Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Banned for Personal Abuse

Options
  • 27-07-2015 9:43am
    #1
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭


    I was banned from the Politics Cafe for two weeks for allegedly posting what the mod (Jep Gambardella) called 'personal abuse'.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057439905&page=241

    While I fully understand that the mod is allowed not to find the picture 'funny' or 'humourous' but there are many similar jokes out there (check the jokes thread on this very site) and humour is subjective, there are many 'jokes' on that actual thread too, some directed at particular females which have been allowed a pass but are objectionable to others.

    I picked an anonymous soldier in the picture I posted and the intention was to send up the pictures being posted by the member I mentioned in the offending post. I fail to see where the 'personal abuse' was, the intention was not to personally abuse. I believe the sanction was excessive as a result.
    I won't post the picture again here, but can send it to a mod if neccessary.


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    BuffyBot
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 24,924 Mod ✭✭✭✭BuffyBot


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    I was banned from the Politics Cafe for two weeks for allegedly posting what the mod (Jep Gambardella) called 'personal abuse'.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057439905&page=241

    While I fully understand that the mod is allowed not to find the picture 'funny' or 'humourous' but there are many similar jokes out there (check the jokes thread on this very site) and humour is subjective, there are many 'jokes' on that actual thread too, some directed at particular females which have been allowed a pass but are objectionable to others.

    I picked an anonymous soldier in the picture I posted and the intention was to send up the pictures being posted by the member I mentioned in the offending post. I fail to see where the 'personal abuse' was, the intention was not to personally abuse. I believe the sanction was excessive as a result.
    I won't post the picture again here, but can send it to a mod if neccessary.


    Have you PM'd the mod to try and resolve the issue?


  • Options
    #3
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Yes, I explained the intention behind the photo and that it was not intended to personally insult.
    Jep directed me here.


  • Options
    #4
    BuffyBot
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 24,924 Mod ✭✭✭✭BuffyBot


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Yes, I explained the intention behind the photo and that it was not intended to personally insult.
    Jep directed me here.

    The appropriate CMod will then have a look at this for you as soon as they can.


  • Options
    #5
    Taltos
    Registered Users Posts: 20,830 ✭✭✭✭Taltos


    Hi Happyman42

    can you please forward on the PM exchange you held with the mod?

    Thanks
    Taltos


  • Options
    #6
    Taltos
    Registered Users Posts: 20,830 ✭✭✭✭Taltos


    Got your PM
    Please send on the other PM you refer to.
    Please note though I am not here to discuss action taken against other posters or content they post, you are solely responsible for everything you post or how you react to others.

    Once I get your other PM I'll start my review and will try to come back to you later this evening.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Taltos wrote: »
    Got your PM
    Please send on the other PM you refer to.
    Please note though I am not here to discuss action taken against other posters or content they post, you are solely responsible for everything you post or how you react to others.

    Once I get your other PM I'll start my review and will try to come back to you later this evening.

    I didn't save the last PM unfortunately.
    It was a short message asking the Mod to please explain how what I posted could be seen as 'personally abusive'. That was never the intention.


  • Options
    #8
    Taltos
    Registered Users Posts: 20,830 ✭✭✭✭Taltos


    Hi Happyman42
    Sorry this has taken so long but you’ve quite a bit of history in the forum this year alone that had to be reviewed in order to give a balanced ruling.

    Since February of this year your action count of recorded mod cards stands at
    Warnings: 4
    Infractions: 1
    Bans (including this): 5
    That is not an acceptable level of fair poster behaviour Hm42, not at all.
    These range for topics such as uncivil, trolling, ignoring mod instruction to backseat moderation. Having such a weight of cards in such a short space of time the onus is on you to keep your nose clean and not draw any more moderator attention. At least that is the sensible course of action.

    So to the posts this time around that resulted in your 2 week ban. As above I will not comment on actions that may have been taken against other users, but irrespective of what is posted ultimately you alone are responsible for all items you post.

    This ban was for being Uncivil.
    You posted a photo of an assassination by sniper of a royal guardsman. I get that you thought it was just a bit of fun and possibly in other forums it would be seen as that. But this was in the Sinn Fein mega thread in the Cafe and keeping in mind the history of the troubles and deaths on both sides I find that image to be in quite poor taste. Due to the thread and forum I am therefore supporting the ruling of Uncivil, had we a label of Poor Taste I would equally apply that to the ban.
    Look, I am not sure if you see it but you are on your last legs in the Cafe. The volume of intervention being required by the mod team is not sustainable and unless you learn to pull it back you are on the fast track for a permanent ban here, we can’t force you to be a better poster, only you can decide to do that. Maybe next time before hitting submit sit back and think about the forum you are posting to and based on how your replies have been received before if you are going to cause offense resulting in yet more reported posts and an even longer ban.
    Should you disagree with this and want to still challenge the ban you may request admin review.
    Please let us know if you want to do so or if we can close this DR thread?


  • Options
    #9
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    I understand that my past history has to be taken into account. It isn't an easy thread to survive in without sanction and I have over 14,000 posts across this entire site, the vast majority made without malice or intention to hurt or offend.

    I understand too that I am ultimately responsible for what I post. I am not someone who hits the report button a lot, and I can take a lot of stuff on the chin but there is a lot of accusatory stuff thrown around on that thread (any reasonable observer will see that) and I don't understand why that cannot be taken into account.

    In my defence, I thought about the picture I posted, I thought about it a lot. It was neither meant to be a personal attack or uncivil, but a comment on the stuff another poster was posting, not just once, but in a string of posts.

    It was NOT a post about killing an individual but a post intended to show that there are people who find the 'sniper at work' t-shirts acceptable comment on what happened in NI. I made the point to Jep Gambardella and you that there are many many jokes about 'killing'. For instance, if I posted this in a hunting or widlife thread would I recieve a sanction because the joke is about 'killing' (please also note that this joke is about the killing of a particular individual, something my post studiously avoided?
    http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2015/07/28/american-pays-100000-to-hunt-and-kill-ricky-gervais/

    Would you as a result of your ruling 'that you find the picture distasteful' not be duty bound to now ban anyone who supported the IRA on 'the Sinn Fein Megathread'? Because that is the logic of your postition, you are dictating what posters are allowed to find humourous or tasteful.
    I have argued the case on thread (and have gotten sanctions for it) that jokes about a particular woman's looks and body are below the line of 'taste' without any help from mods at all ( I have reported the worst excesses and recieved absolutely no reply) so there is a complete double standard here, you are protecting one set of posters from 'distasteful' content and not another.
    I think you have to be clear here, is it about what 'you' find distasteful or is there some standard as yet undefined by mods?

    Can you or will you 'define' what is acceptable and tasteful as regards posting humourous content? Does the Cafe want to even go there? I think a discussion needs to be held about the above going forward.

    I believe that an infraction was enough here for something that, I accept, clearly upset some. I apologise for that, it was not the intention, the intention was to statircally comment on anothers posting. I am simply asking for some fairplay here.


  • Options
    #10
    Taltos
    Registered Users Posts: 20,830 ✭✭✭✭Taltos


    Look - at the end of the day your history in the Cafe shows that warnings and infractions are not cutting it.
    The mods have no choice now but to issue bans in increasing severity in the hopes you'll cop on. If you think an infraction might have cut it I would politely point out that due to the number of actions to date and infraction would have been meaningless and all they can do now is up your bans until either you post in line with the forum's quite relaxed expectations or you don't in which case you will find yourself banned permanently.

    As to fairplay, I've already said I am not here to talk about how others have been dealt with. Just you. And your history shows the mods have been more than tolerant.

    Your call here - admin review or will you accept the ban and we'll close this thread?


  • Options
    #11
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Taltos wrote: »
    Look - at the end of the day your history in the Cafe shows that warnings and infractions are not cutting it.
    The mods have no choice now but to issue bans in increasing severity in the hopes you'll cop on. If you think an infraction might have cut it I would politely point out that due to the number of actions to date and infraction would have been meaningless and all they can do now is up your bans until either you post in line with the forum's quite relaxed expectations or you don't in which case you will find yourself banned permanently.

    As to fairplay, I've already said I am not here to talk about how others have been dealt with. Just you. And your history shows the mods have been more than tolerant.

    Your call here - admin review or will you accept the ban and we'll close this thread?

    I cannot in fairness accept the severity of the ban until I get an answer to this:

    'Sniper at work' t-shirts exist and humour about 'killing' exists, as shown.

    I have asked you and Jep to define what is 'in line' and to show how my post was any different to other atempts at humour on that very thread given that it was not directed at any other poster nor was it unique, nor was it a joke about the killing of any individual.
    I have already accepted that it offended you and Jep, while that is regretable, is that important?
    Are you saying that 'you' or another poster has the right to define what is acceptable humour?
    If so, what is that definition, what is acceptable?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Taltos
    Registered Users Posts: 20,830 ✭✭✭✭Taltos


    OK Hm - as you don't want to accept my ruling I am escalating to Admin review.
    If you think it's acceptable to post a picture of a victim of a sniper in a thread on Sinn Fein then I don't know what to say to you. Intentionally or not you pushed the boundaries there, something flagged by reported posts, actioned by a mod and now supported by one of the cmods.

    Maybe you'll fare better with the Admin team but my input here is at an end.

    Admin - please review.


  • Options
    #13
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Taltos wrote: »
    OK Hm - as you don't want to accept my ruling I am escalating to Admin review.
    If you think it's acceptable to post a picture of a victim of a sniper in a thread on Sinn Fein then I don't know what to say to you. Intentionally or not you pushed the boundaries there, something flagged by reported posts, actioned by a mod and now supported by one of the cmods.

    Maybe you'll fare better with the Admin team but my input here is at an end.

    Admin - please review.

    I have already said I accept your (and others) right to be 'offended' and that you where offended, I have said sorry for that, and that I did not intend to offend.
    I have, I think, established that humour about killing is out there, is not at all unusual and depending on your beliefs will or will not offend you. Here is another post from this very site about 'killing' that could cause offence to some.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=96288281&postcount=3415

    That post is obiously acceptable in that forum.
    What I want to know is there a definition of what is acceptable humour on a SF thread in the so called looser environment of the Cafe, and if so, what is that 'definition'.
    Because I genuinely don't know.

    *I haven't contested other sancions taken against me because I accept the finding of mods, in this instance I don't.


  • Options
    #14
    BuffyBot
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 24,924 Mod ✭✭✭✭BuffyBot


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    I have already said I accept your (and others) right to be 'offended' and that you where offended, I have said sorry for that, and that I did not intend to offend.
    I have, I think, established that humour about killing is out there, is not at all unusual and depending on your beliefs will or will not offend you. Here is another post from this very site about 'killing' that could cause offence to some.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=96288281&postcount=3415

    That post is obiously acceptable in that forum.
    What I want to know is there a definition of what is acceptable humour on a SF thread in the so called looser environment of the Cafe, and if so, what is that 'definition'.
    Because I genuinely don't know.

    *I haven't contested other sancions taken against me because I accept the finding of mods, in this instance I don't.

    There is no definition, because moderation is at it's heart, contextual. What's OK on one forum, may not be on another. What may be tolerated from one user may not from another with a particular posting style/history on the site.

    Ban upheld.

    Please be more mindful in future.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement