Banned from broadband

dub45

I have been banned from the broadband forum for a week by the administrator.

The post that triggered the ban is as followss:


'Surely it would be in Smart's own interest as much as anyone else's to
clear up this fudge at the start? What is wrong with removing the 'no
monthly limits' claim and stating something to the effect that Smart do not
with to impose a cap at this stage and in the light of usage/experience will
give users definite download guidelines after say three months of the
product launch. (and in the meantime they reserve the right etc etc). If
they do not do something like that I cannot see how they can come out on the
right side of this particular aspect of the product''

I have been critical of Smart since the launch of the product because I
consider that they have not thought out certain issues carefully.

I do not think that being critical of a company in measured terms should
result in being banned.

It is my view that the moderator is allowing his own prejudices in favour of
Smart to cloud his judgement and I wish to formally protest about this.

Surely boards is about free speech within acceptable limits and that free
speech should not be at the whim of a moderator and his or her prejudices.

Dub45

Below is my correspondence with the moderator:


''Originally Posted by Moriarty

You've been banned from broadband for a week along with a bunch of other people for acting the plonker.

If I forget to remove the ban after a week feel free to PM me about it.''


My reply:

I really feel at this stage that you are acting as a censor. There is absolutley nothing wrong with my last post and I would be grateful if you would tell me what exactly is wrong with it? I made a constructive suggestion as to how Smart can save themselves from what will inevitably turn out to be a serious situation for them and you consider that reason to ban someone. You are letting your own prejudices cloud your judgement.''



Moderator's reply:

"It wasn't your last post, it was the sum of all your posts over the past week or more. I didn't have time to do much then, but I do now. If you don't agree with me, you can take it to feedback and appeal to the admins.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go waste another half hour deleting useless posts."

Moriarty

dub45 wrote:

I have been banned from the broadband forum for a week by the administrator.

The post that triggered the ban is as followss:


'Surely it would be in Smart's own interest as much as anyone else's to
clear up this fudge at the start? What is wrong with removing the 'no
monthly limits' claim and stating something to the effect that Smart do not
with to impose a cap at this stage and in the light of usage/experience will
give users definite download guidelines after say three months of the
product launch. (and in the meantime they reserve the right etc etc). If
they do not do something like that I cannot see how they can come out on the
right side of this particular aspect of the product''

I have been critical of Smart since the launch of the product because I
consider that they have not thought out certain issues carefully.

I do not think that being critical of a company in measured terms should
result in being banned.

It is my view that the moderator is allowing his own prejudices in favour of
Smart to cloud his judgement and I wish to formally protest about this.

Surely boards is about free speech within acceptable limits and that free
speech should not be at the whim of a moderator and his or her prejudices.

Dub45

It wasn't for that post and you know it full well, because I just told you it wasn't in a PM that you've read. It was due to your attitude over the past week or more. You're among one of six people that I've just banned for a week, for similar crap.

dub45

Moriarty wrote:

It wasn't for that post and you know it full well, because I just told you it wasn't in a PM that you've read. It was due to your attitude over the past week or more. You're among one of six people that I've just banned for a week, for similar crap.

I was editing my post as you wrote. Again you are revealing your own prejudices in your reply and your 'intemperate' language.

Moriarty

dub45 wrote:

I was editing my post as you wrote. Again you are revealing your own prejudices in your reply and your 'intemperate' language.

Yes. My prejudices against stupid people.

Boston

It's an achievement to be banned from broadband. Also Moriarty is to bloody old to have his jugement impair by the new kids on the block. He's seen the likes of smart at least four times in the past, As have I.

ecksor

Link the thread.

Moriarty

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=224613 (It's rather long as you may notice). I'm in the middle of splitting a load of posts off into another thread that'll be left in the bb forum aswell, in an impossible attempt to keep the first thread vaguely useful.

ecksor

Ok, since you felt the need to post this AND send it to us via e-mail you've been deemed a spammy git until proved otherwise.

Boston

He was abite quick off the mark, kinda suggests he was expecting a ban.

ecksor

I've read about 20 dub45 posts on that thread now and my eyes are starting to hurt.

Boston

well there's only bannage for it now. Go to work ecksor, ban him, ba him where it hurts.

ecksor

dub45 wrote:

Surely boards is about free speech within acceptable limits and that freespeech should not be at the whim of a moderator and his or her prejudices.

I have only picked out your posts to read rather than going through the entire thread, but it appears that none of your posts were individually too bad but taken together it is kindof a broken record and potentially disruptive. "within acceptable limits" (not a bad phrase), free speech is a reasonable approximation of what we sometimes offer to most people on certain forums[*], however it may sometimes be deemed necessary by a moderator to curtail some people's ability to exercise that privilege if it appears that it's acting to the detriment of others getting their point across or the development of the thread.


[*] hopefully that's vague enough not to be used against me the next time I point out that nobody really has free speech here.

dub45

ecksor wrote:

I have only picked out your posts to read rather than going through the entire thread, but it appears that none of your posts were individually too bad but taken together it is kindof a broken record and potentially disruptive. "within acceptable limits" (not a bad phrase), free speech is a reasonable approximation of what we sometimes offer to most people on certain forums[*], however it may sometimes be deemed necessary by a moderator to curtail some people's ability to exercise that privilege if it appears that it's acting to the detriment of others getting their point across or the development of the thread.


[*] hopefully that's vague enough not to be used against me the next time I point out that nobody really has free speech here.

I accept of course that some of my posts reiterated the same points but if you listened solelyto the contributions of anyone engaged in a long conversation over broadly the same topic with new people constantly entering the conversation then of course the points are going to be made again as the issues are raised again.

You mention ''potentially disruptive'' and ''acting to the detriment of others getting their point across'' I dont think any of my posts were either potentially disruptive or detrimental to anyone getting their point across'' but that of course is a matter of opinion.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

dub45

Mercury_Tilt wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Voice No 1 "that book should definietly be banned!!!!"

Voice No 2 " Have you read it?"

Voice No 1 'Certainly not! I dont need to read it to know it should be banned!!!

And just so as you know:

I did not request more bandwidth or greater uploads or ask technical questions.

WizZard

No but your posts were a pain to read through. "Want it all" is a great phrase for describing some if the posters on that thread. Admittedly there are some 'holes' in Smarts plans, but berating them will only make them want to ignore you. Garfield seems to have taken on at least some of the ideas that people have posted, but he's the Product Manager, he has to report to others higher up. For now they see it to be more economically viable to offer the current product. Who knows what they may offer in a couple of months, thanks to our input? But annoying them now is more more of an incentive for them to kick people off their service for 'abusing' it.
ecksor's post above is similar to what Smart are saying, ie. we allow a certain amount of usage (maybe heavy-ish) but if you start taking the p*ss then they will pull you on it. Just like what Moriarty/ecksor has done to you dub45, free speech on boards is ok when you don't abuse the privilege and/or other posters.

My 2c

Steve S

I was banned, apparently for my first post in that same thread.

I can't look at it now (because I'm banned), but if memory serves, this was a post where I went to the trouble of looking at some French ISPs' sites and providing a summary of the services on offer as a point of comparison with the Smart offering.

Again, if memory serves, the first person to respond to my post was Moriarty himself in order to disagree, saying I wasn't comparing like with like (I was, in at least one instance, but that's another matter).

So I'm supposed to believe that the post was worth a substantive response from the mod but also merited a week's banning from that same mod?

This is arbitrary and capricious behaviour worthy of some unstable tinhorn sheriff.

I insist that I, along with dub45, be reinstated now.

ecksor

Good post, apart from the last line which kinda makes me want to ignore you.

Steve S

By the way, Moriarty is playing the same game with me in PMs that he's playing with dub45, alternately claiming I was banned for the 'sum of [my] posts' and that it was the first post that got me banned.

Remind you of any 3rd-world regimes?

ecksor

Yeah, I PMed Robert Mugabe last year after he banned me unfairly and I felt I didn't get a fair hearing.

Steve S

ecksor wrote:

Yeah, I PMed Robert Mugabe last year after he banned me unfairly and I felt I didn't get a fair hearing.

Funny!

Moriarty

Steve S, please stop contorting what I said. I explictly said that your first post was OK and that it was your following posts that got you the ban. Infact, for all those that are enjoying a good read, here's the full PM conversation, split into two to make it slightly easier to follow..

Steve S wrote:

Moriarty wrote:

Steve S wrote:

Moriarty wrote:

Steve S wrote:

Moriarty wrote:

You've been banned from broadband for a week along with a bunch of other people for acting the plonker.

If I forget to remove the ban after a week feel free to PM me about it.

Sorry but what are you talking about?

What rule am I supposed to have violated?

Steve

It was the sum of all your posts over the past week or more that tipped you over the edge in terms of being more of a liability than an asset to discussion. I didn't have time to do much then, but I do now. If you don't agree with me, you can take it to feedback and appeal to the admins.

That's ridiculous! My posts were informative and on topic. One of the ones you erased had interesting information about broadband offerings in France. As I read French, I was able to translate for the benefit of those who don't the terms and conditions on French providers.

I won't be appealing this because it's not worth the energy. But you really ought to be just a little more circumspect about the way you wield your power. I did nothing wrong and your decision is both arbitrary and capricious. I invite you to reread my posts (if you have a way of doing that once you've censored them). There was nothing wrong in them: nothing insulting, nothing off-topic and plenty of information.

I really am appalled by this, I must say. I almost wonder if you haven't mistaken me for someone else.

Your posts weren't deleted, they were moved to this thread. I don't go around banning people for the fun of it, as I have better things to be doing with my time - infact, I've given temporary bans to less than 20 people in the past year.

Your first post (in the seperated caps thread) was ok, but the rest of them descended into toy/pram/ejection moans.

You'll be unbanned next friday.

First it was the 'sum of all my posts' now it's apparently just one. One that, conveniently, I can't read because I'm banned from the forum.

Apparently, you do ban people, perhaps not for the fun of it but just to feel like a big man. Basically 50% of the posts I've seen from you are threatening to ban this or censor that. OK, well, I hope you've had your fun Mr Tijuana Border guard.

I'll remember this.

Steve S wrote:

Moriarty wrote:

Steve S wrote:

First it was the 'sum of all my posts' now it's apparently just one. One that, conveniently, I can't read because I'm banned from the forum.

That's not what I said, go and re-read the previous PM.

Steve S wrote:

Apparently, you do ban people, perhaps not for the fun of it but just to feel like a big man. Basically 50% of the posts I've seen from you are threatening to ban this or censor that. OK, well, I hope you've had your fun Mr Tijuana Border guard.

I'll remember this.

ahahahahahaha

Pinochet couldn't have said it better. Enjoy your power trip, little man.

Speachless I am. Well ok, almost.

WizZard

That should be in the humour board Moriarty!

sceptre

Steve S wrote:

This is arbitrary and capricious behaviour worthy of some unstable tinhorn sheriff.

I insist that I, along with dub45, be reinstated now.

I thought you said "I won't be appealing this because it's not worth the energy".

mad m

@Moriarty

Labour of love it is,dont know where you get the time!!!

Ah those pm's should be like Mission Impossible,once read they will self-destruct in ten seconds.No evidence.

ecksor

That could be arranged.

Sponge Bob

ecksor wrote:

That could be arranged.

If you pay for it

Moriarty

Steve S wrote:

Oh, you don't like people distorting (that's the word, not 'contorting,' pinhead) what you say?

Well, too ****in' bad, pal. I don't appreciate being banned just because you weren't able to get your boyfriend's dick hard this morning.

Yes, yes indeed.


fucking rofl

ecksor

Steve S banned from System category.

Sherifu

Steve S wrote:

Oh, you don't like people distorting (that's the word, not 'contorting,' pinhead) what you say?
Well, too ****in' bad, pal. I don't appreciate being banned just because you weren't able to get your boyfriend's dick hard this morning.

Boston

steve wrote:

Oh, you don't like people distorting (that's the word, not 'contorting,' pinhead) what you say?

Well, too ****in' bad, pal. I don't appreciate being banned just because you weren't able to get your boyfriend's dick hard this morning.

Ridiculous, Moriarty always get moi hard.

Infini

Uh, some things are best left untold,mate...

Boston

Infini wrote:

Uh, some things are best left untold,mate...

I'm wearing no underwear

CiaranC

Ive been banned also. What fun.

Amusingly, the individual who started calling people Morons is seemingly not banned, and continues to flame happily away.

Presumably because he is a mate of this ban-happy Moderator or something.

ecksor

Amusingly, I'm ignoring that until you provide a link to the offending posts.

CiaranC

That sounds like a job for a, you know, moderator.

What doesnt sound like the job of a moderator is banning everyone who takes up a particular side of opinion in a discussion, regardless of their conduct.

ecksor

CiaranC wrote:

That sounds like a job for a, you know, moderator.

The moderator isn't the one complaining, you are, therefore it's up to you to make your case.

CiaranC

I dont care enough to "make a case".

If such nonsense from moderators is acceptable behaviour, then I'll go and post somewhere with a less retarded usage policy.

Gosh

Moriarty wrote:

Yes, yes indeed.


fucking rofl

Anybody going to "moderate" on this ?


From this ...

Steve S wrote:

Funny!

To this ...

ecksor wrote:

Steve S banned from System category.

Banned for what ? Did I miss something ?


Here's another example I can't uderstand ...

13-Jan-2005 19:00

Moriarty wrote:

Can we update this, can we move that, can we pay for this, can you kill that.. demanding bunch aren't you.

I intended to do it months ago but never really seemed to get around to it. I'll probably start on it piece by piece over the next few days/weeks.

15-Jan-2005 16:20

Infini wrote:

Somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bed.....

15-Jan-2005 16:33

Moriarty wrote:

Dunno about thursday, but you're right today.

Infini banned for a week.

Moriarty - " My patience for humanity is dwindling. " Is this really a good signature for a Moderator ?

ecksor = "Today's word is ... quit"

Come on guys, it's about you moved on and somebody closed this thread !!

ecksor

Gosh wrote:

Anybody going to "moderate" on this ?

Hm?

Banned for what ? Did I miss something ?

You missed the post that got deleted.

ecksor = "Today's word is ... quit"

You have a problem with my signature?

Boston

If you can't see why steve was banned from system, then your a tool.

ecksor

CiaranC wrote:

I dont care enough to "make a case".

That's fine, I just wanted to be clear in case you felt you were making a case and wondering why I was ignoring it.

Gosh

ecksor wrote:

You missed the post that got deleted.

You have a problem with my signature?

When reading the thread it looks like "arbitrary" banning when a post is deleted without reference to it.

No - I don't have a problem with your signature ... but some people don't know when to ....

ecksor

There was at least one reference to the offending post on this thread when I banned him. I think there was two. I can still see at least one anyway.

Boston

3 references actually, hard to miss infact. infact he quoted the post by moriarty referencing it. Sound abit trollest to me, better ban him to be on the safe side.

Gosh

ecksor wrote:

There was at least one reference to the offending post on this thread when I banned him. I think there was two. I can still see at least one anyway.

I can see the reference - but if you remove an offending post then you should make sure it can't be quoted verbatim

Boston wrote:

If you can't see why steve was banned from system, then your a tool.

The "offending posts" were removed but continued to be quoted - what's the point of removing them and continuing to quote them - you can't have it both ways

Boston wrote:

well there's only bannage for it now. Go to work ecksor, ban him, ba him where it hurts.

Boston wrote:

3 references actually, hard to miss infact. infact he quoted the post by moriarty referencing it. Sound abit trollest to me, better ban him to be on the safe side.

2 acts of encitement in one thread ...

Think I'll stay out of this cat-fight ... enjoy yourselves ...

Infini

Gosh wrote:

Think I'll stay out of this cat-fight ... enjoy yourselves ...

When a legit argument becomes a back-alley bitch-slapping contest it's better to just run like hell mate.

ecksor

Aye, Boston is kinda my special pet, so there's some preferential treatment there. Sorry about that. I have banned him from this forum many times before though and I don't ban anyone else based on his comments.

Moriarty

Gosh, Steve S deleted his own post a few minutes after posting it.

Seemingly he chickened out.

Boston

ecksor wrote:

Aye, Boston is kinda my special pet, so there's some preferential treatment there. Sorry about that. I have banned him from this forum many times before though and I don't ban anyone else based on his comments.

It's funny that they think you do what I say. Now make me a cup of tea and a mustard and ham sandwich

Also Godh criticises you for not referencing the offending post when you banned Steve, but also criticises you for not removing all other reference to the post. Either way he chose to ignore the post.

sceptre

Gosh wrote:

Moriarty - " My patience for humanity is dwindling. " Is this really a good signature for a Moderator ?

You'd be surprised. There are a hell of a lot of good folks out there, only outnumbered by the people who can't read when it suits them. Pile of those out there.