Infraction for mentioning Job Guarantee

KyussB

Hi,
I received this infraction, where originally the mod said it was for derailing the thread - but it turns out to be due to tangential mention of the Job Guarantee policy, which was not the main focus of my post - and which (in a further post deleted by the mod) I stated it wasn't for that topic, and I was backing away from discussing it in more detail.

This is political censorship - tangents that begin to go off topic, normally are dealt with using on-thread mod notes, or less harsh mod warnings - the mod made clear this was an instant infraction, specifically because I mentioned the Job Guarantee.

Also - the precedent of past mod action, which the mod is using for infracting me must be going back at least 4-5 years (certainly before I opened this account) - possibly as far back as 7-8 years. It is unreasonable for mods to even reference past mod action going back so far, to justify a mod action this harsh.

PM thread below:

KyussB wrote:

ancapailldorcha wrote:

Dear KyussB,

You have been infracted for Trolling.

This means you are posting in an intentionally provocative fashion in order to gain a reaction from other members. This is disruptive and causes stress to other members.
We don't want that here.

For more information please refer to the Boards.ie FAQ.

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

ancapailldorcha

Moderator Note

Derailing thread.

Your post:

KyussB wrote: »

That line of discussion isn't about what I'd prefer, it's about what is more morally compromising. Exploiting people through working for Paddy Power, is more morally compromising than a person posting stuff on OF, where they are doing nothing morally wrong.

What I'd prefer is that nobody is pressured to involuntarily work any kind of a job that is exploitative or undignified to them, and I think a Job Guarantee policy can achieve that.

If I had a daughter, I'd prefer she has the options a JG would provide, so she would never face those kinds of pressures, due to involuntary unemployment - and can seek any education/career she wants. Absent those pressures and given those options, freeing her from the possibility of being exploited by circumstances, it'd be up to her then - and would be none of my business what she does - though I'd hope I'd have raised her to avoid jobs that are exploitative to others.

The posts about what work is more morally compromising have been left up, which indicates they are viewed as within the bounds of the topic (which they should be, given the reasons used fo moral judgements against OF workers earlier in the thread).

If the rest of this post which isn't about that moral argument, is viewed as off topic - then that's fair enough, my latest set of posts that were deleted, show me stating that I didn't want to pursue that tangent more in the thread.

Jumping all the way to a red card is extremely harsh, though - if people aren't given a warning that something is straying too far from the topic, then infractions are going to build up for tangents that come up, and further things that spin off from tangents.

It's a fuzzy line that mods need to set by posting on the thread first, at least. Can that infraction be removed or downgraded?

What usually happens at this point in talking to mods - is that 'derailing thread' is usually dropped - and completely different arguments get used.

KyussB wrote:

ancapailldorcha wrote:

The posts about work being morally compromising are relevant in my opinion.

You've been here long enough to know that bringing up these hobby horses in threads which have nothing to do with them isn't on. I don't think that I need to post on every single thread what is and is not off topic. Most posters do not require this.

I'm leaving the infraction. I had to delete several posts where you'd kept discussing it. We have other fora for this.

Regards,
ancapailldorcha

That's like infracting someone for talking about social welfare payments or pandemic unemployment payments a lot (which have both come up in the thread) - those topics will never be considered a 'hobby horse' no matter how often anyone talks about them.

The only reason brief mention of the Job Guarantee is infractable (and it was brief, and made relevant to OF...) is because it is not considered mainstream.

A warning not to stray more of topic is fair enough - an infraction for something that is falsely viewed as a 'hobby horse' is censorship of a political policy.

The same censorship I've been dealing with from you lot for most of a decade.

KyussB wrote:

Also, an important point separate to my previous reply: How far back are you reaching with precedent, for the Job Guarantee infraction?

My original MMT bans were 7-8 years ago. Mods shouldn't be able to reach back indefinitely into the past, to justify harsh infractions.

ancapailldorcha wrote:

I've laid out my reasoning and consider this matter resolved.

Dizzyblonde

Hi, I'll be looking into this for you. The mod will forward his copy of the PMs to me and I'll read through both sets and also the thread in question, then I'll get back to you.

Dizzyblonde

KyussB I've read through the thread, including the posts which were deleted.The thread is a discussion about how someone would feel if they found out that their girlfriend/someone they were seeing was on Only Fans.

In my opinion the majority of your posts were derailing in that you kept going back to the employment/victimisation/forced into sex work angle. Although you didn't mention Job Guarantee many times it seems clear to me that more than half of your posts were leading up to the mention of it - and it wasn't relevant to the thread. There are other forums on Boards where such a discussion would be suited.

A moderator who recognises a poster as someone they've come across in previous accounts and who has a particular style of posting will of course recall previous instances involving that poster. Referring to them is okay in my opinion, after all you made reference to past instances:

The same censorship I've been dealing with from you lot for most of a decade.

So according to you you've been posting on Boards for almost 10 years, so you will be aware of what is and isn't acceptable. Coming back with new accounts doesn't mean you can claim ignorance about thread derailing, trolling etc. Each forum has a charter on the first page, which should be read before posting in that forum. Moderators don't need to spell out the rules at the beginning of each new thread.

Are you disputing the fact that you were carded, or the fact that you received a red card?

Edited to add: I don't believe that you were infracted because your opinion was non-mainstream.

KyussB

My identity with regard to past accounts has always been transparent. Mods should not be allowed reach indefinitely back into the past, to transform what would be a minor mod post to stay on topic, into a full-on infraction - as has happened here.

The moderator in this case, went back and deleted the posts that were viewed as off topic - and the moderator said the moral argument I was making about other work, was on topic - from PM's:
"The posts about work being morally compromising are relevant in my opinion"

Now this is where Dispute Resolution becomes broken and inconsistent: Now you have shifted the goalposts, and suddenly declared all of those posts off topic - in contradiction with the first mod, who said they were on topic.

Now there is a new accusation against me: Even though I only briefly mention the Job Guarantee, you have manufactured the idea that all of the posts about the on-topic moral argument were leading up to it, and have now brought them on board for justifying the infraction.

That is false, and it is very self-justifying to arbitrarily decide (in contradiction with the first mod) that a whole slew of posts are suddenly off-topic - and now you're speculating about my motives for posting, implying that motive was to bring up the Job Guarantee, and implying that should be infractionable - which is still political censorship, as the alleged motive of mentioning the Job Guarantee is still the basis of mod action - and I deny that motive, and there is evidence it's not true: I explicitly said in the thread, in a mod-deleted post, that the JG is not for that thread, and I was backing away from talking about it.

The first mod said the majority of my posts (the moral arguments) are on topic. I'm sticking with that, and it's wrong for you to shift the goalposts.

I'm disputing the overall severity of the mod action - which would include (but is not limited to) both that I received a card, as well as the severity of card. I would be unhappy even with thread-level mod action (except obviously for keeping it on topic), but I'd have been less likely to dispute that.

Dizzyblonde

The purpose of Dispute Resolution is to give a second opinion, and although mine may differ from the moderator's opinion we both agree on the point that you derailed the thread. There was no political censorship that I could see, and I have no idea why you would think the moderator would censor you.

Your attitude to the moderator in PMs and here in this thread does not convince me that you understand why you received an infraction, or how to avoid receiving another for similar posts.

In my opinion the moderator was right to give you a card, and since you're disputing receiving any card at all I don't think I can help you with this.

Would you like an admin to review it?

KyussB

No I've had enough of the Boards rube-goldberg-esque barge-pole-fucking machine (PM/DRP appeal system) for the last weeks - I'll go back to posting elsewhere.