Appeal a thread ban from 2021 Irish Property Market chat II

hometruths

Hi I received a threadban from 2021 Irish Property Market chat II that I feel was unfair. I've PM'd the relevant mod to discuss, and whilst he has done so patiently and courteously, he now considers the matter closed, so I am hoping a CMOD could take a look at it.

The ban was for "consistently ignoring a mod instruction" but my issue is the mod instruction itself was not consistent, ie it was changed after it was issued. I was posting with the original instruction in mind and confident I was specifically obeying it when I got threadbanned.

The first instruction was issued and posted in the OP of the original thread - part 1 - by L1011:

Additionally, the specific issue of Geodirectory vacancy figures has been done to death and is not to be discussed again.

This warning was issued as a directly result from a tedious and repetitive exchange between another poster and I about whether or not Geodirectory include for sale properties in their vacancy figures - ie as the warning clearly states it is specifically about the Geodirectory vacancy figures.

In the first instance I wrongly assumed the warning applied only to the methodology, but I discovered whilst still in thread part 1 that quoting the Geodirectory data was not on, so I got my knuckles rapped for that. Fair enough, it's clear now I thought, I will be extra careful in future to heed that warning and obey in the instruction.

The post I got banned for in Part 2 has now been deleted but was in reply to a post about future housing need projections being credible.

I replied that the ESRI projections were based the assumption that every single existing property is occupied, clearly not true, and the credibility of their projections could be queried if they did not take into account vacancy rates.

Far from consistently ignoring it, at the time of posting the mod warning was ringing in my ears, and I deliberately did not mention anything about Geodirectory. But I was banned shortly afterwards.

Being very surprised at the ban I checked the OP and at that point noticed that the warning had been changed from Part 1 to Part 2. On my first reading it lookied like Graham had just copied and pasted L1011s warning in full, but actually he edited it slightly adding a '/'.

So now the warning reads:

Additionally, the specific issue of Geodirectory/vacancy figures has been done to death and is not to be discussed again.

The edit substantially changes the scope and context of the warning, and I was unaware of the change.

The reason I feel hard done by is that I can't see how I can have consistently ignored a mod instruction given that the only reason I fell foul of it was because it was changed.

Although initially I decided not to appeal the ban because I had lost some interest in contributing to the discussion, but I have noticed over the last few weeks that actually many other posts re vacancy figures have gone unmodded, so I do feel it was a rather harsh ban on me and would like the black mark removed from my record if possible.

Beasty

Moved from the Dispute Resolution Forum, which deals with cards and forum bans. Threadbans are dealt with in Help Desk

Graham

schmittel wrote: »

Although initially I decided not to appeal the ban because I had lost some interest in contributing to the discussion, but I have noticed over the last few weeks that actually many other posts re vacancy figures have gone unmodded, so I do feel it was a rather harsh ban on me and would like the black mark removed from my record if possible.

Hi schmittel,

As the mod who issued the threadban I assume you have communicated with one of the other A & P mods to appeal the ban as you made it abundantly clear to me you were

not overly concerned about the thread ban

and you thought it pointless to have it overturned

if you are still saying that any and all talk of vacant properties is banned in the property market thread, it seems a bit pointless to ask you to reconsider my ban.

None of your several PMs since have suggested your position has changed.

Regarding the 'other posts' you identified to me by PM this morning, the response hasn't changed;

<PM content removed>

As previously explained the reason for the vacancy rates subject ban (in that one thread only):

<PM content removed>

hometruths

Graham wrote: »

Hi schmittel,

As the mod who issued the threadban I assume you have communicated with one of the other A & P mods to appeal the ban as you made it abundantly clear to me you were



and you thought it pointless to have it overturned



None of your several PMs since have suggested your position has changed.

Hi Graham,

Thanks for posting, I haven't emailed another A&P mod - after you said yesterday you consider the case closed, I thought my next step was Help Desk. Should I be approaching another A&P mod instead?

For clarity I am seeking to have it overturned as if it had never been issued in the first place rather than lifted.

When I first PM'd you about it you told me:

It probably goes without saying that it would probably help your case if you showed an understanding of why you were thread banned and made assurances that whatever it was would stop.

The reason I said it was a bit pointless to lift the threadban was that when I made the post about the ESRI that got me banned, I could not have been doing anymore to comply with the mod instructions. I was posting confident that I was compliant. I could not assure you that I would stop posting believing I was compliant with mod instructions!

PM'ing you again yesterday in light of the the other posters ignoring the instruction, I was seeking a further understanding of why I was threadbanned.

You told me yesterday:

It was explained to you at the time why you were threadbanned.

But I never received a PM at the time of threadban saying you have been threadbanned for consistently ignoring mod instructions. Yesterday was the first time you told me that, hence why I appealed it.

I was in complete good faith posted observing L1011s original warning, which was prompted by my tit for tat argument with Marius34 and was undeniably specifically about the Geodirectory figures - i.e stop arguing about whether or not they are accurate, and include for sale and for rent.

Graham wrote: »

Regarding the 'other posts' you identified to me by PM this morning, the response hasn't changed;



As previously explained the reason for the vacancy rates subject ban (in that one thread only):

Yes you have explained to me a couple of times why "the mod instruction to take the discussion to a separate thread was made" and expanded to include any and all talk of vacancues, but my point is I think it is unreasonable for posters to know that this instruction was made in the OP of a continuation thread by editing the original instruction to add a '/'.

Whilst I understand why the decision was taken, nowhere was this pointed out as a new mod instruction which it clearly was.

At the time of the first on thread mod intervention I pm'd you looking for guidance on the subject:

Not querying your on thread instruction, I get it was going round in circles. I'm just looking for some forward guidance if that's ok so I don't receive a warning for ignoring mod instructions in future.

If a poster, as C14N did, says these empty rentals are not a problem because Geo report it is vacancy rate is only 1.6%, am I allowed to reply to that saying that is incorrect, Geo's methodology clearly states they don't include properties waiting to be rented?

And if that is OK, and Marius (or somebody else), replies saying that claim is a figment of my imagination am I allowed to dispute that?

As you're aware, this comes up time and again, so it is likely to come up in the future, and I am just trying to work out what's acceptable and what's not.

IMO, it is also relevant that in a property market chat thread all talk of empty properties is now banned because every time I tried to make a point re vacancies
one poster continually accused me of lying, making up 'facts', misrepresenting data etc. I point out that my arguments are based on the fact that GeoDirectory do not count properties that they consider are for sale or for rent, and I quote verbatim their methodology:

Some of these categories could be considered to be dwellings which might not normally be classified as vacant in the context of long term vacancy, but which would represent more of a transitional or temporary vacancy rate, i.e. properties waiting to be sold or rented out.

This is relentlessly countered with stuff like:

Nonsense. That's your misinformation on GeoDirectory report.

and

Long term: for Geodirectory starts from around 6 to 12 months. Don't ask me why is this, as I don't have proof to explain this, and I don't want to discuss "what I think". If there is no report about it, better leave it, and don't try to assume something as a "Fact".

I have tried just ignoring the poster, but then later I try and make a point and he claims I've been caught out spreading misinformation and making up 'facts' in the past!

I have tried reporting the posts where he accuses me of spreading misinformation in the hope that a mod might step in to stop it, and point out how many times I have quoted the source "i.e. properties waiting to be sold or rented out.", but I got no success there either.

I mention this background because the reason I have reconsidered appealing is after being wrongly accused of making up facts, and because I missed an edit which added '/' to a mod instruction, I am threadbanned for pointing out the ESRI did not consider the vacancy rate in calculating future housing needs, whilst Marius34 is still posting stuff like this:

Marius34 wrote: »

Many REIT's provide financial reports with number of properties, and vacancies, and profits, etc.
Regarding Census, vacancy has a different meaning, from what many call property as an empty. Property could have been rented out, an in use only Monday to Friday, but vacant according to the Census.

This seems grossly unfair, and prohibits me from showing "an understanding of why you were thread banned and made assurances that whatever it was would stop."

If this threadban is overturned I will of course obey mod warnings as I have always tried to do. I have received deserved infractions in the past, heeded them, and changed my posting style as a result, I do not feel this is a deserved infraction

Spear

Graham wrote: »

Regarding the 'other posts' you identified to me by PM this morning, the response hasn't changed;

<PM content removed>

As previously explained the reason for the vacancy rates subject ban (in that one thread only):

<PM content removed>

This is a Helpdesk thread, and not DRP, so the PM content has to be removed unless both parties allow for it to be posted. So I've had to remove the content in the interim.

hometruths

Spear wrote: »

This is a Helpdesk thread, and not DRP, so the PM content has to be removed unless both parties allow for it to be posted. So I've had to remove the content in the interim.

I've no problem with PM content being shared, but since submitting that post I've rengaged with Graham via PM, and am hopeful it can be resolved that day.

Will update here as and when. Thanks.

Graham

Thanks Spear,

understood, and no problem. Didn't realise I couldn't quote my own PMs.

Spear

Graham wrote: »

Thanks Spear,

understood, and no problem. Didn't realise I couldn't quote my own PMs.

Schmittel has since given approval, but as you're discussing it with him currently, I'll leave things be until that concludes.

hometruths

Spear wrote: »

Schmittel has since given approval, but as you're discussing it with him currently, I'll leave things be until that concludes.

Thanks Spear, happy to report that Graham has overturned the ban, so you can put this down as resolved.