Politics Forum Infraction & Warning

M three

Hi,
See thread here;
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=81430212#post81430212

and first post here;
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81430212&postcount=13

The background to this is emily o'reilly saying that it is illegal to deny an irish person their meager mobility allowance just because they're over 66.

jackass responded by saying that referring such issues for legal opinion was normal procedure. i responded by saying that it was just a means of stalling, and that he was just peddling government BS by saying it was normal procedure. I got an infraction for being uncivil, unwarranted in my opinion. Politics should be about robust discussion. In my opinion jackass was talking BS.
Scofflaw posted an on thread warning and added that I cant be accusing people of working for the government. Which I clearly never did.
I looked up scofflaws use of the previously unmentioned term shill. I was curious so asked as an aside why it is unreasonable to inquire if people from political parties or affiliated with same do actually use boards to peddle opinion. I didnt realise this was such a touchy subject!
I go a warning for that post. And a series of unsolicited pm's from scofflaw up until 1.11 am last night. In response to his pm's and to be clear;

I never said anyone does boards for a living.
I never said anyone worked for the government.
And I never said anyone was a shill or used the term shill.
If anyones being uncivil here its scofflaw via his pm's to me. he says I cant reply to his on thread comments to me, on thread. Only by pm, which is unfair.
I dont accept the infraction, the warning and the tone of scofflaws comments to me. I want them rescinded, and an on thread apology by scofflaw for his actions and over the top handling of the whole thing where he's basically putting words in my mouth and accusing me wrongly.

Scofflaw

Since we've gone to DRP, I include the PM exchange between us for reference:

M three wrote:

I'll start another one.
You're just continuing to put words in my mouth.
I never said anyone does boards for a living.
I never said anyone worked for the government.
And I never anyone was a shill.
You're accusing me of all these things and I think thats uncivil. Yet you infract me on thread for doing so, wrongly I believe.

Unless you're willing to accept what I'm saying and rescind the infraction and the warning and post an on thread apology I'm not interested in discussing this further with you as you're accusing me of saying stuff I havent. And worse still abusing your power as a mod to dish out an infraction and a warning to me.

Scofflaw wrote:

You don't seem to have started a DRP thread, though. And try to bear in mind that none of us do this for a living.

moderately,
Scofflaw

M three wrote:

No sign of the thread I started in drp about this in "my threads" and no feedback from anyone about the matter. Funny how you were so quick to dish out an infraction and a warning and theres no word from anyone when I rightly query it.

Scofflaw wrote:

Hi M three,

OK - DRP is under the Help Desk on the Sys menu. You can state that you've PM'd the Mod and I've responded - you can also quote these PMs if you wish.

On the question of whether your opinion matters - that isn't what I said. I said it doesn't matter if you think something is BS - telling someone "you're talking BS" is pretty obviously uncivil - as is accusing them of being a government shill.

And commenting on moderation on thread isn't allowed anywhere on Boards. If you wanted to argue the toss with me about government shills, you should have done so by PM.

moderately,
Scofflaw

M three wrote:

So now you're saying my opinion doesnt matter?
All i meant originally was that i felt the guy was spewing government BS.
You went on to say I was accusing him of being a government shill, and that I cant be saying that.
I asked why? And you've given me a warning for back seat moderation.
Yes, I will be appealing your overhanded attempted at silencing and ignoring my opinion.

Scofflaw wrote:

Hi M three,

that you honestly feel it's BS doesn't make any difference, I'm afraid - but the yellow card was for the "Or maybe you did and are just pushing bull**** for the government." bit, not the BS bit.

moderately,
Scofflaw

M three wrote:

You have to be kidding me. Where exactly was I being uncivil? I was calling the aptly named jackass for posting what was in my opinion BS, of the highest order.

If thats the way it works I feel he was being uncivil to me, do you want me to report his previous post?

Scofflaw wrote:

Dear M three,

You have been warned for being uncivil.

Typically, this means that you are posting in a needlessly aggressive or confrontational manner being disruptive on the forum or causing stress for the other members. We don't want that here.

For more information please refer to the Boards.ie FAQ.



Scofflaw

Your post:

M three wrote: »

I think you'll find that selectively referring legislation for legal opinion in this country is a means of passing the buck and stalling.
Are you seriously suggesting that it is necessary (with regard to the denial of the mobility allowance to over 66 year olds) to refer this for legal opinion, when the ombudswoman emily o'reilly has already said its illegal?

Did you not already know that? Or maybe you did and are just pushing bull**** for the government.

As for the rest of your post,

moderately,
Scofflaw

M three

Are you supposed to post the list of pm's between us without being first asked to by a cmod?

Scofflaw

M three wrote: »

Are you supposed to post the list of pm's between us without being first asked to by a cmod?

I'll be AFK for the next several days, I'm afraid, and they're germane. I'm not interpreting or commenting on the PMs, but I did make it clear they would come up.

Additionally, you have referred to them in your OP as "a series of unsolicited pm's from scofflaw up until 1.11 am last night". It seems reasonable, I think, to point out that they are no such thing, but are in fact an automatically generated warning regarding your infraction, followed by a series of my replies to your PMs to me.

moderately,
Scofflaw

M three

My point was is someone supposed to post the list of pm's between us without being first asked to by a cmod? And that was posed to the cmod on here, not to you. I've already told you I'm not interested in discussing this further with you, as in my opinion you are incapable of treating me fairly. Which is part of being a moderator. Not posting related pm's until asked by the relevant cmod seems to be the case on other DRP threads.

You previously said no one does boards for a living. Well my point about you sending me pm's up until after 1am last night was that some of us have to sleep. Didnt seem to bother you though. Your responses to me smack of one rule for you and another for me.

nesf

You get warned for accusing someone of "pushing bull**** for the government".

Fair warning, I'd have warned too. You're attacking the poster not the post.

e.g. I may hold the opinion that a certain poster is an idiot of the densest type but that doesn't mean I get to post saying so on here.


You argued the warning on thread.

That's an instant red card on the forum. If you want to argue a warning do it by PM.


I see no merit in your case. You may ask an Admin to look at it, they may overturn my decision.

M three

nesf wrote: »

You get warned for accusing someone of "pushing bull**** for the government".

Fair warning, I'd have warned too. You're attacking the poster not the post.

e.g. I may hold the opinion that a certain poster is an idiot of the densest type but that doesn't mean I get to post saying so on here.


You argued the warning on thread.

That's an instant red card on the forum. If you want to argue a warning do it by PM.


I see no merit in your case. You may ask an Admin to look at it, they may overturn my decision.

Have you looked at this at all? I was infracted not warned for saying in my opinion someone was pushing government type BS. Scofflaw went on to use the term "shill". The thread to me was moving on so i inquired to the use of that term. that wasnt me questioning the infraction, obviously.

Perhaps scofflaw should have split the thread into a discussion of the term "shill" rather than warn me for inquiring into his use of a new term.

You havent looked at the pm to me by scofflaw where he infers my opinion doesnt matter "that you honestly feel it's BS doesn't make any difference"

Thats uncivil to me so where is his infraction.
All very one sided this.

Yes I would like admin to look into this.
perhaps there should also be an open discussion into politics threads, pro government bias, shills etc. that could be interesting.

nesf

M three wrote: »

Have you looked at this at all? I was infracted not warned for saying in my opinion someone was pushing government type BS. Scofflaw went on to use the term "shill". The thread to me was moving on so i inquired to the use of that term. that wasnt me questioning the infraction, obviously.

Perhaps scofflaw should have split the thread into a discussion of the term "shill" rather than warn me for inquiring into his use of a new term.

You havent looked at the pm to me by scofflaw where he infers my opinion doesnt matter "that you honestly feel it's BS doesn't make any difference"

Thats uncivil to me so where is his infraction.
All very one sided this.

Yes I would like admin to look into this.
perhaps there should also be an open discussion into politics threads, pro government bias, shills etc. that could be interesting.

Nothing above sways me to change my mind on this. I'm not going to argue this with you. An admin will look over this.

oscarBravo

You didn't get a warning for using the word "shill"; you got a warning for implying that someone was a government shill, which is personalising the debate. You could possibly have plausibly denied that that's what you meant until you spelled out that that's exactly what you meant while arguing in-thread with a moderator instruction, which is generally not allowed anywhere on this site.

The warning was justified; the infraction is par for the course. Both are upheld.