One Month Ban from Motors

mathepac

This gets more and more ridiculous.

First this moderator infracted me by posting a warning in the thread after I had posted a comment which he deleted. I swear to whatever internet gods you choose that the commentary in bold on his post didn't appear until after I made my post and had been infracted. I can no longer substantiate this as the edit times on three posts have changed since the moderator concerned edited them, his post, mine and another poster's.

I want this insane ban lifted ASAP. I have not ignored any moderator instructions by posting the question quoted below.

I have not been issued instructions not to post in the thread and I have not been issued instructions to avoid posing questions to Shane Fitz in the thread.

My quoted post is as usual, polite, on-topic and relevant, despite allegations to the contrary made in the thread. It is a simple question seeking clarification on Shane Fitz's comment.

NOTE - It seems I can no longer access the thread to quote relevant material, a very useful situation when trying to right a wrong.

"Dear mathepac,

You have been banned from Motors for one month for ignoring a moderator's instructions.

Discussion can become heated, we don't object to that, but when a moderator issues a warning on a thread to reign things in, it stops a heated discussion from turning into a mess.

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.

Alanstrainor

Your post: Quote:
Originally Posted by mathepac
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shane Fitz
... you are now both showing the kind of behaviour that puts people off posting.

Can you help me here by being specific and pointing out to me what behaviour of mine puts you off posting? Use quoted examples from my posts in this thread that you find off-putting please.

Thanks.

mathepac

Some further info relating to my unjustified ban, kindly forwarded from the thread by @Alanstrainor, who banned me.

This is wording of the warning. There were two posts quoted in full, one from me and one from another poster, who is not @Shane Fitz :

Alanstrainor wrote: »

Not here lads. You guys make some valid points, but anything relating to each other is not welcome here, or anywhere else on this forum for that matter. You can put each other on ignore, or simply not post.

My deleted post is next in sequence, the one I was infracted for.

Then immediately after that:

Shane Fitz wrote: »

As a long term luker I'm going to add my two cents.
You have both raised valid points BUT you are now both showing the kind of behaviour that puts people off posting.

Later in the thread, 24 hours later to let matters (and me) cool off, I posted this question directly to @Shane Fitz, quoting part of his post above:

mathepac wrote: »

Can you help me here by being specific and pointing out to me what behaviour of mine puts you off posting? Use quoted examples from my posts in this thread that you find off-putting please.

Thanks.

At no time was I instructed not to post further in the thread, I was given the option of ignoring the other poster alluded to by the mod or not posting. His instructions are crystal clear "Ignore each other or don't post". At no time was I instructed not to post questions to @Shane Fitz who played no part in the earlier interactions.

I have been banned because the mod made an error interpreting his own instructions and accused me of ignoring them. I followed his instructions to the letter.

The ban is therefore unjust and needs lifting immediately.

Thank You.

Micky Dolenz

Good Evening mathepac,

I will investigate this and will get back to you as soon as I can. Hopefully within the next 48 hours.

Thanks.

mathepac

Thank you for your response, but mentioning an estimated elapsed time of 48 hours for a review and a result leaves me disconcerted.

A review and posting the overturn of the ban with an apology should take less than 48 seconds elapsed time.

The facts are as laid out in my second post - there is nothing more and nothing less to the ban than those facts as supplied to me by the moderator concerned.

I need the ban overturned so I can appeal the unjust (IMHO) infraction imposed on me. I'd appreciate your help.

Micky Dolenz

mathepac wrote: »

Thank you for your response, but mentioning an estimated elapsed time of 48 hours for a review and a result leaves me disconcerted.

A review and posting the overturn of the ban with an apology should take less than 48 seconds elapsed time.

The facts are as laid out in my second post - there is nothing more and nothing less to the ban than those facts as supplied to me by the moderator concerned.

I need the ban overturned so I can appeal the unjust (IMHO) infraction imposed on me. I'd appreciate your help.

You can appeal both here at the same time.

On the time scale, let me paint you a picture with words. I need to get in touch with the Mod who banned you. This can take hours/days. The motor Mods are active so it normally isn't long.

Between that and our other work, I feel 48 hours is a generous time scale.

mathepac

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

You can appeal both here at the same time. ...

No thanks. I'd like to keep it simple. The ban is unjust, a simple and honest review of the facts leads directly to it being overturned.

It's the old Bart Simpson defence - "I didn't do it". I did not ignore any moderator's instruction by posting in the thread and I did not ignore any moderator's instruction by addressing a question to the poster named by me because no such instructions were issued to me by PM or on-thread post by the moderator. The exact wording of his post is quoted above in my second post.

Zaph

mathepac wrote: »

Thank you for your response, but mentioning an estimated elapsed time of 48 hours for a review and a result leaves me disconcerted.

A review and posting the overturn of the ban with an apology should take less than 48 seconds elapsed time.

Just a reminder that all mods and CMods are volunteers and have lives outside of Boards. Your patience is appreciated.

Micky Dolenz

mathepac wrote: »

No thanks. I'd like to keep it simple. The ban is unjust, a simple and honest review of the facts leads directly to it being overturned.

It's the old Bart Simpson defence - "I didn't do it". I did not ignore any moderator's instruction by posting in the thread and I did not ignore any moderator's instruction by addressing a question to the poster named by me because no such instructions were issued to me by PM or on-thread post by the moderator. The exact wording of his post is quoted above in my second post.

To echo Zaph, thanks for your patience.

On the front of it,the ban looks pretty harsh alright. Yes, you didn't directly address the poster you were instructed not to address. Instead you picked up a similar theme with another poster instead of just letting it go. We can return to this in a little while.

Believe it or not, I have spent a lot of time looking over this and asking opinions of relative parties.

I am going to be straight up with you. You can be needlessly antagonistic, you seem to enjoy getting into pointless arguments with other posters. We can dance around the wording of the laws but it can never detract from the meaning and spirit of those laws.

I understand completely why you were banned. Mods don't want to have to deal with posters like you. Their forum is a happier place without your contribution. I know that may be hard to hear, in my research of this case, it is what I have found. This is something that can certainly be turned around.

In all honesty, if you continue on with the posting style you seem to currently favour, you are looking at long term bans in your future. Sometimes it's best just to let stuff go.

While I understand why you were banned, I think it was unduly long.

I have discussed the matter with the banning mod and they are in agreement. The ban to be reduced to a week.


Have a think about what I have said. A couple of days left of a ban and a fresh start.

mathepac

Thank you for your time and contribution and for the opportunity to respond.

I am not happy to serve any ban for something I did not do, and there is open acceptance that I did not do what I am being punished for, my Bart Simpson defence.

The conclusion you have reached is that I was banned for reasons other than those the moderator gave when banning me i.e. disobeying moderator instructions, that implies a moderator can ban a poster for any reason at all and not have to justify or stand over their actions.

As was the case when I had other bans and infractions lifted or reduced on appeal, my impression is that the review is being done with very bad grace; "he didn't do what he is being punished for so let's find him guilty of something, anything, in order to protect ourselves and our actions."

I have a counter offer: an apology for being punished in the wrong and lifting the infraction that preceded the ban would go some way to changing my views on boards.ie moderation practices. I've written about these views extensively and I can't help but feel they are the real issue here

It leaves a bad taste in my mouth and I'll need a few hours to think. Your offer is tantamount to asking me to accept further punishment for being innocent of a moderator's accusation.

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

... Instead you picked up a similar theme with another poster instead of just letting it go. We can return to this in a little while. ...

Sorry, I forgot to say that in my view my post was still on-topic with the thread. I simply sought clarification for the poster's comment, made directly to me and about my posts.