Ban from politics extended unfairly.

A Dub in Glasgo

Evil Phil wrote:

The use of the term 'Old Boys Network' makes me uncomfortable, um-kay? .

You are right - I take it back

Sherifu

I am MAN wrote:

I use humour in my personality, why should this change with a mod? They are normal people sitting behind a computer screen like myself.

The comment wasnt meant as a smart ass comment with intent to annoy him and I am sorry if it came across this way.

I use humour too.
Its a big part of who i am but I don't have to use it.
It has gotten me into trouble.......
Knowing when to use it is a good thing.

I am MAN

rkm wrote:

I use humour too.
Its a big part of who i am but I don't have to use it.
It has gotten me into trouble.......
Knowing when to use it is a good thing.

Well thats good for you, point taken.

azezil

I know noone pays me any attention when it comes to serious issues (:P) but I have to agree, I think its not fair to ban someone from a forum because you think they're "potentially a muppet".

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

heh
was my ban extended too?

sweet

seamus

azezil wrote:

I know noone pays me any attention when it comes to serious issues (:P) but I have to agree, I think its not fair to ban someone from a forum because you think they're "potentially a muppet".

I agree, but I think there's some merit in extending a ban because said person has shown no desire to change.

Essentially it's a like a criminal receiving a suspended sentence, in their home country, and then travelling to other countries and committing the same crime. Would you think he's learned from his mistake, or is he still a scumbag?

azezil

My cats breath smells like cat food.

amp

I am Man banned from Humanities.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

amp banned from fashion/appearance.

amp

Mordeth banned from LIFE!

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

I never post there anyways !

The Sweeper

gandalf wrote:

I am well within my rights to exclude you from Politics as a potential troublemaker.

...as the British government said to suspected terrorists before placing them under house arrest.

bonkey

Minesajackdaniels wrote:

...as the British government said to suspected terrorists before placing them under house arrest.

Eh, no Ted.

You're confusing the assumption of guilt with the knowledge of guilt coupled with the assumption of high probability of re-offence.

jc

Boston

I user should not be banned from a forum because of actions on other forums. That is simply wrong. If Amp actually has banned I am Man from "his" forum then that also is wrong.

Point though, this is not what happened here. The user demonstrated that he clearly intended to carry on in the same vein on the politics forum as he has on other forums. As a result, conduct on other forums can be used to form and opinion on the user. Once banned, it is at the moderators descreasion to unban a user. I was banned from several forums, by a moderator, having posted only once or twice.

Sangre

I wouldn't be impressed if I was I AM man tbh.

uberwolf

Boston wrote:

A user should not be banned from a forum because of actions on other forums. That is simply wrong.

wrong. The cat mods exist for this very purpose (ignore the oversimplification) If a user is going on a blitz then pre-emptive strikes can be justified. Of course the irony of a justification of pre-emptive movements in discussion of a politics ban isn't lost on me

I've no comment to make on the origical topic of this thread cos I haven't read it nor can I bring myself to care.

GuanYin

Sangre wrote:

I wouldn't be impressed if I was I AM man tbh.

I'm sure nooone would be impressed if they were you.

Sangre

Another cutting blow psi, I think one more ban from #boards.ie might finish me off.

I think you have issues with me, perhaps my rejection of your advances has made you bitter and twisted. Wouldn't be the first time.

GuanYin

Sangre wrote:

Another cutting blow psi, I think one more ban from #boards.ie might finish me off.

I think you have issues with me, perhaps my rejection of your advances has made you bitter and twisted. Wouldn't be the first time.

I'm not sure who you are, you just appeared a few weeks back.

Meh, if you are finished off that easily and can only come up with the oul cliched "rejection" jibe you're not worth my attention.

Sangre

I'm glad you picked up on my 'cliche'.
Obviously not as good as your 'not worth my time' cliche.

I'm sure nooone would be impressed if they were you.

I'm not sure who you are, you just appeared a few weeks back.

So you were insulting me without reason? An unprovocked personal attack?
Im reporting this.

Boston

uberwolf wrote:

wrong. The cat mods exist for this very purpose (ignore the oversimplification) If a user is going on a blitz then pre-emptive strikes can be justified. Of course the irony of a justification of pre-emptive movements in discussion of a politics ban isn't lost on me

I've no comment to make on the origical topic of this thread cos I haven't read it nor can I bring myself to care.

Amp isn't a cat mod for soc. While Gandalf as a cat mod has every right to ban him from all soc forums based on actions in a single soc forum (pi in this case) Amp does not. A moderator dutty is to moderate his/her forum, not boards as a whole.

Gandalf However was while not acting as a Cat mod is still in the right. It wasn't a pre emptive ban, it was a ban based on actions on the specific forums and likely hood of repeat. why on earth would a mod remove a ban, if he honestly believed you would repeat the same mistakes.

GuanYin

Sangre wrote:

I'm glad you picked up on my 'cliche'.
Obviously not as good as your 'not worth my time' cliche.





So you were insulting me without reason? An unprovocked personal attack?
Im reporting this.

Dance little puppet, dance.

billy the squid

time was you only got a ban extended if you hurled abuse at a moderator who banned you. I dont think this will be a positive precedent for boards.ie if condoned

if you were able to find posts from I am MAN that you didnt like then it means that another moderater isnt doing their job properly, or does not see a problem with his posts.

just my €0.02

amp

Boston wrote:

Amp isn't a cat mod for soc. While Gandalf as a cat mod has every right to ban him from all soc forums based on actions in a single soc forum (pi in this case) Amp does not. A moderator dutty is to moderate his/her forum, not boards as a whole.

Nobody said I was cat mod for soc. Not only that but uberwolf never even mentioned or implied me at all.

Also a mods duty is to boards as a whole and not just the forum they mod. That's why we generally report bans to the moderator board. Mods answer to Admins who's duty is obviously to boards as a whole.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Hobart

Mercury_Tilt wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Could not agree more, my little mirror image. The amount of sh1te, trolling, amateur flaming and pure stupidity that seems to be tolerated on this and other boards by admins seems to have increased in the recent past.

ecksor

The information you all reveal while bickering can be quite useful but of course it isn't the reason for the forum existing.

See here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2438341&postcount=46

Hobart

ecksor wrote:

The information you all reveal while bickering can be quite useful but of course it isn't the reason for the forum existing.

See here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2438341&postcount=46

I agree with you. Maybe it's the lack of civility and downright rudeness, which I percieve by some posters, that I personally find objectionable.

Some people are obviously thick. However thier stupidity should not necessarily be taken into consideration when they want to raise, what sometimes can be percieved as a valid point. We don't need the usual suspects following there every post screaming abuse or trolling them at every opportunity. I feel that each post should be taken on it's merits. I have seen quite a few decent threads descend into bickering and flaming because of one or two "regualrs" deciding to play a game of intellectual yahtzee with posters, whose initial intentions seemed to be honourable.

Secondly I see other posters who go out of thier way to abuse, belittle and embarrass other posters with thier posting style. These attacks seem to be based on the what the initial poster has done in the pats. Or maybe that poster is just out of favour at that particular point, or maybe the initial poster has been banned in the past and it is viewed that an attack is "ok" in the admins eyes.

I don't think that the admins can ban trollling totally. I actually don't think it's desireable to do so totally. A good troll can be a good laugh. Some people are good at it and some are amateurs. It's the abuse I don't like.


P.S. Your FAQ is v good.

azezil

*snigger*

amp

Mercury_Tilt wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I was not justifying pre-emptive bans. I don't do it myself as I prefer the poster in question to do something wrong first. Gandalf does it differently and it works for him. But that's just different styles and even then I think if I was in his position I'd probably do the same.

The reason I said that a mods duty is first to boards and then to the forum they mod is probably coming from a Games mod perspective. Warez trading on Games would not only get the forum shut down but the whole of boards. What use is a boards forum if there's no boards?