Unfair treatment by moderator

genericguy

Dear Whomever,

I have received an infraction from one Micky Dolenz, moderator of After hours for my post (no.3) in the following thread in which I referred to a man as a cnut:

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056005575

Said infraction was claimed to have been given to me as a result of inappropriate language, which would be fair enough, however a number of other posts contain far more insulting adjectives in addition to the ones used by me, and nouns which are just as strong to describe the man, one Joe Duffy, who is the subject of the thread, and these posters have gone unpunished. (rightly so in my view, as we cannot have people being punished for their opinions now, can we?)

I am aware that abuse is not tolerated in AH, either of other posters or of people in the public eye, however I would like to raise a challenge to this by documenting evidence of Joe Duffy falling into the definition of the word cnut, and also the fact that so many people share my view that it quite simply cannot be too far from the truth.

The subject of this thread is a gentleman who preys in the insecurities of the uneducated and uninformed members of Ireland's society, and serves no purpose other than to perpetuate outrage cooked up by our government to distract the attention of our citizens from their continued attempts to rob and destroy vulnerable members of Irish society. Through his blatantly partisan chat show, many people in the country have lost their jobs, and gangsters both on the streets and in our house of parliament have had their pockets lined at the expense of the public. In short, his work is indeed that of a cnut, and I therefore stand by my post, as it was based on fact, not my personal distaste towards the man in question.

Please allow me to draw your attention first to number of posters who saw fit to agree with my statement by clicking the thanks button, and to the very valid and accurate opinions of other posters which serve to support my claim:

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Joe Duffy is a fat, hairy, mumbling, stuttering, bumbling, prattling, retarded piece of **** cunting buffoon!

cian1500ww wrote: »

You spelt pr*ck wrong...

Prabhu Deva wrote: »

genericguy wrote:

joe duffy is an alarmist reactionary cnut

need more adjectives

Metalfan wrote: »

joe duffy is a pain in the arse

ItsAWindUp wrote: »

MiciG91, you are Joe Duffy, and you are on this site to promote your ****ehawk radio show!

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

You have to admit though, he has given much needed employment to drug dealers since he closed the head shops.

dojojoe wrote: »

Why did this poster receive an infraction?
This is one of the most accurate statements about Joe Duffy I've seen on this board.

Nodin wrote: »

Personally I thought it was fair comment and on-side. Theres far worse been said about whole groups of people and ne'er a word been uttered.

Also, many dictionaries define a cnut as a person of unsavoury or contemptible character for example http://www.yourdictionary.com/****

Now that we have established that Joe duffy is deemed by many to be a cnut, and consistently carries out actions which are often considered cnutish by many, I believe that my statement warranted no such penalty.

I believe that the moderator responsible for my infraction may have a personal issue with me and is dealing with me in a passive/aggressive manner rather than stating it outright. If this isn't the case, that is absolutely fair enough, however that is the clear message being sent by singling me out. On the other hand, Micky Dolenz may indeed be Joe Duffy.

In conclusion, as far as the use of the word cnut against Joe Duffy goes, I certainly understand that the word cnut is unsavoury, but if the cap fits and so on. At the end of the day, if enough people called me a horse, I would have to consider shopping for a saddle.

Many thanks for your consideration of my argument.

Genericguy

sceptre

Hi there

Firstly, have you sent Mickey a PM about this? The first thing to do if there's a moderation decision you disagree with is to PM the mod in question. The second step is to PM one of the relevant category mods (you'll find all that listed here in the dispute resolution procedure).

That aside though, have you read this thread in After Hours by Dav, one of the boards.ie community managers? It's stickied at the top of the forum so it stands out, though I guess not everyone will have noticed it. It deals specifically with being abusive towards people who are in the public sphere so I'd actively advise you to give it a look.

Second on the "aside" list, there are plenty of people who view the cnut word (or its less bowderlised version with the u before the n) as one of the most abusive terms the English language can offer. I guess it may depend on what part of the country you're from, but this is the view of most of the English-speaking world. So it's quite probable that the moderators regard this term as especially abusive, as it is.

Drop the mod a line first I reckon.

genericguy

sceptre wrote: »

Drop the mod a line first I reckon.

Many thanks for your response Sceptre. While I appreciate that there is indeed a stickied thread pertaining to the abuse of other persons in AH, I don't believe that my post fell under the umbrella of 'abuse' due to its basis in fact, as supported by the dictionary definition of the term when used in a colloquial fashion.

Further to this, I have received an infraction for questioning my infraction. Now I firmly believe that the moderator in question either has a vested interest in preventing this online community from questioning the behaviour of the aforementioned radio presenter, or he is possibly X-Zibit, attempting to develop a meme involving me serving a ban while I serve a ban.

I fear this may be an excercise in futility, as I am all too aware from reading previous threads where complainants have failed to receive any justice, however I will continue my battle in order to keep After Hours a place in which people can freely discuss facts without fear of unnecessary censorship at the hands of an increasingly fascist moderatorship.

Zaph

As has previously been stated, complaints about moderation should follow the Dispute Resolution Procedure. You can find full details here. Obviously you are free to continue your one-man crusade against the "increasingly fascist moderatorship", however I would suggest that your argument is likely to be taken more seriously if you follow the correct procedure.