Politics Ban

Villain

Well I have been banned from Politics for 2 weeks for saying

Well I think your opinion is just ignorant

Now this was in reply to reefbreak who said my opinion is wrong.

So lets start with the definition of ignorant:

Unaware or uninformed

Which basically means lack of knowledge on a topic

So I beleived reefbreaks post was ignorant in that he was saying that MP's shouldn't get payed if they don't take their seat in westminister, but anyone that has a knowledge of the topic will know that MP's spend very little time in the chambers but do a lot of other hardwork.

Now the definition of wrong:

Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous.

Now I never said Reefbreak was ignorant as that would be attacking the poster I said I thought his opinion here was ignorant i.e. attacking his post.

Now a quick search in politics turns up a lot of cases where posters have used simalar terms without been banned just a few:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2645657&postcount=26

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2469313&postcount=375

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2366106&postcount=200

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2366074&postcount=197

So I believe this ban is unfair.

gandalf

You actually went on to rebuff his points with the rest of your reply to his mail. The ignorant opinion comment in the politics mods opinions was put in their on purpose to skate around the personal abuse section of the charter. We considered it personal abuse therefore you are banned.

The ban is two weeks because you have been banned before and you know the charter quite well already.

I'm glad to see you can use a dictionary but it does not change anything.

Villain

The ignorant opinion was not a way to skate around the personal abuse section, it my opinion of his opinion and IMO his opinion was ignorant and I have explained why I think this, he said my opinion was wrong I don't see the difference or how this is a banning offence I haven't broken any rules. Just like lemming didn't break any rules at the time he linked to his journal where he had personally insulted me but didn't get a ban!

gandalf

Well now you have 2 weeks to contimplate it don't you. You have broken the rules as your comment was seen as personal abuse end of story.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Now I never said Reefbreak was ignorant as that would be attacking the poster I said I thought his opinion here was ignorant i.e. attacking his post.

And how can a post be ignorant without the poster being ignorant?
I took the same view with laredo yesterday,a post cannot be thick, only the poster can.
Trying to stretch the boundaries of the politics charter will simply not be tolerated,otherwise the board would desend into mahem and peoples enjoyment reading and participating in the threads would be ruined.
There are several inteligent ways which you could have attempted to debunk the posters viewpoint, you chose the one that caused as much offence as possible short of using a sentence with the posters name in it.
Please take Vexorgs advice from the other thread and apply the common sense that you should have from being a long time politics poster when your access is restored in 2 weeks.

Please avoid any surreptitious attempt at circumventing the rules against personal abuse, as the mods of the board will take appropriate action when they see it.

Now a quick search in politics turns up a lot of cases where posters have used simalar terms without been banned just a few:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2645657&postcount=26

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2469313&postcount=375

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2366106&postcount=200

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2366074&postcount=197

Well I'm not going to retrospectively ban from threads a few weeks ago.
But I will take action where it's necessary with respect to stuff like I saw yesterday and this morning when I see it.

Hobart

I think your banning was harsh TBH. Your use of the word ignorant was used in it's literal meaning, when taking your overall comments into account.

Gandalf's replies here, and elsewhere, only serve to infalme the situation, the lady does not seem to be for turning. TBH he should have just posted "I'm the Mod and my decision stands" on the Mod board and avoided this waste of a thread.

Maybe an admin could review his decision and give some input?

Nevyn

gah it is The Lady is not for burning.

http://www.sparrowsp.addr.com/articles/ladys_not_for_burning.htm

funny really about about witch hunts and martyrs.

Hobart

Thaed wrote:

gah it is The Lady is not for burning.

http://www.sparrowsp.addr.com/articles/ladys_not_for_burning.htm

funny really about about witch hunts and martyrs.

The Iron Lady, TBH

http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/wm181.cfm

Hobart

Hobart wrote:

Gandalf's replies here, and elsewhere, only serve to infalme the situation, the lady does not seem to be for turning. TBH he should have just posted "I'm the Mod and my decision stands" on the Mod board and avoided this waste of a thread.

Are you looking for access to the Hobart forum again

Nevyn

http://www.yudev.com/mfo/britlit/fry_christopher.htm
The lady is not for burning was written in 1948. and Maggie was paraphrasing the play and alluding to what happened to the outspoken female in it.

Lemming

/Cat.Mod hat on

I have read the entire thread, and the two banning posts in particular and to be honest irish1, you said exactly the same thing as Laredo just a different word

/Cat.Mod hat off

Villain

Earthman, I don't think you appreciate the way I using the word ignorant, I was using it because I believed his opinion was flawed and showed he was ignorant to the situation.

I was not insulting the poster, by saying someone is ignorant in realtion to soccer doesn't mean he is ignorant it just means he lacks knowledge in that area.

So your theory that someone is calling another person ignorant just because he says one of his opinion's is ignorant is totally ridiculous.

Hobart

Earthman wrote:

Are you looking for access to the Hobart forum again

I think my tag says it all TBH :eek:

Thaed wrote:

http://www.yudev.com/mfo/britlit/fry_christopher.htm
The lady is not for burning was written in 1948. and Maggie was paraphrasing the play and alluding to what happened to the outspoken female in it.

Whatever it's origons, I was quoting Maggie. She did say it after all! Now back on topic!

Villain

Well lemming aren't you just the one to tell us about insulting people on politics :rolleyes:

What rule have I broken??

Lemming

irish1 wrote:

Well lemming aren't you just the one to tell us about insulting people on politics :rolleyes:

What rule have I broken??

/me sighs

Irish1, I posted in a mod capacity. I was not having a go at you. Whether or not you recognise or do similar, I DO seperate my personal posts from my moderator posts. My own feelings on this matter are another issue and far be it for me to be one to gloat over another's unfortunate choice of words. So I shall keep *my* mouth shut in that respect.

If you have to ask me what rule you've broken, then I suggest you heed Vexorg's advice, given to your comrade A Dub In Glasgow here

Nevyn

irish1 wrote:

Well lemming aren't you just the one to tell us about insulting people on politics :rolleyes:

Well you were the one banned for it from politics and Lemming has not been
That would usually clearly indicate that he knew the rules and obeyed them
and you have not as you are banned either for disobeying them or being ignorant of them.

But as you have been banned previously I doubt you are unaware or ignorant of the charter and rules for that forum.

Villain

So what rule have I broken Thaed, we all know what lemming did and they said he wouldn't be banned but anyone who did so again would be. I don't beleive I have broken any rule.

uberwolf

irish1 wrote:

Earthman, I don't think you appreciate the way I using the word ignorant, I was using it because I believed his opinion was flawed and showed he was ignorant to the situation.

I was not insulting the poster, by saying someone is ignorant in realtion to soccer doesn't mean he is ignorant it just means he lacks knowledge in that area.

So your theory that someone is calling another person ignorant just because he says one of his opinion's is ignorant is totally ridiculous.

we can all sit down and argue here all day. But I for one have better things to be doing.

There are always going to be different ways of interpreting things - you acknowledge as much. The Mods interpretation is the one that got you banned.

I appreciate you believed the opinion to be factually flawed. You could simply have said that, or removed the opening sentence entirely and retained the same clarity of thought and logic of argument in what was otherwise a sound post.

However, colloquially, ignorant is a disparaging remark just like thick is. And trying to disassociate between opinions and posters is an argument you can make, but it is not the view point of the mods, and the precedent cannot have escaped you as it occured in the exact same thread (afaik).

you are ignorant = the opinions and believes you hold are ignorant. You have completely failed to prove otherwise in your soccer example. Someone cannot be partially ignorant.

dictionary.com wrote:

1. Lacking education or knowledge.
2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3. Unaware or uninformed.

no room there for localised ignorance IMO.

FYI: read my post in ADIGs thread on the same topic for anything I have may have missed.

Nevyn

gandalf wrote:

We considered it personal abuse therefore you are banned.

I had tought that the above quote would have told you exactly what rule you had broken.

Villain

uberwolf wrote:

you are ignorant = the opinions and believes you hold are ignorant. You have completely failed to prove otherwise in your soccer example. Someone cannot be partially ignorant.

Sorry uberwolf but I didn't say all his opinions were ignorant I was referring to his opinon on the matter in the thread, obviously if I said all his opinons were ignorant then I would be insulting him but that wasn't what I said and it isn't what I believe. So I don't believe it was personal abuse I was criticising his post and posted my argument to back that up.

What Rule do you believe I have broken??

Vexorg

Hold on a moment, someone got a 2 week ban, they are not happy with the decision and an admin is being asked to review it.

Sorry guys, you really have to sort this out yourselves, There is no way i will overrule a mods decision and someting this temporary - in my book a 2 week ban is pretty trivial, in respect of the decision made, I cant make a simple call on that as I do not read the politics forum and am not familier with the decision making process there.

For gods sake you use the politics forum and abviously have the ability to defend your yourself verbally better than I can express myself. There are far more things happening on boards at the moment that require my attention than having to referee this decision. If you want to get on the list, I will add it, I do have a list, and I am currently dealing with an item which is 6 weeks old. I have to allocate my time as effectively as I can. I could add it, but logically the temp ban will be over by the time i can read the forums and try to make an informed decision. I do not use the politics form so I really cannot make an informed decision and something like this

Can you not make a better case than this? Can you not argue your point with the mod, in a non confrontational manner and try to persude them to change their mind.

This really is one to be sorted out amoung yourselves, me, I would take a deep breath count to 10, forget about it, and get on enjoying other stuff.

Vex.

PS, just in case its not clear, I am saying that I do not believe this warrants admin intervention!

Lemming

irish1 wrote:

What Rule do you believe I have broken??

As has been pointed out a few times already, not least by the mod who banned you, the bit regarding personal abuse.

Fairly straight-forward imo

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Earthman, I don't think you appreciate the way I using the word ignorant.

As I said, you are around long enough to know or at least you should know that there are several ways to attempt to debunk an argument without doing it the way that you did.

I was not insulting the poster, by saying someone is ignorant in realtion to soccer doesn't mean he is ignorant it just means he lacks knowledge in that area.

Let me be very clear, attempts to surrupticiously use words or language to insult a poster rather than dealing with the content of their post in a civilised manner will be dealt with by the moderators appropriately.
It certainly wont be tolerated.

So your theory that someone is calling another person ignorant just because he says one of his opinion's is ignorant is totally ridiculous.

Well you are quite entitled to think that, but on the often fractious politics board, we the moderation team will police the board to rule out abuse as best we can and try to encourage as much civil debate as possible.
You can of course bring your liberal view on moderating posters abuse to your own Trad board and impliment same there in that much less fractious environment.

Villain

Vexorg, I appreciate you are busy but I do think this merits an admin's intervention as I believe this ban is unfair, I don't believe I have broken any rule.

PS, I did send Gandalf a pm and as I stated in the mod forum I had hoped to discuss through pm but he instructed me to start a thread here.

uberwolf

gandalf wrote:

We considered it personal abuse therefore you are banned.

for the third time.

It was not me who banned you. as you know. I'm simply appear to be the one with the time to try and explain the reasoning behind the ban. That time is running out quickly however.

We don't believe that trying to distinguish between one occurance of ignorance and multiple ignorances is going anywhere. I'd mutter ignorant f**cker if someone brushed passed me in a queue somewhere. The fact that he's a top judge doesn't mean he hasn't just been ignorant. No excaping I've insulted him.

Your argument did back up your stance IMO. It didn't justify saying it though because it is our position that calling someones opinion ignorant is attacking the poster and not the post, ergo Personal abuse.

We're not making an example of you, the precedent was already set in that thread. You either missed it or ignored it.

Villain

Uberwolf I understand you didn't make the decision to ban me but you are a mod on politics so I am interested in your opinion.

I have it said it many times but I will say it again, I was not trying to insult the poster in any shape or form, I was discussing his opinion which I believed to be ignorant and I went on to say why I thought so. I don't accept that this was personal abuse and I don't believe it was seen as personal abuse in the past as you can see from the links I posted.

Nevyn

/sigh

It is the mods call it is thier remit to ban anyone why see has having broken the rules of the forum they mod.

If someone was to post on the trad forum and saying someone prefering the
Furies over the Woleftones was ignorant and if there was the ' no personal abuse' claus in your charter you would be well with in your remit to ban them.

Two weeks isnt that long really.

bonkey

Politics had - for some time up until very recently - come in for a lot of criticism that too much leeway was being allowed in terms of how people were skirting the rules.

We've seen no shortage of topics here about how the mods were being too lax on this or that person, and how said people were effectively skirting the rules.

Personally, I'm delighted to see that the current mods are taking a tougher stance, as it was clear that the more lenient one was failing to keep things under control.

I predict that as the "less-tolerance" policy becomes clearer and clearer, we will see a whole slew of similar threads - not "the mod was wrong to not strictly employ the rules" as we've seen recently, but rather "the mod was wrong to stricly employ the rules". I also predict that the originators of the complaints will remain largely unchanged, and that the mods (or at least some of them) will be inevitably accused of employing the new stance to further some political/personal bias.

jc

Infini

Hwo about a compromise...1 Week's banning. At least it may allow all sides to come to an agreement. Besides Vexorg has already said it's up to the mods.

uberwolf

bonkey wrote:

employing the new stance to further some political/personal bias.

uberwolf for Taoiseach TBH.

bonkey

irish1 wrote:

I was not trying to insult the poster in any shape or form,

So not intending offence is all that matters...not whether offence was (or could have been) taken?

So if its normal between myself and my mates to refer to each other in a friendly manner as dumb motherf***ers, you'll have no problem with me referring to you as one because I don't mean offence by the term? And given that my mates and I use all sorts of colourful language...that pretty much means that its open-season in what I say....and as long as I clear up after the fact that I wasn't being abusive...it'll be ok?

Yes, I'm giving a far more extreme example, but it should abundantly and clearly highlight that the interpretation of what is and is not abusive changes from person to person, but the mods have to try and enforce a policy as some form of standard across all people. This will inevitably mean that some things which may not be intended to be insulting are simply not acceptable.

If you want a less-extreme, forum-specific example...go check what happened when Sparks told someone to stfu, way back when.

jc