Banned from conspiracy theory forum

Monty Burnz

Hi there.

I received a 7 day ban from the CT forum today which I'm not happy about as I feel that it was unjustified and I have a sense that it may have been motivated by personal malice on the part of the mod in question, Yekash.

There have been a series of posts from a poster called 'Caseyann' on the thread where the trouble arose that - and I think you will agree if you read them - look like they might be written by a troll. The thread is on the subject of 'chemtrails' - the idea that there is something sinister going on with the contrails of planes.

Caseyann today posted another few of these posts and ultimately included a post citing a spoof website (the URL was http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i89926) entitled "Chemtrails Change Earth's Color From Blue To Hazy White". This piece was so obviously a satire of the chemtrail phenomenon (and so totally undermined the claims that Caseyann had been making previously) I automatically assumed that this was the culmination of the trolling - basically announcing to the board that the previous posts had been a wind-up.

I replied to this post, quoting it entirely I think, with the following message:
"I think we just got proof that caseyann is trolling the board or is...not the sharpest tool in the box." The idea here was to alert the board that the troll had taken off the mask, and to not waste any more time addressing the troll's posts as it would be a waste of time.

This is where things got interesting. I checked a little later and found that the post I had quoted had been deleted. I was a bit concerned by this, because now it might look like I had invented the whole thing to make Caseyann look stupid. Therefore I posted the following:

"Caseyann, I see you have deleted the quote and the link to the spoof news website which I quoted above.

The fact that you thought that this is real (linked to the article) tells me all I need to know about the level of evidence you believe in. And the fact that you deleted it after I pointed it out makes you look less than honest - you could at least admit your mistake."

The idea was to either get confirmation that we had been trolled or at least that Caseyann would acknowledge 'mistakenly' posting that article as evidence for their case.

In reply, Caseyann says:

If you had of bothered to read what i said instead of jumping on and trying to insult me.You would have seen i said i havent read it all as of yet.
But you just wanted to have a go instead of telling me it was a joke site.
Therefore i have nothing to admit to or say to you and i find you to be condescending most of the time.

There followed a series of posts from me where I pointed out that the evidence that the article was a spoof was impossible to miss, and further that citing such as evidence for your case is a worrying sign about someone's ability to weight evidence. I also point out that it was a bit sneaky to delete the post and leave mine hanging, rather than come clean if it was an honest mistake.

Anyway, after a few more posts I receive a mail telling me that I have been banned as "You called another user an idiot and accused her of being a troll."

I tried to explain to Yekash that I was genuinely mistaken in my belief that Caseyann was a troll, I was so convinced by the message in question and the context it arose in. This carried no weight with Yekash, who feels the ban is entirely justified.

I would point out that I did not call anyone an idiot, what I said was that "I think we just got proof that caseyann is trolling the board or is...not the sharpest tool in the box."

So EITHER I was calling Caseyann a troll (A point I'm still not convinced of, by the way)
OR I was saying that he/she "is not the sharpest tool in the box". So if the verdict is that Caseyann is not a troll, then I could fairly be accused of saying that he/she is 'not the sharpest tool in the box'. Not the worst insult in the world, you might say, but one I definitely would not have used except that I was convinced that Caseyann was a troll doing a 'gotcha' message.

On the other hand, if I am being banned for saying that Caseyann was 'trolling the board', then I note that in this post I am accused of trolling by Caseyann. The post I quote has been deleted by somebody, but Caseyann has not been banned for the same offence I received a week's ban for. And please do not say that my O/T posts were the reason for the ban - I made the first of those posts because as I state above, I was concerned that the post I had quoted had been deleted and other posters would believe that I had just invented the whole thing.

The reason I feel there might be a certain amount of malice involved on the part of Yekash when he banned me for 7 days and didn't ban the other poster involved (who posted just as many O/T posts as me) for the same offence is as follows. When I was asking for an explanation for the ban, I was told the following:
"In any case, you said you agree with another poster that the CT forum is 'an intellectual ghetto' so you shouldn't mind taking a week long break from there. "
I get the impression here and from some other comments that he made that Yekash is a bit offended by something I quoted from another poster and that that is the reason I was singled out for a ban. I understand that mods are human, and that they have pride in their forums, but I think it is an abuse of their mod privileges to pick on posters who they don't agree with.

I realise it's pretty unlikely that I'll get any satisfaction here, but I'm posting this here as a marker so that if and when a pattern emerges of Yekash abusing his authority like this, a record of it will exist.

If anyone who reads this feels that any ban at all is merited in this case - a one week's ban for mistakenly implying that a fellow poster was 'not the sharpest tool in the box', as a first offence, with no history of insulting other posters, then I really despair for the standard of moderation here.

nesf

Saying someone is either a troll or an idiot (I'm paraphrasing) is effectively saying both or close enough to that to make little difference. That is actionable and the mod was correct to sanction you for that statement. You should not be calling other people trolls (or belittling their intelligence).

Conspiracy Theories due to its nature tends to be more volatile than most forums so moving quicker from warning to ban would not be unreasonable in such a forum.

Your initial post was the actionable one, all other posts followed from there.

The other CMods will take a look at this and offer their views, my view here is not final and is contingent on their opinions.

Dades

Monty, would you consider your contributions to the CT forum positive or negative? Your posting history doesn't seem to do you any favours.

Whilst suggesting someone is "not the sharpest tool in the shed" is enough of an insult to earn a ban in any forum, I believe you may have been given the benefit of the doubt had it not been for some of your history. There is no onus on the mods to take every single post in isolation, and I'm sure you have been afforded some leeway in the past. You just crossed the line this time and left no choice.

As nesf suggests the CT forum is, well, feisty. You have to use the report button instead of throwing accusations and insults about in threads otherwise the mods have no choice but to show people what isnt tolerated.

Monty Burnz

It seems that you guys have not read the thread in question, or understood that the whole point was that I was genuinely convinced that a troll had revealed themselves to be so. Why else would someone try to bolster their argument with a spoof website that is taking the mick out of their argument?

Fair enough, I honestly didn't expect to get a fair hearing here, but I thought it was worth putting down a marker here so that it is on the record that I have been unfairly and harshly treated by the mod in question, should he later do it to someone else.

I note two further things: there is no comment on the fact that the other poster also called me a troll and no action was taken against them. I can see why it is convenient to avoid addressing that - would anybody care to comment?

And secondly, there are comments about my 'posting history' but no examples of me ever insulting other posters.

Monty Burnz

So just to be clear where we stand:

1. Dades, you have provided no evidence of me insulting other posters previously on the CT forum, in spite of your mysterious comment about my 'posting history'.

2. There has been no acknowledgement whatsoever of the accidental nature of the 'insult'.

3. There has been no acknowledgement that the insult ('not the sharpest tool in the box') is about as mild as possible.

4. There has been no acknowledgement of the total lack of punishment for another poster who called me a troll in the same thread.

Dades

Monty Burnz wrote: »

So just to be clear where we stand:

1. Dades, you have provided no evidence of me insulting other posters previously on the CT forum, in spite of your mysterious comment about my 'posting history'.

Well you did say this, which says a lot about your attitude towards the people who frequent the forum:

"I laughed before when someone complained about their post being moved to the 'intellectual ghetto' that is the CT board, but now I see what they meant."

Monty Burnz wrote: »

2. There has been no acknowledgement whatsoever of the accidental nature of the 'insult'.

How can an insult be accidental? Perhaps you mean you didn't intend that the insult be enough to earn you ban?

Monty Burnz wrote: »

3. There has been no acknowledgement that the insult ('not the sharpest tool in the box') is about as mild as possible.

I'm inclined to agree. If you're going to get banned for insulting someone - this is a mild one.
However this doesn't change the fact that it is an insult and as such removes any leg you have to stand on.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

4. There has been no acknowledgement of the total lack of punishment for another poster who called me a troll in the same thread.

Did you report that post? That would be the correct procedure where someone accuses you of something that is a mod's job to ascertain (especially in a big thread where small things can be missed).

If I'm not mistaken a general warning was given.

---

In short, this Dispute Resolution would be a lot more complicated if you hadn't actually insulted another poster ('accidentally' or not), and maybe reported any post regarding something said about you. Unfortunately for you, neither of these is the case.

Monty Burnz

Dades wrote: »

Well you did say this, which says a lot about your attitude towards the people who frequent the forum:

"I laughed before when someone complained about their post being moved to the 'intellectual ghetto' that is the CT board, but now I see what they meant."

I'm sorry, I don't accept that as an example of insulting other posters - it was a comment on the way a particular thread had developed, and how it conformed to the stereotype of the board held by a particular poster who did not frequent the board. Besides, I post on that forum. I was hardly insulting myself.

I take it you will withdraw your remark about my posting history if that is the best you can come up with?

Dades wrote: »

How can an insult be accidental? Perhaps you mean you didn't intend that the insult be enough to earn you ban?

This is what makes me despair of the much-vaunted dispute resolution forum. Did you read my post at all? You could not possibly ask that question of you did.

Dades wrote: »

I'm inclined to agree. If you're going to get banned for insulting someone - this is a mild one.
However this doesn't change the fact that it is an insult and as such removes any leg you have to stand on.

Agreed, it is pretty mild. It was mild, and it was unintentional. And I got a ban for a week. And I don't have a history of infractions or anything of the sort on the forum. Very fair.

Dades wrote: »

Did you report that post? That would be the correct procedure where someone accuses you of something that is a mod's job to ascertain (especially in a big thread where small things can be missed).

If I'm not mistaken a general warning was given.

I did report the post in a PM to Yekash. I asked why I was banned and the poster who called me a troll wasn't. Yekash didn't bother replying. That is rude, and it is a double standard.

Dades wrote: »

In short, this Dispute Resolution would be a lot more complicated if you hadn't actually insulted another poster ('accidentally' or not), and maybe reported any post regarding something said about you. Unfortunately for you, neither of these is the case.

Yes, terribly unfortunate.

I've taken a little time to look at some of the other disputes here on the board and I've yet to find one where the mod was admitted to have acted in the wrong. Considering the time and effort people take to post here, that says a lot.

I would suggest, like another poster, that you delete the right hand side of your flowchart and stop wasting our time with the pretence that there is any serious investigation of episodes like this. Better yet, scrap this 'process' altogether, as it typically seems to amount to an exercise in a bunch of mods all patting each other on the back.

I wasn't really expecting this to be looked into seriously, but I'm still disappointed - the pretence could at least have been a bit more convincing.

Dades

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm sorry, I don't accept that as an example of insulting other posters - it was a comment on the way a particular thread had developed, and how it conformed to the stereotype of the board held by a particular poster who did not frequent the board. Besides, I post on that forum. I was hardly insulting myself.

Sorry, where specifially did I say you insulted other posters?

You insulted one poster. You got a ban. Those are the two inescapable facts.

Monty Burnz

Dades wrote: »

Sorry, where specifially did I say you insulted other posters?

You insulted one poster. You got a ban. Those are the two inescapable facts.

And the 'dispute resolution process' is a sham. There's another inescapable fact for you.

nesf

Monty Burnz wrote: »

And the 'dispute resolution process' is a sham. There's another inescapable fact for you.

Since you are unhappy with the CMod decision you may appeal this to the Admins if you wish. They will look at your case and overrule us if they feel you are correct.

Monty Burnz

nesf wrote: »

Since you are unhappy with the CMod decision you may appeal this to the Admins if you wish. They will look at your case and overrule us if they feel you are correct.

Based on what I have seen on this thread and others, I think that would be a total waste of time.

bonkey

Based on the above feedback, I'm closing this thread.

Monty - if you change your mind, get in touch with me to have it re-opened.