Report moderator L1011 for abusing position

pancratic

I'd like to report the moderator L1011 for thread banning me, for replying to his post about not replying to his post, even though I didn't reply to his post, but in his imagination I did.

Yeah, you read that right.

Even though my words were clearly not aimed at him, about him or his post, he "thinks" therefore "it is".

As I said to him, absurd.

When a moderator can simply interpret anything anyway he wants, tells you he was correct despite his cryptic leaps of imagination, that's surely abuse of position.

As I asked him, clearly and politely, I want the thread ban lifted, my post re-instated so as all can see how faulty his interpretations are, and I want him warned. That's only fair.

In such a contentious issue as the housing crisis in this country, a biased moderator on the conversation should be the last person controlling narrative that he simply doesn't like by pretending things happened that didn't.

Thank you.

pancratic

I should have mentioned, it's the "property and accommodation" section, where you can, evidently, only discuss agreeable, single mandated things.

Like the car section, where you can't mention wheels because some guy said so.

Beasty

Are you appealing your threadban or making a complaint about moderation?

If it's the threadban then this thread can proceed on that basis - please set out the sequence of posts that resulted in the threadban.

pancratic

It's difficult to dissociate between a complaint on being incorrectly thread banned and the moderator who refused to listen to any reason.

So I suppose it's a thread ban complaint.

It's also difficult to relate what was written, seeing as the moderator deleted my post.

I was "complaining", for want of a better word, in the post that was deleted, about a refusal or lack of other posters wanting to engage seriously about many issues surrounding housing. Subjects included EU rules and regulations, population numbers, vulture funds and multinational company movements, lack of infrastructure and so on. A wide variety, that of course, has elements of immigration inherently attached to it. How could it not?

The moderator had posted a warning that immigration was not to be mentioned, saw my post, incorrectly thought I was writing about him, and went full steam ahead, thread banned me, refused to listen to sense in private messages and here we are.

The moderator had no problem with another poster insinuating, clearly, that anything whatsoever to do with immigration is racist. That was the entirety of that posters contribution to a conversation. No warning there.

It's all just terribly insufficient. And allowing that thread continue as is, now that you've dismissed completely out of hand without any reason whatsoever the inaccurate thread name, simply allowing that moderator hunt around with impunity to ban me again is wondrous.

You can see, right now, that several posts on immigration have been on that thread for hours now. The moderator L1011 has been on and off the site many times since then. Yet where is the warning for them? Why are those posts still allowed up? It's because, in my opinion, they have been presented with the necessary fealty and self doubt sufficient to please a biased moderators wanted narrative.

Were I unbanned, and posted the same news article on immigration there right now, how quickly do you think the virtual kingpin would be in banning me again? Minutes?

Beasty

Right. If you are appealing the threadban I will have a look at that. Any complaints about the mod can wait until your threadban is dealt with

Your comments about the other thread I have closed are noted. They are irrelevant here though. As I have stated you have appeared on the site and immediately started complaining about a specific forum, a specific thread and a specific mod. These complaints need to be separated. I will look at them all, but I will deal with the threadban first

Let me firstly set out the posts

You posted:

"Woeful. Just purely woeful conversation.

I'm presenting a raft of ideas, all aimed at reducing the population, be they brown, french, multinational corporations, vulture funds, Americans or Indians. And your contribution is, essentially, "racism"

All while unironically using the word "paddies".

Magnificent.

It's a hard dose of reality, but I'm making my points and I'm being clear about solutions to the housing crisis.

What are you doing? What are you suggesting?"

The mod posted

Your posting style is unacceptable, and this thread is not about immigration.

Please read the forum charter, and the warnings in the opening post before posting in this thread again

Do not reply to this post"

You then posted

"In a country past it's first decade of an ever-worsening housing crisis, people still believe that doing the same things, yet again, for the umpteenth time, will have a different outcome.

Any new ideas, no matter how pragmatic, are insensibly linked to taboo subjects, shut down, hence back to the tried and trusted method of self-annihilation.

If a person were to go to a hospital with a serious complaint, told repeatedly that the "thing below your neck, above your waist and between your arms cannot be looked at, discussed, analysed or mentioned", yet the person becomes yet more ill with every moment? I'd start to think that the problem lies within those very parameters. Would you?

But let's be serious. There are more than a few people that like this situation, it is very profitable. There are no surprises, then, that it's not an actual conversation, more an act.

I've laid bare the reality that construction, infrastructure or otherwise, is a dead end. It's over. There'll be no more hospitals built, not nearly enough housing, lucky to get a school or a new major road and so. But shur, let's pretend we're on track toward sustainability. Not a single word to the contrary has even been attempted, just lots of "can't do that, that's impossible, can't say that, can't mention that", with zero reasoning behind it. "It is the way it is!" Yeah, that's the problem.

Nobody need act surprised when reality hits back hard."

The mod deleted that post and posted

"Pancratic - you clearly didn't take any heed of the previous warning. A post of cryptically moaning about moderation is never going to be a suitable reply, and "do not reply to this post" does not mean that a reply that doesn't use the quote function is OK either.

Do not post in this thread again."

So looking at your second post, and in particular

"Any new ideas, no matter how pragmatic, are insensibly linked to taboo subjects, shut down, hence back to the tried and trusted method of self-annihilation.

If a person were to go to a hospital with a serious complaint, told repeatedly that the "thing below your neck, above your waist and between your arms cannot be looked at, discussed, analysed or mentioned", yet the person becomes yet more ill with every moment? I'd start to think that the problem lies within those very parameters. Would you?"

What "taboo subjects were you talking about?

Your analogy with a hospital - what parallel were you highlighting when referencing "those very parameters"

pancratic

The "taboo subjects" were another poster immediately insinuating racism (while using the word "paddies" to describe Irish people mockingly) simply by talking about all the varied subjects mentioned. That's all that poster had to say about anything. It was, clearly, an attempt to link the issues to a taboo subject, and thereby shut down the conversation. That's one.

The other, less clear cut, was another poster insisting that the EU free movement rules and regulations are sacrosanct and therefore off limits to any discussion too.

The hospital analogy was in reference to those two in particular, and more generally in reference to the discussion on the housing crisis anywhere, not just this forum.

On a separate, but related point, I'd like to highlight this thread here...

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058244376/2022-irish-housing-situation-thread

That thread, an attempt to have an open discussion on the housing situation in Ireland, was closed by the moderator L1011 too. I quite literally stated that there is an attempt to close and stifle conversation on the housing situation in this country at large, and this guy roles in, again, to prove my point.

He is shouting out loud that he controls the narrative on housing and has a list of unmentionables. It's in your face, blatant censorship, for absolutely no justifiable reason.

Beasty

So you opened an account and head to a forum where you have determined the forum and thread rules are wrong. You have openly challenged the mod. You were told to back off, and were threadbanned when you failed to do so

You then start a new thread under your own terms.

I am not seeing any inappropriate actions by the mod here. They had to deal with your failure to follow thread and forum rules.

You don't join up to tell us how to run the site, forum or thread. When you join up you need to respect the rules and protocols in place. Stirring things like that is of course going to attract mod attention

All I'm seeing here is a mod performing their function as we would expect them to do. Your threadban remains in place, and if you continue to try and stir things in that forum you can expect to have your posting privileges removed

pancratic

How was it inappropriate to open a separate thread on the housing situation, very clearly different in scope from the "landlord love-in chat" thread? In order to avoid being banned? That was wrong, was it, to try to avoid the person? To have an open discussion?

And the hypocrisy that remains unaddressed? How other people can talk about the likes of immigration with no pushback, no warnings, no bans? Did you forget that? Why wouldn't I try to avoid that moderator?

And more besides.

Overall, it's piss poor. Yes, yes, I don't have to use the website. It doesn't stop the type of protective behaviour being piss poor.

In case any of the landlords running this website haven't noticed yet, people are increasingly sick of being told how and what they can discuss at large, and this instance here on this website is just more of the same tightly controlled, specifically narrow narrative.

You can't talk about X, Y, Z housing factors in the accommodation section, only A, B ,C factors as dictated by property speculators who happen to be moderators. Hmmm, sounds legitimate. Very genuine. No vested interests at all.

My questions are rhetorical at this point, it's all a farce. Thanks for pretending anyway.

Beasty

It was inappropriate for you to start a thread which basically mimicked the discussion you had already been told was not for the forum

Threadban remains

Resolved