

Hopefully that will put your mind at rest in relation to this.

In any event, people don't usually get a chance to respond to admin decisions here as they are final but I thought there might be a bit more conversation worth having.

I'm closing this and marking as resolved now.