Banned for posting topic relevant graphic videos with a warning

Brown Bomber

OK, I'm aware I probably need the intervention of St. Jude to get a ban overturned in here, but I understand tbh, you have to overrule one of your fellow volunteers but hopefully common sense can prevail. So here goes.

This is the post which resulted in the one month ban:

You've totally ignored the point that I've made while was responding to you. How do you expect to find any reasonable discussion here or any middle ground when you can't get past your own pretensions?

I have nothing against the US/West. Why would I? Think! I live freely and happily live here. Do I object to innocent people being bombed in their homes as they sleep? Naturally. Do I object to The West supporting these valiant freedom fighters?

Mod Note: Not even close to being acceptable

To conflate this natural objection with anti-US emotion is utter naivety. I've known that the Western sponsored "rebels" were linked to terrorists since the outbreak.

You know how...? Because I looked into it.

You know why...? Because it's straight out of the CIA/Mossad playbook.

How did I obtain this information...? The alternative media which you turn your nose up at.

Do you need to rationalise opinions of others when they differ from yours? It's been incessant - "Well Russia Today would say that because they hate the West"..."You would say that because your anti-US"..."Well what can I expect? This is CT after all" etc etc. Your not taking onboard anything that is contrary to your own Captain America morally shakey viewpoint; in fact you are outright dismissive and it is to your own detriment if you don't listen.

The part I got banned unfortunately can't be seen now were maybe five videos showing Libyan rebels committing atrocities and war crimes against Libyan people. Crucial to point out is that the videos came with a very clear warning - which was bolded, text turned to red and the text size increased. Additionally each seperate link was given an individual and to the point description. There could be no doubt about what was contained within. I should point out that the forum was CT and the topic was CT's around the current Libya situation.

This is from the boards.ie guidelines

Don’t post stuff that is not safe for work [NSFW]

Most people here read Boards in work. Naughty, but we all do it. Please bear that in mind when you are posting images and videos etc. If you aren't sure then put [NSFW] in the title of the thread to make sure people understand that it might not be safe for work place viewing.

I'm sure a very large noticeable warning can be considered publishing "NSFW". I didn't know what "NSFW" meant until now tbh.

Evidently I followed the guidelines.

---

This is relevant passage from the CT charter:

Don't post graphic images. Instead link to them with a warning of their graphic content.

Again I've followed the rules.

---

In the one and only PM response that Barrington was willing to give me after I had pointed out that I had strictly followed the rules this was the response (in part)

Firstly, those aren't images. They're videos. World of difference.

Obviously this the height of pedantry and to be frank utter nonsense IMO. As if graphic still images are somehow different to graphic moving images.

And if that was the case how could a video of JFK getting his brains literally blown out be okay?

I would appreciate it if this could be reviewed as I feel strongly that I have breached no rules and specifically tried to stay with the rules.

My own thoughts on the videos themselves can be best described by this PM I recieved:

I want to thank you for posting your terribly disturbing footage. It's something that I've seen before and have no problem watching again because I know that it's dreadfully real.

Brown Bomber

Here is a precedent.

This post: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72608696&postcount=324

links to a VIDEO along the same lines as the ones that I'd posted. A key difference being that no warning was initially given.

Mod Response
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72608774&postcount=325

Advice to give a warning. Original post was edited to include warning which was then done. All very amicable and mature.

My situation: posts links to videos with warning = 1 month ban, links deleted and refusal to discuss.

It's the definition of inconsistent.

Zaph

The only inconsistency I can see is that we have sitebanned two people for posting similarly disturbing videos lately and you haven't been banned. How you can think that it's acceptable to post videos with titles such as:

Libyan rebels behead Libyan Soldier
Libyan Rebels Sodimize Libyan Soldier with Weapons
Libyan Protestors and Rebels hang and behead soldier
Libyan Rebels Force Libyan Soldiers to Cannibalize
Libyan Rebels Torture Small Child by Sticking a Pole Through His Body

and then complain about being banned for it is beyond me. The difference between the video you linked to and the ones you posted has nothing to do with how graphic they are. I appreciate that the Syrian video will upset many people, but it doesn't depict wanton torture and cruelty unlike the ones listed above. Forget about them being NSFW, most normal people never want to see anything like that outside of work either.

Barrington was absolutely correct in banning you, and in addition I'm adding a 1 week siteban. Don't ever post anything like that again or you'll be banned for much longer.

Thread closed.