[Resolved] Antiskeptic's appeal of CA ban

Spear

This is to start antiskeptic's appeal of a 1 week ban from Current Affairs, based on these (now deleted) posts:

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120233867#Comment_120233867

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120233673#Comment_120233673

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120233640#Comment_120233640

antiskeptic

I entered the 'Russia' thread in Current Affairs /IMHO. The thread deals with the Russia/Ukraine war. I began posting from a non-Western narrative perspective.

For example: in response to the in-thread contention that Russia were suffering enormous casualties, I posted:

"Not sure how (Russian) rolling artillery (attacking), pin point targeting, cutting of supply lines and a host of other activities which cost no losses can't render a defender immobile and incapable of resistance. Such that all there remains is mopping up."

A contrary view to the idea that Ukraine were winning this war.

Having read a number of posts indicating the view that the banned RT (Russia Today) site was nothing but a propaganda site, I posted the view that the BBC is a news organisation engaged in the promulgation of (Western) propaganda.

"They (Russia) use human wave tactics when they have no need to? And your critical evaluation of that notion is what: "The BBC said so"?

-

It is clear I do not hold to the view promoted by Western politicians and Western corporate media.

I form conclusions otherwise, which is my perogative.

-

Beasty carded my posts, racking up points unto a jailing. I queried him via PM:

Me: "Hi Beasty. I have been warned / threadbanned for trolling.

Although I do hold a pro-Russian view (vs the predominantly pro-Ukrainian/NATO view), I can't see where the trolling has occurred.

I expressed the view for instance, that Russia would want to use Bakhmut as a meat grinder to degrade the Ukrainian army for as long as possible. And that appears to have been considered as trolling.

Could you comment on your thinking here?"

Beasty replied: "If you try and defend/excuse the indefensible you face the consequences"

I politely expressed astonishment that a Mod would demand posters adhere to a Mod's personal belief system. I quoted the Mods own expressed view that there are two sides to a story.

Beasty: "Not really - Putin is very clearly a war criminal. Anyone trying to defend him and the atrocities done by his army is not getting oxygen on this site"

Beasty gets this information from somewhere, likely the mainstream Western media and has decided that that information is true. That's his perogative.

But "the Western media says it, I believe it, that settles it" and going on to probibit the expression of other views? That's a bizarre trampling over free speech and my right to conclude other than what Western corporate media/Beasty's sources attempts to have me conclude.

I'd request the ban be removed and that I be allowed to post in the Russia thread.

antiskeptic

Hi there. I appreciate you folk have day jobs but is there any chance of my case being handled?

I just posted in a Current Affairs/IMHO on the Ukrainian refugees thread.

Again, nothing too untoward, aside from my not towing the "plucky Ukraine vs Bad Vlad" narrative

Beasty (same mod on the original issue).has issued warning to me. He's clearly got a low tolerance for any view but the Western narrative view

Spear

I'll give the cmods a nudge on this.

Pawwed Rig

Hi antiskeptic

I can look at this for you. Can you please confirm that you have politely engaged with the mod with a view to resolve as per step 1 of the DRP process?

Can you also send me (or post here) the pm exchange you had with the mod?

antiskeptic

• Hi Pawwed Rig. Thanks for taking the time. Below is the interaction I had with Beasty via PM.
• 
  
• Note: I got a flurry of warnings for 4-5 posts I'd posted in the thread. The posts appeared to have been deleted so I couldn't which post was being referred to by Beasty when I responded to him by PM.
• The text of that post (which you can now see below) only appeared when I pasted the entire chat in this reply box - it wasn't showing up in the PM area itself and when you clicked on the 'view post' button you get a 'post not available message'.
• That's why I sound like I'm.trying to guess what the offending post was that Beasty was referring to.

Cheers..

• 
  
• 
  
• Beasty February 12
• You are being warned for the following post:

• antiskeptic✭✭✭
• Feb 12, 2023

Russia - threadbanned users in OP

• You can't prove anything yourself or weren't you aware of that.
• It's fair enough to point to objective realities like a lying Western media or a war mongering America.
• And that lying Western media has, if late, begun the Big Dump. Dropping Ukraine like **** on their shoe. The news isn't of Ukrainian victory. Not anymore.
• Anyway, who do you think blew up Nordtream? What with Biden promising it and all?
• 
  
• View Post
• 
  
• 
  
• Pretty much every post you have made on this thread is blatant trolling

• antiskeptic February 13
• Hi Beasty. I have been warned / threadbanned for trolling. Although I do hold a pro-Russian view (vs the predominantly pro-Ukrainian/NATO view), I can't see where the trolling has occurred.
• I expressed the view for instance, that Russia would want to use Bakhmut as a meat grinder to degrade the Ukrainian army for as long as possible. And that appears to have been considered as trolling.
• 
  
• Could you comment on your thinking here?

• antiskeptic February 13
• Apols for querying your decision twice - I'm not familiar with the PM system on Boards these days

• Beasty February 13
• If you try and defend/excuse the indefensible you face the consequences

• antiskeptic February 13
• My more regular haunt would be the Christian and Atheist forums. Adherents of each persuasion down there would say the other side is attempting to defend the indefensible. But neither would dream of banning someone for holding the view they hold. They recognize that theirs is a belief system and that all are entitled to hold and express their beliefs.
• Are you telling me that you preside over a forum where, unless you agree that the narrative promoted by Western politicians /mainstream media is true (plucky, sovereign Ukraine vs Big Bad Vlad), the moderator will silence you? That there is no belief system but the mods.
• If so then I'd be obliged if you could point me to the appropriate mechanism whereby I can seek to have such a bizarre policy overturned.

• antiskeptic February 13
• [Quote=Beasty in another thread]
• Please remember to stay civil - there are two sides to this debate and just because someone disagrees with you does not make that other person or indeed you a troll.[/quote]
• Are there two sides in the Russia/Ukraine war debate?

• Beasty February 13
• Not really - Putin is very clearly a war criminal. Anyone trying to defend him and the atrocities done by his army is not getting oxygen on this site

Add a Message

Pawwed Rig

Hi antiskeptic

Thank you for your patience.

I have read a good deal of your contribution to the thread including the deleted posts. In general I find your manner of posting to be distasteful verging on offensive in that you seem to see the events unfolding in Ukraine as just another topic on which to score points against other posters. Additionally you seem to find mirth in some of the reports of the conflict that show a disassociation and a lack of empathy from what are the horrific realities of war.

Your posting manner was winding up other posters and after reading your posts I can see why. This may or may not have been your intent. If it was your intent then it is obvious trolling and the actions by Beasty were warranted. If it was not your intent then you really need to educate yourself on the the damage that war inflicts on both the aggressors and defenders. Again the the actions by Beasty were warranted.

I would suggest that you stay away from threads relating to the conflict or you will incur more mod responses.

antiskeptic

Hi Pawwed Rig,

Many thanks for getting back to me.

"I have read a good deal of your contribution to the thread including the deleted posts. In general I find your manner of posting to be distasteful verging on offensive in that you seem to see the events unfolding in Ukraine as just another topic on which to score points against other posters. Additionally you seem to find mirth in some of the reports of the conflict that show a disassociation and a lack of empathy from what are the horrific realities of war."

The issue here is my being banned from the thread. In order for that banning to sustain itself, my behaviour in thread would have to have been outside "the normal standard" by a degree.

Now, I don't know if you've perused the thread, but if you were to you would regularly come across the likes of this:

• "I think he's having a break from here, and is on the dark web looking to link with other fans of the bestiality that he seems to obsessed with."
• 
  
• "He sits at the computer in a dark room, no pants, rubbing his hairy nipples to all the attention he gets."
• 
  
• "Intel factories Leixlip. Knock Airport Shannon fuel depots Certain Data centres.Haulboline, The offshore data cables with NUCLEAR SEA MINES!! (antiskeptic comments: this is a response to what might be legitimate military targets in Ireland)"

One pro-Ukrainian poster's response to Putin's speech on the "decadent west" and another poster's reporting that Spain recently legalised bestiality was: "Bestiality, bring it on".

Charming!

In short, the thread is awash with people scoring points off each. Indeed, mirth and digs seems to be one of its central features. Whilst there are more serious analytical /discussion type posts there, empathy and the fullest appreciation of the horror that is war .. doesn't exactly abound.

You appear to be holding me to a far higher standard than is generally operating in the thread.

Here are a number of my posts in thread - some retrieved from folks quoting me. I've commented on them in bold.

• "It would be, if it were true. They can rocket the crap out of Ukrainian position, or artillery or airstrike, or missile. Yet they charge machine gun nests.(?) Sense check that." [Simple challenge to a claim made.]
• 
  
• "Where are western fighters in significant numbers going to come from? As the man says, you could fit the entire armed forces of the UK in to Villa Park and still have thousands of seats left over. There will be no air superiority for Ukr becausee there is no way to enable that - Nato isn't going to war with Russia." [Ditto the above - no trolling, no disrespecting the horror of war]
• 
  
• "The numbers of tanks being talked about will enable a armed brigade or two - enough to attack a 30 mile stretch of front. The front is 1000 miles long. Leave aside the fact that for every hour of operation, tanks need 3 hours of maintenance. Gearbox goes and it's shuttle the broken down tank back to Poland for repair. Really?" [Again, simple analytics to counter a claim made]
• 
  
• "Ukraine are done, apart from the last juices that can be wrung out of it by the US." [Opinion/assertion/conclusion of my analysis. Not exactly a crime]
• 
  
• "It'll last as long as Ukraine are prepared to keep loading meat into the hamburger machine. This is gold for Russia. Every other front opens up the more strength is redirected to Bakhmut". [ simple analytics. Meat grinder is a term regularily used in the mainstream media]
• "it like Normandy. There was virtually nothing there in terms of German forces bar the wounded, the shell shocked and the aged by the time the Allies landed. The Eastern front had bled Germany dry. One might think the Western allies bided their time for precisely that."[no trolling or disrespect]
• 
  
• "Whenever I put anything in with an RT tag it won't load. What, aside from the fact that you don't like his source of information any more than he likes yours positions you in prime position as to what mods should do? Can we label you a US troll?" [ simple challenge - no one can simply assert their source objective and honest and take that as a given]
• 
  
• "For what its worth, I'm praying that the US gets its ass handed to it in a sling yet again.[the US has lost a lot of wars. That I express my hope that here again they will lose is as much my perogative as is the expression of those in thread who hope Ukraine "wins"]
• 
  
• "But not quite so prescient as to "correctly predicted how Russia would loose a war with Ukraine." Russia hasn't lost the war with Ukraine (not to speak of not having a hope of winning it) such as to make the prediction correct".[No attempt to offend, no trolling]
• 
  
• "What is a Ukrainian win btw? For me, a Russian victory is the taking of Donbass, Odessa and the landlocking of Ukraine. allied with the unconditional surrender of Kiev and the fall of the US government there'. [simple statement of what I consider a Russian victory to entail]
• 
  
• "Suffice to say, the world needs the US to loose" [I am entitled to hold the view that the US is a malign influence in the world]
• 
  
• "What is that cargo? Looks like M113 aluminium coffins but maybe it's something else?" [M113's are Vietnam era vehicles with aluminium armour. That renders them coffins in Ukraine. Statement of fact as I ask a question]
• 
  
• "Why would Russia attack in human waves when it can simply pound Ukraine from the comfort of mile away. By all means believe someone telling you that, but it doesn't make a lick of sense. Indeed, it's almost as if you've been reading a caricature website or something. Like: thick Ruskkies with commanders who couldn't give a rats ass about their assets." [It's accepted in the West that Russian has a (artillery) tube advantage ranging 6:1 to 10:1. Indeed, the scrabble around for Soviet-era ammo because Ukraine is running is in the news this very day. It makes no sense that in an artillery-driven war, Russia would resort to human wave tactics. The post is a simple analytical challenging of a nonsensical assertion]
• 
  
• "Except for the fact they are all rootin for the US side, that's a wonderful selection. The Guardian? BBC too?" [Sure, a tad sarcastic, but atypical of my posting. The point is to challenge folk as to where they get their narrative. Which is fine - given I am responding in like fashion to those supposing RT to be propaganda]
• 
  
• "Could I ask you, in all seriousness: are you taking the BBC to be a creditable source for information?" [ An absolutely fair enough question aimed at someone who baldly claims RT and Sputnik lack credibility]

The above represents my posting. Notwithstanding a barb here or there, the posting is largely focused on the mechanics of the conflict. There is no trolling and certainly nothing that doesn't abound in-thread from folk who don't engage at all in the analytical. It aims to challenge pro-Ukrainian narratives with my view of the situation on the ground. That's all.

"Your posting manner was winding up other posters and after reading your posts I can see why. This may or may not have been your intent. If it was your intent then it is obvious trolling and the actions by Beasty were warranted. If it was not your intent then you really need to educate yourself on the the damage that war inflicts on both the aggressors and defenders. Again the the actions by Beasty were warranted."

I am more than aware of the damage war inflicts having a lifetime interest in the matter of war. The only winding up I can see from my posting is my holding a pro-Russian view. Which brings me to my next point.

You seemed to have overlooked (and so I remind you) that Beasty twice expressed as to his actual issue with my posting. To wit: that "no air" would be given to someone who defended the war criminal Putin and the war crime guilty Russian army.

Simply put: expressing a pro-Russian view - even if it talks about Russian military advantage or tactics - defends a war criminal man/army. And that view simply won't be heard on here if Beasty has anything to do with it.

This renders the charge of trolling but a canard, a mask, a cover ... for the actual reason Beasty acted as he did.

The words of his own lips ought not be dismissed lightly.

And what about you? Well there is this...

"I would suggest that you stay away from threads relating to the conflict or you will incur more mod responses."

This last statement strikes me as both unusual and highly suspect. The normal course in disciplinary matters is for the person to be warned off an undesirable behaviour ... not warned from ever posting in-thread again. "Will incur" sounds distinctly like "don't post..or else".

Between your words and Beasty's words, one could be forgiven for suspecting that the actual issue is my pro-Russian stance (better said: anti-American stance, I'm under no illusions that Putin is a sweet man).

To assuage against that possibility and in the interests of fair play, you might help frame the issue. It wouldn't take more than a couple of minutes.

There are a dozen or so posts of mine above. Could you highlight the ones which you believe involve trolling (perhaps underlining the trolling bit if trolling represents but a fraction of the post). Then I would:

a) know where the standard for my subsequent posting in the "Russian" thread is to be set. For I certainly intend to post there when my ban expires / is removed.

b) monitor whether others are holding / being held to the same standard as set for me.

It may be that the above posts don't represent a problem and that it's other posts (deleted one perhaps) that are the problem. In which case I will consider myself adequately warned and stick to the above style.

However, if it is simply the case that a pro-Russian view is banned on this forum then you might do me the pleasure of just saying so? If there is a route for escalating then I will make an approach there.

Thank you for the time and effort put into my case.

antiskeptic

Edit to clarify, correct typos, etc.

Pawwed Rig

You can appeal to admin if you do not accept my decision on it. Please advise

antiskeptic

Yes, an appeal to Admin, thanks.

hullaballoo

Hi antiskeptic

I have reviewed this and I am satisfied the mod interventions were proportionate and appropriate. I would also reiterate the point that PR makes about staying away from threads on the conflict in general. I would add that you need to think about how your posts land with others reading them because that's where the trolling bit comes into the picture. I'd be skeptical that it's unintentional but I'm not reviewing that.

Since this brings the issue to a close I'm closing this.