Politics ban

ISAW

I was recently banned for three days with any infarction.
The moderator concerned did give a warning in thread and I reacted to the warning by deleting a message he considered as modding.
I don't object to the ban but i have a disagreemewnt with the moderator concerned.
I believe he acted in what he believed was fair and within the rules but I think the rules arent clear.
the ban basically was because I posted about another persons posts and commented on what was regardes as a "reliable source"

The discussion is about legalisation of cannabis for commercial profit and social use.
Now there are posters who support the current illegal use and promote it. Even though it is illegal, I have no problem with that issue but I want a "fair and balanced" discussion. Long lists of cannabis supporting sites are being posted to the discussion. I intend to take up each source posted and expose whether or not they are reliable with respect to supporting the main claim of the discussion . None so far are. What I am worrying about is if i say something like "that is just your opinion the source you cite says nothing whatsoever about the social good of cannabis" that I will get banned.

So far I have listed that a "reliable source" as regards medical evidence is for example a peer reviewed medical journal. But I pointed out that posters need not post only this and that any properly conducted research even if not in a journal is warranted but

- the poster should be able to source the citation
- the poster should be able to quote a relevant part or the source supporting their opinion
- the poster is expected to have read and understood the source and isnt just spamming the results of a google scholar search, or a lobby group page for example.

NB _im not against lobbys or google scholar if the person read the references and understands them and can make the argument from them.


It is for the like of the three above points that I am accused of "back seat modding".

I understand how this may be viewed from a moderation point but surely either this standard should be in the charter, or people should be able to say what they mean be reliable and valid? The distinction of "fact versus opinion2 is maybe a bit grey. Why should I have to ( as suggested to me by moderator) report a post for not having valid references? why cant I just say "that isn't reliable" and point out why it isn't? Why should I have to involve a moderator in correcting or improving references?

nesf

Your ban was for arguing a warning from a moderator in that thread. You should have PM'd the moderator in question.

Regards the rest, the problem wasn't that you were attacking people's sources it was how you were attacking them. The tone of your posts was causing the problem and how you were saying things rather than exactly what you were saying per se from my reading of things. You'll have to take this up with the mod in question via PM though.

ISAW

nesf wrote: »

Your ban was for arguing a warning from a moderator in that thread.

the reason given was "Discussing moderation in-thread." but care to show wher i did thaT?

Noi it was not. It was for "back seat modding". i know that because that is what the moderator in question stated.

me: But if you post them post a comment or excerpt on each one
1. that shows you have read and understand the link
2. that supports the point you are trying to make.
Just spamming out links won't make any case. they have to refer to your point and have to support the point. All the better if they are reliable links like peer review journals but they don't have to be.
NB this is not an attempt at moderation it is advice on what evidence is acceptable in debate and how it should be used.

from the moderator

That is definitely back seat moderating and will not be tolerated.

...and who then banned me. So was he lying when I was told I was back seat modding and it was not going to be tolerated?

You should have PM'd the moderator in question.

I did. And I pointed out that I am not moderating anything i am just pointing out what a reliable source is and how it should be referenced. That the person supplying them should 1- indicate how the source supports their claim
2- have actually read and understood the source
3- give a clear reference to the source

1,2 AND 3 were deemed to be "back seat modding"

Regards the rest, the problem wasn't that you were attacking people's sources it was how you were attacking them. The tone of your posts was causing the problem and how you were saying things rather than exactly what you were saying per se

Really? Funny how that was not the reason given for why I was banned then isn't it?
You ban people for "bad tone" now do you?
Whatever next? Bad skin tone?

from my reading of things. You'll have to take this up with the mod in question via PM though.

I did and the moderator refused to enter into discussion about it and referred me to this forum.

So do I still "have to " address myself to a person who does not want to enter into discussion about it or are you prepared to address the general case?

Can a poster say what a correct reference is and how it should be delivered? Its it an automatic ban if they do so? And what rules do you have for "tone" ?

nesf

It's being looked into and discussed with the moderator in question at the moment. I'll get back to you once myself and Scofflaw have sorted things out to our satisfaction.

ISAW

nesf wrote: »

It's being looked into and discussed with the moderator in question at the moment. I'll get back to you once myself and Scofflaw have sorted things out to our satisfaction.

there is a sticky thread in the politics forum called " a discussion of the rules"
Maybe that is where I should go?

nesf

ISAW wrote: »

there is a sticky thread in the politics forum called " a discussion of the rules"
Maybe that is where I should go?

Please leave it with us for the time being. After myself or Scofflaw gets back to you we can take it from there.

Scofflaw

After discussion, we feel this ban shouldn't have happened in the first place, and offer an apology to ISAW, the more so since this decision comes after the automatic expiry of the ban - we regret that the sort of discussions needed to resolve an issue like this tend to take longer than the length of the ban, and have done so in this case.

As ISAW says, the taking of a "devil's advocate" position does not require one to offer an argument of one's own, but only to point out the flaws in the other person's argument. No moderation is required in such a case, so the initial warning was unnecessary. Personally, I'd like to see more people checking and challenging sources, not fewer.

A ban for arguing a moderator warning in thread remains correct, but in this case there shouldn't have been any moderator warning to argue with. This wasn't a good piece of moderation.

apologies,
Scofflaw

nesf

Again, I'd like to offer my apology for this incident. It won't happen again.

Sorry it took so long to sort out ISAW.

Asiaprod

Thank you all very much:)

ISAW

I realise I am not an easy person to deal with and I do not doubt some of the moderator may personally not like me or my posting style. I don't come here to entertain.
I expected this might well affect the deliberations of this process.

However, the ability to divorce personal bias from the actual issues and the professional and fair hearing the issue was given has me stumped! I have to admit my own prejudice in this regard and say I am impressed at the process and how it has become more thorough and fair over the years. I say this not because the outcome was positive for me but because the system which boards has developed actually seems to mitigate against personal bias.

For once my opinion it is something about which I am glad to be wrong and to change and that is a very very rare thing for me.

Thank you for your consideration.

bonkey

Thanks for the feedback, ISAW.

I'm marking this as resolved and closing. If anyone feels that's premature, PM myself or Asiaprod (as the other contributing admin on this thread) to have it re-opened.