Unusually Harsh & Unnecessary Ban

MadDog76

I received this PM:

"You have been banned
Dear MadDog76,

You have been banned from After Hours for one week for being uncivil.

Typically, this means that you are posting in a needlessly aggressive or confrontational manner being disruptive on the forum or causing stress for the other members. We don't want that here.

For more information please refer to the Boards.ie FAQ.

If you wish to appeal this ban you can see details on how to do so here.

ken

Moderator Note

Making a joke about an extremely violent attack is not on.

Your post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadDog76 View Post
I thought this thread was about German sluts with nuts smoking marijuana ........."

To which I replied:

"Hi Ken, I wish to appeal your ban directly to you first ........ I feel the ban is unnecessary as I did not make a joke about the incident itself but rather an off-the-cuff remark which is quite common and accepted on After Hours ........ in fact, I've read a lot worse on there to be honest as I'm sure you're well aware of ........ looking forward to your reply.

Thank you,

MadDog"

And:

"As evidence, and as a follow up to my previous reply to you, I'd like to demonstrate how acceptable "making a joke about an extremely violent attack is not on." is actually on in that very same thread, ie. Canadel posted two jokes , post#5 "That kind of behaviour belongs in the stone age." and post#8 "Sticks and stones will break transgender bones but not if a police car pulls up and stops it." before my post (post #9) and yet they remain unchallenged and unpunished .......... surely you must have seen these jokes before seeing mine?

MadDog"

Ken replied:

"First off sorry for the delay in getting back to you.
Second, I don't think the other 2 were jokes. Yours was a direct dig at transgender people. I stand by the ban."

I disagree with this ban, my joke was in fact a "Drugs" joke as the title of the thread in question refers to transgender people being "stoned" ......... the word transgender could have been replaced with any group of people and the joke would have remained the same as the punchline (for lack of a better word) is emphasised on the word "stoned" as opposed to the word "transgender" therefore Ken is, I believe, wrong in ascertaining that my joke was an attack on transgender people which is what he based his ban on ........ thank you.

MadDog

Pawwed Rig

Hi MadDog76

I will deal with this.
First off thank you for completing step 1 of the process by appealing first to mod.

Can you confirm that what you have posted is the totality of the correspondence with the mod in question?

PR

MadDog76

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Hi MadDog76

I will deal with this.
First off thank you for completing step 1 of the process by appealing first to mod.

Can you confirm that what you have posted is the totality of the correspondence with the mod in question?

PR

Hi Pawwed, yes I can confirm that these are all the PM's between myself and Ken.

Thanks for taking the time to look into this for me, MadDog.

Pawwed Rig

Hi MadDog76

I have looked into this and I am unable to see any basis for your appeal against this ban.
Your description of transgender people as 'sluts with nuts' is enough (imo) to get you a ban from any forum on boards never mind that it was made in a thread as sensitive as the one you made it in.
IMO the moderator acted entirely correctly in giving you the ban. I am informed that your prior record was taken into account when determining the length of the ban hence it was decided to increment from your previous ban to 1 week this time. Personally I would have advocated a minimum of a week even for someone with a clean record so believe you got off lightly in this instance.

So ban upheld. Please advise if you wish to further appeal to an admin.

MadDog76

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Hi MadDog76

I have looked into this and I am unable to see any basis for your appeal against this ban.
Your description of transgender people as 'sluts with nuts' is enough (imo) to get you a ban from any forum on boards never mind that it was made in a thread as sensitive as the one you made it in.
IMO the moderator acted entirely correctly in giving you the ban. I am informed that your prior record was taken into account when determining the length of the ban hence it was decided to increment from your previous ban to 1 week this time. Personally I would have advocated a minimum of a week even for someone with a clean record so believe you got off lightly in this instance.

So ban upheld. Please advise if you wish to further appeal to an admin.

I believe further appealing to an Admin will be as much an exercise in futility as I suspected this whole process to be from the beginning ........ in fact, I just took part in the "appeals" process for the experience and to prove a point.

Like it or not, terms such as "Sluts With Nuts" and "Chicks With Dicks" are not only common place in modern day Irish Society but also here on Boards/After Hours ...... they are seen, quite rightly, as harmless banter and nothing more.
That said, Ken based his banning on me making fun of the violent attack NOT the term "Sluts With Nuts" which would lead me to believe that you and/or him are now back-tracking in order to "justify" the ban.

As for my "prior record", if you investigated those warnings/infractions properly (and without bias) you would find that they too were, for the most part, unjustified ....... they are actually more a reflection of certain Mods promoting their own personal agendas with me being caught, sometimes intentionally, in the cross-fire.

Thanks.

Pawwed Rig

As the poster does not wish to appeal to admin this can be marked as resolved.