Appealing a ban in Athletics and Running forum.

T runner

Hello there.

Ive got a 2 day ban yesterday for trolling on this thread (the off-topic) thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055520004&page=306 the Athletics and Running forum (AR). (banned post was 4594).
Discussion starts post 4584.

Appeal to Moderator.

When i questioned the ban, it was stated that I had derailed so many threads with anti-sexist crusades and that any post i make in any way related to sexism (or racism, homophobia etc) would be treated as trolling and thus the ban.

I was never made aware that any such special instant ban rule was in force in my case. In fact I have never been banned for trolling or accused of trolling by a mod on AR (or anywhere on boards that I recall).

Far from derailing any threads a moderator previously agreed to add a clause banning bigotted comments of all kinds into the AR charter on my request after I had contributed to another thread.

Onto the ban details.

The particlar discussion centred around another off-topic thread called the "rant thread".

Discussion starts post 4584. Banned post 4594.
The banned post refutes a point made by the actual moderator who banned me (mod hat off beforfe this).

I feel in the banned post I have successfully refuted his points and my substantiation was appropriate in example and size (there are 50-60 such examples i chose 7-8)

He reveals later to another poster that he had no problem with my point, just my substantiation. If the point itself was not trolling, how could the substantiation be, assuming it is relevant and valid? (the examples are all taken from the actual thread in question)


I am interested in keeping the forum open and friendly to all users and as youll see from the comments that follow my ban many people feel i am a very positive contributor to the forum. I can live with a ban. I don't like been labelled a troll unfairly.

It looks to me that the moderator in question has just reacted rashly without thinking. What makes it worse is that some of the rants I quoted are actually severe (allowed) cases of trolling themselves so it may seem to be double standards to anyone reading that series of posts.

Just to summarise for you.

a)I dont feel I deserved the ban to begin with.
b) I was never warned or made aware aware that I, in particluar, would be banned instantly for commenting on (any) topics involving bigotry on the AR forum.


My ban ends tomorrow but if a decision went my way at least it could be acknowledged that I am not a troll, and ensure my reputation remains as someone who contributes positively and generously in the AR forum.


I appreciate your time and I am sorry for having to take it up.

T Runner.

Beasty

OK I'll take a look at this. I believe the ban expired earlier today which I guess takes away any urgency so I may take a bit of time researching the background. I take from your above comments you have already discussed this with the banning mod and they have upheld their original decision resulting in you starting this thread?

Beasty

Apologies for the delay in getting back on this, but I understand there is quite a bit of background concerning your prior posting within the forum. I am currently awaiting further comments from the local mods about this and will provide a response here once I have had a chance to go through the relevant information

T runner

Beasty wrote: »

Apologies for the delay in getting back on this, but I understand there is quite a bit of background concerning your prior posting within the forum. I am currently awaiting further comments from the local mods about this and will provide a response here once I have had a chance to go through the relevant information

Thanks and absolutely no rush.

I've read some of the disputes here and many are cases where the complainant has been given the appropriate warnings and more minor penalties before the Ban has been imposed. The complainant arguing the rights and wrongs of his early warnings/infractions are irrelevant as the poster had been warned and was banned for failing to head the warnings. I would agree with that. The reverse must also hold true however:
If a poster is going to be banned for bringing up a topic or using it as substantiation then he needs to be warned that this will be the case. My post would probably not earn any other user even a reprimand and yet I was banned without warning for it.
If I had been warned I would have used different substantiation to make (the same point). I wouldn't have been banned (or reprimanded in any way) and we wouldn't be here. If I was warned and subsequently banned then that would be OK id have no defense. But by not giving me a warning they have, similarly, should have no defense.

If the mods are going to ask you to read through previous threads (hope they don't put you through that!) then id make the following points:

The banning mods deduction was that in every thread where I contributed that involved sexism my intention was only to derail the thread. Therefore any thread where I discuss sexism the assumption is that my intention is only to derail/troll.

1. I am either genuinely concerned about this issue, or I am a troll using it to derail threads.

The fact that I persuaded and helped moderators to add a clause against bigotry in the AR charter points to the former. I also discussed the issue on PM with a current Mod, you can ask him for that conversation pconn062. He revealed that mods had difficulty fully understanding the issue. Following that conversation I made a case with the helpdesk to get comprehensive information about the topic that may be of help to mods. I didn't get anything back, but these are not the actions of somebody whose intention is to troll.


2. They wont be able to prove that if they give you an exhaustive list of relevant threads as they must, rather than a selective one. There are threads where that issue may have been commented on by me, quickly discussed that continued as normal. No trolling there. There is also a thread of-course that ended up with the charter being changed. The Mod cant have considered me to be trolling in that case if he agreed to add a clause on bigotry on my request. Just to reiterate, if they give you a list of threads it cant be selective. The banning Mods deductive logic is my intention is to derail ALL threads therefore they assume I will derail the next one I comment. To prove that thay must give you all of the threads Ive commented on in this regard and not just a (potentially biased) selection.


3. The whole idea of changing the AR charter to include a clause on bigotry was to nip issues in the bud so that troublesome threads like the yearly mini marathon thread could evolve in a civilised manner.
Instead of laying the blame on the people who are absolutely frustrated with the amount of bigotry etc, the mods could more reasonably lay the blame on the people making the comments to start with, and they have to take some blame themselves for not using the charter to nip these cases in the bud before it gets out of control.


Thanks and no urgency at all.

PS I it adds to my case here's my training Log on boards. You can see im helpful informative and friendly.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055825980

My only priority with this escalation is to preserve my good name (on boards.ie) and reverse the decision of trolling.

Beasty

Sorry for the ongoing delay here, but the more I dig into this the more I find of relevance to the action taken by the mod in this case
Firstly though I will copy the post made by the mod when banning you

robinph wrote: »

We will not have this thread descend into another one of your crusades. Take a couple of days off.

That is one clue to where the mod was coming from. You allude to another in your OP when you mention from the mod’s PM

When i questioned the ban, it was stated that I had derailed so many threads with anti-sexist crusades and that any post i make in any way related to sexism (or racism, homophobia etc) would be treated as trolling and thus the ban.

I then looked back to your previous card within the forum back in July. I can see a long sequence of posts that were deleted including 5 of your own. Indeed any of those posts could have resulted in further action by the mod team, but in the end only one of them was carded, the first one in the sequence which was accusing another poster of personal abuse. You basically ended up arguing in-thread with a number of posters and seemed incapable of letting the issue go, thus escalating the situation. Equally there were other posters in that exchange that could have been sanctioned but you were the instigator and therefore as a bare minimum deserved some mod action

Turning now to the post that triggered this ban

T runner wrote: »

An off topic thread is useful on a thread with the topic for discussion as AR.
But why have several? Why not stick all non-related items in the one thread?
Dont you think ist ridiculous moving topics between non-running related threads for being "Off-Topic"? Havent ye enough moderation on these fora?
And whay stop at 3 off -topic threads? Why not have a let off steam thread? A spat thread? (oh yeah, oops) A flirting thread? Why not a lads lounge? A ladies lounge?

Unfortunately new users just need to read the rant thread to "get" AR.
Some rants are fine..others are disguised attacks against people and groups of people which many AR users may find alienating and/or offensive.

Have everything off topic in the one thread. Anything off topic goes there, and any shenanigans there is easily monitored.

If you want to see the type of alienating "Rants" that get disguised (as "just a rant", "a bit of fun", "schoolboy playacting" etc. in the Rant thread but would be easily picked up in one off-Topic thread see below. (There are plenty more, inc homophobic tones, anti-traveler tones etc..)

(Please dont say they are Ok because they are funny.)



Why should women...travellers..gay people etc...have to tolerate this just to keep a few old timers happy? They dont...they leave.

Then there was The Spat thread which managed to get completely out of hand primarily as a result of your efforts which had the effect of derailing it. The thread started off as a bit of fun with banter between posters associated with one particular club and other posters having a bit of a laugh at their expense and you suddenly started chipping in with comments of sexism. It seems to me the mods stepped in to close the thread primarily because it had become a “crusade” of the type referred to by the mod when banning you. There are other examples that have been mentioned to me but I’m not going to clog this up further with additional background.

So clearly there is a pattern emerging here. When I’ve spoken to the local mods they confirm you seem to regularly take threads off topic by discussing other users and their own actions within the forum. As you should know that simply is not permitted on Boards – you should be reporting this sort of stuff rather than escalating issues by commenting in-thread.

One of the problems here is your continual references to alleged disrimination within the forum actually winds other posters up. I am not suggesting you do this deliberately and at this stage I do not consider it trolling you do need to cut this sort of stuff out as if you continue with this style of posting I think trolling would be a perfectly adequate description.

So where does this leave us in terms of your appeal against your 2 day ban. If I was looking at your posts in that thread in isolation then I would agree a ban is overly harsh. However when I consider the background and in particular your repeated behaviour within the forum where it must have been absolutely clear to you that continuing to take threads in the same (off topic and indeed including what is clear backseat modding) direction time and time again was simply not acceptable. Again you have been told (repeatedly I believe) to report stuff rather than respond with your concerns in-thread. Looking at your posting within the forum I think the mods should probably have taken more action against you on previous occasions. You have a poor record across the site and much of that seems to be down to similar issues to this, and taking everything into account I’m seeing no reason to overturn the ban. Yes the mods could have perhaps moved onto maybe a red card to put you on further warning that your posting style was simply not acceptable, but looking at your overall “contributions” on such matters I think if the mods had acted earlier you would have been subject to escalating penalties which by now would have well exceeded a 2 day ban.

T runner

Beasty wrote: »

There are other examples that have been mentioned to me but I’m not going to clog this up further with additional background.
So clearly there is a pattern emerging here. When I’ve spoken to the local mods they confirm you seem to regularly take threads off topic by discussing other users and their own actions within the forum. As you should know that simply is not permitted on Boards – you should be reporting this sort of stuff rather than escalating issues by commenting in-thread.

I wouldn't agree about the pattern as the threads given to you by the Mods are selective. For example as recently as a month ago I commented in this thread on similar issues.
You may see a pattern in the threads the mods have selectively given you. To prove their point they need to give you all threads where I have participated that included issues of bigotry. If the vast majority of these threads are not derailed then that is the pattern.

I have reporting all of these posts BTW. I reported a post on the "Rant thread" where a man called a woman a "studid cnut" which was left, either unmoderated or deemed aceptable. I reported several references to "kn ackers" on the spat thread which remained including one disgusting video about travellers which was eventually removed. Did the mods mention this in their selection? That word (kn acker) is not allowed on boards for good reason yet the mods allowed slight variations of it to be used as a derogatory term for one group to abuse others continually on that thread. That is not just a bit of fun by the way, not at all. Travellers have just as much right to be respected members of boards.ie as anyone else surely? Just to reiterate these reports were all posted and nothing happened as a result.

I do not consider it trolling you do need to cut this sort of stuff out as if you continue with this style of posting I think trolling would be a perfectly adequate description.

So where does this leave us in terms of your appeal against your 2 day ban. .......I think if the mods had acted earlier you would have been subject to escalating penalties which by now would have well exceeded a 2 day ban.

That said, I have no particular argument with the ban at this point in time.

Do I take it then that you believe that the ban duration was correct but that you believe the reason given as trolling was not as you indicated above?

If this is the case I'm happy to leave it if the ban be altered in my record to remove any reference to trolling? The comments made by the banning mod to another poster subsequent to my banning attributing it to "trolling" would need to be deleted also (and any other similar comments that I'm unaware of).

I genuinely do appreciate the time you took with this even if I didn't quite get the result I hoped for.

Best
T Runner

Beasty

T runner wrote: »

As I said I have no particular argument with the ban at this point in time.

Do I take it then that you believe that the ban duration was correct but that you believe the reason given as trolling was not as you indicated above?

I'm happy to leave it at that if that is the case.

We have limited "standard" ban and card messages. It could easily have been described as "backseat modding" or even "ignored mod instruction" (based on earlier interactions with the mod team). I personally would not have described it as trolling because I suspect you did not fully understand the way you were winding up other posters. However going forward you do need to recognise the signs as if you do persist with the sort of in-thread comments I have seen, both within some of the specific "incidents" I have mentioned and elsewhere, there is little doubt in my mind you will be trolling and treated accordingly by the mods

On the specifics of the ban duration - do I believe it was correct? Let me put it slightly differently - there are a range of sanctions that could have been applied from say a red card to a longer ban. I think that a 2 day ban falls in the range in your case because of earlier problems. Hence I do not consider it was "incorrect" and hence would not overturn the ban. Given the ban has expired there is no other option (ie it is not possible for me to reduce a ban that has already been served and I certainly have no intention of increasing it)

T runner

Beasty wrote: »

We have limited "standard" ban and card messages. It could easily have been described as "backseat modding" or even "ignored mod instruction" (based on earlier interactions with the mod team). I personally would not have described it as trolling because I suspect you did not fully understand the way you were winding up other posters.

My only issue now is that the banning Mod has described the mis-demeaner publicly on the AR forum as "trolling".

Your opinion is that the ban duration is correct so it officially stands. That's fair enough. Your opinion is also that the charge of trolling is incorrect. Will this now be overturned on the AR forum?

Youll appreciate there is a significant difference between being being accused of trolling and being accused of back seat modding. If the banning moderator was advised that you dont view my misdemeanor as "trolling" and deleted the post where he references my ban as "trolling" publicly with another member then that would seem fair.

If this didn't happen I dont see how I could continue to post here. I know my intentions were genuine, to be called a liar, in effect, would necessitate my leaving this site.

(This is consistant with my initial post here where i stated that I primarily hoped "it could be acknowledged that I am not a troll")

Beasty

I have upheld the ban and you appear to accept that. If you consider the mod's comments in the thread were inappropriate please take that up directly with the mod. That is not a matter for this dispute thread

T runner

Beasty wrote: »

I have upheld the ban and you appear to accept that. If you consider the mod's comments in the thread were inappropriate please take that up directly with the mod. That is not a matter for this dispute thread

Sorry but I am the one who raised this dispute thread. (I have taken it up with the MOD that's why we are here!)

I consider the charge of trolling to be incorrect as do you. As I said in my OP here it is probably too late for my ban but I wanted to get the charge of trolling dropped. Therefore this dispute thread is the correct place to raise this as my dispute was with the charge of trolling. I don't care about the ban.

You have already stated that you agree that I am not a troll, now you need to ask the mod to remove any references to me as a troll/trolling on AR.

Beasty

This dispute thread is to determine whether the sanction was appropriate. I agree it is. I'm not going any further here. Do you want an Admin to review my decision to uphold the ban?

T runner

Beasty wrote: »

This dispute thread is to determine whether the sanction was appropriate.
I agree it is. I'm not going any further here. Do you want an Admin to review my decision to uphold the ban?

Yes I would. In particular Id like them to look at the main thread you used as substantiation namely the "spat thread". You described this as a "bit of fun" that was derailed by me. This is in spite of the fact that part of the "bit of fun" was the use of the word "k nacker" (in the derogatory word for traveller sense and prohibited by boards.ie) as a term by one group to abuse another group several times before this. Racism is prohibited in the AR charter. Travellers are allowed join and partake in AR just like anyone else. The claim that I derailed this thread is therefore in error as the thread had clearly gone badly wrong before I even made my first comment.

Second point is that you based your assertion of a pattern based on a few threads picked for you by the moderators. I could just have easily picked the same amount of threads on the same topic definitively showing a different pattern. Your conclusions cannot be substantiated on the basis you present them therefore. ALL the threads relating to that topic need to be examined in order to see if a pattern exists. That's only fair.

Lastly, you've never addressed the fact that I was never informed that any comment relating in any way to sexism (bigotry?)
would have the effect of an immediate ban. If I had known this I would not have made the comment or made the same point in a slightly different way. Surely, moderators have a duty to inform posters of the current state of play. I cant read minds.


Note to admin:

The Cat Mods substantiation for upholding the ban was that the Mods should have banned me before and the amount they should have banned me would add up to about 2 days therefore the ban of 2 days should stand. What he/she is in effect saying is that a 2 day ban for whatever it is Im supposed to have done (trolling? back seat modding?) is clearly way too much, an over reaction, but he can kind of rationalise it by stating that the mods should have banned me more earlier, so its now OK. The incident is either deserving of a two day ban based on what the mods have judged and communicated before or it isn't. Clearly it isnt.

Id also point out (because im starting to feel it may be relevent) that earlier the same day a user "Stazza" revealed that his log account may ahve been somewhat finctional. (He didnt say how much so). This was indeed serious with a few very regular users deleting theire accounts around that incident. I feel the mods had a hard day and i may have payed for it by what is clearly a gross over reaction.

My post actually refuted the banning mods argument (with his mod hat off) and my substantiation was the strongest available to me. Why shouldnt I use it|? I had never been warned not to.

trout

I'll take this on.

Please give me a while to read over this thread, and the background.

trout

The ban itself has already expired, so there's not much to be done about that.

As for dropping the charge of trolling; there is no way to modify the profile comments made at the time of the ban, and these profile comments are only visible to mods/cmods and admins in the normal course of events.

T runner

trout wrote: »

The ban itself has already expired, so there's not much to be done about that.

I wont get the use of boards.ie AR for those few days back, true. But that is not my issue here.

Firstly: This ban can be used as a valid reason to further ban me and indeed give me a more serious ban. (Infact, acccording to the Cmod on this thread, infractions and warnings Mods should have given are valid reasons to ban so heaven knows whats in store for me if I catch that local mod on a bad day again).

That means that if I was to post this (posted earlier today): I would get a very serious ban as things stand. The poster in question wont be getting a ban. In fact his post was thanked by one of the mods (rightly so IMO).

Secondly, the ban was simply wrong and a complete over reaction. The reason given was that any post I make with a hint of a sexist (or bigoted?) theme (including in my case valid substantiation that might be construed thus) is automatically treated as trolling. This is ludicrous, is unfounded and most importantly was NEVER communicated to me in advance of the ban. I made a perfectly valid post and I want to be able to make valid posts in the future without this threat of automatic bans hanging over me.

That's why I want a judgement here on if the sanction is correct.

As for dropping the charge of trolling; there is no way to modify the profile comments made at the time of the ban, and these profile comments are only visible to mods/cmods and admins in the normal course of events.

This is the comment I have exception too. He made it on the same thread and subsequent to the post that got the banning. Everyone can see it. This needs to be modified as necessary subsequent to your judgement.

trout

OK so. I can edit the post you've linked, and remove the reference to trolling.

Other than alter that specific post, what else needs to change?

T runner

trout wrote: »

OK so. I can edit the post you've linked, and remove the reference to trolling.

Other than alter that specific post, what else needs to change?

I would like the AR Mods to be informed that you do not consider my post to be trolling and I would like you to make a judgement on the sanction given.

The fact remains that my post was fair and my substantiation was fair as it was the strongest substantiation available to me. In fact I believe I succeeded in completely refuting the banning Mods post (with his Mod hat off). That Mod was either correct or incorrect to give that sanction. You need to decide and let all parties know. The post would not get any infraction from any other user. I was never given a warning that it would get me one, never mind a ban.

This will mean I will be able to comment on threads like the one today as any other user can, and not get banned (just like any other user). That means without the threat of being called a troll and banned for making a valid post, the type of post indeed that another user might get thanked for by a mod.

I am mindful of the Mods concern about turning threads towards sexism. I don't agree with that at all, but I will henceforth post in such a way to remove any doubt of my turning threads towards that topic.

trout

T runner wrote: »

I would like the AR Mods to be informed that you do not consider my post to be trolling and I would like you to make a judgement on the sanction given.

Up to now I've not given any opinion on your posts, trolling or otherwise, so I won't be telling the mods anything ... what constitutes trolling in the context of a specific forum or even a given thread, is largely a judgement call for the local mods.

I'm here to see if you have been treated fairly, in the context of the forum, and that your dispute is given the attention it deserves. I believe you have been treated fairly.

T runner wrote: »

The fact remains that my post was fair and my substantiation was fair as it was the strongest substantiation available to me. In fact I believe I succeeded in completely refuting the banning Mods post (with his Mod hat off). That Mod was either correct or incorrect to give that sanction. You need to decide and let all parties know. The post would not get any infraction from any other user. I was never given a warning that it would get me one, never mind a ban.

Yes, I believe the mod was correct; a 2 day ban is a reasonable sanction and I would not be overturning it.

T runner wrote: »

This will mean I will be able to comment on threads like the one today as any other user can, and not get banned (just like any other user). That means without the threat of being called a troll and banned for making a valid post, the type of post indeed that another user might get thanked for by a mod.

You are free to comment on threads like any other user ... but you are obliged to toe the line ... and that line is set by the forum in general, and not you specifically.

From what I've read through, I've seen enough to believe that you are not trolling in the classic sense of winding people up for the sake of it ... that said, I can see how your uncompromising stance on certain topics and your determination to argue your point leads to winding people up.

T runner wrote: »

I am mindful of the Mods concern about turning threads towards sexism. I don't agree with that at all, but I will henceforth post in such a way to remove any doubt of my turning threads towards that topic.

Good stuff ... glad to hear it. I've edited the mod comment referenced here. I cannot change the sentiment ... that's entirely down to your posting on this & related topics from this point on.

/thread