Cycling Forum: Permanent Ban Appeal

Roadhawk

Good day to you all at Boards.ie,

For your attention and favorable consideration.
As of today I have been served with a permanent ban to the cycling forum from CramCycle for spam. I was provided with a link to the Boards Spam definition which describes spam as continuously driving a message over multiple forums and to contact a moderator for advise on what they recommend.

I can assure you that I have not (to my knowledge) continuously repeated a message that straddled a number of forums nor have I been warned of such in the past. I have contacted CramCycle to explain that and requested a reviewed decision to lift the ban so that an appeal would not be necessary, however, here I am.

Further to this, CramCycle has said that spamming was the closest field that could be provided to sanction my ban and that he felt I was wasting moderators time by reporting multiple posts. My side to this is that I felt previously none of my reported posts were being moderated as i saw no warnings or bans being sanctioned to other posters that had blatantly disregarded Boards/forum character. When CramCycle had replied to my reported posts explaining the decisions I felt that this channel was finally functional for me except I receive a ban for reporting on 4 posts...? I please ask for a full investigation into how many other users, if any, were banned from a forum for reporting 4 posts. Im really confused as we are encouraged by moderators to report and not to backseat moderate within the thread.

My posts may not always be in line with the view of other posters, including moderators, but that is no reason to display bias by issuing infractions or bans. A lot of the posts i have reported are far worse than many of my posts that received infractions or bans for. I feel most of my sanctions, which clearly accumulate for future precedent, were unwarranted and issued with extreme bias. I have previously noted with administration that monument had extremist views against me when logging multiple offences and since then I have severe doubts on Jep Gambardella's decision to ban me for 24 hours for an unwarranted reason along with reported post decisions. I would be happy to provide the correspondence I have with these moderators if required but for now we can deal with this ban for the moment. It seems that all of these little bans allow for higher sanctions although the previous sanctions are bogus. Again bias...

I am also well aware that moderators are investing their own time as volunteers to comb through the their threads and keep order but I dont think fairness for all users is too much to ask for coming from such a reputable site.

I look forward to the CMods review of this appeal and hope we can resolve amicably without involving administrators. Thank you for your time.

Regards,
RH

Steve

Hi, can you please send me or post here the relevant mod pm's and I'll gladly take a look.

Roadhawk

Steve wrote: »

Hi, can you please send me or post here the relevant mod pm's and I'll gladly take a look.

Thank you Steve. I have PM'd the correspondence directly to you.

Steve

Got them, thanks.

Steve

Thanks, I'm waiting on some more info from the cycling mods, sorry for the delay.

Steve

Hi Roadhawk, please bear with me, there is a lot of posting history and moderator interaction to go through, coupled with the fact that the mod in question was away for the weekend and couldn't participate in a meaningful way due to lack of coverage.

The only thing I can offer you as of now is that the 'spam' reason attached to the ban was not the best choice - to explain, mods must select a reason from a preset list on the ban page and it's often incorrectly selected as there are limited choices and people can interpret their meaning differently. That doesn't mitigate or nullify the ban in any way, I am currently investigating the exact reasoning behind it.

I have two questions for you at this point:

1. Why did you choose to report two separate posts that were months old in a short space of time?

2. Why did you then feel the need to question the moderator as to what action was or wasn't taken?

Thanks.

Roadhawk

Steve wrote: »

Hi Roadhawk, please bear with me, there is a lot of posting history and moderator interaction to go through, coupled with the fact that the mod in question was away for the weekend and couldn't participate in a meaningful way due to lack of coverage.

Thank you Steve, if you need any further information from myself just let me know.

Steve wrote: »

The only thing I can offer you as of now is that the 'spam' reason attached to the ban was not the best choice - to explain, mods must select a reason from a preset list on the ban page and it's often incorrectly selected as there are limited choices and people can interpret their meaning differently. That doesn't mitigate or nullify the ban in any way, I am currently investigating the exact reasoning behind it.

I appreciate that there may be no direct field to ban a user for supposedly wasting a moderators time but would that not be because that is not a ban-able reason? A simple warning would have been enough.

Steve wrote: »

1. Why did you choose to report two separate posts that were months old in a short space of time?

I did not take the posted dates into account. I more than likely looked at the previous page of posts to get a grasp of the conversation and spotted the post to report. There was no intention to go back through the posts to try find issues.

Steve wrote: »

2. Why did you then feel the need to question the moderator as to what action was or wasn't taken?

As mentioned before, i have reported a number of previous posts that would have seen sanctions had it been me writing the post except no action was taken. I had started to state that In my reported posts. This obviously prompted the moderator to contact me directly with an explanation for each post reported so i had queried if action was or wasn't taken.

Steve

Hi Roadhawk,

I'm going to multiquote your reply but mix up the order a bit, hope it makes sense.

I appreciate that there may be no direct field to ban a user for supposedly wasting a moderators time but would that not be because that is not a ban-able reason? A simple warning would have been enough.

Wasting a moderator time, when you peel away the pretense, boils down to trolling or intentionally disrupting the harmony of a forum. It is most certainly an actionable behavior.

As mentioned before, i have reported a number of previous posts that would have seen sanctions had it been me writing the post except no action was taken. I had started to state that In my reported posts. This obviously prompted the moderator to contact me directly with an explanation for each post reported so i had queried if action was or wasn't taken.

I have an issue with what you said there, from the PM trail I got from the mod, it was you that initiated contact to enquire about the other reported posts. I need to ask that question from both sides as I believe it is relevant to this - so can you please check your pm's and clarify this to me.

I did not take the posted dates into account. I more than likely looked at the previous page of posts to get a grasp of the conversation and spotted the post to report. There was no intention to go back through the posts to try find issues.

I'm going to call you on this and say that I don't believe this to be true.


The report I looked at first was a report on 04-May-17 for a post made on 06-Apr-17.
You posted in the same thread on 28-Apr-17, and twice on 02-May-17 before reporting so I'm having a hard time believing you were looking back for context on 04-May-17.

Thank you Steve, if you need any further information from myself just let me know.

What I need from you is an acknowledgement that you understand that your actions have been disruptive to the cycling forum and that the many previous warnings given over the last year will be heeded. If you meet me half way on this then I am certainly open to reducing your ban considerably. I am of the opinion now that moderator action was justified, it is just a question of the severity of it.

Thanks.

Roadhawk

Steve wrote: »

Hi Roadhawk,

I'm going to multiquote your reply but mix up the order a bit, hope it makes sense.


Wasting a moderator time, when you peel away the pretense, boils down to trolling or intentionally disrupting the harmony of a forum. It is most certainly an actionable behavior.

As i stated, it was not my intention to waste any of the moderators time. I do apologies if this is the case. Had i been warned of this it would not have happened again.

Steve wrote: »

I have an issue with what you said there, from the PM trail I got from the mod, it was you that initiated contact to enquire about the other reported posts. I need to ask that question from both sides as I believe it is relevant to this - so can you please check your pm's and clarify this to me.

I have PM'd you on this.

Steve wrote: »

I'm going to call you on this and say that I don't believe this to be true.

The report I looked at first was a report on 04-May-17 for a post made on 06-Apr-17.
You posted in the same thread on 28-Apr-17, and twice on 02-May-17 before reporting so I'm having a hard time believing you were looking back for context on 04-May-17.

I can see how that looks but again i was not actively combing through previous posts to nit-pick at previous comments. The only reason i would have gone back to previous pages would be to re-confirm what was previously said to catch up on the direction of the conversation.

Steve wrote: »

What I need from you is an acknowledgement that you understand that your actions have been disruptive to the cycling forum and that the many previous warnings given over the last year will be heeded. If you meet me half way on this then I am certainly open to reducing your ban considerably. I am of the opinion now that moderator action was justified, it is just a question of the severity of it.

Thanks.

I must say that it would be far easier for me to fold on the truth and say yes that my actions were disruptive but that is not the case. A this point, having progressed to an appeal my actions have certainly caused more than disruption, so apologies to that. As i have communicated time and time again, the many previous warnings issued to me over the last year have been bogus and unwarranted for the best part. I would invite you to individually assess each of my warnings to conclude for yourself. I would only be too happy to provide you with the warning correspondence.
It is not as easy as meeting you half way on this because if i do and you lift the ban then another warning will be issued for something unwarranted. This will lead me back here appealing once again.

I'm hoping for a solution not a compromise.

Steve

Roadhawk wrote: »

I have PM'd you on this.

Please see forwarded correspondence between myself and CramCycle and myself. For some reason i do have have a first PM from CramCycle relating to reported posts but you can see by my reply when i say "Thank you for your speedy moderation" that i was referring to a previous message that would have triggered my PMing the Moderator. Come to think of it, it might have been a Mod Warning within a thread that said to PM him directly and so i did.

Your pm does little to vindicate your position as you are relying on one that you now 'can't find' to prove your point. If, as you alternately claim, a mod asked in-thread for you to pm him then please post a link to that.

I can see how that looks but again i was not actively combing through previous posts to nit-pick at previous comments. The only reason i would have gone back to previous pages would be to re-confirm what was previously said to catch up on the direction of the conversation.

I still don't believe that to be true.

I must say that it would be far easier for me to fold on the truth and say yes that my actions were disruptive but that is not the case.

This is a problem. I have no doubt your actions were disruptive. This leaves me with a dilemma about restoring your access because you still seem to believe there is nothing wrong with your posting style in the forum.

A this point, having progressed to an appeal my actions have certainly caused more than disruption, so apologies to that. As i have communicated time and time again, the many previous warnings issued to me over the last year have been bogus and unwarranted for the best part.

They haven't been bogus and unwarranted, you are just choosing to believe that. Again, this is part of the issue.

I would invite you to individually assess each of my warnings to conclude for yourself. I would only be too happy to provide you with the warning correspondence.

I have, I don't see anything amiss with them.

It is not as easy as meeting you half way on this because if i do and you lift the ban then another warning will be issued for something unwarranted. This will lead me back here appealing once again.

I agree, unless you can see that how you post is not contributing in a positive way to the forum then there is little point in lifting the ban. If you need this explained in more detail to you then I can arrange this.

I'm hoping for a solution not a compromise.

A compromise is what is on the table, you are free not to accept it and we can keep going here till the cows come home.

As you asked me to look at your previous warnings, and I did, it seems you have also been sanctioned in other forums for 'anti cycling' posts. They are not relevant to this appeal of course. I also looked at some of your previous posts outside of the cycling forum and it is clear that you are not really a fan of cyclists in general.

This begs the question: Why do you want access restored to a forum based on a demographic you have openly posted previously that you don't particularly like?
What do you think you can contribute there?

Roadhawk

Steve wrote: »

Your pm does little to vindicate your position as you are relying on one that you now 'can't find' to prove your point. If, as you alternately claim, a mod asked in-thread for you to pm him then please post a link to that.

I have looked into the comment when CramCycle had said to PM him but that was on a separate thread so is irrelevant to this, apologies. There is another previous message to mine that i do no have for some reason. I started my conversation with "Thank you for your speedy moderation" which would only suggest that i was addressing a previous message. I do not recall deleting anything. Perhaps CramCycle could be so kind and provide the correspondence from before 2nd May @ 14.56. I think he had addressed my post #1415 in the link below. That was also the reason why i edited it!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056767318&page=95

Steve wrote: »

I still don't believe that to be true...

I have no reason to lie about this. I have not defaulted from my position in this ban nor have I made an attempt to paint a different picture. I have given you all of my available communications and explained my position regarding the 4 reported posts to which this ban was ultimately applied for. If you still believe i am not being truthful well then so be it. This is not something i can prove with text.

Steve wrote: »

This is a problem. I have no doubt your actions were disruptive. This leaves me with a dilemma about restoring your access because you still seem to believe there is nothing wrong with your posting style in the forum...

They haven't been bogus and unwarranted, you are just choosing to believe that. Again, this is part of the issue...

I have, I don't see anything amiss with them...

As you asked me to look at your previous warnings, and I did, it seems you have also been sanctioned in other forums for 'anti cycling' posts. They are not relevant to this appeal of course. I also looked at some of your previous posts outside of the cycling forum and it is clear that you are not really a fan of cyclists in general.

I would be happy to engage and address any/all of my previous warnings/bans on an individual case by case basis. Taking my most recent ban for example. I had made the following comment in the S2S Cycleway thread:

"You see, it is a good job...maybe not a perfect job but it is good. My point is that if there is a tiny flaw at any point along the cycleway then there's always one who points it out. Then the rest of the possie jumps on the band wagon...before long the whole project is labelled a failure and nobody uses it because its "unsafe"..."

I really do not see any malice in that statement. Its not disruptive, inflammatory, off-topic or insulting but a moderator had perceived this through some sort of alternative context and made a decision to issue a 24 hr ban...how is that not a bogus/unwarranted sanction?

Steve wrote: »

I agree, unless you can see that how you post is not contributing in a positive way to the forum then there is little point in lifting the ban. If you need this explained in more detail to you then I can arrange this.

Sorry for the inconvenience on this but please do arrange for this to be explained in detail.

Steve wrote: »

A compromise is what is on the table, you are free not to accept it and we can keep going here till the cows come home.

A compromise is not acceptable. Lets dig deep and see if we can reach a solution or just refer the appeal to an administrator to save the cows coming home.

Steve wrote: »

This begs the question: Why do you want access restored to a forum based on a demographic you have openly posted previously that you don't particularly like?
What do you think you can contribute there?

Saying i dont particularly like the demographic makes it sound like i am referring to all cyclists in my comments in fact i am not. I am a cyclist too and what i contribute to the threads available is my own experience. The threads are made up of each posters experience on the roads and there is nothing different when i post.

Steve

Roadhawk wrote: »

Sorry for the inconvenience on this but please do arrange for this to be explained in detail.

I shall ask a representative of the cycling forum mods for this but it will be at their discretion,

A compromise is not acceptable. Lets dig deep and see if we can reach a solution or just refer the appeal to an administrator to save the cows coming home.

I'm going to keep this simple.

Your posting style is not acceptable in the cycling forum. Your posts lead to adverse reactions from other users and cause unnecessary work for the moderators to clean up. I have consulted with all of the cycling mods, my co CMods and this is the consensus.

Your choices are as follows:

1. You continue to believe your behavior is OK and the ban stands.
2. You engage with us and agree to change your behavior and I will reduce the ban.
3. You can appeal this further to Admin, however, note that their decision will be final and non negotiable.

Roadhawk

Steve wrote: »

I shall ask a representative of the cycling forum mods for this but it will be at their discretion,

I'm going to keep this simple.

Your posting style is not acceptable in the cycling forum. Your posts lead to adverse reactions from other users and cause unnecessary work for the moderators to clean up. I have consulted with all of the cycling mods, my co CMods and this is the consensus.

Your choices are as follows:

1. You continue to believe your behavior is OK and the ban stands.
2. You engage with us and agree to change your behavior and I will reduce the ban.
3. You can appeal this further to Admin, however, note that their decision will be final and non negotiable.

Its Friday so i am all for simplicity today...Lets go with option 2...could you perhaps provide a little guidance/direction into how my behavior can be improved? i have been using boards and forum character/rules but still end up being sanctioned. Any advice to prevent future occurrences would be appreciated.

Steve

Thanks, I shall see what I can do there.

Beasty

Steve has asked me to post in this thread. Just to clarify though, he remains the CMod with responsibility for dealing with the appeal.

As a Cycling mod Roadhawk, you are aware our paths have crossed and we have had a couple of PM exchanges concerning your behaviour. The reason I have been asked to contribute here is to add a bit more background to your posting in the Cycling forum, and why that led up to a permaban from the forum. Just to add for the benefit of yourself and other readers of this thread, I was not involved in the decision to ban you, although I have certainly been involved in a number of discussions amongst the Cycling mods concerning your behaviour in the forum.

Please bear with me, as there is quite a history I now need to revisit to allow me to highlight relevant issues in connection with your posting and the ban you are now disputing. I will though confine myself to highlighting those issues and leave any decision on your appeal to Steve.

Beasty

OK, there is a hell of a lot of information I am going to go through here, and I'm going to break it down. Initially I'll focus on your posting outside the Cycling forum as that has informed a lot of regulars in the Cycling forum, as well as the moderators, of your attitude towards cycling and cyclists

You signed up to the site in November 2015, and one of the first threads you started was in Commuting and Transport - Road user education

That thread very quickly became a discussion of cyclists, and your suggestion they should be licensed. In isolation a reasonable enough topic, but it is very informative over your subsequent behaviour on the site. It was a thread that was ultimately locked on 4/12/15 after you had started another thread in the Commuting and Transport forum Whatever should we do with lawless cyclists

Your anti cyclist agenda was certainly starting to shine through and that second thread was quickly closed with the following mod comment:

Banned for a week for trolling.

If you even give off a hint of trolling after this you will get a ban for good.

That ban resulted in your first dispute thread

The Admin comments in upholding that ban are very telling:

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

We then move on to January 2016, and on 8/1/16 you started 2 identical threads in different forums:

16:48 in Motors Law breakers

I am going on a limb here by saying that there is nowhere on this forum to post about the wrong doings of cyclists. I am fully aware of the pro’s to cycling being health, well-being and environment, etc that come with cycling but there is never any focus on the elephant in the room being that cyclists break the law continuously and deliberately. I am aware that this is a very tender topic for some so as there is a massive drive to increase the number of cyclists on our roads but all pro campaigners give out about the motorists and their law breaking and lack of consideration for cyclists and do not give any reference to the actions of cyclists. It is clear that there are much more dangers for cyclists on the roads (mainly down to the exposure of being on a bicycle) but they still persist to break laws putting themselves mainly in danger. Have you previously encountered cyclists breaking laws? Share your experience and any views.

Just to be clear I am not stating that all cyclists behave this way not am I implying that motorists are saints on the road.

I have previously been silenced on raising this topic so I would ask anyone to post to please take into consideration that this is a very sensitive subject and not to insult anyone in this thread.

And in Legal Discussion at 15:04 - Law breaking cyclists

Both threads were quickly closed by local mods. In motors you were directed to the Cycling forum, but the Legal Discussion mod was perhaps a little more pertinent with his comment:

Roadhawk, please do not start any more threads on this topic here. For the sake of your longevity on this site, I wouldn't start any elsewhere either.

That's a little background - next I will highlight some of your early posting in the Cycling forum

Beasty

And even with all of that, I overlooked your second ever post on the site, picking up a yellow card in Commuting and Transport:

Roadhawk wrote: »

Why would a cyclist want to cycle up a one way street anyway?

The mind set of cyclists clearly needs to change. I would have thought that the rules of the road have to be complied with by all road users including cyclists.

Beasty

Moving on to your posting in the Cycling forum - your first ever post there on 7 January 2016:

Roadhawk wrote: »

Perhaps a mandatory cycling license should be carried by all cyclists? That way the Gardai could confirm the person is who they say they are. For a small fee...€20ish, im sure the government could do with it

Then this in connection with Michael O'Leary's statement that cyclists should be shot (5/5/16):

Roadhawk wrote: »

I agree with Michael. He couldn't have said it better. Cyclists around the city are a nuisance. Albeit a great mode of transport for your health and the environment, there is a clear mob mentality from the hardcore cyclists. If there is ever an interaction between a motorist and a cyclists it is always the motorist who is blamed regardless of the circumstances. There is a reason why the government left the need to implement on the new legislation to allow the Gardai to issue on the spot fines. By the looks of it there will be more regulation to follow.

Many hardcore cyclists are holding on to the fact that the number of cyclists is increasing in Ireland but this is surely a given considering the trends...recession over the last few years has forced people to be frugal with their disposable income...perhaps a bicycle might save me money?...perhaps they lost their job and were forced to cycle? On the other hand the attached to the current culture of being a hipster the preferred mode of transport is stereo-typically a bike. Increase in numbers is inevitable. Of course the governments reaction to this is to expand the Dublin City cycle network and pedestrianized zones and remove access from private cars. This sounds great in theory but where is the consideration for the retail economy in Dublin City Center? how many cyclist do you see carrying bags home after a nice day shopping? I personally cant recall any. It is a backward cycle to remove access to motorists from a city.

Michael O'Leary for Taoiseach.

You managed to get a bit of reaction to that, which may well have been your intent

1/6/16

Roadhawk wrote: »

"If money wasn't an issue & you had all the time in the world?"

Id buy a car ;-)

2/6/16

Roadhawk wrote: »

Not really, there are only what 10,000-11,000 cyclist in Dublin? between buses, trains and taxis im sure there wouldnt be much of a difference. A cyclists strike sounds quite inviting. Peaceful city motoring

Quickly followed by

Roadhawk wrote: »

Throwing stones in glass houses...

both parties are equal menaces.

I gave you a yellow card for that with the following comment:

You were warned If you have nothing positive to say about cycling, stay out of the forum

And you followed up in that thread

Roadhawk wrote: »

Thanks Jawgap, I have been asked stay quite on this topic unless i decide to contribute in a positive way. Maybe some day but not today.

Bit of an admission there that you were not particularly interested in posting positively. We continued our PM discussion of your yellow card, and I stated to you:

I had warned you previously about your posting in the forum. If you have nothing positive to contribute why do you even bother posting in the forum? Your posts are simply trying to highlight negative aspects of cycling. This winds up regular contributors. That's trolling.

The yellow card resulted from your continued negativity even after having been given a "friendly" warning that your posting was not acceptable

and then:

Most regulars in the forum are also motorists. They come into the forum to talk cycling and not be lectured by the likes of you. They see both side of the argument, whereas some posters, you included, are quite blinkered (and I accept that's an ailment that afflicts some of the cyclists posting). We regularly criticise cyclists wrongdoings in the forum, and equally criticise the wrongdoing of motorists. The point is we do it in a balanced way while recpgnising we are primarily here to discuss and support cycling. You simply come in to lecture cyclists - that simply will not be tolerated.

Bottom line though is this is the Cycling forum, where you will see a different approach than say the motors forum (where equally one of the mods is quite an avid cyclist). Cyclists don't go over there giving out about motorists and we discourage motorists coming over to Cycling to give out about cyclists. Relentless negativity against cyclists is against the forum charter and you are without doubt guilty of that

Adopt a balanced approach to you posting, recognising it is a Cycling forum, and you will be fine. Continue your rants against cyclists and cycling and your time in the forum will be short-lived

So what we are seeing is a continuing pattern of your posting in a way you knew would wind up Cycling forum regulars (not only given my own comments to you but also from reading the reactions of others to your posting). I essentially put you on a final warning at that time.

It will probably be later this evening before I post in this thread again, but that will focus on your more recent behaviour

Roadhawk

Thanks for the contribution Beasty. Where are we at with this at the moment? Are we waiting on the last 12 months of my posting history before a decision?

Steve

Hi Roadhawk,

I think Beasty has given enough examples of your posting for you to realise what is not welcome in the forum.

Next step is up to you, if you can agree to change how to post then we all win. If not then we have a stalemate and the only option left is for an admin to make a call on it.

Thanks.

Roadhawk

Steve wrote: »

Hi Roadhawk,

I think Beasty has given enough examples of your posting for you to realise what is not welcome in the forum.

Next step is up to you, if you can agree to change how to post then we all win. If not then we have a stalemate and the only option left is for an admin to make a call on it.

Thanks.

I think I have made good progress since my early days on boards but Im happy enough to further amend my posting style If this will allow me access to the cycling topic.

Steve

Hi Roadhawk,

Thank you for that commitment, following some final discussion with the cycling mods, I have an offer for you -

Your ban will be reduced to time already served if you accept the following terms:

There will be a 3 month probation period where any moderation required for trolling behavior will result in a non-negotiable reinstatement of the original ban.

Any action needed for other breaches of the charter or site posting guidelines will be dealt with appropriately by the mods but are not relevant to this probationary period or original ban.

After the 3 month period, any charter or posting guideline breach will be dealt with in-line with consistent moderation for similar breaches on an escalating scale.

Trolling behavior includes but is not limited to:
* Reporting posts which are clearly meant in jest.
* Pretending your posts are in jest when they are clearly out of kilter with the discussion.
* Generalisation against pedestrians, cyclists or motorists.
* Refusing to engage in discussion (ie climbing into a trench and just popping up to fire shots rather than coming out of the trench to discuss).

The Cycling forum charter and boards.ie posting guidelines will apply at all times.

Please let me know if this is agreeable.

Roadhawk

Steve wrote: »

Hi Roadhawk,

Thank you for that commitment, following some final discussion with the cycling mods, I have an offer for you -

Your ban will be reduced to time already served if you accept the following terms:

There will be a 3 month probation period where any moderation required for trolling behavior will result in a non-negotiable reinstatement of the original ban.

Any action needed for other breaches of the charter or site posting guidelines will be dealt with appropriately by the mods but are not relevant to this probationary period or original ban.

After the 3 month period, any charter or posting guideline breach will be dealt with in-line with consistent moderation for similar breaches on an escalating scale.

Trolling behavior includes but is not limited to:
* Reporting posts which are clearly meant in jest.
* Pretending your posts are in jest when they are clearly out of kilter with the discussion.
* Generalisation against pedestrians, cyclists or motorists.
* Refusing to engage in discussion (ie climbing into a trench and just popping up to fire shots rather than coming out of the trench to discuss).

The Cycling forum charter and boards.ie posting guidelines will apply at all times.

Please let me know if this is agreeable.

Yes, agreed to all terms stated above.

Steve

Thank you, I'll sort that now.