2 infractions and removal of post in woman refused abortion thread

irishpancake

Hi there.

My first time to ever start a dispute resolution thread, so please forgive if I get stuff wrong.....like Prefix, which I have no idea about...

[I put "Admin Required", and apologise in advance if that is incorrect.]

I am appealing the apparent decision of Moderator humanji, in the After Hours thread regarding the recent "woman refused abortion" controversy.

I say apparent, because it was not communicated to me that my post in response to humanji had been removed.

I got this by PM, following upon my last post to that thread, which I will refer to later.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/private.php?do=showpm&pmid=12223452

Dear irishpancake,

You have been infracted 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 infraction you can see details on how to do so here.

humanji

Moderator Note

It's a mod instruction. Move on.

Now, there is no reference to my post being removed.

I clearly did not ignore this Moderators instructions, I took issue with them, in the thread, as that was where this Mod had posted a contentious, IMO, and incorrect interpretation of what had been discussed on the thread, particularly statements by me.

I refer to this Mods post, which was fully emboldened, as shown below:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92008623&postcount=2791

The fact that you can't tell the difference between hyperbole and intent, while claiming that someone else can't tell the difference between reality and a film is quite bizarre. The user had no intention of of killing anyone and that is painfully clear. Now get over it and move on.

Now, I took issue with this, and I still take issue with it, but my views have been removed from the thread, while the Mods interpretation of my views are still there.

I replied, and this is what was removed by the Mod. My post is in the PM I linked above.

Originally Posted by irishpancake View Post
Quote:

Originally Posted by humanji View Post
The fact that you can't tell the difference between hyperbole and intent, while claiming that someone else can't tell the difference between reality and a film is quite bizarre. The user had no intention of of killing anyone and that is painfully clear. Now get over it and move on.

Why are you shouting at me?

I have not claimed someone can't tell the difference between reality and a film.

Where have I said that?

I cannot figure how you can so completely misrepresent or not understand my point.

The poster was referring to real live women in a cinema supporting what they heard in a film.

The women were there, he was there, there is nothing fictional about that

You say,

"The user had no intention of of killing anyone and that is painfully clear."

I said this:

"but would contemplate silencing them forever."

and that is what he said.

"If only", etc, etc.

Where have I said intent?

I have no idea what his "intent" was, and neither do you, with respect.

To "contemplate" is not to intend.

But, and this is a fact, there are those who have acted on such thoughts and contemplations, which I have linked.

Those were people from the POV the poster claims, the "Pro Life" POV.

I know the difference between hyperbole and intent, but that is not in question in any of my posts.

I never claimed "intent", that was and is you.

That is your misinterpretation of my point of view, for whatever reason.

I certainly hope his contemplations, which he published here, were indeed hyperbolic, and he is never inclined to act upon them.

But one never knows, and that includes you.

It is safer to be aware that it has happened before, in my view.

Now, if you wish to close down debate on a discussion board, and by all means you may have the power to do so, but it will be revealing.

This has been removed, and it is revealing, as I say in my final remark above:

Now, if you wish to close down debate on a discussion board, and by all means you may have the power to do so, but it will be revealing.

As you know, this is a highly charged debate, on both sides, and I accepted an earlier ruling regarding my use of intemperate language toward the poster who made the original, and IMV, quite disgusting post., which I note is still in situ.

The content there I took issue with, and still do, was:

Quote:
One group of women cheered and starting clapping when she said it. If only I had a fcuking Uzi.

Which, as you can see, made no overt reference to the film content, but to the reaction of that group of women with which he has a disagreement, and the posters wish or hope to have a method with which to silence these women forever.

I gave my arguments in the reply I posted, which was removed by the Mod in question.

It is a pity that Boards.ie seems to think it is OK to come down on one particular side in the on-going debate on Abortion services, and particularly the current debate, by bolstering, and disallowing debate, with a poster who is clearly misogynistic and militantly on the Anti Choice side.

I note that this poster "thanked" the Mod's post.

It is pretty clear now.

Can this be reviewed by a Mod or Admin who does not have an agenda.

Regards,

IP

The Hill Billy

Hi there.

I have reviewed your appeal above, which to be honest I found quite difficult to follow. However, having read the thread in question I think that it boils down to this...

1st Red Card
In this post you abused another poster. As per the site guidelines, personal attacks are not permitted in these forums. Given the harshness of your comment I find the infraction justified.

2nd Red Card
You took further issue with the same poster in this post. The mod stepped in to address the escalating situation & made the following comment...

humanji wrote:

The fact that you can't tell the difference between hyperbole and intent, while claiming that someone else can't tell the difference between reality and a film is quite bizarre. The user had no intention of of killing anyone and that is painfully clear. Now get over it and move on.

The mod did not "shout" at you. They posted in bold to make it clear that it was a mod instruction. You have been on this site long enough to be familiar with the approach.

You then questioned the mod decision on-thread - again, in contravention of the site rules. Any comment on a moderator action should be done via PM only as arguing on-thread only serves to drag threads off-topic. A second infraction was given. Usually, this would warrant a warning only, however, I agree that in this instance the infraction was appropriate to ensure that you understood the seriousness of the situation.

In summary: Both infractions were warranted.

You may appeal to an Admin if you wish.

irishpancake

The Hill Billy wrote: »

Hi there.

I have reviewed your appeal above, which to be honest I found quite difficult to follow. However, having read the thread in question I think that it boils down to this...

1st Red Card
In this post you abused another poster. As per the site guidelines, personal attacks are not permitted in these forums. Given the harshness of your comment I find the infraction justified.

2nd Red Card
You took further issue with the same poster in this post. The mod stepped in to address the escalating situation & made the following comment...

The mod did not "shout" at you. They posted in bold to make it clear that it was a mod instruction. You have been on this site long enough to be familiar with the approach.

You then questioned the mod decision on-thread - again, in contravention of the site rules. Any comment on a moderator action should be done via PM only as arguing on-thread only serves to drag threads off-topic. A second infraction was given. Usually, this would warrant a warning only, however, I agree that in this instance the infraction was appropriate to ensure that you understood the seriousness of the situation.

In summary: Both infractions were warranted.

You may appeal to an Admin if you wish.

I do so appeal.

To whomever, Admin is OK, if that is your process here.

Thanks for your honesty, which I genuinely appreciate.

I am sorry you found my post difficult to follow, but I cannot, with equal honestly, see your difficulty.

Also equally, I disagree with your simplistic, IMV, "boiling down" of the content in my dispute resolution post.

This Mods 1st Red Card was accepted by me thus:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/private.php?do=showpm&pmid=12222788

Sorry, but that guy did say:

If only I had a fcuking Uzi

in relation to a real group of women he encountered in a cinema in Ireland, with whom he disagreed, and wished the above quoted on this Public Discussion Board.

There is no other description for that.

But, I accept you gotta moderate.

Thanks,

Danny

To me, your conclusion regarding the so-called 2nd Red Card seems to be a "Mod backs Mod" decision, not based on the facts of the case, but deemed necessary by the/other Mods to uphold the right of this particular Mod to comment on the rights or wrongs of a debate, and come down on one side versus another, without needing to actually answer or explain the comments he/she made, which were not impartial, as one would expect a Moderator's comment to be.

This Mod became part of the discussion, taking a particular side, and, as my responding post has been removed by this Mod taking a stance on one side versus the other, this is inherently unfair to me personally.

All I ask is that my post responding to this comment, which was not impartial. by this Mod, be reinstated:

The fact that you can't tell the difference between hyperbole and intent, while claiming that someone else can't tell the difference between reality and a film is quite bizarre. The user had no intention of of killing anyone and that is painfully clear. Now get over it and move on.

My response was:

Why are you shouting at me?

I have not claimed someone can't tell the difference between reality and a film.

Where have I said that?

I cannot figure how you can so completely misrepresent or not understand my point.

The poster was referring to real live women in a cinema supporting what they heard in a film.

The women were there, he was there, there is nothing fictional about that

You say,

"The user had no intention of of killing anyone and that is painfully clear."

I said this:

"but would contemplate silencing them forever."

and that is what he said.

"If only", etc, etc.

Where have I said intent?

I have no idea what his "intent" was, and neither do you, with respect.

To "contemplate" is not to intend.

But, and this is a fact, there are those who have acted on such thoughts and contemplations, which I have linked.

Those were people from the POV the poster claims, the "Pro Life" POV.

I know the difference between hyperbole and intent, but that is not in question in any of my posts.

I never claimed "intent", that was and is you.

That is your misinterpretation of my point of view, for whatever reason.

I certainly hope his contemplations, which he published here, were indeed hyperbolic, and he is never inclined to act upon them.

But one never knows, and that includes you.

It is safer to be aware that it has happened before, in my view.

Now, if you wish to close down debate on a discussion board, and by all means you may have the power to do so, but it will be revealing.

I accept that the Mod was not "shouting", emboldening seems to be the norm for emphasis.

But, it is still there, while my response, which answers some of the points raised in this Mods emboldened, partial, taking sides post, is not.

That just seems unfair.

Asking a poster to respond by PM with objections to a Mod poster, who takes such a partial stance, is unfair to that poster.

The Hill Billy

My assessment may seem 'simplistic', however it is what this all bolides down to.
You made a personal attack on another poster & then commented on mod action on-thread.

As someone who has been on this site for as long as yourself - you cannot claim ignorance of these key rules of boards.ie. Regardless of whether you feel they are unfair or not, such rules need to be enforced, especially in threads where highly-emotive topics are being discussed.

As per your request, I will ask an Admin to review my decision.

irishpancake

The Hill Billy wrote: »

My assessment may seem 'simplistic', however it is what this all bolides down to.
You made a personal attack on another poster & then commented on mod action on-thread.

As someone who has been on this site for as long as yourself - you cannot claim ignorance of these key rules of boards.ie. Regardless of whether you feel they are unfair or not, such rules need to be enforced, especially in threads where highly-emotive topics are being discussed.

As per your request, I will ask an Admin to review my decision.

OK, thanks.

I have no issue with you at all, apart from what I perceived as a need to support your colleagues decision, without necessarily testing or critically examining what he had posted in relation to whst he alleges I said in the thread.

Of course, it can be looked at strictly within the rules, but are there not rules which apply to Moderaters in relation to wgst they publish without a right of reply in the thread to a poster who wishes to correct and challenge publicly stated distortions of fact by a Mod.

I didn't ignore any warnings, I challenged what a Mod had published.

There is a difference.

And I have been around these parts quite a long time, many years, without this kind of stuff ever happening,

The Hill Billy

Please note the part of the FAQ that deals with Discretion of the Moderator.

Just so we are clear, I did not feel a 'need' to support the moderator. My review was impartial & if I found that this matter was incorrectly handled, I would have requested that the Admins reverse the infractions. However, in this instance I found that the appropriate action was taken.

Let's wait for the Admin review.

BuffyBot

Honestly, I can't imagine how you don't get the points laid out by the CMod above. You can dance and dance around it with winding posts, but it doesn't wash with me.

Ban upheld.