Politics discuss Three month ban

ISAW

I was banned for three months from Politics by Scofflaw

I received no warning or infarction before this ban
I was not told what I was banned for and when I enquired Scofflaw referred to persistent offence breaking over several months. ( see my double jeopardy comments below)
I asked for examples and was given none.
So it is difficult for me to say what posts in what threads merited a ban.
Scofflaw refused to state the rule broken or cite the example of why I was banned.
Scofflaw added that he did not even care if it was not my fault just having the appearance of it being my fault was enough for him to ban me without warning for three months and that he believed I was continually the one starting fights and trying to cause destruction of threads.

Scofflaw added I had no right to post and did so at his discretion and if I didn't change when I came back in three month my ban would be permanent. It seems very "old style" moderator

you're persistently involved - in my judgement - as a major protagonist - again, in my judgement - in trainwreck threads - and again, that's in my judgement.

I did point out to scofflaw that this is akin to pointing out to a woman who was wearing a short skirt that she was asking for trouble.


There are two threads to which scofflaw might be referring. One is now closed and is about Minister Quinn asking for schools to be handed over out of church patronage.
The other is about cannabis.

There is an outstanding dispute resolution on the cannabis issue .http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056204718 In addition, Scofflaw lied about me in that thread and has not clarified the fact that what he stated was entirely untrue and I had told him it was untrue and he has no support for it. That makes it a lie. I did however offer to reduce posting to that thread on condition the personal abuse and lies were corrected. They weren't! But that thread is ongoing ( as is the dispute resolution) and I reduced posting. I have posted it once or twice since I think in the last two or three weeks. I don't think any of my posts to it broke any rules.

Scofflaw however has told me that his decision is based on his judgment alone without consultation with any other moderator and it is based on his judgment of my posting over the past few months. As I can't cite any other examples it seems he is referring to this cannabis thread in which he lied about me and which I thought had been resolved only to find he now uses that thread to revisit the issue and use the already decided on postings from that thread as a reason to ban me in another thread!

The only other Thread I can think of is the Rauri Quinn thread. In that thread I was also personally attacked by several people and the Church was personally attacked. These attacks and no doubt the complaints about me increased when the atheist forum posted a link to the thread. My posts were straying off into related aspects of Christian education in schools ( which is central to the issue under discussion) but this was because other posters brought it up. e.g. whether Catholics teach about other faiths, what is the difference between multidenominational and non denominational schools,; what do people mean by “secular” and what is the international difference with the French and US systems and the history of them. The other posters were not banned.

In particular I assert that the “fifty per cent” number by Quinn was plucked out of the air and serves an atheist agenda of removing all support for religion in schools. Many posters have backed up this interpretation by saying that the ultimate goal is removal of religion from schools and from all public society. See below about what they post in the atheist forum. I pointed out whenever the atheistic agenda was followed society turned into Hell on Earth. No doubt a number of atheist posters complained about this - but it is on topic as it relates to the stated final goal of posters in removing religion from schools. I also criticised the Labour Party as this relates to the policy of a Labour Party Minister. Quinn by the way is an atheist and several other atheists in Labour support his policy.

I suspect the complaints about me come from atheists and Labour supporters who “have it in” for me for complaining about Labour spin in the Media and bais in reporting Labour people as greedy in the way they represented other parties. Scofflaw has indicated that his atheism or not is “not my concern” but clearly it is since the thread is about that and it is atheists who are complaining about me. If there are no atheists involved I am surprised. In fact if stated I don't believe it and would say that is a lie!

And Scofflaw has http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056204718
misrepresented my opinion and not admitted that. Yet he uses that thread in which he misrepresents my opinion on which a dispute was almost resolved as a basis for a later unilateral decision? I have to face double jeopardy!

My personal analysis:
Now I do realise I am different. I suffer from a psychlogical disability and have had comments made such as “have you got Aspergers or something?” directed at me in threads. I make long posts and deal forensically with every comment posters raise in opposition to me. Maybe people want short uninformed soundbytes like they get in Red Top newspapers or Twitter but being different while no to their liking is not against any rules?

If you are going to ban people like me for having a style you don't like where will you stop? If you begin with autism spectrum disorders will you progress to race or perhaps to religion? I am quite prepared to try to moderate my style and have done so when various mods asked me in the past. I don't all the time realise people may be upset and my intention isn't to personally attack anyone unless of course they attack me. I will call someone a liar is they lie about me for example.

I would add usually I am posting and maybe one or two people supporting my position and them not posting . Maybe fifteen or twenty are posting opposing me. This can easily be seen in the source of complaints and the thanks given to my opponents. I have referred to it in the past as a form of bullying. The result is twenty post and I reply to all of them. I then get complained about for posting long rambling replies which take on all the posts made in opposition to me. They make 20 posts I make one reply and it is to long and rambling. And If I make 20 non rambling replies I am dominating the thread! In fact all I am doing is balancing the number of replies with those of my detractors! The result is I am banned because atheists complained about me showing up how they band together and don't tolerate opposition or difference. Ironic!

I note also some other posters to this politics forum are banned for three days or seven days. I have had several bans and appealed them and have had successful appeals. The bans for days seem to be for actions which are far more serious than the one I am getting three months for. Hense my “excessive” comment.

I have informed Scofflaw that his judgement is "unfounded unfair biased and excessive". I did ask but have yet to find out if he is an atheist. I also don't know if he voted Labour. I do however think that the ban reinforces my opinion of an agenda of intolerance by certain sections e.g. Labour or Atheists. I am not saying this is planned . I have explained how media can do this elsewhere. A good outline can be found in “What makes the mainstream media mainstream” http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710--.htm

This deals with “biased”

Regarding “unfair”Scofflaw has stated that he made this decision totally on his own but if I return and post in the same way he will make it permanent. So


1.He cant tell me what I did wrong
2.He bans me for doing “it” and
3.If I return and do “it” again I will be banned permaneltly

Hence my comments about “women in short skirts” and “thoughcrime.”. “it” is not defined only alluded to in the “we all know what she thinking don't we” sort of way . Far worse is Scofflaw's admission that even if he didn't know what I was thinking it doesn't matter because in hios judgement I am the planner and causer of train wrecks.


As for “unfounded”Scofflaw refused to cite a post thread or rule broken. In fact while elsewher he says I “ ISAW was simply playing devil's advocate - doggedly and against absolutely everyone, to be sure, but no issue with that.”because at that point ISAW was simply playing devil's advocate - doggedly and against absolutely everyone, to be sure, but no issue with that.”

He now apparently has an issue with that.

Scofflaw has lied about me and not withdrawn the lie but he now reacts to the onslaught of atheist posters following their call to arms in http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71514110&postcount=127

I suspect a slew of complaints arrived AFTER this post. Did they? That same discussion has posts saying that the church should be kept out of education and should have no say in the discussion about removing their Patronage ( from BEFORE I began posting the politics thread ) and the Minister should force them to. So the point about the agenda and their final solution to the Catholic Schools problem is relevant.

In short the ban was unfounded unfair biased and excessive, and the judicial process used was not correct transparent or following rules.

Asiaprod

Again.
ISAW, you got 50 words to condense all that down into something I can digest, cause I'm not reading it all.
And just to help you get that process working. Right now I tend to agree with

you're persistently involved - in my judgement - as a major protagonist - again, in my judgement - in trainwreck threads - and again, that's in my judgement.

Dades

ISAW, I stood up for you against a ban previously in DR, but I'm not inclined to do it again.

I actively and expressly disengaged with you in the Ruari Quinn thread as you were misrepresenting my position, ignoring the points I was making and indulging in outrageous analogy to mask it all.

There would be no issue with long posts or being forensic if the content was worth it.

ISAW

Asia prod:
Please just read the lines beginning 1,2 ,3 ( two lines) and 4 ( three lines)
1. Appearance of personal bias
2. double jeopardy

1 and 2 are supported by the fact that I was told the charges against me were dependent on:

A: Previously served issues already dealt with elsewhere and/or still outstanding issues which should not be brought over into a new issue.
e.g. that Scofflaw lied about me and never corrected this but is prepared to take other unresolved issues from the other dispute resolution into a reason for banning me and also take in resolved issues for that matter.

B: Decisions already made should not be re tried and someone have to serve a sentence for them twice.

C: Conspiracy whether or not by design to complain about me. It is my suggestion that a pro Labour and/or anti theist lobby ( whether by contriving to do so or not) arrived in thread and each of them posted points which I reacted to. AS such they could post one post each but I would have to post 15 or 20 replies. They also may have agitated people not in their group.

The evidence for this is not available to me but is to you. I suggest you look at the post in the atheism forum about me ( reference supplies above) and compare the number of posts the source and the source of complaints about me after this post.

3: Banning someone for "not having a likable style". this would include your assertion of supporting a ban because i cant express an abjection in fifty words or less. I don't do twitter!

Dades:
I want people to do what is right and follow the rules and not just "stand up for me". If I am doing something wrong I want you to tell me. What rule am I breaking? If there is no such rule what am I doing wrong which you think should be corrected? It isn't against the rules to reply to every single point made is it?

I don't want your support I want fair treatment. If I am being banned i want to know what for. If I didn't reply to something from you I am happy to do so.

If you feel I ignored ANY comments made by you please PM every single one of them to me and I will replay to ALL of them. I did not intentionally ignore anything. Furthermore had I
replied to every single point you made people would no doubt complain that my posts were too long and or rambling.

Several times I posted that there are people posting the thread with no intention of achieving a number plucked out of the air ( the fifty percent of schools should not be under religious management) and had expressed that they viewed religion as abuse and any practicing it as facilitating abuse. as such their real agenda was no religion in schools.


Both:
If for example someone posted that immigration should be restricted and pulled a figure out of the air and I asked them "Do you believe Jews and Blacks Gypsies and Slavs should not be allowed in society" and exposed their Nazi views and concentrated on this should I be banned for saying "do you have a different agenda and the figure quoted is only a stop gap for you"?

4. As such saying "do you want NO RELIGION in schools?" is a valid question exposing the real intention and pointing to what happens when such a philosophy is adopted is germane to a discussion on patronage in schools.

Asiaprod

Thanks for the shortened version ISAW, I work better when I don't have to digest so much.:)

Dades and Scofflaw, anything you would like to input to the above?

Scofflaw

Asiaprod wrote: »

Thanks for the shortened version ISAW, I work better when I don't have to digest so much.:)

Dades and Scofflaw, anything you would like to input to the above?

First, I have to throw out the "double jeopardy" point, because the issue here is ISAW's long-term posting record. He's not being banned again for a specific issue for which he has already served a ban, and therefore the defence of double jeopardy is irrelevant.

Second, I have no personal bias against ISAW. My only issues with him are as a moderator, and my issues with him there are as already stated:

you're persistently involved - in my judgement - as a major protagonist - again, in my judgement - in trainwreck threads - and again, that's in my judgement.

That's the long and the short of it. I am aware that ISAW does not intend to be a disruptive poster, but he is, and that's the way it is. I have no animosity towards him, don't care what his personal opinions are, and intend no judgement on him personally here. If I needed someone who will tirelessly rebut every single point in an issue he would be my first choice - but he makes a hell of a mess on the forum, and it's my duty to prevent anyone doing that, so despite his good intentions, he is not welcome to post.

I don't like doing this, but I don't feel that I have any other option. After discussion with the other mods, we would also prefer a permaban here to a three-month ban. ISAW's style of posting hasn't changed throughout the various moderation issues he's been involved in, despite various people explaining how his style can be a problem for a forum, and he has to change for his participation in the forum to be positive. Any time he can demonstrate that he's no longer likely to disrupt the forum, he's welcome to return - but not before.

apologies,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

Thanks Scofflaw for your honest comments.
Dades any final comment from you.
ISAW say nothing more please.

Dades

As mentioned above, I didn't have to read the whole Ruari Quinn thread to see there was a potential issue. I was on it already and saw first hand.

ISAW talks about logical questioning to ascertain the facts when in my experience is more interested in producing soundbytes which are supposed to represent the views of the people being debating with.

Such as this (emphasis mine):

ISAW wrote: »

Dades wrote:

We don't let parents of two children under 18 have four votes in general elections, do we?

No but we do accept that the choice they make for their children are legally binding and their own decision and supported by the State. We also accept those under 18 are not entitled to decide some things like what is right or wrong. Do ytou really think someone under age can say sex is okay for them and therefore based on their opinion rape can be dismissed? Or do you believe in statutory Rape? apparently you do not believe in it.

Asiaprod

Thank you gentlemen for your input

ISAW, this is going to be tough, but I am sure you can use this information to your advantage.


I am sorry to say that after repeated warnings, and repeated intervention by Admins, CMods and Mods, you still fail to understand that it is your

• Constant rebuttals
• Constant debate of every point made in someone else's post even if it's shifting away from the topic
• Your continued claim that you never breaks any rules-pointing to forum charters and asking 'where did I break a rule here?-- Although you may, in some cases, be technically correct in that you did not openly break charter rules you need to understand, and accept, that a charter is only a guideline.

Not to mention

• Misrepresenting user’s positions
• Ignoring points and indulging in analogy to mask it all (I am paraphrasing that bit here)

that has lead us to this current ban.

In short, this ban is a result of your accumulated history of interaction here on Boards, and your apparent inability to listen to, and act on, the advice that has been given you. Your style of posting hasn't changed throughout the various moderation issues you have been involved in, despite people explaining how your style can be a problem for a forum.

In the case of the Politics Forum, it has now got to the stage where the consensus is that you are seen as a disruption to the forum and the work required to keep threads you are active in from becoming train wreaks is beyond what is considered an acceptable workload for the Mods in question. I did not say you made the train wreak, I am saying you are a major contributor to the train wreaks. And this is not your first ban, you were perma banned before and given a second chance.

I have no option left but to agree to the perma ban. I really am sorry, but we have tried our best to help you change your style, and it just has not happened.


I too believe that you do not deliberately intend to be a disruptive poster, but you are perceived that way. If I thought you were, I would site ban you without a second thought. In light of this, I am prepared to visit this again at some point in the future if you can come back here to the DRT and show me, and the other parties, that you have changed your style and can participate in a positive manner that is not likely to disrupt the forum.

I do hope this happens.