Dispute an infraction

pwurple

Hi, i received a thread ban for answering another posters question on thread.

I actually answered the question before I read the warning which was posted after that point, as i was reading on a mobile... , but having read the thread warning, I still don't see how it applies to my post.

The thread warning was as follows, nowhere near any of my own posts...

whoopsadaisydoodles wrote: »

*cough*

This is a not so gentle reminder to stop at each others' throats. There are one or two posters here who will be banned if they carry on the way they are, I'm pretty sure you know who you are.

This is the final on thread warning that will be given.

My post was "see post #167"

I don't see this as being at anyone's throat... Nor was it clear to me at any point that the mod was referring to me in that warning. I have 2 posts in the previous 24 hours on that thread, without any warnings handed out, or even a quote of any of my posts.

There was also no warning not to respond to the post I responded to. My post was not agressive in any way, i genuinely thought I was being helpful by answering the question.

I feel a thread ban was far too severe here, and would like to dispute this. The warning, if it was intended to stop people responding to a specific post could have stated this. I believe this was ambiguous.

I have already pm'd the mod to query, and was told "infraction upheld".

Thanks for reading.

Taltos

Sorry pwurple

Mod warning issued at 12.24; post #206
Just 2 posts after your previous post at 11:59; post #204.

Despite the mod direction to quit the sniping you referred a poster directly back to one of these posts an hour later.
Time 13:39; post #212

It's not the mods fault you didn't see their warning, strange when you were able to see the post you were replying to and even were able to reference the earlier post.

So yes the mod is correct in their review. Infraction stands, which is fortunate considering the mod warning had promised a ban.

pwurple

Thanks for the review taltos.

Again, i don't see how I am to tell that the warning of #206 was related to my post? Even reading it now, i understand that to be directed at post 203, which makes a comment about moderation and how their post will be deleted. It doesn't mention me, or refer to my post. It has a mention of "you know who you are", but who is that? I took it to mean the poster of 203.


For the earlier warning which was quoted, the off-topic warning was in regard to posts 189-192, which were bickering about posters, and not about the topic.

Despite the mod direction to quit the sniping you referred a poster directly back to one of these posts an hour later.

The post I referred back to (163) was 20 posts before the off-topic/sniping warning. It was on-topic, and no warning or discussion had emminated from that at all, as far as I can see. Where is the warning for 163?

My post continued to be on-topic (ie directly related to an earlier on-topic post) and was in no way "snipey", which I took to mean about a poster rather than the topic. unless sniping means a short post? I find it tricky to compose long posts when browsing on a phone and feeding a newborn (display is quite small too, which is why I hadn't seen further down the thread). Is this what sniping means here?

Taltos

pwurple, come on you've been here long enough not to need to be led by the hand. You can't have it every way, either you saw the warning or you didn't. It can't be now that you didn't know it was meant for you. Sniping is sniping, the post you referred to clearly fell under that warning.

Whether you saw the warning or not or thought it applied to you or not doesn't really matter. The warning was clear, the fact as above that you weren't banned was generous, personally when I post as above I have to follow through and apply the ban, in this case the mod cut you some slack.

You can continue to argue this here if you want but that will be with the admin team. Let me know if you want to go that route otherwise I will request this to be closed as there isn't a case in my mind to argue.

pwurple

Taltos wrote: »

pwurple, come on you've been here long enough not to need to be led by the hand. You can't have it every way, either you saw the warning or you didn't. It can't be now that you didn't know it was meant for you. Sniping is sniping, the post you referred to clearly fell under that warning.

Whether you saw the warning or not or thought it applied to you or not doesn't really matter. The warning was clear, the fact as above that you weren't banned was generous, personally when I post as above I have to follow through and apply the ban, in this case the mod cut you some slack.

You can continue to argue this here if you want but that will be with the admin team. Let me know if you want to go that route otherwise I will request this to be closed as there isn't a case in my mind to argue.

I don't want it every which way... I'll say it for a third time. I admit i didn't see it at the time, and I'd completely understand I'm at fault there had I posted and ignored a warning. But even having seen it, I don't see how it was supposed to be aimed at me. You've claimed it was, my the question still remains, how on earth would I have been able to tell that from that warning? I'm not a mind-reader, it's simply not written there. If I'm wrong, i apologise, but show me where it is!

"Sniping is sniping." Grand, but what does that even mean? I know what sniping on ebay is... Bidding at the last minute. What on earth is it on boards, as I'm clearly not in the loop. How does my post fit into "sniping" by any definition?

And a shrug off "come on now", you know yourself - type answer is not really good enough. You either follow rules and are able to show where that is happening, or it's just modding on a whim.


Yes please, I'd like an admin review.

Gordon

As far as I understand this, you are querying/claiming three things.
1) You didn't read the warning
2) The warning did not contain elements that applied to you
3) You don't understand the warning

2 and 3 seem to be interlinked due to the word sniping as far as I understand.

1)

pwurple wrote: »

Hi, i received a thread ban for answering another posters question on thread.

I actually answered the question before I read the warning which was posted after that point, as i was reading on a mobile...

You posted an hour after the warning was made, the warning was in bold letters, right underneath the post you directly replied to. I can't see someone opening a thread just when a post has been made, clicking on reply, and waiting for an hour until posting a reply. This doesn't make sense. Claiming you didn't see the warning is not an excuse. 1) does not apply.

, but having read the thread warning, I still don't see how it applies to my post.


My post was "see post #167"

I don't see this as being at anyone's throat... Nor was it clear to me at any point that the mod was referring to me in that warning. I have 2 posts in the previous 24 hours on that thread, without any warnings handed out, or even a quote of any of my posts.

There was also no warning not to respond to the post I responded to. My post was not agressive in any way, i genuinely thought I was being helpful by answering the question.

I feel a thread ban was far too severe here, and would like to dispute this. The warning, if it was intended to stop people responding to a specific post could have stated this. I believe this was ambiguous.

I have already pm'd the mod to query, and was told "infraction upheld".

Thanks for reading.

2) I think it's quite clear what the warning applies to - it's stating (directly and by quote) that people should be on topic, not sniping at people, not to be at people's throats. This is quite a broad way of saying 'stick to the rules' or 'behave' for example. It's telling people to be civil.

I haven't read the whole thread, but if someone asks (I'm cherrypicking intentionally):

username123 wrote: »

I cant find any posts on this thread where anyone [..] assumes that every child is a brat?

and you reply with

pwurple wrote: »

Take a look at post 167 for a start.

That in my opinion is dragging up old arguments, and stirring the pot, intentionally frothing up emotion for one particular argument of the debate. I wouldn't say it's sniping, but I would say that it's against the warning, it's enciting flaming, it's against civil discourse (considering a warning has been given). Post 167 very clearly did not mention that all children were brats - and this one specific part that applied to your response is all it takes for someone to take umbrage at your post and set the thread into an argument again. Regardless of the rest of the content of the post you replied to.

whoopsadaisydoodles wrote: »

This is a not so gentle reminder to stop at each others' throats.

That means everyone.
3)

pwurple wrote: »

"Sniping is sniping." Grand, but what does that even mean? I know what sniping on ebay is... Bidding at the last minute. What on earth is it on boards, as I'm clearly not in the loop. How does my post fit into "sniping" by any definition?

Well you know what political sniping is:

pwurple wrote: »

Just back from council meeting. Great turnout, between 70 and 100 people I'd guess... No seats left in any of the public galleries, and some people standing.

...

A few councillors spoke out against the traffic lights.

Sean martin said it was all the green parties fault, aka political sniping.

Pot shots, attacking from afar; your post had elements of that, but in my opinion it's more 'stirring the pot' than 'sniping' but maybe that's just me.

Either way, I agree with the thread ban, it won't be lifted.

pwurple

Thanks Gordon. The intent is much clearer now, that makes more sense than what I was told earlier, and what was posted in the thread.

Cheers.

Ps, i just rfreshed the page i was on, scrolled to the post and hit the quote button. Easy peasy.

Gordon

pwurple wrote: »

Thanks Gordon. The intent is much clearer now, that makes more sense than what I was told earlier, and what was posted in the thread.

Cheers.

Ps, i just rfreshed the page i was on, scrolled to the post and hit the quote button. Easy peasy.

Ok cool, gimme a shout if you need more clarification.