CA warning/threadban dispute

KyussB

I've discussed this over PM with Necro, and want to dispute a warning and threadban on CA.

What it boils down to is that the mods think I was trolling, specifically (see PM) that I did not believe what I was posting and that it was aimed to provoke rather than present my opinion - and I disagree with that, everything I posted was what I believe, and if anything it was to specifically assert a fact that the Irish Times had written - I wasn't seeking to get a reaction from anyone.

Here's the direct copy of the PM thread:

Necro wrote:

KyussB wrote:

Necro wrote:

KyussB wrote:

Necro wrote:

KyussB wrote:

Necro wrote:

Dear KyussB,

You have been warned for Trolling.

This means you are posting in an intentionally provocative fashion in order to gain a reaction from other members. This is disruptive and causes stress to other members.
We don't want that here.

For more information please refer to the Boards.ie FAQ.



Necro

Moderator Note

Enough of this, don't post in this thread again

Your post:

KyussB wrote: »

Donald Trump wrote: »

Jesus fucking Christ.


When an out of control lunatic is lunging at you and swinging a machete at your head, you don't have the comfort of having options to choose from.

Except the newspaper of record says the police shot first, before he lunged.

I've deleted my posts after the warned post. Excuse not noticing the warning straight away - the thread was moving too fast.

Here is what the Irish Times says:

A gunshot can be heard before the man in blue is seen swinging his arm towards the officers.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/video-of-fatal-garda-shooting-of-man-in-front-garden-of-dublin-house-to-be-examined-1.4447683?mode=amp

It is a fact that the Irish Times says that there was a gunshot before the person lunged at the police. There is no justification for threadbanning me for pointing to that - it's what the newspaper says.

Can you please either lift of clarify the threadban, given that?

The thread is moving fast so no worries there.

The threadban is for overall conduct I'm afraid, you were winding posters up to the last with your posts.

It wasn't my intention to wind posters up at all - I was intending to assert what the Irish Times had written, as I believe a lot of false information is being spread about the shooting.

A problem I frequently have with moderation, is that I get hit with a warning for posting factual information - and then when I back up that factual information with proof, moderators fall back to unspecified general reasons for the warning (in this case, overall conduct).

If my factual/Irish-Times-backed posts about the gunshot timing are not the reason for my threadban and warning, can I please be given a more specific reason than overall conduct?

It's only fair that I be given a reason specific enough, that I'm able to understand and challenge it if I disagree (DRP does not help me do this - because the reason given for my threadban is too general that I don't know what it is at the moment).

It's my view you were trolling the thread which is the reason for your threadban.

If you feel this is incorrect you can use the Help Desk to challenge this, or DRP for the yellow card.

Regards,

Necro

Does that mean you think I did not believe the opinions I was posting, and that my posts were made with the intention to provoke other posters, instead of to present my genuine opinion? And that that's the reason for the warning/threadban?

Just want to seek clarification of that - and will take up anything else in Help Desk and DRP. I can guarantee that I only ever present my genuine opinion on stuff, here.

Thanks.

That's it in a nutshell, yes

If the end result was my posts were more provoking than constructive, that wasn't intentional - and I don't think it's fair for the mods to paint that as intentional and bad faith, when what I'm posting is my real view/opinion. The warning/threadban is specifically based on this bad-faith angle as well - so it would be wrong to uphold that, by switching to saying it was merely disrputive - and therefore is warranted.

When dealing with mods comaplints, stuff gets walked-back like that while still upholding the mod action, far too often.

Beasty

I'll let the CMods know

ancapailldorcha

Hi KyussB,

I will look into this for you. Please bear with me.

KyussB

My report on the Feedback post there now, is probably relevant, too - suggest comparing it against reports that instigated mod action against me.

ancapailldorcha

Hi KyussB,

I've had a chance to look into this for you.

That thread has, in the space of 2 days hit 3,000 or so posts. Threads like this are a challenge to moderate. Posts such as the below (notwithstanding edits) aren't helpful and I can see why you were threadbanned.

No you're right, the guards are completely defenseless and have no training or defensive equipment at their disposal - they're as vulnerable as babies!

They tried a total of two non-lethal options, and decide "**** it, lets shoot him..." - when he is nowhere near any civilians??!

Not exactly exhausting their options there, are they?

From the tone of these posts, I think I have to concur with Necro's assessment and uphold the threadban. Events such as the one described in this thread can elicit heated reactions from posts due to their nature and your style of posting only served to inflame tensions here.

Please let me know if you would like to escalate to an admin review and I will flag it for you.

KyussB

In the first post you quote, that is in reply to someone who replied to me facetiously - I even edited my post to note that for DRP review here:

PearseCork92 wrote: »

What do to want a Garda to do? Tickle him until he drops the machete?

No you're right, the guards are completely defenseless and have no training or defensive equipment at their disposal - they're as vulnerable as babies!

EDIT: Edit to add for DRP review, that this is intended to be as facetious as the post I'm replying to - where the OP facetiously suggests tickling the attacker...

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=115759415

In the second quoted post, I am pointing out the there are more than a total of 2 non-lethal options availabe to the police, and that he's not anywhere near civilians when they shoot - both of which are true.

Facetiousness in reply to a facetious post, and pointing out facts with a 'tone' (where I'm pointing out there are more than 2 non-lethal methods) - are not worthy of a threadban and warning.

These are the stages mods have gone in walking back and shifting their justifications for this threadban and warning:
1: Mods cite the fact I posted, of the newspaper of record (Irish Times) stating the police fired shots first, as part of the reason for my ban - then dropped that and haven't referred to it again.

2: The mod in question says I was trolling, specifically says that I did not believe what I was posting, and that I was seeking to provoke rather than present my actual view/opinion - now this has been discarded, and the mod action upheld by shifting to discussion of my 'tone'. There is no acknolwedgment from mods that everything I have posted, is a genuine view of mine - and that this is very clear from my posts.

3: The last remaining argument mods are using against me, is my 'tone'. This is not a part of the mod warning or threadban PM? I was specifically accused of presenting opinions I did not believe, in order to provoke other posters. This 'tone' argument is a new accusation, introduced now in the DRP thread. There is no rule on Boards against replying to a facetious comment, with an obviously facetious reply - the thread is full of such replies. There is no rule on Boards, against making a factual post, with a 'tone' that makes light of the absurdity of what you're replying to.

If Boards can action people for 'tone' alone - then that's a completely arbitrary standard which can be used to stitch people up for virtually anything.

So yes, I'd like to have an admin review on this.

Beasty

I've had a look at this and concur with the CMod. And it's content as well as "tone" that has resulted in these sanctions

I am not one for searching out videos of this particular incident, but U have followed that thread very closely (as well as a similar one that I closed in the Dublin City forum)

It is clear to me you took a contrary view of the action of the Guards in this case with absolutely no basis for doing so. Indeed there appears to be plenty of evidence out there that fully supports their actions. By taking that view you were trolling. You knew you would get reactions, and that's exactly what happened

I am upholding both card and threadban

KyussB

There are thus far 2 Irish Times story's which back my view of the sequence of events.

Is repeating what a newspaper says contrarian and ban worthy?

A gunshot can be heard before the man in blue is seen swinging his arm towards the officers

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/video-of-fatal-garda-shooting-of-man-in-front-garden-of-dublin-house-to-be-examined-1.4447683?mode=amp

A gunshot can be heard before the man in blue is seen swinging his arm towards the officers.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/garda-ombudsman-to-investigate-shooting-dead-of-man-by-garda%C3%AD-in-co-dublin-1.4447470

You are upholding a threadban and warning on me for citing a reported fact.

I don't know yet the full sequence of events, to know if the guards followed proper procedure all the way through - but I do believe very high scrutiny and public questioning is required - and that you and other mods are allowed falsehoods contrary to the above facts, to be spread in those threads - among others - and have removed me partially for pointing out the facts (in among warping around other excuses for it).

Beasty

marking resolved