Ban Appeal

mathepac

"Dear mathepac,

You have been banned from After Hours for three months 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.

If you wish to appeal this ban you can see details on how to do so here.

dr.bollocko

Your post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathepac
Quote:
Originally Posted by awec
You reckon he was building that bomb to put in his garden as an ornament?
Where did I say I "reckoned" any of that?. Can you not see my post clearly? Are you reading it through eejit-coloured glasses? Is your question stupidly rhetorical or rhetorically stupid?"

Isn't awec a moderator IIRC and as such should know better than to entice posters with baited troll-type posts, attempting to get a poster to defend a statement they didn't make in the first place. It's an underhanded stratagem but typical of boards.ie insiders.

The real outcome here should have been to have awec banned for trolling but that won't happen in my lifetime, not while we have the whinging underhanded posters posts being moderated in the fashion I have highlighted elsewhere.

If I had asked about viewing my post through rose-tinted glasses would I have been banned? Rose-tinted glasses is a phrase used to point out that the viewer might have an unrealistically positive view of the world or be "Blinded by the light, Revved up like a deuce another runner in the night..." as Manfred Mann used to sing. My eejit-coloured glasses remark is kinda like the opposite; the viewer seeing stupidity where it doesn't exist.

I thought my original question was appropriate given awec's questioning response to my post and I wondered, caringly, what was the issue with his/her vision.

My next question is an attempt to understand what prompted awec to post his/her question and whether he / she / it understood the plain English I had used or whether the incorrect post was being questioned. Again I thought I posted in a very caring fashion.

My final two-part question is a question about awec's understanding of basic constructs in English, i.e. the rhetorical question that requires no answer. My intention here was to enlighten someone in need of such enlightenment IMHO.

So there you have it. A series of questions in response to a troll results in an unwarranted ban and I appeal it on those very strong grounds. It's the Bart Simpson defence - "I didn't do it!"

Remember the last time I appealed against an unwarranted ban? The one that was lifted because I hadn't done what I was accused of? Because there was no evidence of my having "broken any rules"? The one where I was informed that I "got off on a technicality"? I reckon someone wants payback for having to be seen to do the right thing back then, albeit with surly bad grace.

Not by any stretch of the imagination could anyone interpret my questions in response to a trolling post as "being uncivil". They were posted caringly and with great concern and should have earned more thanks.

mathepac

The real issue here is of course that awec, along with another group of posters in the same thread, wanted to assume that because a man was convicted of one crime he was automatically guilty of another crime, despite the non-guilty verdict handed down by the courts.

Do you see the parallels?

Guilty of one crime, guilty of all despite the lack of evidence and the outcomes of trials.

I think it's a shame if boards.ie, if only via the rather laughable sometimes amusing AH, becomes a platform for bigots to trumpet their ill-founded self-righteousness; we may be in danger of turning into the good ole US of A (the A is not for Amuhrikah).

Penn

Hi mathepac,

Have you PM'd the mod in question to discuss the ban? If not, please do so. If no agreement can be reached, please post here in a concise manner as to why you disagree with the ban, as your posts above go off on serious rambling and irrelevant tangents. If you post as succinctly as you can, I'll take a look over it. Otherwise I genuinely can't understand what it is you wish to discuss. Thanks.

Penn

Hi mathepac, I've taken a look over this for you.

The post you were banned for was quite clearly a veiled way of calling another poster an eejit (in the same way "Are you taking stupid pills?" is a way of calling someone stupid).

As for the ban itself, I'm under the impression that the ban was for more than that one post, and relates more to your general aggressive and antagonistic attitude on the forum in general. In fact I recently gave you an on-thread warning for this post:

mathepac wrote: »

I'm not your friend and I haven't got an iota what this nonsense phrase means "... living a very closed mind existence ...".

Please don't refer to me as your friend again in case other posters mistakenly identify me as just another composer of bigoted posts.

I'm relieved you didn't form the impression that I'm set in your ways.

In my opinion, the ban was deserved, and as your last ban was for one month and you haven't shown that you've changed your posting style in any way, I think a three month ban is justified in this case.

You may ask for an admin to review this decision if you wish.

mathepac

So is it your opinion that awec's original taunt was not trolling?

Penn

Other people's posts are not up for discussion here. If you felt another poster was trolling, you should have reported the post and let the mods deal with it rather than resorting to personal abuse.

You were actioned on the basis of your own posts, no-one else's. What other people post is no excuse for breaking the rules.

Again, the decision is upheld and you may ask for an admin to review it if you wish.

mathepac

Because mods don't deal with them based on my experience, particularly if the post complained of is made by another mod. Check out feedback etc for evidence of this.

BTW if you drag in extraneous material, i.e. an unrelated post of mine from a different thread, why can't I query inaction about a trolling post in the thread in question?

Another example of mods do what they like and posters do what they're told.

Penn

mathepac wrote: »

BTW if you drag in extraneous material, i.e. an unrelated post of mine from a different thread, why can't I query inaction about a trolling post in the thread in question?

Other people's posts aren't up for discussion. Posts of yours that contributed to the decision are relevant.

The decision to uphold the ban has been made at CMod level and I won't be discussing it further. As per the DR process, you can now either ask for an admin to review this decision, or allow this dispute to be marked as resolved.