Banned from Sustainability & Environmental Issues

gullon

I have been banned from the above forum for so called in thread moderation.

I requested that the mod Macha explian how my post was in line moderation. Macha's reply was not statisfactory. In fact it was inflammatory with her statement of mupptery.

Macha introduced the statement that carbon was a pollutant and accordinly is taxed as such (the polluter pays principle) into the thread, not me. All I asked was to explian how it was a pollutant.

I also wish to point that at no stage was I warned that I would be banned.

It is my opinion that Macha wishes to stifle debate by use of his/her position as moderator.

I wish that my three day ban be reviewed and reversed.


Regards

gullon

Scofflaw

gullon wrote:

I have been banned from the above forum for so called in thread moderation.

I requested that the mod Macha explian how my post was in line moderation. Macha's reply was not statisfactory. In fact it was inflammatory with her statement of mupptery.

Macha introduced the statement that carbon was a pollutant and accordinly is taxed as such (the polluter pays principle) into the thread, not me. All I asked was to explian how it was a pollutant.

I also wish to point that at no stage was I warned that I would be banned.

It is my opinion that Macha wishes to stifle debate by use of his/her position as moderator.

I wish that my three day ban be reviewed and reversed.


Regards

gullon

Hi gullon,

I'll ask Macha for her position on this, but from an initial reading of the thread in question, it looks like this:

1. another poster challenges the basis of the tax - that is, that carbon dioxide is a pollutant

Oscardela wrote:

If you only want to discuss issues such as "paying" for carbon used, and avoid the bigger questions about why it should be "paid" for and whether or not the reasons behind "paying" for carbon is legitimate. then I suppose that more or less brings this discussion here to a close, as I question the basis on which these taxes are levied. As you appear to forbid discussion of that here, then that appears to being this conversation to an end.

2. and is warned that the thread is not for discussion of the basis on which carbon dioxide is a pollutant, and not to discuss moderation on-thread:

Macha wrote:

In-thread discussion of moderation is not allowed. If you continue to discuss it, I will ban you for a period of time. You can take it up by PM if you wish.

Posters have had and continue to have plenty of opportunity to rehash the climate change debate on this form and I will not allow accusations to the contrary.

3. same poster responds:

Oscardela wrote:

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

4. and is politely warned again:

Macha wrote:

Oscardela, I respect your opinion on this but please keep discussions on the wider issues of carbon dioxide and anthropogenic climate change for threads specifically on that topic.

thanks.

5. and then you say:

gullon wrote:

Can you please explian how carbon is a pollutant.

Now, at that point you're unquestionably off-topic, and you've launched yourself into the middle of a challenge to moderation, with your flag pretty firmly planted in the same camp as Oscardela's - since there's plenty of time for you to have read the previous posts.

6. at which point you get warned to stay on topic, and not to challenge the mod's warnings about being on-topic:

Macha wrote:

gullon, I'm not going to say it again - no in-thread discussion of moderation and keep that discussion for the relevant thread.

7. you respond with:

gullon wrote:

One of the main tenets of your argument for carbon tax, as stated by you in previous posts on this thread, is that carbon is a pollutant.

Again, I ask, can you please explain how carbon is a pollutant?

I wish to point out that I am not discussing moderation, anthropogenic climate change or carbon dioxide.

8. and you get banned:

Macha wrote:

You are discussing moderation in-thread and are therefore banned for 3 days.

As I have stated repeatedly, the discussion of whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant and anthropogenic climate change in general should be kept for threads on that topic. This thread is not about AGW - it is about a carbon tax.

Now, I have no problem agreeing that you're not discussing moderation - instead, you are opposing it by ignoring and challenging the mod's warnings that the discussion is not about whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant, or the justification for carbon taxes in general, but about the application of the increase in the current carbon tax, as per the OP.

You could say you personally were not warned that you'd face a ban, but the warning to Oscardela applies to you no less, since you have followed exactly the same line of argument as him, and it's clear from your post here that you believe you are right to do so because you believe that Macha is misusing her position to "stifle debate", even though, as the mod points out, there are plenty of threads in which to discuss issues like the justification for carbon taxation.

From what I can see, therefore, you've been banned for ignoring/challenging mod warnings to stay on topic, and there's no justification for overturning the ban. At best, there might be a justification for asking Macha to be more exact in her ban notice - but since you've made it clear here that you likely were in fact challenging her moderation, her notice doesn't seem too far off the mark either.

moderately,
Scofflaw

gullon

Hi Scofflaw,

Thanks for you quick response,

I am disappointed the Macha can state in the thread on carbon tax, that carbon is a pollutant. When she is challenged she states that it is discussed in other threads (why did she not provide a link?) and that we are not discussing agw ignoring the fact that she raised carbon and pollution in the first place.

I’m not happy I was banned, but will abide by your decision as a third party reviewer.

Again, I am extremely unhappy with Macha’s line in her pm that I was engaged in muppetry. It was totally unnecessary, and uncalled for as I was in the process of been banned. This not the behaviour I would expect from a moderator.

Regards

gullon