Legal Discussion. Please review

Cody Pomeray

I am aware that the DRP is open to any CMod, but I would ask that this be looked at by Scofflaw, who has been dealing with the previous complaints I have made here, and here, and via pm. Or if any other mod reviews this, I would ask they take these into account.

Last night, on the legal discussion forum, there was a thread covering defective summonses and proper service. Here is that thread.

I will briefly summarize. The OP wanted to know whether he had been properly served. One poster appeared to give legal advice, another gave a sarcastic response, another asked whether the summons had originated as a fixed charge penalty notice.

I ignored the first two, and, in the course of answering the OP, I enquired what the relevance might be of a fixed charge notice. At first I couldn't think of any, but as the thread progressed, I realized there was relevance.

That is to say, a fixed charge notice is a fantastic and elaborate manuscript in its own right, and lays down certain rights, obligations and indeed ultimatums, should a charge remain unpaid. Should the OP have received this, he could hardly claim to be unaware of its consequences. There is no need to elaborate on that here.

Anyway, as it transpired, that is not the line the poster was developing. The poster clarified that he was merely saying the OP could have saved himself a lot of hassle. Grand. My mistake.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87329025&postcount=13

Cody Pomeray wrote:

oh right I thought you were raising some matter of legal relevance. my mistake.

That post resulted in yet another legal discussion forum infraction, three of which I have now 'earned' since my feedback thread six weeks ago.

Category Moderators, I have in excess of 3,500 posts, many of them (at least, the extensive ones), in legal discussion. Only since that feedback thread have I suddenly attracted the attention of the mods, two of whom have actually raised the feedback thread via PM, and one of whom has cited it as part of the basis for an infraction.

Moderators, I could go through any of your posts, and you could go through any of mine, and we could all find things which might, or could, or could be reconstructed so as to be in breach of any given charter, if we are so minded to find it.

The practical reality is that, unless there is some obvious intent or malice, or something very disruptive, moderators generally don't bend over backwards to try and look for excuses to infract.

I do not believe there is any great conspiracy to have me forum banned. But only the most naive would believe that there is not some change - deliberate or otherwise - in how my posts have been treated since the feedback thread. This, despite my going out of my way to avoid breaching the LD charter.

I don't find this funny anymore. I consider this singling someone out for more punitive treatment. I hesitate to use the word bullying, but I can see where it is going. I don't know these guys from Adam. I have no reason to start off with a grudge against anyone, but in response to these bizarre interventions, I admit I have not responded with Christian civility.

But the feedback thread has obviously rubbed people up the wrong way. I am just asking for this childishness to stop, or for it to at least be noted. Thank you.

Scofflaw

Hi Cody,

apologies for the delay. Having had a look around, and knowing, indeed, much of the back-story here, I have to ask if you mind me being extremely blunt here?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Cody Pomeray

Right. No, nevermind, I can see where this is going.

The outcome to these complaints is not something I'm relaying. on. I know, from looking through the forum, that dispute resolutions almost never end with a decision against a moderator.

But if ordinary customers can decide what is happening for themselves, I think that's enough. The main point here, from my viewpoint, is for these abuses to be noted. Not necessarily among mods, but among ordinary users.

Scofflaw

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Right. No, nevermind, I can see where this is going.

The outcome to these complaints is not something I'm relaying. on. I know, from looking through the forum, that dispute resolutions almost never end with a decision against a moderator.

But if ordinary customers can decide what is happening for themselves, I think that's enough. The main point here, from my viewpoint, is for these abuses to be noted. Not necessarily among mods, but among ordinary users.

Contrary to your opinion, this could in fact have ended with a decision against the moderators, but, since apparently you don't actually care for a resolution, and coming back to the bluntness thing - as far as I can see, yes, you're probably being singled out, but, to be honest and blunt, you're being singled out because you're extremely convinced you know best, can't resist grandstanding to that effect, and are willing to spend time and effort attempting to rub other people's noses in how right you are, which is frankly obnoxious.

If you didn't really care whether you got a resolution through DRP, then thanks for valuing my volunteered time so little as to ask me here to play witness to your grandstand.

I advise you to consider those points.

irritated,
Scofflaw

Cody Pomeray

Sorry, no offence intended.

I have nothing for, or against, the moderators. My own opinion is all that matters to me.

We have had our own run-ins on the politics forum, and I think we are both adult enough to get over personal acerbics, I believe.

The outcome of a DRP is irrelevant to me. I don't mean to waste your time, and you are welcome to post as many accusatory things as you want (not that you should need my permission), but, with all due respect, I don't mind.

The reason I can take these threads is because, although I feel singled out, I can wipe it off. It doesn't affect me. But it could affect someone, and someone could construe it as bullying, should they experience it.

I think that is, regardless of my personality, worthy of an investigation, or a second look.

Can I be an acerbic poster, betimes? Undoubtedly.

Can that be an excuse for singling out a poster for special treatment in a particularly aggressive way? No, I don't believe so. That would be a harmful precedent, as regards "blaming" the person under attack.

This really is about something being "noted". It really isn't about the outcome, for me. I am hapy for the infractions to "stick", all that I am unhappy about is the "approach", i.e. the approach of the mods in question.

Thank you for your time.

Scofflaw

Cody Pomeray wrote:

My own opinion is all that matters to me.

And therein lies the issue, really. I'm not entirely happy with the responses of some of the mod team regarding the issues raised about the charter, and agree with much of what was said about the difficulties and frequent absurdities and inconsistencies of policing the line on 'legal advice', but I don't think that's really your problem here.

I would say that while the mod team is not above reproach here, neither are you, and not only do you not care, you're happy to make it plain that you don't care, and that you don't care because your judgement is very much superior to theirs, and mine, and indeed anyone else's, as far as I can see.

If you do continue along that line, then I would say that you will continue to be 'singled out' by mods - you will continue to see that as their problem, and they will continue to see you as theirs. That is, to be frank, an unsustainable situation, and there will come a point where the number of rather unpleasantly petty situations involving you gets to the point where you get permabanned from one or more forums as a persistent if low-grade irritant.

You will no doubt see that as further evidence of mods' ineptness and vindictiveness, but from my perspective, you're just one user. If you insist on getting up a lot of noses (and you have a reasonable nose count already), then the greatest good of the greatest number is served by your absence, and that's an outcome we've had recourse to before.

Judging from your comments here, it's hard not to see this as anything but a matter of time.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Cody Pomeray

Scofflaw wrote: »

I would say that while the mod team is not above reproach here, neither are you, and not only do you not care, you're happy to make it plain that you don't care, and that you don't care because your judgement is very much superior to theirs, and mine, and indeed anyone else's, as far as I can see.

To clarify.

When I say my opinion is all that matters, it is all that matters to me. I do not say that I disregard every other opinion. I merely make this statement in explaining why my singling out does not affect me personally.

It is an inherently meaningless and irrelevant statement.

Whether or not other people's opinions and actions matter should be irrelevant. What is happening here, and you seem to agree, is that a singling out is occurring, whereby a user is being subjected to special, punitive treatment.

As I have said, I am able to wipe this off. But not everybody would. I believe there is an onus on the site for this to be "noted", or, failing that, I appeal to ordinary users of the site to note this happening, and indeed, if necessary, to note its toleration.

Scofflaw

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

To clarify.

When I say my opinion is all that matters, it is all that matters to me. I do not say that I disregard every other opinion. I merely make this statement in explaining why my singling out does not affect me personally.

It is an inherently meaningless and irrelevant statement.

Whether or not other people's opinions and actions matter should be irrelevant. What is happening here, and you seem to agree, is that a singling out is occurring, whereby a user is being subjected to special, punitive treatment.

As I have said, I am able to wipe this off. But not everybody would. I believe there is an onus on the site for this to be "noted", or, failing that, I appeal to ordinary users of the site to note this happening, and indeed, if necessary, to note its toleration.

Sure. What I'm trying to explain to you is why you're being 'singled out' - it's because, in very short and blunt, you're being obnoxious.

Mods, as I'm sure you'll agree, are not god-like creatures remote from petty human concerns - like people being dismissive and abrasive in their direction. Like every other poster, they tend to react badly to it - and, importantly, like every other poster, they deserve not to have to put up with it. There's a certain kind of poster who seems to regard them as 'fair game', and rudeness to them as being OK because it's just resisting authority, but they're community volunteers, they're not some kind of paid police force whose eye you can spit in for anti-establishment brownie points.

To find a resolution in this situation is easy enough - you tone down the obnoxiousness towards the particular set of posters, and the particular set of posters leave you alone. Unfortunately, it seems that you don't see anything at all wrong with what you've been doing, or you don't see that it's wrong to do it to those posters because they're mods, so that resolution is blocked.

Can the matter, then, be resolved by telling the mods not to react no matter how dismissive and abrasive you choose to be? It could be, but the only reason for attempting such a resolution is because you feel you have a special place in the sun, and you don't, or because you feel that another set of posters are somehow fair game for that kind of thing - and, again, that's not the case. It's hard, therefore, to see the equity in such a resolution, since it consists of an assertion of your superior rights - and while you have rights, they are not superior to other people's.

Perhaps I should ask directly - do you think you have any case to answer here?

moderately,
Scofflaw

Cody Pomeray

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sure. What I'm trying to explain to you is why you're being 'singled out' - it's because, in very short and blunt, you're being obnoxious.

I can be obnoxious, as, with respect, can you. Or at least, acerbic. We all can.

But I was not being obnoxious in the post I have referred to the DRP.

In fact, yes, I have gone out of my way to avoid breaching the LD charter. I have often deleted posts, re-edited posts, or just not contributed where I thought there was any chance a mod could remotely find me guilty of some minor breach or other.

This is getting ridiculous frankly. And, yes, I think I have a genuine reason to feel aggrieved here.

I think I have genuine grounds to feel singled out, without any legitimate basis.

Scofflaw

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I can be obnoxious, as, with respect, can you. Or at least, acerbic. We all can.

Undeniably so, but the question is regularity and particularity.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

But I was not being obnoxious in the post I have referred to the DRP.

You don't see that post as insultingly dismissive? It's an almost stereotypically dismissive phrasing - "oh sorry, thought you were saying something meaningful, my mistake".

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

In fact, yes, I have gone out of my way to avoid breaching the LD charter. I have often deleted posts, re-edited posts, or just not contributed where I thought there was any chance a mod could remotely find me guilty of some minor breach or other.

This is getting ridiculous frankly. And, yes, I think I have a genuine reason to feel aggrieved here.

I think I have genuine grounds to feel singled out, without any legitimate basis.

As I said, I agree that you have some grounds for concern, or rather, I do - my point is that so does the other side, and that the problems are intertwined. With no movement from you on the issue, without even any acceptance that there might be some fault on your side, I'm not offering to do anything for you.

And just to be clear, I wouldn't be offering to reverse that warning in any case, because it is insultingly dismissive. Or the previous one, which was exactly as it was described. And I can't help noting that those two warnings are the extent of the apparent 'singling out' you've endured since your feedback thread - I find it pretty hard to see those as "getting frankly ridiculous", to be honest.

moderately,
Scofflaw