Kawasaki events and other feedback.

Da Bounca

Moderator julep banned a user for using an allegedly racist term.
The term used was Kawasaki. It was not used in a derogatory way, nor in fact does it have any link to racism that I can see.
It does rhyme with paki, which some would deem a derogatory word, but in fact it is an abbreviation of the full word Pakistani. No racism there.
Kawasaki is part of a cockney rhyming style slang.

Kawasaki by the way was a passing remark and in no way a theme or focus of the thread. julep clarified what kawasaki meant and then decided it was 'fairly' racist, and banned the OP. Fairly racist? It's either racist, or it is not.

It was a funny thread, there for the amusement of many and has continued on. The mod didn't understand the word and asked for clarification. That's fine. It should have ended there. The language used by the mod in his subsequent banning of the user looked like it was a joke:
"Ahh. I see. That's a fairly racist remark. Banned."
Banning someone for that reason, combined with the way the ban was phrased as well as seemingly taking an unserious tone when banning a user(which is a serious matter), one could very easily think that it is a joke. So when I asked if it was indeed a joke, I was told to go to the Help Desk if I had a problem with it.

After using boards for over 10 years I find it highly insulting to be rudely pointed toward the help desk forum, obviously because I know where it is and also because there was no reason for the mod to assume I had a problem with his actions. This shows that the mod doubted his own actions and made a point of making me out to be a thread bandit. So when I responded to his rude comment with a rude question of my own, which was well within reason, I got banned. For arguing. Arguing is to put forth reasons for or against something, to debate, to give an opposition to a view or point. I did none of these things, so at the very least, my ban for arguing should be lifted.

Further, at a later date, the mod admitted in PM and then on a thread that the rule I broke was not arguing but giving attitude to a mod. Yet another reason my argument ban should be lifted and a prime example of how facts are twisted to suit the mod's personal views, to justify his/her actions and to save face at the expense of another user.

So I am banned from Afterhours. I believe unfairly. So I go to the Help Desk as is standard procedure. Wherein I receive no help whatsoever. The matter was not discussed. It was finalised without any sort of proper clarifaction, and the thread was promptly closed.

The issue was being discussed to some degree through private message with a mod named seamus, with some input from julep when he wished to converse through PM. Seamus informed me that he would see if julep would perhaps reduce the length of the ban, which was for a whopping 7 days.
julep then sent a message saying that my ban would be reduced to the same length as the 'racist' had received. A 4 day ban. A 4 day ban for being a 'racist' while I who had simply 'argued' with a mod received a 7 day ban. So julep seems to think that acts of racism are less important than someone questioning a mods actions(which yet again, never actually happened). This again shows that the ban is for personal reasons and not for any breach of the charter. I basically said his attitude sucked after he was rude to me, and he banned me for it. I may have broken the 'do not be cheeky to a mod' rule, but it was in response to an abruptly rude and uncalled for command. I don't think hyprocisy should have a home on boards. Mods should not be allowed to insult boards users while banning any user that defends themselves in kind.

Another boards user began a thread in feedback about the state of moderation and the seemingly decrease in empathy and human understanding that is apparent in some mods attitudes. A lot of valid points were brought up and discussions had begun about the issue and the recent problems surrounding it. Then, another mod decided to delete half the posts and move it to Help Desk so that nobody could continue posting on it, the thread looks ridiculous because all the posts that have been quoted have dissapeared and so nobody will take it seriously, let alone read it. This is terrible behaviour by an smod. When politely messaged about the issue, the smod ignored the pm, this happened more than once. They claimed, it was a Help Desk issue(which it isn't of course - it's a rendition of recent events, aka feedback). Besides that, I don't see how 'it belongs on helpdesk' explains the deletion of posts, but I'm sure another reaching and vague explanation will be provided. Also the fact that any inquest into that issue has been met with a blank wall from more than one mod is further proof of the state of moderation on boards. Ironic that the very thread that questions and depicts mod's morality gets moved, silenced and pillaged of it's content.

SO.
(A) Labelling someone a racist and banning them.
(B) Labelling a slang word racist.
(C) Abusing a forum user.
(D) Banning them for responding to abuse with abuse.
(E) Falsifying and later altering the reason to ban the user.
(F) Proposing that arguing with a mod is worse than acts of racism.
(G) No help at the Help Desk and thread locked to prevent any.
(H) Destroying a thread to prevent further serious discussion on it.
(I) Moving a thread to prevent further serious discussion on it.
(J) Not responding to private messages requesting reason and help on above.


This is shockingly disgraceful behaviour and not by just one person.
The issue began with julep, was justified by seamus, then Beruthiel sabotaged any attempt to rectify the situation.

I am not calling for heads or anything. I just think these actions are preposterous and deserve to be highlighted. Maybe some healthy changes will be made to boards in light of this feedback.

The OP of the kawasaki thread was banned, yet the thread he began was allowed to continue on. If someone starts a thread, and is banned for the use of language they included in the starting post, surely the thread should be locked and further posting prevented? It practically invites a derail.

I would also like to suggest a temporary demodding system for mods that act out of personal interest or fail to uphold the rules and/or honour of boards.

kawasaki thread

Locked HelpDesk thread

Pillaged feedback thread

AlmightyCushion

This is the interaction between Terry and Da bounca that led to his ban.

Da Bounca wrote: »

Joke?

julep wrote: »

No.

If you have a problem with that, take it to the help desk.

Da Bounca wrote: »

If I have a problem with your jump down the throat attitude, do I also take that to the help desk?

It's pretty clear cut and your ban was deserved. I think any one can see that.

Ledgehammer

AC, you seemed to of missed the major point being addressed here and thats the mugabi style tactics of the mods when da bounca tried to appeal the decision

Sherifu

Da Bounca wrote: »

This is shockingly disgraceful behaviour and not by just one person. The issue began with julep, was justified by seamus, then Beruthiel sabotaged any attempt to rectify the situation.

Just on that point, I don't know why the last thread was moved from feedback as Seamus said it was ok to take it here... Wires crossed?

Anyway my take on it is Terry/julep is normally a very solid mod. In this instance he came across a bit snappy when he was asked if it was really a ban. I thought it was a bit out of character for him when I first read the thread. Everyone can have an off day.

turgon

The thread was about drug junkies I think, and maybe Julep was trying to stop a situation arising where some posters might think others judged junkies and foreigners as one in the same. This would obviously be highly offensive.

Tbh for the first few posts in that thread I was a bit confused as to whether the OP was in fact referring to drug junkies or whether junkies was a slang term for person originating from Pakistan.

AlmightyCushion

Ledgehammer wrote: »

AC, you seemed to of missed the major point being addressed here and thats the mugabi style tactics of the mods when da bounca tried to appeal the decision

The thread on after hours isn't the place to appeal or inquire about the ban. We don't allow the discussion of bans/mod decisions on thread as it de-rails the thread and takes it off topic. Terry told him that if he had a problem with the ban he could take it up with the helpdesk. If he had taken it up with helpdesk we wouldn't be here.

Sherifu wrote: »

Anyway my take on it is Terry/julep is normally a very solid mod. In this instance he came across a bit snappy when he was asked if it was really a ban. I thought it was a bit out of character for him when I first read the thread. Everyone can have an off day.

I don't see it as snappy (I can see how someone can though and it could have been). The way I see it, he was just saving everyone a bit of time and effort. If he didn't post up the help desk part it would have increased the amount of un-needed interactions. E.g.

User: Is that a joke?
Mod : No.
User: Well I think that ban is unfair. etc. etc.
Mod: Fair enough, you'll have to take it up with help desk.

Jazzy

i dunno, i have found its like talking to a wall. any time ive seen threads in helpdesk or feedback ive only ever seen one actually been listened to. those 2 forums just seem like a proxy set up to give the illusion u can actually give feedback or get any help.

i blame the circle jerk nature of how many forums on boards are run nowadays. i dont think ill ever bother making a thread in feedback or helpdesk again as i fail to see the point. u just generally get stone walled which leads to further frustration. too many mods are boardsed out of it and the whole place becomes stagnant, unreal and overly hostile. the stick first nature is taken far too seriously. while i understand the need for it on a busy site like this, i just dont get how ready mods are to dehumanise everything and 'moderate'.

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

If he had taken it up with helpdesk we wouldn't be here.

if terry had been a bit more human in responding and said maybe one or 2 lines we wouldnt be here either. thats exactly the point. versatility. u dont need to have ur mod face on for every single little question (or word) on a thread. ooohhh deary, the thread might have gone OT for 1 or 2 posts. quick, call spiderman.
just relax a bit and try not to be too boards when talking

Winters

MODS = FAGS

Sherifu

Winters, that pic >> all of us.

Ledgehammer

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

The thread on after hours isn't the place to appeal or inquire about the ban. We don't allow the discussion of bans/mod decisions on thread as it de-rails the thread and takes it off topic. Terry told him that if he had a problem with the ban he could take it up with the helpdesk. If he had taken it up with helpdesk we wouldn't be here.

He did, after he was banned he wasnt able to post on AH. And when he went to the help desk forum to appeal it he was basicly fobbed off and the actual thread itself was butchered to suit to suit the mods.

Mugabi, Sadam, Kim Jong-il Tactics.

Ledgehammer

Wincest is best! wrote: »

MODS = FAGS

No need for that keep this a legitimate conversation.

dr.bollocko

I dont see how we are covering any new ground here between the on-thread original interaction, the charter of AH, the other feedback thread and the helpdesk thread.
These bans have been explained time and again.
I don't really care for a witch hunt over any intent in any of Terry's posts. I doubt too many will. Everybody has a bad reaction to a ban. We extend users of AH every courtesy in moving threads, explaining rules, PMing users when necessary etc. and will continue to do so. This matter has been explained already.

Terry

Your ban will be up in two days.
I will not be lifting it before that.

If an admin wants to overrule me on that, then fair enough. Otherwise the ban stays.

Da Bounca

The unfair ban is not the point. This would be in Help Desk if it was.
I am providing feedback on the behaviour of moderators and their actions when dealing with a ban, an appeal, a seperate thread dealing with mod behaviour, and mod power regarding the decision of what is right and wrong.

dr.bollocko

Da Bounca wrote: »

The ban is not the point. This would be in Help Desk if it was.
I am providing feedback on the behaviour of moderators and their actions when dealing with a ban, an appeal, a seperate thread dealing with mod behaviour, and mod power regarding deciding what is right and wrong.

You went on an anti-mod attack and the mods backed themselves up with valid points relating to the incident.
That is all.

Jazzy

dr.bollocko wrote: »

You went on an anti-mod attack and the mods backed themselves up with valid points relating to the incident.
That is all.

pretty much exactly wat im talking about right there. no actual response to the queries brought up - just the standard boards response we have come to know and love.
want to actually put in some interaction instead of just stone walling things? are you not seeing the point of the thread?

dr.bollocko

Jazzy wrote: »

are you not seeing the point of the thread?

No.
No I am not.

Terry

Da Bounca wrote: »

The unfair ban is not the point. This would be in Help Desk if it was.
I am providing feedback on the behaviour of moderators and their actions when dealing with a ban, an appeal, a seperate thread dealing with mod behaviour, and mod power regarding the decision of what is right and wrong.

What do you want done then?

Funky

It'd be cool if I could have an explanation of why my posts were deleted from the original feedback thread. Cause Beruthiel was kind enough to ignore my PM regarding that.

Da Bounca

Just questions answered julep, and them answered honestly.

First of all, I would like to know why the Overbearing thread was moved so that people couldn't post on it and it's posts deleted.

Why have I received no repsonse from Beruthial or Seamus with regard to the Overbearing thread?

Also, why is it that you decided kawasaki was racist?

Why is it you banned me for arguing, when all I did was get up your nose and point out your blunt attitude wasn't ok when dealing with people?

What measures are in place for when a mod steps out of line and needs to be reprimanded. Is it done by other moderators? The closed circle of friends that incessantly thank each other all day long.

Why is it you allowed a thread to go on that had the first poster banned in it for racist remarks? Normally it would be locked. Or why not edit/reprimand, especially when it is only 'fairly' racist.

Why did you not respond to the OP of the kawasaki thread in a resonable and professional manner when you were banning him?

Why have I received no repsonse from Beruthial or Seamus with regard to the Overbearing thread?

Why don't all moderators have the moderator tag under their names? They are public figures who enforce the forums rules. They should be marked as such for everyone's sake.


There's more, but that'll do for the moment.

Overheal

Also, why is it that you decided kawasaki was racist?

Who decided ****** was a racist term for blacks, or cracker a racist term for whites, or spic a racist term for mexicans - i think you can see where this is going.

Da Bounca

Overheal, you're way off.

They ARE racist terms. Not rhyming nicknames for people from other cultures.

Terry

Da Bounca wrote: »

Also, why is it that you decided kawasaki was racist?

Because the dude told me it was.
I asked what it meant,. He said it was slang for Paki. Paki is a racist term, therefore kawasaki, by default, is also a racist term.

I suggest asking for a Pakistani person's opinion before disputing this.

Why is it you banned me for arguing, when all I did was get up your nose and point out your blunt attitude wasn't ok when dealing with people?

You broke one of the cardinal rules of AH and most other forums on this site.
You could just as easily have taken your arguement to PM instead of posting on thread.

What measures are in place for when a mod steps out of line and needs to be reprimanded. Is it done by other moderators? The closed circle of friends that incessantly thank each other all day long.

I'm going to preface this by saying that I am not a friend of any moderator on this forum.
I have had a drink with a few, but I would not call them friends. I don't know any of them well enough.

A Cmod will usually step in first. If problems continue, then it is taken up by an available Admin.
If a moderator is deemed to have stepped too far out of line, then they are demodded and sometimes site banned.
Sometimes the moderator in question will just step down and avoid any further complications.

If you are referring to me as a moderator who has stepped out of line in this question, they'll have to kill me to strip me of my modship of AH.

Why is it you allowed a thread to go on that had the first poster banned in it for racist remarks?

It was a good premise for a thread.

Normally it would be locked. Or why not edit/reprimand, especially when it is only 'fairly' racist.

You're wrong there.
There's a certain user who keeps re-regging and starting threads. sometimes they will be left open after he has been site banned because sometimes people are interested in the subject of the thread. If a thread gets enough replies, we usually leave it open because people have shown an interest.

Why did you not respond to the OP of the kawasaki thread in a resonable and professional manner when you were banning him?

He was given a reasonable reason for his ban via PM.

Why have I received no repsonse from Beruthial or Seamus with regard to the Overbearing thread?

Like the first two questions, I cannot answer that.
You'll have to wait for them to come along.

Why don't all moderators have the moderator tag under their names? They are public figures who enforce the forums rules. They should be marked as such for everyone's sake.

Some are subscribers and choose to change their tag.
The list of forums they moderate are still visible.

Overheal

Da Bounca wrote: »

Overheal, you're way off.

They ARE racist terms. Not rhyming nicknames for people from other cultures.

Do you not ever stop to wonder where and how racist terms originate? Or do you just think god put the word n*gger there to be funny?

By the way, Dr. Suess would turn in his grave if someone tried to tell him kawasaki rhymed with pakistani.

Hank Scorpio

a moderator banned you because you used the word television. In some countries that word is forbidden.

Your a racist, the ban stands.

Dont try to fight, you no your wrong

Winters

The word "boards" is now a recist term for retards. I propose that from now on, anyone using the word "boards" should be instantly banned for using what is now considere a racist term.


To clear things up. This simple guide will be handy:


All non-racist and surprisingly sexy things...

V9

Wincest is best! wrote: »

The word "boards" is now a recist term for retards. I propose that from now on, anyone using the word "boards" should be instantly banned for using what is now considere a racist term.


To clear things up. This simple guide will be handy:


All non-racist and surprisingly sexy things...

I'rd rei d er, thats not sayin much BAGN

Agent Smith

This useless Thread was brought to you by


"Salem Cigarettes"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r44Va1OPLA8

javaboy

Well I think the question about why the thread was moved to Help Desk has been adequately answered.

K-9

Wincest is best! wrote: »

The word "boards" is now a recist term for retards. I propose that from now on, anyone using the word "boards" should be instantly banned for using what is now considere a racist term.


To clear things up. This simple guide will be handy:


All non-racist and surprisingly sexy things...

Feck it, I think my last thought was Deja Vue and I was going to make a valuable contribution to this thread...................seriously distracted.

Terry

Well played, Winters. I did laugh.

Now if you have nothing useful to add, please go away.