AH Selective Banning

thebigbiffo

dr. bollocko banned a user named victor m from a forum entitled 'Pamela Izevbekhai is still in Ireland! Why?' for the following reasons 'various generalisations / goading / trolling / taking it personal [and]
Sweeping generalisations'.

I thought this was a blatantly biased decision. I could find no posts by victor m which could be considered any of the above when viewed in comparison to other posters, particularly Nodin. If I have missed them I'd glady accept this was the case.

The argument on thread at the moment seems to be focused on whether a disproportionate amount of Nigerian asylum seekers coming to Ireland are here to scam the system. This is a topic that will include a huge amount of personal opinion but also fact - like most other hot subjects.

I believe victor m was not out of line in his approach to the topic - certainly not when compared to those on the other side of the argument - and it would be much appreciated if the mod outlined exactly what made him conclude a ban was deserved here...because as it stands I'm worried that this is pretty much an attempt by a mod to censor a particular side of a debate.

My views on this were snipped from the thread so I'm posting here for that clarification.

Thanks.

dr.bollocko

As this relates to a specific incident I have already communicated my decision to victor_m and carried out the first few steps of the dispute resolution procedure with him. I believe from feedback with him that this specific incident will be dealt with in there.

thebigbiffo

Maybe I didn't make myself clear - this is (rather was) a feedback issue relating to what I consider a blatant attempt to censor a particular side of the an argument in AH. I am not a virtual solicitor acting on victor m's behalf - I am concerned that the forum is being ruined by bad moderating. Your dispute resolution process with victor m is none of my business, I simply wanted clarification as to why he was banned, am i not entitled to this?

I've just recieved a 7 day ban from AH for what I consider dreadful reasoning. I posted originally to voice my concern at what the banning of victor and others meant for the thread. It was to get clarification on what this meant for the rest of us and voice concern over the ease with which a ban was handed out and asked if hypocrisy was at play. You snipped it and gave me a warning about derailing the thread and told me to take it to feedback. I did this, as per the OP, and simply posted saying I had opened the thread and for the various interested parties to go there if you were interested. This post seems to have got me banned for 'ignoring warnings and derailing the thread'. So my questions are this:

How exactly is posting with an opinion on the course of the thread and the mods involvement in it derailing the thread? It was supposed to help it.

second, you requested I start this feedback thread within that thread and my simple reply to confirm to you and others I have done so is seen as further de-railment. How can confirming on thread what you have specifically requested me to do result in a ban?...this seems to me like you are using an overly strict interpretation of rule for your own ends - there was no troublemaking involved in either post or trolling, they were written with the best intentions in the most polite langauage possible. I find it madness that I've been banned and clarification of your position on this would be welcome.

Spear

As there isn't a ban/infraction being disputed, this isn't for the DRP and I've moved it to the more general helpdesk.

thebigbiffo

Spear wrote: »

As there isn't a ban/infraction being disputed, this isn't for the DRP and I've moved it to the more general helpdesk.

Well in actual fact, as per paragraph 2 of my pervious post, I am in fact disputing my own 7 day banning from AH and would love clarification on why victor m was banned.

All my concerns seem very relevant but so far I've only picked up a ban for trying to raise them.

Spear

thebigbiffo wrote: »

Well in actual fact, as per paragraph 2 of my pervious post, I am in fact disputing my own 7 day banning from AH and would love clarification on why victor m was banned.

All my concerns seem very relevant but so far I've only picked up a ban for trying to raise them.

From my reading of your second post, particularly the first line, there isn't an attempt to contest the ban. You explicitly say it's an issue of percieved censorship of one viewpoint, you request and explanation of the banning of another user, and raise no points regarding your own, bar some general criticism of it.

If you want to contest your own ban, I'd suggest you start a separate DRP thread on that matter alone. The contents of this thread are too general and cover too many issues that are not part of the DRP process.

dr.bollocko

Your first post in the thread querying the bans was a breach of the charter for a number of reasons. Back seat moderating and querying a moderator's decision on thread. These would be in the AH charter. Similarly it was making accusations against another user which is also against the AH charter.
Also I did not tell you to or request that you start a feedback thread at all.
This makes me wonder if you even in fact read my post highlighting my reasoning:

dr.bollocko wrote: »

bigbiffo, I believe discussion of moderating is best suited to private message format / dispute resolution procedure in the event of specific circumstances. In the general case feedback and not on thread. This is also in the after hours charter.
Reporting posts of posters which you feel cross the line is also preferable to pointing it out on thread and labelling accusations at other posters which is also actionable.
Please use these lines of inquiry in future.
Fair warning.

I was informing you of the normal standards / practices for questioning a moderator's decision.
So I didn't specifically request you to do anything at all.

Also as you are aware I am not the moderator who in fact banned you from after hours so your DRP process would begin via private message to that moderator.

Furthermore as the DRP forum is visible to all I would suggest that victor_m's particular case will also be visible to all and your claims of hypocrisy will be checked into as part of that.

thebigbiffo

Spear wrote: »

From my reading of your second post, particularly the first line, there isn't an attempt to contest the ban. You explicitly say it's an issue of percieved censorship of one viewpoint, you request and explanation of the banning of another user, and raise no points regarding your own, bar some general criticism of it.

If you want to contest your own ban, I'd suggest you start a separate DRP thread on that matter alone. The contents of this thread are too general and cover too many issues that are not part of the DRP process.

I received notification of the ban after I had finished writing the first paragraph so that’s understandable.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Your first post in the thread querying the bans was a breach of the charter for a number of reasons. Back seat moderating and querying a moderator's decision on thread. These would be in the AH charter. Similarly it was making accusations against another user which is also against the AH charter.
Also I did not tell you to or request that you start a feedback thread at all.
This makes me wonder if you even in fact read my post highlighting my reasoning:


I was informing you of the normal standards / practices for questioning a moderator's decision.
So I didn't specifically request you to do anything at all.

Also as you are aware I am not the moderator who in fact banned you from after hours so your DRP process would begin via private message to that moderator.

Furthermore as the DRP forum is visible to all I would suggest that victor_m's particular case will also be visible to all and your claims of hypocrisy will be checked into as part of that.

I thought it was more than reasonable to request clarification as to why a user was banned – I could not see any evidence of the reasons given for the ban and my post was genuinely only written to clarify that. Either way, your warning was in fact fair enough if the tone of my post was critical/questioning and against the charter. It’s the second post (that earned me a ban from micky) I have a problem with. You said in your post, to quote ‘I believe discussion of moderating is best suited to private message format / dispute resolution procedure in the event of specific circumstances. In the general case feedback and not on thread’ – did you not mean by this to take issue to feedback…it seems you certainly suggested it? So I opened this thread in feedback and simply posted to state I had done so. I don’t see this as ‘de-railment’, which earned me the ban or even off topic posting.

Either way I'll take it to DRP.

walshb

I received a permanent ban from the same AH thread. I PMd dr. bollocko and was told that it had been discussed and that it was the view of "others" that the AH forum would be better without me. I got no warnings before the ban, nor was the ban noted in the thread.

dr. bollocko, surely you could have issued a warning, or outlined why you thought my posts in the Pamela thread were suspect, or inflammatory, or trolling etc.

Why have threads if we are censoring them? As pointed out, it is an emotive topic. I don't recall being racist or derogatory in that thread at all.
Now, trolling is very very subjective. Because of this then surely a caution or a statement from the mod to let a poster
know that in their view the poster is trolling?

I was banned before from AH, but surely before a permanent ban, a warning, caution? I got nothing, just a PM saying I was banned, and nothing even posted in the thread saying I was banned.

dr. bollocko, you happened to be the mod, and we have spoken, civilly I may add, but can you not see why posters will get a wee bit unsettled over this?

thebigbiffo

I think it's very telling that mods have gone quiet on this. Some quotes from me, walsh b or victor m that prove the accusations made against us would be very much welcome - I suspect this will never happen however because they are simply not there. If the quotes are not provided I will simply take this as proof of the following: this is an attempt at censorship of a particular side of an argument - that's very clear now and I believe it lowers the good standard boards.ie.

walshb

agree completely. boards.ie has been let down in this case. Bans happen, we all know that, but in this case, it's happening due to trigger happy 'banners'!

Micky Dolenz

thebigbiffo wrote: »

I think it's very telling that mods have gone quiet on this. Some quotes from me, walsh b or victor m that prove the accusations made against us would be very much welcome - I suspect this will never happen however because they are simply not there. If the quotes are not provided I will simply take this as proof of the following: this is an attempt at censorship of a particular side of an argument - that's very clear now and I believe it lowers the good standard boards.ie.

It's the weekend, they give us time off.

We are neither lefties or righties. We are however sick to the back teeth of people generalising nationalities and even races. This often happens when a person is the focal point of a story, not only will the person be attacked but their race and nationality will also be attacked with sweeping bullshit statements. It seems to be the same posters time and again taking these threads as a chance to have a dig.

We are working on bringing a stop to it.

thebigbiffo

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

It's the weekend, they give us time off.

We are neither lefties or righties. We are however sick to the back teeth of people generalising nationalities and even races. This often happens when a person is the focal point of a story, not only will the person be attacked but their race and nationality will also be attacked with sweeping bullshit statements. It seems to be the same posters time and again taking these threads as a chance to have a dig.

We are working on bringing a stop to it.

I can see your point - but I have to say unfortunately you and others are going the wrong way about it. Mass bannings of users with no or little warning from one side of a debate is fascism plain and simple.

Your views are simply biased anyway - I am loath to start the debate here but I feel I must say this to counter your argument that 'mass generalisations' are a problem...less than 5% of asylum applicants are accepted - this means, in the eyes of the state - 95% are not genuine asylum seekers (this was brought up on thread). I'm sorry to have to break this to you guys but it is perfectly legitimate claim then to 'generalise' and say the vast majority are scammers. Furthermore, it would be perfectly safe then to 'generalise' Nigerian asylum seekers in particular as scammers because that nationality made up the bulk applicants (of which 95% were rejected remember). These are FACTS - not 'sweeping generalisations' - and yet you and the other mods have a problem with them, enough of a problem in fact to ban multiple users. It's fascism.

Also for the record; I at no stage remember anybody commenting on race. Nationality maybe, but certainaly not race.

So I'll ask you again: please quote these 'sweeping bulls'hit statements' and 'generalising nationalities or even races'...I dont see them. I see statements backed up by fact (as above) or by anecdote and I see moderators taking the lazy option when it comes to trying to ensure a thread stays on what you believe is the 'safe' path.

dr.bollocko

walshb wrote: »

I received a permanent ban from the same AH thread. I PMd dr. bollocko and was told that it had been discussed and that it was the view of "others" that the AH forum would be better without me. I got no warnings before the ban, nor was the ban noted in the thread.

You received a permanent ban for a pattern of inflammatory posting. As this was your 8th ban from after hours it is clear this pattern continues unabated.
How many chances?

dr. bollocko, surely you could have issued a warning, or outlined why you thought my posts in the Pamela thread were suspect, or inflammatory, or trolling etc.

Why have threads if we are censoring them? As pointed out, it is an emotive topic. I don't recall being racist or derogatory in that thread at all.
Now, trolling is very very subjective. Because of this then surely a caution or a statement from the mod to let a poster
know that in their view the poster is trolling?

I was banned before from AH, but surely before a permanent ban, a warning, caution? I got nothing, just a PM saying I was banned, and nothing even posted in the thread saying I was banned.

dr. bollocko, you happened to be the mod, and we have spoken, civilly I may add, but can you not see why posters will get a wee bit unsettled over this?

By definition posters will tend towards getting unsettled by receiving a permanent ban from a forum. The previous warnings which never appeared that you speak of would have been the huge amount of bans you would have gotten in the forum already.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/modutils.php?username=walshb&action=history

thebigbiffo wrote: »

I think it's very telling that mods have gone quiet on this. Some quotes from me, walsh b or victor m that prove the accusations made against us would be very much welcome - I suspect this will never happen however because they are simply not there. If the quotes are not provided I will simply take this as proof of the following: this is an attempt at censorship of a particular side of an argument - that's very clear now and I believe it lowers the good standard boards.ie.

You have a DRP thread. It has been looked over by a c-mod and admin input will be coming soon I'm sure.
To my mind you ignored a clear moderator request and were banned for it.
So your suspicions that explanations will never happen appears unfounded as it appears that they already have, via PM and through the proper dispute resolution channels which you attempted to circumvent by posting a thread in feedback.

walshb wrote: »

agree completely. boards.ie has been let down in this case. Bans happen, we all know that, but in this case, it's happening due to trigger happy 'banners'!

How many of your many many bans and infractions happened because of trigger happy banners? All of them? 1 of them?

walshb

dr.bollocko wrote: »

You received a permanent ban for a pattern of inflammatory posting. As this was your 8th ban from after hours it is clear this pattern continues unabated.
How many chances

So, where are these inflammator posts in that particular thread. This is the point, surely before a perma ban, at least post i the thread a warning, or a post from me that is the reason for a possible ban. You didn't do this. You just banned me, and sent me a PM. That is not fair on any poster. They desereve at least a warning or caution, or an example of a post that is overstepping the mark.

walshb

dr.bollocko wrote: »

How many of your many many bans and infractions happened because of trigger happy banners? All of them? 1 of them?

No, some of my bans were justified, but always I got a warning and caution, and the ban was posted in the thread. That is way this ban is IMO off the mark, and unfair.

Micky Dolenz

thebigbiffo wrote: »

So I'll ask you again: please quote these 'sweeping bulls'hit statements' and 'generalising nationalities or even races'...I dont see them. I see statements backed up by fact (as above) or by anecdote and I see moderators taking the lazy option when it comes to trying to ensure a thread stays on what you believe is the 'safe' path.

Firstly, likening us to fascists does not invite reasonable debate.

Secondly, the thread in particular was the straw that broke the camels back. The AH mod team found it necessary to draw a line in the sand so to speak. I am not in a position to give examples right now but will later today. I will show you past threads and give you an idea of the mood and tone that is not welcome in AH. Hence our stance here.

As always, we appreciate the feedback.

thebigbiffo

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Firstly, likening us to fascists does not invite reasonable debate.

Secondly, the thread in particular was the straw that broke the camels back. The AH mod team found it necessary to draw a line in the sand so to speak. I am not in a position to give examples right now but will later today. I will show you past threads and give you an idea of the mood and tone that is not welcome in AH. Hence our stance here.

As always, we appreciate the feedback.

I dont mean 'fascist' as an insult - it is a genuine attempt at putting a name to mass bannings by moderators in an attempt at dampening a particular side of an argument on thread. As far as I'm concerned it's unacceptable to ban users because someone made a call that the 'tone' is not to moderators liking. Again, I agree that some threads are distasteful or attract inflamatory language and may not be desirable - but I feel as moderators you need to try figure out a way to keep things on the right track without resorting to what amounts to assasinating users due to their opinions. Again, this behaviour is fascist - despite how unpalletteable that sounds.

In short, it's fairly clear that what has happened here is one side of an argument has been excluded from a debate through mass bannings because the conclusion the thread was coming to was not to the liking of the majority of AH mods (or maybe even boards.ie itself - or even to the wider public...but the truth is the truth).

This is political - like it or not. And as over used as the term is, it's about enforcing your style of political correctness. A thread which concludes "The vast majority of asylum seekers are nothing more than illegal emigrants and by weight of numbers the vast majority of Nigerian asylum seekers therefore must be bogus asylum seekers" is not accectable - even though the above statement is FACT.

It would be great to see not just those posts you refer to, particularly the ones for bannable offences and not just what one may find distasteful - because 'distasteful' is subjective and a lot of the time just comes down to personal opinion.

thebigbiffo

dr.bollocko wrote: »

You have a DRP thread. It has been looked over by a c-mod and admin input will be coming soon I'm sure.
To my mind you ignored a clear moderator request and were banned for it.
So your suspicions that explanations will never happen appears unfounded as it appears that they already have, via PM and through the proper dispute resolution channels which you attempted to circumvent by posting a thread in feedback.

Just to touch on this: obviously I feel a reasonable explanation hasn’t been given or I wouldn’t still be arguing about it in this or the DRP thread. To clarify: this is about what gets users mass banned from a thread/forum – not about my banning in particular. You banned a number of posters for what seem like very vague reasoning and warned me so your input as to what’s happening in general with contentious AH threads would be welcome and not just a narrow reply to my particular situation. Everything is outlined above – it seems to me and others that this is a simple case of censorship by getting rid of the everyone on a particular side of an argument…is this now an acceptable response by AH mods to threads they find don’t conform to their opinions or sensibilities?

trout

As part of the various DRP conversations, I went back through the thread in question in some detail.

Since the start of the year, I understand a small number of posters have been banned as a result of their actions in the thread in question, I may have missed some ... but I count 5 posters in total, I'll double check the figures with the AH mods / modutils ... but right now I'm aware of 5 bans.

As the thread dates back to 2009, there may be other bans I'm not currently aware of. For the minute I'll go with the figure of 5 bans since the start of 2011.

Of the 5 bans that I am currently aware of, one of them (your own) is almost incidental to the politics involved or the thread topic, and directly related to your own behaviour on that thread in terms of back-seat modding, ignoring mod instructions and derailing the thread ... these are bannable actions on any forum ... there is no link to one side or other of the argument. The presence of this here thread is at odds with claims of censorship, simple or otherwise.

I'm not so familiar (yet) with the other 4 bans (in 2011) that I can claim there is or isn't a political aspect to them, or that censorship is or isn't taking place ... but I doubt there is. No doubt the truth will out.

I'm posting this response to your general statement on mass bannings and censorship. To touch briefly on your own particular DRP - you've appealed to the Admins, so it would be wrong of me to comment any further on it.

Micky Dolenz

thebigbiffo wrote: »

I dont mean 'fascist' as an insult - it is a genuine attempt at putting a name to mass bannings by moderators in an attempt at dampening a particular side of an argument on thread. As far as I'm concerned it's unacceptable to ban users because someone made a call that the 'tone' is not to moderators liking. Again, I agree that some threads are distasteful or attract inflamatory language and may not be desirable - but I feel as moderators you need to try figure out a way to keep things on the right track without resorting to what amounts to assasinating users due to their opinions. Again, this behaviour is fascist - despite how unpalletteable that sounds.

In short, it's fairly clear that what has happened here is one side of an argument has been excluded from a debate through mass bannings because the conclusion the thread was coming to was not to the liking of the majority of AH mods (or maybe even boards.ie itself - or even to the wider public...but the truth is the truth).

This is political - like it or not. And as over used as the term is, it's about enforcing your style of political correctness. A thread which concludes "The vast majority of asylum seekers are nothing more than illegal emigrants and by weight of numbers the vast majority of Nigerian asylum seekers therefore must be bogus asylum seekers" is not accectable - even though the above statement is FACT.

It would be great to see not just those posts you refer to, particularly the ones for bannable offences and not just what one may find distasteful - because 'distasteful' is subjective and a lot of the time just comes down to personal opinion.

There is no problem with voicing an opinion as long as it is done in a valid non flaming way. All posters that were banned had been low level trolling. Calling a poster a troll, looking to get a rise. Along with this there were gross generalisations which in itself is flaming/baiting
.With that in mind, If you read over the last few pages of that particular thread you will see it for yourself.

Indeed the subject matter is irrelevant to us, it's how opinions are voiced is what is relevant.


Low level trolling is something that concerns a lot of AH users and it is something we are taking seriously.

thebigbiffo

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

There is no problem with voicing an opinion as long as it is done in a valid non flaming way. All posters that were banned had been low level trolling. Calling a poster a troll, looking to get a rise. Along with this there were gross generalisations which in itself is flaming/baiting
.With that in mind, If you read over the last few pages of that particular thread you will see it for yourself.

Indeed the subject matter is irrelevant to us, it's how opinions are voiced is what is relevant.


Low level trolling is something that concerns a lot of AH users and it is something we are taking seriously.

I’m sorry Mickey but we’re back to the start again on this. There is another poster on that thread who consistently meets the criteria for ‘low level trolling’, ‘flaming/baiting’ and ‘gross generalisations’. As said before – I wouldn’t support banning that user because they represent valid arguments in most cases but I could and would show you very fine examples of everything you claim to have banned posters for yet you have left this poster alone. I am arguing here that mods jumped to punish one side of the debate and ignored the possibility of similar transgressions from the other side – seemingly because that side represents the majority and ‘safe’ view but that’s just a guess – it could be a monumental coincidence…

trout wrote: »

As part of the various DRP conversations, I went back through the thread in question in some detail.

Since the start of the year, I understand a small number of posters have been banned as a result of their actions in the thread in question, I may have missed some ... but I count 5 posters in total, I'll double check the figures with the AH mods / modutils ... but right now I'm aware of 5 bans.

As the thread dates back to 2009, there may be other bans I'm not currently aware of. For the minute I'll go with the figure of 5 bans since the start of 2011.

Of the 5 bans that I am currently aware of, one of them (your own) is almost incidental to the politics involved or the thread topic, and directly related to your own behaviour on that thread in terms of back-seat modding, ignoring mod instructions and derailing the thread ... these are bannable actions on any forum ... there is no link to one side or other of the argument. The presence of this here thread is at odds with claims of censorship, simple or otherwise.

I'm not so familiar (yet) with the other 4 bans (in 2011) that I can claim there is or isn't a political aspect to them, or that censorship is or isn't taking place ... but I doubt there is. No doubt the truth will out.

I'm posting this response to your general statement on mass bannings and censorship. To touch briefly on your own particular DRP - you've appealed to the Admins, so it would be wrong of me to comment any further on it.

Firstly – I didn’t go back through the entire thread, I am only referring to dr. bollocko’s mass banning of 3 posters referenced to in post 709 (I think) and, as I found out later, the banning of walshb which was not announced on thread. That’s 4…in about 1 day…5 if you include myself…and all of us from one side of the debate.

I’m sorry to have to say this again but it’s not being listened to: the post I was banned for was neither “back-seat modding, ignoring mod instructions [or] derailing the thread” – it was a simply written, clear and polite post which only stated I had done as dr.bollocko suggested and opened a thread in feedback to discuss the on thread incidents being disputed. I’m still waiting for an admin definition of these transgressions but I do not believe the post I was banned for falls under any of them. Because I do not believe the post I was banned for was a bannable offence I am still thinking it was a handy way of getting rid of another poster that was arguing the ‘distasteful’ side of the debate.




MOD EDIT BY SHIELD: Resolved by Admin bonkey here

THREAD CLOSED