Banned from Nocturnal

corkstudent

I was banned from Nocturnal for 2 weeks by SDoom, which as far as I can see is an extreme act of egomania and power tripping.

The discussion was on goth girls and emo girls, and I was replying to earlier comments on the distinction between the subcultures and the music involved. SDoom tried to force the thread along a particular path. I explained why it was relevant, he issued a warning. I clarified, and I got a ban. Apparently I was "Breaching the peace", even though I explained my comment was not meant to be taken aggressively.

Even if he provides reasoning now to try and make him look vaguely not like an egomaniac, the fact is he was acting on an impulse his impose his will and others and was unresponsive to reason. I was willing to discuss things maturely he was not.

Can someone please explain why someone who puts themselves beyond reason is on Boards staff? You may have your rules, but no rules should be beyond reason.

I would be more interested in having his moderator removed than having my ban revoked. Boards.ie is quickly gaining a negative reptuation for instances like this. There is no need for a moderator like this and I cannot see how anyone with an ethical conscious would take this course of action.

Doctor DooM

corkstudent wrote: »

I was banned from Nocturnal for 2 weeks, which as far as I can see is an extreme act of egomania and power tripping.

The discussion was on goth girls and emo girls, and I was replying . SDoom tried to force the thread along a particular path. I explained why it was relevant, he issued a warning. I clarified, and I got a ban. Apparently I was "Breaching the peace", even though I explained my comment was not meant to be taken aggressively.

Even if he provides reasoning now to try and make him look vaguely not like an egomaniac, the fact is he was acting on an impulse his impose his will and others and was unresponsive to reason. I was willing to discuss things maturely he was not.

Can someone please explain why someone who puts themselves beyond reason is on Boards staff? You may have your rules, but no rules should be beyond reason.

I would be more interested in having his moderator removed than having my ban revoked. Boards.ie is quickly gaining a negative reptuation for instances like this. There is no need for a moderator like this and I cannot see how anyone with an ethical conscious would take this course of action.

I told you twice on thread to stop taking it off topic and discussing mod decisions. That is why you are banned. you were warned and infracted before I did so.

corkstudent

SDooM wrote: »

I told you twice on thread to stop taking it off topic and discussing mod decisions. That is why you are banned. you were warned and infracted before I did so.

This is an appeal to force and not a valid line of reasoning. This is not even up for question. Google some basic logic before you ever make another mod decision.

I asked you to explain your reasoning. If you had done so, I would not have been banned.

I gave reasoning. You did not. You are being unreasonable, forceful, and childish. I will not respect someone merely because they have the ability to ban me if I do not. What's more, it is blatant you are relying on the fact that I am upset by your decision and thus coming off as more aggressive, whereas you have no reason to be.

As a logical argument

A fallacious logical argument based on argumentum ad baculum generally has the following argument form:

If x does not accept P as true, then Q.
Q is a punishment on x.
Therefore, P is true.


For example:

If you do not believe that Jesus Christ is God, you will go to hell.
Therefore, Jesus Christ is God.

In other words, This is right because if you do not believe it, you will be harmed.

This form of argument is an informal fallacy, because the attack Q may not necessarily reveal anything about the truth value of the premise P. This fallacy has been identified since the Middle Ages by many philosophers. This is a special case of argumentum ad consequentiam, or "appeal to consequences".

As far as I am concerned you are great threat to intelligent posting. Forced peace is not peace at all.

jor el

SDooM is not on Boards "staff".

Don't argue with a mod, on moderation issues, in a thread, it's a banable offense. Take to to PM. You were given a warning, you ignored the warning, you got a temp ban. Rules is rules, you broke them and ignored the warnings.

There is every need for moderators who moderate.

corkstudent

jor el wrote: »

SDooM is not on Boards "staff".

Don't argue with a mod, on moderation issues, in a thread, it's a banable offense. Take to to PM. You were given a warning, you ignored the warning, you got a temp ban. Rules is rules, you broke them and ignored the warnings.

There is every need for moderators who moderate.

That doesn't explain why you are electing blatantly incompetent moderators. Rules do not justify themselves. There is no need for moderators who take an indefensible course of actions and cover it up with candy coated etiquette.

You're not even familiar with basic internet messageboard terminology, all mods are "staff". Why should I believe you are in any competent as a mod either?

If you put rules before reason, fine. But it means you are a terrible human being with no ethics, and should not be moderating a forum.

Fajitas!

OP, provide some links or this is pointless.

jor el

corkstudent wrote: »

That doesn't explain why you are electing blatantly incompetent moderators. Rules do not justify themselves.

You're not even familiar with basic internet messageboard terminology, all mods are "staff".

Have you any idea what you're talking about? I'm a mod, and I'm not staff. Nobody gets elected here either. Educate yourself to how Boards works before ranting on about rules and terminology.

dr.bollocko

corkstudent wrote:

If x does not accept P as true, then Q.

If cork student does not accept ban as true, then catpics. Any second.

jor el

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Any second.

Aye.

Fajitas!

dr.bollocko wrote: »

If cork student does not accept ban as true, then catpics. Any second.

No, no catpics. OP, provide links please, so we can look at this fairly. You're not doing well for yourself by being so condescending either.

corkstudent

jor el wrote: »

Have you any idea what you're talking about? I'm a mod, and I'm not staff. Nobody gets elected here either. Educate yourself to how Boards works before ranting on about rules and terminology.

No, you have no clue what you're talking about. The general internet terminology for anyone who is a mod or admin is to call them "staff". Whatever you call them here is a specific case and it is not unreasonable for me to use the general case. Also, why on earth would you pay a boards mod? They get plenty of "payment" with the power they get to force on others. I have never been to a forum like this in my life, but I can't ignore it's the biggest most active Irish forum either. You should have a duty to promote a sane mentality in your position, not this godawful authoritarian rubbish. You can run a good forum without stooping to childish tactics.

The fact that you didn't recognise I was using the general case means you have little experience of other forums and how they work. Again, why are you a mod?

Fajitas! wrote: »

OP, provide some links or this is pointless.

I can't, I'm banned. It's the emo/goth thread in the nocturnal forum.

Doctor DooM

corkstudent wrote: »

This is an appeal to force and not a valid line of reasoning. This is not even up for question. Google some basic logic before you ever make another mod decision.

I asked you to explain your reasoning. If you had done so, I would not have been banned.

I gave reasoning. You did not. You are being unreasonable, forceful, and childish. I will not respect someone merely because they have the ability to ban me if I do not.

You said:

What the ****, emo and goth are not the same thing. At all. Neither real emo nor the trendy **** that you get instead of Mansonites these days. Apart from offering favouring darker hues("real" emos tend to prefer blues though) they're stylistic opposites. "Emo" is tacky hairclips, baggy pants, horrible clashing of colours. Goth is often a little punky, but quite stylish.

I said two words:

[MOD]Calm down[/MOD]

you replied:

Uh, what about that was aggressive? It was a statement of (exagerrated) fact. He obviously doesn't know the first thing about "goth" music, and countering misinformation is a good cause.

Continuing to drag the thread off topic.

I replied:

The first post was aggressive.

If you want a discussion on Goth or Emo MUSIC fine, but dont do it on a jokey thread about their looks.

Further more if you want to discuss this any further on thread is not the place to do it.

Which you ignored.

Then you said:

But it's not just about the music, the style of dress is part of the subculture. You can't seperate them. Please quote the post you're complaining about in future. Also, because it contained ****d words doesn't mean it was aggressive, it was in a more casual tone.

And even so, I think it's pretty disgusting if mods crack down on any "negative" expression of emotion at all, but most people can't comprehend why "style over substance" is a fallacious line of reasoning. People should be entitled to be upset over things, never mind casually swearing knowing full well it'll be censored anyway.

I think you need to calm down a bit. You're pointlessly swinging your baton around, the world won't collapse if there's a discussion on goth music, which is kind of integral to the whole thing. The whole problem with modern "subcultures" is that the integrity and relevancy of the music has been subtracted.

To which I simply replied:

Continue this discussion on thread one more time and you will be banned.

So you continued on and got yourself banned with:

This is absolutely insane. Would you care to explain your reasoning? I gave mine. It is relevant to the thread. You are abusing your power and are coming off as a childish bully. Instead of having a mature discussion, you have opted for the fallacious line of reasoning known as Appeal to Force.

You are breaching the peace and harming freedom of discussion. If I am incorrect, then explain here publically where everyone can see it, how your actions are justified, or else as far as I'm concerned, no matter what the rules say, you're objectively in the wrong.

This kind of behaviour won't get you far outside of the Authoritarian Boards.

Goth music is relevant to the discussion because it helps in identifying what's meant by the word "Goth" to begin with and who it applies to. You cannot seperate a subculture from the music that started it.

You want reasoning. It is quite reasonable: People start threads to discuss things. People who drag them off into a rant about things they want to discuss ruin the threads on the originators.

You ignored me several times and have insulted me via pm several times. I am not the one being unreasonable here.

PS I did a year on logic, its quite boring.

takola

corkstudent wrote: »

I can't, I'm banned. It's the emo/goth thread in the nocturnal forum.

Log out, find the posts and link us to them. Otherwise you're just ranting and going to get nowhere?

RuggieBear

so when exactly are we all allowed pile in then...?

corkstudent

Okay, so I'm not IP banned at least.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055343247&page=20

He even deleted the posts. Come on. How am I meant to prove my case now? Surely at least THIS counts as improper conduct for a mod? Do you have any rules for mods at all? I'm just honestly asking.

Doctor DooM

RuggieBear wrote: »

so when exactly are we all allowed pile in then...?

Feel free.

Vegeta

Fajitas! wrote: »

No, no catpics. OP, provide links please, so we can look at this fairly. You're not doing well for yourself by being so condescending either.

I'm with the soul stealer, log out and get some links for this.

If feedback (and you) are to be taken seriously, make your case a bit better than this.

Do you really think coming in here simply pointing the finger will make you right? Get some links up

dr.bollocko

Look seriously.
This is bull****.
Cop the hell on dude/tte

Vegeta

takola is too quick for me

RuggieBear

corkstudent wrote: »

Okay, so I'm not IP banned at least.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055343247&page=20

He even deleted the posts. Come on. How am I meant to prove my case now? Surely at least THIS counts as improper conduct for a mod? Do you have any rules for mods at all? I'm just honestly asking.

[MOD]Calm down[/MOD]

Doctor DooM

Vegeta wrote: »

I'm with the soul stealer, log out and get some links for this.

If feedback (and you) are to be taken seriously, make your case a bit better than this.

Do you really think coming in here simply pointing the finger will make you right? Get some links up

I deleted the the posts so the thread could get back on course. Of course because I am a fascist nazi mod I took the time to post everything we both said.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

FREE THE CORK STUDENT 1 !!!

takola

I actually found his first post to be fair enough and don't see it as off-topic or aggressive at all?

Some people will give serious answers even in the jokey threads.

Doctor DooM

RuggieBear wrote: »

[MOD]Calm down[/MOD]

Im out of thanks.

Vegeta

corkstudent wrote: »

Okay, so I'm not IP banned at least.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055343247&page=20

He even deleted the posts. Come on. How am I meant to prove my case now? Surely at least THIS counts as improper conduct for a mod? Do you have any rules for mods at all? I'm just honestly asking.

as far as I am aware Smods and Cmods can still see them so if you have a case they will check it out for you.

I'd say tone down the mod bashing though, you ctach more flies with honey and all that

corkstudent

Continuing to drag the thread off topic.

Off topic is a subjective term here. You did not define why it was off topic, nor did you respond to my reasoning as to how it was on topic. You are a person who is either completely incapable of understand basic logic, or puts themselves beyond reason, why would your definition of "Off topic" be any good? Because some other mod decided you should be a mod? Friend of a friend? I'm going to get called condescending for that, but why is it far that the opposing party here doesn't have to use reason at all? Please explain to me?

All you did was repost the thread(at least it's not so bad you deleted them now). It's a disgrace.

Do you have any idea what "reasoning" is? There is not an ounce of reasoning in your post. It is still appeal to force. It is still wrong.

You ignored me several times and have insulted me via pm several times. I am not the one being unreasonable here.

You at no point made any attempt to start a rational, reasonable discourse. I should be entitled to my opinion on your terrible moderation skills. A decent person would not sink to this. You are completely free to prove me wrong. With reason.

You made a decision without defending why you did it. This is "unreasonable". Ignoring your appeals to force is actually the perfectly logical thing to do. And insults are not illogical - calling them so is an instance of the "Appeal to ridicule" fallacy.

Please learn what "unreasonable" means first.

PS I did a year on logic, its quite boring.

Then you shouldn't be a mod.

Doctor DooM

takola wrote: »

I actually found his first post to be fair enough and don't see it as off-topic or aggressive at all?

Some people will give serious answers even in the jokey threads.

Fair enough. To me it was because of the language and the tone, but then again if he'd taken it straight to pm none of this would have happened.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

MY MODDING IS LOGICAL!

corkstudent

SDooM wrote: »

I deleted the the posts so the thread could get back on course. Of course because I am a fascist nazi mod I took the time to post everything we both said.

Another logical fallacy, appeal to riducle.

Appeal to ridicule, also called the Horse Laugh[1], is a logical fallacy which presents the opponent's argument in a way that appears ridiculous, often to the extent of creating a straw man of the actual argument. For example:

* If Einstein's theory of relativity is right, that would mean that when I drive my car it gets shorter and heavier the faster I go. That's crazy! (This is, in fact, true, but the effect is so minuscule a human observer will not notice.)
* If the theory of evolution were true, that would mean that your great great great grandfather was a gorilla! (False, since the theory does not state humans evolved from gorillas, and clearly states evolution took many more than 5 generations.)

This is a rhetorical tactic which mocks an opponent's argument, attempting to inspire an emotional reaction (making it a type of appeal to emotion) in the audience and to highlight the counter-intuitive aspects of that argument, making it appear foolish and contrary to common sense. This is typically done by demonstrating the argument's logic in an extremely absurd way or by presenting the argument in an overly simplified way, and often involves an appeal to consequences.

Why are you a mod? I suppose now you're going to make fun of the fact that I'm actually using logic in an argument? If you were a competent mod, I shouldn't even have to name the concepts.

Adam

corkstudent wrote:

What the ****, emo and goth are not the same thing. At all. Neither real emo nor the trendy **** that you get instead of Mansonites these days. Apart from offering favouring darker hues("real" emos tend to prefer blues though) they're stylistic opposites. "Emo" is tacky hairclips, baggy pants, horrible clashing of colours. Goth is often a little punky, but quite stylish.

corkstudent wrote:

But it's not just about the music, the style of dress is part of the subculture. You can't seperate them. Please quote the post you're complaining about in future. Also, because it contained ****d words doesn't mean it was aggressive, it was in a more casual tone.

And even so, I think it's pretty disgusting if mods crack down on any "negative" expression of emotion at all, but most people can't comprehend why "style over substance" is a fallacious line of reasoning. People should be entitled to be upset over things, never mind casually swearing knowing full well it'll be censored anyway.

I think you need to calm down a bit. You're pointlessly swinging your baton around, the world won't collapse if there's a discussion on goth music, which is kind of integral to the whole thing. The whole problem with modern "subcultures" is that the integrity and relevancy of the music has been subtracted.

Original posts don't exist any more, nor do Doom's responses as far as I can see.

But the thread was basically a slydice thread for emo/goth chicks i.e. anyone dressed in black etc. and is ironic. corkstudent posted completely off topic obviously. Case closed, good work Doom.

EDIT: Damn! None of the previous 20 posts were there when I stared this!

RuggieBear

at least he passed the Amp Test.

Fajitas!

No links, but from what's been provided by SDoom, you were warned, warned again, and banned. I don't see the problem - If you have to be warned twice, and the second time told you'd be banned if you post like that again, you shouldn't be suprised when you're banned!

You were given clear warnings each time.

At the moment, it just looks like you're the childish ones, even if you are using all your logical quotes.

Egomania and power tripping my arse.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

Also, if you were abusive to the moderator by PM, that's a big no-no.

You say it's your first forum - You might want to check up how a forum works by jumping on in.

corkstudent

SDooM wrote: »

Fair enough. To me it was because of the language and the tone, but then again if he'd taken it straight to pm none of this would have happened.

If you had been less trigger happy none of this would have happened. Also, you were no more receptive over PM. It is only in public that you are under some pressure to look reasonable.

Nothing would have been gained bringing it to PM - even if I was not banned, the fact that an unreasonable decision was made would have stood.

Doctor DooM

corkstudent wrote: »

Off topic is a subjective term here. You did not define why it was off topic, nor did you respond to my reasoning as to how it was on topic. You are a person who is either completely incapable of understand basic logic, or puts themselves beyond reason, why would your definition of "Off topic" be any good? Because some other mod decided you should be a mod? Friend of a friend? I'm going to get called condescending for that, but why is it far that the opposing party here doesn't have to use reason at all? Please explain to me?

All you did was repost the thread(at least it's not so bad you deleted them now). It's a disgrace.

Do you have any idea what "reasoning" is? There is not an ounce of reasoning in your post. It is still appeal to force. It is still wrong.



You at no point made any attempt to start a rational, reasonable discourse. I should be entitled to my opinion on your terrible moderation skills. A decent person would not sink to this. You are completely free to prove me wrong. With reason.

You made a decision without defending why you did it. This is "unreasonable". Ignoring your appeals to force is actually the perfectly logical thing to do. And insults are not illogical - calling them so is an instance of the "Appeal to ridicule" fallacy.

Please learn what "unreasonable" means first.



Then you shouldn't be a mod.

I feel you are missing the point.

You WERE free to discuss it with me. Just not on that thread.

jor el

corkstudent wrote: »

He even deleted the posts. Come on. How am I meant to prove my case now? Surely at least THIS counts as improper conduct for a mod? Do you have any rules for mods at all? I'm just honestly asking.

Oh that's right. Deleting off topic posts is a big no no on "other forums" isn't it, so why allow it here? SDooM should be strung up as an example to all the other mods.

corkstudent wrote: »

No, you have no clue what you're talking about. The general internet terminology for anyone who is a mod or admin is to call them "staff".

Just because you keep saying that, doesn't make it so. People do sometimes refer to mods as staff, but they are wrong. There is only one staff member here, and that's CulT.

corkstudent wrote: »

The fact that you didn't recognise I was using the general case means you have little experience of other forums and how they work. Again, why are you a mod?

I recognise the words you use, but I've really no idea what you're banging on about.

corkstudent

Fajitas! wrote: »

No links, but from what's been provided by SDoom, you were warned, warned again, and banned. I don't see the problem - If you have to be warned twice, and the second time told you'd be banned if you post like that again, you shouldn't be suprised when you're banned!

You were given clear warnings each time.

At the moment, it just looks like you're the childish ones, even if you are using all your logical quotes.

Egomania and power tripping my arse.

Prove me wrong with links saying otherwise.

There is no way I could ever have a reasonable discussion with you on anything. You have outright rejected logic.

Did you bother reading over the "appeal to force" article? It's exactly what was described. Threatening an action before the action is done does not make the action more reasonable.

It is clearly stated here.

A fallacious logical argument based on argumentum ad baculum generally has the following argument form:

If x does not accept P as true, then Q.
Q is a punishment on x.
Therefore, P is true.

Is there ANY mod on boards that understands this? I will cease to be "Mod bashing" when I find one that does. You do not have to use logic to defend your actions. This is an unfair position to put me in.

biko

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTLwiccIOxI

BanzaiBk

Hmm, I understand where the moderator was coming from but I don't find the first post agressive at all. The fact that it was suggested as agressive probably annoyed the OP, and I would personally find [MOD] calm down [/MOD] condescending if I was trying to get a point across. My 2c.

corkstudent

jor el wrote: »

Oh that's right. Deleting off topic posts is a big no no on "other forums" isn't it, so why allow it here? SDooM should be strung up as an example to all the other mods.


Just because you keep saying that, doesn't make it so. People do sometimes refer to mods as staff, but they are wrong. There is only one staff member here, and that's CulT.


I recognise the words you use, but I've really no idea what you're banging on about.

Now who's being condescending?

You do understand at least that every decision should be defended LOGICALLY? That's what I'm on about. Saying "do this or I'll ban you" is not a logical course of action. I have no reason to believe any of you have a grain of competency if none of you can understand this.

Nerin

ehhhh right. i already warned people on that thread to cop on. mod warnings are mod warnings, bitching about it in thread isnt acceptable (i should know, lollers)
as for doom being a danger to intelligent posting, bah, ridiculous. we all know im the dangerous one, to put it eloquently, i would have told you to stfu and gtfo.

corkstudent

BanzaiBk wrote: »

Hmm, I understand where the moderator was coming from but I don't find the first post agressive at all. The fact that it was suggested as agressive probably annoyed the OP, and I would personally find [MOD] calm down [/MOD] condescending if I was trying to get a point across. My 2c.

Exactly, thank you. I was not aggressive until SDoom aggressed me. I even gave him fair warning.

Adam

BanzaiBk wrote: »

Hmm, I understand where the moderator was coming from but I don't find the first post agressive at all. The fact that it was suggested as agressive probably annoyed the OP, and I would personally find [MOD] calm down [/MOD] condescending if I was trying to get a point across. My 2c.

The point should never have been made on that thread in the first place. Considering the thread's content, corkstudent was basically trolling.

@corkstudent

Can you follow that? You were in the wrong place. If you had started a thread elsewhere (in one of the music forums or after hours perhaps), you wouldn't be banned. It's your own fault for being stubborn.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

rofl
you don't give warnings to moderators.
hahahahahahahahahahahahha

Fajitas!

corkstudent wrote: »

Is there ANY mod on boards that understands this?

Obviously, noone on boards.ie wants to help you. Not even yourself. We're all too illogical after all.

corkstudent

Here's an example of mods = staff:

http://www.ohmb.net/index.php?page=staff

It's not an easy thing to google. But it IS common practice.

Doctor DooM

BanzaiBk wrote: »

Hmm, I understand where the moderator was coming from but I don't find the first post agressive at all. The fact that it was suggested as agressive probably annoyed the OP, and I would personally find [MOD] calm down [/MOD] condescending if I was trying to get a point across. My 2c.

Fair enough. Maybe I was wrong there. Despite what the OP thinks I'm willing to listen

Bear in mind he didn't even get an infraction for that though. He continued several times on the off topic route after I told him to stop.

challengemaster

Damn SDoom, you pi$$ed of a touchy goth methinks. That's just Illogical

Speaking of Logic...

Nerin

corkstudent wrote: »

Here's an example of mods = staff:

http://www.ohmb.net/index.php?page=staff

It's not an easy thing to google. But it IS common practice.

oh im sorry, was that boards.ie?
:rolleyes:

corkstudent

Fajitas! wrote: »

Obviously, noone on boards.ie wants to help you. Not even yourself. We're all too illogical after all.

And just a few posts down from where I posted "appeal to ridicule". Astounding. Let me post it for you again.

Appeal to ridicule, also called the Horse Laugh[1], is a logical fallacy which presents the opponent's argument in a way that appears ridiculous, often to the extent of creating a straw man of the actual argument. For example:

* If Einstein's theory of relativity is right, that would mean that when I drive my car it gets shorter and heavier the faster I go. That's crazy! (This is, in fact, true, but the effect is so minuscule a human observer will not notice.)
* If the theory of evolution were true, that would mean that your great great great grandfather was a gorilla! (False, since the theory does not state humans evolved from gorillas, and clearly states evolution took many more than 5 generations.)

This is a rhetorical tactic which mocks an opponent's argument, attempting to inspire an emotional reaction (making it a type of appeal to emotion) in the audience and to highlight the counter-intuitive aspects of that argument, making it appear foolish and contrary to common sense. This is typically done by demonstrating the argument's logic in an extremely absurd way or by presenting the argument in an overly simplified way, and often involves an appeal to consequences.

Let me translate to boards.ie mod speak: Appeal to ridicule means making a mockery of someone's argument and using it as your argument is stupid and wrong.

I'm using words like "illogical" in place of "Stupid and arrogant".Work with me here. None of you seem to be bending in the slightest despite some members finding it unfair.

Peared

This is none of my business but hey, what's that got to do with anything?

Just wanna say cork student that some of the mods on here are power mad eegits but sDoom isnt one of them.

Choose your battles imo.

Fajitas!

Me no understandy big words.

Spk englaish?