Permanent Ban from After Hours

FreudianSlippers

Permanently banned from AH for the following reason:
persistent trolling, flaming and lack of respect for the forum


Complete failure or refusal of mods of CMods to explain to me why this is other than generic comments.
Perhaps it's lack of ability to explain same accordingly.

This seems wholly unprovoked and without explanation which has been not forthcoming (to say the least) I feel I have no choice but to dispute this.

I am willing to discuss posts in question that exhibit "trolling" and/or "flaming" in this forum, however I question the competence and motive of the moderators of After Hours in reaching the said conclusion.
I have effectively been warned by a CMod that this DRP will be unsuccessful - so obviously this process will not be fair, I would just like to know why.
I also realise that the decision to ban me had been made days before the alleged "trolling" and "flaming" by Mickey Dolenz - so I was not surprised by this at all.

g'em

Given that I was the one who banned you I'm not entirely sure if I have right to reply here but I will do, briefly, to address a couple of your points. If I shouldn't be my apologies to the Admins, delete away.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Complete failure or refusal of mods of CMods to explain to me why this is other than generic comments.

Your reply to my ban PM was sent at 15:10. You began this thread at 15:22. Is twelve minutes a reasonable time to wait before a reply addressing this point?

<snipped by bonkey>

I am quite willing to discuss this with you by PM or here but I would request that you give me a reasonable amount of time to reply either way, I hardly think that's an unfair request.

FreudianSlippers

<snipped by bonkey>

I eagerly anticipate your PM.

bonkey

If this hasn't been discuseed by PM yet, then that should be the first step.

g'em - as you issued the ban, as a CMod I suggest this be dealt with directly by an admin if and when it re-surfaces here.

I've removed part of two posts above, also on that basis.

If necessary, I'll restore it at a later stage.

g'em

Thanks bonkey, sorry for any hassle caused. FreudianSlippers I'm send you a PM shortly.

FreudianSlippers

bonkey wrote: »

If this hasn't been discuseed by PM yet, then that should be the first step.

g'em - as you issued the ban, as a CMod I suggest this be dealt with directly by an admin if and when it re-surfaces here.

I've removed part of two posts above, also on that basis.

If necessary, I'll restore it at a later stage.

g'em wrote: »

Thanks bonkey, sorry for any hassle caused. FreudianSlippers I'm send you a PM shortly.

No problem... I think my confusion was that the ban was actually issued by Mickey Dolenz early on the 2nd and extended from 1 month to permanent by g'em this afternoon.

FreudianSlippers

This is clearly going nowhere.


I was banned by Mickey Dolenz at 01:10 early on 2 March.

Micky Dolenz wrote:

Hi FreudianSlippers,

You have been banned from After Hours for the following duration:

1 Month(s)

for the following reason:

Flaming, your next ban will be permanent.

Providing your ban is not permanent, it will be lifted automatically after 1 Month(s). You will get an automatic message informing you that the ban is lifted. If you do not receive this message after the allotted time, please PM a moderator to clarify.

Bans occur after a serious rules breach so please keep in mind that Moderators don't just decide to ban people out of the blue. If you wish to appeal this ban, please follow our Dispute Resolution Process here. Your first action should always be to PM the Moderator(s) of the forum to discuss the ban. Remember that our Mods are volunteers and are not always online, so they may not be able to answer you straight away.

All the best,
boards.ie

I asked for clarification on what exactly I did wrong to which I received reply:

Micky Dolenz wrote:

Hi

Same reason as all the other times, constant digs and flaming.

I seek further clarification of this "clarification" and was put off and put off until this afternoon when I was instructed that there was a "discussion" ongoing in the AH Mods forum regarding the situation.

Today at 15:07 I receive the following:

g'em wrote:

Hi FreudianSlippers,

You have been banned from After Hours for the following duration:

Permanent

for the following reason:

persistent trolling, flaming and lack of respect for the forum

Following on from a lengthy discussion with the AH Mods and the Rec CMods it has been decided to escalate your ban to permanent. During your last DRP thread you were warned explicitly by trout that any further behaviour similar to that which you had shown to that point would result in a much more serious ban.

You have failed to show the Mods that you have learnt from previous errors and we are left with no option but to conclude that you just don't understand or appreciate the way the AH forum works. Your behaviour is disruptive and troublesome for the Moderators, and your posting style is not within the spirit of the AH Charter.

If you wish to bring this matter further in a DRP then that is entirely your decision but I have to warn you that this decision has not been made lightly and a number of people have been consulted with before doing so. It's regretful that we have to resort to such measures but we cannot ignore the fact that no mater how many times the Mods have tried to explain how you should conduct yourself in AH you seem to ignore their advice.

Bans occur after a serious rules breach so please keep in mind that Moderators don't just decide to ban people out of the blue. If you wish to appeal this ban, please follow our Dispute Resolution Process here. Your first action should always be to PM the Moderator(s) of the forum to discuss the ban. Remember that our Mods are volunteers and are not always online, so they may not be able to answer you straight away.

All the best,

g'em

Notice that now the reason is "persistent trolling, flaming and lack of respect for the forum"

Clearly, the flaming accusation couldn't stick so I'm being re-banned for offences which they have already banned me for. Seems totally fair. :rolleyes:


Queue series of pointless PMs with g'em which I will post in their natural conversational format (g'em are quoted, my replies are non-quoted):

g'em wrote:

Hi,


Your ban from Micky Dolenz was given - as stated in the ban message - for flaming on the Anencephaly thread. This is obviously a very emotive and difficult subject, and while AH may have the opinion by some that "anything goes" in there I think it's fairly clear to anyone who spends a good bit of time in there, as you do, that that isn't the case at all. Your comments and opinions on that thread were incredibly provocative and read as blatant flaming attempts.

You have a history of poorly made jokes, trolling and flaming on the forum (all of which have been discussed at length in two previous DRPs and which you had assured us you would curtail, but to no avail.

As was said to you before in your previous DRP it is the opinion of the Mods and CMods that you have a very different opinion of what is and is not allowed in the forum than what the Charter actually dictates. There has been no major effort on your part that we can see to treat the forum and its users with respect and frankly your behaviour causes an awful lot more work for the Mods than any reasonable user should.

To put it bluntly I just don't think you "get" the forum and how to use it and I don't see any reason to give you access there when it only results in unnecesary work for the Moderators there. Four bans in five months is not insignificant, and it's all the more frustrating when - as a Moderator - we would expect that you would have a better understanding of how troublesome posting would create so much hassle.




g'em

I was not making any jokes in poor taste in that thread full stop.

I feel, as the others did, very strongly on the subject. My posts were backed by scientific fact and on one, perhaps two occasions I posted a source.

To say that my comments regarding the fact that Anencephaly is a disease and explaining what it is and discussing with other members regarding scanning and "treatment" are "trolling" and "flaming" is, frankly, ridiculous.

Are the posters who made jokes about "frogs and princesses" and "cloverfield monster" being banned? Even infracted? Warned?

Are the posters who felt equally as strongly that these poor creatures should be brought to term causing psychological damage to the parents and needless cruelty to a child with no brain being banned for "flaming"?
Their opinion is FAR more controversial in the real world and probably on AH for the whole than anything I said on there.

Anything goes? Look... please show me where I was disrespectful of the other people's opinions on the subject at all. ONE person said I was a "sick individual" (or something along those lines) but I said nothing "sick" - not nearly as "sick" as what was said earlier.

Basically what you're trying to say is that posting crass jokes is ok if other people do it, conducting a legitimate debate with other posters is ok as long as nobody gets upset by facts, and if a debate is controversial whatever side I'm on is always the wrong side even if supported by science and facts?

The other side got into the debate about the HSE and scans - I said many times that I would not debate the fact that the HSE is quite shít, but it was my opinion that late term abortions should be considered in these cases and, when found early, abortions should be an option in this State.

You can seriously sit there and tell me THAT is flaming?



I "get" the forum. I "get" that I get bitched out by Mickey Dolenz for attempting to self-police a joke which I admit was in bad taste (which we all do sometimes) so he was looking for a reason to ban me.
I "get" that 4 bans in 5 months isn't insignificant, but I also "get" that I get banned for what other users get infractions for.

There was no "trolling" happening - this is what I said I would stop doing, and I have.
There were no poorly made jokes in that thread.
There was no flaming in that thread.


If the mods had wanted to put an end to the Anecephaly thread, they would have and should have said stop on the thread or PM'd me to stop posting in it or locked it or warned/infracted users for posts they weren't happy with.

I'm willing to bet that no other users were even warned on that thread.

Finally, my last ban was a 2 week ban on 08-12-2010 for Trolling. Since the lift on 22-12-2010 I have been a very good member of AH and I still consider myself to be one.
Everyone has slip ups... but I feel very strongly that I was NOT flaming that Anencephaly thread.


]

g'em wrote:

Hi,


Your ban from Micky Dolenz was given - as stated in the ban message - for flaming on the Anencephaly thread. This is obviously a very emotive and difficult subject, and while AH may have the opinion by some that "anything goes" in there I think it's fairly clear to anyone who spends a good bit of time in there, as you do, that that isn't the case at all. Your comments and opinions on that thread were incredibly provocative and read as blatant flaming attempts.

You have a history of poorly made jokes, trolling and flaming on the forum (all of which have been discussed at length in two previous DRPs and which you had assured us you would curtail, but to no avail.

As was said to you before in your previous DRP it is the opinion of the Mods and CMods that you have a very different opinion of what is and is not allowed in the forum than what the Charter actually dictates. There has been no major effort on your part that we can see to treat the forum and its users with respect and frankly your behaviour causes an awful lot more work for the Mods than any reasonable user should.

To put it bluntly I just don't think you "get" the forum and how to use it and I don't see any reason to give you access there when it only results in unnecesary work for the Moderators there. Four bans in five months is not insignificant, and it's all the more frustrating when - as a Moderator - we would expect that you would have a better understanding of how troublesome posting would create so much hassle.




g'em

I should also say that 4 bans in 4 years of being a member and over 2 years of using AH is not significant. I know what is right and wrong. I know what flaming is and what I was doing cannot be classified as flaming.
If the mods can't handle the work then they should be replaced by those that can.

That thread should have been closed when it was a freakshow thread. It turned into an educated debate about the disease and abortion.

Those involved in the former should be the ones banned, not one person from the latter.

g'em wrote:

So in this post: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70944069&postcount=76

a poster disucusses a friend who had a child with this condition and chose to carry it to term and you publically claim she should have aborted it and then go on to claim it's about respect? How can I read that as anything other than wishing to provoke a reaction in someone?

I'll have to log out to look at this so I'll get back to you. My recollection of it was that this poster was saying that it was disrespectful to talk about it.

I said that the "respectful" thing to do for both the parents and the child is to allow and actively suggest abortion in these circumstances.

Anything I said was intended in this regard.

Comments like "t hey have no brains so I would find it hard to classify them as children" - again, there's controversial but it seems like you're simply trying to get a rise out of people.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002547/

Absence of the brain (cerebral hemispheres and cerebellum)

This is difficult for some to comprehend, but without a forebrain we are not, technically, human.

The problem, granted, when dealing with inter alia the uneducated (or at least uninformed) is that there is a belief that these poor children are in any way "alive".
That is certainly NOT trying to get a rise out of anyone - medically, these children are never considered "living" and in most countries are exceptions for late term abortion as birthing them is oft considered inhumane to the parents and "child"

I don't expect AH mods to have a medical background, but I do not expect them to knee-jerk in defence of misguided opinions and religious nonsense.

FACT: the babies have no brain
FACT: they are not "alive"
FACT: they cannot "survive" for more than a few seconds without medical intervention (and that can last for maybe minutes)

Maybe you aren't, maybe this is really the way you see proper debates being conducted, but it's come to the stage now that these kinds of incredibly insensitive posts are just not in the Spirit of the forum.

Then close them.
Move them to somewhere they belong.
I'm perfectly happy to not have these discussions in AH, but maybe what AH needs is good moderation or a place to put things that don't belong in AH?

No one was itching to bítch you out here, but having said that I've taken all your history into consideration including your behaviour on some of the reported posts forum and I can only conclude that it is indeed your intention to troll, flame and upset AH. perhaps you cried wolf once to often for us to believe that you will change, and I haven't seen a convincing argument from you to suggest that you will, or even that you understand where we're coming from.

I disagree. I see where you're coming from and have attempted to reduce what AH mods consider "trolling". The flaming thing is new to me and is SO subjective that it's ridiculous.

The treatment of some posters other than others I'm assuming is in the next PM.

g'em wrote:

The question of whether or not the thread should have been closed is a separate issue and does not detract from your behaviour. Like I said before given your history I find it very difficult to take this behaviour in isolation - I do believe that it was your intention to provoke and has been for some time.

If it was my intention to provoke, trust me I'd have provoked and they would have noticed. **Side note not in PM: By the way, by this I meant that clearly it was not my intention to do so, this was not some threat. I merely meant that why would I go about "provoking" them in such a "subtle" manner?**

How is it that provocative posts in the other direction are allowed while mine supported by fact are "flaming"?

g'em wrote:

I work in Neuroscience. You don't need to explain to me what constitutes being alive and what does not. I also expect such matters of medical sensitivity to be treated with equal respect and dignity, particularly from the "educated" which I'm assuming you claim to be yourself.

Then you know yourself that what I said was not incorrect, not was it flaming.

How is posting the truth flaming?

There is sensitivity and there are "kid gloves" - if you don't want anyone to post the truth on this website because it will offend then you're doing a crack job.

I'm glad you work in neuroscience and I'm sure you will find that I claim myself to be only what I am - highly educated.

I'll break this down to it's moat common denominator. Time after time after time you have repeatedly broken the number one golden rule of boards - don't be a dick. The flaming and trolling and generally disruptive posts all fall under this umbrella. I have no reason whatsoever to believe that reinstating your access will lead to anything other than you continuing in this vein. In fact your PMs have confirmed that for me.

And what, exactly, about these PMs have confirmed this? The fact that I've shown that I was not flaming.

Perhaps I should define flaming for you:

An online argument that becomes nasty or derisive, where insulting a party to the discussion takes precedence over the objective merits of one side or another

This did not happen in that thread and there is no way anyone who objectively looked at the definition of flaming and that thread could say that is what happened.

I don't see how discussing AH Moderation is pertinent to this PM sequence so I'm not going to expand on your points.

you don't see how discussing the fact that I'm the only one banned in a discussion where there were two sides discussing something is pertinent? Really?

So if a discussion on AH arises that trees are human and I post a million reasons why trees are not human and I'm the one who gets banned, it's not pertinent that nobody else, including those that agreed with me were even looked at?

It's pertinent because there is a will to have me banned because of whatever reason.

g'em wrote:

Maybe you aren't, maybe this is really the way you see proper debates being conducted, but it's come to the stage now that these kinds of incredibly insensitive posts are just not in the Spirit of the forum.

I should say, I'm not. I don't want to make the mods' job harder. If insensitive posts are against the spirit of the forum, that's fine. Put that in the charter and make it a new rule... but don't ban someone for being insensitive. That's ridiculous.

g'em wrote:

I'll break this down to it's moat common denominator. Time after time after time you have repeatedly broken the number one golden rule of boards - don't be a dick. The flaming and trolling and generally disruptive posts all fall under this umbrella. I have no reason whatsoever to believe that reinstating your access will lead to anything other than you continuing in this vein. In fact your PMs have confirmed that for me.

So you're banning me from AH for things I've done in the past and for (something) in the reported posts forum?

You're effectively admitting that I was not flaming (which I wasn't) the Anencephaly thread but everyone has just decided that they've had enough and looked for a reason to ban me?

Fine. I don't know what you want me to do... I've said that I've been trying to not post anything that would be considered "trolling", I've been not being a dick and I've said that my intention was not to upset anyone...
I thought we were talking about the disease and abortion. My opinion (as I clearly stated) is shared by many people in the medical profession (M.D. not PhD) that these children are not "alive" in the common sense and abortion should be pursued in most cases for prevention of cruelty to the "child" and the parents.

g'em wrote:

I've admitted no such thing.

You have been banned for persistent trolling, flaming and a lack of respect for the forum, just as I said in the ban message. Given your history I have no reason to believe that pattern will change which is reinforced by the fact that you see nothing wrong with how you act. If you cannot see how this is the case then perhaps it's not us, it's you.

Your words would tend to signify otherwise is all I was saying.

And to my previous messages?

g'em wrote:

Your last DRP was on 8/12/2010. Since that time - when you were given a firm warning - you have admitted to openly insulting someone: http://m.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056183328

and you have blatantly been shown to pick and choose rules as you feel: http://m.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056166262

You believe that you were simply reciting medical terminology to educate the uneducated (which id in itself an incredibly outlandish thing to say and you well know it), I believe that what you were doing does constitue flaming because you did so full in the knowledge tht others may not understand.

Did you report posts in tht thread you felt should have been actioned? My only concern here is your behaviour, and apologies if that sounds trite but I have more than enough here to be dealing with.

I'm not sure how much further we can take this. My position remains as is, if you'd like to take it to the DRP that probably the next appropriate course of action.

Firstly, in relation to openly insulting someone as I said, we all make mistakes and I attempted to resolve it promptly.

Secondly, I agree the tone was lowered, but not by me... I should have ignored it and moved on but I didn't.

My understanding is that I was being banned for flaming though in the Anencephaly thread?

Which leads to point three... I wasn't reciting medical terminology to educate the uneducated, I never said that. What I did say was that myself and other posters were debating the issue of abortion as well as debating with people whether videos like that should be seen - which I, as others did, submitted it raised awareness.
So, saying something that other people might not understand is flaming?

Give me a break. You KNOW I was not purposely flaming in that thread and now you're reaching back and permanently banning me with whatever you can find.

Did I report posts in that thread? No.
Did anyone report my posts? No.

My concern here is my behaviour too. If I was told to calm it down or to leave the conversation because it was getting to "upsetting" for other members then I would have, no questions asked.

My concern here is also that I'm being unfairly targeted for some reason and the rules are applying to me, but not to other members. Nobody else on that thread was even scoffed at and they posted vile trolling comments which were legitimate flaming.

Your position was never going to change, so don't insult my intelligence by implying that something I was going to say would have changed that.
Perhaps grovelling to boost your ego is what you desire?


It is at this point that I assume the conversation is over as g'em has decided not to reinstate me regardless of grovelling which I would have done (nor did she have any intention to regardless of what was saying that my PMs "reinforced" this idea).

I think, firstly, that it's absolute bullshít that I should have to go through the same cmod that banned me via PM to discuss the matter - mainly since she had no intention of considering my side of the story... clear by the fact that when I showed that I was not flaming the thread that she reached for other reasons.

I know nothing will come of this, but lets hear what has to be said I suppose.

FreudianSlippers

Should add that now g'em thinks it was my intention to insult her because of the grovelling comment which it was not. I was merely testing to see if that was an option.

g'em

If the Admins would be so gracious as to allow me one little thing...

I'm a she.

FreudianSlippers

g'em wrote: »

If the Admins would be so gracious as to allow me one little thing...

I'm a she.

Sorry edited accordingly. I never knew... drinks?

I take it grovelling isn't an option then?

Silverfish

FreudianSlippers, you were warned regarding your behaviour on the forum as recently as December.

This was your fourth ban from the forum, and following that, the Cmods made the decision to make it permanent.

We do not see any reason to lift this ban.

FreudianSlippers

I wasn't "flaming" as per the ban.

The point is that I shouldn't have been banned, not that the ban shouldn't be permanent.

Beruthiel

It has been discussed and agreed. The ban stands.