Banned for 3 months

notobtuse

I do not understand what I did wrong. I have been banned by Baron de Charlus from Politics for 3 months.  Regarding a ‘supposed offending’ post, I didn’t understand the poster’s point of the post.  So I asked by stating ‘What's the issue here?’  I then went on to make a comment on the Cohen situation based on factual evidence related to to Trump and related topics and common sense rational.


My post:
What's the issue here?.  

The whole Cohen thing baffles me, politically.  Is it all because some think there might have been a $130,000 illegal campaign contribution?  Are we talking about double standards once again based on political party?  It’s peanuts compared to the illegalities (according to campaign rules the Supreme Court made clear in 2014 in McCutcheon v. FEC) of the Hillary Clinton campaign involving campaign contributions in which no legal actions was taken.  Thanks to a civil lawsuit we have discovered the Federal Election Commission (FEC) records confirm that the Hillary Clinton campaign illegaly laundered $84 million in campaign contributions.  Yet the FEC took no action against her.  Equal justice for all?  I think not.  And we keep hearing, ad nauseum, that Cohen will flip under pressure and spill the beans on Trump.  I don’t believe Cohen will do anything of the sort. Trump will probably just pardon Cohen if he is found guilty of something. Trump believes it all to be part of a witch hunt, and going after a Republican for something minor when Democrats do far, far worse only supports his contention, IMO.  And what does Trump have to lose in providing Cohen a pardon?  The media will hate him even more than they already do?  I don’t think that’s possible.

The moderator's reasoning for the ban:
Deliberately misleading posts or posters aiming to spread misinformation will be sanctioned. We do not expect posters to be experts in all areas, however, the onus is on all posters to fact check their information. If a poster is corrected, or informati

I did not make a misleading post.  I did not spread misinformation. I was not corrected.

Please investigate.  Thank you.

notobtuse

Note: The moderator said if I wish to appeal the ban I should do so here.

dudara

Can you confirm that you have attempted to resolve the matter via PM with the mod? In the meantime, I’ll notify a Politics CMod to review.

notobtuse

I have attempted to resolve the matter with the mod, both for the ban and prior infraction.  I am still waiting on a response.  Also, before the ban I requested to get a list of moderators for Politics, or help in figuring out who they were, so I wouldn't fall afoul of mod warnings.  He did not provide me with it or help me to to figure out who they were.

dudara

FYI - the list of mods is available on the bottom right of the forum page.

notobtuse

Thank you.  I don't see a list of mods on the bottom right of any forum page.  I am still running Windows XP on my computer and I've noticed not everything on boards.ie is displayed to me.  I wonder if that has to do with me not seeing the list of mods.

notobtuse

I also cannot reply to a PM, and have to compose a new PM every time I want to respond to a mod's message.  I wonder if that also has to do with me running XP.

dudara

let’s deal with this DRP first. We can address your technical issues afterwards.

notobtuse

Thank you.  Sounds good.

notobtuse

I have been in contact with the mod.  Basically he contends I was banned because of my infraction history (which I will now go back and also appeal since I feel they were unjust and now I find out are used against me) and have now crossed the rules line when I commented on the illegalities of the Clinton campaign contributions, which earned me a 3 month ban, with a permanent ban in my future for not following what I consider a selective and target rules campaign against me.  So from what I understand I can’t say what I did until a ruling is made in a court case, which might take several years.  Odd that I noted it being illegal by the campaign rules the Supreme Court made clear in 2014 in McCutcheon v. FEC.  I was not challenged on my assertion, only banned.  I noted that if these strict rule standards that were used here to target me were applied to all posters just about everyone posting in politics would have to get banned.  I even provided articles from legal experts (below) that support my contention that the contributions were illegal.  I don’t see a resolve with the moderator at this time.  I guess if anyone now claims Trump colluded with Russia, or Trump did something illegal, or Trump paid off Stormy Daniels, they will carded and then banned… under the ‘get notobtuse’ standard.  I guess you now have to wait years to say something like that until we get the final court ruling... Correct?

I have made a final offer/compromise to the mod but have not heard back..

http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/24/bombshell-fec-records-indicate-hillary-campaign-illegally-laundered-84-million/
https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/the-anatomy-of-hillary-clintons-84-million-money-laundering-scheme/

Neyite

Hi Op, I'll take a look at this hopefully today and over the weekend.

notobtuse

Thank you Neyite.  The only thing I ask as you look at the situation is to question if a ban, or even infraction, was worthy of my post.  Rather than a ban wouldn’t it have been more prudent for the moderator to request me to provide sources that support my contention... expert analysis being preferred.  Bottom line is just because the Democrats are refusing to appoint a member to the FEC does not mean a crime wasn't committed (as my links prove).  Also, a lawsuit has been filed (which our laws allow) because of the FEC’s inability to prosecute because the Democrats won’t appoint a needed member to the board.

Neyite

No problem.

Today isn't turning out to be a great day for concentration for me, and I think all DRP's deserve my undivided attention. So it may be this over the weekend that I assess it all. I'll do my best to have it reviewed by Monday - I hope that's ok with you?

notobtuse

Take your time.  It seems you have 3 months to make your decision.  :)

Neyite

Hi, notobtuse, thank you for your patience. I reviewed this over the weekend and below are my comments:

notobtuse wrote: »

I have been in contact with the mod. Basically he contends I was banned because of my infraction history (which I will now go back and also appeal since I feel they were unjust and now I find out are used against me) and have now crossed the rules line when I commented on the illegalities of the Clinton campaign contributions, which earned me a 3 month ban, with a permanent ban in my future for not following what I consider a selective and target rules campaign against me.

Not exactly accurate - on many fora of Boards, sanctions are incremental, so while it may look like a harsh sanction in relation to the breach of charter, it's actually because of the incremental system that applies to all posters.

I was not challenged on my assertion, only banned. I noted that if these strict rule standards that were used here to target me were applied to all posters

They are applied to all posters evenly and incrementally. Your record shows that on your previous username, the warnings, infractions and bans were incremental. You've been on Boards for 8 years now so you have known this, in fact in one of your previous Dispute Resolutions from 2016, Toots explained it to you, as did Mike in your Dispute Resolution from last year. Because they contain your previous username, I'll not link them here but you can search for them quite easily to refresh your memory.

So from what I understand I can’t say what I did until a ruling is made in a court case, which might take several years. Odd that I noted it being illegal by the campaign rules the Supreme Court made clear in 2014 in McCutcheon v. FEC. ... I even provided articles from legal experts (below) that support my contention that the contributions were illegal.

If you are presenting that as a personal opinion, then that would be fine, however you are presenting the alleged illegality as a proven fact, and therein lies the problem. The Politics forum has a clear guideline in their charter that they expect any facts presented to be backed up by links to prove those facts, but when you got this ban you presented links to opinions that backed up your opinion.

I don’t see a resolve with the moderator at this time. I guess if anyone now claims Trump colluded with Russia, or Trump did something illegal, or Trump paid off Stormy Daniels, they will carded and then banned… under the ‘get notobtuse’ standard. I guess you now have to wait years to say something like that until we get the final court ruling... Correct?

If they offer opinion, no. If they state it as a fact then yes, they would receive a sanction appropriate to their allegation and taking into account any incremental considerations.

Unfortunately I'm upholding this ban, and I would urge you to take on board the comments from Mike on your previous DRP for this same reason.

If you want an Admin to review this please reply indicating so.

notobtuse

Neyite, thank you for taking time to look over this.  I disagree with your assessment.  I HAVE been targeted on my posts by moderators, which were then used to build a case against me.  

And I did state in this instance that it was my opinion, although it can be argued that is fact.

What's the issue here?  

The whole Cohen thing baffles me, politically.  Is it all because some think there might have been a $130,000 illegal campaign contribution?  Are we talking about double standards once again based on political party?  It’s peanuts compared to the illegalities (according to campaign rules the Supreme Court made clear in 2014 in McCutcheon v. FEC) of the Hillary Clinton campaign involving campaign contributions in which no legal actions was taken.  Thanks to a civil lawsuit we have discovered the Federal Election Commission (FEC) records confirm that the Hillary Clinton campaign illegaly laundered $84 million in campaign contributions.  Yet the FEC took no action against her.  Equal justice for all?  I think not.  And we keep hearing, ad nauseum, that Cohen will flip under pressure and spill the beans on Trump.  I don’t believe Cohen will do anything of the sort. Trump will probably just pardon Cohen if he is found guilty of something. Trump believes it all to be part of a witch hunt, and going after a Republican for something minor when Democrats do far, far worse only supports his contention, IMO.  And what does Trump have to lose in providing Cohen a pardon?  The media will hate him even more than they already do?  I don’t think that’s possible.

Is my sin that I don’t state opinion after every sentence?  If you look at my posts, I note, almost ad nauseum, that much is my opinion based on legitimate sources.  And I have been ridiculed and harassed by posters for doing so.  Have any of the abusers been infracted for the abuse?  No.  I note that my comments are opinion so much in my postings because I have been unfairly targeted, and note the rules are not evenly applied.  

When I am proven right in my assessment, based on expert analysis, that the Clinton campaign DID launder money as was laid out by the Supreme Court, who made this very situation clear in 2014 in McCutcheon v. FEC, will I be provided with a apology by the moderators?  I think not, as the ends apparently justify the means, and those ends are to have me removed from commenting against the group-think of posters.  Remember, if everything is to be based on rulings in a court of law as the basis for FACT, so much of what people post here should receive infractions until years later when the actual facts do come out. 

I find it interesting you note my prior username.  Did you see what the final straw banning was for me then?  I claimed Trump and his campaign were spied on during the election by the US government.  If you read as much varied US political news as I do there were clear evidence the US government spied on the Trump campaign. IN THE END I WAS THE ONE PROVEN TO BE CORRECT!  If you still contend that I deserved a ban because my comments on the matter were opinion, then I contend every poster who claimed the Trump campaign was not spied on should have been infracted and banned for posting something as fact and not opinion.  You can’t use one rule against me and ignore the rule for others.  Therefore rules ARE NOT evenly applied.  If anything, I ask that an Administer investigate how moderators in US Politics selectively use the rules to target certain posters, because they are not evenly applied.

I will serve out my ban.  Upon my return I will be EXTRA EXTRA EXTRA careful in my postings, as obviously rules on BOARDS.IE ARE NOT evenly applied, and I'm a Dead Man Walking.  I will make sure to REPORT every time someone presents opinions as facts, and I fully expect to see moderators issue cards and then bans handed out (and publicly announce that a person was banned as they did to me) based upon 'incremental considerations' and the same microscopic rules applications that are used by the moderators against me.

dudara

I will close the appeal as notobtuse is not requesting an Admin review.

I must warn you however, that excessive use or abuse of the Reported Post function is not tolerated. If you use it in the manner you threaten above, it will result in your access to Politics, or even Boards, being permanently removed.

How about instead you consider your posting style and try to adapt, using all the advice and learnings you have from 8 years on Boards