Issue regarding Orion

sleepyheadh

Hi there, an issue has developed between myself and orion.

I have tried to discuss it with Orion personally, but unfortunately, he refuses to enter into - what he calls - a back and forth!

I would like to lay out my case as thoroughly as possible, with respect to this I wonder would Orion be so kind as to allow me to post the pm's we shared? It would really help to demonstrate clearly the issue. if not I could paraphrase his replies.

Thanks, looking forward to having this sorted.

Orion

sleepyheadh wrote: »

Hi there, an issue has developed between myself and orion.

I have tried to discuss it with Orion personally, but unfortunately, he refuses to enter into - what he calls - a back and forth!

I would like to lay out my case as thoroughly as possible, with respect to this I wonder would Orion be so kind as to allow me to post the pm's we shared? It would really help to demonstrate clearly the issue. if not I could paraphrase his replies.

Thanks, looking forward to having this sorted.

I reiterated a prior instruction not to post again on a particukar thread. Ignoring that instruction resulted in a 3 day ban. Post ban the op posted again so I posted another on thread warning to stay out of the thread which resulted in a back and forth where I suggested Helpdesk. I'm not sure what is going to be achieved here. The op has been told by 2 mods not to post in a specific thread. That won't change.

You are welcome to contribute to the forum in other threads once you stay within the charter.

Feel free to post the pm's if you feel they help your case. But post them in full or not at all. Including your own. If you selective quote from them I'll post them in full.

Spear

No, you may not post PMs.

And what issue is this meant to be?

sleepyheadh

Spear wrote:

No, you may not post PMs.

Zaph has advised be that posing pm's is allowed if the other party agrees
.. that's why i was asking orion!

And as i say above, after hearing a reply from orion regarding the pm's i will. Outline the issue.

Spear

Orion has since given his permission to post them, so they can be posted.

sleepyheadh

Thanks Orion for allowing me to post our Pm's they will be posted in full, if anything is removed please correct me on it.

Ok so Firstly, I would like to highlight the most important point. This is not regarding the ban. If it were we would be in DRF, not the help desk. The ban was a three day ban, which has since elapsed. After the ban elapsed, I returned to posting in the thread. It was then explained that the conditions of my ban meant that I could not return to the thread. I think Orion will agree that after clarifying this point I didn't not return to posting in the thread.

That leads on to the issue of what is this about. This is about the treatment of Orion towards me after the ban. I plan to outline, all of the posts I made in the thread, post-ban before finding out this was not allowed, and the subsequent pm's shared between myself and Orion. It will become clear from this that Orion believes that my posts were 'inflammatory', a point which when I asked him to clarify with specific posts he ignored, or else failed to do so.

Outline of Thread Posts

sleepyheadh wrote: »

what I was alluding to in that post was the anti-vaxxer view of comparable risk. I.e the risk of vaccination for chicken pox for example, compared to risk of other disease, such as downs.

Very few people would be worried about having a child with DMD which has a prevalence of 1 in 3,600 roughly. But in the case of vaccinations, the occurrence of side effects, at rates that are far less rare than DMD, are considered significant.

My first post back from ban, I was trying to explain a post which had caused some issue prior to my ban.

January wrote: »

Down syndrome is not a 'disease', it's a syndrome, the clue is in the name. A genetic disorder is not a disease, it's a defect. It cannot be caught like measles or mumps or polio etc.

How disgusting of you to refer to it as so.

This is the reply I received from January, a Mod. January in this post alludes to the fact that I am disgusting in this post. Not a complaint against January, but something that will be brought up again in later posts.

sleepyheadh wrote: »

Ok, well lets sort this out.

Firstly, Lets take a look at some definitions.

"Disease: Illness or sickness characterized by specific signs and symptoms."

That is taken from Dorlands medical dictionary.

A genetic disorder can be classified as a disease, and it is certainly not "disgusting" to say that it is such.

Secondly, to take a minute to poke a few holes in your argument.

You seem to think that a disease, is something you can catch (I think you are confused with infectious disease). However, Do you think you can catch, coronary artery disease?

A bit of an over-reaction on your part.

My reply to January.

January wrote: »

You can throw medical descriptions at me all you like, in my opinion calling anyone with Down Syndrome or other genetic conditions 'diseased' is despicable. Yes, I may have over reacted but I have children that live with genetic syndromes and defects so call me emotional all you want, my children are not diseased.

It just dilutes your argument further, the discussion is about vaccinating children against infectious diseases, comparing people being worried about their children catching chicken pox and not being so worried about them 'catching' Down Syndrome or DMD or a CHD or anything genetic is like comparing apples and oranges. It's not comparable at all.

Here January, refers to my choice of words, even though medically correct, as despicable.

sleepyheadh wrote: »

I am not throwing medical definitions at you, I am simply showing you that the actually medical definition of disease, is a term, which can extend to include genetic disorders, such as Down Syndrome.

I would argue that calling someone with Down's "defected" as you seem to like it being called, is equally offensive.

You are confusing the term disease with infectious disease. A person with CHD, is diseased, they suffer from a disease. Just as someone with Down's or Marfan's suffers from a disease. They both did not "catch a disease".

A disease is simple a physiological state that elicits a set of specific signs and symptoms in a person.

Again, if you go back and read my posts, you will see me explain how I was using the cases of Down's and DMD, with regards to comparable risk.

I never said that one could "catch downs" or that downs was preventable.

The Point being made is that Parents are overly concerned with the minuscule risks that vaccinations pose, I used DMD as a comparator to show how insanely small the risks were.

My rebuttal.

sleepyheadh wrote: »

I would also like to add that denigrating my character, has really added nothing to your own argument.

Lucky for me, I've been called worse things than, disgusting and despicable.

This was an addendum I added after the above post. It is in relation to the comment January made saying I was diluting my argument.

---

That was the last interaction between myself and January.

The next post comes from SpaceSasqwatch.

SpaceSasqwatch wrote: »

Thats correlation evidence...considered very poor and used sometimes used to just indicate more research should be done.

A friend of mines child has autism.The kids never got any vaccinations.Presenting that as correlation evidence would indicate NOT getting vaccinations causes autism.

To this I replied...

sleepyheadh wrote: »

Do you mean anecdotal evidence?

There was no malice attached to this post, and I think to read into as such would prejudicial. As far as I am aware, "correlation evidence" is not a commonly, if at all used phrase, and I was simply asking if the poster meant to say anecdotal evidence, a phrase which would have made sense in that context.

It was at this point that Orion, reiterated my ban, and the conditions that were attached to it.

Orion wrote: »

Your forum ban has expired. The instruction not to post in this thread hasn't. If you post again in this thread you will be permanently banned from Parenting and all sub forums.

At this point I stopped posting on the thread, as instructed by Orion. I did send Orion a pm at this stage to explain how I was not aware of the conditions.

---

PM Interaction Between Orion and Sleepyheadh

sleepyheadh wrote:

Was not aware you meant i was banned from the thread. I thought once my ban expired i was able to post again. Can you not ban me from the thread for good?

What I meant in that last part of that post was this. If I am not allowed to post in the thread, would it not be easier to ban me from that specific thread. It really was just a question, i am not very familiar with types of bans.

Orion wrote:

Your ban was for ignoring a mod instruction not to post in the thread. That hasn't changed. Your input in the thread is inflammatory and that was why the instruction was given in the first place. Your posting style hasn't changed and that instruction is still in place.

This is the key reply from Orion. As you can see in the bold text. Orion claims that my post were inflammatory and continue to be inflammatory post ban. This is the crux of the issue. I have excepted the ban, and except responsibility that my posts may have been inflammatory then, but after my ban, I would argue that my post were in no way "inflammatory". If anything several posts were "inflammatory" towards me.

sleepyheadh wrote:

my posts are inflammatory? Im sorry but what are you on about. Since I've been back I've had one poster call me both despicable and disgusting, my other post simply asked a question to another poster asking if they meant anecdotal instead of correlational.

I fail to see the inflammatory nature of my remarks so if you could point it out i would greatly appreciate it.

Here I ask Orion to explain which of my posts were inflammatory.

Orion wrote:

She said what you said was despicable not you. She attacked the post not the poster.

I'm not getting into another back and forth with you. You have been given multiple warnings on this thread already. Abide by them or not. But if not to is your decision then your posting privileges are revoked.

Here orion defends January, whilst also ignoring my request for specific examples of my wrong doing. He refers to are conversations, as "back-and-forths", this is the main reason we find ourselves here as Orion refuses to have a meaningful conversation about what is happening.

I would also like to point at that at this stage, I have completely accepted the ruling, with regards to not posting on the thread, and have done since Orion explained them to me.

sleepyheadh wrote:

Firstly, Well they way I see it is that we can either have a grown up conversation, or we can go back to DRP. Personally I think its easier just to talk, its not a back and forth its a conversation.

Secondly, strange how when the mod posts, they are able to attack the post, not the poster.

All I ask is that you show me the specific instances were upon my return from the ban, I acted in an inflammatory way, as you put it. Its really that simple.

Again asking for specific instances.

Orion wrote:

It's simple. Don't post on that thread again. the poster baiting you in response to your pm's has been sanctioned. But you are responsible for your own actions. Take it to Helpdesk or DRP if you must. I'm not replying again to this conversation.

Orion reply, He again explains that I am not to post in the thread again. Something which I have already agreed to, and have be abiding by since he instructed me to do so. He ignores my request for examples, and effectively silences the conversation,

My only response to Orion at this stage was to forward him the address for this thread.

---

To sum up, the issue that has arisen is simple. Orion claims that my posts were inflammatory. I have posted every post, post my ban, and I think it is clear that no could be considered inflammatory. The argument could be made that some of the posts made towards me could be inflammatory. However, I am not making that claim.

I have asked repeatedly for Orion to explain this. He has refused and ignored me.

All I ask is the Orion explains himself to me. So that this does not happen again.

Orion

I'm not ignoring this thread. Had a lot of family stuff today and more tomorrow so I'll reply in full when I can. I will say one thing now though: don't latch on to the post I quoted. I was on the phone and it was easier to hit quote to post the reminder of the previous mod instruction. It just happened to be your most recent post at the time.

sleepyheadh

That's fine orion no rush!

As you can see i have laid out my argument in some detail, i have chosen the points i wish to rely on. I would advise you to to the same. I have simply gone from what you said, if you wish to explain your actions please do so.

Again that is the crux of the issue. I wish that you would explain which posts you consider inflammatory, and what specifically makes these posts inflammatory.

Orion

Sorry for the delay responding - busy day in work today.

I'm going to address the main point here - you say in the OP that an issue has developed between us. That is not true. I have no issue with you or any poster once you stay within the charter of the forums that I moderate. It is that simple. I said in this thread that you are welcome to contribute to the forum in other threads - that is still the case.

But in the thread in question you were inflammatory. Example 1, Example 2. For these posts you got a warning and an instruction from a mod not to post in the thread again. You ignored that instruction and your next post (I'm ignoring the one that looked like it was posted at the time as the instruction - benefit of the doubt on that one) argued with the mod. You got an infraction for that with another instruction not to post on the thread. You then posted twice more against two mod instructions and got a 3 day ban. Correct me if I'm wrong in any of this.

You appealed the ban in DRP and it was upheld by a cmod and an admin albeit with a recommendation from bluewolf to remove the red card that was applied at the same time (I see that red still there so I'll chase it up).

When your ban expired you came back to posting in the thread. While I actually agree with January that your description of Downs as a disease is a pretty uninformed and ignorant thing to do that has absolutely nothing to do with my reminder on thread that you have been told not to post in that thread again. I did not hand out a card - I simply gave a strong reminder that the instruction in still in place. I would have done the same without the prior dialogue.

After that you either reported or pm-ed me - can't remember which off the top of my head - about another poster who was baiting you. I agreed with your assessment and gave an on thread warning and a subsequent yellow card to that poster for continuing after that. I have tried to be objective in my dealings with you but at the end of the day your interactions on that thread have been inflammatory and two mods told you not to post in it. I think all of this was explained in PM - if it wasn't I hope this clarifies.

I will repeat once more - you are welcome to participate in Parenting (outside that thread which is dying out itself anyway) once you stay within the charter just like any other contributor.

If this doesn't clarify things then please let me know.

sleepyheadh

Orion wrote: »

I'm going to address the main point here - you say in the OP that an issue has developed between us. That is not true. I have no issue with you or any poster once you stay within the charter of the forums that I moderate. It is that simple. I said in this thread that you are welcome to contribute to the forum in other threads - that is still the case.

Thanks, but I contend that there is an issue. I am not going to the help desk for the good of my health. You refuse to have a conversation with me, or a engage in a back and forth as you keep describing it. I know I am welcome to comment in other threads, I think you failed to see the point.

Orion wrote: »

But in the thread in question you were inflammatory. Example 1, Example 2. For these posts you got a warning and an instruction from a mod not to post in the thread again. You ignored that instruction and your next post (I'm ignoring the one that looked like it was posted at the time as the instruction - benefit of the doubt on that one) argued with the mod. You got an infraction for that with another instruction not to post on the thread. You then posted twice more against two mod instructions and got a 3 day ban. Correct me if I'm wrong in any of this.

This is exactly the point i laboured to make in the outlining post. I laboured that the ban was not the issue. I even agreed that these posts may have been considered inflammatory.

Orion wrote: »

Your input in the thread is inflammatory and that was why the instruction was given in the first place. Your posting style hasn't changed and that instruction is still in place.

This is the issue Orion, you claimed I am still inflammatory. I asked you again and again to show me a post post ban that you considered to be inflammatory. A feat that you once again failed to do. All your examples were the reasons for my ban. Which I contend was justified.

It is disheartening that you have seemed to completely ignored what I was saying in the above post. Again, I ask that you please, address some of the issues that have been put to you - namely Which posts post-ban do you consider inflammatory.

Orion wrote: »

While I actually agree with January that your description of Downs as a disease is a pretty uninformed and ignorant thing to do that has absolutely nothing to do with my reminder on thread that you have been told not to post in that thread again. I did not hand out a card - I simply gave a strong reminder that the instruction in still in place.

This is a complete aside, but again I would argue that medically I was completely in the right. And have even provided evidence to prove this, which you nor the op have done, simply stating that you don't agree. Do I have to alter facts to keep you happy?

Again, me coming from a medical background, I have an appreciation for what these words actually mean. Whereas yourself and the OP who I presume are both from a non-medical background do not. Thats understandable, but I would argue that you may want to educate yourself on the facts before chiming in, or at least provide some evidence for your position to counter mine. I would be happy to hear how you have informed yourself on the issue!

Orion wrote: »

After that you either reported or pm-ed me - can't remember which off the top of my head - about another poster who was baiting you. I agreed with your assessment and gave an on thread warning and a subsequent yellow card to that poster for continuing after that. I have tried to be objective in my dealings with you but at the end of the day your interactions on that thread have been inflammatory and two mods told you not to post in it. I think all of this was explained in PM - if it wasn't I hope this clarifies.

Again, back to discussing the ban, I really can't see how I can make it any more clear. These is not the issue. The ban has expired, we are in the help-desk not DRF. WE are not talking about the ban.

The issue, at the fear of repeating myself, is how you feel my style of posting had not changed after the ban was lifted.

I would argue that without a clear example of how my style of posting is inflammatory I will never be able to learn from my mistakes.


And a final reminder, that the help-desk does not deal with issues related in bans, so please Orion, refrain from discussing, a ban which has since elapsed, a ban which I fully agree with, and is a non-issue.

Orion

I really have nothing more to add to what I've already said. My reminder not to post was just that - a reminder. I was giving the benefit of the doubt that you thought that instruction no longer applied when your ban expired.

As for inflammatory telling a mother of a child with down's syndrome that you want to poke holes in her argument and that she is over-reacting is inflammatory not matter how you want to cut it up.

You think that I have an issue with you - I don't know you and my only issue is when you or anyone else break the charter or troll/inflame a thread. That's it. So if you want to contend that there is an issue between us that's fine. You're wrong but entitled to that view. Unless there's something new to add I think I'm done here.

sleepyheadh

Orion wrote: »

I really have nothing more to add to what I've already said.

I would argue that you have said very little up to this point Orion. Lets take a look at your posts if we don't look at when you are discussing the non-issue of my ban.

Orion wrote: »

Sorry for the delay responding - busy day in work today.

I'm going to address the main point here - you say in the OP that an issue has developed between us. That is not true. I have no issue with you or any poster once you stay within the charter of the forums that I moderate. It is that simple. I said in this thread that you are welcome to contribute to the forum in other threads - that is still the case.

But in the thread in question you were inflammatory. Example 1, Example 2. For these posts you got a warning and an instruction from a mod not to post in the thread again. You ignored that instruction and your next post (I'm ignoring the one that looked like it was posted at the time as the instruction - benefit of the doubt on that one) argued with the mod. You got an infraction for that with another instruction not to post on the thread. You then posted twice more against two mod instructions and got a 3 day ban. Correct me if I'm wrong in any of this.

You appealed the ban in DRP and it was upheld by a cmod and an admin albeit with a recommendation from bluewolf to remove the red card that was applied at the same time (I see that red still there so I'll chase it up).

When your ban expired you came back to posting in the thread. While I actually agree with January that your description of Downs as a disease is a pretty uninformed and ignorant thing to do that has absolutely nothing to do with my reminder on thread that you have been told not to post in that thread again. I did not hand out a card - I simply gave a strong reminder that the instruction in still in place. I would have done the same without the prior dialogue.

After that you either reported or pm-ed me - can't remember which off the top of my head - about another poster who was baiting you. I agreed with your assessment and gave an on thread warning and a subsequent yellow card to that poster for continuing after that. I have tried to be objective in my dealings with you but at the end of the day your interactions on that thread have been inflammatory and two mods told you not to post in it. I think all of this was explained in PM - if it wasn't I hope this clarifies.

I will repeat once more - you are welcome to participate in Parenting (outside that thread which is dying out itself anyway) once you stay within the charter just like any other contributor.

If this doesn't clarify things then please let me know.

Ok so the first thing you discussed was the fact that there was in fact NO issue whatsoever! Apparently I am just wrong in my opinion that there is an issue.
Amazingly, hearing someone proclaim that I am wrong and am apparently making up that there is an issue doesn't really make me feel as is the issue has been dealt with.

The second thing you discussed, was an non-issue, of a post with January, were I use medical terminology correctly, but apparently you and January feel the medical terminology is inflammatory.

You then talk about how you death with another poster? Not sure how it is relevant to this discussion.?!

You finished by repeating something that was in no doubt and certainly needed no repeating, as it was clear and irrelevant to the main issue.

Orion wrote: »

but at the end of the day your interactions on that thread have been inflammatory

You have it here Orion, this is the issue we are talking about. You say my interactions have been inflammatory, I agree they have been so prior to my ban, but since my ban they have not been. You claim they have been. So please give evidence of this.

Orion wrote: »

As for inflammatory telling a mother of a child with down's syndrome that you want to poke holes in her argument and that she is over-reacting is inflammatory not matter how you want to cut it up.

I felt that this was not relevant to this issue, but since you brought it up. You say poking a hole in a mother of a child with Downs argument, is inflammatory. Am I incorrect in thinking that a parent of a child with Downs is still able to be wrong. If the mother had claimed the sky was green, would I have to assuage her and agree simply because she has a disabled child?!

I think poking holes in a incorrect idea, is perfectly ok, and is in no way against the charter.

I would very much appreciate if you could point out the line in the charter where this is outlined. I've had a quick look and can't seem to find it. I know you won't actually do this, as you will ignore my request for specific information as you have done thus far.

If I wanted to maybe show you just how stupid that argument is, lets replace the words Down syndrome with blue eyes.

Orion wrote: »

As for inflammatory telling a mother of a child with blue eyes that you want to poke holes in her argument and that she is over-reacting is inflammatory not matter how you want to cut it up.

I actually don't see how it is inflammatory to do so Orion. Whether the child of the person has Downs or blue eyes, it doesn't not affect he validity of what they are saying. Having a child with Downs does not grant the person infallibility.

Orion wrote: »

You're wrong but entitled to that view. Unless there's something new to add I think I'm done here.

Ok so I'm wrong and you are not going to discuss it. Thats great Orion. So its business as usual, proclaim the person is incorrect and then refuse to discuss it.

Orion wrote:

I'm not replying again to this conversation.

Orion wrote:

I'm not getting into another back and forth with you.

Orion wrote:

I won't be responding anymore on this

I often find that the person who refuses to discuss the issue is trying to hide the fact that they are in the wrong. However, in this case, I wouldn't make this case, yet I can't be sure as you refuse to discuss it.

sleepyheadh

Any updates for this thread?

BuffyBot

sleepyheadh wrote: »

Any updates for this thread?

After reading all of that I'm not sure what you want apart from a nomination for a Best Mountain from Molehill statuette of some kind.

You appear to disagree with Orion's assessment. That's fine to do. It doesn't make it incorrect. You posted in not so nice way, were censured for it and took umbrage leading all of this.

And before you post another wall-o-text: your reply better be succinct (I mean two lines, tops succinct).

sleepyheadh

BuffyBot wrote: »

After reading all of that I'm not sure what you want apart from a nomination for a Best Mountain from Molehill statuette of some kind.

You appear to disagree with Orion's assessment. That's fine to do. It doesn't make it incorrect. You posted in not so nice way, were censured for it and took umbrage leading all of this.

And before you post another wall-o-text: your reply better be succinct (I mean two lines, tops succinct).

Well BuffyBot, if you can't understand the issue from all that has been outlined you are clearly useless.

You don't understand the issue, I am not posting a "Wall-o-text" that is what happens when the issue is faceted, and nuanced.

And do not limit me to writing two lines, that is just a dickish thing to do.

sleepyheadh

oh and sorry, forgot to add - when you reply I want it kept to two lines maximum.

BuffyBot

One line will suffice: closing thread.