Soc: Infracted in the LGBT forum

Cavehill Red

I was infracted for this post by Mod Mango Salsa for allegedly 'soapboxing'.

It's just an electronic red mark, and normally I would let such things slide. But I found the moderation of the entire thread to be quite problematic, as I was subjected to personal abuse and harrassment which I reported and which was not addressed by the same moderator.

Hence it is in the interest of improving the moderation on that board that I am appealing this infraction.

Under point 9 of the code for the LGBT forum, soapboxing is defined as repeating a single point of view without discussing, debating or taking into consideration the view of others. I think it's fairly clear that both in that post and throughout I was continually considering and addressing the views of others. In that post, I addressed another poster who had stated that they didn't understand the point I had made, which is why I expanded on it (not baldly repeating it or ignoring the opinion of others, but actively responding to them.)

It seems like my opinion was not popular with this moderator, and they decided to infract me on any grounds they could concoct (another poster who sought to defend my right to my opinion was also infracted), while at the same time abuse levelled at me personally went by without being similarly punished.

That's the crux of my problem with this infraction, basically - inconsistent moderation.

Cavehill Red

Mango Salsa wrote:

The thread was problematic in that it attracted a number of people who are opposed to different forms of LGBT rights.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...p?t=2056436413


Marienbad - personal attacks
Cavehill red - soapboxing
Crystal lettuce - personal attacks
Newsite - attacking other posters and soapboxing

Were all given infractions.

Given that the forum charter is clear in saying that the forum should be a safe space I do have to take sides at times. The forum is not designed to be a debate where LGBT people should be constantly attacked for discussing issues to do with their rights. Users are expected to listen to LGBT posters

Quote:
13. This forum is welcome to everyone regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity to discuss LGBT issues. We do however insist that people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender have the right to be treated with dignity and respect and that the forum be treated as a safe space for LGBT people. If you contribute to a thread you are expected to be willing to learn about the issues involved, and listen to what is said by members of the community/ies involved.

In the case of cavehill reds post - he was going on and on and on about vaginal penetration despite the point being irrelevant.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...3&postcount=48
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...2&postcount=51
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...1&postcount=55
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...8&postcount=57
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...3&postcount=62

He also didn't seem to have read this post

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...5&postcount=43

In this case I would say he was soapboxing about vaginal penetration

Quote:
9. While posting of controversial questions to stimulate debate is acceptable, soap boxing, i.e. constant repetition of a single viewpoint while refusing to entertain discussion on it, is both disruptive and annoying, and will not be tolerated. You are expected to contribute something other than placard proclamations
I accept the point that Crystallettuce made a number of personalised attacks in the thread. I did infract him for a personal attack against foggy lad - I did think at the time that one infraction was sufficient. I have reconsidered this and given another infraction for his attacks against cavehill red

In response to the moderator's post:

1. It is clear that the moderator chose sides, and the explanation that the moderator was seeking to defend LGBT rights against those in breach of the charter by opposing such rights is not borne out, at least in my case, as at no point did I seek to deny any rights. In fact, the issue of rights did not arise in any of my discussions. Rather, I was attempting to contextualise and explain the reasons why articles such as the one cited in the OP come about, an entirely different discussion to the issue of rights.

2. It is the moderator's personal opinion as to whether my analogy was irrelevant. Given that the post that was infracted was a direct response to someone saying that they did not comprehend the analogy, I believe it was perfectly relevant to re-explain it to that poster.

3. The moderator is incorrect in suggesting that I hadn't read the whole thread or indeed the post mentioned. That post was not directed to me, did not address my point remotely (my point being that for many of Eamon Delaney's readers the idea of gay marriage is akin to a category error just as gay vaginal penetration is). Did the moderator believe that I ought to have gone off and found the book cited in that post and read it to see if it addressed my point before responding? I admit to not having read Boswell but am familiar with Alan Bray's work on pre-modern homosexuality in Europe. I know Bray does not (and suspect Boswell does not either) address the disconnect in the minds of Sunday Independent readers when they attempt to comprehend the concept that marriage can encompass gay relationships in 21st century Ireland.

4. Since reporting this infraction for an overview, I have watched with dismay as the thread was permitted to degenerate into an aggressive derailing about the concept of privilege (with no infractions offered for the offence of derailing the topic), was at one point closed and then re-opened by the moderator, who not only took sides but had to be told to calm down by another poster at one point. This is dismaying in the extreme and is not the standard of moderation one expects on boards.ie at all.

Zaph

CrystalLettuce, I have deleted your post in this thread. The rules of this forum are quite clear:

"You may not post in a thread that is not related to you, even if you think you’re being helpful, without being invited to do so by the CMod or Admin looking after the issue at hand. This applies to all members of the site."

If you do so again I will have no option but to ban you from the forum.

Annasopra

Having reconsidered this I agree that the infraction should be lifted. I realise that Cavehill red did not intend malice and I am willing to accept fault for the fact that personal attacks were not dealt with earlier on in the thread.

Dades

Cavehill Red wrote: »

That's the crux of my problem with this infraction, basically - inconsistent moderation.

Hey Cavehill Red,

Subsequent to this thread, there have been plenty of other cards handed out and also a ban (see ironically another DR thread here complaining of moderation).

So given that the thread in question has reached it's inevitable conclusion - and moderation has balanced itself out - do we still have an issue here?

Cavehill Red

Yes, that thread ended quite badly, and I'm not sure that the moderation did balance out in the end. It's made me somewhat trepidatious about visiting that forum again in future, as indeed I have been in the past.
I appreciate the need to maintain a safe and supportive environment for LGBT people, but at the same time the moderation, as in this case, can quickly become partisan and indeed hostile to any opinions perceived as not entirely adhering to an especially limited perception of LGBT values.
There are LGBT people who don't care about gay marriage, for example. For them to be told that they don't exist isn't inclusive at all.
I don't mind taking my red card, but I hope everyone learns something from how this thread degenerated, and perhaps the moderators of the forum might think about ways to address the problems that arose here in order to prevent it from happening again.
I'd just add - I'm not trying to tell anyone their jobs here. But I know that there are posters other than I who refrain from posting in this forum because of what is perceived as a limiting and unwelcoming moderating ethos. It would be nice to see that change.

Dades

Two DR threads are enough to ensure that there will be things learned from that thread, I'm sure.
Certainly I've learned a bit about a forum I don't frequent.

Anyhow, since this isn't really the place for general feedback issues, am suggesting this thread is marked as resolved.

Cavehill Red

Yes, that thread is over. This particular issue is thus resolved. Hopefully things will improve in future in that forum.

trout

Closing this - marking as resolved.