Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Infraction for Abuse,unwarranted ?
Options
-
27-02-2011 4:49pm#1Hi ,
I have received an infraction from the cycling forum which i'd like removed please.
I have pm'd and been replied to and replied in turn to the Mod in question,but it seems some questions/observations in my last PM were unanswered.
This is the thread in question:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=70896123#post70896123
this is the offending post:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70896123&postcount=51
i don't feel it warrants a red card, i also believe the fact that mutual thanking of posts between the Mod,and the other poster may have influenced this decision{rightly or wrongly}
I found the Op to be condescending and ultimately trolling,
i then was told via PM that i 'could've' been infracted for Trolling/backseat modding...now its either trolling or its not. its either backseat modding or its not.no
I find this comment that in some way i've been done a favour {by "only" being infracted} quite disgusting tbh.
the thread is only 4 pages,please read it and identify my trolling please?
in actual fact,i find the Op to be condescending with his remarks, mutual thanks whoring is not on,esp. when the mod is one of them imo.
Then the thread is locked,and i'm infracted,not even a yellow,straight red.
I'd like it rescinded please, @ the time i expected at the very least similar treatment to the other poster,but it didn't happen.
To categorise everybody outside urban area's as 30 yrs behind is ignorant,and biased.in fact another poster inferred that this person was 'deluded' or 'lying' ... yet no infraction.
i feel its favouritism,i dunno if the OP reported my post,it doesn't matter tbh the MOD was contributing on thread,and imo unfairly treated me.
Sorry if this is long wonded but as a cyclist i find that attitude bad form.
It is for this very reason,i rarely frequent that section of boards.
Other posters would seem to hold similar sentiments to me,in the interest of fairness and equity,i believe my posts do not warrant such an infraction.
{Apologies again if its long winded..rugby's on}
thanks0
Comments
-
-
-
it seems some questions/observations in my last PM were unanswered.
From what I can gather, you left around two hours between receiving a PM from the mod and starting this thread. I don't think you really gave him a chance.this is the offending post:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70896123&postcount=51
i don't feel it warrants a red card
I disagree. It's definitely red card worthy IMO. The post serves no point except to repeatedly attack another poster.I found the Op to be condescending and ultimately trolling,
While I can understand how you might have taken the OP as condescending, it's clear that the OP was slightly tongue in cheek ("we havnt had a decent "friday thread" in a good while
). If you think someone is trolling you should report the post and leave the mod to deal with it. Abusing another poster is definitely not the right way to deal with it.the thread is only 4 pages,please read it and identify my trolling please?
I'm not getting into that. It's not relevant to this dispute. You're disputing the red card and I'm upholding it.@ the time i expected at the very least similar treatment to the other poster,but it didn't happen.
You could expect similar treatment if you'd behaved the same way, but you didn't. From what I read, your posting was worse than theirs (though, I grant you, not significantly). What I will do is look back through the thread again later and probably issue some more infractions.
In summary: Your post is red card worthy IMO. Other posts in the thread may be worthy of infractions also. I'll go back through the thread later today and infract appropriately.0 -
Hi Khannie,
I appreciate the reply, but i must add some points for clarity,From what I can gather, you left around two hours between receiving a PM from the mod and starting this thread. I don't think you really gave him a chance.
in what way?...i was infracted @ 13:30, i replied within 2 mins,mod replied within a further 5 mins,i replied again within 15 mins,mod was still online then,didn't reply, i assumed he was ignoring me, thus i started this DRP.I disagree. It's definitely red card worthy IMO. The post serves no point except to repeatedly attack another poster.
the OP called people outside urban area's 30 years behind the rest of the world, i asked the OP for clarification, he clarified his post, i felt his post was ignorant and biased.
{I wasn't the only one btw}While I can understand how you might have taken the OP as condescending, it's clear that the OP was slightly tongue in cheek ("we havnt had a decent "friday thread" in a good while). If you think someone is trolling you should report the post and leave the mod to deal with it. Abusing another poster is definitely not the right way to deal with it.
the remark you have in comma's isnt an issue with me,thats not condescending,
the MOD on this thread was condescending regarding another poster with this remark
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70894931&postcount=40
it was thanked by the OP, {ie he agrees with it}
then the OP added fuel to the fire with this
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70894970&postcount=41
and this:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70895239&postcount=44
i then posted this comment,aimed @ both the mod and OP
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70895285&postcount=45
which the mod didn't reply to btw. even though it was a valid observation/question.I'm not getting into that. It's not relevant to this dispute. You're disputing the red card and I'm upholding it.
it is relevant, according to said Mod,i was trolling.....i dispute this.
so you're upholding the red card despite the evidence i posted here?[You could expect similar treatment if you'd behaved the same way, but you didn't. From what I read, your posting was worse than theirs (though, I grant you, not significantly). What I will do is look back through the thread again later and probably issue some more infractions.
what exactly did you read? its only 50 odd posts....seems like you only read my posts,i dunno how you conclude my behaviour is worse
i'm not looking to cause trouble for everyone else, the mod in question targetted me cos i pulled him up {rightly} on his assertion that anyone on boards less than a month can NOT have an opinion,his little wink was smug in itself.
do you not agree?
The OP had recent form for posting outrageous statements,which i posted links to,had been banned in the last 2 weeks,engages in mutual thanks whoring with the thread Mod,thus escaping censure(?).In summary: Your post is red card worthy IMO. Other posts in the thread may be worthy of infractions also. I'll go back through the thread later today and infract appropriately.
it is my belief i was infracted for showing up the OP and the Mod as being smug and discourteous,in this case . {esp. the mod,who i believe as a mod,owes a higher duty to remain impartial than a regular poster}
in closing i quoted his post and said it was ignorant and biased.
i don't feel it was personal abuse....how can it be,i never said "you're ignorant and biased" ... i quoted his post.
i thought the rule was attack the post,not the poster 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Hi Kannie,
I appreciate the reply.A few things here:
Green light does not mean the person has read your PM.
2 hours is an unreasonable amount of time to expect a reply.
i understand generally that is the case, but due to the almost instantaneous(?) reply i assumed the mod was ignoring me
noted for future reference
The mod in question may have been thinking about points that you had raised.
Mods have lives. They're not obliged to respond within two hours whether they're online or not.
i also understand this,but again i relied on the quick first response.None of this is relevant to your red card. I agree that the thread is a train wreck. If you have a problem with a post though, you should report it. The post you were red carded for serves no purpose other than to attack another poster (whether you think the poster should be attacked and how well you justify that is not relevant in the slightest).
i didn'r report the post,because tbh, A) because i don't particularly like reporting posts and
i'd be reporting it to beasty,who agreed with the OP,and was himself being rude (imo)This has nothing to do with whether or not you were red carded. You were not red carded for trolling. You were red carded for "insulted other member(s)".
true,but beasty insinuated that i was trolling,and decided himself that he was somehow being lenient by only infracting me,to me (and most reasonable people i suspect) it is blatant Mod muscle flexing,which in itself wouldn't be too bad where it consistant.but it wasn't on this thread.I'm looking at the post that was red carded. It contributes nothing to the thread. It attacks the poster and not the post. Overall there is no question in my mind that it deserves a red card.
i respect your decision.However had the posts prior to mine being infracted,or had beasty warned on thread,like so. I probably wouldn't have posted what i did. so in a bizarre sort of way,i blame Beasty.Now, do I think your post was unprovoked? Definitely not. I haven't had a chance to do it yet, but I'm going to issue infractions to other posters in that thread where appropriate.
you see this is where my accusation of favouritism holds water,it shouldn't be down to you to infract anybody,Beasty should have imo. There's a lack of consistency being shown,(and may i say not for the first time)
TBH i'd rather Kona didn't get a retrospective infraction,its a bit like closing the stable door when the horse has bolted, i don't think it would serve a purpose, but i do feel Beasty should've reined him in {to continue the equine association;)} though thats up to you.
to be frank, if i'd posted something akin to 'all cyclists are smug bastards'
see thread title: So, who is going to be a smug bastard when petrol goes over €1.50? i honestly believe the thread would've been closed.
AH imo is the thread for that.
I also feel Beasty as a mod shouldn't have made the comment he did about that new poster- i hope he apologised, i would've. i thought it was inflammatory,and rude @ the least .I thought one of the aims of boards was to encourage new posters?...to me that was kinda intimidating
but hey,what do i know.
As an aside, i am an avid Cyclist,and i gained some excellent tips,and advice from that very forum when i started cycling 'properly' if you like,but i find it cliquish and not so encouraging these days.
Anyhows,back on topic-if you feel my post warrants a red card,i accept your decision,but i would also like to know do you or any Cmods feel Beasty was outta line?
thanks for taking the time to rea and respond so far,i know i can be long-winded sometmes
0 -
Hi Kannie,
I appreciate the reply.
Likewise. Very well put reply and entirely reasonable. Thanks.i didn'r report the post,because tbh, A) because i don't particularly like reporting posts and i'd be reporting it to beasty,who agreed with the OP,and was himself being rude (imo)
Fair enough. It's still a good idea to report the post. I see it and the other mods see it. Also, it serves to let a mod know that other posters may be taking the thread differently.true,but beasty insinuated that i was trolling,and decided himself that he was somehow being lenient by only infracting me,to me (and most reasonable people i suspect) it is blatant Mod muscle flexing,which in itself wouldn't be too bad where it consistant.but it wasn't on this thread.
That was all after the fact, and by PM as I understand it. He said the same to me...I'll come back to it more below....i respect your decision.However had the posts prior to mine being infracted,or had beasty warned on thread,like so. I probably wouldn't have posted what i did. so in a bizarre sort of way,i blame Beasty.
you see this is where my accusation of favouritism holds water,it shouldn't be down to you to infract anybody,Beasty should have imo. There's a lack of consistency being shown,(and may i say not for the first time)
TBH i'd rather Kona didn't get a retrospective infraction,its a bit like closing the stable door when the horse has bolted, i don't think it would serve a purpose, but i do feel Beasty should've reined him in {to continue the equine association;)} though thats up to you.
to be frank, if i'd posted something akin to 'all cyclists are smug bastards'
see thread title: So, who is going to be a smug bastard when petrol goes over €1.50? i honestly believe the thread would've been closed.
AH imo is the thread for that.
Ok...on the favouritism thing. I spoke with Beasty about why he didn't infract and I understood and accepted what he said. The long and the short of it was that while he felt Kona wasn't exactly a model of virtue, your post was further OTT than Kona's and I'd agree with that view of things. He felt that since there was a difference in the degree of rule break that if he infracted kona, he'd have to ban you, which he didn't want to do. It was a tough call.
On your request, I wont go back through the thread to infract anyone.I also feel Beasty as a mod shouldn't have made the comment he did about that new poster- i hope he apologised, i would've. i thought it was inflammatory,and rude @ the least .I thought one of the aims of boards was to encourage new posters?...to me that was kinda intimidating
but hey,what do i know.
Well, while I'd agree with that, the poster was a re-reg (and has since been site banned for it which you can see if you check their profile) and I thought Beasty may have been insinuating as much at the time, though I have the benefit of being able to see what the user was site banned for. Mods have a keen eye for an oul' re-reg. They don't have the kind of tools available to them that the admins have though.Anyhows,back on topic-if you feel my post warrants a red card,i accept your decision,but i would also like to know do you or any Cmods feel Beasty was outta line?
I think Beasty does a bang up job. That thread was one of those threads that we all wish had never happened. It was meant tongue in cheek but inevitably got taken a different way. His posts inadvertently contributed to the threads decline, yes, but I believe he was trying to diffuse things. He's a good skin.thanks for taking the time to rea and respond so far,i know i can be long-winded sometmes
No worries on the long winded-ness. Sometimes it can take a few words to get your point across. I know this probably isn't turning out exactly the way you'd wanted, I just couldn't reasonably overturn that red card given the nature of the post. I hope you understand. 0 -
Likewise. Very well put reply and entirely reasonable. Thanks.
Fair enough. It's still a good idea to report the post. I see it and the other mods see it. Also, it serves to let a mod know that other posters may be taking the thread differently.
That was all after the fact, and by PM as I understand it. He said the same to me...I'll come back to it more below....
Ok...on the favouritism thing. I spoke with Beasty about why he didn't infract and I understood and accepted what he said. The long and the short of it was that while he felt Kona wasn't exactly a model of virtue, your post was further OTT than Kona's and I'd agree with that view of things. He felt that since there was a difference in the degree of rule break that if he infracted kona, he'd have to ban you, which he didn't want to do. It was a tough call.
Fair enough, i didn't actually realise that.Well, while I'd agree with that, the poster was a re-reg (and has since been site banned for it which you can see if you check their profile) and I thought Beasty may have been insinuating as much at the time, though I have the benefit of being able to see what the user was site banned for. Mods have a keen eye for an oul' re-reg. They don't have the kind of tools available to them that the admins have though.
oops, my bad.I think Beasty does a bang up job. That thread was one of those threads that we all wish had never happened. It was meant tongue in cheek but inevitably got taken a different way. His posts inadvertently contributed to the threads decline, yes, but I believe he was trying to diffuse things. He's a good skin.
to be fair, i'm not trying to besirch his name,i just meant on this thread.
i obviously took it all wrong.No worries on the long winded-ness. Sometimes it can take a few words to get your point across. I know this probably isn't turning out exactly the way you'd wanted, I just couldn't reasonably overturn that red card given the nature of the post. I hope you understand.
i appreciate the replys, i understand yo've buckets to be doing, this was never meant as a mod bashing exercise,i just took issue with consistency/lack of @ the time.
i accept your decision,and will apologise to Beasty- i just got steamed when i read some of the comments.
i'm more than happy,fair play.
resolved on my part:)0
Advertisement