Appeal of Three Day Ban from Politics Forum

InTheTrees

I wish to appeal the three day ban I received from the Politics forum.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057774453

Here's the original notification:

johnnyskeleton wrote:

Dear InTheTrees,
You have been banned from Politics for three days for ignoring a moderator's instructions.
Discussion can become heated, we don't object to that, but when a moderator issues a warning on a thread to reign things in, it stops a heated discussion from turning into a mess.
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.
johnnyskeleton
Your post:

InTheTrees wrote: »

Tony EH wrote: »

That's an option Joey. But, it would just be a matter of time before that park is targeted too.
This isn't really about statues though. It's an attempt to control the narrative. It's a power play. This year it's statues. Next year it'll be something else.
The vast majority of people walk by those statues and don't even register them, black and white.

Yikes. So what you're saying is its just those uppity black folk who should know their place and shouldnt complain??
The Civil Rights struggle in the 1960's means nothing does it?

This is the first exchange in a series of three with the moderator that has gone nowhere I'm afraid, in the last communication he wrote that i was trying to "rules lawyer"(?) my way out of a ban. Is that a moderator term? I suppose it's true though because I do feel it was unfair, hasty and overly harsh.

First of all I want to say, I've been on boards.ie nearly nine years, I have nine and a half thousand posts, I'm probably one of the few posters on american politics that actually lives there, I post a lot of travel advice for people taking holidays there too. I've read the charter. I'm not frequenting these forums to pick fights although I've had some warnings in the past. US politics of late, and especially the last year, can get extremely contentious and I understand that, we all generally try and tread really carefully to stop a "heated discussion from turning into a mess" but that doesn't mean it wont get heated. Isn't that the nature of some discussions? Especially in a thread involving Right/Left Violence.

Here is the post that I responded to:

OP wrote:

This isn't really about statues though. It's an attempt to control the narrative. It's a power play. This year it's statues. Next year it'll be something else.

The poster frequents this forum. This was a "Those Damn People..." kind of post. He knows about the civil rights movement but is ignoring it and focusing on statues to, as he says, control the narrative and avoid discussing the deeper issues. Given that the poster is aware of the history it could be said to be "deliberately misleading". The line "Next year it'll be something else" shows an utter misunderstanding of the arguments put forward by the opponents of these memorials. Next year of course it will no doubt be something different, police shootings maybe? Restrictive voting practices perhaps? This has been ongoing since 1863.

So, I responded:

Myself wrote:

Yikes. So what you're saying is its just those uppity black folk who should know their place and shouldn't complain??

Sarcastic yes. But at a level i'd use with my grand parents. Incivility? Really? I suppose I could have used gentler language to challenge this poster once again to explain themselves but is sarcasm really so bad it warrants an immediate three day ban from the entire forum? "Uppity black folks" is from Gone With The Wind isnt it? Was this exchange really evidence of the discussion degenerating from a "heated discussion into a mess"? Bearing in mind the moderator says "heated discussion" is acceptable right? I really wouldn't have though my post went beyond that.
The mod comment along with the ban says "Has no one read the mod warning? Banned for three days. "

I've read the Charter and the warning? in Post #1 says:

Right, this thread has incurred over 100 moderator management actions and there have been over a dozen cards and bannings in the short 10 days that it has been open. That is completely unacceptable. This thread doesn't have any special rules, it is simply the politics charter that everyone posting here must read: <link>
There have been a whole pile of personal attacks, incivility, one liners, dubious links and link dumps. People are not complying with mod instructions which means the thread has gone off the rails on more than one occasion.
Let's be clear, if you post on this thread you will be deemed to have read the charter in full and understand the need to have serious political debate and not make nonsense posts or jibes at other posters expense. Likewise, trolling, commenting on moderation or dragging the thread off topic with dubious links or repeated twitter/news dumping will not be tolerated.
If you are unsure about posting links, you can get further clarification here.
If you break those rules don't be upset if you get an immediate and lengthy ban from this forum.
Otherwise, it is a very interesting and important topic and I'd like to thank the posters who have made significant contributions to the thread.

I dont want to be accused of "rules lawyering" for just giving my point of view but this needs to picked apart a bit to show why I felt it was okay to post the comment that I made. The first paragraph expresses frustration at the amount of moderating that is required and it also clearly states in spite of that there are not going to be any "special rules". It says:

it is simply the politics charter that everyone posting here must read

Then there's two paragraphs, one that says there's been a lot of disobedience and people aren't listening, and the next that basically says Obey The Charter.
So the later one sentence paragraph that says "If you break those rules don't be upset if you get an immediate and lengthy ban from this forum" surely refers to the opening paragraph which means The Charter? It cant be contradicting the opening paragraph can it? That's how I read it and honestly that's not an unreasonable assumption. It is a reiteration that the rules that governs the forum that are contained in the charter also apply to this thread. Right? So surely it doesn't mean an immediate three day ban from the entire politics forum to the next person who writes something that would normally (maybe) mean a yellow card? Its confusing.

While I still maintain that my level of sarcasm was that which I would use with my elderly grand parents and never intended to escalate an argument or cause a "mess", I also see no warning to "reign things in" but simply to adhere to the Politics Forum charter which I really genuinely felt I was doing. I thought I was being pretty gentle, I think my statement barely touches the definition of “heated” which is deemed acceptable. I understand now that in a thread of 1200 posts over 10 days that “over a dozen cards and bannings” is “completely unacceptable”, but honestly in nine years on boards thats the first time i've heard a statistic like that. 1200 posts in 10 days seems pretty busy i'll give you that.

I don't want to go on too much. I'm sad and shocked to get a three day ban so I'm eager to present my point of view. Thanks for your time, sorry if its too wordy.

-Mike

InTheTrees

This is the first of a couple of email exchanges.

johnnyskeleton wrote:

InTheTrees wrote:

Hi,
This is the first step in the appeal process.
I have a few points;
1. You posted two warnings recently, post #1141 (22/8) refers people to the Mod Post in post#1, then you posted Post #1174 (23/8), says: "How very good of you both to test the waters and see if I would follow through with what I said in the mod warnings." Presumably referring to the warnings in Post #1?
Post #1 says: "This thread doesn't have any special rules, it is simply the politics charter that everyone posting here must read:".
So was there any warning of immediate bans, not warnings, not thread bans but bans from the entire forum?2. I admit to some sarcasm in my post. But really did it warrant an immediate three day ban? What kind of sarcasm would elicit a warning I wonder? It's unclear howeverI don't believe it violated the charter, I don't think it was excessively insulting. It was a legitimate question of the poster I was replying to and I can expand on that at length.3. I understand that it was a thread that was probably in need of a lot of maintenance.
Anyway, this is the first step. Let me know your thoughts.

-Mike

Hi Mike,

1. Yes, the mod note in the first post says that an immediate ban is the next step for any breaches.

2. In the context of this thread, yes. The thread was an absolute mess and didn't need any more messing.

3. Since you seem to understand what you did wrong, and presumably you will be more careful in the future, I will lift the ban now on that basis.

Best regards,
js

Toots

Your ban was lifted on the 28th of August?

InTheTrees

Toots wrote: »

Your ban was lifted on the 28th of August?

Yes. I think so.

Neyite

Hi InTheTrees,

From what I can see, you appealed the ban at the time and a mod lifted it after discussion with you. So I'm not sure why you've raised a DRP, but if you could clarify what it is you are looking for here I'd be grateful.

InTheTrees

Neyite wrote: »

Hi InTheTrees,
From what I can see, you appealed the ban at the time and a mod lifted it after discussion with you. So I'm not sure why you've raised a DRP, but if you could clarify what it is you are looking for here I'd be grateful.

Hi
I'd like to get this ban removed completely.
Thanks for looking into it.
-m

This is what the moderator wrote:

johnnyskeleton wrote:

Sorry I should just clarify that the lifting of the ban is not quite the same as removing the ban after an appeal, that is to say that if any mod looks you up in future they will still see that you were banned.

So you can still appeal the original banning if you want to expunge it, but for that I still think it was warranted so you will need to apply to a Cmod in DRP to have it removed completely.

Neyite

Ok, I'll review it this evening.

Neyite

Then there's two paragraphs, one that says there's been a lot of disobedience and people aren't listening, and the next that basically says Obey The Charter.
So the later one sentence paragraph that says "If you break those rules don't be upset if you get an immediate and lengthy ban from this forum" surely refers to the opening paragraph which means The Charter? It cant be contradicting the opening paragraph can it? That's how I read it and honestly that's not an unreasonable assumption. It is a reiteration that the rules that governs the forum that are contained in the charter also apply to this thread. Right? So surely it doesn't mean an immediate three day ban from the entire politics forum to the next person who writes something that would normally (maybe) mean a yellow card? Its confusing.

Your paragraph is a bit convoluted so I'm struggling to understand your point - Are you saying that the mod warning is superseded by the politics charter, because it points to the charter to clarify rules? Because that's not how it works.

Posters who've been on Boards for long enough understand that the charter is a set of rules that govern ordinary posting on a forum, and if there is a mod warning on a thread, it's in addition to the charter rules.

If the charter states that a warning may be issued for substandard posting and a mod warning on a contentious thread states that a ban will be issued to the posters who ignore the thread warning then it's the thread-specific warning that should be heeded, rather than the general charter.

You got the ban reduced on discussion with the mod, I can't see a basis for overturning it though, if the reason you offer is that you thought the mod on-thread warning was to be disregarded in favour of the general charter rules.

InTheTrees

Neyite wrote: »

Your paragraph is a bit convoluted so I'm struggling to understand your point - Are you saying that the mod warning is superseded by the politics charter, because it points to the charter to clarify rules? Because that's not how it works.

Posters who've been on Boards for long enough understand that the charter is a set of rules that govern ordinary posting on a forum, and if there is a mod warning on a thread, it's in addition to the charter rules.

If the charter states that a warning may be issued for substandard posting and a mod warning on a contentious thread states that a ban will be issued to the posters who ignore the thread warning then it's the thread-specific warning that should be heeded, rather than the general charter.

You got the ban reduced on discussion with the mod, I can't see a basis for overturning it though, if the reason you offer is that you thought the mod on-thread warning was to be disregarded in favour of the general charter rules.

I'm not satisfied with this response at all.

Neyite wrote: »

Posters who've been on Boards for long enough understand that the charter is a set of rules that govern ordinary posting on a forum, and if there is a mod warning on a thread, it's in addition to the charter rules.

I addressed that point. You are carefully avoiding the fact that the mod writes in his warning in post#1 that there will be no "special rules" and that Charter rules will apply.

He even writes specifically:

it is simply the politics charter that everyone posting here must read

The moderators comment was hasty, badly written and confusing. Why does my comment warrant a three day ban? Its not clear because it only barely violates the forum charter. A warning perhaps? But not a three day ban. Its unfair. I am being punished for a badly written warning.

And why did the moderator reduced it? It does absolutely nothing to expunge it from my "record".

I think the fact that the thread (on a developing story *80 pages in 10 days is not an inactive thread) was closed less than an hour later is relevant as well.

Neyite

Why does my comment warrant a three day ban? Its not clear because it only barely violates the forum charter. A warning perhaps? But not a three day ban. Its unfair. I am being punished for a badly written warning.

And why did the moderator reduced it? It does absolutely nothing to expunge it from my "record".

It warranted the ban because the mod warning clearly stated:

There have been a whole pile of personal attacks, incivility, one liners, dubious links and link dumps. People are not complying with mod instructions which means the thread has gone off the rails on more than one occasion.
Let's be clear, if you post on this thread you will be deemed to have read the charter in full and understand the need to have serious political debate and not make nonsense posts or jibes at other posters expense.

And then there is this sentence, also from the mod warning:

If you break those rules don't be upset if you get an immediate and lengthy ban from this forum.

You got the ban. Upon discussion with the mod, they reduced it for you. They explained why they were reducing it for you so there is no need for me to repeat it to you.

You are claiming that ALL the mod warnings are superseded because the mod warning asked you to go look at the charter for further information, and the charter didn't specifically state that a ban would be applied but a warning would. That might fly, except that you have acknowledged that you are a long time poster and a regular to the forum so you already know the standard of posting in Politics.

I'm upholding the reduced ban. If you want an admin review you can request it.

InTheTrees

Neyite wrote: »

You are claiming that ALL the mod warnings are superseded because the mod warning asked you to go look at the charter for further information,

No. The moderator said the Rules of the charter would apply. No more no less.

There's really only one way to read that. There was nothing about "further information".

The moderator also wrote that heated discussion was expected.

InTheTrees

Neyite wrote: »

That might fly, except that you have acknowledged that you are a long time poster and a regular to the forum so you already know the standard of posting in Politics.

I dont know what you mean by that. I read the moderators warning. I read the carter. I know full well that comment does not warrant a three day ban. That's why we're going through this process.

You're saying as a long time customer my explanation doesn't "fly"and I should know the standards of posting?What is the "charter" for then?Should it be followed or not?I expect clarity. I expect fairness. I expect even application of the rules.

Neyite

I'm not overturning the ban - that's my third time telling you that.

You think that a mod saying "refer to the charter" cancels out the on thread mod warning. It does not. The mod warning on thread is in addition to the charter rules.

If you want a review by an admin, then please state you want that.

InTheTrees

Neyite wrote: »

You got the ban. Upon discussion with the mod, they reduced it for you. They explained why they were reducing it for you so there is no need for me to repeat it to you.

I think the way the moderator responded was very poor. I asked some questions which were not answered.

My_Response_to_ban wrote:

2. I admit to some sarcasm in my post. But really did it warrant an immediate three day ban? What kind of sarcasm would elicit a warning I wonder? It's unclear howeverI don't believe it violated the charter, I don't think it was excessively insulting. It was a legitimate question of the poster I was replying to and I can expand on that at length.3. I understand that it was a thread that was probably in need of a lot of maintenance.

The_moderators_answer wrote:

3. Since you seem to understand what you did wrong, and presumably you will be more careful in the future, I will lift the ban now on that basis.

Lifting the ban on that basis is wrong because I dont understand that what I did was wrong and warranted a three day ban. That's why i'm asking the questions that I ask in my message.

InTheTrees

Neyite wrote: »

I'm upholding the reduced ban. If you want an admin review you can request it.

Sorry, yes. Lets do the "admin review".

I should have posted this reply first.

InTheTrees

Neyite wrote: »

You think that a mod saying "refer to the charter" cancels out the on thread mod warning. It does not. The mod warning on thread is in addition to the charter rules.

It becomes a circular argument after a while.

The mod "warning" stated quite clearly that there wouldn't be any special rules but that the charter rules would apply.

The_Thread_Warning wrote:

This thread doesn't have any special rules, it is simply the politics charter that everyone posting here must read

Tokyo

I'll take a look at this today.

Tokyo

Good afternoon InTheTrees,

Every forum is governed by Boards Terms of Use, and the local forum charter, which supplements the ToU, depending on the nature/needs of the forum. However, all that being said, moderators, for the most part, apply the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law. It's an approach I actively support, as it allows moderators to nudge posters and threads back on topic without haing to hand out cards and bans left right and centre.

That being said, sometimes that approach doesn't always work, or posters simply ignore it, which was certainly the case in this thread. If the mod warning is an accurate reflection of the thread, over 100 mod actions were required, which is verging on the ridiculous and certainly warranted the mod warning in the opening post. The moderator was quite clear:

There have been a whole pile of personal attacks, incivility, one liners, dubious links and link dumps. People are not complying with mod instructions which means the thread has gone off the rails on more than one occasion.

Let's be clear, if you post on this thread you will be deemed to have read the charter in full and understand the need to have serious political debate and not make nonsense posts or jibes at other posters expense. Likewise, trolling, commenting on moderation or dragging the thread off topic with dubious links or repeated twitter/news dumping will not be tolerated....

...If you break those rules don't be upset if you get an immediate and lengthy ban from this forum.

In other words, "we've tried applying the spirit of the law and it hasn't worked - from here on in we're enforcing the letter of the law".

Your post was a smartarsed comeback rather than a reasoned debate, in a thread that carried a specific warning against such comments - one-liners are even specifically mentioned in the mod warning. The mod warning supplemented the charter, and I would argue merely expanded on a charter rule that states:

High standards of debate and quality posts / threads are required. Repeated one liner, low quality style posts will result in a ban.

Short of using diagrams, the mod warning couldn't be any clearer, and attempts to show that the mod warning doesn't count because there isn't a specific rule that caters to your post (there is; see above) is by definition, rules-lawyering.

The mods made the right call at the time, and the CMod's assessment of the situation in this thread is accurate. As such, the ban, reduced as it is, is upheld.