Banned for two weeks

dulux99

For post the following in the Conor McGregor thread in the MMA forum :

Your post:Quote: dulux99
McGregor was arrested in Miami apparently. Smashed someone's phone.

I mean....really? For posting news that is currently on the Irish times website.

The debate rambled on for a few pages which I didn't read, nor contribute to. The moderator explained with the following :

You have been banned from Mixed Martial Arts [MMA] for two weeks 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.

I didn't partake in any debate. I simply posted a quick update which had been reported on every main news website in Ireland.

Would love a more in depth explanation.

The Hill Billy

Please PM the Mod to discuss. If you cannot resolve this via PM - post back here & a CMod will look into it.

dulux99

Post 1759 @

Holloway posted from the Jameson distillery earlier today.....

https://twitter.com/blessedmma/statu...243708418?s=21

Max Holloway, another UFC fighter, visits a whiskey distillery. Nothing to do with MMA or Conor MgGregor.

Post 1580

Supporting hard working families? Wtf how.

A comment on said Twitter post, querying whether or not Jameson supports local families in the area. Nothing to do with Conor McGregor or MMA.

Post 1581

That's a bold marketing move by Jameson!

A post commenting on a Whiskey companies marketing strategy. Nothing to do with Conor McGregor or MMA

Post 1582

Max is on another level of whiskey promotion. Clearly the GOAT.

No watered down toilet cleaner there.

A post commenting on how well Max Holloway promotes Whiskey. Nothing to do with Conor McGregor or MMA.

Post 1583

Functioning distillery for nearly 200 years providing inner city jobs maybe...

Until it closed production and became a tour thing.

A retort to a previous post, with a point about how the Jameson distillery provides for families in the area. Again, nothing to do with the sport of Mixed Martial Arts. Totally against the rules?

Post 1584

Could be a dig at Guinness who were sectarian and only employed protestants

Self explanatory, another alcohol related post. Nothing to do with MMA.
Post 1584

You mean Bushmills who were very sectarian?

Bushmills are no longer owned by Diageo (who do own Guinness)

Now it’s getting into the political side of alcohol production. Nothing to do with the sport of MMA or even about Conor McGregor.

Post 1588

I know that... It was the supporting Dublin workers that was asked... You're right actually... Conor is all Dublin and got a northern whisky

More alcohol production chat. Nothing about MMA.

Post 1589

Fair enough. This is a whisky thing tho and I doubt Jameson would be seeking to bring religion into a marketing campaign.

On and on the alcohol chat goes. Nothing to do with MMA.

Post 1591

And they probably weren't going for religion angle as I said but it was fairly recently ( well 20/25 years ago) before Bushmills had even 1 Catholic working for them.
They were notorious for it.

Alcohol production chat. This goes on, and on, and on.
Post 1601

Lads..while I know half of ye think Mcg is some sort of genius, lets be realistic for a minute..he's a scumbag..he was trying to promote his whiskey..he went "fnck the jamesons etc".. It wasnt a comment on sectarianism in the drinks industry over the last 200 years..it was him being a tinker..

A post discussing the production of an alcohol product, and then refers to Conor McGregor as both a scumbag and a tinker. This post is seemingly fair game. No warnings, yellow cards, or two week bans handed out.
Post 1620

RE Jameson vs Bushmills, Catholics vs Protestants, Max vs Connor.... The Wire did it first

There was also a youtube video attached to this. A clip from ‘The Wire’, where the characters discuss the variances in Whiskey. Again this is alcohol related chat, and secondly it’s veered off into people sharing clips from TV shows that have nothing to do with MMA.





Now, I could go on, and on, and on and pluck posts from this thread but I’m not going to. I picked a page at random and plucked a few posts from it,pages 106-108.

Nobody is talking about the sport of MMA, however it is loosely related to Conor McGregor and MMA. It seems like common sense and logic was applied here and the mods didn’t intervene.

However, a matter of a few weeks later, I post a quick, non flamatory, factual statement as reported by all major news outlets in Ireland and around the world, that Conor McGregor was arrested in Miami, and apparently this is worthy of a two week ban. My post was as follows ;

Originally Posted by dulux99
McGregor was arrested in Miami apparently. Smashed someone's phone.

When queried with the mod in question, his explanation was as follows ;

Is this MMA related no...are there multiple warnings on the thread about discussing non-MMA related stuff. Yes.

I try to give people more than an inch on this forum but its really hard when people take the piss and try to take a mile. The CMods have posted about this, Admins have posted about this...its an MMA forum and it has been said multiple times that it is not the place for non-MMA related posts. You are quite aware that it then spirals the thread into further nonsense and people dropping in to give their 2 cents and that he is a knacker or it must be drugs or that he is probably off having someone else's baby

So now it is apparent that I’m not actually being punished for what I posted at all, I’m being punished for what other posters went off on a tangent about. I did not get involved in any of that chat that followed my brief post.

It is my view that a two week ban for the above, is a ridiculously over the top punishment, given the 'crime'.

I can appreciate the thread went into the gutter, but this was not my doing.
For what it’s worth, I can appreciate that this thread must be a nightmare to moderate, given the subject matter. However, to hand down a 2 week ban based solely on the fact that my contribution to the thread wasn’t specifically related to the sport of MMA, is laughable.

It is not my fault that other posters resorted to speculation and name calling. I had one input, and one input only and this was to share a breaking news story which was being reported all over the world.

Thanks.

Steve

The 'news' was celebrity sensationalism. Nothing to do at all with the sport of MMA.

Really not sure what all the above posts about CMG's whiskey have to do with anything?

dulux99

Steve wrote: »

The 'news' was celebrity sensationalism. Nothing to do at all with the sport of MMA.

Really not sure what all the above posts about CMG's whiskey have to do with anything?

The production of whiskey has nothing to do with the sport of MMA.

His boxing event Vs Mayweather had nothing to do with the sport of MMA.

When he was arrested in New York last year it was covered heavily in that thread. Throwing a hand truck through a bus has nothing to do with the sport of MMA.

Even the day before this news (which it is news, let's be honest, it did happen), there was loads of talk in the thread about Paulie Malginaggi fighting Artem Lobov in a bare Knuckle boxing match. Nothing to do with MMA.

If you were to hand out a two week ban in that thread every time someone mentioned something that happens outside the cage then you'd have nobody left. There's a lot of strings to the bow of Conor McGregor and these things naturally will be discussed in the dedicated McGregor thread.

I'd understand if I joined in the gutter talk that presumably followed my post. But I didn't. All I did was report on a factual record of something covered by major news outlets around the world.

Steve

Given that 72% of your total posts are in MMA, and your 2 previous infractions were for posts in that same thread, I don't accept that you were unaware of the posting rules.

I don't see a reason to overturn the mod action.

You may appeal to admin as per DRP rules if you wish.

dulux99

Steve wrote: »

Given that 72% of your total posts are in MMA, and your 2 previous infractions were for posts in that same thread, I don't accept that you were unaware of the posting rules.

I don't see a reason to overturn the mod action.

You may appeal to admin as per DRP rules if you wish.

Going by your logic then, every time anyone posts about anything not directly related to the sport of MMA, a two week ban should be handed out.

I note you don't really address any of my points above.

The posts in the thread have to be specifically about the sport of MMA, except they don't really. They can be about anything from his dad's boat to the bushmills vs Jameson debate.

Steve

dulux99 wrote: »

Going by your logic then, every time anyone posts about anything not directly related to the sport of MMA, a two week ban should be handed out.

No, generally, an escalating regime of sanctions is applied.

I note you don't really address any of my points above.

Agreed, they are not relevant to this dispute.

The posts in the thread have to be specifically about the sport of MMA, except they don't really. They can be about anything from his dad's boat to the bushmills vs Jameson debate.

Posts have to be on-topic. Some leeway is allowed however if a thread turns into an avalanche of stuff not related to the forum then it has to be curtailed.

As I said already, my ruling is that I don't see a reason to overturn the mod decision.

Please indicate if you want an admin to review this.

dulux99

Steve wrote: »

No, generally, an escalating regime of sanctions is applied.


Agreed, they are not relevant to this dispute.


Posts have to be on-topic. Some leeway is allowed however if a thread turns into an avalanche of stuff not related to the forum then it has to be curtailed.

As I said already, my ruling is that I don't see a reason to overturn the mod decision.

Please indicate if you want an admin to review this.

Yes I do want an admin to review.

I'm just struggling to comprehend how you think pages upon pages of a Conor McGregor thread being dedicated to the production of whiskey is fine, however me posting a factual statement regarding his arrest is deemed way too off topic. It's mind boggling. I don't have a problem with these posts by the way, I'm just using them as an example. He's in the whiskey business, therefore there'll be whiskey chat. Hes in the boxing business, there'll be boxing chat. He got arrested, therefore there'll be chat related to the arrest.

It's pretty evident to me that I've not actually been banned for the content of my factual post, I'm instead being blamed for what happened in the thread afterwards. Which was not my doing. I did not light the torch paper of gutter posting which no doubt followed. It's not as if I was the only person that had this information, it was on the Irish times website!

hullaballoo

Hi dulux99, there was a breakdown in the procedure for flagging this for admin review but I will look at this for you now and get back to you within the next few minutes.

hullaballoo

I have reviewed the matter and I am overturning the mod decision here.

I can see both sides to this one - mods have to take a ton when threads spiral out of control but actions that are necessarily retrospective mean it can be extremely difficult to identify the first post that led to the spiralling. I think your post was misidentified.

I would note in particular here though that I am giving you the benefit of the doubt because as an active contributor to the MMA forum, you are doubtlessly aware of the difficulties in modding that forum and that thread in particular.

As such, to tie the threads together, the record of the ban that has now expired anyway, must be read in light of this decision. It is not as neat as I would like but it's inherent in the systems we have in place (both the software and the procedural systems.)

Should the question of your record on the site or the MMA forum ever come into question, this thread is a part of it. It occurs to me that the only way I can formally record this decision is to give you a profile yellow card setting out the outcome and reverse it but I will only do so if it is acceptable to you in light of what I have said.