Two seperate threads merged for no reason.

Brown Bomber

Hi,

I'd like to register a complaint.

In the Atheist & Agnostic Forum I opened a thread with a request for information. This is it in full:

Atheists & The War On Terror
I wanted to ask if someone more in the know could suggest a current militant atheist author that is an opponent of the so-called "war on terror".

I only use the term "militant atheist" to differentiate an author who happens to be an atheist with an author who views religion as a cancer.

This thread was then merged with comments taken from an unrelated thread with the grace of a dodgy mechanic welding two good halves of different cars together without so much as a note of explanation.

The posts from both threads came in order of time and turned the thread into a chaotic mess and worst of all the OP was replaced with this post http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81347885&postcount=1 which bore no relevance whatsoever to the topic.

I politely requested of Robin to at least reinstate the actual OP and he/she refused.

As I was still interested in getting answers I opened a new thread:

New Atheists and the war on terror
I wanted to ask if someone more in the know could suggest a current new-atheist author that is an opponent of the so-called "war on terror" (and it's post-Bush rebranding).

Also of interest - if they exist - would be debates between new-atheists who differ on the subject or articles/interviews etc where they are critical of each other's views.

Another area I am curious about is whether the new-atheists have in general criticised Obama, the Liberal, to the same extent as Bush, the fundamental Christian to the same extent for carrying out the same or similar policies.


Thanks.

This thread was deleted and I was threatened with bans/infractions.

Brown Bomber

Hi again,

I'd like to extend my complaint to that of biased moderation.

I received this warning today from Robin:

BB - this is your first and final warning:

Any more stroppy personal remarks from you and you'll be sent packing.

It was directed towards this post.

Without going on too much of a tangent it wasn't intended as personal abuse. The context is that he was defending the Iraq invasion because there actually was WMD in Iraq that we needed to defended from. Therefore he "couldn't tell the difference between deception and (the) reality (of the situation).

In a vacuum and all else being equal I would accept this warning as part of misunderstanding and move on. The issue is that I have been on the receiving end of a mountain of personal abuse on that forum, much of it vile (such as:"Do the world a favour and don't reproduce. There's enough of your ilk in existence today, sadly enough. " and to the very best of knowledge nobody has ever been infracted. If it's neccessary I could provide you with a list of 100 insults easily that were directed towards me that were ignored including religious-baiting based on my perceived religion.

An simple example is the very first response in my direction in that very same thread was me being told to "Please **** Off"

The greater issue is that Robin has actually declared publically that it is permissable to insult me.

In a thread he took the opportunity to mock me. I politely asked him to refrain from doing so as it's hard enough in A&A to get a fair hearing.

His response was to defend the makers of personal attacks against me:

And, as a moderator of this forum, I suggest that if you'd like to avoid the kind of comments that you've received from just about every poster to date, that you substantially improve your standards of debate and of reasoning -- a good standard of both will produce honest, thoughtful responses and a respectable debate. The unhelpful tone you've adopted so far invites, in a manner not unlike what's going on over in FTB, exactly the opposite.

I would like to point out finally that I have accepted that my genuine held opinions run contrary to the herd in A&A and I have taken all abuse on the chin so far without ever resorting in kind. I have accepted that the mods are part of the clique, though Dades is to be fair, objective.

What I find difficult to accept is me getting threatened with banning due to an ambigious statement when I have had to put up with dog's abuserepeatedly in that forum without any of the abusers ever even receiving an infraction. It's a horrible double-standard.

Brown Bomber

Is there something else I have to do to move this forward?

Here is another example of the (imo) biased moderation of Robin FWIW. It's taken from the previous thread that I'd opened in A&A.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056767747

The thread was in line with the charter, raised a topic for discussion, and the argument was supported by about 10 sources. By any reasonable definition surely an acceptable OP.

What follows is a torrent of (unacted on) personal abuse directed against me. Incessant trolling, admissions of trolling, admissions of intentionally taking the thread off-topic, back-seat moderation.

It can be summed up in this comment, which comes one month after Robin publically gave a license to insult me as he likened me to clown:

Am I maintaining the level of respect and serious the OP deserves, by the way?

Mods reaction? Nothing. Not even a single generic warning. Nothing that is until Robin - somehow oblivious to the flagrant rule-breaking that had occured throughout the thread - jumped into action in post 59 to warn me and get a dig in.

And some posters generate nothing but.

BB -- this thread will be shut down as soon as it turns into one of your usual conspiracy theory crapfests.

I had done nothing wrong. I didn't react to the constant trolling, abuse and provocation and was doing my best to engage in conversation with anyone that was genuinely interested. He'd just thanked post 57, a post that directly insulted me a was a clear violation of the charter he is supposed to enforce equally.

This goes far beyond home-town decisions. So hope I can at least get a fair hearing here. Thanks.

Brown Bomber

Yesterday I made a third post in this thread. Can someone tell me if it has been missed or if it was rejected?

Thanks.

Spear

Helpdesk posts are always premoderated, bar the initial post to start a thread.

Have you made the mods or cat mods involved aware that there's a complaint thread?

Brown Bomber

Spear wrote: »

Helpdesk posts are always premoderated, bar the initial post to start a thread.

Have you made the mods or cat mods involved aware that there's a complaint thread?

Thanks for the tip.

I haven't made anyone aware. I'll do that now so. I'll spare Dades. due to his conflict of interest.

Shield

If you have a look at this thread, the fact that it's positioned right at the top of the Help Desk forum, with lots of ASCII-effect waves to try and draw attention to it, you'll see that there is a procedure you must follow. Take a read of the section entitled "What DOES this forum handle" and you'll see what steps you need to follow to complain about a moderator:

Step 1: Try to handle the matter, maturely and respectfully via PM
Step 2: Step 1 has failed (for whatever reason) so you must now approach any one of the CMods with as much information as possible showing how you tried to resolve the issue but it failed.
Step 3: The CMod upholds the original decision. You now start a Help Desk thread for the attention of the admins, which includes all efforts by you to have the matter ruled in your favour, but you believe that both Mod and CMod are wrong in their decision. An admin then reads through all the information you have provided, and all dealings are done on-thread. The admin makes a final decision which is final and does not carry a right to appeal.

Briefly looking at where you are, you are contacting a CMod and giving them every bit of information and proof you have gathered, and will argue your point of view to them using whatever you have provided as supporting material. The CMod then contacts the moderator and requests the same from them. You must now sit back and await the reply of whichever CMod you have contacted, giving them at least a week as they have a lot of other routine work to do as a CMod.

I hope the above explanation has been useful.

-Shield.

nesf

We're looking into this, it'll take a while as it's complicated.

Brown Bomber

Thank you shield and nesf.

Just to be clear I'm not suggesting Robin is a biased moderator but that from my perspective has engaged in moments of biased moderation. Everyone is human and I am more than happy to drop this issue, shake hands and forget about it. I sincerely don't want to be a burden on the volunteers here and there is no positive outcome that I personally can foresee coming from my complaint regardless of your judgements.

Much easier to resolve one way or the other is the specific issue of not being able to reopen a topic that has been spoiled by a moderator for no (imo) justifiable reason.

nesf

Right the problem seems to be that you come into the forum every so often to pursue some personal theories, this riles up the natives and creates a mess in the forum. I don't think you're doing this intentionally or maliciously but it's what's happening.

I think you should rethink about starting these kinds of threads in A&A as they only seem to cause hassle and result in a lot of work for the mods. You started three very similar threads, which were justifiably merged. None of which generated anything approaching a decent discussion, just you asking a question and then refusing to accept any evidence that disagrees with the answer you want. This is soapboxing at its worst and is not generally acceptable in the "debate forums."

I don't think Robin was being biased in his moderation, I think your approach to the forum is the problem here and I'd ask you take a long hard look at those threads and see why they are not productive or constructive and how you're at the heart of them being so.


You may request an Admin takes a look at this, they may overrule me. I won't argue this with you though.

Brown Bomber

nesf wrote: »

Right the problem seems to be that you come into the forum every so often to pursue some personal theories, this riles up the natives and creates a mess in the forum. I don't think you're doing this intentionally or maliciously but it's what's happening.

I think you should rethink about starting these kinds of threads in A&A as they only seem to cause hassle and result in a lot of work for the mods. You started three very similar threads, which were justifiably merged. None of which generated anything approaching a decent discussion, just you asking a question and then refusing to accept any evidence that disagrees with the answer you want. This is soapboxing at its worst and is not generally acceptable in the "debate forums."

I don't think Robin was being biased in his moderation, I think your approach to the forum is the problem here and I'd ask you take a long hard look at those threads and see why they are not productive or constructive and how you're at the heart of them being so.


You may request an Admin takes a look at this, they may overrule me. I won't argue this with you though.

Thank you for your time.
I'm disapointed but not surprised with the outcome. I realise that you won't be responding but I'd like to respond all the same if I may.

1 - Regarding the main issue you have your facts all wrong. It was not three threads merged it was two. I was the OP in only one of those and the topics were not at all similar as you've claimed.

Thread A was the OP I've posted above. Thread B was me responding to a video of Hitchens on George Orwell.

2 - I completely reject your unsupported claim of soapboxing. I have merely opened 3 unique threads. I have bent over backwards to engage in discussion and abide by the rules despite the mod-sanctioned trolling and abuse directed towards me.

It should be clear from any cursory reading of the threads that the simple reason for the hostility against me is my opinions not my behaviour, but A&A claims in their charter that the forum is open to all opinions.

3 - Robin has acted in a biased manner. I can demonstrate this directly:

Robin called me a clown on-thread-

But call "Atheist Ireland "clowns" and this is how Robin will respond:

robindch wrote: »

There's no call for that kind of language so cut it out, please.

Even ignoring the multitude of slurs far more severe that were directed towards me that's complete double-standards no matter how you look at it. Likewise, if Robin is merging a thread where Atheist Ireland is the OP Robin will leave a mod note. For me he applies a different standard - no such courtesy.

I firmly believe that your "justification" for merging two unrelated threads - which resulted in the spoilation of both - is based on spurious grounds at best though I do appeciate your time and efforts and take on board broadly what you say, so thanks again. No hard feelings.
=======================

Regarding an admin, yes, I would appreciate a third opinion (for what good it will do), though I would be fearful it would be along the lines of "boards is right. don't ask us to demonstrate this or ask any follow up questions. Thread closed."

I would ideally like their opinion on this statement:

And, as a moderator of this forum, I suggest that if you'd like to avoid the kind of comments that you've received from just about every poster to date, that you substantially improve your standards of debate and of reasoning -- a good standard of both will produce honest, thoughtful responses and a respectable debate. The unhelpful tone you've adopted so far invites, in a manner not unlike what's going on over in FTB, exactly the opposite.

The above effectively says those who fall below Robin's personal assesment on levels of "debate" and "reason" are fair game for insults and abuse.

This flys in the face of the A&A Charter.

Also, I'd would like some kind of clarification on why I can't open a thread, under threat of banning, in A&A that is forum specific, fully in line with the charter and a genuine attempt at tapping into the knowledge of a group that is superior to my own. When the same thread has previously been spoiled by the same moderator without any explanation or legitimate reason.

Shield

Hello Brown Bomber.

Just so you know, I have sent a PM to the Admins who take care of final decisions in Help Desk. Sometimes they are so busy, they rely on us moderators to let them know that a user has requested an admin's opinion.

Please be patient, as this entire thread and history will be new to whoever takes it on. They will need time to go back to the very start and work from there. Keep in mind that just like me and you, they are unpaid volunteers, and it may take longer than normal for the ruling admin to read up on everything and post their decision. Their ruling will be final, so please just be patient and it will be dealt with as soon as possible.

Shield.

LoLth

starting to have a read through it now so no spoilers please!

LoLth

Righty,

issue one: Merging of threads.

there are in fact posts merged from THREE threads (Orwell on Hitchens, Militant Atheists and New Militant Atheists).

all of the merged posts are fairly close in sentiment and content and while I can understand that it makes the discussion harder to follow if only one discourse is being followed at a time, the central theme of each discourse is so similar that it ends up reading just like any other mega thread.

issue 2: ban from starting new threads:
posts from 1 thread were merged into a thread you started because it was similar (I am assuming that the mods found the original posts off topic for the thread they were in but I will have to check that to be sure) . You then, unhappy with the fact that the thread OP was changed, started a new thread on the exact same subject as the second thread which had already been merged with posts because of their similarities..... the mod issued a warning that you were not to create any new threads on the same or similar subject matter. you can create new threads, just make sure they are actually new threads and not just continuances of the same discussion in fresh surroundings.

issue 3: robindch's attitude toward you
from what I've read in that first thread I'm assuming there is some history behind this. I'll have a look back through your interactions with robindc in the past to see if I can see the current posts in the correct light.

issue 4: other poster's issue/treatment
same, there seems to be a history there as the comments suggest a disdain for your posts in the past. Seeing as 15 % of your posts are in A&A and 68% of your posts are in Conspiracy Theories, I'll go through your posting style there to see if maybe thats where the other users are carrying a grudge from

as you might imagine, this will take quite abit more reading so please be patient and I'll get back to you as soon as I can.

Brown Bomber

LoLth wrote: »

Righty,

issue one: Merging of threads.

there are in fact posts merged from THREE threads (Orwell on Hitchens, Militant Atheists and New Militant Atheists).

all of the merged posts are fairly close in sentiment and content and while I can understand that it makes the discussion harder to follow if only one discourse is being followed at a time, the central theme of each discourse is so similar that it ends up reading just like any other mega thread.

issue 2: ban from starting new threads:
posts from 1 thread were merged into a thread you started because it was similar (I am assuming that the mods found the original posts off topic for the thread they were in but I will have to check that to be sure) . You then, unhappy with the fact that the thread OP was changed, started a new thread on the exact same subject as the second thread which had already been merged with posts because of their similarities..... the mod issued a warning that you were not to create any new threads on the same or similar subject matter. you can create new threads, just make sure they are actually new threads and not just continuances of the same discussion in fresh surroundings.

issue 3: robindch's attitude toward you
from what I've read in that first thread I'm assuming there is some history behind this. I'll have a look back through your interactions with robindc in the past to see if I can see the current posts in the correct light.

issue 4: other poster's issue/treatment
same, there seems to be a history there as the comments suggest a disdain for your posts in the past. Seeing as 15 % of your posts are in A&A and 68% of your posts are in Conspiracy Theories, I'll go through your posting style there to see if maybe thats where the other users are carrying a grudge from

as you might imagine, this will take quite abit more reading so please be patient and I'll get back to you as soon as I can.

First of all thanks in advance for your time. Honestly, take all the time you need (or none at all). Obviously, I have no intention of opening the thread anymore. I had been looking to get a recommendation for an author but it's not the end of the world and opening the thread now would be aggravating and petty. So my complaint is only based on principle now and realistically I don't see how that is worth the effort required on your behalf and potentially causing grief between you and a volunteer of the site, someone you may even know/have met

However, I do truly believe that that I had/have a legitimate complaint. The only good that can come from it now from my perspective is that perhaps should I ever post in A&A again (unlikely) that if I was to report a post it would at least be taken seriously which may discourage the culture of the majority in-group circling and bullying the minority out-group with the tacit approval of the mods.

LoLth

no worries BB. The important thing here is that you do feel that you have a legitimate complaint.

The whole point of this is not to put down any disagreement by telling one side or the other to never post again, its to try to see if there has been a misunderstanding somewhere along the line and if there has, to let both sides know so they can be aware of it in future.

if robindch is being unfair to you then he will need to adjust his opinion, if however he is being fair and responding properly to what he sees as a poster that only posts to cause trouble then I think its important that you see where that opinion originates from and hopefully see how to alter your posting style to make the mods life a bit easier. It may be that its a little from column A and a little from column B and hopefully at the end we'll have a solution where you dont feel that you can't express an opinion without fear of being banned and the mods dont see a post and think "who's gonna clean up the fights this time?".

this is a discussion site and everyone should be able to express their opinions on a subject, even a controversial one without feeling like they have to defend themselves personally from unfair criticism. However, that requires a certain approach to how that opinion is expressed and the language used to express it in order to make it palatable to other that may hold the complete opposite point of view and thats what the mods generally try to maintain. Failure to do that can often be seen as trolling when in acutality is just a poster not taking the time to think about how a post reads from the other side of the fence. There is a world of difference between "being bullied" and just being a lone dissenter, a lot of times it depends on how the lone dissenter posts.

to illustrate:
If I walk into a room of people I dont know in a college its fairly safe to assume that the majority of them will be students. Now, if I start stating for a fact that all students are lazy good for nothings who are just wasting tax payers money on drugs and alcohol, i'm not going to be very popular at all. the response is going to originate from offense and will present itself as anger directed at me. But if I were to alter my presentation to start a discussion on student benefits from the state and how they could possibly be better allocated and leave enough room for others to give their view on the subject matter without it having to instantly contradict something I have said then the discussion starts as a discussion where I am asking for opinion and should evolve into a discussion where all participants are part of the ongoing conversation and not instantly divided into right and not-right-according-to-me.

as far as reported posts, all mods of a forum will read reported posts so any report gets more than one set of eyes. If one mod doesnt action it and its actionable then another mod will or at least there is a second opinion available in cases where there is some doubt. How seriously a reported post is taken depends on a few factors of which "is it a clear violation of the rules" is first and "did the other user provoke the response" is another - which ties back to the posting style I described earlier.

As I said, we take all complaints seriously and we like to try to find a solution acceptable to all parties involved. This incidence is quite involved and looks to have a history behind it (robindch is quite level headed and I've never seen him (her? it?) display a prejudice against a poster that he/she/it has not based evidence from the users psots in the forum but there is a first time for everything so that allowance has to be made until proven otherwise). Hopefully by looking at the history of your interactions on the forum I can see where this conflict of opinion started and advise both of you on a way to make your use of the forum more pleasant for everyone concerned, in particular for the other users.

LoLth

Hi BB,

I've looked through your posting history on Atheism & Agnosticism and I have to say, I can see where robindch's impatience comes from.

Nearly every single post you make is to discuss anti-Islam sentiment and/or a perceived jewish driven anti-islam campaign.

you've repeatedly started threads on teh subject and presented "facts" which are, in general typical of most conspiracy theory posts where 70% of the facts are verifiable but slight padding is required to make it an ironclad "proof".

thats all well and good for the conspiracy forum or your political views might be suitable for the politics subforum US Politics except you would need to change your posting style, you are definitely soapboxing. In each instance you post and call for opinions but you point blank refuse to discuss any possibility other than the one you have presented, there is no room for debate or discussion its either agree with you or be wrong.

Add to that the fact that its a forum for discussion of Atheism and Agnosticism but every single thread you start has only a tenuous link to either of those topics and instead has strong leanings toward your favourite topic of Islamophobia.

I'm going to have to ask you to stop. either use the forum correctly or use the correct forum please.

As for Robindch, he's not completely innocent, he's guilty of engaging with you on thread to try to convince you to change your posting style at first through suggestion then through ultimatum and , unfortunately, then through ridicule. I will be advising the mods to no longer take this path with you on that forum as it obviously a: is not working and b: just seems to encourage you to do the exact opposite or reel in your behaviour just enough to dip inside the rules for a post or two and then its back to normal. Instead I'm going to advise that from now on, anything you post that is off topic for the forum be dealt with using warnings and infractions and, if it doesnt change, bans.

I see from your history that the majority of your posts were in the conspiracy theory forum (and 9/11) and I can also see that you have quite a record there for your posting behaviour, a record that has improved significantly of late. However, its now obvious that this isnt because you've modified your behaviour but instead because you've moved your posts on your specialist subject from CT to A&A and I suspect that if cards/bans were used in the same manner your record would more accurately reflect your behaviour. This has the added advantage, for you, of allowing DRP if you feel an action is unwarranted.

let me put this simply: your posting style coupled with your post content is both off topic for the forum, argumentative and aggressive as well as being outright insulting in a lot of cases and it makes it very difficult for anyone to actually enjoy a discussion that you are involved in as it instantly becomes a trench warfare affair where you constantly provoke those who disagree with you through your unnecessary contstant use re-use of phrases like "hated american regime". Tone down your opinion and it might be more accessible to others, as it is you are very much approaching the realm of being seen to post to antagonise deliberately.


Bullying by others in the forum: Nope. its not bullying if you're the one that started it. You post something incendiary and the regulars react , almost uniformly, against your opinion. you refuse to modify your position or even accept the possibility of being mistaken and the users get pissed off with your behaviour. That it is a huge majority of the users that post this way should tell you something. Do the opinions and responses carry over from other threads? yes they do. possibly because the same argument from you is carried over to the other threads so naturally the reaction is going to be the same or a continuation.

still to do: I need to address your concern about reported posts being ignored. I shall review the posts you have reported from A&A and the actions that the reports were met with and whether the action was fitting. Wont be able to get to it tonight but hopefulyl I'll have a response by Sunday for you.

thanks

Brown Bomber

Hi., thanks for the detailed response. Away with work and can't adequately reply but would. Appreciate the opportunity all the same in due course.

Brown Bomber

LoLth wrote: »

Hi BB,

I've looked through your posting history on Atheism & Agnosticism and I have to say, I can see where robindch's impatience comes from.

Nearly every single post you make is to discuss anti-Islam sentiment and/or a perceived jewish driven anti-islam campaign.

???

This is completely false.
1. I have NEVER spoken of a "jewish driven anti-Islam campaign"
2. I have simply noy only commented on Islam in A&A in threads about Islam. Two of the three (total) threads I have opened in A&A have more to do with freedom of speech than anything else. The third was the one that was destroyed by Robin and had nothing to do with Islam.
3. I have made other posts in other threads that have nothing to do with Islam.

Example:
This "high-quality" thread posted a picture of two priests laying on an altar and this was the accompanying post in full "

Please explain this picture to me
What is the point of priests doing this.

What followed was a slew of "comical" observations and piss-taking. I came across the thread and was actually able to answer the OP's question, and did so. It was a scene from a mass organised for and by abuse victims.

What follows inevitably is me being the victim of personal abuse in that forum and the mods doing nothing.

Seriously, WTF is wrong with you? Your exploitation of the suffering of others to promote your own agenda disgusts me.

Well I say nothing, but Robin thanks the abusive post. This is not an isolated incident and is a clear dereliction of mod duties and the reason I do not report posts when I am on the end of personal attacks. What would be the point when mods thank the rule-breaking post?

In short I am not quite sure where you got your information from but it is false.
_______________________________

LoLth wrote: »

you've repeatedly started threads on teh subject

Again no. I've started only three threads in A&A in the best part of three years. And that is including the thread that was spoiled by Robin which was the cause of this appeal.

On the other hand the leader of Atheist Ireland tm is freely permitted to shill his organisation and sell his product as he wishes.

He doesn't engage in any threads at all as far as I am aware that doesn't advertise his org.

LoLth wrote: »

and presented "facts" which are, in general typical of most conspiracy theory posts where 70% of the facts are verifiable but slight padding is required to make it an ironclad "proof".

As it happens I have no interest in discussing "conspiracy theories" in A&A. In fact, I've (SOLELY) challenged many racist/Islamophobic or just simply naive conspiracy theories - such as a "UK Muslim is far more likely to rape than a non-Muslim" Or this thread is me debunking a conspiracy theory (you might notice that Robin refers to me as "child"). There would be numerous others examples.

LoLth wrote: »

thats all well and good for the conspiracy forum or your political views might be suitable for the politics subforum US Politics except you would need to change your posting style, you are definitely soapboxing. In each instance you post and call for opinions but you point blank refuse to discuss any possibility other than the one you have presented, there is no room for debate or discussion its either agree with you or be wrong.

This is a total misrepresentation. By way of example here is dades referring to a thread I was heavily involved in as "interesting discussion" - and this is by post 540

LoLth wrote: »

Add to that the fact that its a forum for discussion of Atheism and Agnosticism

Actually it is much broader than that:

This may be at it's heart a forum for those who share atheist or agnostic views, but those of all faiths or beliefs are welcome in any discussion. Also welcome are any questions/comments relating to religion, morality, ethics or the origins of life in general.

LoLth wrote: »

but every single thread you start has only a tenuous link to either of those topics and instead has strong leanings toward your favourite topic of Islamophobia.

Merely two threads have been loosely connected to Islamophobia, Two. There shouldn't be an issue, according to the charter at least as they purportedly "questions/comments relating to religion, morality, ethics"

LoLth wrote: »

I'm going to have to ask you to stop. either use the forum correctly or use the correct forum please.

I accept your decision, though I absolutely refute your reasons.

LoLth wrote: »

As for Robindch, he's not completely innocent, he's guilty of engaging with you on thread to try to convince you to change your posting style at first through suggestion then through ultimatum and , unfortunately, then through ridicule. I will be advising the mods to no longer take this path with you on that forum as it obviously a: is not working and b: just seems to encourage you to do the exact opposite or reel in your behaviour just enough to dip inside the rules for a post or two and then its back to normal. Instead I'm going to advise that from now on, anything you post that is off topic for the forum be dealt with using warnings and infractions and, if it doesnt change, bans.

You seem to be blaming me for a mod abusing me. Disheartening. While I do appreciate your generous under the circumstances suggestion of a last-chance saloon, when you could simply ban me from the forum or indeed the site on a whim I think it is clearly best for all involved that I avoid the forum, and shall do so.

LoLth wrote: »

I see from your history that the majority of your posts were in the conspiracy theory forum (and 9/11) and I can also see that you have quite a record there for your posting behaviour, a record that has improved significantly of late. However, its now obvious that this isnt because you've modified your behaviour but instead because you've moved your posts on your specialist subject from CT to A&A and I suspect that if cards/bans were used in the same manner your record would more accurately reflect your behaviour. This has the added advantage, for you, of allowing DRP if you feel an action is unwarranted.

This is hugely unfair and another complete misrepresentation.

My last infraction came on 24th of November last year. Since then I've posted 992 times in Conspiracy Theories . More than double the 406 posts in A&A. That alone is nearly 1500 posts without so much as an infraction over the space of a year. Credit where credit is due.

If you are looking for an explanation you might see that almost all my bans/infractions were from a certain former Conspiracy Theories mod.

LoLth wrote: »

let me put this simply: your posting style coupled with your post content is both off topic for the forum, argumentative and aggressive as well as being outright insulting in a lot of cases and it makes it very difficult for anyone to actually enjoy a discussion that you are involved in as it instantly becomes a trench warfare affair where you constantly provoke those who disagree with you through your unnecessary contstant use re-use of phrases like "hated american regime". Tone down your opinion and it might be more accessible to others, as it is you are very much approaching the realm of being seen to post to antagonise deliberately.

???
I've never used the term "hated America regime", However, I do accept that it is my opinions and/or declaration of established (but unwelcomed) facts that causes much of the problems.

I hadn't considered that your opinions can justify you being abused by mods but there you go...

Regarding my attitude I can honestly say with hand on heart I have never been short with anyone on boards who didn't initiate the ill feeling.

Wibbs is somebody who I would assume you know and trust. I had a long discussion with him/her in A&A where we agreed on very little but didn't resort to mockery and abuse. Perhaps you could ask them?

LoLth wrote: »

Bullying by others in the forum: Nope. its not bullying if you're the one that started it. You post something incendiary and the regulars react , almost uniformly, against your opinion. you refuse to modify your position or even accept the possibility of being mistaken and the users get pissed off with your behaviour. That it is a huge majority of the users that post this way should tell you something. Do the opinions and responses carry over from other threads? yes they do. possibly because the same argument from you is carried over to the other threads so naturally the reaction is going to be the same or a continuation.

I'm a little disillusioned with that response tbh. You are essentially saying that if you have a minority "opinion" the majority are entitled to bully you because there is more of them

LoLth wrote: »

still to do: I need to address your concern about rported posts being ignored. I shall review the posts you have reported from A&A and the actions that the reports were met with and whether the action was fitting. Wont be able to get to it tonight but hopefulyl I'll have a response by Sunday for you.

thanks

OK, thanks. On that like to point out that there has been far worse posts than I've reported. I had no confidence that the mods would act objectively so didnt see the point.

===========================================================

Most importantly of all I REALLY, REALLY hope you take this post in the way it is intended - which is me just giving an honest reaction to what you've wrote. I very much appreciate the considerable responses you've given even if I don't agree with everything you've said. I genuinely have no ill feeling, accept that it was an honest appraisal and am happy to take your advise on board, steer clear of A&A and move on.

LoLth

hey BB, RL sort of sidetracked me on this.

You have every right to disagree with my view on this but you asked for a third party to come in and take a look and I can only call it as I see it. Maybe the fact that this is how I , who have never (that I can remember) had any dealings with you before, form my impression of you as a poster will be enough to get you to re-evaluate your posting and possibly see where I could get the wrong idea.

Please dont take everything I wrote as bad, I honestly do like your depth of knowledge and obvious passion for a subject, I just question the way in which you present that knowledge to others.

And I do take your response as it was intended. no hard feelilngs at all. If I'm wrong in my observations, then please feel free to prove it to me in your posts in the future

On the point about bullying though I feel I do need to clarify. I'm not in any way condoning bullying. at all. its never an acceptable practise. What I am questioning is the definition of bullying that seems to be used lately.

there is a current trend that if everyone disagrees with me then they are bullying me. If everyone ridicules me, then they are bullying me. Thats not true. At all. Thats just a typical example of "creep" as definitions get blurred so people can apply it to themselves and include it in their reasoning for why this is happening. "Its not me, its them, they're bullying me!".

Do people get bullied and ridiculed for no reason? yes. they do. and we dont allow it when we see it. Are users singled out beyond a reasable amount and effectively persecuted? yes they are and again, we dont allow it when we see it, we deal with it very harshly if we are sure and we warn very strongly if its suspected.

But. If I stand up in front of a room of people who I know are supporters of X and I state, as fact, that X is complete crap and anyone that belives it is a moron then I can expect to have the vast majority of that room tear strips out of me. They're *not* bullying me they are defending their belief, they may make personal comments about me, again, not bullying, they are expressing anger that I provoked. (on boards we have the attack the post not the poster but sometimes its hard to distinguish between the posting style and the post itself. personal attacks should never happen though)

Now, if that group follow me to another room and continue their ridicule and abuse then yes, we have a case for bullying. If they happen to be in another room that I go into and they denounce a claim I make to the others in that room, then no, its not bullying, its relating an experience that I created. Same applies if I go back into the original room a week later and make the same statement to the same people. Just because its the same reaction doesnt mean its bullying, it does mean its not unexpected seeing as its the same audience and the same statement.

Does bullying happen? yes it does.
Is it bad? yes indeed it is.
is all negative response bullying? No it is not. at all. its the nature of human interaction and its part and parcel of discussion.

imho, the call of bullying can often be an easier alternative to taking personal responsibility for a negative reaction and it detracts from the seriousness of the issue for those who actually are being bullied.