Infraction dispute

beauf

I've got an infraction for something I didn't say but can be inferred from the opposite of what I said. Because it was ambiguous. Despite me advising penalties, fines and the boards rules on not following the correct process.

I think this is unfair because its for something I didn't say. But also because there are other posts pointing out the same thing and they don't get infracted.

I can't link to the post (as it was deleted) but it was quoted back to me in the PM from the mod. So I would have to PM which ever mod looks into this. Unless you want me to post it here. Thanks

Tokyo

Good morning beauf,

as per the graphic above, have you first tried discussing this issue with the moderator in question? If it does come down to a misunderstanding as you say, then it's quite possible you can sort it out before going through DRP.

Once you have taken this important step, let me know. However, should you and the moderator both meet an impasse, I'll look into this further for you.

Regards,
Mike

beauf

Yes done that as per the graphic. Discussed and no change.

Tokyo

Thanks for clarifying that, beauf. I'll look into it on depth later today. in the meantime, if you could forward on your PM exchange with the moderator in question, I'd appreciate it.

Regards,
Mike

Tokyo

Hi beauf,

the moderator in question has been kind enough to forward on your PM exchange to me. I'll have an answer for you by this afternoon.

Regards,
Mike

beauf

Thanks I have done the same with my side of it.

Tokyo

Hi beauf,

I've taken a look over the post in question along with the PMs that both you and the moderator who infracted you forwarded on to me, and have looked at it from both your point of view as the poster, and through the eyes of the moderator who infracted you, and unfortunately I have come to the same conclusion as he did.

To refresh your memory, the deleted post in question was the following response to an OP with a troublesome tenant:

beauf wrote: »

Its a matter of maths. The cost of a tenant overstaying (lost of income, damage) x the time it takes to evict (say it takes x no of months, or years) vs the legal penalties, fines, that may arise by not following the legal process.

The rules on boards only allow advise to follow the legal process.

I appreciate your argument that what you are saying is simply a truism, and that you merely inferred in your response that an illegal avenue existed. And if we were talking about simple debate and discussion, I would have offered a lot more latitude in the interpretation of the post.

However, Accommodation & Property isn't a debate forum, it's there to provide information to posters who are having difficulties in accommodation and property situations and as such, the moderators there have a longstanding stance of deleting dubious advice, and if necessary, infracting the poster. And looking at the post through the eyes of the OP who was seekign advice for a moment, what you posted was more than simply listing the costs and/or potential costs for the LL and the time the eviction order takes, it was far closer to "There is a legal avenue and an illegal avenue you can follow. We can only post about the legal one here, but you do the math on which is more cost effective". The post strongly suggest that the poster read between the lines in my opinion, and such advice if followed, could land the OP in serious legal hot water.

As such, the infraction stands from my perspective. Should you want to escalate this to an admin review, please let me know.

Regards,
Mike

beauf

Ok.

Can I then suggest to be fair, that similar posts by anyone, to break a contract, lease terms, of any kind, (even to infer such), or illegal actions by a LL, will also result in an infraction without warning. Similarly any inference that costs for the LL for Legal Eviction are lengthy and thus by association unrecoverable. will also result in an infraction without warning

Seems like I am the only one who got no warning but instant infraction.

Tokyo

Hi beauf,

this DRP is to do solely with your infraction, it doesn't encompass issues, perceived or otherwise, with other posts or posters, and as such, they aren't up for discussion here. That being said, I did take a look at some of the links you sent me, and felt that there were distinct differences between what you posted and what others had.

If you do have issue with other posts, please report them - if the forum moderators think that they are actionable then they will act accordingly. for now however, my earlier judgement of the original infraction stands, but I am happy to ask an admin to review if you wish. Please let me know.

Regards,
Mike

beauf

That was the basis of my dispute. From my OP.

beauf wrote: »

..I think this is unfair because its for something I didn't say. But also because there are other posts pointing out the same thing and they don't get infracted....

Tokyo

Would you like an admin review? If not, I will close this off.

beauf

Yes.

Edited to remove reference to other posts.

BuffyBot

beauf wrote: »

Yes.

Edited to remove reference to other posts.

There isn't much to debate here really. Please be more mindful in future and report any other posts to have a concern about.

Action upheld.