Received warning in Current Affairs/IMHO

LuckyLloyd

Hi,

I received a warning in Current Affairs from Baggly within the Biden / Trump election thread. I do not feel the warning is fair and wish to appeal same.

I have discussed the matter with Baggly and they are refusing to rescind it.

I believe the PM exchange captures the reasons for the warning being invalid so I request permission to post them here.

Thanks,

Lloyd.

Spear

You don't need permission to post PMs of the discussion of the warning, and may post them if you wish. Alternately you may forward them to the CMOD who'll look at this.

Beasty

As Spear mentions you are free to post your PM conversation with the mod concerning this card

As you have indicated you have been unable to reach agreement with the mod I'll alert the CMods to this thread

LuckyLloyd

Thanks for confirming. Okay details below:

Thread and posts concerned

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058129592

Cody montana wrote: »

I kind of miss arguing with the trump supporters in this thread.
They’ve all disappeared.

Carfacemandog wrote: »

In 18 months, most of them will be claiming to have never supported Trump, while eagerly supporting whichever grifter takes his place in tickling their warped, bigoted little fantasies.

I would put the house on it, it's not like similar didn't happen following 2008.

briany wrote: »

Have to think there are at least some Republicans who now think embracing the whole Tea Party movement wasn't such a great idea. It is directly out of that movement, and the naked populism spearheaded by Sarah Palin that the party now finds itself grappling a monster of a strength that could rend the party in two, and there'll be those who'll argue, even, that this schism has already been completed.

one armed dwarf wrote: »

But Outlaw Pete said that Bill Barr was a solid set of hands when it comes to rooting out corruption. I guess this means he isn't, or Trump is wrong or something

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Haven't seen Outlaw Pete here for a long while. He's probably given his entire life savings to Trump so is unable to pay his Internet bills.

rosser44 wrote: »

The way the rats are fleeing the sinking ship in the white house he might be the next comms director or AG!

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Right now Trump isn’t winning and the libs aren’t being owned so the context that normally supported Outlaw Pete’s posts isn’t available.

eagle eye wrote: »

Who are these Liberals?

francois wrote: »

Liberal seems to be a catch-all insult those of a far right disposition seem to think is some sort insult.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I don’t know EE, you’ll have to ask Outlaw Pete should he return to these pastures.

I received a warning for the last post in this sequence.

PM Exchange with Baggly

Baggly wrote:

Dear LuckyLloyd,

You have been warned 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.



Baggly

Moderator Note

You would do well to stop baiting other posters.

Your post:

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

eagle eye wrote: »

Who are these Liberals?

I don’t know EE, you’ll have to ask Outlaw Pete should he return to these pastures.

LuckyLloyd wrote:

Hello,

I genuinely don't understand the reason for this warning. I was referring to Outlaw Pete's posts, rather than him specifically. And then I responded to EE in a reasonable enough way: i.e. I don't understand what constitutes "Libs" in the eyes of OP and those of his persuasion.

Can you provide a little additional clarity?

Thanks,

Lloyd.

Baggly wrote:

Any particular posts? Because from where i am looking you brought him up out of the blue with no specific context. Just talking about him and about his posts in general; which is not the same as attacking the posts instead of the poster.

LuckyLloyd wrote:

Thanks for the quick response.

At post #9222, cody_montana notes that Trump fans have disappeared. This strand of conversation is continued at #9224, #9226, #9229 (OP mentioned specifically), #9230, #9231 and then my post at #9232.

In terms of OP’s posts generally, any regular frequenter of American Politics forums will be highly familiar with his posting content and the general strands of argument or focus within. As such, I didn’t think I needed to expand on the point I was making.

Baggly wrote:

So you dont think that randomly baiting a poster who hadnt posted in that thread (mainly because he is threadbanned) is an issue? And randomly picking one person to represent all Trump supporters in that thread isnt an issue? Its a personal attack plain and simple.

LuckyLloyd wrote:

I appreciate the further response Baggly.

I think people's posting histories and the positions of those posting histories are worthy of conversation in a politics thread, particularly within the context of what has occurred over the past few years in the US.

But nonetheless, equivalence comes into play here. How is my post a card and a post like 9230 above me that I've referenced in my previous PM is not? The posts and posting histories of OP, RIGOLO and others are consistently referenced in this long running series of threads.

I didn't realise the poster was thread banned, and I would suggest the mod team should probably have put an on thread message to that effect rather than picking a post from a stream of conversation at random and carding it.

Please rescind the card, thanks in advance.

While I strongly disagree with the card as per our exchange, I nonetheless commit to redoubling my awareness of other posters and will attempt to avoid any reason for an exchange like this in the future.

Regards,

Lloyd.

Baggly wrote:

The card will stay where it is, so that other mods will be aware of this issue should your redoubled efforts fail.

I can only moderate the posts in front of me. If i see instances of a poster being targeted out of nowhere i will action them.

LuckyLloyd wrote:

Okay, please note that I will be appealing this card shortly.

Cheers,

Lloyd.

Appeal

Looking at the PMs, Baggly doesn't really rebut any of the points made. They:

- skip over the fact that my posts were in context within a sequence of posts
- fail to address the question of equivalence posed by my post being in context within a sequence of posts
- try and take my expression of respect for the charter and willingness to be within the rules as an admission of guilt, despite my express note that I remain in disagreement with the warning

Anyway, hopefully the above is reasonably clear. Thanks in advance for taking the time to review and let me know if more information is required.

ancapailldorcha

Hi LuckyLloyd,

I will look into this for you. Please bear with me.

LuckyLloyd

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Hi LuckyLloyd,

I will look into this for you. Please bear with me.

Thanks for taking it on.

Have you had a chance to progress it?

ancapailldorcha

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Thanks for taking it on.

Have you had a chance to progress it?

Hi LuckyLloyd,

I didn't get a chance to yesterday but I'll have an update for you this evening.

ancapailldorcha

Hi LuckyLloyd,

I've had a chance to look at this for you.

To be honest, I agree with what Baggly said in the PMs. Bringing up a user in the manner that you did is simply not acceptable. If the poster is regularly contributing to the thread, that's one thing but picking on someone and having a go at them as if they represent a specific demographic is something that I'd have no trouble upholding a yellow card for.

However, in the context of the thread you are correct to note that you weren't the only one attacking Outlaw Pete so on that basis I will request that an admin reverse the card. Having said that, if this weren't the case I would have upheld the card. Please bear this in mind in future as taking shots at other posters is not on.

I'll request a reversal as per the above now.

LuckyLloyd

Thanks for your time and the clear explanation. I understand what you are saying and will bear this in mind moving forward. I confirm this is resolved from my perspective.

ancapailldorcha

Thanks.