Politics ban.

Dan_Solo

I am writing to request an admin look at the ban I received from Politics by K-9. I understand I am only recently back from a ban at Politics, but repeat moderator bias is behind this ban, as it was behind much of the moderation that accumulated in my previous. Here is my ban notice:

K-9 wrote:

Moderator Note
Trolling, making no attempt to discuss or debate anything.
Your post:

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Permabear wrote: »

"Healthcare cannot be subject to free market economics. Under such a regime the rich will live and the poor will be allowed to die." -- Sinn Fein TD Arthur Morgan, 2004 (source)

So?

I feel this is a particularly trifling post to receive a three day ban for. I was presented with a quote from a Sinn Fein TD with precisely no other text. Is this discussion or debate itself? "So?" is a perfectly valid response and very accurately and concisely asks what this post is supposed to be about. What is there to discuss or debate as K-9 is saying in his Moderator Note? It is a quotation with no other context. How do you discuss or debate that without asking what it's supposed to be about?
Furthermore, I noticed this ban came immediately after I reported a number of posts from habitual anti-SF posters. I have no idea if those posts were infracted for trolling (most likely not), which they most certainly were. K-9's usual tactic when faced with multiple infractable posts from anti-SF posters is to issue a "general" warning as to conduct. He will continue to issue these "general" warnings until he finds a post, even as innocuous as my one above, is posted by a pro-SF poster and then a ban is immediately issued. Posts directly calling other posters "acolytes" or "cultists" do not receive bans, even when they follow multiple general warnings. This pattern has repeated itself many times. General thread warning for anti-SF posters, ban for "ignoring mod warning" for pro-SF posters. As you can see from several of the Sinn Fein threads in Politics, he has successfully banned almost all dissent there, and they now consist nearly entirely of anti-SF posters attacking anything they can find or invent, including a thread started to attack a historical Sinn Fein health policy for God's sake. Nobody has any doubt as to K-9's allegiance on the topic of Sinn Fein either.
I understand moderation standards are not strictly part of the Dispute Resolution remit, but it is the entire reason why I received this ban, as there is no way anybody besides a pro-SF poster would have received this ban from this moderator. Any reading of Sinn Fein related threads will leave no doubt that "shinnerbots", "shinnernomics", "magic money tree" etc are considered acceptable and helpful to debate, even when a simple combination of these words is the entirety of a post.
I would request this ban be removed, and also that K-9 be removed from moderating Politics as his bias makes him unfit to do so.
Thanks

Tokyo

Good evening Dan_Solo,

Before we get into the details of your ban and whether it was warranted or not (and discussion will be limited to your ban alone), as per the procedure outlined in the graphic above, have you tried to resolve this with the moderator in question before coming to DRP?

Regards,
Mike

Dan_Solo

mike_ie wrote: »

Good evening Dan_Solo,

Before we get into the details of your ban and whether it was warranted or not (and discussion will be limited to your ban alone), as per the procedure outlined in the graphic above, have you tried to resolve this with the moderator in question before coming to DRP?

Regards,
Mike

Hello Mike,
I have asked the moderator, K-9, about it, mainly expressing incredulity.
He will not be changing his mind on this.
Regards

Tokyo

Afternoon Dan,

just to let you know that this hasn't slipped through the cracks - I prefer to operate with the full picture in mind, so I'm taking the time to read through the lead-up to this and have contacted the moderator in question. I should hopefully have a decision for you later this afternoon.

Regards,
Mike

Dan_Solo

Thank you Mike. I understand there's no point looking at my own infracted post in isolation, but it also needs to be seen in the context of the entire thread to appreciate my concerns.

Tokyo

Hi Dan,

apologies for the delay in this, but as I mentioned earlier I did want to get a sense of (a) whether moderator action was warranted, and whether (b) the punishment fit the crime, so to speak.


With respect to (a), the situation seems pretty clear cut to me, I'm afraid to say.

You posed a question to Permabear, in the form of:

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Can you find anywhere that SF say they are against free market economics?

Permabear responded shortly afterwards, answering precisely the question you asked, and provided a source for his information:

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Your response to that was a very concise and in my opinion, condescending

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So?

Where you see a perfectly valid and concise response, I respectfully disagree. The Politics forum requires a reasonably high standard of posting, something that you are well aware of based on your previous warnings and infractions to the fact, and as such, at best I view this as a petulant response to a reasonable answer to the question you posed. At worst, it's trolling.

Looking at your post in the context of the entire thread lend any support to your argument either - the posts leading up to your infraction are usually uncivil to some degree or another, and contain very little of substance in terms of the topic at hand - for example:

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Who's nobody? Did you look it up? It's not our job you know.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Again, what standards should we be holding SF ministers to when there aren't any in ROI? Anything else that doesn't exist you'd like to complain about?

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Yes, but I didn't start a thread pretending I did just to moan about it.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

OK so. What's this **** thread about?

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Which policies? "all of them" huh?

Taking the above into account, it seems clear to me why the mod in question decided to action your response, and as such, I support that.


With respect to (b), whether a three day ban was appropriate, one must look towards your extensive infraction history, and to be blunt Dan, 'incredulous' is a word that comes to my mind too, for all too different reasons. In the 19 mod actions you have accumulated in Politics and its related fora, 14 of them have been in the last five months alone, including, by by no means limited to, bans that have steadily been incremented from an initial three day ban, to three month bans from both Politics and Politics Cafe.


Time|Forum|Event|Reason|Moderator
19 March 2015|Politics|Ban (Three Days)|Ignored Mod Instruction |#1
15 March 2015|Politics Café|Ban (One Day)|Personal Abuse|#2
14 March 2015|Politics Café|Infraction|Personal Abuse|#2
12 March 2015|Politics Café|Infraction|Ignored Mod Instruction|#2
10 December 2014|Politics|Ban (Three Months)|Trolling |#3
06 December 2014|Politics Café|Infraction|Personal Abuse |#3
04 December 2014|Politics Café|Ban (Three Months)|Uncivil |#1
27 November 2014|Politics Café|Infraction|Personal Abuse |#3
19 November 2014|Politics Café|Warning|Ignored Mod Instruction |#3
18 November 2014|Politics|Infraction|Ignored Mod Instruction |#3
01 November 2014|Politics Café|Ban (Two Weeks)|Ignored Mod Instruction |#4
31 October 2014|Politics Café|Infraction|Uncivil|#4
31 October 2014|Politics Café|Warning|Uncivil|#4
26 October 2014|Politics|Ban (Three Days)|Personal Abuse |#3


One thing that's abundantly clear from the table above is that you aren't being persecuted or picked on by a particular moderator - your infractions and bans have been meted out by virtually every politics mod who is active on the forum. The second is that you are either not taking any of your bans seriously, or not learning anything from them in terms of adjusting your posting style - neither of these things lend themselves to your future in the Politics forum.

Looking at the table above, you returned from your most recent three month Politics ban on March 10th, and in the 10 days that have elapsed since, you have received 2 red cards and another ban before receiving the current ban that we are disputing now. In terms of escalation do I think three days was warranted? Yes I do.

The three day ban stands, Dan, and this line of posting ends here. What you seem to view as an acceptable line of posting, and what every other party involved views as an acceptable line of posting are poles apart, and if you can't see that, then you are very likely to have ongoing issues on the Politics forum. Thus far you have been a major timesink for the moderator team, and I'm not inclined to let that continue. Continue posting in this manner upon your return, and your next ban will most likely be of a permanent nature.

As always, if you disagree with the above, you may request an admin review. Though I would recommend a period of self-reflection instead.


Regards,
Mike

Dan_Solo

In the context of the thread I was posting in, I simply cannot believe you would think my posts are more serious than any of the following which I reported but were completely ignored by the moderators:


(the very next post after a mod warning...)
#809 jimmycrackcorm
I just figured out that the shinner plan is to pay consultants the average industrial wage and donate the rest to the cult, sorry, party.

#1292 BoJack Horseman
No answer to my question?
Thought so.
Another acolyte enters the fray

#1485 Dog of Tears
Can there be a facet of democracy more depressing than the notion that there exists people who will argue there's no difference between a 'cap' and a 'levy' and yet their vote will count the same as yours?

The Politics forum requires a reasonably high standard of posting

Might I ask if the standard of posting that is acceptable is set at this level, does a three day ban for my posting seem appropriate?
Indeed, can you check the posts I have reported on that thread and work out if any of them were actioned, or, as I suspect, they were all utterly ignored?

Also, it is old business now, but my three month ban from Politics was precipitated by being called directly, in person, a "shinnerbot", which the poster (FreudianSlippers, a mod on another forum) insists he is allowed to do to anybody he feels it is an accurate description of. This is bizarre considering another moderator confirmed this term was "unacceptable". How can this be reconciled? Is every insult now OK so long as you say you feel it is an "accurate description"?

Thanks

Tokyo

I appreciate your concerns Dan, however this DRP is to dispute your actions alone that led up to your three day ban, not how they hold up against other posters. And I have weighed up your posts on their merit alone, and I believe that the ban should stand. If you are willing to accept my decision on your ban, we can move this forward towards resolution. If not, you can ask for an admin to review.

Regards,
Mike

Dan_Solo

As the DRP process ignores context as to the level of debate deemed acceptable in a thread, ignores clearly biased moderation where personal abuse from one side of an argument is permitted, and ignores posters who can use insults like "shinnerbot" at will with no fear of sanction, I can only admit defeat here.
Thanks for your time.

Tokyo

I'm sorry that you feel this way Dan, but seeing as you are not requesting an admin review, I shall ask for this to be marked as resolved.

~Mike