Banned from Nocturnal

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?

Doctor DooM

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.

Deadly, we're paid now!

As you may have noticed in my responses to posters being reasonable, I am open to discussion.

Fightingdapowa isn't going to help.

And yeah, given the thread, and prior response, that kind of talk is likely to start a flame war. But I'll take on board I might have used nicer words.

corkstudent

SDooM wrote: »

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.

You're only willing to listen because it's the only way you can really appear to be in the right. The other mods can get away with it because they're not being directly.

This is exactly why I brought it out publically to begin with. The fact is that even if you are acting "reasonably" now, it's only because I've in some way forced your hand. You were relying on me either not bothering or me being bullied or ganged up on. It is only because other members opposed you if. If you were ignoring my appeals PURELY because I was upset, then that's a much bigger issue than anything else raised. You can't be a mod if you can't deal with people upset at you. Really. Rational debate will always come off as overly assertive to people who aren't used to it.

I'm not trying to be an ass here, I'm just trying to point out that even if you admit this mistake, your entire approach is wrong and I don't see how you can be an ethical person and do this. As far as I can see it may just be a slightly different kind of egomania to what I initially presumed.

Prove me wrong here.

BanzaiBk

Mordeth kthxbai! wrote: »

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

Oh I don't dispute that, and as I said I understand compltely where SDoom is coming from. Clearly the OP is just trying to convey a point, albeit in the wrong place and wrong thread.

I'll watch now as every keyboard warrrior will sit at their computers thinking up snarky "witty" responses meant to infuriate the OP.

takola

corkstudent wrote: »

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.

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.

Will you please calm down?

Your attitude here is going to get you nowhere. You've had dealings with one moderator here and now suddenly we're all incompetent dopes?

I suggest you familiarise yourself with boards and how it works before you go jumping on the moderators here. Talking down to someone is never a good idea and that is exactly what you were doing both in that thread and again here.

It's unacceptable in any forum to respond to a moderator in thread. If you have a problem with a warning they've issued you with in thread then you pm them. I can guarantee you if you'd pmed Doom after his "calm down" warning and explained that the post wasn't meant be seem aggressive you wouldn't be banned. Instead you took your condescending attitude and went off on several rants in the thread. You were warned more than once.

copacetic

corkstudent wrote: »

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

You are not in any position to give anyone fair warning. This isn't first year philosophy, sdoom wasn't trying to prove you were off topic. In his opinion you were, that's it, he is in charge. Simple. He gave you plenty of warning, which you ignored. Where was the logic in that course of action?

challengemaster

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.

And this is boards.ie - not ohmb.net. Therefore staff on ohmb.net may be moderators and admins, but Here on boards.ie, Moderators are not staff of boards.ie.

Logical, yes?

jor el

corkstudent wrote: »

I have no reason to believe any of you have a grain of competency if none of you can understand this.

Ditto for you. The logical thing to do would be not respond in the first place. You chose instead to get your back up and start arguing where it doesn't belong. The ban was a logical result.

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

Now who's being condescending?

Jack Sheehan

Bottom Line, SDoom's modding is not up for discussion, your ban is. You're not exactly endearing yourself to the community either.

takola

Can somebody please explain to me how the OP was taking the thread off topic with his first post?

corkstudent

Jack Sheehan wrote: »

Bottom Line, SDoom's modding is not up for discussion, your ban is. You're not exactly endearing yourself to the community either.

Why is SDoom's modding not up for discussion, exactly? Why should he be beyond reason, completely infallible?