Banned from politics for "supporting personal abuse"

BonnieSituation

I was banned from Politics for one day for personal abuse.

Now, while I completely agree with banning people for personal abuse, I cannot for the life of me work out how welcoming a poster to the thread - who was usually more of a lurker than a regular poster - was construed by ANYONE as personal abuse.

Here's the "offending" posts:

BonnieSituation wrote:

Caegan wrote:

I know, I've been following this thread and the previous for a while. A direct question looking for an answer from Pete is his cross/garlic/kryptonite.

Glad to see another fellow come out from the shadows.

Now, when I got the ban PM and then originally appealed, I actually thought perhaps someone might have thought I was "abusing" Caegan. But even so...

However, I received the following response from the Mod, Chips Lovell:

Hi Bonnie,
You were supporting another poster in a personal attack. Stick to the topic of the thread when your ban is up and stop taking swipes at other posters.

Thanks

Chips

Below is my response to that clarification:

BonnieSituation wrote:

I absolutely was not. How could that possibly be ascertained from me quoting a first post from a poster and then subsequently welcoming them to the thread.

Since when is quoting a post considered being in full agreement with a post?

I quoted his post and welcomed to the thread. It is absolutely clear that this is the case unless someone was trying to find fault.

Does it not seem a bit of an odd way to get involved in personal abuse?

Is it now incumbent on posters to edit quoted posts or to add qualifiers to them to highlight that they are not in full agreement with the sentiments conveyed?

In all the years I have used this site and other message boards I have never seen this assumption being made before. It is stranfe.

I am completely confused by this weird interpretation.

---

Firstly, how in the name of God is quoting a post and welcoming someone to the thread condoning a "personal" attack?

Secondly, since when is quoting a post at all, considered to be agreeing or supporting a poster.

In all the years of posting on boards and other message boards, never have I seen that as a concept at play, unless perhaps the person saying something like "^^^This^^^" or the more conventional "I agree with your post".

It's bizarre.

I'm flabbergasted that this is the level moderation of Politics has hit. Am I missing something here?

Tokyo

BonnieSituation - as you have already started a dialog with the banning mod, I'll make the Cmods aware of this DRP. I would advise you to take the time to continue discussions with the banning mod, while the Cmods make time to address this.

Faith

Hi BonnieSituation,

I'll look into this for you. Apologies that we've been slow getting to it, but I'd ask that you have just a little more patience while I look into this and get back to you.

Thanks.

Faith

Hi Bonnie,

I've had time to look into this. I understand your confusion at the ban, and I agree with you that it looks like a pretty innocuous post to be banned for. However, what I think is important is the context of the thread, and how your post may be interpreted in light of that. The posts preceding yours had been attacking Outlaw Pete for not answering questions directly. It seems to be a common theme that those threads get sidetracked by disputes between posters, so the moderators have to act frequently to keep things in line.

In the case of your post, given the context of the thread, I think it could be read that you were welcoming a poster because they called out Outlaw Pete. I don't see a pattern of you welcoming posters to threads, so one has to wonder why you chose to welcome Caegan, and quote that specific post to welcome them.

Now, a ban still seems like a strong response to that post, but it occurred in a thread with numerous mod warnings and mod actions, so things are clearly more tightly moderated than in other threads or forums. Also, looking at your record, you'd had 4 cards in Politics and two bans, prior to this one. You've even had an infraction for sarcastic one-liners back in November with a mod note warning you not to do it again. Given that, I think a one-day ban was a reasonable next step in terms of sanctions.

My decision is to uphold the moderator decision in this case, as I believe there was more to your post than it being simply welcoming.

BonnieSituation

Just because it "could" be read that way doesn't mean it should be read that way.

Now we have to have a "history" of welcoming people to threads? Is there an acceptable amount of times that this should be done so this can be deemed a "regular pattern"?

It's outrageous modding and no reasonable interpretation could come to the conclusion that was made.

That you rowed back on your own initial interpretation within your determination says it all really.

That it's on the back of a post to Outlaw Pete is even more galling given I actively ignore his trolling on thread 100% of the time.

Seems taking previous cards and not appealing has counted against me here. Who knew.

Faith

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Just because it "could" be read that way doesn't mean it should be read that way.

That goes both ways, though. You’re claiming it should be read in one way, when it could be read in another.

Now we have to have a "history" of welcoming people to threads? Is there an acceptable amount of times that this should be done so this can be deemed a "regular pattern"?

Nope, that’s not necessary. But you say you were innocently welcoming a new poster to the thread. It’s just mighty odd that you quoted the post where the poster has a go at another poster that you disagree with, especially as there were other posts you could have quoted, or just said “Welcome to the thread” without quoting any post at all.

It's outrageous modding and no reasonable interpretation could come to the conclusion that was made.

That you rowed back on your own initial interpretation within your determination says it all really.

I didn’t “row back”. That would suggest I had made a decision at that point.

Seems taking previous cards and not appealing has counted against me here. Who knew.

As you’ve done here, if you ever feel a sanction is unfair or incorrect, please do feel free to appeal it through conversation with the moderator, and a DRP if that’s unsuccessful.

If you’re unhappy with my decision, you can request an admin review it. Would you like to do that?

BonnieSituation

Faith wrote: »

That goes both ways, though. You’re claiming it should be read in one way, when it could be read in another.



Nope, that’s not necessary. But you say you were innocently welcoming a new poster to the thread. It’s just mighty odd that you quoted the post where the poster has a go at another poster that you disagree with, especially as there were other posts you could have quoted, or just said “Welcome to the thread” without quoting any post at all.



I didn’t “row back”. That would suggest I had made a decision at that point.



As you’ve done here, if you ever feel a sanction is unfair or incorrect, please do feel free to appeal it through conversation with the moderator, and a DRP if that’s unsuccessful.

If you’re unhappy with my decision, you can request an admin review it. Would you like to do that?

Yes I would.

Faith

Sure, I have alerted them to your request.

BonnieSituation

Faith wrote: »

Sure, I have alerted them to your request.

Thank you

Tokyo

I'll review this shortly.

Tokyo

Good evening BonnieSituation,

apologies first of all for taking longer with this than I anticipated - real life obligations delayed me in getting back to you.

Anyhow, to the situation at hand. I took a look over the posts that led to this DRP and I agree with Faith's assessment of the situation and support her decision. Reading through your posts and your previous actions (and yes, past form is considered), it's pretty clear to me that you are a poster who knows the bare minimum required to stay within the rules, and every now and again, your attitude and smartarsery carries you across the line into earning a card. Even as I type this, I see that you have another Politics DRP running concurrent to this, where, and I quote, you are arguing a three day ban for responding to someone else's post with this nugget of advice:

This is such crap.

Seeing as you linked both DRPs together in your other thread, I'm going to do us all a favour and do the same - I'm not wasting any more CMods time on this. the Politics charter is as clear cut as it gets - one of the core tenets being:

High standards of debate and quality posts / threads are required. Repeated one liner, low quality style posts will result in a ban. Threads (and posts) that are not based on serious and legitimate Political discussion will be deleted without warning.

Considering the majority of your warnings, infractions and bans are in the politics forum, there comes a time when one should ask themselves what the common denominator is in all of these situations. It it everybody else, or is it just you?

Both DRPS are being upheld. We're rapidly approaching the point where the you vs. Politics mods standoff is becoming a self cleaning oven, so with that in mind, reconsider how you post in the politics forum, because if you continue to waste mods time any further on this, a permanent ban from the Politics forum seems likely.