Given a yellow mark because mod says I was arguing with them, I wasnt

username000

The mod claimed I was yellowed marked because I argued with the mod on the thread. I certainly posted on the thread after the mod posted on it in big bold writing but I was only clarifying an earlier point, I wasnt arguing with the mod.

The OP was not warned despite being extremely rude but I was named personally in big bold writing on the thread by the mod. The only reason I can see is that I held a different viewpoint to the OP, the mod says its because Im new? How is that fair? I am very surprised that the OP was allowed to make the comments they made without being named in the bold writing or yellow marked.

i private mailed the mod and tried to point out the above but the mod cant seem to see past the fact that they perceived I was arguing with them. They havent really bothered to address the fact of the OPs rude comments except to say that the Op was snarky but it was justified? So you are allowed to be rude if other people disagree with you is it?

In short - I dont think it is fair that I was personally named in big bold writing on the thread and I was not smart or rude, while the OP was both. All that was happening was that I was expressing a different viewpoint, but I did so respectfully. And I dont feel that it was fair that i was given a yellow mark for then clarifying something said in the big bold writing and told I was arguing with a moderator instruction on the thread - I wasnt.

Here is the thread:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057373995

Scofflaw

Hi username00,

thanks for the thread reference - always helpful, and surprisingly often not provided. Unfortunately, looking through the thread, I'm not seeing an impressive pattern.

OP has a problem - he's not able to understand the priest he has been assigned for his wedding ceremony:

OP wrote:

We got the name of ours and went along to Sunday mass to see what he was like etc. Turns out he is a non native English speaker and as a result he has a very thick accent, so thick that we both had difficulty understanding him at mass and we had to listen to a voice mail 3 times before we could pick up what he said.

The ceremony is pretty important to us, herself in particular, and we are are worried that as a result of the priests accent it would 1) mean that the attendees and ourselves won't be able to understand him clearly on the day and 2) the video of the ceremony will not pick it up either. It's not like we would be watching it regularly or anything but it would be nice if we could dig it out I years to come for a trip down memory lane.

So my question is, if we ask for a different priest are we being arseholes and if we are to ask for a different one, how would be broach the subject?

I think your responses pretty clearly say "yes, you're being arseholes". This is your first, dismissive, response:

Clearly the Church feels he is capable of saying mass and officiating at Catholic ceremonies.

You pick up on something that the OP mentions, but which isn't the OP's problem:

You could just as easily be assigned an Irish priest who is old and mumbly or someone who is a native english speaker but who has a thick accent like Glaswegian or something.

OP takes not unreasonable offence at your tone - dismissive - and your implication that he's racist:

OP wrote:

I didn't say we wanted a native English speaker, I said he isn't a native English and had a thick accent that we have difficulty understanding, there is a pretty big difference. It would be exactly the same if it was a native English speaker we couldn't understand. We should not be expected to have to rely on a booklet to be able to follow our own wedding ceremony and it's absolute nonsense to suggest we should.

Nice try at implying something else though, if you have nothing to add but insinuations then kindly keep them to yourself, yeah.

and you come back with further insults:

No idea what youre talking about, perhaps your own paranoia is a reflection of something you see in yourself.

And there's no question of your completely dismissive attitude to the OP's issue, or what you think is the problem:

It comes off as shallow at best and racist at worst.

Personally if I was the secretary I would not entertain someone requesting a different priest because the originally assigned one had the "wrong" accent.

I'm sure if your attitude IRL is as reasonable as it is on this thread you will have no problem explaining that you don't want the foreign priest.

Mod intervenes:

Mod wrote:

Pretty sure the OP came on here asking for advice, not to be antagonised and called a racist.

username000 I see that you are new to the site. I recommend that you have a good read through the Charter for this forum, and make sure that any future posts you make here are in keeping with the rules. A few of our more seasoned posters would do well to have a re-read of it also.

Just to be clear, anyone who continues to post in an unhelpful, antagonistic manner will be infracted.

Business Cat, if you want me to close the thread just let me know - drop me a PM or report this post, and I'll close it.

And this is you after the mod post, "clarifying" that you haven't been rude, dismissive, accusatory and antagonistic, and that it was all the fault of the OP:

Just to clarify, I did not call the OP a racist. I simply pointed out, AFTER the OP himself had pointed out that he didnt want to come across as "bein feckin racist" (post #4), that the attitude about the accent could come off as racist at worst. The OP himself that this was something that concerned him - are we not allowed to address raised concerns, and say that yes, this could be how it will come across? Or is it only the OP who is allowed to say that this is how it might be seen but not other posters?

Given the OPs attitude with many replies to posts that dont agree with his viewpoint being so rude "10/10 Would read again" etc... it appears that the OP is not interested in a different viewpoint. He asked in the original post if by asking for a change of priest were they being arseholes? Are the only acceptable posts the ones that say he isnt being an arsehole? Im not really sure what the point of the thread is then.

You were rude, unhelpful, dismissive, sarcastic, insulting through the whole thread, to someone who had a concern about a major life event.

I don't have any problem at all upholding the yellow card here, and a certain amount of difficulty not upgrading it to a red card. Naming you in the mod post is entirely reasonable, since you were the first to be unpleasant, and the most consistently unpleasant and antagonistic throughout the thread.

If you behave further in this way on the site - and I do note that you're a new poster - you can expect further penalties, and if they follow the pattern here, where you don't see anything wrong with your own very unpleasant behaviour, they too will likely be upheld.

You can appeal this decision to the Admins, but personally I would suggest that a period of self-reflection might be a better use of your time.

moderately,
Scofflaw