Banned from Soccer forum

Rayne Wooney

I have received a ridiculous infraction from Kess73 before but seeing as it was just an infraction I didn't bother appealing.

I've just received another and been banned for two weeks by Kess73 for not editing my post apparently.

I was reading the mod warning when I got the infraction, so I don't know how I'm meant to edit a post I didn't know was in the wrong, as determined by Kess73, when I didn't know it was in the first place. Also plenty of people could have quoted my post so what would be the point in editing it, it wasn't deleted when I had finished reading the mod warning.

I think this infraction is wrong.

Also
Are the dos and don'ts of cross thread quoting in the charter? It isn't the last time I checked
And is handing out infractions to someone "engaging" not like handing out an infraction, for example, to those being trolled as well as the person who's trolling?

Yes pathetic

And now you're posting nonsense, surprise surprise, you know well I've never stated anything as an unarguable fact in this discussion

Beasty

Have you taken this up with the mod who missued the yellow card and consequent 2 week ban? - that's the first stage of the dispiute process as set out above. If you are unable to come to a resolution between the pair of you then you may start a dispute thread here

Rayne Wooney

Sorry about that I didn't realise you had to do PMs in every case.

Anyway it's clear from Kess73's PM that he's sticking with his decision.

He seems unable to comprehend my reasoning that my post was within seconds of his mod warning and that I missed it and then when I checked the thread a while later and was reading the mod post I got the warning.

Beasty

As I understand it you have made no attempt to resolve this directly with the mod. Irrespective of that I will now have a look at this for you. Before I do that, could you please confirm the source of the quote in your OP and the relevance of that quote to this appeal

Rayne Wooney

I have PMd Kess73 and given the reason I stated above and he has said he's sticking with his decision, so an attempt was made.

The quoted post in my OP is the post I got carded for, I have no access to the Soccer forum to quote it directly but it was in the Liverpool Superthread.

I am unable to edit my original post but where it says "infraction" it was meant to say "warning". It's the card and subsequent ban I'm appealing.

Beasty

OK -Apologies for the delay in looking at it but I've been travelling for a couple of days with very limited access which has been compounded by my laptop being caught up in some significant baggage delays at Heathrow. I'm fully online now and am going to look at this hopefuilly during the course of this evening.

Beasty

Right, I've looked through the sequence of events leading up to your yellow and set out below the main points (all timings are on 4 June)

1. 5:59pm, the mod issues this warning in the Manchester United Superthread (you can view the link by logging out)

Kess73 wrote: »

Mod Post: And this is exactly the sort of cross thread rubbish that many regulars were complaining about in the feedback thread, and is exactly the kind of post that attracts the type of posters who would be more than happy to try and derail this thread on the regulars.

If people want to try to start cross thread spats, then we are more than willing to give any stirrers a reason to have to find a different soccer forum to post in.

The thread title was amended within a couple of minutes to mention this warning
2. Later on (just before 9pm) you posted in that thread, and hence must have been aware of the warning
3. You then got involved in an exchange in the Liverpool superthread
10.28pm

Raif Severance wrote: »

Since you won't give this up, I've gone ahead and ask for some Clarification from the Regulars in the Bundesliga Thread, to settle this.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90690962&postcount=5024

We'll see who's Spoofing in here.

That's fairly pathetic on your part.

4. 10:39pm the mod issues this warning

Kess73 wrote: »

Mod post: Just as has been stated in the Man U superthread earlier today, any attempts at starting cross thread or multi-thread flaming/baiting/trolling/general thread spoiling is going to be stamped out.

Enough people stated in the feedback thread that they thought it was an issue, so anyone who wants to engage in it and anyone who wishes to respond to it can get used to the idea of finding some other website for their soccer chat.

It is not up for debate, and posters who want to use and read this threads and others threads are not going to have them derailed by childish bickering.

So basically despite the warning in the United thread, which you would have been fully aware of as you spend a lot of time in that thread, you decided to prolong a discussion resulting from posts made in a different thread which had no relevance to the thread. Your post was both off-topic and argumentative (as was the post you were responding to). However you decided to go on. I appreciate you in all likelihood were drafting youir post at the same time th mod posted the warning, but within a minute or so of the warning being made you posted the comments you quoted above in response to the same poster. Your post was imnmediately following the mod's warning which would have been apparent as soon as you posted.

The mod gave it over 10 minutes before formally warning you. That was more than enough time foir you to delete/edit or apologise for your post - if you had done any of these I would have some sympathy for your position, althoiugh I would very much douibt the mod would then have issued a formal warning. You decided not to do any of these despite being fully aware of the approach being taken by the mod from the warnings in 2 threads

To be honest the bickering that was going on between the pair of you deserved yellow cards with or without the in-thread warnings and I would have upheld them if you had each received one. In your case you had an opportunity to make up for your post before the mod acted but chose not to. In the circumstances I cannot see any basis for overturning the card and resultant ban

Rayne Wooney

Firstly I'd like to say I've expressed my dislike for this cross thread posting that began in the soccer forum this season a few times, so it would be fairly hypocritical of me to go against a mod intentionally who was trying to put a stop to it.

Beasty wrote: »

1 So basically despite the warning in the United thread, which you would have been fully aware of as you spend a lot of time in that thread, you decided to prolong a discussion resulting from posts made in a different thread which had no relevance to the thread. Your post was both off-topic and argumentative (as was the post you were responding to). However you decided to go on. I appreciate you in all likelihood were drafting youir post at the same time th mod posted the warning, but within a minute or so of the warning being made you posted the comments you quoted above in response to the same poster. Your post was imnmediately following the mod's warning which would have been apparent as soon as you posted.

2The mod gave it over 10 minutes before formally warning you. That was more than enough time foir you to delete/edit or apologise for your post - if you had done any of these I would have some sympathy for your position, althoiugh I would very much douibt the mod would then have issued a formal warning. You decided not to do any of these despite being fully aware of the approach being taken by the mod from the warnings in 2 threads

3To be honest the bickering that was going on between the pair of you deserved yellow cards with or without the in-thread warnings and I would have upheld them if you had each received one. In your case you had an opportunity to make up for your post before the mod acted but chose not to. In the circumstances I cannot see any basis for overturning the card and resultant ban

1. I do most of my back reading of super threads in the early morning as I haven't got time during the day, I hadn't seen the post in the United thread, and as you said I posted at 9pm. I don't know how that confirms I had been aware of anything.

2. As I've said a few times now the yellow card was for ignoring a mod's instructions, yet I was only reading the mod post when I got the warning. I do 95% of my boards browsing on an iPhone so I'm sure you can relate to closing down a website and checking back after a short while. It's a ridiculous warning IMO and I don't think I've seen one given out on boards under the same circumstances.

3. I don't agree with you here. Bickering? I was having a debate with others and that poster quoted my post to another thread, I called it as I've been calling it all year , pathetic, as it's just taking it completely out of context. I wasn't aware the mods were starting to cull this at that point. He quoted me again and said that I was in the thread stating my opinion as fact, which was untrue and I said as much. I don't know how that makes me come off badly tbh.

Beasty

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

1. I do most of my back reading of super threads in the early morning as I haven't got time during the day, I hadn't seen the post in the United thread, and as you said I posted at 9pm. I don't know how that confirms I had been aware of anything.

It confirms you were posting in a thread which clearly stated the warning I quoted above and that you should therefore have been fully aware of that warning. Hence ignoring that warning simply because you were in another thread was simply not on and you could have expected further action

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

2. As I've said a few times now the yellow card was for ignoring a mod's instructions, yet I was only reading the mod post when I got the warning. I do 95% of my boards browsing on an iPhone so I'm sure you can relate to closing down a website and checking back after a short while. It's a ridiculous warning IMO and I don't think I've seen one given out on boards under the same circumstances.

Yellows are given out for ignoring mod warnings all the time (and the post after yours was carded for exactly the same reason)

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

3. I don't agree with you here. Bickering? I was having a debate with others and that poster quoted my post to another thread, I called it as I've been calling it all year , pathetic, as it's just taking it completely out of context. I wasn't aware the mods were starting to cull this at that point. He quoted me again and said that I was in the thread stating my opinion as fact, which was untrue and I said as much. I don't know how that makes me come off badly tbh.

You were calling someone else's assertions "pathetic" and repeated it. That related to stuff that was off-topic for the Liverpool superthread. Yes I have little doubt that the pair of you had resorted to petty bickering, and if you consider that to be the quality of "debate" expected on Boards I would suggest you spend a bit of time familiarising yourself a bit more with the standards expected across the site. If you had a problem with their post (particularly if you are accusing someone of calling you a liar) report the post and let the mods deal with it.

The card was issued for thr specific post you quoted, but in my view there were a couple of posts leading up to it that could easily have been carded whether there was an in-thread warning or not. As it was I have little doubt you were aware of the warning either from the other thread or from reading the post immediately before yours, but more likely from both

I am not seeing anything here to indicate the mod was wrong in issuing the yellow card and am therefore upholding it.

You may of course ask for an Admin to review this

Rayne Wooney

Beasty wrote: »

It confirms you were posting in a thread which clearly stated the warning I quoted above and that you should therefore have been fully aware of that warning. Hence ignoring that warning simply because you were in another thread was simply not on and you could have expected further action

Yellows are given out for ignoring mod warnings all the time (and the post after yours was carded for exactly the same reason)

You were calling someone else's assertions "pathetic" and repeated it. That related to stuff that was off-topic for the Liverpool superthread. Yes I have little doubt that the pair of you had resorted to petty bickering, and if you consider that to be the quality of "debate" expected on Boards I would suggest you spend a bit of time familiarising yourself a bit more with the standards expected across the site. If you had a problem with their post (particularly if you are accusing someone of calling you a liar) report the post and let the mods deal with it.

The card was issued for thr specific post you quoted, but in my view there were a couple of posts leading up to it that could easily have been carded whether there was an in-thread warning or not. As it was I have little doubt you were aware of the warning either from the other thread or from reading the post immediately before yours, but more likely from both

I am not seeing anything here to indicate the mod was wrong in issuing the yellow card and am therefore upholding it.

You may of course ask for an Admin to review this

It does not make sense at all that I would be against this cross thread posting and then ignore the mod instruction that is trying to put an end to it. If I had seen the mod warning I would have left that post to be dealt with by the mods, I had not seen it therefore quoted it and expressed how I felt about it.

The post wasn't off topic, it was on topic seeking opinions from another thread on the topic, which shouldn't be allowed (and evidently now isn't allowed) but I wasn't aware of it at the time.

Are you saying that saying someone is lying on the soccer forum is an actionable offence? There is terrible inconsistency there if that's true


Also I never said that me and that poster were debating so the condescension is unnecessary, there was a debate going on about two players and that poster butted in without giving his opinion, but quoted my post on another thread. I exchanged two posts with him and that was it.

Beasty

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

The post wasn't off topic, it was on topic seeking opinions from another thread on the topic, which shouldn't be allowed (and evidently now isn't allowed) but I wasn't aware of it at the time.

So you decide you wish to participate despite claiming you don't like it and despite the warnings not to do so (and I remain convinced you were aware of those warnings despite your assertions here)

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

Are you saying that saying someone is lying on the soccer forum is an actionable offence? There is terrible inconsistency there if that's true

If you think a poster is lying do not call them out in-thread - report the post. If the mods agree they can take whatever action they consider necessary.
To be honest I am sick to the back teeth of a relatively small number posters complaining of inconsistency in the forum when for the most part they only have themselves to blame for failing to report stuff. That however is not on-topic for this thread so I will leave it there

Do you want an Admin to review my decision?

Rayne Wooney

Beasty wrote: »

So you decide you wish to participate despite claiming you don't like it and despite the warnings not to do so (and I remain convinced you were aware of those warnings despite your assertions here)

I wouldn't call it participating at all, I expressed my dislike of that kind of post and that was it.

If you think a poster is lying do not call them out in-thread - report the post. If the mods agree they can take whatever action they consider necessary.
To be honest I am sick to the back teeth of a relatively small number posters complaining of inconsistency in the forum when for the most part they only have themselves to blame for failing to report stuff. That however is not on-topic for this thread so I will leave it there

Do you want an Admin to review my decision?

There was an incident a while back where a poster was lying about a bet placed on a team, pages upon pages of this poster being called untruthful and at the time I didn't see any cards or any warnings at all.

Are you saying the mods missed this? you expect me to believe that yet you don't believe that I missed a post that was within seconds of mine and when I came back 10 minutes later and got to reading it I received a warning for ignoring a post I didn't read?

Beasty

You were accusing a poster of being pathetic

You repeated that assertion. The mod carded you for ignoring their instruction. It could equally have been for your specific comments. Those are exactly the type of posts seen far too often in the Soccer forum and almost inevitably lead to further trouble. Either way I'm not overturning the card or ban

I've asked twice before, and I'm not going to ask again as I am done with this appeal. If you don't want an Admnin to review my decision it can be marked as resolved

Rayne Wooney

Listen you are making stuff up now so I'm not going to continue with in this discussion. Unless you don't understand the difference, saying an action is pathetic, which I did, and saying someone is pathetic are two different things, the latter is personal attack if I'm not mistaken and against the charter but you've probably already added it to the list of imaginary yellow cards I should have received that day (which must be 5 or 6 at this point and with no basis and IMO just deflecting from the point of the discussion).

You've made a lot of assumptions to come to this decision and even when I've pointed out the illogic of some of the assumptions the answer has been well that's what I think, on the flip side you are accusing me of lying multiple times without any evidence or any history of me doing so in my 5 or 6 thousand posts on the soccer forum.

I have been consistent with my version of events from the start, my ban must be coming to an end soon but it's the principle of it at this point, if an admin could review and take into account this whole thread and PMs exchanged between the mod please.