Banned for Golf Forum

Redzah

I was Banned from Golf Forum for commenting about a moderator.

1. Firstly I received a caution last week for saying merely using the word moderator in a sentence which the Mod determined as breach of rules for discussing a moderator

2. Secondly, i received an infraction and subsequent ban for questioning whether a thread in the golf forum about a moderator was not in breach of rules based on an inconsistency with point one above as I was genuinly confused.

The thing is this particular Mod does not agree with my views on golfing matter so he responds in a strong and agressive manner, if i continue to disagree with him, he looks for any method of handing out a punishment to basically gag me. I know others feel the same about this Mod and I believe he has abused his power.

I have reported this Mod before but have not heard anything back.

Sparks

From the Golf forum's charter:

Arguing with a moderator
- Do not argue with a moderator in a thread after they have given a warning or a ban etc. If you have an issue with a moderator's action then PM the mod in question. They will discuss it with you. You can then, if unsatisfied with the PM route, take things further along the Dispute Resolution Procedure (DRP).

Giving cheek or attitude to a moderator will get you banned.

Do not under any circumstances complain about a mod on this forum. Do it either on PM or in Feedback.

That rule dates from 2005, so it's not like it was invented to spite you specifically Redzah. And this note in the forum by the mod highlighted that things were going downhill so the charter was going to be followed more strictly.

You didn't follow it, you broke very clearly expressed rules in a very obvious way, you got warned, infracted and then banned for a week.

I can't see anything here that GreeBo did that doesn't follow the charter either in letter or in spirit, so I see no reason to overturn this ban.

Redzah

Sparks wrote: »

From the Golf forum's charter:


That rule dates from 2005, so it's not like it was invented to spite you specifically Redzah. And this note in the forum by the mod highlighted that things were going downhill so the charter was going to be followed more strictly.

You didn't follow it, you broke very clearly expressed rules in a very obvious way, you got warned, infracted and then banned for a week.

I can't see anything here that GreeBo did that doesn't follow the charter either in letter or in spirit, so I see no reason to overturn this ban.

Sparks please look at the yellow warning which was in a separate thread. I can't see any reason for this, all I said is something like. 'I'll leave that to the more seasoned members/moderators'

Secondly, after I received the infraction from Greebo, he did not answer my question. He just continues to say don't talk about moderators. My question is one of confusion, i have received a warning and infraction and now a ban for even putting the word moderator in a post yet there is a thread on the golf forum about a moderator, I hope you understand my confusion on this.

Thirdly, I have complained about some of Greebos comments and strong arm tactics before including one post to another boards member who he disagreed with threatening to caution or ban him purely because of an on topic disagreement. 'Greebo: matt, did you ever post off-topic and get a warning from a mod?'. I have also complained about another post of his. His strong arm tactics does not welcome opinions different to his so the golf forum might as well be renamed 'Greebos view on golfing matters' forum as any other view is not welcomed hence my ban.

Finally Greebo continues to preach on thing on the charter and practice something else in reality. Giving cheek or attitude will get you banned sounds perfectly ok in theory but when the moderator sets the tone with his bully and offensive tactics then should i just shut up and leave this bully run the forum like a dictatorship. I've seen him comment in bold red writing purely as a poster and not in his moderator capacity because he disagreed with a view of somebody.

Moderating and keepin things in line is one thing but double standards and gagging somebody who has different on topic views to him is something different altogether.

Sparks

Redzah wrote: »

I hope you understand my confusion on this.

I don't, because I can't see where the confusion could arise from.

The rules are fairly straightfoward - don't discuss moderation in the forum (the place for that is by PM or in feedback or here for specific disputes), and don't be cheeky about it either (because that consumes moderator time for no good reason, and there isn't exactly a surplus of that to go round).

You broke those rules, you got warned. You broke them again, you got an infraction. You broke them a third time, you got banned.

What would you have the mod do, when someone is pointedly and repeatedly breaking the forum charter like that? Keep letting them do it until the forum went to the dogs completely?

Redzah

Sparks wrote: »

I don't, because I can't see where the confusion could arise from.

The rules are fairly straightfoward - don't discuss moderation in the forum (the place for that is by PM or in feedback or here for specific disputes), and don't be cheeky about it either (because that consumes moderator time for no good reason, and there isn't exactly a surplus of that to go round).

You broke those rules, you got warned. You broke them again, you got an infraction. You broke them a third time, you got banned.

What would you have the mod do, when someone is pointedly and repeatedly breaking the forum charter like that? Keep letting them do it until the forum went to the dogs completely?

You and Greebo have avoided my question regarding a thread about a new moderator where everybody has commented on him. This to me is double standards as I got banned for referring to a moderator but a thread about a moderator seems to be perfectly ok???

Say for example, I had a view on this new moderator which Greebo did not like, it would then be a breach of the charter rules and i would receive an infraction. But if i commented on this thread and said the new moderator was great nothing would happen, either way i am commenting on the moderator but Greebo exercises subjectivity when deciding if he agrees with my view before handing down any punishment. I was confused and questioned this for which i am still awaiting an answer.

On your last point, i think there is a difference between Greebo's interpretation of breaking the charter and mine, speciifically around the caution i received as outlined above. His interpretation varies on a case by case basis depending on whether he 1. agrees with the poster (rightly or wrongly) and 2. Personally dislikes the poster (such as me). This to me means that the moderator is not objectively moderating his forum but rather subjectively moderating it based on if he agrees with your views. This does not allow for a meaningful discussion or debate on golfing topics.

Sparks

I'm not avoiding any question - I'm saying you were taking the piss, which broke the rules, and you got two warnings before your pressing on with that line of posting got you banned for breaking the forum charter. That's what happened here. Your question, had it been by PM or in feedback (in other words, in the places that the charter says it should go), wouldn't have gotten you banned; but your breaking the charter did.

As to moderator bias, you'll have to post sufficient specific examples of that before I'll look at it. You can't just accuse a mod of bias without proof and expect us to take your word for it, or to spend our time seeking proof of your accusation. And likewise, I'm not wasting any cycles on considering a hypothetical in which you post something you didn't post and Greebo acts in a way he didn't act, but which you script in the hypothetical, because - to be blunt about it - there are an infinite number of better things that anyone could spend their time on than investigating hypothetical arguments that never happened.

Redzah

Sparks wrote: »

I'm not avoiding any question - I'm saying you were taking the piss, which broke the rules, and you got two warnings before your pressing on with that line of posting got you banned for breaking the forum charter. That's what happened here. Your question, had it been by PM or in feedback (in other words, in the places that the charter says it should go), wouldn't have gotten you banned; but your breaking the charter did.

As to moderator bias, you'll have to post sufficient specific examples of that before I'll look at it. You can't just accuse a mod of bias without proof and expect us to take your word for it, or to spend our time seeking proof of your accusation. And likewise, I'm not wasting any cycles on considering a hypothetical in which you post something you didn't post and Greebo acts in a way he didn't act, but which you script in the hypothetical, because - to be blunt about it - there are an infinite number of better things that anyone could spend their time on than investigating hypothetical arguments that never happened.

What about my warning on 08/03/12 for having the word moderator on the thread?? I can't see how this broke the rules and this was merely Greebo's temper and frustration getting the better of him.

I will post examples of bias and Greebo's aggressive and bully tactics when I get a chance later. Just please look at his comments on the 'playing during a comp' thread. The best way I could describe his attitude to me would be aggressive, arguementative and abuse of power which culminated in a caution for me which was unjustified

Sparks

Redzah wrote: »

What about my warning on 08/03/12 for having the word moderator on the thread?? I can't see how this broke the rules and this was merely Greebo's temper and frustration getting the better of him.

That's what most moderators would refer to as being cheeky.
"Oh, I'm not grumpy, only the moderators are" is precisely the kind of comment the rule in the forum charter that's quoted above was aimed at. Especially when seen in the context of your cited example below...

I will post examples of bias and Greebo's aggressive and bully tactics when I get a chance later. Just please look at his comments on the 'playing during a comp' thread. The best way I could describe his attitude to me would be aggressive, arguementative and abuse of power which culminated in a caution for me which was unjustified

The best way I could describe that attitude is to point out the irony here. You posted several times in the thread on the same line of "erra, can't the grumps just cop on" and in the process described an occasion where you were breaking the rules of the course and you berated the chap who pointed this out to you at the time. Greebo points out that you were in the wrong, and you get into a fuss over how the rules are stupid and you'll break them if you think they're stupid. At that point every other poster on the thread starts pointing out that that's not on, and Greebo agrees, and frankly, does so with far less vehemence than the other posters do.

Frankly, I agree with him and I think this entire complaint is just that thread in a microcosm. There was a clearly defined rule; you broke it; you got slapped for it.
As far as I can see, there's nothing more to this.

Redzah

Sparks wrote: »

That's what most moderators would refer to as being cheeky.
"Oh, I'm not grumpy, only the moderators are" is precisely the kind of comment the rule in the forum charter that's quoted above was aimed at. Especially when seen in the context of your cited example below...



The best way I could describe that attitude is to point out the irony here. You posted several times in the thread on the same line of "erra, can't the grumps just cop on" and in the process described an occasion where you were breaking the rules of the course and you berated the chap who pointed this out to you at the time. Greebo points out that you were in the wrong, and you get into a fuss over how the rules are stupid and you'll break them if you think they're stupid. At that point every other poster on the thread starts pointing out that that's not on, and Greebo agrees, and frankly, does so with far less vehemence than the other posters do.

Frankly, I agree with him and I think this entire complaint is just that thread in a microcosm. There was a clearly defined rule; you broke it; you got slapped for it.
As far as I can see, there's nothing more to this.

Sparks, you are misquoting me there to suit your arguement and it is misleading. I said the following;

'Ah pitchmark, I wouldn't know the slightest about being grumpy. I'll leave that to the more seasoned boards members/moderators'. The above quote was to capture the demography of those who had quoted before me who were both regular members and moderators.

My arguement was that when playing golf during a comp common sense should prevail. There was no fuss from me and I disagreed with some posters as they did with me as well as some posters agreeing with me, all in the process of addressing the thread. Whether u agree with Greebo's views on the subject matter of the thread is irrelevant as I was entitled to express my views if they differ(at least i thought i was). Every other poster is an exaggeration and misleading again sparks. The thing is Greebo exercised unnecessary power by cautioning me and also procedeed to insult me which is not in the spirit of the golf forum or 'his forum'.

I realise i'm not getting anywhere here as whether or not u truly agree with Greebo is unnecessary as he is your colleague and u have to back him, its admirable but frustrating. I just hope you keep an eye on his strong armed tactics going forward as his has stepped out of line a few times recently and is only contributing to disputes on the forum with his attitude. Thanks for your time