[Resolved] Cordell disputing a warning from the army chaplain thread in CA

Spear

This is the thread for Cordell disputing a warning from the army chaplain thread in CA

Cordell

I tried to engage with @Ten of Swords but after some sarcastic remarks he stopped engaging, he asked me to explain my post then ignored my PMs, as usual. I'm disputing the warning and his behavior.

Cordell

Can I get an update on this?

Spear

@ancapailldorcha If you could please review this and the other thread accompanying it.

ancapailldorcha

I'll look into this soon.

ancapailldorcha

Hi Cordell,

I'm struggling to read the text. Can you reproduce that in larger images, please?

Cordell

….

ancapailldorcha

Hi Cordell,

I have decided to uphold this. This is a clear attempt to derail the thread and thus sidestep your threadban from the Israel/Hamas thread. The tone you employed was also inflammatory, insisting that there is widespread and unchallenged support for Hamas on this site when this is patently untrue while baiting posters. This is essentially textbook trolling.

Let me know if you would like an admin review.

Cordell

What about Ten of Swords way of handling things? Is it acceptable to ignore PMs that are supposed to be the proper way of discussing warnings? Is it acceptable to be sarcastic when discussing warnings? Or that he asked me to explain my post then he failed to acknowledge that I did and to follow up? Is it too much to expect mods to be a bit more professional when acting as mods?

I don't see why being banned on a thread means that I can't discuss similar issues when there is a connection on another thread, but whatever, this dragged on so much that the warning will expire soon anyway.

I would certainly like an admin review, especially on how this was handled.

Cordell

Kind reminder that I asked for admin review for:

• mod refusal to engage and reply to polite PMs
• being warned or banned for discussing a subject on a thread simply because I was banned on a different thread - I wasn't warned for trolling or whatever, I was warned for simply touching the subject, that's the reason I was given at the time. Is this covered by the charter?

Big Bag of Chips

Hi Cordell

• The mod engaged with you over a number of PMs and explained the reasons for the warning
• You were warned for off topic posting. Your post was off-topic

Warning upheld.

Cordell

Hi @Big Bag of Chips

Look at the last 3 messages, he asked me to explain my post, I did, and he ignored me. Even worse is this one, where he didn't engage at all:

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058364941/social-fun-cordell-disputing-a-warning-from-the-the-dangers-are-coming-from-the-right-ca-thread

Is this one also acceptable?

Big Bag of Chips

We are not here to discuss the actions of any other poster. This is for you to dispute the warning. You were warned fairly. The warning remains.

A moderator is not expected to get into an endless PM exchange with a poster. You were warned fairly. Clearly you were not going to accept that and were going to continue to argue via PM with the moderator. Many of us have a 3 reply rule to PMs disputing warnings. If a poster has not accepted our explanation following an exchange of 2-3 PMs they are unlikely to.

The moderator in this case acted appropriately. You were treated fairly in the dispute resolution process, but that doesn't mean your warning gets overturned. This was a clear cut case of you posting off topic and trying to derail a thread. I uphold the moderator's decision.

The warning stands, and this is now marked as resolved.