Banned from LL. Mediation please.

thebullkf

Hi Guys ,

I've been banned unfairly imo from the LL.

I would appreciate intervention please, I was banned "for arguing with a mod", but apparently one can't defends oneself from being accused of having no basic manners, and making demands.

Despite my cordial posting we have mods circle jerking each other and basically i feel its unfair,

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72278689&postcount=78
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72278620&postcount=76

can't access my other post as i'm banned.

Originally Posted by rainbow kirby
Congratulations, you've completely missed the point of this forum.
i haven't actually, i asked a question, is this not allowed anymore? women have made their point, twas only a question is all.

i thought you welcomed male input, good to see Mods backing each other up all the same, i shall deseist then from posting further in this thread then.

i was then accused of:

It is standard Boards posting policy and basic manners not to use a thread other people are discussing an issue in to demand the moderators or ethos of a forum are explained to you.

Anyway, back on topic, please...

where was i unmannerly??

where was my demand??

this was my reply:

if i may, i never made a demand . And i take umbrage with the implied fact that i don't have basic manners, thats all

next thing i know- straight seven day ban.:rolleyes:

i pm'd mod, siverfish replied said iwas argueing 3 times with a mod, in my defense i only asked a question,and defended myself, ascan be seen above.

one of the questions i asked silverfish was

you're telling me now that a mod can make accusations on thread and i can't reply?

as expected, this question was ignored.

Its the principal of the banning thats annoying,and the mods application of the rules, only today i read a post about someone calling a poster a prick. -result? 1 infraction point,(albeit in AH i think)

i ask a question.- result??? 7 day ban:rolleyes:

i have no interest in posting in this thread again, as i stated - but to then have a sly dig about manners and demands by a mod deserves clarification.

I was systimatically banned. In general i find the modding to be quite good on boards, but there are isolated incidents where mods skirt the rules themselves to elicit a response that lulls people into an infraction/banning.


Unfortunately i fell for it, but i think its grossly unfair and if this is indicative of the carry on , on boards then maybe this forum isn't for the likes of myself

Thanks for reading, apologies for the laboured points:o

cheers

thebullkf

Scofflaw

Hi thebullkf,

it looks to me like you're falling foul of a very basic rule here:

you're telling me now that a mod can make accusations on thread and i can't reply?

I'm afraid so - or, rather, you can't respond on thread. Mods have to be able to issue instructions/warnings/ban notices on thread without discussion, because (a) mod decisions aren't the point of the thread; and (b) mods have to be able to operate without a culture of posters quibbling with every decision - because if it's allowed, someone always will, no matter how obvious the point is. So in preference to every mod action almost automatically derailing the thread it's on, we don't allow it in the first place.

That's not to say you don't have channels you can object through. If you object to something a mod has written about you on thread, you argue the case with them via PM, or you contact the CMods.

So in this case, the better course of action would have been to object by PM to what the mod had said, and if you got no satisfaction that way, to PM one of us CMods.

moderately,
Scofflaw

thebullkf

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hi thebullkf,

it looks to me like you're falling foul of a very basic rule here:



I'm afraid so - or, rather, you can't respond on thread. Mods have to be able to issue instructions/warnings/ban notices on thread without discussion, because (a) mod decisions aren't the point of the thread; and (b) mods have to be able to operate without a culture of posters quibbling with every decision - because if it's allowed, someone always will, no matter how obvious the point is. So in preference to every mod action almost automatically derailing the thread it's on, we don't allow it in the first place.

That's not to say you don't have channels you can object through. If you object to something a mod has written about you on thread, you argue the case with them via PM, or you contact the CMods.

So in this case, the better course of action would have been to object by PM to what the mod had said, and if you got no satisfaction that way, to PM one of us CMods.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Hi Scofflaw,

I appreciate the reply, i have no issue iwth mod instructions, but to be accused of something on thread, and have no recourse
i pm'd the mod, i asked a question, no reply. (to the question)

maybe a PM from the mod themselves would eliminate a lot of the garbage that ends up here?
hence the reason i'm here, i feel it was biased moderating tbh, and found the the three mods posting in support of each other within 7 mins (?) to be a bum rush tbf.

How can one have reasonable debate if a mod acts like that?

in my eyes, when taken in context it was an unfair banning, i asked "if i may.."

whoosh- out with the banhammer, as far as i'm aware no one reported my posts, i feel i have a contribution to maketo boards.ie, maybe not though if this unequal modding goes on.

If you have the time i'd appreciate you investigating this further, i would hardly post in the LL anyway, so the ban actually doesn't bother/impact on my posting, its the principal of the thing. ( its late and i'm knackered so excuse the lack of articulation:o)

I found the comments were baiting, a bit of craic for the modin question,
i would like the implication of their comments examined please?

Thanks in advance
thebullkf

Scofflaw

Hi,

could I ask which mod you PM'd? You can check under your "User CP", click on where the "Private Messages" header in the left hand menu has a little down-arrow, and click on "Sent Items". If you PM'd either Rainbow Kirby or Ickle Magoo, can you check the username you used when sending - it should be under the PM in the list view, or shown as 'Recipients' in the PM itself.

I ask because I've PM'd one of those two before, and put an underscore in the name (ie "Ickle_Magoo"), which has meant the PM was never delivered.

moderately,
Scofflaw

thebullkf

Hi Scofflaw,

the Mod i pm'd was silverfish, Look this isn't a random rant but rather borne of frustration from a lack of equity in moderation, it seems the 3 LL mods do not like debate where the position of men is defended in conversation in the LL

as per post http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72278071&postcount=71


so in other words, you can't say men and women , cos this is the LL and whatever we say goes, jog on if you disagree.

No doubt this will be vehemently defended by the mods in question but thepoint still stands, a 7 day ban is excessive in the least.

The OP of that comment above ( which is a valid comment-in its entirety) never posted in this disacussion again..i wonder why:rolleyes:

my initial post was @ 20.48 hrs..within 3 mins i had two mods on me, one replying with a smart aleccy comment, and two pals thanks whoring that comment.
I replied with

i haven't actually, i asked a question, is this not allowed anymore? women have made their point, twas only a question is all.

i thought you welcomed male input, good to see Mods backing each other up all the same, i shall deseist then from posting further in this thread then.

whicjh resulted in another smart aleccy response almost immediately from another mod

It is standard Boards posting policy and basic manners not to use a thread other people are discussing an issue in to demand the moderators or ethos of a forum are explained to you.

Anyway, back on topic, please...

can you identify my demands there, cos i can't.

i can't see an answer to my question either.

so within two minutes i replied with

if i may, i never made a demand . And i take umbrage with the implied fact that i don't have basic manners, thats all.

Result: ? - immediately banned for 7 days , Safety in numbers it seems.

tbh scofflaw i'm fed up with this type of moderation, i've noticed that the standard of modding (as in even handedness ) has declined somewhat,

this kind of iron fist ruling is costing threads that which it can't survive without, i.e posters. i'm not saying the LL or boards will disappear overnight but the genuine posters who enjoy a good standard of debate and expect a fair standard of moderation will go elswhere.

If you contest the ban is fair i accept your decision but absolutely disagree with it, and i would ask for clarification from the mods involved as well, as can be the case, a simple pm or a comment in bold would be a good indicator, that lines may about to be overstepped.

I genuinely didn't see those comments as mod warnings.

But no doubt the retort will be that the comment doesn't have to be in bold, but i didn't differentiate between discussion and instruction, and the snarky comments didn't help either.

cheers

thebullkf

Scofflaw

OK, so there's two issues - one is this particular ban, where I can see your point about it all happening a little quickly, and the second is the issue of the Ladies' Lounge being moderated in a particular way, where, to be honest, I'm not sympathetic.

The problem I'm having here is that I'm sympathetic in the first instance only to the extent that you're (a) likely to be unaware that mod warnings are mod warnings, and (b) not making some kind of stand in the forum on the ethos of the forum.

The reason that's a problem is that (a) you have a rather long and not very credible history of ignoring mod warnings; (b) you appear from what you're saying to have been making a stand in the forum; and (c) I think it's fairly clear also both from what you said on the forum, and here, to have been aware that you were on the receiving end of mod warnings.

That leaves me with rather little room for sympathy. The Ladies' Lounge is a forum primarily for women - and there are plenty of male posters who manage to post in there without getting banned. If you object to the ethos of the forum, the answer is simple - don't post in it. You don't have to post in it, and you don't have any particular right to post in it - you're welcome to post on Boards only as long as you adhere to the rules of the forums you post in.

moderately,
Scofflaw

thebullkf

Scofflaw wrote: »

OK, so there's two issues - one is this particular ban, where I can see your point about it all happening a little quickly, and the second is the issue of the Ladies' Lounge being moderated in a particular way, where, to be honest, I'm not sympathetic.

With all due respect Its not sympathy i'm after Scofflaw.

The problem I'm having here is that I'm sympathetic in the first instance only to the extent that you're (a) likely to be unaware that mod warnings are mod warnings, and (b) not making some kind of stand in the forum on the ethos of the forum.

I am aware that mod warnings are warnings, but my impression ssite wide is that a moderator posting is their opinion, and a mod posting in bold is another thing entirely.
I wasn't making a stand on the forum either, i was appalled @ the dismissive tone by one mod about another posters post (which incidentally i was warned about myself ie dismissing anothers post no matter how moronic, lesson learnt btw) and the apparent acceptance of this, which when i highlight, is deemed to be against the ethos of the forum as you put it.

The reason that's a problem is that (a) you have a rather long and not very credible history of ignoring mod warnings;

i dispute this by the way, sure i have approx 15 infractions in my entire boards history, how many do you think were for ignoring Mod warnings, incidentally i feel this history is the reason for my unfair treatment on this particular matter. Furthermore i remember not too long ago posting in the drp with yourself on a different matter and decided not to pursue it, (even though i thought i was in the right) so's not to take up too much of your or anyone elses time because i find moaning about petty things is not my style tbh, but if my chequered history is forming decisions in mods minds rather than what i actually say in a particular thread, then i definitely should've defended myself more rigorously than i did.

(b) you appear from what you're saying to have been making a stand in the forum; and (c) I think it's fairly clear also both from what you said on the forum, and here, to have been aware that you were on the receiving end of mod warnings.

i don't see how you think i knew i was receiving warnings when i've told you i didn't know
I asked a question on thread, i've provided the links in previous posts here.

That leaves me with rather little room for sympathy.

based on inaccurate assumptions tbf.

The Ladies' Lounge is a forum primarily for women - and there are plenty of male posters who manage to post in there without getting banned. If you object to the ethos of the forum, the answer is simple - don't post in it.

I don't object to the ethos of the forum, i object to heavyhanded unequitable modding, "sure he has priors"- ban him. that in my eyes is the crux of the matter, seems the mods think they're untouchable and can ban at a whim , which isn't helped by your apparent agreement.

You don't have to post in it, and you don't have any particular right to post in it

thats an excellent point you've made, i don't have to. as to not having a right to post in it, i'm certain this also had a bearing on my ban.

- you're welcome to post on Boards only as long as you adhere to the rules of the forums you post in.

i agree, but i never broke the rules on this forum, my sex, and history coupled with the mods circle jerking is what goit me banned.

i'd understand if i was being sexist,racist, or being a dick, but i wasn't .

The actual topic being discussed is an emotive one for me considering my interaction with people who have suffered numerous abuses in my 'real' life as it were, hence my reason for posting there in the first place.

i'll ask you again: what demands did i make ?

I was basically accused of having no manners.

it seems the only welcome male input is one that adopts a female perspective, i dunno how balanced debating is acheivable, only hearing one sides view?

Scofflaw

thebullkf wrote: »

With all due respect Its not sympathy i'm after Scofflaw.

In the sense of being sympathetic to your case...

thebullkf wrote: »

I am aware that mod warnings are warnings, but my impression ssite wide is that a moderator posting is their opinion, and a mod posting in bold is another thing entirely.

Unfortunately, no, that's not a universal rule.

thebullkf wrote: »

I wasn't making a stand on the forum either, i was appalled @ the dismissive tone by one mod about another posters post (which incidentally i was warned about myself ie dismissing anothers post no matter how moronic, lesson learnt btw) and the apparent acceptance of this, which when i highlight, is deemed to be against the ethos of the forum as you put it.

Which is to say that you picked up on goose2005's post because you felt that what goose2005 was saying was right, and provided some balance, and the mod was wrong to ask him to stay within the ethos of the forum.

thebullkf wrote: »

i dispute this by the way, sure i have approx 15 infractions in my entire boards history, how many do you think were for ignoring Mod warnings, incidentally i feel this history is the reason for my unfair treatment on this particular matter. Furthermore i remember not too long ago posting in the drp with yourself on a different matter and decided not to pursue it, (even though i thought i was in the right) so's not to take up too much of your or anyone elses time because i find moaning about petty things is not my style tbh, but if my chequered history is forming decisions in mods minds rather than what i actually say in a particular thread, then i definitely should've defended myself more rigorously than i did.

Unfortunately, we do often tend to take account of a poster's broader history when deciding whether something like this is an innocent once-off or part of a more general pattern. Sure, that can mean that once someone has a bad name it's more likely they'll get a worse one, but the alternative is failing to deal with persistent trolls and disruptive posters.

In your case, you have received a couple of bans each from Parenting and After Hours, all basically for the same thing:

refusing to follow mod instructions and site proceedures

I'm banning you for not adhering to mod instruction. This is the second time so ban is longer than last time

Persistantly ignoring a mod warning.

So there is something of a pattern there, I'm afraid.

thebullkf wrote: »

i don't see how you think i knew i was receiving warnings when i've told you i didn't know
I asked a question on thread, i've provided the links in previous posts here.

You were obviously aware that the instruction to goose2005 was a mod warning, and with the exception of Rainbow Kirby's post, the others are also bolded.

thebullkf wrote: »

based on inaccurate assumptions tbf.

We're evidently not in agreement about that.

thebullkf wrote: »

I don't object to the ethos of the forum, i object to heavyhanded unequitable modding, "sure he has priors"- ban him. that in my eyes is the crux of the matter, seems the mods think they're untouchable and can ban at a whim , which isn't helped by your apparent agreement.

I don't consider a ban for arguing moderation on thread as "on a whim". It's a site-wide rule, after all.

thebullkf wrote: »

thats an excellent point you've made, i don't have to. as to not having a right to post in it, i'm certain this also had a bearing on my ban.

Nobody has a right to post anywhere on Boards (with the exception of DeVore). It's up to a poster to ascertain the ethos of the forum they're posting in - you can be banned from Politics for posting something that would be perfectly acceptable in AH, you can be banned from Christianity for posting something that would be perfectly OK in A&A.

thebullkf wrote: »

i agree, but i never broke the rules on this forum, my sex, and history coupled with the mods circle jerking is what goit me banned.

i'd understand if i was being sexist,racist, or being a dick, but i wasn't .

The actual topic being discussed is an emotive one for me considering my interaction with people who have suffered numerous abuses in my 'real' life as it were, hence my reason for posting there in the first place.

i'll ask you again: what demands did i make ?

You questioned the ethos of the forum, yes? As you're still doing here - that's essentially a demand to have the forum's ethos explained/justified to you to your satisfaction before you'll accept it. That's not the way it works.

thebullkf wrote: »

I was basically accused of having no manners.

it seems the only welcome male input is one that adopts a female perspective, i dunno how balanced debating is acheivable, only hearing one sides view?

There's no requirement that it be "balanced" from the point of view of every poster, because that takes in the kind of poster who might say this:

thought not.


women are such hypocritical whores

The Ladies' Lounge is a forum intended for female posters, and the moderation is going to reflect that - just as Christianity is a forum for Christians. If you don't like that ethos, don't post there. Leave it alone. And, yes, posting there to say "I think this forum is unfair because it's not taking account of the male perspective properly" is disruptive.

Boards is not a public service. It is a private club open to anyone, but which reserves the right to refuse admission at any time for any reason to any area. It is not required that every forum reflect the views of everyone, or be open to everyone to say whatever they like - the strength of Boards is in fact completely the opposite, that there is pretty much a forum to suit everyone. And the obvious corollary of that is that not every forum will suit every poster.

So, I'll say it again, and it's my last word on this, although you're welcome to ask an Admin to review - I'm going to uphold this ban, on the basis that your intention here seems to have been to argue with the moderation and ethos of the forum rather than contribute to the thread you posted on.

moderately,
Scofflaw

thebullkf

Scofflaw wrote: »

In the sense of being sympathetic to your case...



Unfortunately, no, that's not a universal rule.



Which is to say that you picked up on goose2005's post because you felt that what goose2005 was saying was right, and provided some balance, and the mod was wrong to ask him to stay within the ethos of the forum.

not at all, i never said the mod was wrong to do anything,

Unfortunately, we do often tend to take account of a poster's broader history when deciding whether something like this is an innocent once-off or part of a more general pattern. Sure, that can mean that once someone has a bad name it's more likely they'll get a worse one, but the alternative is failing to deal with persistent trolls and disruptive posters.

so now i have a bad name, this just gets better.

In your case, you have received a couple of bans each from Parenting and After Hours, all basically for the same thing:

they weren't the same thing at all, but its pointless arguing methinks.

I don't consider a ban for arguing moderation on thread as "on a whim". It's a site-wide rule, after all.

either do i , but i feel the call to ban was made on a whim. we obviously disagree.

Nobody has a right to post anywhere on Boards (with the exception of DeVore). It's up to a poster to ascertain the ethos of the forum they're posting in - you can be banned from Politics for posting something that would be perfectly acceptable in AH, you can be banned from Christianity for posting something that would be perfectly OK in A&A.

i don't pretend to have a right to do anything, but as a boards member, i have a right to post in forums that are open to members, no ?

You questioned the ethos of the forum, yes?

Yet again, no.

As you're still doing here - that's essentially a demand to have the forum's ethos explained/justified to you to your satisfaction before you'll accept it. That's not the way it works.

i'm amazed to how you came to this conclusion. really.

There's no requirement that it be "balanced" from the point of view of every poster, because that takes in the kind of poster who might say this:

i meant balanced, to what a reasonable poster might post, and to what a reasonable poster might reply to. your example is not of a reasonable post.

my ban is unreasonable, my whole point in being here.

The Ladies' Lounge is a forum intended for female posters, and the moderation is going to reflect that - just as Christianity is a forum for Christians.

in that its moderated by ladies, i know this. thats not the issue.

If you don't like that ethos, don't post there. Leave it alone. And, yes, posting there to say "I think this forum is unfair because it's not taking account of the male perspective properly" is disruptive.

yet again you put your own spin on it, i never said i disliked anything, ethos is your word, not mine. And where did i say

"I think this forum is unfair because it's not taking account of the male perspective properly"

??

Boards is not a public service. It is a private club open to anyone, but which reserves the right to refuse admission at any time for any reason to any area.

whats this got to do with being accused of manners, or making demands?

It is not required that every forum reflect the views of everyone, or be open to everyone to say whatever they like - the strength of Boards is in fact completely the opposite, that there is pretty much a forum to suit everyone. And the obvious corollary of that is that not every forum will suit every poster.

i agree, but i would expect a reasonable level of moderation, something sadly lacking.

So, I'll say it again, and it's my last word on this, although you're welcome to ask an Admin to review - I'm going to uphold this ban, on the basis that your intention here seems to have been to argue with the moderation and ethos of the forum rather than contribute to the thread you posted on.

so basically you're saying i never contributed to this forum, despite my earlier post about the death penalty being discussed in a different thread,and me asking did the perp. there, deserve the death penalty...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72267540&postcount=21


and you're also saying ( in upholding the ban) that despite the statistic that 25% of abuse carried out is by females, its not ok or reasonable to ask why :

BBC's "Panorama" claimed that 25% of those who sexually abuse children are female. http://www.menweb.org/panosumm.htm Also, seeing how sensitive people are to ensure that "people" is used in place of "men" in positive contexts, should the same not be done re. negative contexts?

i feel its pretty reasonable, the mods and you don't, fair enough.

I can see i'm pissing into the wind here, thanks for your time.

I do appreciate it, regardless of the outcome.

regards

thebullkf

Scofflaw

i meant balanced, to what a reasonable poster might post, and to what a reasonable poster might reply to. your example is not of a reasonable post.

No, it isn't, and it is also, rather vitally, your post:

thebullkf wrote:

thought not.


women are such hypocritical whores

And that is the sort of thing that makes it somewhat difficult to take the view that what you're looking for here is what might be considered 'reasonable' by a broader audience of posters, and more particularly by the female posters tLL is aimed at.

As I said, my problem here is that while I do agree that the original ban was something of a bum's rush - taken in isolation - what I'm seeing across the boards elsewhere from you suggests that giving you the bum's rush from tLL wasn't an unreasonable action.

i don't pretend to have a right to do anything, but as a boards member, i have a right to post in forums that are open to members, no ?

No, not really. I know that seems outrageous, but that's the way it is. You have the practical right to make a first post in a forum, but that first post can result in your permanent ban from that forum, and the deletion of the post as well.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

I'd like to point out to those reading this thread who have felt moved to support thebullkf by PM that you're not helping. All that's happening is that I'm being given the strong impression that there are a group of disgruntled and mostly male posters who have an issue with the existence of tLL as somewhere where "the male perspective" doesn't have an automatic right to be heard in the form proffered by any male poster who fancies they should be able to set the women straight.

To all of you, I'll repeat what I said to thebullkf - you don't have any given right to post what you want in any forum, and you don't have to either. If you've got a problem with the idea that there's a forum where any particular point of view - be it Christian, female, nationalist, or whatever - is the forum paradigm, you have two choices: you either drop that attitude at the door of the forum, or you don't go in there.

Posting in a forum for the specific purpose of challenging the ethos of the forum will get you banned, and such bans will be supported here. The ethos of a particular forum is there for those who are attracted by it - and you don't have any right to disrupt those posters enjoyment of the forum. If you believe that the ethos will cause posters to be put off, so what? If enough posters are put off, the forum will die a natural death - Boards will not give it a bailout at your expense, so it's none of your business. Leave it alone, do something else with your time and attention - and if you can't do so, ask yourself why the heck that is, because it's frankly not healthy.

categorically moderately,
Scofflaw

thebullkf

Scofflaw wrote: »

No, it isn't, and it is also, rather vitally, your post:



And that is the sort of thing that makes it somewhat difficult to take the view that what you're looking for here is what might be considered 'reasonable' by a broader audience of posters, and more particularly by the female posters tLL is aimed at.

As I said, my problem here is that while I do agree that the original ban was something of a bum's rush - taken in isolation - what I'm seeing across the boards elsewhere from you suggests that giving you the bum's rush from tLL wasn't an unreasonable action.



No, not really. I know that seems outrageous, but that's the way it is. You have the practical right to make a first post in a forum, but that first post can result in your permanent ban from that forum, and the deletion of the post as well.

moderately,
Scofflaw

where did you get that quote from Scofflaw

thebullkf

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'd like to point out to those reading this thread who have felt moved to support thebullkf by PM that you're not helping. All that's happening is that I'm being given the strong impression that there are a group of disgruntled and mostly male posters who have an issue with the existence of tLL as somewhere where "the male perspective" doesn't have an automatic right to be heard in the form proffered by any male poster who fancies they should be able to set the women straight.

Nobody PM'D me

And its pretty presumptious of you to suggest that my post was intended to "set the women straight", actually its pretty outrageous actually.

As an aside, thanks to whoever PM'd in support of what i perceived to be heavy handed banning to begin with.

To all of you, I'll repeat what I said to thebullkf - you don't have any given right to post what you want in any forum, and you don't have to either. If you've got a problem with the idea that there's a forum where any particular point of view - be it Christian, female, nationalist, or whatever - is the forum paradigm, you have two choices: you either drop that attitude at the door of the forum, or you don't go in there.

What attitude are you talking about , the onlt attitude i can see is the attitude you assumed i had ie "setting women straight"

Posting in a forum for the specific purpose of challenging the ethos of the forum will get you banned, and such bans will be supported here

I agree, but again i must stress my purpose in posting was not to challenge anything.

How many times must i say it.?

The ethos of a particular forum is there for those who are attracted by it - and you don't have any right to disrupt those posters enjoyment of the forum.

Which posters did i disrupt? (number will suffice,not names) i doubt anyone reported/complained about my posts seeing how i was banned within 10 or so mins of posting...

If you believe that the ethos will cause posters to be put off, so what? If enough posters are put off, the forum will die a natural death - Boards will not give it a bailout at your expense, so it's none of your business.

tbf Scofflaw you don't know what i believe,nor am i looking for a bailout.

Leave it alone, do something else with your time and attention - and if you can't do so, ask yourself why the heck that is, because it's frankly not healthy.

categorically moderately,
Scofflaw

So now you presume to knowwhat someone believes but also their mental health

From an outside looking in perspective it looks like you're desperately trying to defend those particular Mods , when in reality they were wrong, tis just my opinion is all, the fact other posters have pm'd to agree must mean we're all not healthy and wish to put "women in their place"...really (sarcasm)

Its a stretch Scofflaw and you know it.

I'll ask again where you got that quote from?

what forum,its context please and the date?

Because i sure as shit didn't post it in the LL last week when i was banned

and to use it in some to justify the actions of those mods,and to deter support via PM is an absolute disgrace.

I was banned by over zealous mods for something that had absolutely nothing to do with that comment.

You know it.

The Mods know it.

I know it.

Now everyone else reading this knows it.

Its pathetic and for you to grag it out of obscurity, (and context) smacks of desperation to cover the asses of those Mods on the LL.

Its plain for all to see.

Thanks

thebullkf

Scofflaw

thebullkf wrote: »

where did you get that quote from Scofflaw

It's a post of yours that was deleted by the mods. Yes, it's not from tLL - so what, exactly? And it is from some time ago - but again, so what?

Nobody PM'D me

And its pretty presumptious of you to suggest that my post was intended to "set the women straight", actually its pretty outrageous actually.

The message in bold wasn't for you - it was for the people it was addressed to, as it says. That is, the couple of posters who have PM'd me to have their say on why tLL shouldn't be allowed to operate as it does, and any more who may feel the same way. And I don't have a problem repeating the view that someone who can't accept the ethos of the forum and can't simply walk away from it has an issue of some kind that they should work out for themselves rather than inflicting it on others.

Does it impact your case? No, not really, although I can't help but feel that it's related, because your ban stems initially from your decision to oppose a mod comment made in respect of another poster's claim that the male perspective wasn't being "given a fair hearing" on tLL - and the issue of the moderation and ethos of the forum is something you brought up in your OP here.

Anyway, as I've said, my view is that I don't see sufficient reason to overturn this ban, since it was given for arguing moderation on thread, and I don't find the mod actions sufficiently provocative or heavy-handed for you to have had no real choice but to respond as you did.

The problem seems to me largely to be that you object to the moderation of the forum pursuing the ethos of the forum, and consider it heavy-handed that they regard "what about the male perspective?" as likely to be little more than trolling - but the ethos of the forum is that it explicitly prioritises the female perspective, and in that context, "what about the male perspective?" is likely to be basically trolling, just as "what about the atheist perspective?" is likely to be trolling in the Christianity forum.

Your next step is to request an Admin review the case, or indeed to ask for input from the other CMods.

moderately,
Scofflaw

thebullkf

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's a post of yours that was deleted by the mods. Yes, it's not from tLL - so what, exactly? And it is from some time ago - but again, so what?

So what?... are you for real.... so what indeed .

Its a cheap shot used in contemptuos context to try and add weight to the mods case by painting me as some sort of woman hater/anti woman.
Its patethic, and desperate, you know this as do the other mods- who sent you the quote?

Its vindictive in my opinion and has no bearing on this matter.
Again you also know this and to use it is juvenile and petty, I asked you what forum it was used on, what context and what date....you've yet to answer my question, you also agreed earlier that it was a bit of a bum rush of a banning by those mods, but not sufficient enough to warrant a retraction..??

Quite simply i want this serious infraction removed from my boards history thats so what.

Another point , as regards the magical comment that was deleted some time ago,and does no longer exist (but is worthy in your opinion of backing up a rather weak mod decision) i have found similar in a quick search on
boards ( not that i want those other posters to be in trouble) i feel its worthy posting a few, for comparison,and context.

fROM AH:

Thargor wrote: »

Its horrific! And it wont end :eek:

The blonde b1tch looks like a transvestite. It is the most repulsive ad I have ever seen, worse than the Poo at Pauls house saga. Will post links if I can find them.

EDIT: Thanks Coalbucket:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ppSlh4bMrk

hondasam wrote: »

All women are whores.

cruiser178 wrote: »

*goes to kitchen to beat the whore who told me how to spell it

Veles;72355429 Irish women are dog ugly

from christianity


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72372292&postcount=23

more AH:

candy-gal1 wrote: »

I hate blacks!

Disability benefit, why and how!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72096510&postcount=1

sensibleken wrote: »

The answer probably lies somewhere between the two. the two being your mothers legs

The only reason for a woman to leave the kitchen is to do her second job,be a hoare in the bedroom.

so context is everything Scofflaw, point being i never said that last week in the LL, all the ones i've posted are very recent, some from TODAY, so for you to say so what is pretty insulting.

Your next step is to request an Admin review the case, or indeed to ask for input from the other CMods.

moderately,
Scofflaw

well i want the ban overturned and i want an answer to why a comment made ages ago and was deleted (ie dealt with then) was brought back up in the first place.?

I would think the reasonable thing to do would be to apologise for such blatant pettiness and a retraction of the ban , my entire LL history is almost negligible you'd agree so i don't see it as a big issue to begin with.

As i said in my very first post a simple PM would've avoided all this.

I truly hate this:(

regards

thebullkf

Scofflaw

I'm sorry you hate it, and I'm sorry you want something that I'm not prepared to offer.

To reiterate the basic point: you received a one-week ban for ignoring a mod warning and arguing moderation on thread, something that could have happened anywhere on Boards, because it's a standard rule of the site. You had a slight case for extenuating circumstances, which unfortunately is not sufficient to overturn the ban. Ergo the ban is upheld (what's left of it).

So much for the ban. My citation of your "women are such hypocritical whores" post isn't anything to do with your ban, but to do with the point you raised in your OP about the general moderation and ethos of tLL. Nobody sent it to me, I came across it as part of looking at your posting history, and yes, I do rather feel it entirely undermines any claim you personally might make to be able to judge what's "reasonable balance" in respect of tLL ethos and moderation - not that that's really relevant to tLL as such, since it doesn't have to justify its ethos to you anyway. I have to also point out that you've taken some posters' comments rather drastically out of context there - at least three of those comments are from an AH thread on how to start a fight. Yours, on the contrary, is from a thread on relationship issues. Again, if you don't see any difference - and you either don't, or are knowingly making a specious comparison - then I foresee problems.

So, two points in your OP - the ban, and moderation/ethos of tLL. They're separate, and have been addressed separately here. Your ban is justified because you broke a Boards-wide rule, as you have a history of doing. On the other matter, it seems to me that the moderation of tLL is in keeping with the ethos of that forum. If you don't like it, I very strongly suggest you don't post there - and, given you rather visibly don't like it, I can't see why you feel any need to post there.

moderately,
Scofflaw

thebullkf

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm sorry you hate it, and I'm sorry you want something that I'm not prepared to offer.

thats far enough, i respect your decision, but to have this (serious ban) as part of my history now is a joke imo.

To reiterate the basic point: you received a one-week ban for ignoring a mod warning and arguing moderation on thread, something that could have happened anywhere on Boards, because it's a standard rule of the site. You had a slight case for extenuating circumstances, which unfortunately is not sufficient to overturn the ban. Ergo the ban is upheld (what's left of it).

i thought we already disussed this bit, ie

i have no issue iwth mod instructions, but to be accused of something on thread, and have no recourse
i pm'd the mod, i asked a question, no reply. (to the question)

maybe a PM from the mod themselves would eliminate a lot of the garbage that ends up here?
hence the reason i'm here, i feel it was biased moderating tbh, and found the the three mods posting in support of each other within 7 mins (?) to be a bum rush tbf.

How can one have reasonable debate if a mod acts like that?

in my eyes, when taken in context it was an unfair banning, i asked "if i may.."

I already explained my side but still haven't received an answer , i'm assuming therefore that a mod can accuse anyone on boards of something, and if they reply on thread they'll be banned, because as far as i can see thats the nuts and bolts of it, all the other sundry points,quotes etc are just smoke and mirrors, i was banned within 15 mins of posting. it doesn't add up.

So much for the ban.

what does this mean

My citation of your "women are such hypocritical whores" post isn't anything to do with your ban, but to do with the point you raised in your OP about the general moderation and ethos of tLL.Nobody sent it to me, I came across it as part of looking at your posting history, and yes, I do rather feel it entirely undermines any claim you personally might make to be able to judge what's "reasonable balance" in respect of tLL ethos and moderation -

So because of that one post, which was ages ago and was deleted , it basically means i can't argue that the mod acted unreasonably in accusing me of having no manners . To be frank scofflaw its bull****.

not that that's really relevant to tLL as such, since it doesn't have to justify its ethos to you anyway.

here you go again with ethos and justification.... i never asked for anything:mad:

I have to also point out that you've taken some posters' comments rather drastically out of context there - at least three of those comments are from an AH thread on how to start a fight. Yours, on the contrary, is from a thread on relationship issues. Again, if you don't see any difference - and you either don't, or are knowingly making a specious comparison - then I foresee problems.

that was my point in posting them, context and relevance is the key . the post of mine you dragged up was a cheap attempt to paint me as a troublemaker/anti-woman, you know this. That post had nothing to do with this issue, thats the point.

So, two points in your OP - the ban, and moderation/ethos of tLL. They're separate, and have been addressed separately here.

not quite but i accept and appreciate your input.

Your ban is justified because you broke a Boards-wide rule, as you have a history of doing.

nice choice of words there, my 'history' isn't all that extensive.

On the other matter, it seems to me that the moderation of tLL is in keeping with the ethos of that forum. If you don't like it, I very strongly suggest you don't post there - and, given you rather visibly don't like it, I can't see why you feel any need to post there.

moderately,
Scofflaw

I contributed to the thread because the topic was of interest to me.

The mods actions were unwarrented and OTT. You support them i, its admirable, but i disagree with your ruling.

I still haven't received answers to some of my questions, despite repeatedly asking them,

thanks all the same.

thebullkf

Almost a week, and no resolving of this yet?
Has this been passed on to a C-mod

My ban has already been lifted, but thats beside the point. i want this ban taken from my boards history please, (as having already been discussed at length here,it was unjustified and way OTT)
if you are not prepared to offer this Scoofflaw, i respectfully request that your decision be looked at please.

Thanks

thebullkf

Dades

thebullkf wrote: »

Almost a week, and no resolving of this yet?
Has this been passed on to a C-mod

Scofflaw is a CMod.

If you want to go further up the food chain you can request (here) an Admin look at your case.

Scofflaw

Dades wrote: »

Scofflaw is a CMod.

If you want to go further up the food chain you can request (here) an Admin look at your case.

Indeed - as already suggested some way back. Apologies if that wasn't clear.

moderately,
Scofflaw

r3nu4l

Okay, Admin response time.

Cutting through all of the above I see this:

A poster called goose2005 was in debate and a particular comment was veering towards taking the debate off-topic and into the realm of questioning policy on the LL forum:

BBC's "Panorama" claimed that 25% of those who sexually abuse children are female. http://www.menweb.org/panosumm.htm Also, seeing how sensitive people are to ensure that "people" is used in place of "men" in positive contexts, should the same not be done re. negative contexts?

This has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. It's discussing forum policy.

The mod Ickle_Magoo replied saying that the thread in question was the wrong place for that type of discussion and welcomed discussion elsewhere:

Not on a thread in the ladies lounge regarding a man grooming, raping and making his daughter pregnant - if that's an issue or you wish to direct the discussion away from the topic at hand, you are welcome to start a thread in the appropriate forum.

You then continued to take the thread off-topic

well i'm glad to see you cleared that up.

one wonders would it be ok, were the roles reversed

The mod replied (in bold, you say you understand this to be a sign of mod instruction!!)

Can we keep the thread on-topic and adhere to the ethos of this forum - if you have an issue with moderation or wish to argue the ethos of the forum can you do so using the proper channels.

It would be nice if at least one discussion in this forum could be had without being constantly dragged off topic with needless whataboutery and drive-by interjections.

FAIR WARNING GIVEN.

Rainbow kirby then posted with:

Congratulations, you've completely missed the point of this forum.

and a quote from the charter.

To be fair to you, I don't think the tone of that particular post was very helpful but the content was!

You continue off-topic...

i haven't actually, i asked a question, is this not allowed anymore? women have made their point, twas only a question is all.

i thought you welcomed male input, good to see Mods backing each other up all the same, i shall deseist then from posting further in this thread then.

Accusations of mod conspiracy...unhelpful and pointless. Achieves nothing.

Mod replies:

It is standard Boards posting policy and basic manners not to use a thread other people are discussing an issue in to demand the moderators or ethos of a forum are explained to you.

Anyway, back on topic, please...

So here you are still causing the thread to veer wildly off-topic and threadspoiling imo.

You reply yet again:

if i may, i never made a demand . And i take umbrage with the implied fact that i don't have basic manners, thats all.

More off-topic stuff.

You received a clear and fair warning yet continued to post off-topic and spoil the thread.

The mod who banned you did the right thing. There comes a time when you just can't accept any more off-topic posting or threadspoiling.

Your ban was deserved and served its function. Ban upheld.

thebullkf

r3nu4l wrote: »

Okay, Admin response time.

Cutting through all of the above I see this:

A poster called goose2005 was in debate and a particular comment was veering towards taking the debate off-topic and into the realm of questioning policy on the LL forum

by askinga question...veering..?

This has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. It's discussing forum policy.

it was a simple bloody question.

You then continued to take the thread off-topic

nice choice of words there.

The mod replied (in bold, you say you understand this to be a sign of mod instruction!!)


FAIR WARNING GIVEN.

i didn't consider it "whataboutery".....sound familiar?

To be fair to you, I don't think the tone of that particular post was very helpful but the content was!

so not very helpful as opposed to rude, more wordplay.

Accusations of mod conspiracy...unhelpful and pointless. Achieves nothing.

not conspiracy- yet again...

Your ban was deserved and served its function. Ban upheld.

so no word of an apology off the mods in question for their remarks...

seems some are more equal than others.

3 complaints about the Modding in the LL in 3 weeks and one of them wasn;t even banned :eek:... draw your own conclusions.- i'm sure others have.

thanks for the taking the time to reply, i know it can be tiresome job- I don't agree with it,(but accept your word on it) but feel the Moderation in that particular forum warrants closer scrutiny. I feel i was treated harshly and flippantly and the to add insult not even an acknowledgement they were in anyway responsible, or held accountable.

as i have said repeatedly this could've been avoided.

I dunno how true the stat. that approx a third of all boards users are women,
but if it is...it doesn't seem to be reflected in the number of participants and contributors to the LL....

why is that, one wonders...?

regards

thebullkf

Scofflaw

I dunno how true the stat. that approx a third of all boards users are women,
but if it is...it doesn't seem to be reflected in the number of participants and contributors to the LL....

why is that, one wonders...?

Because it's a forum for women. I would have thought that was rather clear, but apparently not.

moderately,
Scofflaw

r3nu4l

Okay enough. Sorry that you don't like my conclusions thebulkf but that's the way it stays.