Politics: Mod Misrepresents my opinion

ISAW

A particular mod has posted what he thinks my position is in a thread as if it is my position. He did this as part of a moderation decision. In the same decision he advises me not to post to the thread for a while and accuses me of trolling.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71068292&postcount=1194

I didn't know there was an offence of "suspicion of trolling".
Why should I be encouraged not to post by a mod?
I haven't posted anything offensive. Actually I have been personally attacked and left it go for some time before I complained. No cautions about personal attacks were posted and no apologies by the people who attacked me. almost everyone if not everyone else is posting for free recreational cannabis. All I am doing is asking for evidence and debunking the so called evidence produced. I never at any stage claimed to be anti cannabis! Mods have admitted that this thread is generating the most complaints.


In the same discussion other moderators have admitted to ignoring my posts and posters are encouraged to ignore my posts. One wonders how mods make decision on the content of my posts when they ignore my posts?

Given i left it go for several pages and then only posted one complaint this mean all these other people are complaining about me. Now that mods have decided to both ignore me and to take up their unfounded complaints while they admit I have not broken any rules let me ask you

What is the difference between a culture of "group think" which labels someone different as an outcast who is a suspected rulebreaker but for which they have no evidence and discourages them and allows personal attacks on them and ...a culture of bullying?

Now I believe the mods are fair minded but I also believe they think I am a troll or someone they would prefer didnt post the forum and their bias in this regard is a problem. Especially if a group of people to which I am offering the only rational opposition gang up on me and demand they are right. will you cave in to such demands or will you support my right to ask for and debunk evidence.

Scofflaw

The thread in question has produced a spate of reported posts, all of which are either by ISAW or about ISAW. Earlier in the thread I decided not to intervene, because at that point ISAW was simply playing devil's advocate - doggedly and against absolutely everyone, to be sure, but no issue with that.

In the last couple of pages before I requested ISAW desist, however, it had become clear that ISAW was no longer playing devil's advocate impartially, but was, instead, defending a particular position characterised by a distaste for drug use and the results of legalisation.

I appreciate he believes he was being impartial, but I disagree. I support fully his right to request evidence, and to reject evidence when it doesn't meet the standard or reliability claimed for it, but on this occasion his resistance goes beyond reasonable doubt, and he ignores some of the implications of the research he has accepted as valid.

ISAW wrote:

In the same discussion other moderators have admitted to ignoring my posts and posters are encouraged to ignore my posts. One wonders how mods make decision on the content of my posts when they ignore my posts?

This is in reference to a comment by Papa Smut, who is no longer a Politics mod.

moderately,
Scofflaw

ISAW

Scofflaw wrote: »

The thread in question has produced a spate of reported posts, all of which are either by ISAW or about ISAW. Earlier in the thread I decided not to intervene, because at that point ISAW was simply playing devil's advocate - doggedly and against absolutely everyone, to be sure, but no issue with that.

In the last couple of pages before I requested ISAW desist, however, it had become clear that ISAW was no longer playing devil's advocate impartially, but was, instead, defending a particular position characterised by a distaste for drug use and the results of legalisation.

This is a not true. I never maintained any such opinion and I clearly stated I never maintained any such position! Where is your evidence that i have a distaste for drug use or am totally against legalisation? If you do not know this to be true and you are told it is not true you are lying about me.

I appreciate he believes he was being impartial, but I disagree. I support fully his right to request evidence, and to reject evidence when it doesn't meet the standard or reliability claimed for it, but on this occasion his resistance goes beyond reasonable doubt, and he ignores some of the implications of the research he has accepted as valid.

This is another lie! I haven't ignored any valid research. i have pointed out in each and every case whenever so called "medical evidence" was presented what parts I believe are valid and reliable and related to the claims made and what parts are not reliable valid or not related.

Care to show me say three examples in hundreds of posts where I accept something as valid support for anything and then dismiss it and/or ignore it? I'll be happy to correct any such occurances if they exist -They DON'T and you are giving the impression that they do.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say I am posting to much on ever other poster that opposed me and then also say that I ignore some posters.

This is in reference to a comment by Papa Smut, who is no longer a Politics mod.

If that is true I was not aware he is not a mod. If so I wholly withdraw the suggestion that he was ignoring me as a mod while posting the same thread about me. He was posting about me as an ignorant (inthe sense of not being aware of my posts) other poster and not as a mod and I apologise if that suggestion casts any aspersions on his activities as a mod.

I accept I may present difficult or unorthodox cases from time to time but I don't think boards is about us all being clones or agreeing. But it is about fair treatment and I do not believe I have treated anyone unfairly. I do however believe i have been unfairly treated.

I see no reason why I should be banned for being against drugs even if I was against drugs but I certainly see no reason why I should be picked on for asking a pro drug lobby to justify their position! Why should i have to say "i'm in favour of drugs too" or " I'm just playing devils advocate" in order to ask people to supply the evidence which supports their claim?

Scofflaw

ISAW, obviously I can't deal with this issue as a CMod, since it's about a moderation decision of mine. I've posted to put my point of view.

However, let me make a point to you here, and whether you understand it or agree with it is up to you, but either way it's going to be the case. The DR forum is not about someone proving to your satisfaction that the moderation decision in question was deserved.

I'll discuss the reasons for my decision with whichever CMod takes the thread. If they disagree with my interpretation of your actions, I'll accept that view - I won't argue them with you, because I already know that you're not going to agree with me.

moderately,
Scofflaw

ISAW

Scofflaw wrote: »

ISAW, obviously I can't deal with this issue as a CMod, since it's about a moderation decision of mine. I've posted to put my point of view.

Here again is what you posted.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71068292&postcount=1194

I have had problems about procedures in the past and as I understand it when someone posts entirely in bold it isn't their opinion it is a moderating decision.

That is partly why I referred to other moderators posting when what they posted was not in bold so it was just their opinion. I am happy to admit I did not know at the time the pother person is no longer a mod so I was not lying since i believed them to be a mod. the disctiction I am making with you is that I informed you that you were attributing me as someone who is anti drugs and biased and you told me to go elsewhere and complain about that and refused to enter into any further discussion on it. when I did enter into this discussion here you came and again ( after I had told you otherwise) alleged I was anti drugs and that left the door it open as a proposed as a reason to warn/ban/infarct me.

However, let me make a point to you here, and whether you understand it or agree with it is up to you, but either way it's going to be the case. The DR forum is not about someone proving to your satisfaction that the moderation decision in question was deserved.

Oh. as far as I understand it you posted in bold to a newsgroup. I contacted you about that and you said you would not enter into discussion on it and I should take it elsewhere. You didn't suggest where. If I am taking it to the wrong place then I'm happy to stop now and take it to wherever it can be aired.

I'll discuss the reasons for my decision with whichever CMod takes the thread. If they disagree with my interpretation of your actions, I'll accept that view - I won't argue them with you, because I already know that you're not going to agree with me.

If you are saying something that is a lie of course I am going to disagree with you!
If you can't show it to be true saying "it is my opinion" just isn't good enough especially if you are broadcasting this opinion as a moderators decision i.e. you are assuming it is a true fact.

You are claiming I am posting because I am anti drugs and because I am trolling.
Where is your evidence? I am the only person posting the thread asking the "groupthink" supporters to show their evidence. I am being personally attacked and abused and have to deal with bigoted opinions about me. I won't be bullied off of an issue because people think I have not taken on their "evidence". As far as I know I have taken on every single piece of journal referenced evidence they supplied. Some of what they supplied was third hand and I even located the original for them. Saying I am ignoring their evidence is a lie.

I can provide counter evidence by the way but as I understand it I should not have to prove myself innocent when I am being accused of something.

Scofflaw

What I'm pointing out here is that you misunderstand the aim of the DR process. Your disagreement with my view is taken for granted, so there's no point in arguing with me about it, because I can't offer a DR judgement in this case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bonkey

If I may interject here (in my role as an admin).

Note - I am not addressing the case at hand. I'm addressing the existence of this thread and the behaviour thus far in it. I'm leaving the case itself to someone non-Politics-related


The DR process is supposed to begin before anything is posted in this thread....by the complainant and moderator(s) discussing the issue privately.

The only possible argument for bypassing that step is a de facto acknowledgement that the discussion would not or could not resolve anything....and that someone else (a third party) should moderate.

I'm not going to ask that you guys discuss this by PM first, but I am going to insist that this is not the forum for you to be trying to discuss it with each other. This is for third-party arbitrarion only.

ISAW - you've stated your case. Wait for a CMod to deal with it please.

You also appear to have skipped the part where you discuss your issue via PM with the moderator(s) first. On the assumption that this is the case, I'm going to leave Scofflaw's posts here where normally he'd be expected to wait until asked for input (something we need to look at anyway, I feel).

If either of you have an issue with this, then PM me about it.

nesf

Hello ISAW, I'm afraid myself and Dades are away for the weekend and as such can't immediately deal with your complaint. It will get looked at but it'll take a few days as the "CMod on duty" happens to be the one you've a complaint against.

I do apologise for this and I hope that myself or Dades can deal with complaint very early next week, if possible.

Dades

I've taken a look at this before the weekend kicks in... for my sins.

So, here we are again.

ISAW, I don't really believe you are a troll, because, imo, to be a troll you have to know what you are.

Instead it seems to me you are simply stuck in a pocket of warped logic, which, combined with a seemingly unlimited amount of time and a high WPM count make you - when you get the bit between your teeth - an anathema to rational debate.

You repeatedly hid behind the fallacy that the burden of proof lies on those advocating the removal of the cannabis prohibition (rather than the concept that you should have to justify maintaining any prohibition) - and deflected countless posts with this burden of proof tell it to the hand response.

You also made a multitude of disingenuous comparisons to double parking, child abuse, prostitution... or this gem:

ISAW wrote: »

ordinarywoman wrote:

Cannabis is cannabis.
its not rape, incest,heroine,child abuse,prostitution,illogical falacys.

A gun is a gun but it could be used for self protection or for murder.

How is that part of any useful debate?

Look, we all know that none of your posts alone are actionable - unlike, I might add - several posts directed towards you. However there is such a thing as death by a thousand cuts, where a thread has the life sapped out of it by posters moving goalposts, deflections, tangents, insistence upon some form of internet logic or due process... etc. Whether you can see it or not, you killed that thread.

That said, you are right in that you were subject to limited abuse from frustrated posters, so there's collective responsibility, afaic.

I guess to conclude I should comment on the action that prompted this DRT. While I can see where Scofflaw might be coming from, his action would not have been the one I'd have taken. There would have been no obvious grounds for a ban, but the thread needed something. Asking you not to post whilst others could still post is a big ask of anyone (even more so a keyboard warrior...) so having seen the thread flatlining - I think I would have just pulled the plug.

Where that leaves us I don't know. There's no cards or bans to rescind, we're left with an opinion, and an open thread that personally I would have closed.

Oh, and for the record - I would probably be against legalising recreational cannabis use.

ISAW

Dades wrote: »

I've taken a look at this before the weekend kicks in... for my sins.

Welcome to Lent.
for your penance you have to deal with a complaint about me for the next 40 days.

ISAW, I don't really believe you are a troll, because, imo, to be a troll you have to know what you are.

Mens rea does not exist in my case - ok.

Instead it seems to me you are simply stuck in a pocket of warped logic, which, combined with a seemingly unlimited amount of time and a high WPM count make you - when you get the bit between your teeth - an anathema to rational debate.

Your evidence I am unreasonable or illogical is?

You repeatedly hid behind the fallacy that the burden of proof lies on those advocating the removal of the cannabis prohibition

I didn't hide behind it! if someone makes a claim it is for them to provide the supporting evidence! I can if I chose provide counter evidence. As a matter of fact I did so . Look up my comments on the "reefer madness" era and the anachronism of applying the argument to today's world. But as I stated it isn't for me to justify why cannabis was made illegal in the first place.

Do you really think that if I start a thread on "child abuse should be legalised " or "smacking kids in school should be legal" that in campaigning for legalisation for such issues I can demand people justify the law that exists in the first place and say "well the greeks had child abuse" or "in the eighties we had corporal punishment" and begin by asking them to revisit the change in the law and justify it?

If I want to change the law it is for ME to make the case and not for me to ask others to justify the status quo. Whatever next? I say the change in government is because of lizard people extra terrestrials and ask others to prove it isn't? It is not for me to prove recreational cannabis is not harmful. It is for those claiming it should be legal to support THEIR case.

(rather than the concept that you should have to justify maintaining any prohibition) - and deflected countless posts with this burden of proof tell it to the hand response.

Why should anyone have to justify maintaining the law against cannabis, prostitution , child abuse, carrying guns in public, driving on the wrong side of the road etc. If they want the law removed or changed it is NOT for those who accept the law to re prove a validly passed law as passed.

You also made a multitude of disingenuous comparisons to double parking, child abuse, prostitution... or this gem:

Originally Posted by ordinarywoman
Cannabis is cannabis.
its not rape, incest,heroine,child abuse,prostitution,illogical falacys.

ISAW: A gun is a gun but it could be used for self protection or for murder.

How is that part of any useful debate?

The form of argument and underlying reasoning is comparable.
One can use cannabis for cloth, sail-making, paper etc. I referred to this in the "reefer madness" comments. One can also use it for medicine. The argument pursued by my detractors is one of free recreational use. The other arguments are made but they always admit to supporting free recreational use and this is their central issue. The fact that it can be used for something else is beside the point. If owning gun metal is illegal, we can always legislate to have gun metal used for plough shards. There is nothing illogical in saying cannabis guns or whatever may be used for different things even if the exact same physical thing is used! You yourself say similar above in reference to mens rea i.e. that I could post exactly the same words and not be trolling. In the thread I also referred to people having sex but the same act may be illegal (soliciting) or entirely legal.

Look, we all know that none of your posts alone are actionable - unlike, I might add - several posts directed towards you.

On which I have yet to hear about any action.

But you do realise you are saying "the is nothing in any of your posts which breaks the rules but taken together when you add up all the non rule breaks you are breaking the rules or at least the "spirit of the rules" . I find this ironic considering all the people on boards who have argued against natural law and the "spirit of the law" in favour of positive law i.e. the written rule.

I eagerly await what this something is of which I am guilty. Thoughtcrime? Persistently pointing out the lack of evidence for a claim when more unsupported quasi evidence is offered ? Forensic examination of what is presented as evidence? Maybe that is my Lenten burden? In truth I am not such a pure person and do not welcome crucifixion.

However there is such a thing as death by a thousand cuts, where a thread has the life sapped out of it by posters moving goalposts, deflections, tangents, insistence upon some form of internet logic or due process... etc. Whether you can see it or not, you killed that thread.

II beg to differ.
Actually until I arrived very little debate was entered into.
People posted some cut and paste from cannabis supporting sites as if this was evidence of scientific and medical support for legalisation. I questioned the cosey consensus of people all of whom were supporting recreational use. I never said I was strongly against recreational use but stated that I saw no problem with medical use. I was treated as a pariah and a plethora of complaints made about me for showing the logical fallacy of those who claim to have scientific peer review journal support for their position. they DONT! They have some evidence that cannabis is beneficial in some limited domains. I agree that further research is necessary and that prescription by a doctor is something which should not be legally opposed.

How is any of that spoiling debate. It is supporting rational and logical analysis!

That said, you are right in that you were subject to limited abuse from frustrated posters, so there's collective responsibility, afaic.

By whom? On whose part?

I guess to conclude I should comment on the action that prompted this DRT. While I can see where Scofflaw might be coming from, his action would not have been the one I'd have taken.

I bear no personal grudge I just think things should be fair. It seems the best you have to offer is "You are spoiling a thread by asking people to support their case" If a bunch of people said slavery should be reintroduced I would ask them for similar evidence and I would not baulk criticism about me justifying why it was made illegal in the first place.

There would have been no obvious grounds for a ban, but the thread needed something. Asking you not to post whilst others could still post is a big ask of anyone (even more so a keyboard warrior...) so having seen the thread flatlining - I think I would have just pulled the plug.

So if a bunch of white supremacists hold such a debate and I disagree with them you will allow there 1000 posts and my 100 replies and lock the thread and that is "balance"?

I the thread I drew attention to the logic and fallacy as opposed to just believing cannabis is right or wrong to use. I brought up an example of not confusing the conclusion with the reasoning process.
from page 76 of Bob altemeyer's book:
http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

Intrigued, I gave the inferences test that Mary Wegmann had used to two large
samples of students at my university. In both studies high RWAs went down in flames
more than others did. They particularly had trouble figuring out that an inference or
deduction was wrong. To illustrate, suppose they had gotten the following syllogism:
All fish live in the sea.
Sharks live in the sea..
Therefore, sharks are fish.
The conclusion does not follow, but high RWAs would be more likely to say the
reasoning is correct than most people would. If you ask them why it seems right, they
would likely tell you, “Because sharks are fish.” In other words, they thought the
reasoning was sound because they agreed with the last statement. If the conclusion is
right, they figure, then the reasoning must have been right. Or to put it another way,they don’t “get it” that the reasoning matters--especially on a reasoning test.

Now try "because cannabis is enjoyable".

Where that leaves us I don't know. There's no cards or bans to rescind, we're left with an opinion, and an open thread that personally I would have closed.

Oh, and for the record - I would probably be against legalising recreational cannabis use.

For the record I'm not opposed to it and actually arranged ( and this boards.ie discussion had a lot to do with it) to meet a TD Thursday last and discuss it as part of out meeting. I had to postpone the meeting till next week but if anyone wants to legalise it they had better provide evidence otherwise people ten times more dogged than me will go through them for a shortcut.

Dades

ISAW wrote: »

Welcome to Lent.
for your penance you have to deal with a complaint about me for the next 40 days.

Hi ISAW,

Believe me - I'm not getting sucked into a multi-quote debate. I've offered my prognosis on scofflaw's request to you, based on a torturous reading (and re-reading) of the thread in question.

There it is. I haven't advocated anything only the closure of the thread. And that, because the only other option was to ban you.

Perhaps if you would volunteer to not post in it for Lent we could all move along?

ISAW

Dades wrote: »

Hi ISAW,

Believe me - I'm not getting sucked into a multi-quote debate. I've offered my prognosis on scofflaw's request to you, based on a torturous reading (and re-reading) of the thread in question.

There it is. I haven't advocated anything only the closure of the thread. And that, because the only other option was to ban you.

Perhaps if you would volunteer to not post in it for Lent we could all move along?

I've already stated as much. But people have been sniping at me when I am gone and while I broke no rules it has already been admitted I was personally attacked by others which is breaking rules.

The point isn't about the request it is about my opinion being misrepresented. If someone particularly says I am posting to a thread because i am obviously against Cannabis then that is a lie! It is even worse if they make a decision based on this lie and broadcast that to others who then personally attack me.

ISAW

I am sorry. I didnt realise i said "no posts for Lent". I didn't post for about ten days.
Im happy to save up all my replies and post them after lent.

By the way no one apologised to me for the insults and personal attacks.

In the mean time I posted some journal references and posted about fallicies such as argument from authority, burden of proof and proving a negative.. Someone then posted the idea that we should do as they do in other countries. I pointed out this principle does not logically apply since we cant generalise it to other issues.

Immediately the personal attacks and back seat modding begins again! I have complained this time hopefully before the bullies did.

It would seem people are mixing up moving from the particular to general case and vice versa with the "Straw man" fallacy.

I'm left with this dilemma Should I stand by and allow people to post fallacy or should I post and be bullied and/or banned? If I am banned what will I be banned for? Pointing out the weakness of "we should do as they do" isn't a straw man?

I'm quite happy to tolerate them by the way. funny how "we should tolerate all opinions" only extends to the ones those people agree with isn't it? A bit like "we should do as they do and copy them" ( but only the things I think we should copy)

ISAW

As can be seen above my "reduced posts for Lent" offer was conditional on
1. People who have been sniping at me when I am gone not personally attacking me.
2. Lies or claims about me as posting because I am anti cannabis being recinded. Sch comments are just lying. and even if I was anti cannabis I have every right to post to the thread. Gerring a warning based on being anti cannabis is buth an lie and even if true is unfair. What happened to "attack the argument not the person making it"?

Neither 1 nor 2 have happened.