Moderator Bias and Censorship in Atheism & Agnosticism

Brown Bomber

Hi, I was told to make a new thread after posting in the one about AH, so here I am. I firmly believe there is moderator bias in the Atheist & Agnosticism forum on the subject of the brouhaha surrounding the drag queen "Panti's" accusations of homophobia made on The Saturday Night Show.

There were only two non-echoes in this chamber. Now there are none, both have been banned. Extremely unjustly IMO.

The mod doing the banning is clearly not neutral on the subject and makes no pretense of otherwise.

Phill Ewinn was banned for "ignoring mod instructions". Which he did in fairness but his ignoring of the mod instruction was a response to the grossly unfair warning.

Phill was instructed, but none of these people, including boards mods goading him were.

Goading, abuse and baiting of Phill Ewinn.

969 Endlessly ignoring questions asked and repeating the same nonsensical unlogic is the very definition of troll phill

243 I'd report you but it's to be the guards to be honest.
Incitement to hatred across multiple threads and general homophobia.
You can't get arrested for being thick.
Lucky you!

945 Yes, Phil. We know that is what you believe.

Please stop flaunting your prejudices and engage in the debate.

249 Homophobia, trolling across multiple threads and general odious behaviour.

237 As usual, Phil is shooting in the dark and pulling made up facts out of the sky.

962 I've met some trolls in my time but seriously. Where does that guy get the time or energy?

Made by mod. 964 Phill, you still haven't provided a single rational reason to oppose SSM. Are you ever going to bother?

Post 966 Trolls tend not to provide rational reasons for anything.

Post 89 Ah Phill. You've transferred from AH I see.

Why can't gay people get married?

Post 93 Phil, many people have read that thread and many people arestyill confused as to what your position is. Nayhow, this is a new thread on a different forum. Would you like to clarify your position on whay gay people cannot get married for those not familiar with it.

Bullet points would help

Post 116 What are your objections to gay marriage Phill?

Post 119 Boo-fucking-hoo.

Post 224 Thanks for the vague endlessly repeated generalties phill, the thread is better for your contribution.

I am the second person to be banned in that thread for what is the banning based on the most spurious of reasons and punishing the most innocuous of posts I genuinely have ever witnessed on boards.

This is me being hostile"

(Mod Instruction) 508 BB has been red-carded for continuing to post in a hostile fashion despite repeated moderator requests to cut it out.

---

The so-called hostile fashion was was using the terms "filthy lie", "personal abuse" and "false accusation".

Meanwhile this is the mountain of ugly personal abuse that I was subjected to and none of these people, again including mods, were banned.

Comments Insulting My Wife.

Post 990 You're married BB? To your keyboard, or what?
If on two legs, your mrs must really get angry at you spending all your time at the computer. Almost Like you're married to it

Or maybe she isn't

Comments Questioning My Sexuality.

Made by Robindch. Post 771 your interest in pictures of naked men is similarly irrelevant.

417 I always wonder about that in the naysayers. 'The lady doth protect too much' and all that

Post 416 Ah but where would BB have 'random encounters' with gay men, he wouldn't be at all that way inclined

Comments Insulting My Intelligence.

From a mod. Post 233

He's trolling because I know he's not dumb enough to be genuine when he makes asinine points like the one I quoted.

Made by a mod. Post 1377 Sigh, Clearly you are unable to understand comparisons......and you are unable to read[/QUOTE]

Post 1450 BB, your reading skills are showing.

Made by a mod. Post 170 Seriously whats wrong with you?

Post 1464 The fact that you think there IS a comparison to me made either means you're woefully confused, wilfully dishonest, or harbouring some homophobia yourself.

Allegations of Homophobia

Post 1443 That is unless you think gay couples are worse than the worst straight couples.

And knowing you, who knows what you ACTUALLY think.

Made by a Mod. Post 88 I imagine because BB thinks there's something wrong with being a drag queen, and by pointing out that Rory performs as a drag queen, he can sway debate, but doesn't realize that people just don't share his prejudices. Bit of a useless ad hominem.

Made by a mod. Post 1085 That's exactly what I was talking about previously. BB does what David Quinn and Breda O'Brien do

(Made my mod & thanked by Robindch) Isn't it nice when less people pay attention to Brown Bombers desperate attempts to justify Iona's position of discrimination against gay people.

From a mod: Best to ignore it from this point. It's game over for these homophobic (in every sense, subtle to extreme) views and they know it.

You remind me a lot of David Quinn and Breda O Brien. (homophobes)

When the naysayers in this issue start splitting hairs to this degree, you know it's game over and they're grasping at straws.

Post 1758 Brown Bomber, your prejudice is showing.

Generally Abusive Comments.

Post 754 You are the lowest kind of low do you know that?

From a Mod. Post 231 Someone ban this guy please. Clearly trolling now.

Made by a mod. Post 1355. Brown Bomber doesn't NEED to listen to someone to get uppity about people criticising their idiotic claims and behaviour. He's hardcore like that.

Made by Mod. 723 I was hoping the extra pages since this morning would be entertaining, nuanced debate, but it was mostly just Brown Bomber

Made by Mod. 683 Thanks for goalpost shifting and making it abundandtly clear you don't value any honest discourse but just want to waste people's time. Really, at this point Brown Bomber, any good faith I might have had for you is gone.

Ignoring Mod Instruction (What Phill was banned for.)

275 Why the feck was Brown Bomber allowed back again?

---

Mod Instruction

---

294 It is a genuine question that should be open for public discussion, not hidden away in a private conversation. People are banned publicly, why not discuss why they have been allowed back?

hullaballoo

There's a site-wide rule against bigoted prejudices. There's nothing to see here.

Orion

Multiple bans across different forums from different mods - not to mention the multiple infractions. Maybe you're the problem not the mods.

Brown Bomber

Orion wrote: »

Multiple bans across different forums from different mods - not to mention the multiple infractions. Maybe you're the problem not the mods.

Not at all interested in any "maybes", just the facts. Which is why I've provided such an extensive (though not exhaustive) list of the abuse which nobody cares about as long as it's directed at people who hold opinions which is contrary to the mods (and the mobs) opinions.

MilanPan!c

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Not at all interested in any "maybes", just the facts. Which is why I've provided such an extensive (though not exhaustive) list of the abuse which nobody cares about as long as it's directed at people who hold opinions which is contrary to the mods (and the mobs) opinions.

Glad to see you banned out of that thread if I'm honest. You used the most specious argument possible to make a round about attack on the very notion that gays should have equal rights under the law.

I STILL don't know what you think, but no one is going to accuse you of being reasonable.

On top of that you endlessly played the victim on that thread, while at the same time suggesting that allowing gay couples to adopt children was some sort of social experiment.

Totally deserving of the ban.

Brown Bomber

hullaballoo wrote: »

There's a site-wide rule against bigoted prejudices. There's nothing to see here.

I'm glad there is. And what "bigoted prejudices" are you accusing me of? On what basis are you accusing me of these "bigoted prejudices"?

You are a mod, right? Have you ever banned anyone, ever for giving a hypothetical example to explain something?

Would you not ban someone for a user saying to the other "you are the lowest of the low"? For questioning their sexuality? For insulting their intelligence? For abusing their family?

Brown Bomber

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Glad to see you banned out of that thread if I'm honest. You used the most specious argument possible to make a round about attack on the very notion that gays should have equal rights under the law.

I STILL don't know what you think, but no one is going to accuse you of being reasonable.

On top of that you endlessly played the victim on that thread, while at the same time suggesting that allowing gay couples to adopt children was some sort of social experiment.

Totally deserving of the ban.

You'll forgive me if I take what you say with a pinch of salt seeing as you were one of the people involved in giving the personal abuse.

One point though. Woolyjumper is a gay guy I had a discussion with in this thread. Who kindly and honestly said:

That's very Kind of you and to your credit if I responded to you in a fair and respectful manner it was because that was a tone you kept throughout with me and that's not easy when you are arguing something and its 10 against 1
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88803263&postcount=791

MilanPan!c

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You'll forgive me if I take what you say with a pinch of salt seeing as you were one of the people involved in giving the personal abuse.

One point though. Woolyjumper is a gay guy I had a discussion with in this thread. Who kindly and honestly said:

No doubt there are plenty of polite bigots.

As for personal abuse, you behaved dishonestly throughout, which is pretty obvious.

This complaint is basically another example of your behaviour. You get banned repeatedly, people line up to support the ban, and yet, you know, this one gay guy thought you weren't rude so... You know...

Gimme a break.

Overheal

Hullabaloo regardless of the specific nature of this case I think you can agree that type of dialog should have been actioned against long before it got to that stage. Based on the quotes above the thread degenerated one way or another into something it shouldn't have. One way or another it is also a site wide policy not to make personal attacks or accuse others of trolling in support of using the report post functions and have moderators step in. This seems to have not happened here.

Brown Bomber the bigotry in this case would be the lapse of a constructed argument in opposition of the rights of other people on the basis of their sexual preferences. Not that I want to bring that argument here, and I don't support your take on that at all, but that is your answer.

Brown Bomber

MilanPan!c wrote: »

No doubt there are plenty of polite bigots.

As for personal abuse, you behaved dishonestly throughout, which is pretty obvious.

This complaint is basically another example of your behaviour. You get banned repeatedly, people line up to support the ban, and yet, you know, this one gay guy thought you weren't rude so... You know...

Gimme a break.

Could you make your mind up, cheers. The only reason I brought it up at all was to prove you wrong that nobody could accuse me of being reasonable.

How have I behaved dishonestly when giving my honest opinion? This is nonsensical. Quote me on a single bigoted statement from that thread.

(alternatively save yourself the hassle of trying to find one, because you won't). Either way don't make empty accusations unless you are prepared to back them up.

By the way, your post and my response is like a cardboard cutout of my complaint. You throw all kinds of abuse and allegations at me and I respond patiently and courteously.

Brown Bomber

Overheal wrote: »

Hullabaloo regardless of the specific nature of this case I think you can agree that type of dialog should have been actioned against long before it got to that stage. Based on the quotes above the thread degenerated one way or another into something it shouldn't have. One way or another it is also a site wide policy not to make personal attacks or accuse others of trolling in support of using the report post functions and have moderators step in. This seems to have not happened here.

Brown Bomber the bigotry in this case would be the lapse of a constructed argument in opposition of the rights of other people on the basis of their sexual preferences. Not that I want to bring that argument here, and I don't support your take on that at all, but that is your answer.

I appreciate the response. So there is no doubt I will make it clear here as I did many, many times in the thread. I am absolutely FOR equal rights for gays, and everyone else for that matter. I am absolutely FOR gay marriage. I just didn't agree that an opposition to gay marriage = de facto homphobia.

robindch

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How have I behaved dishonestly when giving my honest opinion? [...] I respond patiently and courteously.

You were banned, following repeated public and private warnings -- at least some of which you acknowledged -- for you to tone down your almost continually disruptive rhetoric, for hypothesizing that another poster was an "ignorant and rude prick".

You were not banned, as you have claimed again here, as you have claimed in the past, and as you were explicitly told you would not be banned, for expressing some point of view which is not shared by the majority of other posters in A+A.

FYI, you have been extended a latitude in A+A that has been afforded to no other poster, as the sheer number of complaints from other posters about your obstreperous behaviour on the forum demonstrates. Regardless, upon the expiration of your ban, if you choose to return and continue posting in your usual antisocial tone, you will be banned again, this time probably permanently.

I trust that this clarifies the reason for your most recent ban, just a few short weeks after your last one.

Overheal

In fairness Rob, that sheer number of complaints should be a private matter behind the report post function, not a public spectacle. Why isn't more of a push being made to ask posters to raise the civility up a notch or two?

I'm reading backward through this thread and can spot arguments between posters already starting to brew. I reported a couple I find objectionable.

The tone in that forum is precisely why I avoid it.

Rob, you have posters in the thread not only posting replies to a banned user. To the best of my knowledge, never been a kosher tactic. Yet you thanked the post. What the heck, guy? Posts #1761,2. In every other forum I contribute to when a poster is banned they are hands off from additional responses or commentary.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88910087&postcount=1761

#1763,

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88910200&postcount=1763

Why let it fester? And this is just through the most recent 40 posts never mind the other 1700.

Nodin

Overheal wrote: »

In fairness Rob, that sheer number of complaints should be a private matter behind the report post function, not a public spectacle. Why isn't more of a push being made to ask posters to raise the civility up a notch or two?

...........

Were anyone to have previously tried to "raise the level of civility" the OP would have been perma-banned some time hence. That kind of thing cuts both ways. It's also worth noting the number of feedback threads about A&A and the number of those started by the OP.

In addition the poster the OP mentions has been infracted/warned/banned across three different forums in threads on similar subjects.

Overheal

I'm not defending the OP, but I am critiquing the forum tone. Already very aware of your other point, but that doesn't negate the fact that the tone in that thread is below the site standard.

Brown Bomber

robindch wrote: »

You were banned, following repeated public and private warnings -- at least some of which you acknowledged -- for you to tone down your almost continually disruptive rhetoric, for hypothesizing that another poster was an "ignorant and rude prick".

You were not banned, as you have claimed again here, as you have claimed in the past, and as you were explicitly told you would not be banned, for expressing some point of view which is not shared by the majority of other posters in A+A.

FYI, you have been extended a latitude in A+A that has been afforded to no other poster, as the sheer number of complaints from other posters about your obstreperous behaviour on the forum demonstrates. Regardless, upon the expiration of your ban, if you choose to return and continue posting in your usual antisocial tone, you will be banned again, this time probably permanently.

I trust that this clarifies the reason for your most recent ban, just a few short weeks after your last one.

Now it doesn't actually. We may have been able to clarify it if you responded to your PM's. Doubly so if you actually said why I was banned rather than playing to the crowd with your witty message/cheap shot then this also would have helped.

BB will be spending the next fortnight within the wilderness without.

I was speaking in the 3rd person in my hypothetical example. Can you honestly say it is okay to abuse a user of this site over and over again but if you insult "somebody" that doesn't exist to illustrate your point then this is not okay?

It is important to put this into context. It should be clear to any reasonable person that there wasn't an iota of ill-will between us. We were just two people trying to have a conversation. Asking and answering questions to the best of our ability. I was just trying to help out the guy/girl.

---

I said:
You do know difference between being homophobic and saying something homophobic?

jjpep said;

Actually I don't, could you explain?

I said:
It's the same for "homophobia" as anything else. (and posted dictionary definitions to both "be" and "say".)

jjpep said:
I think I'm missing on some subtly here then. Is saying ****ty things the same or different to being ****ty? Maybe I'm over simplifying things?

I said: I'll give you a simple example. You could be an ignorant and rude prick but when you meet your girlfriend/boyfriend's parents for the first time you could be the perfect gentleman and say everything politely.

jjpeg: Ok. So which one then would be the true character of the person then I wonder?

Or do you mean say prickush things but in a polite way?

I said: What we "are" is a question for the philosophers. I was simply pointing out what we say does not equate to being.

---

You were warning me for things I wasn't doing. How do you expect me to stop doing what I am not already doing?

You infract me for responding to offensive and false allegations by pointing out that the allegations are false and offensive. Meanwhile you thank the post that makes the false and offensive allegation against me. I'm on a hiding to nothing. Do you simply expect me to just accept false allegations, while you do nothing? You infracted me for this post. It sends out the message that it's okay to make baseless and offensive allegations against people who you don't like.

What a filthy lie. Quote me where I have done this. If Iona have discriminated against gay people I absolutely condemn it. I'd report the post but it seems pointless as a moderator has thanked your personal abuse. So please at least have the decency of RTE and support your false accusation or withdraw it.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88769176&postcount=440

You are applying no consistency at all in your moderation. If you did you would have banned on the majority of the abuse listed above. You didn't. If it's not a personal vendetta and if it's not your personal bias then please tell me what it is then.

Nodin

Overheal wrote: »

I'm not defending the OP, but I am critiquing the forum tone. Already very aware of your other point, but that doesn't negate the fact that the tone in that thread is below the site standard.

The first post you highlighted looks perfectly ok to me. The second refers to the inevitable round of feedback threads and DRP that the OP is well known for. The tone of course overall could be better, but that would have meant - presumably - removing the actors responsible for it's lowering earlier, which would have undoubtedly led here as well.

Overheal

You'll always have a poster or two get their pride wounded but the forum overall would have a better vibe.

Nodin

Overheal wrote: »

You'll always have a poster or two get their pride wounded but the forum overall would have a better vibe.

...by quicker and harsher bannings? Perhaps. It would degenerate into a echo chamber rather rapidly though, I think.

Overheal

Where are the on thread directions to calm the tone down. It seems like not much was said by the moderators until it got to the point of a ban. A once in a while knock it off can be a first step.

Nodin

Overheal wrote: »

Where are the on thread directions to calm the tone down. It seems like not much was said by the moderators until it got to the point of a ban. A once in a while knock it off can be a first step.

Actually there were multiple such warnings in the thread (and I haven't gone through all of it)

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88873135&postcount=1618

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88867022&postcount=1519

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88813240&postcount=889

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88854150&postcount=1382


and a fairly explicit on-thread warning saying that the next one to offend would be banned........it's quoted here

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=88906630

Overheal

Well then clearly something isn't working right, and a lot of those warnings are extremely passive, to the point of Camp Counselor-ish.

Scofflaw

Overheal wrote: »

Well then clearly something isn't working right, and a lot of those warnings are extremely passive, to the point of Camp Counselor-ish.

Mod warnings tend to be deliberately light in tone when the mods are actively engaged in the debate, or believe the issue is one worth debating, because a really good heavy-handed mod warning can have a chilling effect.

That doesn't change the fact that they're mod warnings, and the majority of posters appear to take that on board. Others don't.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sulla Felix

Overheal wrote: »

Well then clearly something isn't working right, and a lot of those warnings are extremely passive, to the point of Camp Counselor-ish.

If BB was a nub and had no experience of what A&A and the modding there is like, then I'd agree that maybe the mods could have been less "passive" but he's not, he knows exactly what's expected and to be perfectly honest, given his history both of crying oppression when he is moderated and ignoring the actual direction given in terms of his continued posting style, I find it hard not to conclude that he deliberately invites bans in order to have something extra to cry foul about. If the mods try to be lighthanded in order to avoid an endless repetition of that I say fair play.

Overheal

I don't defend the ban at all, I object to the posts left on the thread (and other examples exist in the forum, too) of posters accusing each other of trolling, making personal insults, etc. all of which a mod should be able to warn against, boldly, imo, whether or not they are in a discussion as those types of post are off-topic to that discussion.

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

Actrually there were multiple such warnings in the thread (and I haven't gone through all of it)

You also are one of the people quoted in the OP for dishing out punishment free abuse. So it is unsurprising that you would argue for maintaining this special privilege to abuse. In fact, I actually appealed to your better nature to just stop with the name calling... You didn't-

There is no "but". It's a baseless and horrible accusation.

I don't see how your repeated hollow and offensive allegations amount to anything other than bullying. You are aware that if I report a post nothing will be done by the mods. You are aware that if I even try to get people to support their baseless allegations then I am the one who is punished, you even thanked the punishment. So you are attacking someone who is defenseless, so please stop. If not for my sake then for the sake of the gay community. Empty and repeated empty accusations of homophobia are a discredit to the actual sufferers of this prejudice.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88784369&postcount=539

Brown Bomber

Scofflaw wrote: »

Mod warnings tend to be deliberately light in tone when the mods are actively engaged in the debate, or believe the issue is one worth debating, because a really good heavy-handed mod warning can have a chilling effect.

That doesn't change the fact that they're mod warnings, and the majority of posters appear to take that on board. Others don't.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The mod warnings themselves are further evidence of the moderator bias. There couldn't be a starker contrast in the language and tone of the warnings to people who share Robin's opinion and to those who don't.


Also, how can you say the majority followed the warnings. We were told in post 954 that
"The next person who trolls, or posts some uncharitable, paranoid or tatty rhetorical flourish, or indeed, anything at all which isn't the high level of debate that most people are willing to make the effort to sustain here on A+A, will be banned without warning. "


In post 1 of this thread I've listed a number of undeniable examples of direct personal abuse that came after post 954. Why weren't these people "banned without warning"?

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

.............

In post 1 of this thread I've listed a number of undeniable examples of direct personal abuse that came after post 954. Why weren't these people "banned without warning"?

All I've seen is the usual nonsense, claims of martyrdom and accusations that happen after you're reprimanded. It's as predictable as the sun rising.

MilanPan!c

Sulla Felix wrote: »

If BB was a nub and had no experience of what A&A and the modding there is like, then I'd agree that maybe the mods could have been less "passive" but he's not, he knows exactly what's expected and to be perfectly honest, given his history both of crying oppression when he is moderated and ignoring the actual direction given in terms of his continued posting style, I find it hard not to conclude that he deliberately invites bans in order to have something extra to cry foul about. If the mods try to be lighthanded in order to avoid an endless repetition of that I say fair play.

THIS is exactly what I mean when I said, repeatedly, that he was behaving dishonestly, this behaviour you've described.

Brown Bomber

MilanPan!c wrote: »

THIS is exactly what I mean when I said, repeatedly, that he was behaving dishonestly, this behaviour you've described.

... then you should be able to provide examples of when I have ignored mod warnings. I've been perfectly civil and polite throughout the whole thread. Not because of any mod warnings but because it is my nature. I generated the heat against me because I wouldn't be browbeaten into accepting the mobs opinions.

If I have been uncivil or otherwise broken forum rules then show the posts.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

... then you should be able to provide examples of when I have ignored mod warnings. I've been perfectly civil and polite throughout the whole thread. Not because of any mod warnings but because it is my nature. I generated the heat against me because I wouldn't be browbeaten into accepting the mobs opinions.

If I have been uncivil or otherwise broken forum rules then show the posts.

So you want to dispute all your various bans from whatever fora they were received?

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

All I've seen is the usual nonsense, claims of martyrdom and accusations that happen after you're reprimanded. It's as predictable as the sun rising.

Well then I would refer you to post 1 of this thread where amongst other things my wife was insulted and my sexuality was questioned. As well as this Phill was accused of having committed a criminal offense.

Like I said before, I made a personal plea to you to stop the bullying. You could have easily done this, treated me civilly and I would have done the same and we could have discussed the actual topic without it being personal.

Not too much to ask.

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

So you want to dispute all your various bans from whatever fora they were received?

If you took away the bans given by Robin and Penn I would have a virtually Clean record.

MilanPan!c

Brown Bomber wrote: »

... then you should be able to provide examples of when I have ignored mod warnings. I've been perfectly civil and polite throughout the whole thread. Not because of any mod warnings but because it is my nature. I generated the heat against me because I wouldn't be browbeaten into accepting the mobs opinions.

If I have been uncivil or otherwise broken forum rules then show the posts.

It's been explained to you. You're doing your typical "I'm a nice guy that everyone is ganging up on" routine.

It's a joke.

MilanPan!c

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If you took away the bans given by Robin and Penn I would have a virtually Clean record.

Sure if you take away Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman, OJ Simpson is just a misunderstood guy.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If you took away the bans given by Robin and Penn I would have a virtually Clean record.

You took others by them to the DRP - they weren't overturned, were they?


For reasons best known to yourself, you seem to have decided to abandon the DRP route and go straight to feedback here. Any reason?

Brown Bomber

MilanPan!c wrote: »

It's been explained to you. You're doing your typical "I'm a nice guy that everyone is ganging up on" routine.

It's a joke.

So no examples then? Can't say that I am surprised...

As for being "nice". I believe I have been. Here are some examples of me being "nice". These are towards people who were arguing against me. I suspect it is 3 more than you could come up with.

I don't think I could ever take anything you said the wrong way. FWIW I find you uncommonly polite and respectful.

This will probably be the kiss of death for you but I just wanted to say that my opinion of you has been raised exponentially from this comment alone (not to suggest that it was low to begin with). I've had enough of the vomit-inducing hypocrisy that is everywhere so I salute you for your integrity, whether I share your opinions or not.

I think everything you have said if fair and reasonable. What is more I think it is persuasive. Despite any impression I may have given there was never too much daylight in our beliefs to begin with but I believe what you have said has closed the gap even more. I feel like you have opened my eyes a little and I thank you for that.

I will now refrain from responding to anything irrelevant from here on in as I know how this will go, the thread will be locked.

EDIT: And if anything good is going to come from this going forward then I think could be setting the ground rules for debate with the referendum coming up. One way or the other someone on the site needs to decide from the perspective of the site if it's personal abuse to call someone a "hompohobe" and also if preferring traditional marriage is automatic homophobia.

MilanPan!c

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So no examples then? Can't say that I am surprised...

As for being "nice". I believe I have been. Here are some examples of me being "nice". These are towards people who were arguing against me. I suspect it is 3 more than you could come up with.

I don't think I could ever take anything you said the wrong way. FWIW I find you uncommonly polite and respectful.

This will probably be the kiss of death for you but I just wanted to say that my opinion of you has been raised exponentially from this comment alone (not to suggest that it was low to begin with). I've had enough of the vomit-inducing hypocrisy that is everywhere so I salute you for your integrity, whether I share your opinions or not.

I think everything you have said if fair and reasonable. What is more I think it is persuasive. Despite any impression I may have given there was never too much daylight in our beliefs to begin with but I believe what you have said has closed the gap even more. I feel like you have opened my eyes a little and I thank you for that.

I will now refrain from responding to anything irrelevant from here on in as I know how this will go, the thread will be locked.

EDIT: And if anything good is going to come from this going forward then I think could be setting the ground rules for debate with the referendum coming up. One way or the other someone on the site needs to decide from the perspective of the site if it's personal abuse to call someone a "hompohobe" and also if preferring traditional marriage is automatic homophobia.

Preferring for others? Like: I'd prefer if that gay guy married a nice lady instead of that other gay guy...?

And no, calling someone a homophobe isn't abuse; of course being homophobic usually is - in the real world. On Boards, not so much.

As for your endless "prove it" responses; the proof is all around you. You've been repeatedly banned, other notice your dishonest behaviour and your never-ending claims that everyone is out to get you.

No one is buying any of it.

Turtwig

I warned, infracted posts and even banned a posted for insulting your personal life and you suggest that ban then be lifted. Then you complained in this OP about personal attacks on you. You were shown incredible patience in that thread. Every side track, every potentially inflammatory remark, you made was quenched as best we could. Given how fast and how heated the debate it is things were on the boil on several occasions. As, I've said before in many a PM you need to work on you communication. It's far too provocative and emotive.

To reiterate for a few times now. Being a mod of different forum means nothing. Mods of other forums are for all intents and purposes just regular posters.
PLEASE DO NOT LET ME HAVE TO REITERATE THIS AGAIN!

Honestly this is thread is really old and worn ground. I really don't see the point in elaborating any further. You have your issues with the forum and it's unfortunate but I don't see any resolution. So here's a challenge for you. Make the case you expect me to make. Provide the counter argument to your OP in this thread. If you cannot do that then there's no real hope of ever having a constructive discussion in any thread. Switch roles and see how that works.

I'm not going to discuss any of the recent comments in the thread as I see there's multiple reports and I haven't read a single one of them. Robs been afk overseas (the bastard!) and I've been swamped by RL issues so cover was a little lighter than anticipate and forum activity has been a lot more frequent than the norm.

Scofflaw

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If you took away the bans given by Robin and Penn I would have a virtually Clean record.

Actually, no, you'd have 10 bans, 10 infractions, and 7 warnings.

correctively,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Overheal wrote: »

I don't defend the ban at all, I object to the posts left on the thread (and other examples exist in the forum, too) of posters accusing each other of trolling, making personal insults, etc. all of which a mod should be able to warn against, boldly, imo, whether or not they are in a discussion as those types of post are off-topic to that discussion.

Jernal wrote:

I'm not going to discuss any of the recent comments in the thread as I see there's multiple reports and I haven't read a single one of them. Robs been afk overseas (the bastard!) and I've been swamped by RL issues so cover was a little lighter than anticipate and forum activity has been a lot more frequent than the norm.

Reading the thread, that's what I see as well - a thread running too fast for the best possible interventions (and at the weekend). The only way to stop that kind of thing is to lock the thread and go through it with a hammer, but you don't generally want to do that with a thread which is running hot about a current issue (as opposed to, for example, a Northern Ireland thread which is running hot over well-trodden ground).

I would prefer mod warnings to be visibly mod warnings - personally I like the use of bold type to distinguish such warnings from other posts by the mod in thread.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Brown Bomber

Jernal wrote: »

I warned, infracted posts and even banned a posted for insulting your personal life and you suggest that ban then be lifted. Then you complained in this OP about personal attacks on you. You were shown incredible patience in that thread. Every side track, every potentially inflammatory remark, you made was quenched as best we could. Given how fast and how heated the debate it is things were on the boil on several occasions. As, I've said before in many a PM you need to work on you communication. It's far too provocative and emotive.

To reiterate for a few times now. Being a mod of different forum means nothing. Mods of other forums are for all intents and purposes just regular posters.
PLEASE DO NOT LET ME HAVE TO REITERATE THIS AGAIN!

Honestly this is thread is really old and worn ground. I really don't see the point in elaborating any further. You have your issues with the forum and it's unfortunate but I don't see any resolution. So here's a challenge for you. Make the case you expect me to make. Provide the counter argument to your OP in this thread. If you cannot do that then there's no real hope of ever having a constructive discussion in any thread. Switch roles and see how that works.

I'm not going to discuss any of the recent comments in the thread as I see there's multiple reports and I haven't read a single one of them. Robs been afk overseas (the bastard!) and I've been swamped by RL issues so cover was a little lighter than anticipate and forum activity has been a lot more frequent than the norm.

Jernal, I have a short-term fix. I have no desire to post in A&A again. The only long-term solution as I see it is to give everyone even treatment regardless of their opinion. Do away with counter-productive "house rules" which allows and even encourages forum "regulars" gang-up and intimdate away outsiders who don't share the herd's opinions through mod-sanctioned trolling and personal abuse.

As for the mods flagrantly breaking rules issue. They are letting themselves down most of all. Try to see it from my perspective - I am getting personally abused by a mod of a different forum, this abuse is thanked by the forum mod, I ask the abuser to back-up their accusations and I then get penalised by the forum mod.

What would you do...?

Dave! a mod of a different forum publically calls out on thread to have me banned. I report the post. Nothing happens. His very next post is a clear case of personal abuse. Nothing happens.. How am I supposed to have any faith in any of the mods on boards? Surely Dave! knows that this is completely innapropriate behaviour for any user, nevermind a mod? Surely you seen these two crystal clear flagrant abuses of site rules? I understand that you are all buddies and probably have met up a few times but you still need to do the right thing.

All that aside, on the whole I do believe you have been patient, fair and civil with me. I genuinely hope I haven't been too much of a burden to you and thank you for volunteering your time for the benefit others.

Brown Bomber

Scofflaw wrote: »

Actually, no, you'd have 10 bans, 10 infractions, and 7 warnings.

correctively,
Scofflaw

I have no memory of the warnings and infractions but I am certain you are mistaken on the bans.

I had hoped that the powers that be would be more sympathetic to bullying. Not even for my sake, but some kid without my thick skin could be on the receiving end, really take it heart and do something stupid.

Brown Bomber

Jernal,

I have one last point if you don't mind? The answer, I believe, will show the disparity between the treatment of people who share the mod's/mob's mentality and opinions and those who don't.

In every thread that I've ever posted in in A&A they only people who have ever been banned or threatened with banning have been people who hold contrary opinions to the mods/mob.

When was the last time a forum "regular" was banned from A&A? Has it ever even happened???

Scofflaw

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I have no memory of the warnings and infractions but I am certain you are mistaken on the bans.

Don't be - I'm not.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I had hoped that the powers that be would be more sympathetic to bullying. Not even for my sake, but some kid without my thick skin could be on the receiving end, really take it heart and do something stupid.

When it happens to people who fit that description, we do take it seriously indeed.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Turtwig

Phill was banned because of the content of his posts. It stuck out like a sore thumb. I had been just skimming the thread every now and again (and I assume Rob was the same). Others were goading him and that is annoying and irritating and we do NOT like it but in the context it's also somewhat understandable. Lots of posters engaged in that thread were involved in similar discussions on after hours and the heat transferred over. Or rather, Phil when he was banned from After Hours jumped right into A&A posting identical content that had already infuriated posters over there. This was allowed for a while until it was clear he seemed he wanted to prime himself for suicide by mod. Rob issued him a final warning and he chose to still bicker nonsense. We both banned him at the same time.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Jernal, I have a short-term fix. I have no desire to post in A&A again. The only long-term solution as I see it is to give everyone even treatment regardless of their opinion. Do away with counter-productive "house rules" which allows and even encourages forum "regulars" gang-up and intimdate away outsiders who don't share the herd's opinions through mod-sanctioned trolling and personal abuse.

As for the mods flagrantly breaking rules issue. They are letting themselves down most of all. Try to see it from my perspective - I am getting personally abused by a mod of a different forum, this abuse is thanked by the forum mod, I ask the abuser to back-up their accusations and I then get penalised by the forum mod.

What would you do...?

Dave! a mod of a different forum publically calls out on thread to have me banned. I report the post. Nothing happens. His very next post is a clear case of personal abuse. Nothing happens.. How am I supposed to have any faith in any of the mods on boards? Surely Dave! knows that this is completely innapropriate behaviour for any user, nevermind a mod? Surely you seen these two crystal clear flagrant abuses of site rules? I understand that you are all buddies and probably have met up a few times but you still need to do the right thing.

All that aside, on the whole I do believe you have been patient, fair and civil with me. I genuinely hope I haven't been too much of a burden to you and thank you for volunteering your time for the benefit others.

If everyone in the forum was treated evenly you'd have been perma banned an incredibly long time ago. You have been shown more leniency than all the other forum regulars combined. That you do not realise or appreciate this is worrying and somewhat irritating because we have shown you INCREDIBLE patience and each time as reward we get it pretty much spat back in our faces with complaints and moaning and groaning. To be fair some of them are fair but most of the time it's nit picking and rule lawyering. In the general scheme of things the thread your cherry picked and the quotes you picked wouldn't happen.

It's posters like you that turn modding into a tedious job. Several posters have called for aeons for you to be banned. By reports, by PMs (asking why you weren't) and of course in thread. The latter I loathe when it happens but it's only ever been for you and the irony is that one of the light hearted reasons I gave in some of those PM's was the inevitable clusterf**k and timesink that would be expected when you were eventually banned. It's worse than Vogon bureaucracy. Every little iota, every little i and every little t that might just make your discussion or situation seem reasonable is always cherry picked. Every PM exchange point made is forgotten and sometimes utterly twisted in a DRP. You misrepresent everything and then you have the gall and audacity to actually claim mods are flagrant with the rules. We were flagrant with them, in that it's now clearer than ever that those lobbysters were actually right we should have banned you a long time ago. But you know what? Once your ban is up, you'll be free to post again. I vented there. I had to. It'll hopefully let you understand how frustrating you can be at times. But, you see another reason I give in those PMs is that every so often, even rarely, you provide moments of contradictions, points, that no other poster would have made and you force people to reinforce their arguments/opinions. Then, naturally, you take it too far. My hope is hanging by a thread but so far you've got another chance to find that balance that is there. You just always seem to capsize it. As I see it though your ban is up is 3 weeks and then you've got another chance.

This isn't even your second forum ban this year. It should go without saying though the ice you're skating on would be a lot thinner than most other posters so the threshold for what's acceptable will obviously be lowered. So yeah, I think, it's only fair to expect uneven treatment. Most posters initially receive a light nudge via PM and passive warnings. You won't have such luxuries.

Brown Bomber

Scofflaw wrote: »

Don't be - I'm not.

I've just read through my inbox and there are only a couple of bans that aren't from Penn or Robin.

Scofflaw wrote: »

When it happens to people who fit that description, we do take it seriously indeed.

cordially,
Scofflaw

... and how could you possibly know who fits that description? Surely the only safe route is to clamp down on all bullying wherever and whenever you see it?

Turtwig

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Jernal,

I have one last point if you don't mind? The answer, I believe, will show the disparity between the treatment of people who share the mod's/mob's mentality and opinions and those who don't.

In every thread that I've ever posted in in A&A they only people who have ever been banned or threatened with banning have been people who hold contrary opinions to the mods/mob.

When was the last time a forum "regular" was banned from A&A? Has it ever even happened???

Two posters have been banned for confrontational style of posting. One of these was banned for personal abuse directed at you. Another one is on incredibly thin ice.

None of those were against the status quo opinion wise. None of these bans exceeded a week either, iirc.
There may have been others. Those are off the top of my head.

Scofflaw

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I've just read through my inbox and there are only a couple of bans that aren't from Penn or Robin.


... and how could you possibly know who fits that description? Surely the only safe route is to clamp down on all bullying wherever and whenever you see it?

We do clamp down on bullying. We even clamp down on people's annoyed reaction to a regularly confrontational poster - but we also penalise the regularly confrontational poster.

You're needlessly confrontational, and appear to get a kick out of it. It's hard to take the idea that you're being bullied seriously, because all you need to do to stop people reacting badly to you is stop being needlessly confrontational.

As others have said, you have been given a very large amount of leeway, which you don't appear to recognise, because you feel you're entitled to act as you like without penalty. That's not actually the case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I've just read through my inbox and there are only a couple of bans that aren't from Penn or Robin.

There's a record of all bans, infractions and warnings kept by the system for the past 4 or so years. A Cat Mod will be able to see this and will be able to give you an exact number of bans, infractions etc. You could ask someone else like an Admin to double check Scofflaw's numbers but I highly doubt they are wrong.

Brown Bomber

Jernal wrote: »

Two posters have been banned for confrontational style of posting. One of these was banned for personal abuse directed at you. Another one is on incredibly thin ice.

None of those were against the status quo opinion wise. None of these bans exceeded a week either, iirc.
There may have been others. Those are off the top of my head.

I would have noticed if anyone had ever been banned for personally abusing me, it would have been a stop the press moment. You must be mistaken.