Banned from Politics!

Hobart

copacetic wrote:

I must be going nuts or something but I really can't see a reason why you are all acting so weirdly over this. Instead of spouting all this bs could one of you just actually tell the community why he was banned?

I had a reply quoted and formed ready to post, when I hit refresh, and seen the post above.

TBH I could not have posted it clearer myself.

Time Magazine

Lads, both sides have made their argument. oscarBravo is right about this sounding like the Umbrella song (I lolled). It's going to have to be decided by an admin.

oscarBravo

copacetic wrote:

I must be going nuts or something but I really can't see a reason why you are all acting so weirdly over this. Instead of spouting all this bs could one of you just actually tell the community why he was banned?

Let me guess: this is the point where I explain for the fifth time that he was banned for engaging in behaviour that got him banned in the past, and which he promised not to do again in order to regain admission. Then there will be several posts debating whether the ban was because of this thread or the one in Politics, ignoring the fact that the ban is actually for a pattern of behaviour. Hobart will ask again for the One True Post that Broke a Specific Rule (without actually explaining why this is actually a prerequisite for a ban). Eventually, someone will ask "but why can't you just tell us why he was banned?" and we'll all go around again. Whee.

copacetic wrote:

You are saying that people are jumping to conclusions and basically accusing all of us of being 'not in the know'.

Can you point out where I accused anyone of not being in the know? Or are you going to pull an irish1 by deciding what I must have meant by something and arguing with that, rather than discussing what I actually said?

Hobart

oscarBravo wrote:

Let me guess: this is the point where I explain for the fifth time that he was banned for engaging in behaviour that got him banned in the past, and which he promised not to do again in order to regain admission. Then there will be several posts debating whether the ban was because of this thread or the one in Politics, ignoring the fact that the ban is actually for a pattern of behaviour. Hobart will ask again for the One True Post that Broke a Specific Rule (without actually explaining why this is actually a prerequisite for a ban). Eventually, someone will ask "but why can't you just tell us why he was banned?" and we'll all go around again. Whee.

You're being childish now, aswell as lying tbh. you said you were off to bed, and yet you hung around.....?

Anyhow..I'm not asking for "One True Post", or anything like it, just an explanation, instead of all this total crap.

As far as has been explained, and I'm only gioing on evidence here and on the politics forum, he was previously banned for being an "annoyance" which involved constantly PM'img mods etc... If he is up to his old behaviour, so be it. Ban him. If not, don't.

oscarbravo wrote:

Can you point out where I accused anyone of not being in the know? Or are you going to pull an irish1 by deciding what I must have meant by something and arguing with that, rather than discussing what I actually said?

Seriously...are you close to being serious here?

copacetic

oscarBravo wrote:

Can you point out where I accused anyone of not being in the know? Or are you going to pull an irish1 by deciding what I must have meant by something and arguing with that, rather than discussing what I actually said?

oscarBravo wrote:

Actually, you're looking at a subset of the facts and jumping to a conclusion.

Here you go Oscar, this clearly implies that we aren't 'in the know'.

I'll give up now that you have apparently all sense of reason and perspective and have resorted to acusing me of somehow being like the OP.

It's clear to me that he was banned for this feedback thread based on the ban post here, and that this 'pattern of behaviour' bullshit is apparently the best you can come up with.

Hobart

Actually OB settle my curiosity, if you would, and consider this question. If Irish1 had not started this thread, would he still have been banned from politics?

Dirk Gently

I feel it's about time...............






A page or so more of cat pics, a brief one liner from an admin and lockage ftw.

Nick_oliveri

This has been enjoyable.

Hobart wrote:

Actually OB settle my curiosity, if you would, and consider this question. If Irish1 had not started this thread, would he still have been banned from politics?

Not speaking for anyone but that seems to be the case......EllaAnyways, you are asking the wrong dude. Sure twas Rock Climber that banned him.

cast_iron

Hobart wrote:

..and I'm only gioing on evidence here and on the politics forum, he was previously banned for being an "annoyance" which involved constantly PM'img mods etc... If he is up to his old behaviour, so be it. Ban him. If not, don't.

I thought as much. Why not go off and read the Politics thread, at least then you won't just have a "subset of the facts". Really, it's more than a touch unreasonable to expect answers to an issue which you couldn't be bothered to make any basic enquiries on yourself.

Hobart wrote:

Actually OB settle my curiosity, if you would, and consider this question. If Irish1 had not started this thread, would he still have been banned from politics?

You better make it 6 times then OB.


Oh, and for the record, I, like copacetic, have only a passing interest in the Politics forum and have no beef or connections with anyone involved here.

copacetic

copacetic wrote:

Here you go Oscar, this clearly implies that we aren't 'in the know'.

Well you don't have access to the politics mod forum,that I can assure you ...where there has been an ongoing discussion on how to proceed with the tribunal threads over the last number of months.
The admins do of course have access to that forum.It's content is private to the rest of ye and won't be released here.
So I guess you are right you aren't in the know as to maybe 80% of the discussion on this topic or on the irish1 carry on and rightly so.

But see'ing as there seems to be some upset here and some confusion-I'm in the mood for some ultra clarification.

Do we (the mods of politics) have the right to ban a user if we think they are pesky and being a nuisance and making our job more difficult?
Yes we do.

Do we think that several other mitigating beliefs we have had about the way a poster carried on (in this case as evidenced in the discussion on the rules thread and co incidently but immaterially[the fact that it is repeated over here ad nauseum as well never mattered] copied over here should re inforce our decision? Yes we do

Does the banned user have the right of appeal to the admins ? Yes of course.
Do we think irish1 deserves to have access to the forum now that we have banned him for the above reason(s)? No we don't.

Do I have any intention of singing Rhianna again in relation to this user ? No

The Muppet

Tristrame wrote:

Do we (the mods of politics) have the right to ban a user if we think they are pesky and being a nuisance and making our job more difficult?
Yes we do.

Thats not a valid reason to ban anyone but unfortunately it is the change that boards has undergone in my time here. There was a time when a mod had to have a valid reason to ban a user. Now as you say they can ban on a whim or just because they think a user is being a nuisance. Just because one person dislikes or doesn't agree with anothers point of view does not make them a nuisance or pesky.

Unfotunately the way this site has developed means that if you hold hold a certain viewpoints you can be targeted. Either this is a discussion forum or it's not. Mods should not be trying to censor anyones opinion once it is express legally which in this case once it sticks to what has been mad public in in the tibunal it would.

I don't share Irish1's political views but he has been around long enough for me to know that he is not here to make trouble, he sticks by his beliefs and that is not an offence IMO.

Boston

What are you on about, mods are more accountable now then ever before.

@ the muppet

I can assure you that ban wasn't imposed on a whim.
The last one wasn't either.

My opinion of posters worth on a forum is a function of how much moderating they create.

Just because one person dislikes or doesn't agree with anothers point of view does not make them a nuisance or pesky.

Notwithstanding what I'm about to say,I'm sure it will be asked again on page 666 of this thread should it go on that long.

I have no disregard for any posters political point of view.I respect it.
It has no impact on modding.

What I do pay attention to is posters disregard for moderator decisions on boards and of course the level of nuisance and extra work that they create.
That filters into my decisions alright.
I'm sure others will "pc ise" 'till the cows come home on the merits of that but then they are not on the coal face of one of the most tetchy and busy fora on boards.

oscarBravo

The Muppet wrote:

Thats not a valid reason to ban anyone...

Not even if it earned them a ban in the past, and the ban was overturned on condition that they wouldn't do it again?

The Muppet wrote:

There was a time when a mod had to have a valid reason to ban a user.

Where "valid reason" == "a reason I personally agree with"?

The Muppet wrote:

Now as you say they can ban on a whim...

Who was banned on a whim?

The Muppet wrote:

...or just because they think a user is being a nuisance. Just because one person dislikes or doesn't agree with anothers point of view does not make them a nuisance or pesky.

No, being a nuisance or pesky makes them a nuisance or pesky. When did this become about a person's opinion? Are you just trolling now?

The Muppet wrote:

Unfotunately the way this site has developed means that if you hold hold a certain viewpoints you can be targeted. Either this is a discussion forum or it's not. Mods should not be trying to censor anyones opinion once it is express legally which in this case once it sticks to what has been mad public in in the tibunal it would.

You seem to be utterly confused as to what this thread is about, or else you're accusing me of banning someone because I disagree with their opinion - similar to irish1 accusing the entire moderation team of bias towards Bertie (I mean, come on: doesn't anyone read Gandalf's posts?), it's an accusation I deeply resent.

The Muppet wrote:

I don't share Irish1's political views but he has been around long enough for me to know that he is not here to make trouble, he sticks by his beliefs and that is not an offence IMO.

No, it's not. But he wasn't banned for his beliefs.

The Muppet

oscarBravo wrote:

Not even if it earned them a ban in the past, and the ban was overturned on condition that they wouldn't do it again? Where "valid reason" == "a reason I personally agree with"? Who was banned on a whim? No, being a nuisance or pesky makes them a nuisance or pesky. When did this become about a person's opinion? Are you just trolling now? You seem to be utterly confused as to what this thread is about, or else you're accusing me of banning someone because I disagree with their opinion - similar to irish1 accusing the entire moderation team of bias towards Bertie (I mean, come on: doesn't anyone read Gandalf's posts?), it's an accusation I deeply resent. No, it's not. But he wasn't banned for his beliefs.

No I'm not trolling, I,m giving feedback on the appropriate forum. Are you trolling ?

copacetic

Tristrame wrote:

But see'ing as there seems to be some upset here and some confusion-I'm in the mood for some ultra clarification.

Do we (the mods of politics) have the right to ban a user if we think they are pesky and being a nuisance and making our job more difficult?
Yes we do.

I agree with most of what you said above Tristame and appreciate clarity and openess in your posting.

I don't think there is confusion though, as you say above he was banned for being pesky more or less and imo this was at least partly based on this feedback thread. That's a slippery slope imo and I personally don't like it at all.(Not that it matters much what I think).
Think of the lack of justice in Scooby Doo if old man rivers could ban the pesky kids from annoying him!

Although of course you guys have the right to ban him, I for one would be much happier if you didn't exercise that right against posters like Irish1 for what are imo dubious reasons at best (Again based on my limited information)

What you say does matter copacetic.
Just to give you an insight,I've been modding politics for nearly 3 years (and a daily active mod on this site for the last 4 or 5 years).
I've never had to ban anyone on politics in that time with the exception of this threads starter for the reasons outlined.

It's not the very first incidence of busy mods banning pesky users on boards,I've seen it before-most notably on icdg.
99.9999 ella ella ella percent of the users on boards don't carry on like this one does.
The politics board does require a lot of active modding though due to the fractious nature of its subject and the often heated opinionated debate that goes on in there.
Creating more work along with a total disregard for the tidy running of the place as well as persistantly wasting our time is a no no.

Believe it or not , we all have real life jobs to do and don't get paid for this.
Spending several hours dealing with a nuisance is not acceptable no matter what way the perpetrator dresses it up.

Finally and I do mean finally as I'm calling a halt to my involvement in this thread.I do enjoy the cut and thrust of the politics forum,thats why I've always been there.I don't enjoy time wasters and muppets going there though-we deal with them carefully and as appropriate.
The input of the 99.999999 % of contributers there is gas fun to read at times for its different angles on practically everything imagineable and well appreciated.
The trick is to make sure they all get along.

hullaballoo

The Muppet wrote:

Unfotunately the way this site has developed means that if you hold hold a certain viewpoints you can be targeted. Either this is a discussion forum or it's not. Mods should not be trying to censor anyones opinion once it is express legally which in this case once it sticks to what has been mad public in in the tibunal it would.

Simply on a point of information: the quoted text is in no way representative of reality.

I'm not trying to discredit you, I just don't want people to think for a second that because someone else said it first, it's ok to say here. That simply is not the case.

copacetic wrote:

...as you say above he was banned for being pesky more or less and imo this was at least partly based on this feedback thread. That's a slippery slope imo and I personally don't like it at all.(Not that it matters much what I think).
Think of the lack of justice in Scooby Doo if old man rivers could ban the pesky kids from annoying him!...

As you probably already know, there are no hard and fast rules with regard to this.

There is a system that moderators are given very few initial guidelines on how to do their jobs ab initio. The primary aspect is that they have to try to run a forum in a manner that gives rise to healthy debate and for the most part to try and avoid nonsense. When people's tempers get frayed, they post an awful lot of nonsense.

Now, if there is a particular cause in place for all of these frayed tempers, then there is a moderating issue at hand. In Politics, irish1 caused such an issue. He did so, despite warnings, and despite various bannings. His behaviour in the forum is directly opposite the spirit of the forum charter. The spirit of the forum charter is what you get when you read between the lines of it. Interpretations along these lines are perfectly acceptable in any other walk of life; I'm pre-empting an argument that there is no promulgation of rules here. There is.

One of the most astounding facets of certain communities on this site is an inability to comprehend properly what is presented to them in plain language. By and large, that aspect is missing from the Politics forum. The reason for this is blindingly obvious.

Therefore, it is not a step too far to ask people to come within the spirit of the written document when they address their minds to posting in the Politics forum. Luckily for the Politics moderators, there's only a minute contingent of posters in that forum (and none of them are regulars) who do not have a very good idea what they're talking about, and who are well able to argue cogently. You don't have to go too far to form the implication that they can read properly, if they can reason well.

As a result, you can only conclude from this process that irish1 knows all too well what he's doing when he gets the Politics moderators' goats up. That sort of behaviour is known in most online spheres as trolling. If you can be banned for trolling other users, there is no reason not to ban you for trolling moderators.

In fact, there is probably more reason to ban you for trolling moderators. As it happens in this case, and in most cases like it, moderators are very slow to ban someone who is trolling them directly. It always reflects poorly on them, no matter how justified the ban was.

I don't need to go too far for an example of where such a ban reflects poorly on moderators, since I am posting in a thread that elucidates the effects of what I am saying nicely.

I know that most people won't take the time to read this post; I would hope that those who do might be able to see a different vantage point on this issue. I could be accused of naïvety there though.

copacetic

hullaball&#250 wrote:

As you probably already know, there are no hard and fast rules with regard to this.

Absolutely hullaballú, I do know that and mentioned it above, the politics mods are totally within their rights to do what they have done and I understand why they have done it. I just disagree with them.

I can see that I am looking at it from the ideal viewpoint where everyone has unlimited time to deal with the issues created by a single user but that is a valid viewpoint imo. I certainly don't subscribe to your 'trolling' viewpoint, it tends to be a catchall for anyone who annoys anyone else and is often used as an excuse imo. It was even used above against other posters on this thread by OscarBravo as a form of personal abuse imo.

I certainly think this debate was worth having at least and I hope some of the politics mods are in agreement on that point.

oscarBravo

copacetic wrote:

Absolutely hullaballú, I do know that and mentioned it above, the politics mods are totally within their rights to do what they have done and I understand why they have done it. I just disagree with them.

As is your right, but I respectfully submit that if you ever end up moderating one of the busiest and most contentious forums on this site, you might find that your perspective changes over time.

copacetic wrote:

I can see that I am looking at it from the ideal viewpoint where everyone has unlimited time to deal with the issues created by a single user but that is a valid viewpoint imo.

That's not an ideal viewpoint, it's physically impossible, and as such I don't see what's valid about it.

copacetic wrote:

I certainly don't subscribe to your 'trolling' viewpoint, it tends to be a catchall for anyone who annoys anyone else and is often used as an excuse imo. It was even used above against other posters on this thread by OscarBravo as a form of personal abuse imo.

On the contrary, I asked one user if he was trolling because he said something that was blatantly untrue. He didn't even express it as an opinion. Notably, he ignored every other question in my post when he replied.

copacetic

To be honest OscarBravo, I put value in nothing you say based on your contributions on this thread, if anyone is a troll it is you. You accused me of being like Irish1, of lying (and ignored it when I pointed out exactly where you had said what you accused me of lying about), other people of trolling and are now replying to posts of mine to someone else with snide jibes. Imo it is attitudes like yours that starts or at least contributes to a lot of the disagreement on boards.

oscarBravo

copacetic wrote:

To be honest OscarBravo, I put value in nothing you say based on your contributions on this thread...

With respect, your opinion of me isn't going to keep me awake at night.

copacetic wrote:

...if anyone is a troll it is you.

Yore ma is a troll. Or whatever. I at least explained why I suspected The Muppet of trolling.

copacetic wrote:

You accused me of being like Irish1...

I pointed out that you were using similar tactics.

copacetic wrote:

...of lying (and ignored it when I pointed out exactly where you had said what you accused me of lying about)...

I didn't accuse you of lying.

copacetic wrote:

...other people of trolling...

I could have sworn I already addressed this.

copacetic wrote:

...and are now replying to posts of mine to someone else with snide jibes.

What makes them snide jibes? I'm expressing my opinions.

copacetic wrote:

Imo it is attitudes like yours that starts or at least contributes to a lot of the disagreement on boards.

I disagree, but then that's the beauty of discussion, isn't it?

The Muppet

hullaball&#250 wrote:

Simply on a point of information: the quoted text is in no way representative of reality.

I'm not trying to discredit you, I just don't want people to think for a second that because someone else said it first, it's ok to say here. That simply is not the case.

I never argued that general point. Defamation is a mine field but as I understand it if discussion here strictly adheres to what is reported from the tribunal it should be safe from a legal point of view.

If joe bloggs is accused of lying in the tribunal it is safe to say so.

The Muppet

oscarBravo wrote:

I asked one user if he was trolling because he said something that was blatantly untrue. He didn't even express it as an opinion. Notably, he ignored every other question in my post when he replied.

I assume we are all adults here we don't have to qualifiy everthing we post by putting IMO before it or do we?

I may have answered your other questions if you had kept it civil, unfortunaly you decided to dismiss my opinion and abuse me so notably I decided not to engage in discussion with you.

faceman

oh the irony, i was distracted from reading about today's events at the tribunal with this thread, and this thread was more controversial and interesting to read!

Ive never seen hairs split so finely.

Hobart

faceman wrote:

oh the irony, i was distracted from reading about today's events at the tribunal with this thread, and this thread was more controversial and interesting to read!

Ive never seen hairs split so finely.

You should have seen the discussion on the mod forum.

hullaballoo

The Muppet wrote:

I never argued that general point. Defamation is a mine field but as I understand it if discussion here strictly adheres to what is reported from the tribunal it should be safe from a legal point of view.

If joe bloggs is accused of lying in the tribunal it is safe to say so.

That's exactly the point I was getting to. That is not the case. If someone is accused of lying by a tribunal, it is not safe to say that he is a liar. It is only safe to say that he is accused of lying by the tribunal. In fact, on a strict interpretation, even that could be defamatory. You'd just have a straight-forward defence.

Boston

Do you not realise the the muppet is john law?

Villain

Hobart wrote:

You should have seen the discussion on the mod forum.

I'm guessing that disucssion is still ongoing as no admin has commented yet either that or they think the issue will just go away and they won't have to comment.

Fysh

irish1 wrote:

I'm guessing that disucssion is still ongoing as no admin has commented yet either that or they think the issue will just go away and they won't have to comment.

Nope, it's pretty much ground to a halt in the same way this thread has - it's pretty much a rehash of the same arguments going on here. And the admins haven't commented there either; unless one of them posts to clarify their position one way or the other, it's looking like the site admins don't have any more time for your nagging crap than the politics mods do. A sad day for everyone with the compulsion to scream their opinion on Bertie Ahern from the rooftops, but a victory for the rest of us.