Banned from LGBT thread.

SterlingArcher

I have been banned from the LGBT thread. Trans children - looking for advice

Reason given offtopic, disputing mod warning.

Have gone to pm, told by mod to open dispute. Not budging.From: Joeytheparrot
Date: 23/07/2018 | 16:54
Hi

No. I am not going to reverse that decision. Please feel free to goto DRP

Pm- added soon for transparency.

Me to Joeytheparrot
Date: 23/07/2018 | 16:00
The post I quoted lastly was not a moderated warning? It was this post I was discussing. If it was in fact a mod wanrning I will need clarification on that.

Joeytheparrot
Date: 23/07/2018 | 16:12
The moderator that posted the mod warning about the off topic, started the off topic. What kind of topsy turvy **** is this?

I'm asking was their off topic a mod warning because I totally missed that




Joeytheparrot
Date: 23/07/2018 | 16:06
Quote: SterlingArcher
The post I quoted lastly was not a moderated warning? It was this post I was discussing. If it was in fact a mod wanrning I will need clarification on that.



You disputed the mod warning at least once despite this being against the charter, highlighted several times throughout the thread. You are ignoring the warning in post 1 for no off topic posts plus the mod request for that

dudara

Hi,

Thread bans are not dealt with in the DIspute Resolution forum. The DR forum is for yellow & red cards and bans only.

Therefore, I'll move this to the Help Desk which is for addressing forum-specific matters.

If you don't think that resolution is possible with the moderator, I suggest contacting one of the CMods to discuss.

SterlingArcher

This is my issue regarding the ban.

baby and crumble wrote: »

Reminder that here in the LGBT forum it is against charter to say that being trans isn’t real etc. if you don’t like that then post in another thread.

Hold on one second. This is your post. You brought that up. Nobody else.

I pointed out that it is not law to say trans isn't real for a 10 year old, because in the eyes of the law they are not. Does your charter cover that? No it certainly does not. Over your head.

Is it considered derailing now to dispute the credibility of someone's post??? I'll rest my case here.

Now this is my issue with the ban.

You have a mod that posted the above, and I went on to refute the credibility of that post.

This is when the very same mod that posted it, posts as a mod warning quote" mod hat on" no longer to go off topic.

So basically Baby and crumble ( mod). goes off topic, someone refutes the credibility of what they have said (off topic).

Then a warning do not post off topic coupled with a reinforcement of the original off topic post they made : insinuating someone of any age cannot be trans is against charter.

SterlingArcher

dudara wrote: »

Hi,

Thread bans are not dealt with in the DIspute Resolution forum. The DR forum is for yellow & red cards and bans only.

Therefore, I'll move this to the Help Desk which is for addressing forum-specific matters.

If you don't think that resolution is possible with the moderator, I suggest contacting one of the CMods to discuss.

Ah apologies durda mod said in pm drp I didn't actually check the difference in thread ban cheers for moving.

dudara

No worries, it's not always clear to everyone.

SterlingArcher

dudara wrote: »

No worries, it's not always clear to everyone.

You don't happen to know who is category mods for that section?

dudara

FYI - posts in the Help Desk are pre-moderated, so your posts won’t appear immediately.

You can find the CMods for any forum by scrolling down to the bottom of the page (desktop version) They will be listed in the bottom right underneath the mods. For LGBT, the CMods are Big Bag of Chips, bluewolf, Neyite, Pat Mustard

Big Bag of Chips

I'll take a look at this, SterlingArcher.
It will be tomorrow though, hope that's ok.

Big Bag of Chips

Hi SterlingArcher, thanks for you patience!

I've looked through that thread and have to agree in part with the moderator who said your posts were mostly argumentative and arguing moderator instruction. Your first post on that thread had one line aimed at the OP and their issue. The rest of the post was arguing what the moderator posted. So it did look like you took the opportunity to give a short, one line response to the OP, but used the rest of your post to argue with a moderator.

Now, in saying that - I do agree with you that the warning you questioned seemed to come out of nowhere on that thread. But, you are here long enough to know that questioning a moderator on thread is against the general rules of the site. Not because moderators shouldn't be questioned, but because it then turns the thread into an over-and-back discussion/argument completely ignoring the poster who has come looking for advice or opinion.

If you feel the need to question a moderator warning you should take it to PM.

I think if you were making it clear in that thread that you were only interested in arguing the moderator posts rather than posting to the OP, the moderators had little choice but to ask you to not post again. The moderators themselves were also being dragged off topic replying to posts questioning their posts.

I do believe that it is not healthy to shut down discussion and I don't like to see "please do not post in this thread again" unless for very valid reasons. I think it was overused in that thread and have been in touch with the moderators in question and maybe it is something they as a moderation team will look at in future. (I don't think either of them are online at the moment).

If you feel so inclined you could PM both moderators, and see can you (pl) clear the air. I think there is merit on both sides, and I think it is something that should be able to be resolved with a little bit of civil discussion.

baby and crumble

For what it's worth, I will admit that my warning in post 30 on that thread was confusing, as I should have separated out my own personal comments from my mod warning. Apologies for that.

However, I stand by what was said in the particular post you quoted (15). I did not aim that comment at you, nor any particular poster. It was general reminder to those folks who seem to find trans related threads and lob that one in.

Whether or not the law currently says children under 16 cannot medically transition, being trans is not dependent on that, and that is what is meant by that point in the charter.

I stand by my comments.

Apologies that I'm late to the discussion, I've been offline.

SterlingArcher

Hi chips,

When I entered the thread I read some posts before I put a post to the op, to see if any points I would raise were already addressed.

What I witnessed were what seemed like rational points raised being seized upon by a mod( you can look for yourself), and the person told not to post again. This is not the basis of my issue, I'm merely saying it was making it difficult to say anything.

Add to this then crumble ( who I was unaware at the time was a mod) and believed was just another poster, posted the reference to the charter. ( Stating nobody shall insinuate trans is not a real etc) . Which would stifle any point I had now going forward.

So I disagreed with that post(as a poster , to another poster) due to it being a child of 10. It was wholey unnecessary as there was no solid basis to suggest the child was even trans at this early stage. so it could reasonably be argued in this case as not being real and any advise to the parent should be free to take that into consideration.

Then the poster who I replied to, posts as a mod warning now, not only that, reinforcing their original reference but also now including children in the statement. In other words I have read what you said as a poster to another poster, now I'm posting as a mod so do not question this.

I realise the rules are in place for good reason, pm should be your port of call but after this stone wall move by the mod, how was I to consider any private conversation with them going forward to be reasonable let alone fair?

I consider your response fair. Thanks for taking the time on these draining hot days to do this kind of junk.

Big Bag of Chips

Hiya SterlingArcher,

I agree, and baby and crumble admits their first moderator warning was unclear as a warning. Once it was made clear that they were adding moderator warnings then you did continue to argue the point again. This is off topic, and really adds nothing of any relevance to the OP who posted an issue.

I suppose in all threads such as that one, it is better to keep the OP in mind. Post civilly, and constructively to them, and ignore as much as possible posts you feel may be baiting. Report such posts as necessary, and if you feel there is an issue with moderation you are always welcome to PM the mods.

Moderating the LGBT forum is a tough job, and as I'm sure you appreciate, they get a lot of "fly by" posters who drop in to inflame situations. At times the moderators will just have to take a hardline to shut down people who have little interest in actually engaging in conversation. Sometimes, they might jump the gun, but in fairness I think after many years experience of the forum their gut instinct has to be respected. If they get it wrong, then usually a (civil) PM to clear the air will go a long way.

Are you happy enough with the responses you have gotten here? If so, we can get the thread locked as resolved.

SterlingArcher

Big Bag of Chips wrote: »

Hiya SterlingArcher,

I agree, and baby and crumble admits their first moderator warning was unclear as a warning. Once it was made clear that they were adding moderator warnings then you did continue to argue the point again. This is off topic, and really adds nothing of any relevance to the OP who posted an issue.

So the first post I considered off topic,was actually a warning? Ok glad that is finally cleared up. for my part I was genuinely unaware, I always assume mods are just other users in a topic free to discuss the topic like everyone else, unless stated not the case.


The following actually announced warning( I'm fully aware this is against forum rules) I admit fully I broke the rules. As with the lack of transparency on the first warning followed then by this actual warning now made me feel the mod was now using the "charter" rule as their own personal censorship. Plain and simple.

I'm for open discussion. I have no issue if someone wants to consider a child as trans. I do have an issue with someone telling others that they have to agree with that when the law itself will not and for very good reason.

Now I could be totally wrong in that regard.

Unless I'm mistaken and you are telling me yes the boards charter does indeed say and quote "do not even insinuate if trans exists for even children".

Big Bag of Chips

As per PM from OP, thread can be locked.

Thanks.