Banned from Instruments forum.

Rozie

It's got to have been nearly a year now, if not more than that. I can't remember what happened but I can't see any real logical reason for being banned for this long, especially since it was pretty much a "hair trigger" ban, as far as I remember. I think I could help a lot of people out with guitar pedals, etc. so I'd appreciate being unbanned from it.

Ruu_Old

Have you contacted one of the mods recently? Doctor J, feylya, John, Karl Hungus or Oeneus. They are all fairly active.

Rozie

I contacted Karl Hungus and he said Felyla did it. Doesn't look like he wants to undo it though. I don't see why one of the other mods can't reverse it though, it's silly making one person's bans infallible, in case they hold a judge or don't want to admit they're wrong, etc.

Giblet

You usually contact the guy who banned you because other mods don't interfere with each other. Also, you were a twat on the forum and you should steer clear before you bestow more "knowledge"on us like "How to make my guitar sound it's taking a dump using a fuzz factory".

Karl Hungus

Rozie wrote:

I contacted Karl Hungus and he said Felyla did it. Doesn't look like he wants to undo it though. I don't see why one of the other mods can't reverse it though, it's silly making one person's bans infallible, in case they hold a judge or don't want to admit they're wrong, etc.

I asked Feylya and told him that I would be in favour of unbanning you, he said no. If I were to just go and unban you anyway, when it was his call to ban you in the first place, I'd just be ****ing things up and getting in the way.

Rozie

But that makes absolutely no sense.

What if some hypopthetical mod flies off the handle and decides to ban someone just for "****s and giggles"? Or bans someone because they're gay, or jewish? Would none of the other mods touch it because it's that mod's decision and should be left alone?

I'm sure that even here there is another way to get unbanned. Surely I'm not the only to recognise this hole? "Getting in the way" of an irrational or outdated decision sounds ridiculous to me, so if that exception holds true, surely if I can make a convincing enough point, I could be an exception too?

What if I were to construct a logical, solid argument as to why?

aidan_walsh

What if I were to construct a logical, solid argument as to why?

Why not just do that as opposed to bitching and whining?

Rb

The mod in questions decision is final, and he/she are the ones who its up to to unban you. Just because you don't like their decision, doesn't mean you can run off to another mod complaining in hope they'll unban you.
If the mods started messing with other mods bans and unbans, there'd be havok.
As far as I know, that's how this system works, either talk to Feyla about it or if you don't like it, you can always click this

Rozie

rb, this is pretty much the only forum that has the "infallible mod" idea. So saying there'd be "havok" is nothing short of a fallacy, and doesn't answer my question.

The mod in questions decision is final, and he/she are the ones who its up to to unban you. Just because you don't like their decision, doesn't mean you can run off to another mod complaining in hope they'll unban you.

Why not? It's not even a case of not liking the decision - what if it just isn't logically defensible?
You haven't provided any real justification as to why a moderator's decision should be completely infallible, especially when it can possibly lead to the scenarios I proposed.

I'm trying to find the last topics I posted in, but the forum doesn't seem to want to let me.

This is all I could find - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=281920& but I don't think I was banned for ordering a 7 String Guitar. Then again, you never know.

Rozie

Rozie wrote:

But that makes absolutely no sense.

What if some hypopthetical mod flies off the handle and decides to ban someone just for "****s and giggles"? Or bans someone because they're gay, or jewish? Would none of the other mods touch it because it's that mod's decision and should be left alone?

If you show that this is the case, then you will be taken seriously. But giving out about being banned when you haven't contacted the person who banned you will probably mean that you won't be taken seriously.

Rozie

Myth wrote:

If you show that this is the case, then you will be taken seriously. But giving out about being banned when you haven't contacted the person who banned you will probably mean that you won't be taken seriously.

He was contacted. He said no. Without providing a reason, of course. Which is a major gripe for me - every decision should be backed with sufficent reasoning. So I'm wonderring if there's another way to appeal it.

Rozie

Rozie wrote:

He was contacted. He said no. Without providing a reason, of course. Which is a major gripe for me - every decision should be backed with sufficent reasoning. So I'm wonderring if there's another way to appeal it.

As I said, you should have contacted him - have you asked him for a reason?

Talliesin

Rozie wrote:

What if some hypopthetical mod flies off the handle and decides to ban someone just for "****s and giggles"? Or bans someone because they're gay, or jewish?

The bans they'd made would be re-assessed after they were de-modded.

Rozie wrote:

He was contacted. He said no. Without providing a reason, of course. Which is a major gripe for me - every decision should be backed with sufficent reasoning. So I'm wonderring if there's another way to appeal it.

Why should the decision that a permanent ban should remain permanent be backed up with anything beyond "look up permanent in a dictionary"? The decision was already made, nothing has changed, there's no need for the moderator to do anything.

Rb

Rozie wrote:

You haven't provided any real justification as to why a moderator's decision should be completely infallible, especially when it can possibly lead to the scenarios I proposed.

Tbh, if a moderator was banning people for being jewish,gay,bisexual,black,white or any other ground for discrimination, and it was proved (not just hear say or accusations) that they were doing so, I'm pretty sure they'd no longer be a moderator. Might even get sitebanned for it.

Talliesin

Yep, rb_ie. Indeed, I'd particularly enjoy that siteban.

Rozie

I don't see the need if he already said no. I didn't remember who it was that banned me and Hungus had already contacted him by the time he told me.

I suppose I could try.

The bans they'd made would be re-assessed after they were de-modded.

So the mods AREN'T entirely infallible? So why is it acceptable for them to be over-ruled in one scenario and not another?

Why should the decision that a permanent ban should remain permanent be backed up with anything beyond "look up permanent in a dictionary"? The decision was already made, nothing has changed, there's no need for the moderator to do anything.

Because there's such a thing as "logical justification". An action cannot be considered "right" unless it is logically backed. This isn't my crazy idea, it's an objective fact. Certain lines of reasoning are acceptable and others aren't. "Because I say so" is probably the most logically weak position you could ever assume. You might have the ability to do it, but completely lack any form of justification. I.e., it's objectively wrong, and you can't really debate that.

Talliesin

Rozie wrote:

So the mods AREN'T entirely infallible? So why is it acceptable for them to be over-ruled in one scenario and not another?

You want to know why mods will be over-ruled if they've behaved improperly, but not if they haven't?

Sorry, I really don't think it's possible to explain that to someone who doesn't already get it.

Rozie wrote:

Because there's such a thing as "logical justification". An action cannot be considered "right" unless it is logically backed.

Not unbanning someone who is permanently banned is not an action, it needs no justification. Unbanning someone that is permanently banned is what would need to be justified.

Karl Hungus

Right, for the benifit of all man kind, I have just gone and searched by looking back through all the threads on instruments to find the thread where Rozie was banned. And here it is!

Basically, Rozie and LundiMardi took the thread way off-topic and were both banned for it.

Rozie

You want to know why mods will be over-ruled if they've behaved improperly, but not if they haven't?

Sorry, I really don't think it's possible to explain that to someone who doesn't already get it.

Very poor logic. If they have behaved improperly, it would not necessarily be recognised by staff.

I would consider suspending someone for two weeks on first offense completely improper behaviour. You appear to disagree.

Not unbanning someone who is permanently banned is not an action, it needs no justification. Unbanning someone that is permanently banned is what would need to be justified.

There are so many logical problems with that I'm not sure where to start.

The best thing I can do is provide a hypothetical scenario.

If I'm a cop and I throw a guy in a jail cell for a week, because I don't like the look of him.

Now, that's pretty bad. But maybe I had a reason for it. But what if I left him
in there for good? Under what circumstances is that fair? But surely,
releasing him would be action that needs defending?

I need seperate justification. Prolonging his stay there is an action in itself.

You're saying that you need no justification for this.

Your logic is extremely flawed.

It even falls under the fallacy of Appeal to Tradition to an extent - just because a way of doing things at some point in the past was acceptable, does not mean it applies right here and now. Old ways come into question.

A ban is an ongoing thing. It is not something that just happened. I cannot currently access the forums. This is an action that happens anytime I try to access the forums - it denies my request. This is an ongoing action. What is being achieved by keeping it in place, apart from frustrating me further?

If someone makes a decision that gay people should be beaten, should that be left alone because it's a decision that's already being made, and no justification needs to be made for it's continued action?

EVERY decision has to be justified, especially if it's effects are ongoing.

At worst, we have to look at the original action. Why should I be banned permanently?
Under what circumstances is that an acceptable thing to do?

Please, learn some debating logic before making a point again. Just because your argument is the one accepted by those in authority does not mean it is any more valid.

Basically, Rozie and LundiMardi took the thread way off-topic and were both banned for it.

That's what I got PERMANENTLY banned for? I got banned permanently for an argument with some eejit over my playing style?

So how does that justify a permanent ban? I also note that at not one point did Felyla tell us to cool it, even. Shouldn't you try that before banning someone? Apparently not.

Karl Hungus

Rozie wrote:

That's what I got PERMANENTLY banned for? I got banned permanently for an argument with some eejit over my playing style?

So how does that justify a permanent ban? I also note that at not one point did Felyla tell us to cool it, even. Shouldn't you try that before banning someone? Apparently not.

Threads like this probably didn't help either.

Rozie

Oh man that thread was awesome.

But come on, that was totally on topic. The Wangcaster is a real guitar.

When you ban someone, it's nonsensical to make it indefinite, at least if it's their first or second ban.

This is really a case of common decency here. I haven't even been around much here in ages. I will always argue passionately for logical justification over appeal to force. Whether it gets me banned or not, someone has to say it. But that's nothing to do with why I was banned in the Instruments forum.

muffler

Karl Hungus wrote:

Threads like this probably didn't help either.

Could you not pull a few strings to get the ban lifted

Rozie

muffler wrote:

Could you not pull a few strings to get the ban lifted

I agree. I want to hear more about this "Wangcaster"...

Stark

Well for a start, it's pretty vile looking.

Maguined

Rozie wrote:

That's what I got PERMANENTLY banned for? I got banned permanently for an argument with some eejit over my playing style?

So how does that justify a permanent ban? I also note that at not one point did Felyla tell us to cool it, even. Shouldn't you try that before banning someone?

Should'nt you use some intelligence and not insult someone on a thread in which you are trying to prove you should be unbanned for rule breaking ?

Rozie wrote:

Apparently not.

feylya

Considering your attitude about this whole banning along with your carry on on the other forums on Boards.ie since your banning, I am reluctant to unban you. I will however discuss this with the other mods of the forum and decide whether to unban you from the forum.

kaimera

Well, tbh, a perm ban for a first offence is a tad harsh* if there was no warning on the thread in question and if the poster wasn't warned previously.

Then again, I didn't click the links above.

*unless it's porn or warez or that music crowd obviously

Karoma

Personal abuse is a reason for a permanent ban, IMHO, when you take into consideration how the poster behaves in every other forum. i.e. The exact same, trollerific, abusive way.

DeVore

Rozie, mods are not considered infalliable however co-mods have no inherent structure of command so one mod of lesbian-guitars (why do I feel a forum request on its way) should not simply overrule another mod of the same forum. Otherwise we get Mod-Wars (cue the t-shirt) and they spend all day in the mod control panel, banning and unbanning the same user.

If you have a genuine issue you bring it to an Smod or Admin, they can have a word with the mod and see what the issue is. They can ultimately over rule the mod and unban the user. If the mod rebans, the admin can remove the mods powers and reban. End of war.

I have to agree though that for some who hasnt been here for ages and is looking to get unbanned you are fairly aggressive about it....

Now does that answer you're questions?

DeV.

Terry

ok. you were not banned for being gay or black or any other silly reason, so stop bringing that up.
mods are far from infallible. we do sometimes make mistakes or act irrationally.
i disagree with some of the actions taken by the other AH mods, but i stand by their decisions, because it's their decision at the end of the day.

you will never get a mod to lift a ban by being aggressive or abusive.

Doctor J

Rozie you were banned for being disruptive, argumentative and compromising the enjoyment of the forum for the regular participants. You couldn't seem to accept someone having an opinion different to yours which resulted in the inevitable tedious consequences and necessary moderator intervention. I recall a few other threads on other forums with similar outcomes. I agree entirely with Feylya's decision, I would be reluctant to lift a ban until I see you participating in other forums without causing grief for the other participants.

amp

Rozie for Lesbian-Guitars mod! Who's with me!!!!1?

BossArky

The U.L. forum banned Rozie for acting the constant muppet if I remember correctly.

feylya

And I believe Rozie was banned from Bands/Musicians for personal abuse.

Rozie

Considering your attitude about this whole banning along with your carry on on the other forums on Boards.ie since your banning, I am reluctant to unban you.

What is the problem with my attitude concerning this ban? I'm questioning it on a reasonable basis. People are flocking to defend it but it doesn't change that it's all I'm doing. Why do people act like someone is a criminal just for questioning the way something is done? This happens a lot online, but it seems to happen even more here.

I'm never going to be a lick-arse about these things. I think I've brought this up very respectfully, about as respectfully as I can given what I see a lot of people on this board as.

The U.L. forum banned Rozie for acting the constant muppet if I remember correctly.

I'm currently banned from the U.L. forum and the instruments forum. The U.L. forum ban was pretty ****ty too, as several people were attacking me. I mostly got banned for pointing out problems in U.L. and peoples attitude - and to be fair, I was right. Most of the societies fell apart. Maybe I was overly aggressive, but you can't beat throwing out a perma-ban instead of dealing with a real issue for immature behaviour, IMO.

I could be banned from the Fashion forum for asserting that fat people aren't ugly still too, I haven't checked. Some of the insults being thrown around were disgusting. Banning the "angry" party is comitting the Style over Substance fallacy, and whatever your opinion is, is a logically faulty decision. Going after the people who are doing the real vicious insulting is a bit more of a challenge but what you should be doing if you want to be in anyway competent.

Real trolls don't stand out.

Rozie you were banned for being disruptive, argumentative and compromising the enjoyment of the forum for the regular participants.

I was banned for getting into an argument with another member where it was off-topic to do so.
It's reasonably easy to ignore someone's posts if you don't like them, and they're not making it personal(like Lundi was). All of those weighted terms just oversimplify a matter to an almost black and white state.

You couldn't seem to accept someone having an opinion different to yours which resulted in the inevitable tedious consequences and necessary moderator intervention.

This is where I stop acting like your "opinion" is anything more than a bunch of rubbish.

If you don't like how I acted, fine. But you're reducing a two sided situation to a one sided one which makes you a very biased person indeed.

I was undoutedbly not the worst person in that conversation. I was being attacked, not "

Quite frankly, I'm tired of the self righteous attitude some members and moderators take when someone steps out of line.

I have good reasons to be pissed so often. Anytime I do get involved in anything, it's usually a one sided gang up against me, and I'm getting tired. I think this is a result of Groupthink and an atmosphere that naturally belittles any opposition.

This is a good reason for me to be pissed. I have been semi-active on a few forums here without causing any trouble.

In my opinion, when people go online they learn to recognise certain "trouble makers" which don't necessarily match with what they should be dealing with.

The fact taht you completely ignore the other side in anything I've been involved in shows you're just plain delusional as far as this argument goes. I honestly don't want to listen to thinly veiled insults warped into an argument.

[qutoe]Personal abuse is a reason for a permanent ban, IMHO, when you take into consideration how the poster behaves in every other forum. i.e. The exact same, trollerific, abusive way.[/quote]

Another example. I am by definition, not a troll, and anyone claiming so is incorrect, and it just proves they're looking for any weighted term to stick on to me.

A troll is a person who posts something infuriating or offensive in order to get a reaction.

I'm a sucker for reacting to trolls rather than being a troll in the least. I don't do stuff to make forums react; I just stand my corner.

ok. you were not banned for being gay or black or any other silly reason, so stop bringing that up.

No, I was permanently banned for arguing with someone off-topic. Being gay and black is an invalid premise for a ban - just as an offense like this, even if backed by a similiar offense, is a piss poor premise for a permanent ban.

I still hold strongly that there are serious problems in the mentality of this board in general, if permanent bans, and suspensions are handed out so lightly. Of course it's a big successful forum and I'm one person so I can't succeed in convincing anyone, which is part of the problem. Irish people are unfortunately super-suspectible to memes. Why else is Catholicism so rampant? Why are we one of the most conservative nations in western europe? Why are we suckers for the "Trendy" brands, especially Sony? Why do we have such poor subcultures? Why is it that when anyone tries to question anything, we're told to cop-on? Why don't we do anything about our piss poor infrastructure and public services?

This is no different. People are falling in line far too easily. Maybe this is a good thing in some scenarios, but it's not what I do. At all. I have an

On no other forum I've been on to was my guitar playing attacked so mercilessly. Maybe because they actually read the topic and found out that it was a stoner jam and not meant to be serious loook-i-can-play-thee-scales. The mods didn't want to do anything about this. How can that not piss me off?

Why are people just PRESUMING I'm in the wrong here? Just because I'm "bitching" and I've been in trouble before I'm automatically in the wrong? I haven't seen a single attempt at reasoning why the ban should remain.

Like it or not, there are MEANT to be certain rules you adhere to for debate. I haven't seen anyone on this forum who's aware of them, let alone honours them, and it's incredibly frustrating for someone like me who goes to effort to make a logical argument instead of one based on force or appeal to the majority.

So maybe you should try to see it from my side and why I'm often so angry with this forum. It's really frustrating for me as it's the only really big Irish forum(P45Rant is smaller, and has the same problems) but my mentality doesn't cling with people here at all.

I nearly always have a good reason for being angry, which is more than I can say for some of the bandwagoners in the topics I end up in. Usually it's because someone makes a thoughtless remark and insists on it without backing it up, or posts something highly offensive that the mods don't seem to have a problem with. I don't set out to cause trouble and I take great offense at the vicious little **** some people are casting me as.

The fact that I have to appeal this ban by "showing I've improved" which no doubt involves becoming a bit of a doormat instead of providing a logical argument is really sad.

Why can't you actually try to diffuse a situation, talk to both sides and work something out? Not ONCE have I seen that. So if any mod claims they had no choice but to ban me or whoever, they're lying. There's plenty you can do. Bans only serve to aggress people further as they're the ultimate mark of disrespect. Permanent bans are attesting that someone doesn't change, and even if it is based on them changing, they often have to change their entire personality.

This wasn't a "sob story", it was me pointing out the problem I see here. I can guarantee though that I'll be told to cop on and not one person will try to actually debate it properly, favouring more insults and name calling instead. Which upsets me a lot.

Karl Hungus

Rozie wrote:

What is the problem with my attitude concerning this ban?

Because it's your attitude that's keeping you banned. For example:

Rozie wrote:

I'm never going to be a lick-arse about these things. I think I've brought this up very respectfully, about as respectfully as I can given what I see a lot of people on this board as.

Thinly veiled vitiol and superiority complex aside, the problem with that statement is that you're basically stating that you're only respectful by your standards, and when you're using self serving standards, that doesn't encourage any moderator who might have banned you for prior infractions to unban you.

Rozie wrote:

I'm a sucker for reacting to trolls rather than being a troll in the least. I don't do stuff to make forums react; I just stand my corner.

Oh you got that right. But what do trolls do? They look for a reaction. Now, what do you do? You give them a reaction. Can you see where I'm going with this?

You encourage and feed trolls. You are equally as culpable in the effect that trolling has. Can you not understand this?

Rozie wrote:

I haven't seen a single attempt at reasoning why the ban should remain.

There's been many reasons, you've just chosen to dismiss them.

RoundyMooney

Rozie wrote:

Why can't you actually try to diffuse a situation, talk to both sides and work something out? Not ONCE have I seen that. So if any mod claims they had no choice but to ban me or whoever, they're lying. There's plenty you can do. Bans only serve to aggress people further as they're the ultimate mark of disrespect. Permanent bans are attesting that someone doesn't change, and even if it is based on them changing, they often have to change their entire personality.

Karl has pretty much covered the remainder of your (long) post, but I felt I should pull you up on the above. The people carrying the banhammers are moderators, not mediators. Think about it. If mods were duty bound to act as middlemen to every bout of trollery (or whatever), firstly, there would be more mods than users, and secondly, boards as we know it would cease to exist. It would be, and is, patently unnecessary anyway. Unfair/questionable bannings are a tiny fraction of the whole, I can't remember one standing out in my mind as long as I've been here. The system works, simple as.

Your numerous brushes with teh powah have been discussed at length. Given that they occured in a variety of unrelated fora, maybe you need to ask why such a pattern exists in the first place. To refer back to your initial point, the moderators of boardsie are not your conscience, there to correct your behaviour or act as your moral compass. Any breaches of forum rules tend to be non-negotiable.

The matter of a permaban being lifted is one that has also been discussed by those involved. You can either take that on the chin, or take the advice presented. If I wanted back in as badly as you appear to, I know what I'd be doing right now.

oscarBravo

Rozie wrote:

Anytime I do get involved in anything, it's usually a one sided gang up against me, and I'm getting tired.

Have you ever asked yourself why this is?

If so, have you ever been prepared to answer yourself honestly?

DeVore

Why can't you actually try to diffuse a situation, talk to both sides and work something out? Not ONCE have I seen that. So if any mod claims they had no choice but to ban me or whoever, they're lying. There's plenty you can do. Bans only serve to aggress people further as they're the ultimate mark of disrespect. Permanent bans are attesting that someone doesn't change, and even if it is based on them changing, they often have to change their entire personality.

Only a month ago we had a problem between a user (Rooferpete) and a mod (and subsequently an Smod and he got banned). Then I spent quite a bit of time behind the scenes talking things through. Result, Rooferpete has returned.

I'm never going to be a lick-arse about these things. I think I've brought this up very respectfully, about as respectfully as I can given what I see a lot of people on this board as.

What your saying is "I havent and wont alter the reasons why I was banned in the first place, in fact I dont see them as my problems at all". Well the rules havent changed so if you havent either (or at least made some attempt to compromise) then you arent getting unbanned because you will just get banned again in no time.

Long ago I reconciled myself to only keeping 80% (if that) of the people here happy and involved in the community. If you want to chose to be in the other 20%, I wont stop you.

DeV.

David Michael

DeVore wrote:

Long ago I reconciled myself to only keeping 80% (if that) of the people here happy and involved in the community. If you want to chose to be in the other 20%, I wont stop you.

DeV.

You and Vilfredo Pareto both

http://www.it-cortex.com/Pareto_law.htm

http://home.alltel.net/mikeric/Misc/Pareto.htm

More of an A.B.C man myself.

BossArky

Quit looking for attention Rozie.

Is it possible to ban her from here? It'll save me having to read the first two sentences and then skip the rest of posts such as #35 again.

DeVore

David Michael wrote:

You and Vilfredo Pareto both

http://www.it-cortex.com/Pareto_law.htm

http://home.alltel.net/mikeric/Misc/Pareto.htm

More of an A.B.C man myself.

If A is 80% then 100-A must be 20%... I dont think your links really apply.

Never heard of the c*nt myself

DeV.

Karl Hungus

BossArky wrote:

Quit looking for attention Rozie.

Is it possible to ban her from here? It'll save me having to read the first two sentences and then skip the rest of posts such as #35 again.

Ignore button ftw!

BossArky

Karl Hungus wrote:

Ignore button ftw!

Cheers Karl! I forgot that option existed. Time to take it for a test drive :cool:

CuLT

BossArky wrote:

Cheers Karl! I forgot that option existed. Time to take it for a test drive :cool:

This ignore needs a banner ad campaign tbh.

Anyone want to front boards.ie some money to circulate an "ignore this user" ad?

BossArky

Yeah, tried out the ignore button yesterday - its great. It is like looking at the sun through very strong sun glasses ... you know its there but it cannot get to you.

Crash

I dunno, I never use the ignore button since I first started modding on here. makes it more trouble than its worth.

Talliesin

BossArky wrote:

Yeah, tried out the ignore button yesterday - its great. It is like looking at the sun through very strong sun glasses ... you know its there but it cannot get to you.

Not really. If you are a mod though, then the ignore button is like looking at the sun through very strong sun glasses - you think everythings okay while there's lots of damage being done.

440Hz

Hmmmm and just as we were thinking maybe we should unban Rozie from UL now that the mod has changed... but seems Rozie has not

(to be considered... )

Rozie

**** this, I tried to be somewhat polite, and nobody could give a toss.

Long ago I reconciled myself to only keeping 80% (if that) of the people here happy and involved in the community. If you want to chose to be in the other 20%, I wont stop you.

That's very flawed. There's no guarantee the 80% are right and it's easily possible for something to affect the whole population without people even admitting it - the current sate of the United States demonstrates this easily enough.

What if the 20% happen to be the LGBT members of the board? You didn't say which 20%. It could be anyone. If the LGBT members are being singled out and harassed by the rest of the board, would you ban them?

That's similiar to what's happening with me. I'm not the one doing wrong, I just get involved in it due to my sheer anger at the arrogance some people have. Mods will here always ban people like me because they've no interest in actually doing the right thing or improving anythign at all, just the easy thing.

Oh you got that right. But what do trolls do? They look for a reaction. Now, what do you do? You give them a reaction. Can you see where I'm going with this?

You encourage and feed trolls. You are equally as culpable in the effect that trolling has. Can you not understand this?

Yes. And you know what you should do? Get rid of the trolls, since THEY'RE the ones actually setting out the cause the trouble. But do you? No. Because the staff is utterly incompetent and following a piss poor set of rules and morals.

There's been many reasons, you've just chosen to dismiss them.

On a logical basis. We've already established via PM you're like some fundie nutjob who doesn't believe in logic, and just sidepasses by flinging further insults back at me. If you can't accept the idea that some things have logical justification and others don't, then it's impossible to argue with you. I may as well argue with Pat Robertson or someone.

Karl has pretty much covered the remainder of your (long) post, but I felt I should pull you up on the above. The people carrying the banhammers are moderators, not mediators. Think about it. If mods were duty bound to act as middlemen to every bout of trollery (or whatever), firstly, there would be more mods than users, and secondly, boards as we know it would cease to exist.

That's a fallacy. A few years ago when I first started going on line, that's what moderators did. Setting down a banhammer as a first resort is ridiculous behaviour. What does it say about a forum when you have people there that are almost solely for blocking other people's access?

Only a month ago we had a problem between a user (Rooferpete) and a mod (and subsequently an Smod and he got banned). Then I spent quite a bit of time behind the scenes talking things through. Result, Rooferpete has returned.

So this occured once, a month ago?

Quit looking for attention Rozie.

Sorry, but this is pure arrogance. I'm blatantly not looking for attention as whenever I do draw attention, it's NEVER pleasant for me. I just want to tackle something nobody has provided a valid justification for as of yet.

Nobody likes an attention seeker, or some whiny teenager. So if you can just write off someone you don't like as that, you don't have to deal with any problems they raise! Excellent!

This is a pathetic and highly offensive tactic, especially coming from a moderator.

This is exactly my problem with this place. I wouldn't keep getting so pissed off. Though there's a vast majority against me here nobody's really provided any logical justification, just criticising my behaviour which is irrelevant, since that's only in reaction to other people's.

I don't think this is ever going to go anywhere because people don't think they have to justify things properly. In your heads, this is the only way things can be even though there are other forums run better(note: note on the same theme, so don't say "feck off and go there then") that prove this notion wrong. They just say that "it wouldn't work" or fling it back on to me going on some Tallesin style self righteous rant about what a terrible human being I am for arguing on a messageboard. You've no idea how frustrating this is.

Hmmmm and just as we were thinking maybe we should unban Rozie from UL now that the mod has changed... but seems Rozie has not

(to be considered... )

What, because I take a problem with a ban? How does me challenging a ban, which I've always done, and never claimed I'll stop, affect This assheadedness is exactly one of the reasons why I'm leaving UL anyway. Thanks a lot. Right now I feel like leaving Ireland altogether. As much as I hate the way American-owned forums are usually so bloody right wing(not that this place isn't in the way it's run), it's rare I encounter one that suspends or bands from a subforum over one offense making no effort whatsoever to mediate or even provide a valid reason past "YOU WERE BEING IMMATURE". Why am I the only one who realises how insane it is!? Most forums, as ****ty as internet forums tend to be, do NOT do this. Why is this place so special? I'm not truly in the minority here, yet as far as this argument goes, I'm the only person arguing this. How can this be right? Will someone answer me that?
I don't see how I'm being immature when I'm not the one with a considerable amount of power and taking no responsibility whatsoever for it.

Giblet

Jesus you're a horrible poster. You are immature, you had a little fit when someone said your music was awful trying to justify yourself by saying that we knew nothing about effects etc etc.

As much as I hate the way American-owned forums are usually so bloody right wing(not that this place isn't in the way it's run), it's rare I encounter one that suspends or bands from a subforum over one offense making no effort whatsoever to mediate or even provide a valid reason past "YOU WERE BEING IMMATURE".

I LOVE this "Blah blah no other forums do this or that" Yes the ****ing do, all of them, any forum that doesn't is too small to care about.