General election coming and I don't know why I was banned form politics

ISAW

I took this to the help desk a week ago and still haven't got an clear answer.
Apparently I can also post the feedback forum.

I was banned from politics. Apparently the ban was because of someting I might do i.e. specifically that might get personal in the specific thread with one of three posters.

I was posting to a thread about science funding. I had been directed there from elsewhere. The posters above claimed to have personal experience of working in science and that therefore my opinion was not as good at theirs. I claimed this was argument from authority and that mine was not opinion but fact based on reference. One claim in particular was that we should have less people doing doctorates and fund post doctorates more. I asked how muchg less and how many more. I provided the stats for the other person to say how many more. I was accused of lying dishonesty diverting the thread and a number of other things. the point I made was I had arrived later and disagreed with THEIR claim and they had to support their claim. Buty i supported my counter claimn anyway.

A similar argument before, on the same subject, resulted in numerous personal attacks on me. I got no apologies and the other people were not banned.

Eventually, when i was accused several times of deceit i asked "if you are calling me a liar you had better say so" A moderator Oscar Bravo stepped in. I PMed him, removed the request to say so about me being a liar told him I had no fuurther interest in posting theat thread and he banned me from three politics fora.

When I asked what I was banned for I was shown no rule and also told the other poster had "got a we bit personal". the other poster conbtinued to post. I appealed to an Smod and was told the ban was about I might get personal. I found this ludicrous.

I didnt agree with the ban. I told the mod Oscar Bravo so and that sinmce he wouldnt reply there was nothing more to be said between us on it. three weeks later I told him I still didnt know what I was banned for and asked him to remove it.

He refused. He said ciorstumstances (which I havent been informed of) hade not changed.


Thread title: Ireland's need for scientists

Unsupported accusation:
http://www.nologin.boards.ie/vbullet...0&postcount=54

request to support it in post 60
request to supply evidence that i "made stuff up" = 66
accused of misrepresentation = 69
accused of "diversionary tactics" = 81
accused of "misdirection and "dishonesty" = 83
drew attention to the fact I didn't want to be insulted =91
banned from thread =92

Earlier thread: €3.8 Billion Investment in Science & Technology
for example see posts 33, 38,44.


References to this and other thread on same issue
Insulted and asked it be withdrawn

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51588190&postcount=44
Acknowledgement of insult but refusal in the following messages especially 48 where I am accused of lying.

http://www.nologin.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=52955140&postcount=54

What was I banned for? How long will it last?

DeVore

Your link doesnt work.

Have you pm'ed the mods?

DeV.

gandalf

ISAW quit you whining you have been told why you have been banned in numerous post by the other Politics mods.

Dev check this thread out on the Politics Mods board re this http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055071587

muffler

As Dev said the link doesnt work and even if it did I doubt if too many would be interested in reading through the sheer volume of posts.

Your case is that you have been hard done by. You have been insulted. Persoanl attacks and accusations have been made about dishonesty etc. You were banned but were never told why. The mod refuses to reply to PM's. etc etc.

You tell us you have done nothing wrong. Very strange. Without being able to acess the thread in question I would take a guess and say that you are not whiter than white in all of this. The one thing that I did see was where you said you asked for an insult to be withdrawn when in actual fact you demanded that it be withdrawn. You are not being very truthful are you.

I would suggest that you log out, re-read the thread and see where you went wrong. Then PM the mod, apologise and ask that the ban be lifted.

ISAW

DeVore wrote:

Your link doesnt work.

Have you pm'ed the mods?

DeV.

oops sorry my mistake
http://nologin.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=52952644&postcount=41


As I understand it the process is to first attract a mod to your problem, then if they are personally involved or you don't agree with them to appeal to an smod and eventually to admin. maybe people are not aware of that process or mayby I am wrong about it?

Yes I pm the original mod. He didn't point to any rule i had broken. He refused to discuss the matter further. Some time later then was in touch with an s mod whom I think contacted the original mod. He seemed to listen and tried to address the situation. Still couldnt tell me what I did wrong or how long the ban is for. It also seems to me he thinks it isnt his place to reverse the decision of a mod to ban someone or to set any duration to a ban.

So then I went to help desk. I was told I could post help desk and here. After another wek and still no reason (actually a new reason emerged - that I was "diverting the thread". I assume this means going off topic. Oddly I was never accused of this in the original ban but iot ios something I also reject. Oh and "timewasting" also arrived as a new issue. Apparently there is a report which is easy to get an I kept asking for it. but I still don't know where this report is. I asked the people who say it is easy to find to show it to me and I still havent got a reference to this report.)

What did I do wrong?
How long will it last?

6th

My advice would be to forget about the "why" and just try get an answer to the "how long". Whether you are right or wrong isn't an issue, if they want to find a reason to ban you they'll dig one up easily enough.

Best of luck finding out if/when the ban will be lifted.

ISAW

gandalf wrote:

ISAW quit you whining you have been told why you have been banned in numerous post by the other Politics mods.

This is just not true!
Why are you stating this when you know it is not true?

I have NOT been told why I have been banned in numerous posts by the other Politics mods!

You are one of these Politics mods. You never PM me or addressed this issue
did you? Which OTHER politics mods did?

As far as I know I only discussed the issue with ONE politics mod. In fact I initiated the discussion with Oscar Bravo before I was banned and I posted the thread no more after I initiatd that personbal discussion. Oscar Bravo subsequently banned me!

As far as I know the process is then to appeal to a higher authority or maybe the other mods.

Since that time (and before it with the exception of Oscar Bravo) I did NOT contact uberwolf, sceptre, Tristrame, Rock Climber, oscarBravo, or you gandalf about this ban! Are there OTHER politics mods you suggest I contacted because I dont know of any more and you are telling me I discussed this matter of Oscar Bravo's ban with the other maod and they told me what the reason for the ban was.

could you tell me Gandalf if they told me the reason and duration of the ban why am i now asking about the reason for it?

[hint]Maybe:
1 I don't know the reason for it or the duration.
or even
2. I do have some idea of a vague reason and disagree with it.

You are suggesting 1 is a lie and I am not entitled to 2.

1. Is not a lie! and as regards 2 I have pointed out what I understand the process of appeal to be. Are you stating this understanding is wrong? Where is it wrong?



Dev check this thread out on the Politics Mods board re this http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055071587[/QUOTE]

Sadly it appears I can't counter argue since I don't have access to that link!

What rule did I break?

What is the duration of the ban?

ISAW

6th wrote:

My advice would be to forget about the "why" and just try get an answer to the "how long". Whether you are right or wrong isn't an issue, if they want to find a reason to ban you they'll dig one up easily enough.

Best of luck finding out if/when the ban will be lifted.

This is helpfull. Thank you. I admire you ability to put aside personal differences and at least try and deal with an issue fairly. You certainly have my respect even if i might disagree with your opinion in future. Sadly I do not feel so sure about the "appeals system" here but I don't want to be accused of contempt.

So far it seems I have had accusations made after the fact, no clear indication of what I was charged with doing, and no idea of the penalty involved even in spite of not knowing for what I was being punished.
Bizzare!

Would you care to bet my posting ability to politics will be restored after the election is over?

The_Minister

ISAW wrote:

Would you care to bet my posting ability to politics will be restored after the election is over?

Are you saying that you think the ban was politically motivated?

Blowfish

The_Minister wrote:

Are you saing that you think the ban was politically motivated?

/me pulls up chair and grabs popcorn

ISAW

The_Minister wrote:

Are you saying that you think the ban was politically motivated?

Nope. I haven't stated that. I wouldn't accuse without evidence.
[sightly different issue:
But if you mean politically in the sense that I think people have discussed me (in particular mods) between themselves then I have my suspicions. I also have evidence which does not mention my name . "we all know who I mean" type nod and wonk stuff, and mods saying "we are keeping an eye on him" type replies. I didnt want to post that person and say "if you mean me then please say so". I avoid anon chatachter assination on rumour mongers.

Do you want the reference?
I'll post it here.
Then you can ask the Op in a Pm and see and see if the mod is willing to say he was speaking about me and make up your own mind if that "have it in for me". I don't mind what they think of me as long as we all follow clear rules and they are fair about it and it doesnt affect their judgement or they are not in a cabal defending "group think" self interest.

End separate issue of whether they like me or not]

Whatever the reason going by the fact that in a month I havent been able to ascertain the reason or the duration for the ban would it really surprise you if I don't get to post right through the election campaign?

seamus

ISAW wrote:

Still couldnt tell me what I did wrong or how long the ban is for.

Let's just state this again for the benefit of everyone reading. You were given a reason for the ban. It just didn't conform to what your idea of a "reason" was - i.e. you want someone to point to a rule and say "You broke that". I explained that the ban was more preventative than punitive (which is a valid course of action), and so you're not going to get the type of reaosn that you desire. You were also given a "duration", but again you didn't get the answer that you wanted. "Indefinite" is a duration. The ban will last for as long as you fail to understand why it was imposed, that's my understanding of the action.

It also seems to me he thinks it isnt his place to reverse the decision of a mod to ban someone or to set any duration to a ban.

You'll find that all of the Smods and Admins will share a similar view. The purpose of the Smods are caretaking duties, in general. We are here to provide advice to other moderators if needed, perform sitewide moderation duties (banning spammers & cleaning up after them), and fill in for any other moderator if they are unavailable. We will also consult/mediate in disputes between users and/or moderators. We are not here to "Moderate the moderators", and I personally will never overturn another moderator's action. I will however discuss any objection or concerns I have about their actions, if necessary.

ISAW, if you feel that there were other motivations in imposing a ban, then feel free to PM myself or one of the other Smods or Admins in confidence to discuss said concerns.

6th

ISAW wrote:

Would you care to bet my posting ability to politics will be restored after the election is over?

I'd say you got it right with this line. I'd say kick back and enjoy the break ... its lovely outside!

ISAW

seamus wrote:

Let's just state this again for the benefit of everyone reading. You were given a reason for the ban. It just didn't conform to what your idea of a "reason" was - i.e. you want someone to point to a rule and say "You broke that".

No the reason I was given as far as I can see it was that I "might" do something against the rules! this is what i refer to as "thought crime" . there was no "act" I actually did . I was punished on the basis that I might personally attack someone.

Now THAT is not a reason at all is it?

I explained that the ban was more preventative than punitive (which is a valid course of action), and so you're not going to get the type of reaosn that you desire.

No it isn't a valid reason! Can't you understand why? One can't be convicted of a crime one has not yet committed! especially when the "crime" doesn't exist in the charter!

And the reason "because I felt like it and I don't like you anyway " isn't a valid reason either. should people also be banned on that basis?

You were also given a "duration", but again you didn't get the answer that you wanted. "Indefinite" is a duration.

So you now have rules which nobody can point to which have penalties which nobody can see?

Please look up the word. It means not of any certain duration. I.e. it ISNT a duration! The duration is "not defined"! And when I requested the nature of this indefinate duration I was told it was based on my understanding of what I had done wrong! And when I asked what it was I had done wrong I was told that isnt defined either! And all the while there is apparently some "charter" which people follow but

- I am not shown anything in the charter I broke
- I am actually told not everything is in the charter

Eventually I am told that because nothing has changed this indefinate ban (for which ther is no broken rule) remains indefinate. So what is the difference between a indefinate ban for no valid reason and a permanent ban for no valid reason?

The ban will last for as long as you fail to understand why it was imposed, that's my understanding of the action.

It's mine too! Why was it imposed? for what reason? apparently it was for someting I MIGHT do! I understand that and you restate it above. I don't agree with it but I clearly understand that it was for no written thing in the charter and because a mod felt I MIGHT do something i.e. I MIGHT personally attack others in a particular thread. This by the way AFTER I posted i had no intention of posting that thread. Do you begin to understang the difficulties of convicting someone for a crime they might do and awarding an unknown penalty based on their understanding of the un committed crime?

You'll find that all of the Smods and Admins will share a similar view.

You are their spokesman then and speak for them? Well I.m surprised that they believe in post hoc rules but I still don't know what I am not supposed to understand. If I understand the ludicrous reason for the ban why isnt it lifted?

The purpose of the Smods are caretaking duties, in general....

off topic. their purpose is not at issue . Why I was banned is.

We are not here to "Moderate the moderators", and I personally will never overturn another moderator's action.

do you accept my analysis of the appeals process as I outlined it? If not so where am wrong?

ISAW, if you feel that there were other motivations in imposing a ban, then feel free to PM myself or one of the other Smods or Admins in confidence to discuss said concerns.

Having just stated you would not overturn the ban I would not think that of any benefit to restoring my posting ability would you?

I won't skulk around and join any rumour mills or gossip circles either.

Blowfish

Sums it up tbh.

oscarBravo

When I banned you on March 27, I said:

I've removed your access to the Politics forum, as you seem to be incapable of participating in a discussion without turning it into a heated argument. When you've convinced me otherwise, I'll restore your access.

Based on the twelve private messages I've received from you since then, your Help Desk thread, your contribution to another thread on this forum, and now this thread, I think you've done an admirable job of making my case for me.

I don't have an issue with you personally; I know nothing about you. As for having the ban lifted after the general election: it's not going to happen either before, during or after the election, unless you meet the simple criterion I've set out.

Sesshoumaru

oscarBravo wrote:

When I banned you on March 27, I said: Based on the twelve private messages I've received from you since then, your Help Desk thread, your contribution to another thread on this forum, and now this thread, I think you've done an admirable job of making my case for me.

I don't have an issue with you personally; I know nothing about you. As for having the ban lifted after the general election: it's not going to happen either before, during or after the election, unless you meet the simple criterion I've set out.

You heard the man!! You need anger management classes and a letter from your doctor saying you've attended them

GuanYin

and people say that *I* post in a condescending manner. I'm an amateur by comparison.

Seeing as I'm being accused of all sorts, I'll just make a couple of comments.

1. Your posting style doesn't actually lead to any debate. You take a post, highlight points you don't agree with, offer no counter arguement, but merely demand proof, citing some archaic notion - many people find that rude and annoying. If you want to argue a case, do so but don't try push court law on an internet BBS.

2. I accused you of posting in a dishonest fashion. This is because you operate (maybe unknowingly) a fog of war style of debate. ie:

Poster: The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy hen.

You: I demand you show me proof that all brown foxes are quick.

That is, you ask for "proof" for points that the person you are debating with, neither said nor referenced. This looks, from the outside to be a diversionary tactic, which is what I pointed out at the time.

This may not be intentional on your part, your posts tend to be so long and rambling that I often forget what the hell your point is before I finish the post.

In any case, I think if you learn to post succintly and on topic without treating boards.ie like a court of law then you may get to where the mods think you should be.

Incidentally, I didn't request your ban nor make any complaint about you.

muffler

ISAW, you are doing the exact same here as you did in the thread - questioning every single sentence and every word of the sentence. Where in the name of Jesus Mary and their wee donkey do you get the time to post such a bucket load of waffle. Your posts are both boring and irritating. If your PM's were only 20% the length of your posts then I feel sorry for OscarBravo and see why he has taken a stand.

You have way too much time on your hands. You are digging a hole for yourself that you wont get out of. Throw the spade away, calm down and sit tight for a while.

r3nu4l

Having been involved in that thread I feel I should comment. From my point of view regardless of the fact that I agreed with Psi's points in the debate, I also agree with what he has said regarding your posting style.

It is, in my view, diversionary and obfuscating. Deliberately clouding the issue with minor unimportant points and refusing to focus on the main thrust of the debate. You tend to wander off on tangents that you have created yourself. I got very tired of trying to debate rationally with you and also sick of the use of UPPERCASE to ENHANCE points and generally FORCE your opinion on others.

I don't know if this is an unintentional thing with you or whether you feel you have to take up every single tiny point regardless of its importance in the overall debate but it induces feelings of apathy in this reader. I found I could not continue on the thread because I felt worn down by it to the extent where I lost interest.

That's just my two cents and I know it won't make a difference to you. I'm not attacking you, I'm trying to explain how I saw it as someone else who was poting on that thread. I felt at one point that you were getting very aggressive and in fairness to the politics mods they didn't step in for ages. So I guess that when they did they felt it was justifiable.

seamus

ISAW wrote:

"might" do something against the rules....
this is what i refer to as "thought crime" .... there was no "act" I actually did . I was punished ....
One can't be convicted of a crime one has not yet committed! especially when the "crime" doesn't exist in the charter...

So to sum up; You think that a ban should only be imposed when someone breaks a specific rule. That's not the way it works, and I'm not going to try explain it again.

"because I felt like it and I don't like you anyway "

Who said that?

You are their spokesman then and speak for them?

No, apologies. I should have qualified that with, "I think you'll find". The role of the smods is exactly as I have described, but the admins in the past have stated that they will generally not overrule a moderator - what would be the point in giving the moderators this power if the admins are going to interfere with it?

do you accept my analysis of the appeals process as I outlined it?

Absolutely. I never said your analysis was wrong. I was simply clarifying the bits you were uncertain of.

Having just stated you would not overturn the ban I would not think that of any benefit to restoring my posting ability would you?

Well, in the absence of any evidence or otherwise any support from another user, any claims of ulterior motives are irrelevant. On the other hand, if you do believe that moderators are particularly picking on you, then you/I/we can bring it to an administrator's attention.

As I explained to you before, I endeavour to ensure that a moderator acted in good faith. If on the other hand, a moderator acted in abuse of his/her powers, then I would most definitely have that case heard and do what I can to right that. In such a case, overriding the ban wouldn't be sufficient action to right the wrong. Would you prefer that just your ban was lifted, or that the abusing moderator was removed *and* your ban was lifted, if it took a little longer?

ISAW

oscarBravo wrote:

When I banned you on March 27, I said: ...

So Oscar Bravo now claims he permanently banned me for "arguing" in the politics forum!

funny how you don't seem to be able to explain what argument is because I suspect if you did you would have to ban all rational logically valid debate and most of the posters to politics!

Not just arguing mind you but arguing in a "heated" way!

This is supposed to be a valid reason for permanently banning someone form politics? I point out that someone is not supporting their case and that they are calling me a liar and this amounts to "heated argument". I contually point out logical flaws in the other persons' positions and insisting they support their position with evidence instead of argument form authority and this is being "heated"?

"heated argument" apparently is the new invented crime of permanent bans from all three politics fora.

Does anyone find something odd about that accusation or the penalty for it?

As for having the ban lifted after the general election: it's not going to happen either before, during or after the election, unless you meet the simple criterion I've set out.

In other words unless I say I wont argue in the politics fora you won't lift the ban?

And apparently according to an Smod none of the admins or other mods will lift it either?

Does anyone find this a bit odd? I mean what is the point of an appeals process if no one ever is going to change any prior decision?

ISAW

oscarBravo wrote:

Based on the twelve private messages I've received from you since then, your Help Desk thread, your contribution to another thread on this forum, and now this thread, I think you've done an admirable job of making my case for me.

Of course you refer to this but dont actually provide evidence to your handwaving argument. WHERE specifically is this "evidence" that "heated argument" warrents a ban from politics? On what in the charter is it based?

I don't have an issue with you personally

then why post about PM and p[ersonal comments made by me? why not say "if a poster ..." and make a general case? Why use me as an example?

Well the last thing the volunteer politics mod wants is to be wasting time on a never ending stream of pm's with a poster arguing over a desision
We don't tolerate that or obfuscation via pm.
No exceptions are made.

We're only interested in the smooth running of the forum.

You were being discussed on the politics mod forum thread that Gandalf linked to.

The politics mods have came to a decision now.May I be the first to relay it to you.
As far as we are concerned your ban is permanent.

aidan_walsh

I don't see you supporting your claims with links and quotes. I demand evidence, and a big book of it too. In fact, I demand no less than three meters of evidence.

ISAW

seamus wrote:

So to sum up; You think that a ban should only be imposed when someone breaks a specific rule.

Your logic seems to be confused.

I am not making that case about a ban ONLY being covered by the charter. I might well make that case. If you look at the title of this thread you will see I am ASKING whether mods go by the charter or appeal to some higher sense of right and wrong. I can only counter either argument as the mod in question makes it. you have made the "natural law" position. And so I ask form where does this authority folw? What is the source of this thing that informs you of right and wrong? Or do you just make it up as you go along?

That's not the way it works, and I'm not going to try explain it again.

you have made this case in this thread. But other mods have different positions. Even in politics mods are on record saying they go by the charter.

Who said that?

Note the quotes? They are used to indicate an analogy. It is called arguemtn by analogy. For example what is the difference between "we will give him a fair trial and then hang him" and assumption of guilrt or saying because "I felt like it and I don't like you anyway" and not having any rule to point to which I broke?

No, apologies. I should have qualified that with, "I think you'll find". The role of the smods is exactly as I have described, but the admins in the past have stated that they will generally not overrule a moderator - what would be the point in giving the moderators this power if the admins are going to interfere with it?

Well it is called "judicial process" or "appeal to a higher court" in normal parlance. It is not usual but it is not uncommon for appeal courts to reverse decisions. Otherwise why have an appeal process in the first place?

Absolutely. I never said your analysis was wrong. I was simply clarifying the bits you were uncertain of.

Well then that is a contradiction! Since you seem not to understand than an appeal process is to facilitate decisions being reversed! But then you say you accept my outline of what the appeal process is!

Would you prefer that just your ban was lifted, or that the abusing moderator was removed *and* your ban was lifted, if it took a little longer?

I would prefer I wasnt banned in the first place. as for the moderator who banned me I don't know but I do not believe he has any personal communication form others about me since he seemed to tell me so. I believe him. I don't think he was "put up to it" but I don't know. I believe others have certainly been discussing me privately and maybe he was too but he said he wasn't.

but my point is I don't believe the ban to be fair or valid. If I abused anyone or broke any rule I would apologise for doing so. It seems Oscar Bravo thinks the WAY I argue is unacceptable but he can't tell me either why it is unacceptable or outline what specifically he finds wrong about the way I argue.

How can he make up vague unlisted rules about the way people argue and then not apply the same rules to others?

And how can it also be claimed that the ban is for the way I argued in this particular thread and ban me in spite of me saying before the ban I had no intention of posting that thread?

you see I am being accused (I know not of what ) and sentenced (apparently permanently but that to is uncertain) and have been tried and convicted. But the process by which you do this is also on trial here now!

I don't have anything personal against Oscar Bravo or you but I do question

- How mods can impose bans based on whim and what they think might happen?
- how there is a claim to have a appeal process but the appeal judge says in advance that he will never reverse a decision?

ISAW

aidan_walsh wrote:

I don't see you supporting your claims with links and quotes. I demand evidence, and a big book of it too. In fact, I demand no less than three meters of evidence.

which calims in particular do you want me to support?

List them and i will list supporting evidence

oscarBravo

ISAW wrote:

So Oscar Bravo now claims he permanently banned me for "arguing" in the politics forum!

I'm not interested in getting into one of your protracted more-heat-than-light debates, but I will point out the sheer irony of your constant whining about fairness, when in this line alone you blatantly misrepresent what I've clearly stated. I'm not even going to address the rest of your posts, because it's just more of the same, ad nauseam.

ISAW

Tristrame wrote:

Well the last thing the volunteer politics mod wants is to be wasting time on a never ending stream of pm's with a poster arguing over a desision
We don't tolerate that or obfuscation via pm.
No exceptions are made.

We're only interested in the smooth running of the forum.

You were being discussed on the politics mod forum thread that Gandalf linked to.

The politics mods have came to a decision now.May I be the first to relay it to you.
As far as we are concerned your ban is permanent.

Thank you for confirming my suspicions that you were discussing me. and that you were doing so in advance of Oscar Bravos decision to ban me.

Ironically Tristame, you are the one who claims to "go by the charter"

So what according to the charter are you banning me permanently for?

And what avenue is there to appeal of this ban?

What obfuscation am I accused of?

What "nevr ending stream of PM" am I accused of? Is it with Oscar Bravo?

I posted a long position necessitating two posts to cover each reply. I think it came to about nine lengthy replies i.e. FOUR single debates.

I then didnt post for three weeks and posted a five line or so post asking to be unbanned.

Above are numerous suggestions to an appeal process and to mods who will listen to complaints. Dont forget this all happened when I asked Oscar Bravo about other people personally attacking me?

But now you give the semblance that you interfere with other judges cases and that you band together and discuss cases behind closed doors and come out with a united opinion protecting your "system" based on personal whim which merely panders to some "charter" which you follow when it suits you and dont claim to follow when it does not.

Again I am not surprises that with a general election coming up you chose njow to ban me from politics fora. I challenge claims made by many posters in many fora. Mostly when self important people claim thier view is correct I ask "where is your evidence".

that balance will now be missing for you politics fora but I am sure you may rest easy in the knowledge you will brook no "heated debate" in the politics fora.

Seeing as you Tristame are so keen on "following the charter"
I eagerly await your adding of "heated debate" to the list of things not allowed in the politics fora. I wonder how you will get around actually phrasing it so you can keep in the people you want to and keep the likes of me out?

By the way in case you dont know ther is no such thing as a retroactive penal law. You cant add it and then ban me for using it in the past! Well you can but doing that isn't logically valid either.

As to you doing things voluntary. I don't see the validity of that point either. I admire the contribution of voluntary workers but, I am sure you are aware one can also have volunteer commisars?

seamus

ISAW wrote:

- how there is a claim to have a appeal process but the appeal judge says in advance that he will never reverse a decision?

The appeal process will involve the input of the moderator in question if necessary, thus facilitating the resolution of the dispute. That is, an Smod will never forcibly reverse the decision of a moderator, but will advise the moderator if they think the actions were harsh or otherwise not valid. They may also act on the banned poster's behalf and ask that the moderator reverse the ban. You seem to be confusing this whole thing as if you were in a real world judicial process. You're not.

ISAW

oscarBravo wrote:

I'm not interested in getting into one of your protracted more-heat-than-light debates,

SAys you who raised the accusation of "heated argument"?

but I will point out the sheer irony of your constant whining about fairness, when in this line alone you blatantly misrepresent what I've clearly stated.

"heated argument" your words not mine. clearly stated!

I'm not even going to address the rest of your posts, because it's just more of the same, ad nauseam.

i.e. you can't support your position. No wonder since there is no "heated debate" clause int he charter. Nor is there any "he might get more personal tomorrow" clause.

don't forget I am the one who has been juged and banned by you (and approved by your other mods after getting together to discuss me without me being privvy to any of it). Enen after your natter session I STILL don't know


- what am I accused of doing wrong?
-why does it warrant a permanent ban?

oscarBravo

ISAW wrote:

Thank you for confirming my suspicions that you were discussing me. and that you were doing so in advance of Oscar Bravos decision to ban me.

...and again. For someone who carps on (and on, and on) about logic, you seem unable to avoid unwarranted extrapolations.

There was no discussion about you prior to me banning you; nor did Tristrame say there was. If you're going to complain about injustice, at least get your facts straight.

ISAW wrote:

"heated argument" your words not mine. clearly stated!

Correct. I said "...you seem to be incapable of participating in a discussion without turning it into a heated argument." You claim I said you were banned for arguing in the Politics forum. I said you were banned until you convinced me you would change your approach. You claim I said you were permanently banned.

This is why you are banned. It's boring and tedious arguing with someone who twists and warps points others have made in what looks like a desperate attempt to be right all the time. It derails threads, and it makes other people not want to participate in the discussions.

At the end of the day, the charter is a list of guidelines. It's even referred to as such in the title of the sticky on the forum. My role is not one of blind obedience to the charter, but that of facilitator. I want Politics to be a place where people can enjoy discussion and robust debate. My opinion - which is shared by my fellow Politics moderators - is that that goal is best served by removing your access to the forum.

It may seem harsh, but that's the way it is, and nothing in the reams of text you've produced since then has done anything but reinforce that opinion.

ISAW

ISAW wrote:

Thank you for confirming my suspicions that you were discussing me. and that you were doing so in advance of Oscar Bravos decision to ban me.

Rofl


As for the rest of your post...
Goodnight sweet dreams,I'm off for a pint now in a nice beer garden not too far away from here.
I suggest you do the same because I'm not wasting time on you.
I've better recreational persuits.

ISAW

seamus wrote:

The appeal process will involve the input of the moderator in question if necessary, thus facilitating the resolution of the dispute.

Well at least there is something called an "appeal process". I certainly hope it doesn't involve appeal through the other politics mods since they have already shown bias in this by discussing the issue between themselves and coming to a decision to permaneltly ban me without answering the first question I asked i.e. What was I banned for?

That is, an Smod will never forcibly reverse the decision of a moderator,

what does that mean? "not forcibly"? what is the difference between that and "not ever at all"? that aside if their is an appeal process one should be clear going into it that the possibility is there of reversing a ban.

In fact as far as this appeal is concerned it MUST be reversed for the outcome to be any different. sionce the ban is now permanent any sucess means that at least the ban be made non permanent. Now if there is an appeal process the process MUST accept that this is a possibility and there are grounds whereby the ban might be reversed. Otherwise what is the point of an appeal process?

I also hope that both sides are privvy to the evidence presented by either side and that secret meetings and decisions made behind closed doors and rumour and gossip are not regarded as evidence.

Thank you for your assistance in this and I hope the process is visible and seen to be done and not clandestine and some decision made without any basis given for it.

but will advise the moderator if they think the actions were harsh or otherwise not valid.

They may also act on the banned poster's behalf and ask that the moderator reverse the ban.

Both these seem fair.

You seem to be confusing this whole thing as if you were in a real world judicial process. You're not.

Sorry but you were the one who suggested "not everything is in the charter". If that is true then to what sence of "fair play" do you appeal? One that exists in the real world? Or one you make up as you go along?

As i have said i am the one suffering the permanent ban here but it is the process you use and whether it is fair and just that is the larger picture which also should concern you. By "you" I mean allo mods and admin and probably the users more than anything. If I want to go to a biased political discussion and unfair appeals or no appeals I can go elsewhere I don't expect it of boards.ie. Why should you?

nesf

ISAW wrote:

I was posting to a thread about science funding. I had been directed there from elsewhere. The posters above claimed to have personal experience of working in science and that therefore my opinion was not as good at theirs. I claimed this was argument from authority and that mine was not opinion but fact based on reference.

Two points.

1) I can see why they made that argument, comments such as postgraduates are the engines of research is simply untrue across science as a whole and strike me as a priori ramblings rather than anything substantial and based on knowledge of the field. You are correct in that it was an argument from authority but that doesn't make your argument suddenly correct.

2) You claim that your opinion is fact because it is based on references? What? Just because you can justify your argument with a few references does not suddenly transform your opinion into fact.

ISAW

oscarBravo wrote:

...and again. For someone who carps on (and on, and on) about logic, you seem unable to avoid unwarranted extrapolations.

there is a rule against being long winded now is there?

There was no discussion about you prior to me banning you; nor did Tristrame say there was.

I don't know that since I don't have access to the evidence. Are you will to post the date and time of the first post in that moderator thread. Im will ing to suggest you are wrong and that Tristrame did discuss me prior to this.
I also suggest that Tristrames discussion in the mods thread was affected by this prior knowledge and discussion.

If you're going to complain about injustice, at least get your facts straight.

Ok you post the date stamp of that discussion aboutme and see if I can point to an earlier discussion PM or prior knowledge none of which involved direct communication with me either to warn or inform me of such an investigation.

Correct. I said "...you seem to be incapable of participating in a discussion without turning it into a heated argument."

You are aware it will require only one counter example to prove this claim wrong?

You claim I said you were banned for arguing in the Politics forum. I said you were banned until you convinced me you would change your approach.

"arguing" isnt an offence is it? What is "arguing"? I still don't know what I was accused of. I asked it be clarified. I didn't get any actual charges laid against me as to what I am meant to have done!

You claim I said you were permanently banned.

I claimed that there was no difference.
an "indefinite" ban until you understand the ban which I said I understood but didnt agree with because it was baseless is the same as a permanent ban.

As it happens your brother mods have apparently ment and have made the ban parmanent. Don't you attend the secret meetings? I wouldn't know that since I am not privvy to the anon accusations leveled at me there buy four experiences mods who can meet and discuss their banning of me versus me on my tod asking for a fair hearing and to be told what I did wrong.

This is why you are banned. It's boring and tedious arguing with someone who twists and warps points others have made in what looks like a desperate attempt to be right all the time. It derails threads, and it makes other people not want to participate in the discussions.

Is that a direct quote for your secret thread? So you will add "boring" and "tedious" to "longwinded" and "heated" in the charter now will you?

Now as regards mis representing twisting and warping... WHERE in the thread did I do this? Evidence please? and when was this accusation brought before me?

In fact I complain to a mod that I am being accused of lying and deceit and asked the claimant to produce evidence for such a hurtful personal accusation th mod bans me and a month later basically says "yes because I believed the other guy" .So where is the EVIDENCE that i am a liar or mis represented anything? As I se it I backed upo what I claime dwith evidence. It is clear the other poster claimed (among other things) PhD funds should be decantd to post docs. I asked time and time again "buy how much" "how many" "support this" and I have still to get the evidence.

At the end of the day, ... I want Politics to be a place where people can enjoy discussion and robust debate.

So do I. Which is why I asked the other posters to support their position. And if you know what fair treatment and logical debate is it is the reason why I asked why I was banned and for how long.

It appears you now resort to "I dont like the way you argue" . Im sorry about that but there is nothing illogical or ad hominal in the way I argue. So on what basis can you ban someone just because you don't like their writing style?

My opinion - which is shared by my fellow Politics moderators - is that that goal is best served by removing your access to the forum.

Actually the charter is very strong on this point. there is a HUGE difference between opinion and FACT! Fact requires evidence! so far you haven't given any evidence which convinces me warrants a ban permanent or not! So it boils down to "forget the charter it is how we feel". Ironically this is a contradiction. Fellow politics mods are on record stating they go by the charter and not how they feel about style!

It may seem harsh, but that's the way it is, and nothing in the reams of text you've produced since then has done anything but reinforce that opinion.

Oh it does indeed seem harsh! But "thats the way it is" isn't a valid reason for a permanent ban no more than "you desperately want to be right all the time" is. Is it?

GuanYin

ISAW wrote:

So where is the EVIDENCE that i am a liar or mis represented anything? As I se it I backed upo what I claime dwith evidence.

Ermm, I accused you of mis-representing me and other posters. You did this by repeatedly asking people to show evidence of claims that you purport they made, but they actually didn't.

For someone allegedly so au fait with the 3rd and 4th level education systems, you seem to be deeply engrained in a need to be spoon fed akin to 2nd level education.

I mean this as no disrespect, but noobody here is paid or inclined to educate you. Noone here is bound by the burden of proof. This is a BBS not a court of law. Someone not showing evidence is not the same is evidence to disprove. If you feel people are wrong, show evidence or an argument to the contrary.

If you continue to jump up and down, screaming "PROVE IT" every 5 minutes, you're not going to get anywhere here.

The irony here is that you're engaging in exactly the same approach that got you banned to begin with.

This unwillingness to learn makes me wonder what good presenting you with evidence would do.

ISAW

nesf wrote:

Two points.

1) I can see why they made that argument, comments such as postgraduates are the engines of research is simply untrue across science as a whole and strike me as a priori ramblings rather than anything substantial and based on knowledge of the field. You are correct in that it was an argument from authority but that doesn't make your argument suddenly correct.

I agree. It does not necessarily make me correct.
Two point s on this:
1.1 Me being correct is not the point. Them showing themselves to be correct is. I was not making the original claim. the burden of evidence is on the claimant e.g. about decanting PhD funds to post docs. I was making counter claims and did (even though it isnt necessary it adds to my sid of the argument) supply factual data to support counter claims. [Truth be told it isn't even that simple since I pointed out I wasn't against post doctoral funding being increased but asked by how much and from what source]


1.2 It may not on its own necessarily logically prove the counter point but other evidence may be added to this . And as I said it isnt for me to prove the negative.

2) You claim that your opinion is fact because it is based on references? What? Just because you can justify your argument with a few references does not suddenly transform your opinion into fact.

That is a fair comment.

Which do you think is more likely to be true. Opinion based on argument from authority or argument based on citation from literature relevant to the field?

Truth be told ther are many fields where we can suggest things as a "fact" but they are actually interpretations based on evidence. Take history for example. Are there "historical facts"? so wht I claim is a "fact" really is in this case like a "historical fact"
Now let me ask you:
Do you believe the WWII holocaust is a "historical fact"?

So how many references do you want for which particular argument? And which side are you inclined to believe?

ISAW

psi wrote:

Ermm, I accused you of mis-representing me and other posters. You did this by repeatedly asking people to show evidence of claims that you purport they made, but they actually didn't.

You claim that so it is for you to support it.

In my defence Ill just take one example. Did you claim that PhD funding should be cut and the money given to post doctoral funding? Did you or did you not make that claim?

Did you state how many to cut and to create?
Where did you supply any evidence to support how this is good for Ireland?

What evidence at all did you provide to support the aboive claim?

For someone allegedly so au fait with the 3rd and 4th level education systems, you seem to be deeply engrained in a need to be spoon fed akin to 2nd level education.

Where did I alledge in the thread that I was "au fait" with 3rd and 4th level? and what has that to do with you supportiong YOUR claims?

I mean this as no disrespect, but noobody here is paid or inclined to educate you. Noone here is bound by the burden of proof.

Nore are they bound by the laws of logic! One can make any nonsensical claim they want. But where is logical dabate then? But of a dead end argument that one!

This is a BBS not a court of law.

So you reserve justice and fair play only for courts of law? I feel sorry for those who meet you on the pitch. don't you think standards of fair play apply there too?

Someone not showing evidence is not the same is evidence to disprove. If you feel people are wrong, show evidence or an argument to the contrary.

See my last reply about "proving a negative". It is a standard logical fallacy.

If you continue to jump up and down, screaming "PROVE IT" every 5 minutes, you're not going to get anywhere here.

Apparently this is true! But does it warrant a permanent ban is the question?
I dont ask for people to prove trivial things by the way.

The irony here is that you're engaging in exactly the same approach that got you banned to begin with.

No irony. It is standard dabating. Im not doing anything wrong and not breaking any rules. Why should it warrant a permanent ban?

This unwillingness to learn makes me wonder what good presenting you with evidence would do.

I learned about logiocal and scientific deabte some time ago I believe. It seems from you above comments you wanbt me to depart from that and not support my claims. Sorry but no can do. Well can do but I wont.

GuanYin

ISAW wrote:

You claim that so it is for you to support it.

In my defence Ill just take one example. Did you claim that PhD funding should be cut and the money given to post doctoral funding? Did you or did you not make that claim?

Did you state how many to cut and to create?
Where did you supply any evidence to support how this is good for Ireland?

What evidence at all did you provide to support the aboive claim?

Again, you've just completely ignored what I posted. How obtuse are you?

You asked people to support things that you claimed or implied they said, that they didn't.

I'm not entering the debate with your here, as much as you'd like, because this isn't the politics forum.

I'm ignoring the rest because, as usual, it detreacts from the point.

Apparently this is true! But does it warrant a permanent ban is the question?
I dont ask for people to prove trivial things by the way.

You've been banned for a reason given to you. You've chosen not to accept the reason.

Now, rather than give the slightest thought to the fact that you have no rights and have to play by other people's rules (which evidently don't suit you), you have, as far as I can tell (and I could be wrong with any of these charges - so I'm open to correction), continued to post in the manner which got you banned, questioned the integrity of the politics mods, questioned smods function or role, created a phoenix account to circumvent a ban and basically continued to be annoying.

These are not ways to get unbanned.

You live in the misconception that boards.ie is a democracy. It isn't, never has been and has never claimed to be. Your stay here is under dictator rule, albeit a benevolent dictator rule.

If the mods say you're banned for X - and you continue doing X - it stands to reason you won't be unbanned.


You might not like that set up, it might not suit you. But tough cookies.

ISAW

psi wrote:

Again, you've just completely ignored what I posted. How obtuse are you?

Quite clearly I didnt! I think it is clear that rather than ignore it I countered almost if not every point you made.

You asked people to support things that you claimed or implied they said, that they didn't.

who is switching now? Above you say I asked people to support claims they didn't make. So, as a counter example, I asked you above if you claimed someting about PhD's and whether you supported that claim? You did claim it and you didn't support it ! So how is me pointing this out to you implying anything which is untrue?

I'm not entering the debate with your here, as much as you'd like, because this isn't the politics forum.

Then don't make claims you can't support! Especially don't accuse me of pointing this out to you as if it was some hienous crime!

I'm ignoring the rest because, as usual, it detreacts from the point.

i.e. you make claims and give opinions about me and refuse to support them.

You've been banned for a reason given to you. You've chosen not to accept the reason.

I accept the reason. I just don't view it as any way fair or reasonable.

Now, rather than give the slightest thought to the fact that you have no rights

actually I do have legal rights. The laws of the land apply here as much as anywhere else. As I am sure the ever present stickies referring to MCD and tickets will remind you.

and have to play by other people's rules (which evidently don't suit you),

It isn't a question of the rules "not suiting me" as of actually being shown what the rules are! and if there are rules why does it seem that the mods when asked about them say things like "the charter is only a guideline"?

you have, as far as I can tell (and I could be wrong with any of these charges - so I'm open to correction), continued to post in the manner which got you banned, questioned the integrity of the politics mods, questioned smods function or role, created a phoenix account to circumvent a ban and basically continued to be annoying.

Well there is a whole host of new accusations (dressed up as "it is only my opinion") some of which I find personally offensive. But I'll leave that for another day since the issue at hand is one particular thread on funding Ireland's knowledge base and why I was banned from all ploitics fora because of it.

These are not ways to get unbanned.

Im sorry I thought there was a procedure of appeals. Is your opinion about the personal bias of moderators relevant to that. Hang on it probably is! Thank you for your assistance towards my case.

You live in the misconception that boards.ie is a democracy. It isn't, never has been and has never claimed to be. Your stay here is under dictator rule, albeit a benevolent dictator rule.

I never claimed people should vote (save that any people viewing unfair treatemnt will vote with their feet and stay away. I certainly would. Solidarity isnt about secret meetings to support thought police you know. It is about the masses supporting fair play)

I do however, whether a democracy or not, expect fair play. Iand I don't think your suggestion that mods rule and the rest can appease them and not expect fair play is not helping my case or boards.ie

If the mods say you're banned for X - and you continue doing X - it stands to reason you won't be unbanned.

Yes. If this mysterious "x" could be actually defined and stated in the charter that would be a help. But if "x" is "asking people to support their claims" then I certainly have a problem. Especially if "X" is "whatever we secretly call x but we wont tell you what it is".

You might not like that set up, it might not suit you. But tough cookies.

Basically you say people can't expect fair play for you! Just your dictatorial manner and tough on them if you ban then. And you are a mod! That does not reflect well on how others will now perceive mods in my opinion.

ISAW

oscarBravo wrote:

when in this line alone you blatantly misrepresent what I've clearly stated.

My claim was I was banned for "heated Arguing"

Oscars original words wrote:

I've removed your access to the Politics forum, as you seem to be incapable of participating in a discussion without turning it into a heated argument.

He did this

1. AFTER i posted that i was not posting any more to the thread he had just "stepped into" and had suggested any discussion go to PM between us.

And he banned me for "heated argueing" rather than "discussion". Now if someone else was "heated arguing" I note he didnt ban them so I assumed he meant only I was "heared arguing".

Oddly I still have no knowledge what "heated arguemnt" is or how it warrants a ban from politics.

Dirk Gently

I've just seen this thread

I was wondering why the politics forum wasn't making me want to vomit over the last few weeks. Now I know, ISAW is banned and discussion is flowing nicely without threads being hijacked and spoiled. My index finger thanks the mod in question as I don't have to work so hard on the mouse wheel scrolling down past ISAWs long winded irrelevant posts.

who ever banned him I owe you a pint.

muffler

is this a biography of ISAW?

nesf

ISAW wrote:

I agree. It does not necessarily make me correct.
Two point s on this:
1.1 Me being correct is not the point. Them showing themselves to be correct is. I was not making the original claim. the burden of evidence is on the claimant e.g. about decanting PhD funds to post docs. I was making counter claims and did (even though it isnt necessary it adds to my sid of the argument) supply factual data to support counter claims. [Truth be told it isn't even that simple since I pointed out I wasn't against post doctoral funding being increased but asked by how much and from what source]

I agree, however, experience does actually matter for something and arguments informed by experience in an area are useful things. The problem is that online especially on an issue like this where relatively few people actually know what post graduate research in the sciences is like, some weight has to be given to arguments of authority when they deal with the nitty gritty daily details of the debate. It doesn't mean that they are automatically correct but I wouldn't dismiss their arguments simply because they are arguments from authority. It is a formal fallacy but this isn't a formal debate it is a debate on policy which is necessarily fuzzy around the edges. There is no excluded middle so to speak.

ISAW wrote:

1.2 It may not on its own necessarily logically prove the counter point but other evidence may be added to this . And as I said it isnt for me to prove the negative.

Sure in a formal debate but as I said above this isn't one. One of the key problems of formal logic is that when debating a real life issue such as third level policy it isn't very useful. Secondly you will not get purely formal debates in a Politics forum. It's almost an oxymoron.

ISAW wrote:

Which do you think is more likely to be true. Opinion based on argument from authority or argument based on citation from literature relevant to the field?

I'd give both of them weight in issues such as these. Plus, the goal of such debates on policy is not necessarily truth but the best possible compromise between the competing needs. When speaking of compromises the debate changes.

ISAW wrote:

Truth be told ther are many fields where we can suggest things as a "fact" but they are actually interpretations based on evidence. Take history for example. Are there "historical facts"? so wht I claim is a "fact" really is in this case like a "historical fact"
Now let me ask you:
Do you believe the WWII holocaust is a "historical fact"?

So how many references do you want for which particular argument? And which side are you inclined to believe?

I am not easily persuaded by references. I have done enough debating and public speaking to know that I can back up almost any view on topics that are "fuzzy" such as public policy. I, as a person, am as much swayed by good argument as good references. i.e. the references don't count for anything if the accompanying argument is a fallacy.

The word fact is quite ambiguous but when speaking in the context of argument and references I think it has a very specific meaning attached to it implicitly.



My honest advice is this:

This is only for policy/moral/etc debates and not for scientific or philosophical ones necessarily. Treating debates on here as formal debates is just a waste of your time. It is neither necessary nor in keeping with the general feel of debate on this site. You are aggressive in your replies, this will not win you arguments and only serve to create an antagonistic and combative atmosphere in which to debate. If you are serious about debating you should know that this isn't a good thing, when things get heated people stop listening properly to each other and everyone is the worst for it. The purpose of debating with someone shouldn't be to win but to get them to give serious consideration to your arguments. There is little reason for moderators to allow people who repeatedly cause arguments to get heated and descend into petty point scoring to remain in the forum. It is in the interests of the forum that argument and debate remain calm, polite and informative.

6th

clown bag wrote:

I've just seen this thread

I was wondering why the politics forum wasn't making me want to vomit over the last few weeks. Now I know, ISAW is banned and discussion is flowing nicely without threads being hijacked and spoiled. My index finger thanks the mod in question as I don't have to work so hard on the mouse wheel scrolling down past ISAWs long winded irrelevant posts.

who ever banned him I owe you a pint.

You could of course just use the ignore function?

ISAW

Tristrame wrote:

Rofl

When you get up off the floor from laughing maybe you might consider when you stated the following:

I'd prefer if names were kept out of this and you may bring this to pm if you wish.

I believe you were referring to me there were you not?

or your opinion that:

We work within the legislation set out in the charter.

or you discussions about people:

threading the thinnest of lines on the edge of that charter.

Referring to me again? Oddly neither before afture or during this time did you coantact me or warn me in any thread about your opinion about me. I'm not suggesting you had to I'm suggesting that you had discussed me before this particular thread. In secret. Hadn't you?

Dirk Gently

6th wrote:

You could of course just use the ignore function?

unfortunetly the members epic posts are often quoted by others who reply on thread and the problem is the whole thread becomes a debate between ISAW and other posters, with the thread becoming completly hijacked and off topic, so ignore doesn't really work.

SoBe

too early?

GuanYin

ISAW wrote:

who is switching now? Above you say I asked people to support claims they didn't make. So, as a counter example, I asked you above if you claimed someting about PhD's and whether you supported that claim? You did claim it and you didn't support it ! So how is me pointing this out to you implying anything which is untrue?

Just because you may or may not (I honestly didn't check) have referenced a claim I did make, doesn't mean you haven't misrepresented me on other occasions.

You are quite simply a dishonest poster. You mis-represent and try and befuddle the issue. You refuse to stick to points. This makes your postings dishonest.

actually I do have legal rights. The laws of the land apply here as much as anywhere else.

No you don't. Prove this claim.

Are you implying you may sue boards????

Well there is a whole host of new accusations (dressed up as "it is only my opinion") some of which I find personally offensive. But I'll leave that for another day since the issue at hand is one particular thread on funding Ireland's knowledge base and why I was banned from all ploitics fora because of it.

YEs, I thought you might want to avoid that particular line of investigation.

Basically you say people can't expect fair play for you! Just your dictatorial manner and tough on them if you ban then. And you are a mod! That does not reflect well on how others will now perceive mods in my opinion.

We all trust that mods will act in the best interests of the site. When they don't, we usually discuss it among ourselves, the debates can often be aggressive and heated.

Interestingly, noone has made any debate against your banning, so consensus seems to have been reached.

SoBe

psi wrote:

Are you implying you may sue boards????