Clare Gunner banned

bullets

Hello,

one of the board members here got a perm-ban recently
due to a thread on the After Hours board:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055134597

The User got into a heated debate which involved a Moderator
(who I have nothing against) but I think things could of been
handled in a little bit of a better way than the user in question
getting a permanent ban from the boards.

Things were written and said clearly in the heat of the moment
surely the boards can cater from some sort of cool down
temp ban system to allow users to calm down.
Without banning a user for life!

From reading the thread the Moderator and User exchanged
some words and things got heated. The Moderator provoked
the user with their comments, and the user responded with an insult and later
probably foolishly and in anger a legal threat after personally getting
offended. The moderator later admitted to being drunk while makeing
the comment that provoked things.

While I dont know or have anything against the mod in question
I don't think they should be moderating the boards or issuing warnings
while drunk.

Said user has been a member of boards.ie for quite some time
with well over 1000 posts and when he posts he posts about things he has quite a lot of knowledge and experience about
and in my own opinion is a valued member
to the boards that he frequents. I don't even agree with things
the user says some of the time but don't think the man should be
permi-banned over a simple mistake or a heated moment.

Everyone deserves a 2nd chance surely ?

Again I don't know the Mod and I honestly have nothing against
him/her so I dont wish any ill feelings but they two of ye were rubbing each other up the wrong way and things should not have gone as far as they should.


~B

aidan_walsh

The AH mod in question has no power to permaban anyone from boards.

Suggesting or threatening legal action against boards, however, is a permaban offense.

henbane

some f&#250 wrote: »

Hmm I do belive this board has already one libel action going against it...Like another one????

Fúck off, you useless litigious piece of shít.

Irish Wolf

Agreed it's a permaban offense..

Though I thought only SMods and Admins had the permaban power.. when I first saw it on the ban list I thought it was an advert ban by CuLT..

bullets

aidan_walsh wrote:

Suggesting or threatening legal action against boardshowever, is a permaban offense.

I'm not trying to annoy anyone or get myself in trouble but....
I honestly think that its Purely Not all Clare Gunners fault.
This whole situation would or may not have happened if a Moderator of the boards.ie did not deliberately provoke the user.

Are the Moderators allowed to insult or provoke board members ?
This is what happened. Moderator nothing happens to them
but person provoked responds and gets banned. I don't think this is fair!

I simply dont think that a moderator on the board should be
a contributing factor for someone to get offended or get insulted
if anything they should be taking a neutral stance on threads
and not getting personal with people.

Whats to stop a moderator while drunk (or even not being drunk)
from provoking me into making a comment that results in me
getting banned ? I should know better but so should the mod by
making the comment in the first place.

~B

henbane

bullets wrote:

I simply dont think that a moderator on the board should be
a contributing factor for someone to get offended or get insulted
if anything they should be taking a neutral stance on threads
and not getting personal with people.

I personally don't think anyone with an ounce of sense would threaten boards.ie with legal action for any reason.

BTW, I'm very drunk right now but I'm not using that as an excuse, as I would post the same were I sober... but I'm not a fúcking idiot

Giblet

Any solicitor would tell you to cut off all contact.

Threaten legal action? Get a solicitor to do the rest of the talking, because you sure as hell won't be allowed to post anymore.

Of course I don't speak for anyone.

Irish Wolf

bullets wrote:

I'm not trying to annoy anyone or get myself in trouble but....
I honestly think that its Purely Not all Clare Gunners fault.
This whole situation would or may not have happened if a Moderator of the boards.ie did not deliberately provoke the user.

Are the Moderators allowed to insult or provoke board members ?
This is what happened. Moderator nothing happens to them
but person provoked responds and gets banned. I don't think this is fair!

I simply dont think that a moderator on the board should be
a contributing factor for someone to get offended or get insulted
if anything they should be taking a neutral stance on threads
and not getting personal with people.

Whats to stop a moderator while drunk (or even not being drunk)
from provoking me into making a comment that results in me
getting banned ? I should know better but so should the mod by
making the comment in the first place.

~B

Terry warning Clare Gunner, after he said he may/may not have been "drunk".. but he did not personally abuse Clare Gunner in the thread.. and Terry gave exemption to Clare Gunner for CG's abuse against him..

After that - Clare Gunner took exception to comments made and he got heated and made a threat against boards..

He may have been a valuable contributor to various forums here.. but it counts for nothing if you step over the line..

kowloon

Its very obvious that its not meant with any real intent, even to anyone who hasnt read the persons other posts.

Do we get out the restraining orders every time we have a little fight and say something we dont mean?

In the spirit of things i think maybe a warning and a ban from the AH Forum?

Giblet

Doesn't matter, a threat is a threat is a threat.

I'm sure he'll get his account back if he clarifies it with an Admin.

Irish Wolf

^^^ As Giblet said the thread in AH - if he clarifies things with the Admins then there may be a way back..

henbane

Irish Wolf wrote:

He may have been a valuable contributor to various forums here.. but it counts for nothing if you step over the line..

QFT!

kowloon wrote:

Its very obvious that its not meant with any real intent, even to anyone who hasnt read the persons other posts.

Obvious to whom?

kowloon

Obvious to anyone who read the post; the entire post.
It was a childish thing to say (type), there should certainly be some kind of ban and warning, after all, a rule was broken, i'm not disputing that.
If an apology is given i see no reason why it should stay a permanent ban though.

CuLT

Irish Wolf wrote:

Agreed it's a permaban offense..

Though I thought only SMods and Admins had the permaban power.. when I first saw it on the ban list I thought it was an advert ban by CuLT..

I have the ability to siteban users, but I do not perform the work of, have the authority of, or the responsibility of an SMod.

The only reason I performed the ban personally was because it was highlighted late in the evening and posed a threat to boards.ie. I immediately notified the SMods of this action. I also siteban spam accounts if I catch them.

My action was merely stopgap until an SMod or admin had time to look into the matter.

Irish Wolf

CuLT wrote:

I have the ability to siteban users, but I do not perform the work of, have the authority of, or the responsibility of an SMod.

The only reason I performed the ban personally was because it was highlighted late in the evening and posed a threat to boards.ie. I immediately notified the SMods of this action. I also siteban spam accounts if I catch them.

My action was merely stopgap until an SMod or admin had time to look into the matter.

Thanks for the clearing that up.. good work imo..

Terry

Had the same conversaiton taken place on the shooting forum (where I am not a moderator), he would still have been banned.

I'll stand up and admit that I was wrong in some of the things I wrote on that thread.
However, I, nor anyone else here, speaks for boards.ie and threatening the site as a whole was wrong.

I did not ban the guy, but I did bring it to the attention of those who can site ban people.

If the admins see fit to take action against me, whether it be stripping me of my modship or banning me or both, then I will stand by their decision.
In saying that, I stand by my actions, however stupid they may have been.

Giblet

kowloon wrote:

Obvious to anyone who read the post; the entire post.
It was a childish thing to say (type), there should certainly be some kind of ban and warning, after all, a rule was broken, i'm not disputing that.
If an apology is given i see no reason why it should stay a permanent ban though.

It's not permanent, it's just a site ban until we know more.

kowloon

If anything Terry, if you had banned him for personal abuse earlier in the thread this would be a non-issue, so i wouldnt go getting all stressed, reporting him for breach of the rules was the right thing to do.

I just think it might be fairer to give someone a chance to learn by their mistakes, given a second chance im sure if he got that worked up again he might have a cuppa and relax before typing something he obviously hadnt thought through.

kowloon

Giblet wrote:

It's not permanent, it's just a site ban until we know more.

My mistake

CuLT

kowloon wrote:

My mistake

I think some peoples wording can be poor; "permaban" is the umbrella term used, but in reality the actual term should be "indefinite ban" (in this case).

Manic Moran

Giblet wrote:

Threaten legal action? Get a solicitor to do the rest of the talking, because you sure as hell won't be allowed to post anymore.

There's a phrase I recall from my law-schooling days in UCD. "Hyperbole. Mere puffery"

Fine, give him a slap on the wrist as evidently the board has a policy of not letting comments on such a topic go un-noticed, but considering the plainly obvious heated context, a ban is a little excessive. I mean, did anyone here honestly think he meant it as anything other than a statement that he was taking the comments personally?

NTM

Dr Strange

I just want to add my support to CG's return. Yes, I read the post and was also surprised it wasn't locked sooner. CG did get heated and overstepped the line with the threat but I do believe he honestly didn't mean anything by it. He rarely posts outside of the Shooting Forum and you can believe me there are sometimes heated arguments there, too, but CG never lost his cool and threatened anyone.

I think it was due to the fact that a shooting thread outside the Shooting Forum had become a slagging match, CG got involved and he was wound up to a point when he let slip a big no-no on boards.ie. As he doesn't post much outside Shooting I don't think he knew just how serious the threat would be taken even though I do believe it was just said to wind up another poster.

A stern warning and some cooling off time, I would have agreed with but not a permanent site ban, or indefinitive ban. If there is a way of "reducing his sentence" I would like to plead for him.

Best,
Preusse

Gordon

We have had a situation a little similar to this in so far as legal action was threatened in the heat of the moment, and the user was unbanned. Such threats are not taken lightly but a siteban (as mentioned) does not necessarily mean a permban.

Vegeta

Terry was way out of line (telling someone they live in lal la land is personal abuse) and CG re-acted badly.

Had he know his comment would be perceived as a threat I doubt he would have posted it.

In the shooting forum the reigns are kept very tight on anything that may be remotely considered slander/libel. This frustrates CG so when Terry posted something clearly offensive (getting away with it) I think CG pointed out the comments were broaching on slander, I think he was telling Terry to be careful what he said because posts like his could lead to more problems.

Knowing CG, I don't think he threatened leagal action I think he was warning Terry that the things he was saying were border line libel/slander and to be careful.

Should Terry be dismissed as a mod? No
Should CG be site banned? Definitely not

6th

Clare gunner wrote:

I do belive this board has already one libel action going against it...Like another one?

Very obviously a threat of legal action.

de_shadow

6th wrote:

Very obviously a threat of legal action.

CLARE GUNNER wrote:

you are implying I am some kind of nut!!!Hmm I do belive this board has already one libel action going against it...Like another one???? As Sparks a mod is always rabbitting on about it,you might want to consider your words abit more.

Said with reference to the thread below and a number of others on the shooting forum where there is plenty of heated debate and few bannings due to warnings.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055126376&page=5

+1 to Vegeta's post in this thread.

Vegeta

de_shadow wrote:

Said with reference to the thread below and a number of others on the shooting forum where there is plenty of heated debate and few bannings due to warnings.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055126376&page=5

+1 to Vegeta's post in this thread.

This is exactly the thing I was talking about above

seamus

de_shadow, I fail to see the link between the threads.

There was no libel on Terry's part. Terry gave his opinion about CG's stance, based on what CG had posted in that thread. Terry's opinion could easily be backed up by posts that CG made.
On the shooting forum, I can only assume that people are making assertions such as, "X shoots people for fun", without providing any contributory evidence.

A libel is a false statement about a person, or one that otherwise cannot be verified. Terry gave his opinion - and although "It's my opinion", is no defence, the reasons for holding that opinion can easily be verified on-thread.

It was CG who made the leap to, "You are calling me crazy". Terry in no way implied or otherwise made a statement as to CG's mental state - he only gave his opinion on what he though CG's personal stance was.

This is just my interpretation of the whole thing. For the record, I wouldn't consider Terry's posts to be personal abuse, even the drunken ones, instead they were just blatantly inflammatory.
It could even be argued that baiting someone is a valid debating technique - provided that the baiter stays on the good side of personal. Once the other person rises to the bait, they can expose themselves and end up losing the debate by allowing it to get personal.
On boards.ie, we've traditionally shyed away from baiting, but it's by no means banned or "wrong".

Vegeta

seamus wrote:

de_shadow, I fail to see the link between the threads.

There was no libel on Terry's part. Terry gave his opinion about CG's stance, based on what CG had posted in that thread. Terry's opinion could easily be backed up by posts that CG made.
On the shooting forum, I can only assume that people are making assertions such as, "X shoots people for fun", without providing any contributory evidence.

A libel is a false statement about a person, or one that otherwise cannot be verified. Terry gave his opinion - and although "It's my opinion", is no defence, the reasons for holding that opinion can easily be verified on-thread.

It was CG who made the leap to, "You are calling me crazy". Terry in no way implied or otherwise made a statement as to CG's mental state - he only gave his opinion on what he though CG's personal stance was.

This is just my interpretation of the whole thing. For the record, I wouldn't consider Terry's posts to be personal abuse, even the drunken ones, instead they were just blatantly inflammatory.
It could even be argued that baiting someone is a valid debating technique - provided that the baiter stays on the good side of personal. Once the other person rises to the bait, they can expose themselves and end up losing the debate by allowing it to get personal.
On boards.ie, we've traditionally shyed away from baiting, but it's by no means banned or "wrong".

Off you go, Manic Moran (Living in the U.S.) and Clare gunner (living in some ****ing dream world).

Clearly an attack on CG's mental state. "Living in some ****ing dream world" implies some form of altered perception of reality, it is personal abuse and pretty poor behaviour from a mod to be honest

seamus

Having reviewed the thread in question, I would recommend lifting the ban in a day or two (provided that CG understands why it was imposed in the first place).

It's an admin's decision though.

Fysh

Vegeta wrote:

Clearly an attack on CG's mental state. "Living in some ****ing dream world" implies some form of altered perception of reality, it is personal abuse and pretty poor behaviour from a mod to be honest

It's hilarious how in this thread a number of people are defending Clare Gunner by saying that the threat of legal action was made "in the heat of the moment" but don't seem willing to accept the exact same argument in the defence of Terry's comments.

The issue about Clare Gunner being banned is a known policy on site - regardless of circumstances, if you're dumb enough to threaten legal action against the site, you get banned. You can whine and whinge about it, but unless you can convince an admin you weren't serious, you'll stay banned. And I can't imagine the policy being changed because a bunch of internet blowhards want permission to use lawsuits as empty threats.

As regards the statement of "You're living in a dream world/lalaland/whatever"...I would agree it's an offensive phrasing, at the least, but it's essentially a statement that Terry doesn't believe the reasons Clare Gunner gave for his stated position in the thread in question are valid. This is, presumably, Terry's opinion and while it's poorly phrased, he's still entitled to it. Must admit I'm glad it's not my call though.

johngalway

seamus wrote:

It was CG who made the leap to, "You are calling me crazy". Terry in no way implied or otherwise made a statement as to CG's mental state - he only gave his opinion on what he though CG's personal stance was.

I don't know how to cross post quote, but here is what Terry said to CG;

"You however, live in some place where you seem to believe everyone is out to get you. You should not be allowed to own a gun. "

To me, just as a normal joe soap, that says "You're paranoid mate, you're not mentally stable enough to own a firearm."

Fine, it may be my interpretation of it but I agree with the comments here that the mod should have stopped the whole thing before it got to that point.

I do appreciate your reccomendation on lifting the ban though Seamus, seems a bit of sense is starting to prevail here

johngalway

Fysh wrote:

It's hilarious how in this thread a number of people are defending Clare Gunner by saying that the threat of legal action was made "in the heat of the moment" but don't seem willing to accept the exact same argument in the defence of Terry's comments.

It's not actually. Most people, including myself, will accept both sides did wrong. Yet CG gets a ban and Terry get's off scot free as far as we know. The only reason, I believe, anyone is saying Terry should get a punishment is because of the weight of punishment against CG, or what is seen as the unfair weight of punishment. If CG had gotten a warning, and the personal abuse one doesn't count in my book as Terry was dishing it out pretty thick, or a week cooling off period then Terry would be a non issue.

Fysh

johngalway wrote:

It's not actually. Most people, including myself, will accept both sides did wrong. Yet CG gets a ban and Terry get's off scot free as far as we know.

Firstly, I'm not saying that the current situation is necessarily right, I'm just saying that I understand the reasoning behind it.

Terry made comments that were borderline offensive and, yes, should probably have received a warning of some form for it. However, he didnt make a threat of legal action against boards (whether jokingly or otherwise) and thus did not fall foul of a standing policy on the site. Clare Gunner did fall foul of this policy and thus got banned. The "perceived unfair weight of punishment" is in fact due to there being two different infractions occuring, and is no more unfair than the difference between the penalties for indecent exposure and inflicting bodily harm. Different offences, therefore different penalties.

As for Terry's comments, I certainly wouldn't say that the phrasing was correct but I would agree that Clare Gunner's posts gave the impression of someone in a paranoid frame of mind, at least regarding the reasons for owning a gun. This may well not be an accurate description of Clare Gunner, but this is the nature of communicating via the interweb.

Vegeta

Fysh wrote:

It's hilarious how in this thread a number of people are defending Clare Gunner by saying that the threat of legal action was made "in the heat of the moment" but don't seem willing to accept the exact same argument in the defence of Terry's comments.

That's not my defence at all actually (heat of the moment). I just think CG phrased what he meant very poorly.

As regards the statement of "You're living in a dream world/lalaland/whatever"...I would agree it's an offensive phrasing, at the least, but it's essentially a statement that Terry doesn't believe the reasons Clare Gunner gave for his stated position in the thread in question are valid. This is, presumably, Terry's opinion and while it's poorly phrased, he's still entitled to it. Must admit I'm glad it's not my call though.

but I think that is what CG was getting at (in a porrly phrased/worded way). Nobodies "opinion" can be hidden behind here, boards.ie itself is held accountable. CG has had stuff deleted several times from the shooting forum (examples above) because he himself is the only one with proof of his "opinion" (what he says is true but as he cant show proof on the forum the mods choose the side of caution) then a mod uses openly offensive language against him but its ok because its an arguement and its his "opinion"

I think he was pointing out that boards has had trouble with this in the past so stop using that type of language.

That's my take on it. I have nothing at all against Terry but I would expect to be banned/post deleted/warned for an outburst like his. It was an arguement and sometimes they turn sour.

CG will be un-banned or he wont, it will be a loss if he remains banned though, even if it is for his often differing stance on things.

copacetic

seamus wrote:

On boards.ie, we've traditionally shyed away from baiting, but it's by no means banned or "wrong".

I don't think that is true at all, people get banned for this all the time, it's called trolling..

On AH that kid got banned for supporting paedophilia - he did not call anyone there a paedophile, he just baited the other users, and was perm banned for it (and rightly so) but to say that baiting is supported is incorrect,

seamus

johngalway wrote:

It's not actually. Most people, including myself, will accept both sides did wrong. Yet CG gets a ban and Terry get's off scot free as far as we know. The only reason, I believe, anyone is saying Terry should get a punishment is because of the weight of punishment against CG, or what is seen as the unfair weight of punishment. If CG had gotten a warning, and the personal abuse one doesn't count in my book as Terry was dishing it out pretty thick, or a week cooling off period then Terry would be a non issue.

I was going to write this myself, but Fysh put it the best way:

The "perceived unfair weight of punishment" is in fact due to there being two different infractions occuring, and is no more unfair than the difference between the penalties for indecent exposure and inflicting bodily harm. Different offences, therefore different penalties.

The heated exchange between Terry and CG is completely unrelated to CG's siteban.

CG didn't get banned for the heated exchange. In fact, Terry specifically let it off because he conceded his wrongdoing.

CG got banned for threatening legal action. Terry had no action taken against him because he had no part in said threat.

I don't think that is true at all, people get banned for this all the time, it's called trolling..

People generally don't get banned for trolling, contrary to popular belief. Occasionally, you'll get someone who joins/registers purely to troll, in which case they will get banned because they're a waste of posting space. Regular members though who engage in a spot of trolling, will generally not get banned for it. They may get warned for it, but even then it's rare enough because regular members tend not to troll.

It's a matter of a poster's worth. If they have no interest in engaging in discussion, but instead spend their time starting inflammatory threads, or making pointless, trolling comments, then removing them from a forum serves the community.

Giblet

Deleted User wrote:

On AH that kid got banned for supporting paedophilia - he did not call anyone there a paedophile, he just baited the other users, and was perm banned for it (and rightly so) but to say that baiting is supported is incorrect,

He was also a returning perma-banned user.

Didn't know that.

Terry

You have all read the entire thread, right?
Not just my posts.

That's all I will say on the matter for the time being.

Boston

seamus wrote:

Having reviewed the thread in question, I would recommend lifting the ban in a day or two (provided that CG understands why it was imposed in the first place).

Why? This is a person threatening Boards.ie what benifit do they serve which out weights the risk?

Giblet

I dunno, depends really. I know I looked first before deciding to ban.

seamus

Boston wrote:

Why? This is a person threatening Boards.ie what benifit do they serve which out weights the risk?

Clearly a number of posters consider his submissions of the Shooting forum to be good input.
Assuming that he isn't actually serious about any legal action - which is why it's an admin's call to decide this - then I see no reason to permanently ban him.

copacetic

Terry wrote:

You have all read the entire thread, right?
Not just my posts.

That's all I will say on the matter for the time being.

terry, yours are the only posts I ever read on any thread...

Boston

seamus wrote:

Clearly a number of posters consider his submissions of the Shooting forum to be good input.
Assuming that he isn't actually serious about any legal action - which is why it's an admin's call to decide this - then I see no reason to permanently ban him.

Ok and what about the 100,000 odd other users.

seamus

What about them? Do you want to take a vote from every one of them?

CG barely posts outside of Shooting. If he poses no actual legal threat, then what cause is served by leaving him banned?

Vegeta

Boston wrote:

Why? This is a person threatening Boards.ie what benifit do they serve which out weights the risk?

What if CG wasn't threatening legal action but pointing out that language like Terry's might get the site in trouble in the future?

Fysh

Vegeta wrote:

What if CG wasn't threatening legal action but pointing out that language like Terry's might get the site in trouble in the future?

Then he should have used the "Report post" option or brought it up either via PMing one of the mods or raising a ticket in Feedback. If this was in fact his intention with that particular post, then he demonstrated spectacularly poor judgement (one which renders any other errors of judgement in the thread trivial in comparison, imo).

Boston

seamus wrote:

What about them? Do you want to take a vote from every one of them?

CG barely posts outside of Shooting. If he poses no actual legal threat, then what cause is served by leaving him banned?

By his own words he does. Once someone demostrates that they are a threat to all of boards, why take a chance on them?

Talliesin

And why facilitate it.

Anyone who honestly believes they have been wronged by boards in a way which was illegal has a right to engage in legal action against them, or to use the possibility of such action to weight an attempt to seek resolution outside of the courts. It's not necessarily a good idea, but they have that right.

But why on earth should boards publish their legal threats for them?

It's both rude and stupid. Whenever I've had cause to make legal threats I got my lawyer to deal with the communications - I didn't ask the people I was threatening to do it for me.