AH 7 Day Ban Disputed

thebigbiffo

Ok so Micky Dolenz banned me from AH for the following:

I wrote a post asking for clarification on why another poster was banned – I thought it was a very harsh decision and didn’t sit well within the overall tone of the thread. It was snipped by dr. bollocko and a warning was posted…here it is:

“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” (my own underlining).

Now I took the underlined part as a suggestion to open up discussion of the disputed incident in feedback, which I did. I then went back to the forum and posted this:

“I've started a thread in feedback regarding the mass bannings and would appreciate any clarifications that can be provided by all involved”.

I thought it appropriate, fair and good manners to post this so those involved knew it was there.

I was then banned by Micky Dolenz for 7 days for this reason:

"You ignored a clear warning. You derailed a thread. PM is there for a reason, use it” and “you were banned for ignoring a mod instruction and derailment”.

I don’t think I de-railed the thread with that one line. The issue was specifically about what is and is not acceptable for that thread and was of significance to how it continues. Considering that I was following the advice given by dr. bollocko (or at least thought I was) is it not unfair to ban me for a one line post which was just letting him and others know I was following said advice? As far as I’m concerned I was following mod instructions not ignoring them. The one line post did not discuss mods, it didn’t discuss banning’s and in fact didn’t break any warning given by dr. bollocko from what I can see – it simply stated that I had done as suggested and opened a thread in feedback. Am I not correct in this?

trout

I'm looking at a few DRP threads at the minute, so forgive me as I'll keep this brief.

You were banned for back seat modding, ignoring mod instructions & derailing. Having looked at the posts in question - I'm inclined to agree. Open & Shut.

I'm willing to believe you only had noble intentions when defending one banned poster, while calling for the banning of another poster, in the middle of a contentious thread ... your posts ignored clear instructions, breached the charter and stirred an already volatile pot.

I support the ban.

Given that this is now your fourth ban from AH in a little under 12 months, I'm quite surprised the ban isn't for a longer term.

thebigbiffo

trout wrote: »

I'm looking at a few DRP threads at the minute, so forgive me as I'll keep this brief.

You were banned for back seat modding, ignoring mod instructions & derailing. Having looked at the posts in question - I'm inclined to agree. Open & Shut.

I'm willing to believe you only had noble intentions when defending one banned poster, while calling for the banning of another poster, in the middle of a contentious thread ... your posts ignored clear instructions, breached the charter and stirred an already volatile pot.

I support the ban.

Given that this is now your fourth ban from AH in a little under 12 months, I'm quite surprised the ban isn't for a longer term.

It's the bolded part of your quote that has made me understand it may be impossible to get a fair hearing. If you had read the snipped post properly you would see at NO STAGE did I call for another poster to be banned - in fact I very clearly stated I wouldn't support banning another poster - what I said was that by the standards dr.bolocko banned victor m he should have banned the other poster...this is not calling for him to be banned and, as I say, I was very clear in that.

Also, you seem to have ignored the fact that I was banned for this post:

"I've started a thread in feedback regarding the mass bannings and would appreciate any clarifications that can be provided by all involved".

How this can be called backseat modding, ignoring mod instructions and derailing is beyond me and I would guess beyond any reasonable thinker. I've outlined why in my OP but you seem to have missed it...I was TOLD to start a feedback thread if I had a problem - this post only confirmed that that was done, how can you seriously say this was to 'stir an already volatile pot'? The whole reason was to get clarification on what was acceptable -I never in that thread desended into unreasonable behaviour and all my posts were level headed (as the above one was that earned me a ban).

In short - I accepted that my snipped post was a 'warnable' post - even if my intentions were good - but the post I was banned for?? Dreadful, biased and calculated decision to censor a side of the debate that the mod didn't agree with imo.

Lastly - this is the only message board I was ever a user of and it's taken me time to figure out the boundries, especially AH boundaries, movable as they seem to be. So bans picked up were due to inexperience and not malice. This is the only one I've fully contested because I am 100% sure I am not in the wrong.

I think your decision is a bad one, I think the original banning was a bad decision and I think the DRP is a sham - i think I can prove this last point: please quote me where I 'called for the banning of another poster'...and you can leave in the bracketed part of the quote so as to keep it in context.

trout

The deleted post in full ...

thebigbiffo wrote: »

i diagree particularly with the banning of victor m. By the standards you listed above Nodin should have been banned a long time ago from various different threads including this one (not that i would support a ban - I'm just using him as a comparison) - he's a consumate troll IMO and completely unopen to serious debate.

Nodin refuses to see sense or to accept anyones opinion and basically acts the troll - a good example would be his refusal to accept the simple point that the vast majority of asylum seekers are scammers...this is proven through his own much quoted number that only 1% (i think, not going back to check for sure) are accepted. This in essense means the authorities themselves believe the applicants are not in need of asylum yet Nodin continues thinly veiled accusations of racism and bigotry and gets away with it wholesale. Evidence has been provided on a number of occasions which counter his arguments but he ignores them to continue down a narrow path in support of wholesale acceptance of all asylum seekers who arrive here.

Banning users for 'generalisations, goading, trolling and taking it personal' is a bit rich considering Nodin gets away with all on a very very regular basis.

This action reeks of right leaning opinions being discouraged on boards. Open community discussion fail.

The reason given for the ban is "Ignoring clear concise on thread warning/derailing thread."

Seems very clear to me.

If you still disagree at this point, you can appeal to the Admins, but I'm not seeing any reason to overturn the ban.

thebigbiffo

yes, thank you that's the deleted post: the one that I recieved a warning for - and as you can see it doesn't call for the banning of another poster but is using said poster as an example as to why others shouldn't be banned. Anyway, that's incidental, I accept that it probably breached the charter and deserved the warning - it's the following post which I picked up the ban for and it's this I dispute:

"I've started a thread in feedback regarding the mass bannings and would appreciate any clarifications that can be provided by all involved".

I dispute that that post 'ignored clear concise on thread warning [or] derailing thread' and I would like this definition reviewed by an admin seeing as you can't explain clearly to me how exactly it did either. As stated a few times above - the post I was banned for simply confirmed I had started a thread in feedback as per dr.bollocko's suggestion...I feel this post was not ignoring the warning nor was it dragging the thread in a different direction/derailing.

If an admin could please define what 'ignoring clear concise on thread warning/derailing thread' is and how my post did that I would appreciate it. I'm obviously just repeating myself but I haven't been given a satisfactory answer as to how my post breached the warning.

trout

FAO Admins - the sequence of events can be found in this thread, read from post #719 onwards.

Post #719 is a warning to all posters - making reference to a number of bans for trolling

Post #720 is thebigbiffo post -now deleted but copied above

Post #721 is the "clear concise warning" referred to

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.

Post #722 is the post which was actioned by the AH mod

The feedback thread referred to can currently be found in HelpDesk. I think at one stage this thread was also in DRP - I'm sure the thread log will show the history.

thebigbiffo

Is an Admin reviewing this?

thebigbiffo

It's now day 5 of the 7 day ban...I dont want to be an annoyance but this process seems a bit slow when looked at like that

bonkey

Apologies for the delay.

thebigbiffo wrote: »

it's the following post which I picked up the ban for and it's this I dispute:

"I've started a thread in feedback regarding the mass bannings and would appreciate any clarifications that can be provided by all involved".

I dispute that that post 'ignored clear concise on thread warning [or] derailing thread'

Let me ask you the following...

Do you believe the post was relevant to the subject of the thread, or was it a follow-on to the content which you were warned about?

the post I was banned for simply confirmed I had started a thread in feedback as per dr.bollocko's suggestion...

Why did it need confirmation? Advertising "I've started a Feedback thread about this issue" is no more on-topic then discussing the issue itself was...and coming immediately on the back of a warning that this wasn't the thread to be airing grievances...

If an admin could please define what 'ignoring clear concise on thread warning/derailing thread' is and how my post did that I would appreciate it. I'm obviously just repeating myself but I haven't been given a satisfactory answer as to how my post breached the warning.

The intent of the relevant part of the AH charter is, for me, pretty clear. The problem is threads being dragged off-topic with discussions regarding issues with moderation.

You posted with content which merited a warning on this basis. Once warned, you responded. That response was continuing the "off topic direction" you were warned about.

It may have been intended as the last word on the subject, but I'm not sure how that should change anything. When a mod says "stop posting on this issue here", they're not saying "you may have one more post on the issue, and then must stop".

thebigbiffo

bonkey wrote: »

Apologies for the delay.


Let me ask you the following...

Do you believe the post was relevant to the subject of the thread, or was it a follow-on to the content which you were warned about?


Why did it need confirmation? Advertising "I've started a Feedback thread about this issue" is no more on-topic then discussing the issue itself was...and coming immediately on the back of a warning that this wasn't the thread to be airing grievances...



The intent of the relevant part of the AH charter is, for me, pretty clear. The problem is threads being dragged off-topic with discussions regarding issues with moderation.

You posted with content which merited a warning on this basis. Once warned, you responded. That response was continuing the "off topic direction" you were warned about.

It may have been intended as the last word on the subject, but I'm not sure how that should change anything. When a mod says "stop posting on this issue here", they're not saying "you may have one more post on the issue, and then must stop".

Firstly, apologies for my delay in getting back – obviously this is closer now a matter of principle as ban will be lifted tomorrow. I’ll take each of your questions/statements in turn:

In answer to your first question – I thought the post I was banned for was relevant to the thread as I assumed a few people, including the mods, would appreciate the chance to clarify what exactly leads to a ban on thread and what is unsuitable language. As far as I could see there is no warning on thread (like what happens elsewhere) to state ‘x (generalisations, anecdotal evidence etc) is not tolerated’ so I believe for the sake of the thread it was best to have a discussion – like dr.bollocko suggested – on feedback.

Your second: I assumed a simple, polite post letting all interested parties (maybe even the ones who never posted on thread) know that the thread content was being discussed in feedback was a good idea – simple as. I still dispute that the post ‘aired grievances’ – it simply didn’t.

I did not intend to drag the thread off topic with the post I was banned for – again, it was a simple post on issues related to the thread and nothing more.

As far as I’m concerned – again – this does not come down to ‘you may have one more post on the issue’…the issue was now elsewhere (feedback) and was not part of the content of the post.

What we are arguing here really is the right of a user to post a statement on thread advising readers that a thread in feedback on recent issues related to that thread has been set up (as per mod suggestion). Is this allowable or not? Does this deserve a ban or not?

bonkey

thebigbiffo wrote: »

In answer to your first question – I thought the post I was banned for was relevant to the thread as I assumed a few people, including the mods, would appreciate the chance to clarify what exactly leads to a ban on thread and what is unsuitable language.

This seems to be the heart of the issue....and where you clearly disagree with the mods.

If I look at the topic of the thread, your post is not on-topic. It has nothing to do with the topic. It has to do with the issue of moderation in the forum (in general) or the issue of moderation in that particular topic...but is not about the topic itself.

Informing people of its existence, so that they can chip in on the discussion is - again - not the subject of the thread. It may be intended as an action to benefit the involved parties...but its still not the subject being discussed.

Relevance is judged by relevance to the the thread's topic...not relevance or interest to the people discussing the thread.

You took the thread in an off-topic direction by discussing moderation. You were told that this direction of discussion was not appropriate to the thread. You posted again regarding the same off-topic direction.

Your second: I assumed a simple, polite post letting all interested parties (maybe even the ones who never posted on thread) know that the thread content was being discussed in feedback was a good idea – simple as. I still dispute that the post ‘aired grievances’ – it simply didn’t.

The first post was directly airing greivance. The second post was informing people that you're airing your grievances elsewhere. If we need to get completely pedantic, its re-iterating that you have grievances, rather then airing the grievances themselves.

I did not intend to drag the thread off topic with the post I was banned for – again, it was a simple post on issues related to the thread and nothing more.

The problem is that the post cannot be taken in isolation. The post you were warned about was clearly not intended to discuss the topic of the thread...so consciously or unconsciously you had already started dragging the thread off-topic. You were told to stop and immediately posted on the same off-topic issue again.

As far as I’m concerned – again – this does not come down to ‘you may have one more post on the issue’…the issue was now elsewhere (feedback) and was not part of the content of the post.

What issue then, was the post about, if not about your disagreement with the moderation in-forum?

I can't honestly believe that you see it as being completely unrelated to the post you were warned for, and the subsequent moderator warning.

What we are arguing here really is the right of a user to post a statement on thread advising readers that a thread in feedback on recent issues related to that thread has been set up (as per mod suggestion). Is this allowable or not? Does this deserve a ban or not?

I don't think its as black-and-white as that.

What we are arguing is whether or not its acceptable for a user to first ignore the charter and start complaining about moderation in-thread, and then after being told it wasn't appropriate to follow it up.

Had you only posted the "I've started a thread in Feedback", I'd be very concerned if a mod banned you for it. However, when someone airs a grievance and is told "take it to feedback" I would consider it reasonable to assume that anyone who's interested will go and check Feedback to see whether or not you did that.

If I put myself in your shoes for a moment...

I've posted about moderation in-thread and been told that I'm being naughty. I've started the Feedback thread and want to make absolutely sure that people know about it...

I'd PM the mods and say that I'd started the thread as per their suggestion, was informing them to ensure they knew of its existence in case they wished to contribute, and would appreciate it if they could amend their warning to me to include an addendum with a link to the thread in question.