Banned from After Hours.

Zulu

Hello.
This morning I was banned from after hours for 3 days. Naturally I don't feel this is just. I emailed the mod responsible, who hasn't responded. I waited a few hours then emailed the other AH mods. None of them have responded.

Is this standard process? I can understand that it take a little while to consider a case, contact mods etc., and that people have lives outside in the physical world, but isn't there even a courtesy PM to say "we're looking into it"?

I note the mod has been online posting (hence I'm creating this thread).

I think a complete lack of response is a little unwarranted, no?

Zulu

sorry "pm'd" not "emailed".

Penn

Hi Zulu,

I'll look into this and get back to you.

Regards,
Penn

Zulu

Thank you Penn.

Penn

Hi Zulu,

Your first post in the thread:

Zulu wrote: »

Most of the hardcore feminazis did the close-rereg there a few years ago. I think most have fallen by the wayside, but there are one or two stragglers who are pretty easy to spot.
I scratch my head why they bothered to be honest. I suppose it's part of the victim mentality they buy into.

Many of the rest of your posts which followed were then veiled insults directed at certain members of the forum who you suspect closed their accounts and opened new ones.

Zulu wrote: »

Sure you wouldn't know, it was way before your time.

Zulu wrote: »

Whoa there girls.

I don't really see why you are both getting your knickers in a twist. I referred to some posters from a few years ago. It's not like it applies to either of you; you'd swear I'd insulted you personally with all the back-slappery.

Whats with the hard-on for my observation?

I mean honestly...

Zulu wrote: »

I dunno, it seems to me you're looking for a row.

And if you're not, your friend is certainly spoiling for one.

Zulu wrote: »

Thats twice you've mentioned that now. If you have a problem with my post: report it, and let the mods deal with it.

Otherwise Chamomile tea, lavender candle and some oil of evening primrose?

Zulu wrote: »

..and all because I mentioned some posters from a few years ago. Siesh, shallow waters run deep.

My apologies for the offence and hurt that I have caused those reregged joined on Aug2013. Lol.

Zulu wrote: »

I'd love to see an experiment - how long it takes for a thread to go to ****, once the word "feminazi" is posted. It's incredible really the power of language; Orwell knew what he was talking about.

By taking a veiled potshot at re-reg posters who you felt were "hardcore feminazis", you started an argument using needlessly antagonistic and inflammatory language and spent most of the time after that continuously stoking the flames of it.

As such, I see no reason to lift the ban.

Ban upheld. You may ask for an admin review of this decision if you wish.

Zulu

In fairness Penn I think your making a mistake in presuming I was directing the comment at someone. I wasn't.
Certainly it appear the one or more rereg took it personally, but the posts wasn't aimed at them. (had they even posted in the thread at that point?)

The next few posts were an attempt to shirk off the overtly aggressive posts that were directed at me. I was trying not to engage, but they kept antagonising me. Granted I was being flippant with them, but if you were in my position (you make a general post aimed at no one present, then 2 posters come gunning for you looking for a row, would you engage?)

And sure the posts desend, but they were in response to more and more aggressive, snide and caustic remarks - were they not?

No warning was given. No infraction given. Just a straight ban.
No response to my pm's. No acknowledgment.

I didn't attack anyone personally, but I was fair game? And I get the ban?
I attacked no one personally, but I get banned because someone else get offended on other peoples behalf? Really?

Penn

Again, your first post in the thread:

Zulu wrote: »

Most of the hardcore feminazis did the close-rereg there a few years ago. I think most have fallen by the wayside, but there are one or two stragglers who are pretty easy to spot.
I scratch my head why they bothered to be honest. I suppose it's part of the victim mentality they buy into.

You may not have mentioned names, but such an opinion simply couldn't be given unless there were poster who you felt your statement applied to.

Then when another poster asked what you meant, this was your response:

Zulu wrote: »

Oh don't play coy; you know.

Which again to me demonstrates that your post was a veiled dig at particular posters without naming them.

Regardless of what others post, you are responsible for your own posts, and if you felt you were being unfairly dragged into an argument or being hounded, you should have reported the posts.

DO you request an Admin review of this decision?

Zulu

Yes.
Sorry but you are incorrectly second guessing the meaning behind my first post. And, frankly, I wasn't warned, infracted, or banned for that post. I was banned for a different post.

Indeed, I was banned for explaining/defending myself (after being accused of being "really unpleasant", among other things. This is the post I was banned for (apparently):

zulu wrote:

Jesus fu*king christ.

I posted an opinion. My opinion.

I wasn't in a rush to elaborate as I saw some people really getting their panties in a bunch about it, and I felt it would only lead to more hostility. But, doggedly you kept hounding me, so I gave you your elaboration. I didn't say anyone "put down men on Boards", that's your own interpretation.

No do you see why I wasn't in a rush to "back up" my opinion. And besides, am I not entitled to an opinion now? Will that end the matter? Bollix it will, I've no doubt there will be more offence felt after lunch.

Zulu

And its worth noting that it was Bluewolf (not a rereg) that posted the "wut" to which I responded "Oh don't play coy; you know".

If we consider the timeline of event, and how they played out, the "offended" party wasn't in the thread, at all. How was any offensive remark directed at them?

Simply put, it wasn't.

Zulu

I was reviewing that thread an anon last night (being banned I can't even access it), and I'd like to highlight the following post/point in time:
Post 110
That is me trying to put a stop to the conversation. I was making a joke about it. You'll note form that point on the topic was not dropped, that there was a belligerence in continuing that row from certain posters.

Consider that point in time in the context of what happened before (not after). I made a comment expressing an opinion on a thread about closed accounts, about no one directly. Some other users leveraged that post to pick a row, and posted in a needlessly hostile tone. I got banned (when pressed to explain myself). They didn't.

Now start the clock again.
Post 114 is the first post to get personal. No warnings, no infractions.
Post 116 I try to shut it down again. I don't respond to the personal dig.
Post 118 user trying to bait me into naming people but recognises this is against the charter. No warnings, no infractions.
Post 124 I call out that people are looking for a row.
Post 129 suggest reporting the post/again trying to call an end to it.
Post 132 I try to call an end again. Granted a real apology would have served better than a joke one, but in my defense I didn't fell a real one was warranted at this point. I'd made two attempts to shut down that row, and received a personal dig. Other posters tone was needlessly hostile.
Post 133 More personal digs at me. No warnings, no infractions.
Post 140 Another poster recognises that I'm being met with digs.
Post 142... etc etc.

It's hard to defend myself when I don't really know the charge (the mod hasn't responded to my PMs, none of the AH mods did). I'm guessing, but there appears to be a presumption that I was having a go at someone (in the thread, who hadn't joined at that point). Even though this is not the case, there is zero benefit of doubt given to me.

To me, it appears that this is an exercise in pandering to a persons persecution complex, which is utterly unjust.

Zulu

Is an admin reviewing this?

Zulu

Zulu wrote: »

Is an admin reviewing this?

Ban has expired; poor show folks.
Poor show.

(except you Penn, I might not agree with your opinion, but at least you had the courtesy to respond to me and acknowledge me as another person. Thank you for that at least. )

LoLth

I apologise for an admin not getting to this thread in time before your ban expired... that's the problem with short term bans. In fairness, there is no requirement for warnings or infractions before a ban so that aspect of your argument is not valid - however, my personal preference would be for warning, card and then a ban of at least one week, not three days.

If you want, I can go through the thread and review the ban anyway for your own peace of mind.

Zulu

Please do. I don't appreciate how I've been treated; i wasn't the aggressor yet I received the ban. I suspect due to not being offered the benefit of doubt - which frankly is bull****

Zulu

Did you take a moment to review it yet?

Zulu

Hi LoLth. Where are we with this? Have you considered taking a look at it? Or have you decided it's not worth while?

Zulu

Fair play for not bothering. It's good to know the lay of the land.

Spear

I've given the admins a nudge on this one to get it some attention.

trout

Apologies ... this thread seems to have fallen between the cracks.

I've gone through the thread / posts in question ... 3 day ban is/was reasonable.

Again, sorry for the delay(s).