Query re ban from djpbarry on Sustainability & Environmental Issues

Chloe Pink

I recently received a ban from djpbarry on the Sustainability & Environmental Issues board, post 127 http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=72158939#post72158939

In line with the request to contact the board moderators before querying a moderation post, I sent djpbarry a PM.

I asked him to further explain the ban which he has done but I am still not clear how I broke the forum rules or why this ban was issued. So I am querying whether this ban should have been issued. Djpbarry says he is standing by his issuing of this ban.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Chloe Pink

nesf

The problem is that you're soapboxing and pushing a particular viewpoint without engaging properly in argument or listening to the other side. At the moment you're wasting people's time in how you argue and being very evasive, this is a no-no and should be avoided.

The ban stands, you may get an Admin to review this case if you wish. I'd recommend changing how you argue in future to avoid future trouble.

Chloe Pink

Thanks for your feedback Nesf.

I would like an Admin to review this situation so would an Admin mind looking at this please?

Thank you
Chloe Pink

bonkey

Sorry about the delay in picking this up. I'm looking at it now.

Chloe Pink

Thank you Bonkey

bonkey

OK...I've looked over things, had a think about it, and gathered some thoughts from the other admins.

Here's where things stand...

You say you don't understand what the issue is, and asked the mod to explain why you were banned. I'm having trouble understanding why you waited to be banned to ask for this clarification. You were clearly warned about it in the same thread.

Speaking personally, if a mod warned me about my behaviour, and I didn't understand what their issue was, I'd take care to discuss it with them so that I could understand their perspective before continuing in the same manner.

That's just how I'd do things though...its not something your obliged to do. I'm merely offering it for consideration.

Regarding the ban itself...

You say that he has explained things to you, but you still don't understand them. I don't want to guess at why you were banned, so I'd like you to post his explanation here, please. I'd also appreciate it if you can tell me what it is that you don't understand about it...given that this lack of understanding is your stated reason for starting this thread.

In the meantime What I will say, however, is this...

I do not believe that it is appropriate for a moderator to issue bans arising from discussions that they themselves are heavily involved in. In the case that all moderators of a forum are heavily involved in the discussion, I would go so far as to say they should ask a CMod to intervene.

Please do not misunderstand what I'm saying. I am not (yet) saying that the ban was either just or unjust. I am saying that I have an issue with how you were banned.

Chloe Pink

Bonkey,

Thank you for your response.

As requested here is djpbarry's PM in response to my PM:
My PM:
“Hi djpbarry,
Please would you further explain the reasons for issuing this ban?
Thank you
Chloe Pink”
Djbarry's PM in response:
“You were warned here about meaningless posts. You were warned here about copying & pasting chunks of text without any accompanying explanation. I ran out of patience when, here, once again, you decided to answer a question that nobody asked, coupled with a “go re-read my posts”-style comment.
If you want to avoid bans in the future, on this or any other forum, then I suggest that you (a) take time to better develop your arguments, rather than copying & pasting text from the web and (b) properly address points/questions raised by other users.”

Next PM exchange:
Me:
"I am still not clear how I broke the forum rules.
Will you reconsider whether this ban should have been issued or do you wish to stand by it?"
djpbarry:
"You essentially ignored several warnings.
I wish to stand by it."


Djpbarry gives four reasons for issuing the ban; I will address each one in turn:

1) he has run out of patience having already issued me with two earlier warnings.
I cannot argue that he may have run out of patience and he had indeed issued two earlier warnings. However the ban was not for a repeat offense of these two earlier warnings.
I was concerned at the issuing of these warnings and did raise concern with djpbarry in a PM after the second warning. My PM and his PM on this matter are included later in this post. Although slightly perturbed by the legitimacy of these two warnings, I did not come to this forum with them as, after PMing djpbarry and receiving his reponse, I thought discussion could continue without recourse to moderation.

2) that I have, once again, decided to answer a question that nobody asked.
I dispute his use of the words 'once again'.
However I feel the more important point is that in post 126, (upon which the ban was issued) I was responding directly to his question in post 125 and I do not understand the notion that I was 'answering a question that nobody had asked'; I will expand on this shortly.

3) that I had also made a “go re-read my posts” style comment. I was not asking or telling djpbarry to go and re-read my posts; I was asking him a question, I was asking him to better explain what he was disputing, I was asking him to clarify his issue as I had provided links to reputable sources to support what I was saying.

4) that I have ignored several warnings. I had not ignored them, after his second warning in this thread, I had sent djpbarry a PM explaining where I was coming from and asking his permission to continue posting. He did not offer his view but said '"please do" clarify the points I am making'. As stated above in point 1), my PM and his PM on this matter are included later in this post.


Here's post 125 from djpbarry
"Quote:Originally Posted by Chloe Pink
"...winds are high over most European countries at the same time."

Can you not see that nothing you have posted thus far supports this statement? Let’s make it real simple...
The average wind speed here in London is about 8 – 10 knots, depending on the time of year. The average wind speed in Donegal, however, is about 11 – 17 knots. What gives?"

Here's post 126 from me
"Quote:Originally Posted by djpbarry
"The average wind speed here in London is about 8 – 10 knots, depending on the time of year. The average wind speed in Donegal, however, is about 11 – 17 knots. What gives?"

Wind turbines operate from between 6 to 49 knots. Depending on the number and size of turbines in either of the locations you cite, they would both be generating at the lowish end of the scale.

Is there a problem with the information in the links in post 116?"



I have had to ask myself why a valid point I made fell on stony ground.
One view is that maybe I was not direct enough when making it. This is my style though, a good point usually stands on it's own two feet and I prefer not to make a song and dance about it especially when someone has scored an own goal. I find it disappointing though to be penalised for this approach, if this is part of the reason.

In retrospect, I could have been more direct and responded along the lines of:

“Despite having put my arguments into context in post 121 and despite having provided links to support my case, you have quoted a few words in isolation and taken them literally. On this basis, you have a point, the wind speeds in Donegal are nearly twice those in London.

However, taking these words in the context in which I was using them as explained in earlier posts and as supported by links i.e.
“...winds are high over most European countries at the same time.” to the extent that:
a) “there would still be extreme peaks and troughs in wind output”
b) “A geographical spread of wind (and, Pöyry argue, solar) supported by a supergrid would not resolve the problems of intermittency because similar weather patterns can extend across much of the continent of Europe and the UK and Ireland."
c)"This heavy reinforcement of interconnection doesn’t appear to offset the need for very much backup plant, however.”
then I am not sure what point you are trying to make in the context of this discussion.

I say this because wind turbines operate from between 6 to 49 knots.
This gives us a scale of 1 to 43 for generating electricity from wind.
8 knots falls in position 2 on this scale and 17 knots falls in position 11 of this scale.
Position 2 and position 11 both fall in the lower quarter on a 1 to 43 scale.
This means that if there was a 2 MW turbine in Donegal and a 2MW turbine in London, both would be generating at the lower end of the scale.
Further more, what does comparing wind speeds in just two towns prove, when we are looking at wind speeds across Europe?
Please would you further explain the point you wish to make. I have provided evidence to support the points I have raised; if you disagree with these reports (which include work by Poyry), would you provide counter evidence with links please?”



Here is my PM to djpbarry upon receiving the second warning for post 119 My approach is defensive, I admit but I express my concerns and ask if I can continue as follows:
“djpbarry,

I'm sorry but the quote you cite and the others I provide today are exactly what I am saying - maybe not as eloquently as the evidence I have quoted though.

I was asked to provide evidence on wind patterns across Europe with reference to their implications on wind generation; this came about after reference to interconnectors.

I have also provided evidence contradicting the view that demand will match supply.

I will happily post some words to clarify the points I am making with the quotations although I would have thought from the previous points they were obvious. However, I would rather ask if this OK before I do so in case, in so doing, I am perceived as arguing about a moderation point and thus banned again.

I would like to point out that in many months of posting on various moderated boards, I have never been banned. In fact people have often thanked me for the links and information I have provided.”

Djpbarry's response:
“Quote:Originally Posted by Chloe Pink
“I will happily post some words to clarify the points I am making...”
Please do.
D.”

I posted as 121 to clarify the points I was making.
Two posts later I was banned. Both my posts were in response to two posts by djpbarry which were directed at me.


Bonkey, you express a view that if a moderator of a forum is heavily involved in the discussion, they should ask a CMod to intervene regarding some moderation matters.
I would very much appreciate such an approach.

Apologies for the length of this post.

bonkey

Once again, I find myself needing to apologise for the delay in response. Sorry.

I've reviewed the content (again) and here's my thoughts...

Imagine if I responded to your complaint by referring you back to the very warnings that were given to you, to the PMs that were sent to you, and to the posts here above by the CMod.

Would you feel that I was discussing your complaint with you?

I doubt it.

Your complaint isn't with the fact that these warnings / bans were given, but rather the logic which led from your posts to these warnings bans. Your lack of understanding of the position is not based on the facts presented, but rather on the reasoning that was applied to get from fact to conclusion.

This would be, however, analagous to what seems to be the root cause of the problem in the forum.

You have taken a position which someone wishes to discuss because they disagree with some aspect of the position. They don't seem to be questioning the facts, but rather the relevance of them, or how those facts support the conclusions.

When these differences of opinion arise, you have a tendency to refer them back to the very same material and/or earlier posts which are the root cause of where the disagreement is coming from.

From the mods perspective, this is coming across as you not discussing your position in any meaningful way. You're certainly promoting it, but when it comes to actually discussing how those facts can be reasoned to reach the conclusion....you tend to just fall back to the facts in one way or another (re-reference then, or argue that they haven't been shown to be false, or whatever).

That, in the eyes of the moderators, is not engaging in meaningful discussion....and I find it hard to disagree with them. I'd stop well short of saying that its a deliberate approach taken for any particular reason...but I can understand their frustration.

As I said...if I just referred you back to the facts underlying this case (you were warned, you were banned, you were given explanations), you'd rightly feel frustrated that I wasn't actually discussing your issue at all.

The intent of the forum is to foster discussion, so I can understand why this conflict has arisen. What I recognise, however, is that no-one is forced to engage with you at all. If someone feels that you're not interested in discussing your position, they can simply walk away. If they're unwilling to do so because they feel that you "win" or they "lose" by doing so, then we have to accept that its not just about discussion.

So here it is in a nutshell...

I'm not going to rule that the it was wrong to ban you. I don't think its a clear-cut case, but I can understand the moderators position. Ultimately, they are trying to promote discussion in a topic-area where there's already far too much grandstanding, and I support that idea. They should, however, consider whether or not their approach and/or ground-rules can be fine-tuned. Maybe it can't....but its certainly something they can/should discuss.

I don't agree in general with the practice that a moderator issue a warning (or ban) to someone when both parties are active participants in the discussion. It is something I would urge all moderators to be considerate of. Unless its something that really needs speedy action, its better all round to ask a fellow mod to look at it, to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Chloe Pink

Thank you for your response Bonkey,

Although you write that you're "not going to rule that the it was wrong to ban you." I appreciate you expressing your view that it is not "a clear-cut case".

I would like to say that my complaint is with the fact that these warnings / bans were issued; if the logic and reasoning that led to them being issued is flawed, them potentially their issuing is flawed.

The problem I have, especially regarding djpbarry's post, the one I was banned on responding to, is that I'm not sure what there is to discuss when someone, in this case djpbarry, makes a 'non post', in other words, he has not made a relevant point in the context of the discussion - so - what is one meant to discuss?

Anyway, you make some astute observations in particular when you say "What I recognise, however, is that no-one is forced to engage with you at all. If someone feels that you're not interested in discussing your position, they can simply walk away. If they're unwilling to do so because they feel that you "win" or they "lose" by doing so, then we have to accept that its not just about discussion."
Djpbarry seems to fall into this category. If he does not walk away from my posts because he feels that one of us wins the other loses, then accepting that its not just about discussion would be fine if it wasn't for the fact that he's a moderator and is therefore meant to be promoting discussion.

Which brings me to another point - who's moderating djpbarry when he's involved in discussions?

All I can do is thank you for taking the time to look at this situation and to say that I'd go one step further than you and say that 'I don't agree at all with the practice that a moderator issue a warning (or ban) to someone when both parties are active participants in the discussion.' And 'it is something that all moderators should avoid'.

Regarding avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest, if I was told that djpbarry worked for the wind or renewables industry, I'd believe it.

Boards.ie has a great reputation, surely one way to maintain this accolade would be to ensure that the roles of moderator and poster are not intermingled, someone is either moderating or posting, they can't do both simultaneously on the same thread or even the same forum.

I hope that this situation helps forward some change on the Sustainability and Environmental Issues forum at least - from all accounts it is a shadow of it's former self.

Thank you again
CP

bonkey

Chloe Pink wrote: »

Which brings me to another point - who's moderating djpbarry when he's involved in discussions?

His fellow moderator(s) should be.

You can report a moderator's posts just like anyone elses. This creates a
record of your havignb an issue, and brings it to the attention of the other mods.

if I was told that djpbarry worked for the wind or renewables industry, I'd believe it.

This isn't the place to be taking pot-shots at other posters / moderators. Please don't do it again.