Infraction appeal

Phibsboro

Warning then infraction from the Amazon no chat thread on Bargains Alert. For posting a link to a cheaper vendor for one of the "bargains". Seems a tad over-zealous for a Bargains Alert mod. I would suggest allowing "better price here" posts in a no chat thread.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058154018

Beasty

if you are appealing a card I can move this to the Dispute Resolution Forum. Before doing so can you confirm if you have made an attempt to resolve this directly with the mod via PM?

Phibsboro

I'm not totally up on Boards way of working here, I don't think I got a card? I guess I am trying to get someone other than the mod to review the situation and allow my post (and that type of post generally) in the thread? I pm'ed the mod on the initial warning saying it was unexpected to not be allowed post a cheaper price on a Bargains Alert thread but all they did was update the initial mod warning to say that posted links "may not be a bargain". Overall its not the end of the world, just maybe indicative of a general overzealousness that is actually defeating the point of the forum. Maybe we need upvotes/downvotes on comments?

Tokyo

A cursory look shows that you got a warning (yellow card) for breaching the thread's 'No Chat' rule, as per the thread title, and a follow up infraction (red card) for ignoring the earlier warning and continuing to post chat in the thread.

As Beasty stated earlier, do you wish to contest these cards? If so, then the Dispute Resolution forum is at your disposal. That being said, I would suggest that you simply directly PM the mod who carded you first, to see if you can resolve this via PM amicably before it needs to be taken further (which is what we would request you do to in the DRP forum as a first step either way).

Phibsboro

mike_ie wrote: »

A cursory look shows that you got a warning (yellow card) for breaching the thread's 'No Chat' rule, as per the thread title, and a follow up infraction (red card) for ignoring the earlier warning and continuing to post chat in the thread.

As Beasty stated earlier, do you wish to contest these cards? If so, then the Dispute Resolution forum is at your disposal. That being said, I would suggest that you simply directly PM the mod who carded you first, to see if you can resolve this via PM amicably before it needs to be taken further (which is what we would request you do to in the FRP forum as a first step either way).

OK cool, could you move this thread into the Dispute Resolution forum so? I've pm'ed the mod but no response yet. Also, it might be worth actually mentioning yellow/red cards in the warning/infraction PM's if that is wording you guys use among yourselves to refer to them.

Beasty

Phibsboro wrote: »

Also, it might be worth actually mentioning yellow/red cards in the warning/infraction PM's if that is wording you guys use among yourselves to refer to them.

The standard wording (which we as Site Admins have no power to change) if for a "warning" to be described as a "yellow card" and appear as a yellow card in the post. Likewise an "infraction" is described as a "red card" and appears as such. I think you can also see them as such in your profile. There are also sections in the site FAQs describing them

This is all off-topic for this thread though, and I'm posting it for your reference only as you raised the issue. Please PM me if you require any further clarification

We'll alert the relevant CMods to this appeal

Nody

Hello Phibsboro,

I'll be the CMod to look into your two cards for this DRP. Please give me a day or two to speak with the moderator as well as research more into the thread etc.

Thank you in advance.

Phibsboro

Beasty wrote: »

The standard wording (which we as Site Admins have no power to change) if for a "warning" to be described as a "yellow card" and appear as a yellow card in the post. Likewise an "infraction" is described as a "red card" and appears as such. I think you can also see them as such in your profile. There are also sections in the site FAQs describing them

This is all off-topic for this thread though, and I'm posting it for your reference only as you raised the issue. Please PM me if you require any further clarification

We'll alert the relevant CMods to this appeal

Just a final point on this, in my case the posts were deleted so I didn't see any cards. The PM itself doesn't use those terms anywhere and it actually links to a different FAQ that also doesn't mention cards (https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/faq.php?faq=bie_faq_guidelines#faq_bie_faq_guidelines_forbidden). I am probably an unusual situation in that the posts were deleted, but you might try to bring to the attention of the powers that be to maybe include the relevant card wording in the PM, it would make understanding the subsequent dispute process easier.

Nody

Hello Phibsboro,

I've spoken with the mod and I've looked at the thread in question and I'm afraid I'll be upholding both cards.

First of all the thread title is very clear "Amazon Bargains [NO CHAT - SEE OP]", then in the first post:

MOD EDIT: NO CHAT. NO COMMENT. NO UPDATES and BUYER BEWARE THAT IT MAY NOT BE A BARGAIN. No Chat is because chat crowds a thread quickly and the bargains get lost.
CHAT #1 = WARNING
CHAT #2 = FURTHER ACTION

You then post in reply to a posted bargain:

Currently 99€ in Hardly Normal - https://www.harveynorman.ie/tvs-head...ds--black.html

That earned you the first card because you were clearly doing exactly what was stated not to be done on the thread and you were given the same sanction as everyone else for the first breach which was a yellow card.

The moderator then posted a second warning on thread due to a number of users failing to adhere to the warning on thread:

Many of you wanted a no chat thread. So this is a no chat thread. Read the OP, no chat, no updates, no discussion. Just here is a supposed bargain. We're all big and bold enough to judge if it's for us or not.
Clearly by the amount of reported posts we get from this thread that you do not want chat.
Chat = warning. And please don't bother PM us mods hurling abuse because we acted upon reports, it gets tiresome.

Which we know you saw because you quoted the post and wrote:

I have to say that I actually do want to see links to even better bargains, in this bargain alerts thread!

This lead to your second red card for ignoring the instructions on thread and your second breach on thread.

The mod instructions on thread were clear, they were repeated and you broke them again after confirming you read the reinforcement of the rules and hence the two cards stands. You now have to decide if you accept my review or if you wish to have an admin review the cards. That's the end of the DRP part of this post.

Let me briefly go in on the part that should be in feedback; the no chat was implemented on request of the people in the forum and not because the Mods thought it would be funny due to the issues in previous threads. If you think that's wrong then the feedback forum or PM is where to discuss it, not on the thread itself esp. quoting a moderator on a no chat thread.

Phibsboro

Thanks for that Nody. Note that my understanding is that the relevant bit of the first post mod edit ("BUYER BEWARE THAT IT MAY NOT BE A BARGAIN") was added after my yellow card, and at my suggestion to the mod in PM. So I actually wasn't "clearly doing exactly what was stated not to be done on the thread". Posting cheaper links is standard practise all over Bargain Alerts and it pretty unusual to not allow it on this one, No Chat or not. In fact the equivalent Argos No Chat thread (https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057536595) has lower price mentions all over it, including a fair few recent ones, E.G.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115437294&postcount=853

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115502103&postcount=863

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114975906&postcount=826

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114265922&postcount=813

No cards and no "BUYER BEWARE THAT IT MAY NOT BE A BARGAIN" warning at the start of that thread.

Finally, it is worth remembering that historically BA posts actually required the poster to post key comparative prices, to show it was actually a bargain. You can see some posters continuing that tradition in the Argos thread for example. It might be something The Driver isn't aware of if he is new to modding BA.

Nody wrote: »

Hello Phibsboro,

I've spoken with the mod and I've looked at the thread in question and I'm afraid I'll be upholding both cards.

First of all the thread title is very clear "Amazon Bargains [NO CHAT - SEE OP]", then in the first post:


You then post in reply to a posted bargain:
That earned you the first card because you were clearly doing exactly what was stated not to be done on the thread and you were given the same sanction as everyone else for the first breach which was a yellow card.

The moderator then posted a second warning on thread due to a number of users failing to adhere to the warning on thread:
Which we know you saw because you quoted the post and wrote:
This lead to your second red card for ignoring the instructions on thread and your second breach on thread.

The mod instructions on thread were clear, they were repeated and you broke them again after confirming you read the reinforcement of the rules and hence the two cards stands. You now have to decide if you accept my review or if you wish to have an admin review the cards. That's the end of the DRP part of this post.

Let me briefly go in on the part that should be in feedback; the no chat was implemented on request of the people in the forum and not because the Mods thought it would be funny due to the issues in previous threads. If you think that's wrong then the feedback forum or PM is where to discuss it, not on the thread itself esp. quoting a moderator on a no chat thread.

Nody

Phibsboro wrote: »

Thanks for that Nody. Note that my understanding is that the relevant bit of the first post mod edit ("BUYER BEWARE THAT IT MAY NOT BE A BARGAIN") was added after my yellow card, and at my suggestion to the mod in PM. So I actually wasn't "clearly doing exactly what was stated not to be done on the thread". Posting cheaper links is standard practise all over Bargain Alerts and it pretty unusual to not allow it on this one, No Chat or not.

The no chat rule however was there from 28th January a couple of hours after the thread was created in the title and was what brought on the first card.

19:32, 28th Jan 2021 Thread title (original 'Amazon 'Bulk' Buying with No VAT [NO CHAT]') changed

In fact the equivalent Argos No Chat thread (https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057536595) has lower price mentions all over it, including a fair few recent ones, E.G.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115437294&postcount=853

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=115502103&postcount=863

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114975906&postcount=826

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114265922&postcount=813

No cards and no "BUYER BEWARE THAT IT MAY NOT BE A BARGAIN" warning at the start of that thread.

No relevance to the fact you broke the specific instructions for this thread; same would happen if you posted in another forum with a thread with specific instructions even if the rest of the threads in the forum don't have such instructions.

Finally, it is worth remembering that historically BA posts actually required the poster to post key comparative prices, to show it was actually a bargain. You can see some posters continuing that tradition in the Argos thread for example. It might be something The Driver isn't aware of if he is new to modding BA.

The Driver has been a BA mod since 2017 and have been active in the forum for over 14 years with over 3000 posts; I have no concerns of their understanding of the forum. What it comes down to is very simple; the thread was a no chat thread, it was called out in the title, it was later reinforced on thread and you quoted the post with the reinforcement. That is the cause of the cards you received and why they are upheld. Now, do you wish an Admin to review?

Phibsboro

Nody wrote: »

The no chat rule however was there from 28th January a couple of hours after the thread was created in the title and was what brought on the first card.


No relevance to the fact you broke the specific instructions for this thread; same would happen if you posted in another forum with a thread with specific instructions even if the rest of the threads in the forum don't have such instructions.

The relevance is that the Argos thread I am quoting from is a NO CHAT and so it does in fact have exactly the same instructions as the Amazon NO CHAT, at least when I posted my better price link. You can see why I wasn't expecting my post to be an infraction, they are allowed in the Argos NO CHAT thread and logically it doesn't make sense for a BA thread to not allow better price posts.

Nody wrote: »

The Driver has been a BA mod since 2017 and have been active in the forum for over 14 years with over 3000 posts; I have no concerns of their understanding of the forum. What it comes down to is very simple; the thread was a no chat thread, it was called out in the title, it was later reinforced on thread and you quoted the post with the reinforcement. That is the cause of the cards you received and why they are upheld. Now, do you wish an Admin to review?

I've been a boards member for 17 years and haven't knowingly broke the (many!) rules in that time. To be accused by you of "clearly doing exactly what was stated not to be done on the thread" is patently unfair, as equivalent NO CHAT threads have price corrections and that is the experience I would have been familiar with, and you now accept that the thread warning was changed afterwards to include my type of post. As with anything boards related, it of no particular consequence but it is annoying to come across this type of over zelalous moderation that lacks common sense (and consistency) in the context of the BA forum. I know everybody involved is trying to do their best for the community but when the end result is a Bargain Alerts thread where you can't post better bargains then something has gone awry! An admin review would be appreciated.

Tokyo

Hi Phibsboro,

I took a look at your cards and the posts surrounding them, and I am afraid that I have to agree that the mods applied both cards fairly in this case. Looking at the posts that were actioned, the first post actioned was a straight up running commentary on the previous post, running commentary being the exact reason that the 'no chat' rule was put in place. The second post actioned was a commentary on the mod note that added crystal clear clarity on the fact that there was to be 'no chat, no updates, no discussion'.

As someone with a clean record across the site, I can understand your frustration at picking up two cards, however, as a self proclaimed boards member for 17 years, you have been around long enough to know that if you have an issue with something, report the post or drop the mod a PM, particularly when what you are doing wrong has just been pointed out in bold text, two posts above yours.

Cards upheld and marking as resolved.