Banned for 2 days from Broadcasting

DrPhilG

I posted a comment in the broadcasting section, on a thread about BT sport. I stated (facts) that an Eir Sports rep had told me false information about the details of BT Sport's broadcasting. I also called them dirty liars.

A moderator replied and said that:
1 - Broadband comments had no place in the thread. This I presume was related to some other comments, as I didn't mention broadband.
2 - my comment was completely uncalled for (no reason as to why) and that I was being given a warning.

I replied asking for an explanation as to why I had been warned, and explained that I had only stated facts that were relevant to the thread subject.

I have now been given a 2 day ban for "ignoring a moderator's instructions".

1 - There was NO INSTRUCTION given to me in that initial warning. I was told that my comment was uncalled for (presumably the dirty liars part) and told that I was on a warning but was not told what I was being warned against.

2 - I have since been told (at least it was posted in the thread) that the issue was my claim that the Eir rep lied. The moderator says that they may have simply been mistaken. That's fair enough, although I don't believe it, but if the Mod had stated in that warning "don't make such allegations again" then I'd have known not to repeat the claim about lies. I didn't know this, as I was not told.

Therefore I am challenging the ban based on the fact that it is for ignoring instructions, whereas the fact is I wasn't given any instructions. A simple explanation (as requested) would have sufficed.

Beasty

Have you attempted to resolve this directly with the mod via PM? That's the first step of the DRP

DrPhilG

Beasty wrote: »

Have you attempted to resolve this directly with the mod via PM? That's the first step of the DRP

Well my first request for an explanation of the warning is what resulted in the ban, lol, so he/she doesn't seem open to communication.

I did however send a pm explaining why I felt the ban was unwarranted and that I had opened a dispute. I received a one word reply, "noted".

DrPhilG

Nothing?

Beasty

Apologies for the delay. I've alerted the CMod to this, but if he does not get round to it over the next couple of days or so I'll have a look at your appeal.

Beasty

Just to update. As there has been no response from the CMod I'll take a look at this now.

I will have limited access over the next day or so but will review the ban hopefully over the next couple of days

If I uphold it (and to be clear I have not undertaken any review to date and am certainly not predeterming anything with that comment) you will then have the opportunity to seek a further review by a different Admin if you wish

Beasty

As a first step could you please forward your PM discussion with the mod or post it up here

Thanks

DrPhilG

1 - recieved from mod, 10/7/19 at 20:45
"Dear DrPhilG,

You have been banned from Cable & Digital TV for two 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.

icdg"

DrPhilG

2 - sent by me, 10/7/19 at 21:38
"I've logged a dispute. I presumed that the "discuss with the mod in question" part was finished, as my request for an explanation was met with a ban and info on appealing, but in case they ask me if I've exhausted the communication process, I'll explain.

You didn't give me an instruction. You said my comment was uncalled for and I was on a warning, but only after you banned me did you explain that the accusation of lying was unacceptable and should not be repeated.

Your initial reprimand contained no actual instruction, so I fail to see how I can barred on the grounds of ignoring that non existent instruction."

DrPhilG

3 - received from mod, 10/7/19 at 21:41
"Noted"

Beasty

Well firstly I must say your attempt to engage with the mod was less than half-hearted. You indicate you requested an explanation, but it is very clear you did not request any such explanation via PM.

The idea behind that first step is you should seek any clarification required and if you then consider the sanction inappropriate you should explain to the mod why you consider it inappropriate

I am guessing you actually attempted to engage in-thread based on your quoted PMs, and that is certainly not the way to go about appealing any sanction

Having said that the mod appears to have responded in kind, and I will have a look at this now. For future reference though you must make a genuine attempt to resolve any dispute directly with the mod before starting a thread here

I will now review the posts in question and get back to you later

Beasty

So here is the sequence of posts in question:

DrPhilG wrote: »

Just called Eir to cancel the sports pack, on the basis that I only signed up for UFC content. The lady insisted that BT would now be putting "most of their events" on PPV.

Dirty liars!

icdg wrote: »

Maybe we can dump the rants about Eir losing the channels elsewhere - maybe the eir thread - though the Broadband aspect is entirely off topic in a Broadcasting forum. Also the comment in DrPhilG’s post is completely uncalled for and DrPhilG can take a warning for it

DrPhilG wrote: »

Could I get an explanation, by pm if necessary?

This is a thread in the broadcasting section, about BT Sport.

I was told lies about BT's service by an Eir representative in an attempt to sway my decision on a provider. I don't see how this warrants a warning.

icdg wrote: »

You don’t know that you were told lies or whether the CSR made a genuine mistake. The person concerned isn’t here to defend themselves and in that context I won’t have such serious accusations being thrown around. Incidentally it certainly appears to me that although it might be premature to say that UFC will moving “most” events to PPV, I think they are certainly making a statement that they intend to move the big events in that direction starting UFC 239. It appears to me that a person not fully in the know (and why should they be briefed on a product they won’t be providing after 1st August) might make a genuine mistake if they had heard some of the media reports regarding UFC 239 being on BT Sport Box Office.

That was the reason for the warning, and having repeated it, the reason are now taking a 48 hour ban.

I’d have looked past the wrong thread thing if it were only that. It is the allegation of lies that I am more concerned about.

icdg wrote: »

Just to be clear - *again* - this is not the Eir thread. I don’t see one mention of Sky, Premier Sports, or BT Sport in the post above. In fact I don’t see any mention of anything television related whatsoever

Looking at the timing of your ban it was just after the penultimate post made by the mod above

It is quite clear the mod issued a warning with their first post above. It is also clear they took exception to you referring to Eir as "dirty liars". Now this is an internet forum, where you post anonymously. That is not carte blanche to make such allegations - we are not in any position to verify any of your own comments, and such statements could be considered libelous by the other party. Whether you have a genuine belief on the matter is irrelevant from the site's perspective. Such allegations are unacceptable on this site and therefore the mod warning was entirely appropriate

To be clear though, that was simply an in-thread warning - no card or ban was issued at that time

You then chose to blatantly ignore the mod warning by repeating the allegation of lying - not only that but you chose to challenge the mod in-thread about it. As I have already mentioned the correct avenue to challenge any such mod warning or action is via PM

So what was the mod to do? You very clearly ignored their warnings and took the thread off topic. In the circumstances removing posting privileges for a couple of days seems entirely appropriate to me. It stops you continuing to make such allegations or indeed challenge the mod warning in-thread

I am not seeing any reason to overturn this decision

DrPhilG

Beasty wrote:

Well firstly I must say your attempt to engage with the mod was less than half-hearted

Admittedly I jumped the gun by starting the appeal before contacting the mod by pm. However once I realised this (or maybe I was asked to) I contacted the mod, explained that I had raised a dispute and explained the logic behind my appeal. The mod replied with "Noted".

I'm confused that in that exchange of PMs, it is me who is accused of being half hearted!




On to the issue itself:

The initial warning was part of this post:

icdg wrote:

Maybe we can dump the rants about Eir losing the channels elsewhere - maybe the eir thread - though the Broadband aspect is entirely off topic in a Broadcasting forum. Also the comment in DrPhilG’s post is completely uncalled for and DrPhilG can take a warning for it

The initial part of that post with the instruction not to go off topic, was not directed at me. It was directed at a number of other comments about broadband, which I had not been a part of.

So to suggest that my ban was as a result of ignoring that warning is incorrect. My crime was accusing Eir of lying, not of taking the thread off topic. Those are 2 very distinct issues. Technically my accusation of Eir lying was actually on topic, although I agree in hindsight that it was not provable and should not have been made.


However at the time I had not considered the potential legal ramifications, and thought that icdg was being overly sensitive in my choice of description, "filthy liars". Because I thought that being warned for being gruff was over the top, I asked for an explanation. Should I have asked for that explanation by pm instead? Maybe so. But I didn't. However that again was not the reason I was banned.

If the mod had stated that accusations of lying were unacceptable because Eir are not present in order to defend these accusations, and told not to make such accusations again, then (a) I would not have done so and (b) if I did then I would have fully deserved the ban.

The fact is that I was banned for ignoring an instruction that was not actually given. I was given a vague warning for an "uncalled for" comment, which as I say, I wrongly assumed was the manner of the description, not the accusation of lying so:

Beasty wrote:

That is not carte blanche to make such allegations - we are not in any position to verify any of your own comments, and such statements could be considered libelous by the other party. Whether you have a genuine belief on the matter is irrelevant from the site's perspective. Such allegations are unacceptable on this site

-what you say here, is what should have been said at the time. Clear, concise and beyond ambiguity.

Beasty wrote:

therefore the mod warning was entirely appropriate

A mod warning would have been appropriate, if it had been clearly worded, as yours was. Unfortunately it was not.

Beasty wrote:

So what was the mod to do? You very clearly ignored their warnings and took the thread off topic.

This highlights my point. My ban was not for taking the thread off topic. The off topic warning was directed at people talking about broadband and lost channels. My issue with Eir Sport was nothing to do with broadband or lost channels, it was to do with my claim that Eir were deliberately misleading customers with false information about their rivals. So with all due respect, if even you are misunderstanding the reason for the ban, doesn't that confirm my suggestion that the warning and follow up was vague?


To summarise, perhaps this is a technicality, but the fact is that the specific reason for my ban was "ignoring a mod's instruction". And technically, I was not given any instruction.

I was told that my comment was uncalled for. That is not an instruction. It is a scolding, but there is no instruction about what exactly broke the rules.

*If I had been told not to call anyone liars, then that would have constituted an instruction.
*If I had been told not to post in the thread again, that would have constituted an instruction.

There was no clear instruction, so a ban for ignoring instruction is inaccurate.

DrPhilG

To add, I suspect, by the nature of the blunt "Noted" pm, that isdg is annoyed with me, thinks I'm an ass, etc and this may have played a part in banning me for questioning him/her.

The tone of your last reply (in my opinion) seems to indicate that you feel the same.

However - bans and appeals must be based on objective fact, not subjective opinion.

Beasty

I will focus on one part of the initial mod warning you quoted

Also the comment in DrPhilG’s post is completely uncalled for and DrPhilG can take a warning for it

Did you, or did you not ignore this warning when making further accusations of lying?

DrPhilG

Beasty wrote: »

I will focus on one part of the initial mod warning you quoted



Did you, or did you not ignore this warning when making further accusations of lying?

No. In order to do so, (ignore the warning), I would have needed to have known what exactly the warning was for.

I thought the warning was for the language used, not the accusation itself.

Beasty

Do you think I am stupid? It is very clear what the warning was for - the language used was exactly the accusation

Ban upheld

Please let me know if you wish another Admin to review this

DrPhilG

Beasty wrote: »

Do you think I am stupid? It is very clear what the warning was for - the language used was exactly the accusation

Ban upheld

Please let me know if you wish another Admin to review this

I do wish for another admin to review this.

You still appear to be confused about the reasons for the ban. You are now stating that the language used was the issue. So far you have thought that I was banned for:
1 - going off topic
2 - making repeated accusations of lying
3 - using inappropriate language

When in fact the reason for the ban, the reason stated in the PM, and I quote:

icdg wrote:

You have been banned from Cable & Digital TV for two days for ignoring a moderator's instructions

So it is none of those 3, it is 4 - ignoring a moderator's instructions.

Forget all the rest, forget about your interpretation of what I understood of the warning, forget about what was said, let's look at facts.

I was banned for ignoring an instruction, yet no instruction was given. A warning was given, a vague one, with perhaps an implied instruction, but icdg forgot or didn't bother to actually state a clear instruction.

"DrPhil's comment is uncalled for and he can take a warning for it". What part of that sentence constitutes "an instruction"?

As I said before, this is a black and white situation. Guilt is not apportioned (or at least shouldn't be) on interpretation. It should be based on fact.

The fact is, no specific instruction was made. Therefore to ban me for ignoring that non existent instruction is incorrect.

Ignoring the appeal, and doing so with such contempt and accusing me of thinking you are stupid are not the actions of an impartial and fair adjucator. In fact it reeks of closing ranks and not wanting to side against a moderator.

I await the next stage. Thank you for your time.

Tokyo

Apologies - just spotted the admin request now. I'll take a look at this tomorrow.

DrPhilG

Thanks!

Tokyo

Hi DrPhilG,

I've taken a look at the posts leading up to your card and forum ban, and a couple of things stand out. First, I do think you are being somewhat deliberately obtuse when it comes to your interpretation of events leading up to the ban - a longstanding rule on boards is that mod actions are not questioned in-thread. You were aware that your post had been carded (whether you believed it to be warranted or not is irrelevant), and immediately questioned it in the thread.

DrPhilG wrote: »

I was told lies about BT's service by an Eir representative in an attempt to sway my decision on a provider. I don't see how this warrants a warning.

This is a straight-up actionable offence on Boards, and has been as long as I can remember. In short, there's enough there to warrant the forum ban.

However, that being said, there are a couple of issues here that give me pause. First, both parties could have (and should have) engaged via PM. I'd call that conversation 'the bare minimum', and if so much time hadn't already passed, I'd tell you both to discuss it further. Secondly, there is enough opaqueness on the "broadband" comment to make me think that he original mod warning could have been clearer as to the reason behind it (though that is irrelevant to the follow-up ban).

With that in mind, I'm going to overturn the two-day ban and consider this as being resolved (as the ban has now expired, I'll put a note in your record to state that it was overturned).