Christianity ban

ISAW

Banned by PDN for "disruption" for a month.
What is "disruption"?
Can the actual case of "disruption" be cited?
In what post did it occur?
I originally had an infarction for back seat modding from PDN and objected to it.
I cited the history of a mod sticky and the backgroundto the setting up of the Clerical child abuse megathread and several exchangeswith different people over the last year basedon whether one can post stats about non clerical abuse in order to compare rates of abuse,or whether the thread is just confined to mentioning abuse by Christian clerics only. PDN stated he was not interested in the background but only in moderator decisions. This seems very shallow given that decisions are based on circumstances and argument. Anyway I cite/d the decisions.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65076556&postcount=1
and
UPDATE: 27/3/10
All child abuse threads are now merged into one Clerical Child Abuse megathread.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72734433&postcount=1076

I was subsequently banned while disputing the infarction.
I have contacted PDN who refuses to discuss it.
What is "disruption"?
Can the actual case of "disruption" be cited?
In what post did it occur?

Dades

ISAW wrote: »

What is "disruption"?
Can the actual case of "disruption" be cited?
In what post did it occur?

You'll forgive me if I don't read all 160 pages of the The Clerical Child Abuse Thread. But I have read enough.

Disruption doesn't occur in one of your posts, it occurs in all of them. Or as a result of a consistent style of posting. I've seen it from you in several forums (Politics, A&A and now Christianity).

You were previously banned from Politics, and were close to a ban in A&A only that you stopped posting and shifted your focus to the Clerical Child Abuse Thread instead - and decided to drive them mad.

Let's face it no answer is going to give you satisfaction here. Your posting style simply grates on other posters and makes people want to pull their hair out. When you post, reported posts increase in volume with people wanting it to just stop.

So from what I can see of that thread, I have no issue with PDN doing what he did, and actually think "disruption" is a very apt term to use.

ISAW

Dades wrote: »

You'll forgive me if I don't read all 160 pages of the The Clerical Child Abuse Thread. But I have read enough.

Actually I won't forgive you. Believe me, If I was reviewing the whole thread I would actually read the entire thing. I am one of the few people who does have an in dept knowledge of how the thread came to be in the first place.
You can'tmake sweeping generalisations about something which you have stated in advance you are ignorant.

Disruption doesn't occur in one of your posts, it occurs in all of them. Or as a result of a consistent style of posting. I've seen it from you in several forums (Politics, A&A and now Christianity).

As I predicted non bis in idem.
Furthermore you haven't read the lot so how can you make that "sweeping statement"?
Look it up under "logical fallacy"

You were previously banned from Politics,

You are claiming the exact same moderation applies?
So you would apply that to the Islam forum as well?
Clearly the atheists who are allowed post Christianity would not last two posts in Islam with the same type of post.
You can't argue a case based on double jeopardy!

and were close to a ban in A&A only that you stopped posting

LOL. "Close to ban" You convict people of "thoughtcrime" now do you? You decise people are guilty of something on the grounds they they "almost did it"? Whatever next? Irelandbeen given the world cup on the grounds they they almost scored in the last five minutes and that would have put them in the lead?

and shifted your focus to the Clerical Child Abuse Thread instead - and decided to drive them mad.

I have been posting the clerical child abuse thread for well over a year. I continuied to post it before during and after posting A&A. Would you mind trying to answer the question I asked?
For what "disruption" was I banned? Or do you just make up retrospective charges?
Your "almost guilty" and " could have been accused and convicted so we will assume you were guilty" standard of justice seem more at home in a Franz Kafka story.
Let me be quite clear. I appealed an infarction. No ban was in force. So how could an appeal suddenly become a " I really meant to ban you for something months ago I just didn't do it at the time so I'm doing it now"?
You really are going down a weak line of reasoning if you are claiming even though you can't cite the basis of the infarction that I should have been banned for something years ago so actually accusing me of anything isn't necessary!

Let's face it no answer is going to give you satisfaction here.

Let's face it with comments like that is there any point in making any case at all since you clearly have already convicted me in advance? There is a clear bias outlined in your position. You admit in advance of hearing anything that
1. You already consider me guilty of something (which you fail to delinate)
2. You haven't even given me a chance to make any case. Just asking what I was accused of was enough for you to proclaim my guilt.

Hardly a fair and balanced process is it?

Your posting style simply grates on other posters and makes people want to pull their hair out. When you post, reported posts increase in volume with people wanting it to just stop.

Yep. When racists and nazis posted in other forums and I continually posted counter evidence they wanted to pull their hair out too!
The strength of a fair system is not allowing people to havewhat they like it is also abouit tolerating what you don't like. I don't like the viscious personal attacks I was subjected to but Im prepared to accept them.
Apparently you think my being accused of being a child sex abuse supporter is something I should not be responding to and something you should be allowing?

I have PM's from mods stating that it was not about reported posts but about disruption.
What is "disruption" ? Can't you tell me or did you just make it up?

So from what I can see of that thread, I have no issue with PDN doing what he did, and actually think "disruption" is a very apt term to use.

Why? What is you definition of disruption?
You stated you didn't intend to go through the thread.
If you had you might note
1. I was posting it over a year ago.
2. I was accused of being a child molestor enabler of them
3. As a victim of abuse I was accused of enabling my abnuser by not reporting hi9m
4. I never personally attacked anyone who stated these things to me but Idid tell them it was a nasty attack.
5. They are still posting the same disputed and disproved claims
6. They are clearly posting anti catholic hate promoting posts

I however am banned while they continue to post this type of stuff.
How then can I be causing them to post it?

Now please tell me for what rule transgression I have been banned?

What is "disruption"? Or do you just make charges up?

If I contradicted anti Jew comments and loads of people complained about me is that "disruption"?

nesf

ISAW seriously your legalistic approach here along with your mass quoting is pretty much exactly why you're banned from forums and does not help your case. You really need to try and develop a less confrontational approach to posting on this site.

ISAW

nesf wrote: »

ISAW seriously your legalistic approach here along with your mass quoting is pretty much exactly why you're banned from forums and does not help your case. You really need to try and develop a less confrontational approach to posting on this site.

If asking for fair procedure and fair play and transparent process is a big error on my part could you explain what sort of process you envisage?


I have no access to be represented by anyone and have to represent myself.
I have a disability but that is to be viewed to my detriment rather than considered?
I haven't even opened my case and it is quite clear the judges have already admitted bias.

I am pilloried and accused of facilitating child sexual abuse and your suggestion is that I don't confront those who accuse me of this or those who ban me for challenging the same posters and those same posters are allowed to continue posting?

And to cap it all you enter into the debate clearly on the side of the mods and having no doubt discussed me in secret ( this is my opinion but Ill ask you whether you have in advance. Have you discussed me with other mods? ) and drawing on all the backup of collective experience and your comment is that you don't like the style of my posts?

So your defence in advance of me making any case so far is mods should forget about whether I am actually factually right or wrong and concentrate instead on whether they like what I post or not?
Hate speech racism anticatholic or proatheistic elements are not to be criticised because that "looks wrong" in spite of the fact that ( and by fact I mean statistical objective measurement and/or clearly defined standards which I have and can supply) they are shown up as totally untrue?

Telling me I must agree with you isn't really a convincing argument. Have you any actual facts showing
1. what rules I have broken? - specific instances for this particular ban
2. What have I stated that can be shown as factually wrong?

Then we can dispute that and hopefully resolve it.

I still have yet to state my case because I need to know for what specific breach I am banned. How did my infarction become a ban?
I am not asking you to like me. I am asking for fair play and standards.

Trojan

nesf puts it well here:

nesf wrote: »

ISAW seriously your legalistic approach here along with your mass quoting is pretty much exactly why you're banned from forums and does not help your case. You really need to try and develop a less confrontational approach to posting on this site.

ISAW, I'm not a ruling on this thread (yet), but as an admin reading your history on this site it is clear that trouble just happens to occur all around you - very strange that none of it ever appears to be your fault.

You are clearly on course for a permanent site ban, and should you continue to cause heavy workloads for the volunteer moderators and admins that will come about sooner rather than later.

Dades

You're making the mistake of approaching this like some TV courtroom drama.

The fact is you have a very confrontational and frustrating posting style that manifests itself in any elongated discussion you involve yourself in.

The reason I brought up your Boards history is because it confirms a pattern - and it's the pattern of your posting that is the problem rather than any single post. There's never going to be one post that does it - it's death by a thousand cuts.

You personal history doesn't have any relevance here - only that fact that you disrupt threads across boards with the way you post.

No doubt you see yourself as an unfairly maligned warrior, but the only motivation behind any action is to try to stop threads from turning into trainwrecks.

ISAW

Trojan wrote: »

ISAW, I'm not a ruling on this thread (yet), but as an admin reading your history on this site it is clear that trouble just happens to occur all around you - very strange that none of it ever appears to be your fault.

Again non bis in idem.

If you had read my history you will note other than typos/grammar about five times in 5550 posts I clearly admitted to errors. So you would be wrong that I never say when I am at fault. In fact I am bound not to employ double standards and I believe it is my duty to point out any errors I may have made. I also go back and EDIT posts where things are unclear.

Most of the so called "trouble" are associated with three distinct types of poster. I wont expand on that it is not on topic. Just To say if they want to ignore my pointing out double standards they can do so. instead they complain.

Why do I have to address other off topic issues before I actually get to you telling me the reason for the infarction?
What was it and how do I appeal it?

You are clearly on course for a permanent site ban, and should you continue to cause heavy workloads for the volunteer moderators and admins that will come about sooner rather than later.

Could you please please please tell me for what was I infarcted and how did this become a months ban? What changed since the infarction? Who spoke to whom and what did they decide?

I really appreciate that volunteers do volunteer work. In fact I volunteer my posting as well don't I? I don't do it for fun but out of a sense of fair play and duty. Claiming "you post too many questions for all our volunteer mods to keep up with and actually reply to " does not seem like a sound reason for a permanent ban.

Ill just ask one simple question and hopefully we can get this dispute process underway.

For what was I infarcted and how did it become a ban?

Please just answer that last question and we can all move on.

Now in spite of the fact that Dispute Resolution is a sort of courtroom - all be it one with admitted overt bias- Dades (who does not answer any of my other questions) does make an interesting point.

I have a very confrontational and frustrating posting style that manifests itself in any elongated discussions.


If I see hypocracy' racism or hate speech or people claiming something as true in spite of loads and loads and loads of contradictory evidence or displayingdouble standards e.g. that drugs should be legal; that
the Pope was involved in a conspiracy to hide child abusers; that a politician with OIRA
connections cant have them questioned but one with PIRA can,
I will confront such posters with facts. They don't like this and they dont like me for doing this and moderators don't like how rather than just ignore me and leave the exposure stand they complain and try to ban me. So I should just keep quiet and not challenge hate speech hypocracy or logical fallacy?

It is quite apparent in the other case show a series of personal attacks on me in trying to avoid the issue I raise. But we are not talking about other cases.

Ask yourself would you rather me banned than admit you are wrong? For my part if and whenever I am wrong I certainly admit it. And it is based on objective facts and evidence and not on what is easier to post.

Could you please tell me for what was I infarcted and how did it become a ban? What happened during my PMs to PDN that caused the infarction to become a ban?

Trojan

ISAW wrote: »

Again non bis in idem.

Non bis in idem does not necessarily apply here. You are mistaking the DR forum on boards.ie as a court of law. It is not. This is a dispute resolution forum run in the main by volunteers, and is a private venue legally owned by boards Ltd.

ISAW wrote: »

Ill just ask one simple question and hopefully we can get this dispute process underway.

For what was I infarcted and how did it become a ban?

That's two questions.

The first part is easily answered - your infraction was for "Back Seat Modding" and the moderator message to you at 23:52 on 27-10-2011 was:

Please do not dispute moderating decisions inthread.

The infraction was related to this post where you clearly disputed moderator decisions on thread.

Ruling: infraction upheld.


As for part two of your question, I don't know the answer, the mod will have to answer that.

PDN

Trojan wrote: »

As for part two of your question, I don't know the answer, the mod will have to answer that.

I'm presuming that is an invitation for me to enter this thread?

ISAW's infraction did not become a ban. The infraction and the ban are two separate issues.

The infraction, as already noted above, was a clear cut case of backseat modding.

The ban was something that had been building for a long time, due to ISAW's posting style reducing thread after thread to train-wrecks. He continually takes threads down rabbit trails by arguing over minutae, by making posts that link homosexuality to paedophilia, by introducing off-topic references to Stalin and other atheist atrocities, and by accusing those who disagree with him of being part of some gigantic anti-Catholic prejudice. The ban was introduced only after great reluctance, but his posting comes across as coat-trailing, which attracts trolls to the Forum like flies to honey.

Having said that the infraction and the ban were separate - his behaviour after the infraction was symptomatic of the problem. I explained to him that disputing a mod decision inthread was unacceptable, and pointed out the parameters for discussion in the thread in question. He then sent me a series of PMs disputing the decision, accusing me of contradicting myself. After I had twice stressed that I was not going to engage in exchanges of long complex PMs with him, complete with extensive use of multiquotes, he continued to PM me in the same fashion, accusing me of serving the anti-Christian and anti-Catholic agenda.

I do not view the ban as being a punishment for bad behaviour, but rather (like the ban ISAW received from politics) as a reluctant step to protect the forum from being totally disrupted. Imagine a Forum where numerous threads end up like this one in DR. No-one would want to moderate such a madhouse.

ISAW

Trojan wrote: »

Non bis in idem does not necessarily apply here. You are mistaking the DR forum on boards.ie as a court of law. It is not. This is a dispute resolution forum run in the main by volunteers, and is a private venue legally owned by boards Ltd.

Of course the principle applies. You may mean it isn't a legal requirement. Nor is fair play. But boards set up a dispute resolution process for a reason. We are supposed to accept that that while fair play is not a legal requirement that it does not apply?

That's two questions.

Actually it is a composite. But it is simple enough to answer.

The first part is easily answered - your infraction was for "Back Seat Modding" and the moderator message to you at 23:52 on 27-10-2011 was:


The infraction was related to this post where you clearly disputed moderator decisions on thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75155443&postcount=2296
The threads merged were not all threads on clerical child abuse. One for example was on whether Cardinal Brady should resign for matters related to knowing about child abuse.

It was a Catholics only (see post 8)


That was in response to this:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75166626&postcount=2308
which is NOT a moderator decision. I have been told in the past that moderator decisions are done in bold type face

I didnt dispute a decision the decision was in fact posted by me for information.
I had gone into this over a year before in an exchange with Mr Pudding. I pointed out the whole background to this by PM to PDN. I pointed out all child abuse was to be referred to the clerical child abuse megathread. Something by the way which is not being enforced at the moment because clerical child abuse IS being referred to in other threads. He was not interested in how this decision came about and asked for a source for the decision. I supplied it.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72734433&postcount=1076

Ruling: infraction upheld.

[/quoter]
As for part two of your question, I don't know the answer, the mod will have to answer that.[/QUOTE]

okay here is what PDN stated:

The ban was...

1. ...takes threads down rabbit trails by arguing over minutae

That is a banning reason is it? so where did it happen?
If posters continually post claiming say a report claims 4% of Roman Catholic Priests are child sex abusers then why should I be banned for saying “that report was misquoted by you several months ago [reference to prior post included] and you are reposting the same unsupported claims today”?

Why should I be banned for pointing these “minutiae” out?

2. ...making posts that link homosexuality to paedophilia

Where? In fact if you read the post after my infarction it specifically does the opposite and points to peer reviewed evidence that abuse by pedophiles ( interested in prepubescent kids) when concerned with clerics in particular is NOT homosexual in nature.
PDN claims pedophilia is not a subject to be brought up in a discussion on pedophiles and homosexuality not be brought into a separate discussion on homosexual “marriage”? these were two of the three threads I was posting to over the last week or so.

I also asked PDN to cite examples where he claimed I raised homosexuality or pedophilia out of context and he would probably find in every case someone else highlighted this point and cherry picked it out of a wider context. I also offered to apologise for each and every case where such references were shown to be out of context.

PDN replied “I have no intention of having a protracted discuission over each individual case. I have pointed out to you a posting pattern, ...”

In fact he hadn't pointed out a single example just claimed “a pattern”

3. ...accusing those who disagree with him of being part of some gigantic anti-Catholic prejudice

Where? I didn't claim PDN was consciously biased but it is quite clear above that bias is evidence among mods. Sure even in this post i am being told by an Admin not to expect the same standard of fair play that one would get outside of their privately owned company.

4. ...I explained to him that disputing a mod decision in thread was unacceptable.

I didn't dispute the decision in thread. I if you recollect supplied the original decision before anything was stated. PDN then put a spin on that decision that only clericalchild abuse was to be discussed. But Fanny Craddock had posted in specific query by me about whether only clerical abuyse could be discussed and surely other related matters or non clerical;abuse could also be discussed in context. I informed PDN allthis by PM.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72734433&postcount=1076

there can be reference to sexual abuse outside religious institutions if it is for the purposes of comparing it to abuse within religious institutions.

5... as a reluctant step to protect the forum from being totally disrupted.

But the anti Catholic posters are still posting and still posting comments about child abusing priests to other threads so the ruling isn't being followed as you say is it?


So far you haven't addressed the viscious personal attacks which I was subjected to right since I entered around page 22 and countered all relevant posts up to page 22. Funnily that was in March 2010 and I had the same posting style then! And all that time PDN was a moderator of that forum.
Ironically the same posting style maintained throughout and the same thread are alive and well almost two years later.the same disproved posters drive by occasionally and make the same old disproved allegations and I challenge them and expose the holes in their unsupported claims. Indeed PDN has even agreed that they post fallacy! It does not say much about the "disruption" claim but it does say a lot about my conspiracy theory especially considering the selfsame anti Catholic posters are currently posting claims about Roman pedo priest child abuse in other threads in the Christianity forum.



PDN added in PM:

your preoccupations with atheist atrocities, homosexuality and paedophilia are undermining the efforts of the mods to make the forum a place where Christians can engage in debate and discussion. You attract trolls like flies to honey, primarily because many of your own posts look, to those not familiar with your unusual posting style, like they are trollish.

In essence this is an admission that things are to be judged not on what they actually say but on how they “look” to him! This is in spite of the fact that several other ( probably mostly Catholic) posters have stated they do not look that way at all! Why cant others just ignore?

I can produce extensive evidence of anti catholic rhetoric in the said thread. I can also produce several references to me being among other things...
1.blamed for my own abuse
2.blamed for enabling child sex abusers
3.being called “a priest” as if it was an insult
4.claimed I was in the paid employ of the Catholic church nd that is why I was posting
In spite of the personal attacks I have suffered I have continued to post. I posted twice more.


I was apparently banned for

due to continually dragging threads down rabbit trails and getting involved in pointless disputes over minutae.

But this is claiming I am being banned maybe for something I posted last year when they allowed it!
What minutae and how are they pointless? -Examples?


It is not a pointless debate when people continually claim prior falsehoods to be true!
The same happened about WMD in Iraq and possibly millions of deaths resulted because we were not prepared to dispute it!
The same happened when “people in authority” told us not to worry about construction or banks or childrens homes!
Why now should I be gagged and pilloried when I clearly support what I say and at every chance I get I point out media myths? Why should they be allowed to repost the untruths and I be banned for forensically pointing out the truth?

r3nu4l

ISAW, you have had Admin ruling on the infraction and I accept the view of the mod in question as to why the ban was given.

Ruling: Infraction stands
Ruling: Ban stands.

I'm closing this thread as I'm frankly not interested in the smoke and mirrors, the pedantic approach or the multi-quoting.