Disgraceful decision regarding ban of member

ninebeanrows

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054950577

The banned member posted a comment to the question

What form of contaception do you use?

The now banned member replied

I use the withdrawal method. 100% effective in my experience.

The moderator "Thaedydal" saw it in his interest to ban the member
in question for one month not mentioning a reason for his banning
and unwilling to discuss it with the obviously shocked members
who saw a member banned for what looks like absolutely no reason
other than offering his experience and answer to a question.

I find this extremely unfair and thought i would highlight for the management
to discuss and have a word with the moderator who was obviously
having a "poll" day

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

maybe she shouldn't have banned him, but if he thinks the withdrawl method is 100% effective.. he prob isn't that much of a loss.

Stark

Strange.

Have you pm'd Thaed about it?

ninebeanrows

Hi i have queried him on the thread and he asked me to set up a thread here:)

Oryx

You can look on the banned user's post as reeking of sarcasm, or as a genuine response. I dont know which it was intended as. Twas not a very helpful post in any case.

Stark

Weathercheck wrote:

Hi i have queried him on the thread and he asked me to set up a thread here

It's "she" not "he"

Well Personal Issues is by far the strictest of all the forums on boards.ie. It's for serious issues, no messing and no misleading advice allowed. Chump did qualify his statement with "in my experience" but I reckon it was still construed as extremely dodgy that he said "100% effective". Better to be banned from PI for a month than for someone to end up with an unplanned pregnancy

Tbh, if someone had claimed any contraceptive on the thread to be 100% effective, they would probably have ended with a ban.

PS: This post has contained the most bold text that I've ever used on boards

Faith

It was unhelpful, sarcastic and more of less made a mockery of the OPs question. Thaed was right to ban him.

If Chump had been serious, then he's not very intelligent and shouldn't be giving advice in PI.

I don't see any problem. Stop and think for a moment how hard it would be to mod PI, and then stop complaining.

Gordon

I believe that chump was either trolling or trying to be funny. Either one concerning the facts he was giving is dangerous for PI and the site.

However, if he can prove that he uses the withdrawal method and that he hasn't had any children due to using that method of contraception then I for one would like to review the evidence and maybe think about discussing his unban with the other PI mods.

Nevyn

The post from chump was another in a very very long history of posts that were
boarderline and consistantly taking the piss and trying to be funny.
Users posting history is taken into consideration when a decision is made.

The PI forum will always promote safer sex and informed use of good contraception methods.

I would not like the idea of any young person reading Chumps so called advice and ending up pregant or with an STI.
Unhelpful, bad advice and dangerous practices will get you banned from the forum.
End of.

ninebeanrows

hiya

his post read

I use the withdrawal method. 100% effective in my experience.

He was posting his opinion be it stupid or not and provided information from
his experience.

I accept maybe he has a history of muppetry so perhaps it was not just
this that got him banned although i personally would not like to be
banned for posting such a comment as it would be wholey unfair:)

Nevyn

:rolleyes:

The ban stands unless the other PI mods have an issue with it or an admin wishes to query it.

ninebeanrows

Thaedydal wrote:

:rolleyes:

The ban stands unless the other PI mods have an issue with it or an admin wishes to query it.

I dont take kindly to be frowned at for offering a pretty
steely argument that can only be put down by ifs and buts:)

bonkey

Weathercheck wrote:

I accept maybe he has a history of muppetry

So you don't accept that he does have such a history, just that he might have?

so perhaps it was not just this that got him banned

I'm not sure how else you could read Thaed's response. It was not just this that got him banned.

although i personally would not like to be banned for posting such a comment as it would be wholey unfair:)

Do you mean banned for a history of borderline calls with this being the final borderline straw that broke the camel's back would be unfair, or just being banned for this comment regardless of other factors would be unfair?

Nevyn

actually that is the rolleyes smilie.

ninebeanrows

bonkey wrote:

So you don't accept that he does have such a history, just that he might have?


I'm not sure how else you could read Thaed's response. It was not just this that got him banned.


Do you mean banned for a history of borderline calls with this being the final borderline straw that broke the camel's back would be unfair, or just being banned for this comment regardless of other factors would be unfair?

Yes thats exactly what i mean;)

ninebeanrows

Thaedydal wrote:

actually that is the rolleyes smilie.

nonetheless you were rolling your eyes at my case which if it was
presented to a non partizan jury who just had to look at the facts
would find that your banning the the member was wrong.:)

Nevyn

Boards.ie is not a democary and feedback is not a courtroom.
Again see my post here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51604164&postcount=11.
You have registered your dislike and unease with the moderator action taken
nothing futher will happen at this point, several posters from the forum have agreed with the action taken and again the only way it will change is via my post http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51604164&postcount=11

now where are the owls .....

chump

Thaedydal, you refer to "very very long history of posts that were boarderline and consistantly taking the piss and trying to be funny."
Yet you've never contacted me regarding any of these issues, and I don't recall any specific warning.

I'm appalled at your manner in resolving the obvious issue you have with me. Some maturity should perhaps be exercised by yourself before rapid conclusions are drawn. As I stated in a PM I sent to you this morning (which you didn't reply to) ...

Banned from a thread that lists as an option in the poll 'Natural Methods' and me saying "I use the withdrawal method. 100% effective in my experience.".

...seems extremely unfair to me. Instead of criticising my contribution and enlightening me, which may promote a healthy discussion regarding "coitus interuptus", you just dismissed me with a heavy penalty.

Were my chosen method of contraception as uneffective as people may believe, it is possible that a child born of my fruit would be under my care as we speak.
Were that child to ask me 'Is there any justice in the world, Daddy?' - how should I reply?

monkeyfudge

He could be impotent... when's the last time he had a sperm count done?

Nevyn

"There is no justice there is just us."

The PI forum will always promote safer sex and informed use of good contraception methods.

If you want a disscusion on Coitus interiptus then start a thread in the sex and sexuality forum.

Natural methods do not inculde coitus unteruptus as it is inherantly unnatural to withdraw and to atempt to ejacualte outside of the partner.
A description of Natural methods maybe found here
http://www.ifpa.ie/contraception/nm.html

chump

Thaedydal wrote:

"There is no justice there is just us."

The PI forum will always promote safer sex and informed use of good contraception methods.

If you want a disscusion on Coitus interiptus then start a thread in the sex and sexuality forum.

Natural methods do not inculde coitus unteruptus as it is inherantly unnatural to withdraw and to atempt to ejacualte outside of the partner.
A description of Natural methods maybe found here
http://www.ifpa.ie/contraception/nm.html

Well a quick search on google delivers:
http://gynob.emory.edu/familyplanning/withdrawel.cfm
Listed under 'natural methods'.

All this aside, I didn't want to discuss the matter, I was giving input with regards to a thread asking what method one used. Surely you could have replied with the above to my original post, instead of imposing a month ban, for expressing myself.

Talliesin

chump wrote:

Thaedydal, you refer to "very very long history of posts that were boarderline and consistantly taking the piss and trying to be funny."
Yet you've never contacted me regarding any of these issues, and I don't recall any specific warning.

You should have taken the other warnings as including other negative behaviour.

Beruthiel

I use the withdrawal method. 100% effective in my experience.

If Thaed did not ban for this comment, I would have. This is not a form of contraceptive for anyone with half a brain who does not wish to conceive.
It's a troll comment and you know it chump.
The charter and rules are set out very clearly, helpful comments only, anything else may and will get a ban.
Boards is not kindergarten and Mods don't have to hold your hand through your posting techniques, nor should you expect a warning for irresponsible comments.

Listed under 'natural methods'

as for this :rolleyes:
we all know how well that works

zAbbo

Obvious trolling, and still at it.

Good work mods

gilroyb

When I was going through the thread a few days back (when the message was first posted), there was no doubt in my mind that it was not a serious comment and was instead meant in an offhand way. I still believe that and think the mods were correct in the action taken.

Dudess

I know someone who got pregnant after relying on the withdrawal method.

Dave!

Just banning IMO. Withdrawing is not a real form of contracteption, as there is traces of sperm in your precum. So once you've penetrated with no artificial method of contraception, then you're already releasing sperm into the woman, and running the risk of pregnancy. Chump, you've just been pretty lucky not to get anyone pregnant, tbh... Might wanna think about wearing a condom (not that I particularly care).

Either way, anyone promoting coitus interruptus should be banned and it should be pointed out that it's not effective, and you could get someone pregnant still. It's dangerous telling people to just withdraw.

ecksor

chump wrote:

Were that child to ask me 'Is there any justice in the world, Daddy?' - how should I reply?

I don't know if you actually use the withdrawal method and I don't particularly care but this looks like trolling to me and I see no reason at all to unban someone who is posting bad advice about health issues on our forum.

chump

I think it is laudable that the mods stick together and remain a united front against the terror of expressing personal choice in an open ended discussion.

Also if people were to read the discussion under scutiny here you'll find that people also agreed with me, and that one poster said

Bit of a stupid remark there mate.
I would recommend up the 5hitter, 100% effective in my experience
ha ha

... that received no reprimand.

It's quite clear that certain mods view my contributions as tainted, somehow and for some reason. But the mods are here to protect the interests of readers, and in the said discussion many people found my comment honest and expressed surprise at my ban. I obviously share this view and find it hypocritical that I get banned for expressing honest opinion when numerous others contribuate throwawayable comments day in day out that get overlooked.

I'm quite content with the mods not liking my input, but 'not liking' does not equal bannage.

Nevyn

There is no action that can be taken as that comment was made unreggied,
it was allowed so that it could be debunked which I did in the post afterwards.

aidan_walsh

Thaedydal wrote:

There is no action that can be taken as that comment was made unreggied,
it was allowed so that it could be debunked which I did in the post afterwards.

Do unreggied posts not carry the IP address, that can be compared against users online at the time?

Gordon

chump wrote:

Also if people were to read the discussion under scutiny here you'll find that people also agreed with me

How can people agree that you have used the withdrawal method and it has worked 100% for you chump?

Your troll mask is slipping.

Stark

aidan_walsh wrote:

Do unreggied posts not carry the IP address, that can be compared against users online at the time?

An IP address match isn't conclusive by any means. Also Mupchk only let's you see what posts match IP, it doesn't let you see the IP itself so you can't tell if the IP is a static IP or a dialup IP.

ecksor

chump wrote:

I think it is laudable that the mods stick together and remain a united front against the terror of expressing personal choice in an open ended discussion.

I'm glad to hear that.

I obviously share this view and find it hypocritical that I get banned for expressing honest opinion when numerous others contribuate throwawayable comments day in day out that get overlooked.

I don't keep a close eye on the PI forum so I can't comment on that, but it doesn't matter since your behaviour is the only relevant thing to your banning.

I'm quite content with the mods not liking my input, but 'not liking' does not equal bannage.

I'm quite content with the mods not tolerating someone stating that the withdrawal method is 100% effective.

CuLT

Gordon wrote:

How can people agree that you have used the withdrawal method and it has worked 100% for you chump?

Your troll mask is slipping.

Maybe chump has a number of people able to testify that he is a virgin, and therefore the withdrawal method has been 100% successful.

ecksor

Stark wrote:

An IP address match isn't conclusive by any means. Also Mupchk only let's you see what posts match IP, it doesn't let you see the IP itself so you can't tell if the IP is a static IP or a dialup IP.

It also doesn't match IPs across forums for the specific reason that users expect to have a certain degree of anonymity when they post on forums like PI.

chump

Gordon wrote:

How can people agree that you have used the withdrawal method and it has worked 100% for you chump?

Your troll mask is slipping.

Sorry, I meant they agreed that a user should be allowd express themselves and showed surprise at the unwarranted ban.

Anyway I've said my bit here, there's nothing else for me to say.
One point, why don't mods delete posts or move them to the recycle bin.

Long live the Régime.

Stark

CuLt wrote:

Maybe chump has a number of people able to testify that he is a virgin, and therefore the withdrawal method has been 100% successful.

Abstinence ftw!

Or maybe not

aidan_walsh

ecksor wrote:

It also doesn't match IPs across forums for the specific reason that users expect to have a certain degree of anonymity when they post on forums like PI.

Ah, fair enough.

regi

chump wrote:

Long live the Régime.

pbsuxok1znja4r

I just wonder what'd have happened if chump had said the withdrawal method had been 99% effective in his experience. Or how bout 98%? Is that statement tolerable?

Well, he was probably trolling anyway, so I guess the ban is entirely warranted.

CuLT

scouser.tommy wrote:

I just wonder what'd have happened if chump had said the withdrawal method had been 99% effective in his experience. Or how bout 98%? Is that statement tolerable?

Well, he was probably trolling anyway, so I guess the ban is entirely warranted.

Then he's either had a fraction of a child or else bedded 100 women with one pregnancy. Either way, it just serves to highlight that it's ineffective.

WhiteWashMan

oh god. my eyes are bleeding from stupidity....

Nevyn

chump wrote:

One point, why don't mods delete posts or move them to the recycle bin.

Time and the fact that leaving them sets a clear example of what is not allowed.

mad m

WhiteWashMan wrote:

oh god. my eyes are bleeding from stupidity....

I cant help but smile when I read stuff like this^^. Well before me and wife got married sometimes on occassion the withdrawl method was used and I'm happy to say my wife and I are happy with our 12 kids.....:)

pbsuxok1znja4r

CuLT wrote:

Then he's either had a fraction of a child or else bedded 100 women with one pregnancy. Either way, it just serves to highlight that it's ineffective.

But wasn't the problem with his post supposed to have been that it was misleading in that it claimed withdrawal was effective? I mean, nothing is really 100% effective (excepting abstinence, maybe)!

amp

Another blow against the forces of stupidity. Moderator team ROLL OUT!

Jonny Arson

I have seen alot worse unhelpful posts or comments on the PI forum with the culprit recieving a warning from the mods (Theadydal has done this on many occasions). Even though I can see both sides of the argument as to why the ban was just or wasn't warranted, my concern would be that there's inconsistency in the moderating of the forum. That's no criticism of the moderating of the PI forum which I think is generally excellent but I see worse troll/spam/unhelpful posts all the time on that forum and I do feel Chump has been a little hard done by.

CuLT

Don't read PI.

This should solve most issues.

ninebeanrows

I'll have my final comment on this

As said by a mod in this discussion

Boards is not a Democracy and you do not have freedom of speech on
the board.

I thought living in the 2000's using a Irish based website that i could
expect to have freedom of speech and democracy but as i have
been told otherwise this is not the case.

Long live Boards hail our leader.

Hail the Mods

All hail...;)

Nevyn

It can be very hard to crack down on all of them and really those that clear breach the charter people get banned and esp those that are dangerous.

Zane from MTV2 do your part to help out use the report post function.