Ban Appeal

Roadhawk

Hi,

I have not gone through this process before but as i am a fairly new user having joined only weeks ago.

I have been banned by monumentum for trolling from the Transport and Commuting section. I cannot seem to copy a link as i am banned.

I have contacted the moderator directly and had asked if the ban could be lifted but i received a reply (Cc'd Victor and Buffybot) of which included "I will not be removing the ban and I'll be arguing the same if anybody else thinks of it".

I have been left with no other option than to appeal the this ban on the basis that i feel the moderators decision was unfair. The topic in question was around unlawful cyclists where my comments were highlighting their law breaking. The Moderator in question has direct links to promoting the Irish cycling community it is evident that my comments have been judged with bias.

There is a clear abuse of power being exerted in this case and i would like an impartial voice on the matter.

As i have previously mentioned I am a new user and this seems highly counter productive of attracting new users.

Kindest regards,
Roadhawk

The Hill Billy

Monument - Please only post in this thread if specifically requested to do so by a CMod or Admin.

tHB

Roadhawk

Hi,

Just wondering what the status is of my appeal. I have not heard anything back. Thanks in advance.

Regards,
Roadhawk

Spear

I've given the cmods a nudge about this one, they may simply not have known of its existence.

Roadhawk

Spear wrote: »

I've given the cmods a nudge about this one, they may simply not have known of its existence.

Thank you spear, much appreciated.

Roadhawk

Just to add...I had looked at the other pending ban appeal on the dispute resolution thread (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057532266) and see many of the same issues reported that i too have mentioned. After briefly looking at the topic involved i can see that the moderator who banned me is supporting all arguments against the user banned in this thread. Is this just a coincidence?

The Hill Billy

The other dispute to which you refer was in an entirely different category & the moderator who banned you was posting there as a regular poster. Also, they made contributed 4 posts in a 1200+ post thread. Coincidence doesn't even come into it.

Your appeal will be dealt with on its own merits, & be reviewed in relation to your actions in the Commuting & Transport forum that led to the ban.

A CMod will deal with this shortly.

Roadhawk

The Hill Billy wrote: »

The other dispute to which you refer was in an entirely different category & the moderator who banned you was posting there as a regular poster. Also, they made contributed 4 posts in a 1200+ post thread. Coincidence doesn't even come into it.

Your appeal will be dealt with on its own merits, & be reviewed in relation to your actions in the Commuting & Transport forum that led to the ban.

A CMod will deal with this shortly.

Ok, Thanks tHB

tricky D

On it now. Just getting some info from mod.

Roadhawk

tricky D wrote: »

On it now. Just getting some info from mod.

Hi tricky D,

Has there been any progress on this? Thanks

RH

tricky D

Hi Roadhawk,

I've had an extensive look at your posts not just in the thread directly in question but others, especially the 'Road User Education' thread which is important for the context as the ban is not solely due to a few actions in the last thread, but an overall pattern.

There are 3 main criteria invloved in this DRP:

• Were rules broken?
• Was there intent?
• Was the sanction appropriate?

Going through the totality of your relevant posts in Motoring and Transport:

Your very first post in this category got a Warning for trolling (Can you cycle up a one-way street? #165 [ http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=97800543&postcount=165 ]). Even at this point it is apparent that it is you have an anti-cyclist agenda.
2 posts later and you do similar.
#217 isn't constructive but is demonstrative.
#219 & #242 go off-topic.

Then you start the 'Road User Education' thread [ http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057527637 ] which by post#7 predictably descends into an anti-cyclist thread. Post #6 provides a link which states that vehicle driver error is 90% to blame but this is ignored.
#9 anti-cyclist
#35 you acknowledge the small significance of cyclists in accidents but then ignore that promoting the anti-cycling agenda again.
#41 indirectly calls you out on this.
#53, #61, #66, #69, #79, #82 (despite an effort to appear to not be just concerned with cycling), #86, #92 including an anti-cyclist personal attack for which you got a Warning, then there is an attempt to misuse stats to trivialise cycling fatalities; #128 pleads your neutrality but neglects that you posts are the primary driver in the anti-cyclist discussion; and then most of the rest of the posts in the rest of that thread are more anti-cycling posts. #178 deserves particular mention slagging off all sorts of cyclists and well short of being courteous to many other posters and their opinions.

You get called out multiple times throughout the thread but largely ignore that.
There's also clear signs that this is a trouble topic: #62 and #183 in particular calls you out as being disengenuous with your thread title and mentions pinning your anti-cyclist colours to the mast. This leads you to create the last thread 'Whatever should we do with lawless cyclists?'. This was quite obviously going to be inflammatory and cause trouble especially in light of this thread.

Also mod monument explains in PM exchange that the Warning is for trolling and you respond that you understand this as being: 'commenting off topic, harassing or trying to provoke an emotional response.' The mod also closes this thread due to trolling yet you continue doing this on the new thread.

Your thread starts with 'Road Users' [ http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057531900 ] but quickly becomes clear that you are concerned not with road user education but more interested in having an anti-cycling rant despite some posts attempting to mitigate that.

Now to the final thread: 'Whatever should we do with lawless cyclists?' This was always going to be a problem thread.

#13 is obviously trollish
#20 has poor consistency of position and #23 points this out
#24 trollish cyclists behave with nonsense, #31 'They are pests', #47 'Many are rogue'

Were rules broken?
So what we have is about a quarter of your posts in this forum being problematic and disruptive posts to various degrees:

• A number of charter points were breached:
• Personal attacks / focus: You are free to attack the content of other poster's posts and it is fine to disagree with someone's viewpoint and debate it. However, it is not permitted to attack the poster's personality, background or any other irrelevant aspect (including what transport they use or how they pay for public transport). Such posts will be removed and you way be warned, infracted or banned from the forum for doing so.
• Deliberately posting in an inflammatory or derogatory manner in order to create a disturbance (commonly known as "trolling").
• Assigning derogatory nick-names to those who disagree with you, or participate in a hobby or interest which is not to your taste.
• Abusive/directed rants

Being anti-cycling in of itself isn't the main problem, it's the ranting and disruptive nature of the thread and your posts.

Was it intentional?
In light of previous warnings, people calling you out, and the PM exchange with mod about trolling, there is enough intent evident.

Was the sanction appropriate?
In light of the volume of posts with issues, attitude to other posters, persistent disruptive and trollish posts, previous warnings, mod feedback and generally engaging in what is too much of a rant.

Lastly, in relation to your OP in this DRP, we take bias by mods very seriously as one of criteria that mods are chosen on and monitored is not having bias or abusing power when modding. Mods are required to put their personal topic opinions aside when modding or else they don't last long. In case you suspect bias on my part, I've been on a bike a handful of times in the last 15 years.

In light of the above I'm upholding this ban and advise you to seriously reconsider your posting style and adherence to the charters before posting in the forum again.

You may appeal this to an admin if you like.

Roadhawk

Well I would like to start by saying thank you for undertaking such a comprehensive report into the reasons for my ban . Although it is speckled with links and post numbers I currently do not have access to the threads to look back on exact post but will do as soon as access is granted. I get the main message of what you have confirmed in the review.

Just to clarify, I understood my posts to be not anti-cyclists but anti-breaking the law and in promotion of road safety. Cyclists just so happen to fall into this category with no governance which make it’s a very tender topic for enthusiasts. There were many posts on both sides on the “pro-cyclists/anti-cyclists” debate which that consisted of sanctionable content. Some of which I reported on and resulted in absolutely no action taken. I am aware that it is at the moderators discretion that actions are taken but it feels like there are certain rules for certain users.
I would like to add that i have not created this account for trolling. I had no idea what trolling was until Victor brought it to my attention with an infraction(yellow card).

I find it hard to believe that the issue I raised around bias moderators is being addressed seriously. Regarding my posts, were they that bad to warrant a week ban (for my first ban)? When other posts were reported on for containing abusing language why were these not acted on? The moderator who banned me has direct links to promoting cycling so would absolutely interpret my posts different to others. In my view his actions were based on an emotional response and not a logical one. Bias actions here are evident to me.

Having said that I would like a member from Admin to review this complaint and address specifically my issue regarding bias moderation.

Regards,
RH

trout

I'll take a look at this now ... give me a few hours to go through the various aspects.

trout

OK ... I've read this through.

I see a theme of trollish and timesink behaviour, which I suspect is intended.

A ban of one week for this behaviour is arguably harsh, and might have been reduced on appeal, if I felt you were genuine.

As it happens, the ban has run it's course, and expired; so you are free to post again. Hopefully in a more positive manner.

From my reading of the threads / posts in question .. I don't see any evidence of biased moderation here, and I am reluctant to go down rabbit holes looking for it. You haven't provided any tangible evidence, and I suspect your intent was to muddy the waters and deflect.

So ... this can go one of two ways.

(1) You carry on posting and presenting as you have been ... and run the risk of further negative attention, and ultimately bigger sanctions

(2) You modify your posting style, respond to the other users and make your points in the spirit of the forum.

I promise you option 2 is the more rewarding. Mind how you go.