Infraction/on-thread warning

khamilto

Good afternoon folks,

I had an issue with a The_Conductor in a thread in the Accommodation & Property forum, who has been portraying himself as someone who has in-depth (and seemingly inside) legal knowledge. While one doesn't need to have any legal experience whatsoever (I don't!) to have legal knowledge or offer opinions, the user in my view clearly and deliberately phrased many of his posts so as to insinuate that he himself did have such knowledge.

The vast majority of his legalese is clearly wrong which again, is fine, and par for the course across discussion boards internet wide. The difference here is
1) He's a moderator of the forum
&
2) The sheer quantity of legal opinions offered without being willing to provide any evidence whatsoever.

I offered my opinion on legal interpretations in the thread. I was also willing to discuss, argue and provide reasoning/evidence for such - as any user should, you shouldn't in my view post an opinion without being at least willing to try defend it using a bit of evidence. The user in question however, refused to do this at all and simply moved on from post to post full of 'legalese'.

This in my opinion makes him absolutely a bad-faith poster. Any poster who posts opinions designed to seem as if they are qualified-opinions but refuses to ever discuss them is posting in bad faith. That kind of posting does damage to a whole forum by using misappropriated legitimacy to dominate discussions and offer views couched as expert opinions.

As an example, The_Conductor posts a link to the adjudication report that formed the centre of the topic and in the same post wrote

I'd seriously suggest the adjudicator *needs* to get a better understanding of the HAP scheme- there are a few comments in both the adjudications and the press release accompanying them- that are seriously at odds with what is happening on the ground.

followed by

Morally- it was, 100%, the right call- but legally- and the choice of words the FLAC person being interviewed chose highlights this- it is questionable........

and

This particular landlord is probably going to cut his losses and pay up- but the case has raised far more questions, than it has answered (including how/why the WRC had jurisdiction- rather than the RTB).

and

One would hope he/she would appeal- and honestly- I believe they would have reasonable grounds on which to do so

and

I'd argue that the main issue here was the LL argued the wrong case- aka he/she tried to get it dismissed on a point of law- rather than attacking the system head-on to show it was totally ridiculous............

Only for it to turn out he hadn't even read the report as he posted several times about not understanding how the fines were tallied, despite the report in detail explaining how the compensation was calculated.

Sorry, I'm aware that this is tedious but here are a few more examples from just the one thread to show context:

The particular test case highlights the fact that changes in legislation can retrospectively be applied to pre-existing contractual obligations- the landlord had argued that the law could not be retrospectively applied- which in theory, it shouldn't be.

I do not believe we should have multiple bodies adjudicating on tenancies- irrespective of whether, or not, its the core tenancy law that is the legislation infringed on. By all means have a WRC representative at the RTB for cases that feature equality issues- however, to adjudicate wholly in a different venue- is a bad bad idea.

If the RTB is not up to adjudicating these cases- they need to be strengthened-

its the various organs of state who are interpreting rules and requirements in unique ways, to suit their ends- and very often in complete and utter contradiction with one another

the stage is being set for a landlord to either bring a case against a local authority, with the Revenue Commissioners as a notified party- or vice versa, against the Revenue Commissioners- with their local authority as a notified party- the relevant Ministers should be named parties on the case

The landlord in this case- patently, was badly advised- and argued a point of law- which was probably accurate- but which was ignoring the bigger picture

They are not rules that landlords were previously unaware of- or indeed, non-compliant with- as properties without these specific ventilation systems- are 100% compliant with all legislation and regulations- they just don't meet the box ticking exercise on a HAP inspection

Its an interpretation by a vested party of a legislative standard. They have chosen to apply current building regulations as their interpretation of the standard. Current constructed buildings are obliged under law to comply with current building legislation- no other buildings.

Legislation should not use words like 'adequate'. Legal Divisions in Departments have had the riot act read to them over crap like this- sloppiness like this is indefensible in the modern era.

As you can see, post after post after post of legal opinion offered and I'm afraid that anyone who reads the thread will not find a single post where he provides any evidence for any of his many claims.

You can see my first reply to The_Conductor here. His response ignored any mention of the legal issues I had challenged on him. Quite the opposite, he replied with even more legalese.

I replied here. I can see that it was challenging and abrasive, but given the user in question was being given free rein to post unsubstantiated legalese for 8 pages, I don't see that as being too far over the line.

I thence received an on-thread warning from moderator Michael D Not Higgins where I was told that I was being 'aggressive' in general, and labelled my posts as 'alternative points of view'. I asked the moderator in question if he disputed anything in my post and he did not, he simply wanted me to be less aggressive in general and wouldn't give me any examples as to when I was aggressive to other users (beyond the one post aimed at one user).

I then received a red card infraction from moderator Graham for using the baseball idiom "Three strikes and you're out!" 'so that's strike 1 against you' in terms of strike 1 against the claim a user had just made (followed by two more points in rebuttal, three strikes see?)

This is the PM chain with the moderator in question (Graham):

Khamilto wrote:

Graham wrote:

khamilto wrote:

Graham wrote:

khamilto wrote:

Graham wrote:

khamilto wrote:

The moderator asked me to stop being aggressive, not to stop posting.
What exactly was aggressive about that post?

By all means refute other posts just dial the aggression back please.

If it's unintentional, you may want to re-read your posts before submitting because they are still very easily taken for aggressive.

I asked for what was aggressive about the post I received an infraction for Graham.

When you started keep score against the other poster rather than refuting his points I read your post as aggressive.

Strike (#) is an idiom when responding to an assertion. Where did I fail to refute his points?
Was it before Strike 1, when I refuted his assertion, or after Strike 1 when I refuted his assertion some more?

I'm not about to argue semantics with you.

You just stated that I didn't try to refute his points. What does semantics have to do with you making that claim?

And this is the post where I was aggressive and did not even attempt to refute any points:

khamilto wrote:

Capital Allowances can be not claimed for dwelling units, as per Subsection 7) of Chapter 1 of PART 9. Principal Provisions Relating to Relief for Capital Expenditure.

So, that's strike 1 against you.

Secondly, industrial units that receive capital allowance are subject to a balancing charge upon disposal if sold for higher than the remaining capital allowance (limited to the full amount of the capital allowance).

Thirdly, capital allowance as a whole is predicated on the notion that it only applies to devaluing assets. Investment properties simply do not fit in this definition.

I suggest you read the Principal Provisions Relating to Relief for Capital Expenditure, before you reply to me with your oft-quoted example of a shed on a farm!

(sidenote, nox001 has used the example of a shed on a farm before as a counterpoint to how investment properties are treated for tax purposes)

I know this is tedious, but two things really get my goat online
1) People pretending to be experts and posting 'expert' opinions'. It is an incredibly damaging phenomenon and moderators absolutely must hold posters accountable when they post expert opinions but refuse to respond to challenges on them.
2) Moderators circling the wagons.

I should add, moderators didn't find this post over the line. Perhaps because it wasn't aimed at The_Conductor!

Again, sorry for the length.

Beasty

Just to clarify, this forum is for disputing cards and bans only. I presume you are disputing the red card you refer to in your OP?

If that is the case have you followed the process set out at the head of the forum, and attempted to resolve your dispute with the directly mod who issued the red card?

The Hill Billy

No response in over 3 weeks.

Closed.

tHB