Politics Ban

Villain

I understand 2 weeks isn't that long but I believe the ban is unfair and I think others can see that this ban isn't fair thats why I want an admin to look at the situation, I have received a pm from an other mod who thinks it's unfair but doesn't want to say it in public, perhaps others feel the same.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

I have received a pm from an other mod who thinks it's unfair but doesn't want to say it in public,

But not from a politics board mod we aren't shy.

Villain

Yes but Bonkey I used the meaning of the word in it's literal sense and I have done so in the past as have several others (see my links on page1) without any banning.

I don't see how this case is any different, I believed his post was ignorant in relation to the thread matter and I still do but doesn't mean I am insulting him.

bonkey

irish1 wrote:

Yes but

Huh? How can you agree that intent is not all that matters, and then but a "but I didn't mean it to be insulting" after it?

Bonkey I used the meaning of the word in it's literal sense and I have done so in the past as have several others (see my links on page1) without any banning.

Ahh...so its not "but I didn't mean it". Its "but thats not how its always been done".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you have started (or at least participated in) more than one thread complaining that the rules - or the enforcement of them - were somehow unfair/incorrect. Now you're complaining that the moderators aren't enforcing things in the same manner that they used to.

You call for change when you don't like how things are being done, but when you get hit by it cry foul that the mods aren't doing things the same as they used to!

Somewhat inconsistent, isn't it?

but doesn't mean I am insulting him.

Ah...so there was a "but I didn't mean it" in there too

Either its not just the intent which matters, or the fact that you didn't mean it as an insult is not a mitigating factor.

There can be no "yes, but".


jc

WhiteWashMan

irish1 wrote:

Yes but Bonkey I used the meaning of the word in it's literal sense and I have done so in the past as have several others (see my links on page1) without any banning.

I don't see how this case is any different, I believed his post was ignorant in relation to the thread matter and I still do but doesn't mean I am insulting him.

god. shut up already. i think youre posts are ignorant and insutling to be honest.

Stabshauptmann

tbh there is a lot of inconsistency in politics as to what constitutes personal abuse and the definition: personal abuse is whatever a mod thinks is abusive isn’t really fair. Then again allegations of feigned indignation are so common on politics that it really does boil down to a mods opinion of intent. But then again genuine indignation is treated with cynicism. Is a vicious cycle :rolleyes:

If there were a concise definition some pedantic ******* would find a loophole which is what gandalf believes happened here apparently.

IMO there is a LOT of personal abuse in politics in the form of lying, innuendo, condescension, disrespect etc that the mods don’t seem bothered dealing with because no uncivilised words are used.

Personal abuse should be defined IMO as, an intent to hurt, embarrass or outrage another poster.

I think that cuts down on loopholes and excuses and gives mods a lot of discretion over whether or not there was intent

Stabshauptmann

WTF - I thought the word bastard gets filtered out?

hmm ****, ****, prick, twat

hmm

uberwolf

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Personal abuse should be defined IMO as, an intent to hurt, embarrass or outrage another poster.

two big problems. Intent - we could never define what someone was thinking when they published - see the impact of O'Sullivan vs the New York times as evidence of the difficulty of proving intent.

Hurt, etc - this is Boards not real life, people aren't really getting worked up. We aren't going to PM people and poll them on how they thought about or how their peers now view them. The personal abuse rule isn't there to protect peoples feelings so much as to maintain clarity of debate in so far as it is possible.

Caveat - my response shouldn't be read as a willingness to engage in debate leading to finding a definition we're all happy with, but simply to point out the difficulty in finding one. We as mods are happy enough with the rule. Others frequently report posts in an attempt to prevent debate - thankfully our discretion allows assess these posts rather than an automated 'my feelings are hurt, 1 week ban dispensing' mechanism.

nesf

WhiteWashMan wrote:

god. shut up already. i think youre posts are ignorant and insutling to be honest.

I was going to post, but WWM seems to have summed it up rather nicely.

sceptre

Perhaps I should have put my reponse in this thread (I'm not sure which is the main one but I guess it's this one). Anyway, it's here.

Hobart

bonkey wrote:

Huh? How can you agree that intent is not all that matters, and then but a "but I didn't mean it to be insulting" after it?



Ahh...so its not "but I didn't mean it". Its "but thats not how its always been done".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you have started (or at least participated in) more than one thread complaining that the rules - or the enforcement of them - were somehow unfair/incorrect. Now you're complaining that the moderators aren't enforcing things in the same manner that they used to.

You call for change when you don't like how things are being done, but when you get hit by it cry foul that the mods aren't doing things the same as they used to!

Somewhat inconsistent, isn't it?



Ah...so there was a "but I didn't mean it" in there too

Either its not just the intent which matters, or the fact that you didn't mean it as an insult is not a mitigating factor.

There can be no "yes, but".


jc

Bonkey,

you are deliberately trying to muddy the waters with your phrasiology (sp?). He thinks his banning is unfair, due to the context in which he used his choosen terminology. Complaint number 1.

Ok. you have clarified your perception of that from a mods perspective.

However, he seems to have brought up examples where this "policy" has not been enforced. He's asking the sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander type question. Complaint number 2.

Don't try to be "clever" by absorbing 1 into the other.

He may be inconsistent, but he is probably justified in asking for consistency from the mods. Or do you believe the mods should provide an incosistent service?

Hobart

Hobart wrote:

He may be inconsistent, but he is probably justified in asking for consistency from the mods. Or do you believe the mods should provide an incosistent service?

Hobart,
The mods are consistent.We try one policy,it doesnt work, we toughen up that policy, it does work.
Certainly in my time modding the board,I've noticed a marked reduction in reported posts and a profound increase in civility.

We can only be as adaptive as our presence on boards allows us though.
I could be posting this whilst driving through grand parade in Cork and you would have no way of knowing, ergo you don't know if I'm breaking the law whilst posting.
Someone could report me though


Now as regards the examples Irish1 has thrown up in his first post...
The first one I definitely didnt see and the rest apply to a time when I wasnt a moderator on the board.
Myself and Uberwolf are in effect new brushes and sweep clean we will, with the assistance of Gandalf and Sceptre.
Bonkey has already informed this feedback board that the moderators in his time were coming to the opinion that leniency wasnt working.
Clearly the cleanly swept house is not to everybodies liking, but it's going to stay that way.
There may be dust pockets in the corners of threads that we dont get to see and indeed cobwebs growing in threads from back in february or march... but one doesnt have to go into those areas, we'll deal with the here and now rather than retrospecively ban and again I'd urge people to use the report the post feature,it's your friend and we'll decide if what action needs to be taken if any

Hobart

Con,

my comments are not about the Mods and thier actions per-se, more a direct rebuke to Bonkeys comments.

Yourself, Gandalf, Uber et-al (and Bonkey in his time) have done, and continue to do, a great service on a difficult board and I, for one, appreciate it.

The Muppet

Having contributed to the thread in question and considering contributions from other users I have to say I feel Irish1s ban is extreamly harsh. I understand the rasoning behind the ban but I feel marginal decisions like this one will only make the mods task more difficult in future.

ApeXaviour

Knowing no history of Irish1 on the politics board and based solely on the above incident, I reckon the decision was harsh.

Then again I may just be a soft touch..

mycroft

ApeXaviour wrote:

Knowing no history of Irish1 on the politics board and based solely on the above incident, I reckon the decision was harsh.

Then again I may just be a soft touch..

Just be cyncial I suspect (just a theory) Irish1 is someone who sees the report post button as a handier way of rebutting than hiting the quote button.

Of course I could be wrong, but the four examples you've provided are all from posters you've vehemently disagreed with, I'd submit to you, that you picked several posters who you dislike, and keyworded "ignorant" and ignored the time frame, and when they occured (and whether a Mod may have had a word re the language and tone) but the reason you picked those posters was not at random it was specific choice, and raises so many interesting questions......

The Muppet

mycroft wrote:

Just be cyncial I suspect (just a theory) Irish1 is someone who sees the report post button as a handier way of rebutting than hiting the quote button.
.

The mods/admis prefer you to report offensive posts rather than reply to them. At least thats what they told me. The danger of replying in kind on forum is that you will end up being reported and flagged as a troublemaker.

In this instance Irishs1's comment has been taken out of context which is surprising considering he explained the context in the post he made the comment.

Villain

Thanks for the support Muppet, I am very very disapointed in the position the mods are taking.

MyCroft the four examples I gave were just what turned up when I enetered the search criteria of "ignorant opinion", feel free to do the same and you will get the same results.

I also think your comment about me reporting posts instead of discussing them is unfair, I always try to respond to topics which are on topic and been discussed in a proper manner, I do report posts that imo are trolls etc like most of Cork's.

I find the mods in politics to be normally fair and consistent just not in this case as my links have pointed out, and my post was not abusive as I was using the term ignorant in the manner that it should be used.

mycroft

irish1 wrote:

Thanks for the support Muppet, I am very very disapointed in the position the mods are taking.

Well frankly in my opinion they shouldn't give two FF's to your disappointment

MyCroft the four examples I gave were just what turned up when I enetered the search criteria of "ignorant opinion", feel free to do the same and you will get the same results.

Uh huh.

I also think your comment about me reporting posts instead of discussing them is unfair, I always try to respond to topics which are on topic and been discussed in a proper manner, I do report posts that imo are trolls etc like most of Cork's.

Unfair but IMO true, I suspect you have an itchy trigger finger for the report post button.

I find the mods in politics to be normally fair and consistent just not in this case as my links have pointed out, and my post was not abusive as I was using the term ignorant in the manner that it should be used.

And as pointed out those posts are old, many if not most predating many of the current mods reign of terror, and all suspiciously from posters you clash metaphorical swords with.

Villain

Well mycroft since the other thread is closed I will reply to you here.

IMO there is no comparison what so ever between saying someones analogy is thick and saying someones opinion is ignorant and then backing that up with reasons.

My links are not old at all, the dates are :

21/04/05, 09/03/05 and 2 on the 11/02/05.

So how can my post be any different to them.

FYI I don't clash with the mentioned posters that often if at all.

The Muppet

mycroft wrote:

Well frankly in my opinion they shouldn't give two FF's to your disappointment.

Why be so confrontational ? He feels he has been wronged and was told to bring it here.

mycroft wrote:

Unfair but IMO true, I suspect you have an itchy trigger finger for the report post button.
.

Whats wrong with that? I have pm's from Mods telling me to report posts and not reply to offensive post's in kind. Which is it to be ?

Vexorg

This thread also appears to be going around in circles, if no one has someting new to add, please dont post the same arguements again....

The decision has been made and I am happy with it and will stand.

What I find difficult to understand is what I call blowing this out of proportion ... imo, harsh and unfair would have been aban from the forum. A 2 week ban is a bit of a smack ala "you should know better, dont do it again" this is not a question I want an answer to.

Both sides have made their cases, I would say a jury would have a difficult job making a decision. However as this is not the real world, there is no jury and the decision has been made, its only a short ban.

Anyhow... bottom line... please try to overcome the urge to reply to my post for the sake of it, and please do not reply with something that has been said already in this thread or the other.



Vex.

The Muppet

Vexorg wrote:

What I find difficult to understand is what I call blowing this out of proportion ... imo, harsh and unfair would have been aban from the forum. A 2 week ban is a bit of a smack ala "you should know better, dont do it again" this is not a question I want an answer to.



Vex.

HI Vexorg

I don't really agree with that. IMO it's not the length of the ban but the principle behind it that's causing the problem. Can I ask if the offending post was reported?

Vexorg

Muppet

What part of

This thread also appears to be going around in circles, if no one has someting new to add, please dont post the same arguements again....

do you not understand.

If this sort of posting, (ie. I have said it before in a slightly different way to a different person) continues, I will close this thread also..

If there is nothing new to be said, do not reply.... and most importantly do not reply for the sake of it.

Vex.

Hobart

The Muppet wrote:

HI Vexorg

I don't really agree with that. IMO it's not the length of the ban but the principle behind it that's causing the problem. Can I ask if the offending post was reported?

The banning was within an hour of the posting. Reporting was probably not necessary TBH. Gandalf made a decision and that seems to be the end of it.

I agree with Vex and find that the thread is going around in circles, with the minuta being further disected. Hey theres a quark!

I would, however, suggest that mods desist from advising or encouraging those with a grievence of this nature from "taking it to feedback". A principle seems to have been set here and such advise only adds to the noise levels.

It would appear it's a take your medicine and stop crying situation. You will be better in 2 weeks. There's no other way.

uberwolf

The Muppet wrote:

Can I ask if the offending post was reported?

I don't see how that should matter... he was banned half an hour after the post was made - scarcely time for dozens to review it.

The principle behind the ban was in plain evidence 2 posts further up the thread.

We don't want people feeling free to say you/your opinions are ignorant, thick etc.

What we want is: I don't agree with that and here is why.

This is to retain the forum as a resource available beyond those who consistently engage in tit for tat slagging matches disregarding the object of the debate.

What Irish1 was quilty of as much as anything else was providing fuel to that fire if it was desired by the object of his post. It's a slightly more refined 'don't feed the trolls'. By appearing to insult someone you allow an alternate focus point - something we cann't abide by.

The consensus appears to be that the politics forum has improved considerably since the energy and manpower reinvigorated the moderation of the forum. The rules and interpretations continue to move, we will continue to tighten them for everyones sake. There was no alternative to Irish1 ban after the banning 2 posts earlier IMO.

mycroft

The Muppet wrote:

Why be so confrontational ? He feels he has been wronged and was told to bring it here.

Because for a while there (and fires still burn) the politics forum has been awash with some fairly vicious sentiment. I think he's beligerently badgering on past a point

Whats wrong with that? I have pm's from Mods telling me to report posts and not reply to offensive post's in kind. Which is it to be ?

Because theres the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, and Irish1 and some of his ilk have shown some mighty thin skin over what could be considered offense in posts directed towards them, IMO.

So how can my post be any different to them.
FYI I don't clash with the mentioned posters that often if at all.

FYI me and Amentothat? Are you a different Irish1 who mods trad? Or are you taking the piss, (although no further evidence can be found of SF/IRA involvement in the Urine extraction process, Addams is insisting that if McDowell has proof, he should arrest Mc Guinness' kidneys)

They all predate the changing of the mod guard as it were.....

WhiteWashMan

WhiteWashMan wrote:

and the next event is:

the saying the same thing over again, but just with differnt words!

but look forward to tonights main event, the 'paraphrasing what i said earlier in the hope that someone might take it as a new arguement, and let me back into the forum' contest!

the phun never stops here on the feedback channel...

man, do i know boards.ie, or do i know boards.ie?

as they used to say in Buffy the Vampire Slayer

'like, shut the fúck up already'

WhiteWashMan

Vexorg wrote:

Muppet

was that the noun, or the pronoun you were using there?

irish1

irish1 wrote:

I find the mods in politics to be normally fair and consistent just not in this case as my links have pointed out, and my post was not abusive as I was using the term ignorant in the manner that it should be used.

Are you reading the same thread I am here or is there one where,I, Bonkey,Gandalf,Uberwolf and Sceptre are saying different things in a parallel universe?

Bonkey has replied saying he is glad that the implimentation of the rules are being tightened up thus your thread examples are irrelevant to the here and now.
I've pointed this out to you already.
This is part of the moderators discretion,it's not a democracy,we are adaptive to the circumstances... it's simply hard work in action to keep a board tidy and to impliment an aura of respectability in threads.
You don't know 1% of the thought that goes in behind the scenes to that board and frankly I can tell you now categorically that you are not getting or going to get special treatment.
Anyone that I see who is flouting the rules will be dealt with in a forthright and equal manner.