Unfair warning, unfairer yellow for "appeal"

Losty Dublin

Last night on a thread on C+T, a moderator took offence to use of a phrase of the phrase "skull" to refer to passengers on buses. I posted on-thread a clarification to say that the work was not a slur but one used in trade for years. For this my post was deleted and then subject to a warning from said same moderator.

Upon questioning the logic of his decision and his rude and arrogant comments made via PM, he then decided to elevate it to a so called "Yellow card" decision using a very long winded and bizarre logic system that defies any common sense or logic. They also then claimed to have been open to discuss the initial incident via PM, a suggestion that was never there in the first place and was certainly not made or alluded to on fora.

Upon my request for this to be reviewed I found that they simply looked at it again, agreed with their old decision was told and I quote....

"To be clear, as stated the decisions in relation to issue you with a yellow card were made since you intentionally broke the charter of the forum and ignored a moderators instructions in an on-thread warning, this is the sole and only reason for your yellow card.

I would have been more than happy to have discussed the word skulls with you if you had pm'd me or reported the post before posting and we could have had a discussion about this, but instead you broke the rules and replied to a post that you were explicitly told not to and that is the reason that a yellow card was given."

Further on in PM their tone is condescending, misleading and tantamount to talking down to a child. Some appeal :rolleyes:

To break this down into pieces...

1. My post was merely correcting the correct application of the phrase "skull" as used in the trade to mean passengers. Even allowing for a technical wrong in posting a a reply to a Mod post, it's clear that the primary issue to cause the mods overreaction was that they were unhappy about being proven to be incorrect. For the purpose of backing up the correct interpretation of "Skull", allow me to show the following....
   
   https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59453545&postcount=2
   
   https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80798571&postcount=5
   
   https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54003888&postcount=59
   
   None of these or other users of the phrase have had a ban for it
   
2. Over zealous moderating. If the post was out of order then a simple delete would have done the trick, not site warnings or threats of bans.
3. The elevation of a warning to a "Yellow" as a result of a very long winded and confusing review (682 words, if you are wondering ) came without any caveat of such sanction. Such an elevated sanction is unjustified and without merit.
4. The fact that they seem to have used a scoring system is also bizarre. How is such a system assessed, rated, scored? Do other Mods and cMods have a say or input into same? From the long winded and meandering PM's that I got back, it's obvious that they don't and thus brings their decision into disrepute.
5. The fact that a mod reviews their own decision, regardless of it's nature, is farcical to say the least. For them to claim to invite PM's to discuss same after the event is of little help to ensure healthy and fair debate.

In short I wish for this yellow and warning to be rescinded and for the posts to be restored to the appropriate forum. Given that this was ultimately about a mod's error being innocently rectified, perhaps some protocol for their own personal posts wouldn't be out of order.

unkel

I'll look into this for you this evening.

unkel

Ok, I've looked into this. On the thread, the moderator quoted your post and posted a warning (in bold, so clearly moderating). That a term you used was deemed to be derogatory. You disagree this is the case. Let's go with your view, that the term is widely used in the industry as you say and that as such it is not derogatory and certainly not meant to be derogatory or offensive.

You've been on boards for nearly a decade and you have thousands of posts. You know better than to argue about moderation on thread. Even though you were right. What you do if you disagree is you take it to PM with the moderator. You didn't. That's why you got the warning (yellow card)

Then both you and the moderator follow procedure: you engage in a PM conversation. During which the moderator offered to withdraw your warning if you agreed that you should not have commented on moderation on thread and that you will refrain from doing so in the future. This is what they posted in a private message to you:

I need you to understand that if you disagree with a moderator warning that is posted on thread you either need to report the moderators post or send a PM to discuss it privately. Replying to the moderators post even when you are told not to is not the right way to go about it.

I need to have confidence that you will comply with the charter and not discuss moderation on the forum in future to consider having a look at this again. If you can read the charter and give me the confidence that in future if you have an issue you will either send a PM to or report the post rather than replying in thread, when you are explicitly told not to, I will take a look at this again.

In my opinion a very reasonable approach by the moderator. You refuse and you take it to this DRM. You've only yourself to blame that you did get the warning. And you have only yourself to blame that the warning has not already been reversed. So that's where we are here. You've had your chances. I see no reason to reverse it at this stage. Warning stands.

If you want to appeal my decision, I can ask an administrator to look into this case for you.

Losty Dublin

With respect but you have missed the points made.

unkel wrote: »

Ok, I've looked into this. On the thread, the moderator quoted your post and posted a warning (in bold, so clearly moderating). That a term you used was deemed to be derogatory. You disagree this is the case. Let's go with your view, that the term is widely used in the industry as you say and that as such it is not derogatory and certainly not meant to be derogatory or offensive.

Not so and you may need to look back at this part. I was not the one who he initially was posting about. My post was that of clarificarion, a point in which you yourself agree with; see below. At best my post is a technical wrong and certainly not one to issue site warnings. For the record, the the offending post was deleted so I can not see it after the event. Also, their condescending comments were made in PM and not on public thread.

unkel wrote: »

You've been on boards for nearly a decade and you have thousands of posts. You know better than to argue about moderation on thread. Even though you were right. What you do if you disagree is you take it to PM with the moderator. You didn't. That's why you got the warning (yellow card)

While I appreciate that this avoids OT angles on threads and needless aggro, this was not the case in this thread as it was a point of fact. That a mod chooses to delete said fact and then issue warnings after the event is unfair, an abuse of power and a stifle to accurate debate and discussion.

unkel wrote: »

Then both you and the moderator follow procedure: you engage in a PM conversation. During which the moderator offered to withdraw your warning if you agreed that you should not have commented on moderation on thread and that you will refrain from doing so in the future. This is what they posted in a private message to you:

In my opinion a very reasonable approach by the moderator. You refuse and you take it to this DRM. You've only yourself to blame that you did get the warning. And you have only yourself to blame that the warning has not already been reversed. So that's where we are here. You've had your chances. I see no reason to reverse it at this stage. Warning stands.

Such an approach is not reasonable, though. It is a poor attempt to coerce me into accepting their position without their addressing the fact that they may have been out of line here by deleting a comment that was innocently made and, as you have said, Even though you were right.. Note how there was no talk of restoring the comment either.

I also note that the issue about the retrospective and inexplicabe Yellow Card remains unanswered, as has my query about an unexplained scoring system in use and the bizarre practice of a moderator moderating an appeal against their initial decision.

unkel wrote: »

If you want to appeal my decision, I can ask an administrator to look into this case for you.

Before we go to appeal you can do worse than to look at the issues raised here first up.

unkel

This forum is not for discussing moderator actions. It is solely for posters to appeal their warning / ban.

You got a warning (yellow) for discussing moderation on thread. You should not have done that. You don't seem to get this point?

Beasty

Do you wish to appeal to an Administrator?

A one word answer will suffice

Beasty

Post deleted

A reminder

Only the OP, CMod, Admin or someone invited to contribute by the CMod can post in a DRP thread

Losty Dublin

unkel wrote: »

This forum is not for discussing moderator actions. It is solely for posters to appeal their warning / ban.

You got a warning (yellow) for discussing moderation on thread. You should not have done that. You don't seem to get this point?

With respect but you are the one who are clearly missing the point. The moderator was wrong in what they said, the word was clarified and they took umbrage and lashed out. It is obvious why they issued the sanction, no more no less.

Losty Dublin

Beasty wrote: »

Do you wish to appeal to an Administrator?

A one word answer will suffice

On the understanding that they look at the Mod's behaviour into account.

Beasty

You could not resist could you

I've looked at unkel's analysis and can find no fault

Card upheld

Marking resolved