Politics Ban

Villain

Well I have been banned from Politics for 2 weeks for saying

Well I think your opinion is just ignorant

Now this was in reply to reefbreak who said my opinion is wrong.

So lets start with the definition of ignorant:

Unaware or uninformed

Which basically means lack of knowledge on a topic

So I beleived reefbreaks post was ignorant in that he was saying that MP's shouldn't get payed if they don't take their seat in westminister, but anyone that has a knowledge of the topic will know that MP's spend very little time in the chambers but do a lot of other hardwork.

Now the definition of wrong:

Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous.

Now I never said Reefbreak was ignorant as that would be attacking the poster I said I thought his opinion here was ignorant i.e. attacking his post.

Now a quick search in politics turns up a lot of cases where posters have used simalar terms without been banned just a few:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2645657&postcount=26

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2469313&postcount=375

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2366106&postcount=200

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2366074&postcount=197

So I believe this ban is unfair.

gandalf

You actually went on to rebuff his points with the rest of your reply to his mail. The ignorant opinion comment in the politics mods opinions was put in their on purpose to skate around the personal abuse section of the charter. We considered it personal abuse therefore you are banned.

The ban is two weeks because you have been banned before and you know the charter quite well already.

I'm glad to see you can use a dictionary but it does not change anything.

Villain

The ignorant opinion was not a way to skate around the personal abuse section, it my opinion of his opinion and IMO his opinion was ignorant and I have explained why I think this, he said my opinion was wrong I don't see the difference or how this is a banning offence I haven't broken any rules. Just like lemming didn't break any rules at the time he linked to his journal where he had personally insulted me but didn't get a ban!

gandalf

Well now you have 2 weeks to contimplate it don't you. You have broken the rules as your comment was seen as personal abuse end of story.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Now I never said Reefbreak was ignorant as that would be attacking the poster I said I thought his opinion here was ignorant i.e. attacking his post.

And how can a post be ignorant without the poster being ignorant?
I took the same view with laredo yesterday,a post cannot be thick, only the poster can.
Trying to stretch the boundaries of the politics charter will simply not be tolerated,otherwise the board would desend into mahem and peoples enjoyment reading and participating in the threads would be ruined.
There are several inteligent ways which you could have attempted to debunk the posters viewpoint, you chose the one that caused as much offence as possible short of using a sentence with the posters name in it.
Please take Vexorgs advice from the other thread and apply the common sense that you should have from being a long time politics poster when your access is restored in 2 weeks.

Please avoid any surreptitious attempt at circumventing the rules against personal abuse, as the mods of the board will take appropriate action when they see it.

Now a quick search in politics turns up a lot of cases where posters have used simalar terms without been banned just a few:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2645657&postcount=26

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2469313&postcount=375

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2366106&postcount=200

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2366074&postcount=197

Well I'm not going to retrospectively ban from threads a few weeks ago.
But I will take action where it's necessary with respect to stuff like I saw yesterday and this morning when I see it.

Hobart

I think your banning was harsh TBH. Your use of the word ignorant was used in it's literal meaning, when taking your overall comments into account.

Gandalf's replies here, and elsewhere, only serve to infalme the situation, the lady does not seem to be for turning. TBH he should have just posted "I'm the Mod and my decision stands" on the Mod board and avoided this waste of a thread.

Maybe an admin could review his decision and give some input?

Nevyn

gah it is The Lady is not for burning.

http://www.sparrowsp.addr.com/articles/ladys_not_for_burning.htm

funny really about about witch hunts and martyrs.

Hobart

Thaed wrote:

gah it is The Lady is not for burning.

http://www.sparrowsp.addr.com/articles/ladys_not_for_burning.htm

funny really about about witch hunts and martyrs.

The Iron Lady, TBH

http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/wm181.cfm

Hobart

Hobart wrote:

Gandalf's replies here, and elsewhere, only serve to infalme the situation, the lady does not seem to be for turning. TBH he should have just posted "I'm the Mod and my decision stands" on the Mod board and avoided this waste of a thread.

Are you looking for access to the Hobart forum again

Nevyn

http://www.yudev.com/mfo/britlit/fry_christopher.htm
The lady is not for burning was written in 1948. and Maggie was paraphrasing the play and alluding to what happened to the outspoken female in it.

Lemming

/Cat.Mod hat on

I have read the entire thread, and the two banning posts in particular and to be honest irish1, you said exactly the same thing as Laredo just a different word

/Cat.Mod hat off

Villain

Earthman, I don't think you appreciate the way I using the word ignorant, I was using it because I believed his opinion was flawed and showed he was ignorant to the situation.

I was not insulting the poster, by saying someone is ignorant in realtion to soccer doesn't mean he is ignorant it just means he lacks knowledge in that area.

So your theory that someone is calling another person ignorant just because he says one of his opinion's is ignorant is totally ridiculous.

Hobart

Earthman wrote:

Are you looking for access to the Hobart forum again

I think my tag says it all TBH :eek:

Thaed wrote:

http://www.yudev.com/mfo/britlit/fry_christopher.htm
The lady is not for burning was written in 1948. and Maggie was paraphrasing the play and alluding to what happened to the outspoken female in it.

Whatever it's origons, I was quoting Maggie. She did say it after all! Now back on topic!

Villain

Well lemming aren't you just the one to tell us about insulting people on politics :rolleyes:

What rule have I broken??

Lemming

irish1 wrote:

Well lemming aren't you just the one to tell us about insulting people on politics :rolleyes:

What rule have I broken??

/me sighs

Irish1, I posted in a mod capacity. I was not having a go at you. Whether or not you recognise or do similar, I DO seperate my personal posts from my moderator posts. My own feelings on this matter are another issue and far be it for me to be one to gloat over another's unfortunate choice of words. So I shall keep *my* mouth shut in that respect.

If you have to ask me what rule you've broken, then I suggest you heed Vexorg's advice, given to your comrade A Dub In Glasgow here

Nevyn

irish1 wrote:

Well lemming aren't you just the one to tell us about insulting people on politics :rolleyes:

Well you were the one banned for it from politics and Lemming has not been
That would usually clearly indicate that he knew the rules and obeyed them
and you have not as you are banned either for disobeying them or being ignorant of them.

But as you have been banned previously I doubt you are unaware or ignorant of the charter and rules for that forum.

Villain

So what rule have I broken Thaed, we all know what lemming did and they said he wouldn't be banned but anyone who did so again would be. I don't beleive I have broken any rule.

uberwolf

irish1 wrote:

Earthman, I don't think you appreciate the way I using the word ignorant, I was using it because I believed his opinion was flawed and showed he was ignorant to the situation.

I was not insulting the poster, by saying someone is ignorant in realtion to soccer doesn't mean he is ignorant it just means he lacks knowledge in that area.

So your theory that someone is calling another person ignorant just because he says one of his opinion's is ignorant is totally ridiculous.

we can all sit down and argue here all day. But I for one have better things to be doing.

There are always going to be different ways of interpreting things - you acknowledge as much. The Mods interpretation is the one that got you banned.

I appreciate you believed the opinion to be factually flawed. You could simply have said that, or removed the opening sentence entirely and retained the same clarity of thought and logic of argument in what was otherwise a sound post.

However, colloquially, ignorant is a disparaging remark just like thick is. And trying to disassociate between opinions and posters is an argument you can make, but it is not the view point of the mods, and the precedent cannot have escaped you as it occured in the exact same thread (afaik).

you are ignorant = the opinions and believes you hold are ignorant. You have completely failed to prove otherwise in your soccer example. Someone cannot be partially ignorant.

dictionary.com wrote:

1. Lacking education or knowledge.
2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3. Unaware or uninformed.

no room there for localised ignorance IMO.

FYI: read my post in ADIGs thread on the same topic for anything I have may have missed.

Nevyn

gandalf wrote:

We considered it personal abuse therefore you are banned.

I had tought that the above quote would have told you exactly what rule you had broken.

Villain

uberwolf wrote:

you are ignorant = the opinions and believes you hold are ignorant. You have completely failed to prove otherwise in your soccer example. Someone cannot be partially ignorant.

Sorry uberwolf but I didn't say all his opinions were ignorant I was referring to his opinon on the matter in the thread, obviously if I said all his opinons were ignorant then I would be insulting him but that wasn't what I said and it isn't what I believe. So I don't believe it was personal abuse I was criticising his post and posted my argument to back that up.

What Rule do you believe I have broken??

Vexorg

Hold on a moment, someone got a 2 week ban, they are not happy with the decision and an admin is being asked to review it.

Sorry guys, you really have to sort this out yourselves, There is no way i will overrule a mods decision and someting this temporary - in my book a 2 week ban is pretty trivial, in respect of the decision made, I cant make a simple call on that as I do not read the politics forum and am not familier with the decision making process there.

For gods sake you use the politics forum and abviously have the ability to defend your yourself verbally better than I can express myself. There are far more things happening on boards at the moment that require my attention than having to referee this decision. If you want to get on the list, I will add it, I do have a list, and I am currently dealing with an item which is 6 weeks old. I have to allocate my time as effectively as I can. I could add it, but logically the temp ban will be over by the time i can read the forums and try to make an informed decision. I do not use the politics form so I really cannot make an informed decision and something like this

Can you not make a better case than this? Can you not argue your point with the mod, in a non confrontational manner and try to persude them to change their mind.

This really is one to be sorted out amoung yourselves, me, I would take a deep breath count to 10, forget about it, and get on enjoying other stuff.

Vex.

PS, just in case its not clear, I am saying that I do not believe this warrants admin intervention!

Lemming

irish1 wrote:

What Rule do you believe I have broken??

As has been pointed out a few times already, not least by the mod who banned you, the bit regarding personal abuse.

Fairly straight-forward imo

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Earthman, I don't think you appreciate the way I using the word ignorant.

As I said, you are around long enough to know or at least you should know that there are several ways to attempt to debunk an argument without doing it the way that you did.

I was not insulting the poster, by saying someone is ignorant in realtion to soccer doesn't mean he is ignorant it just means he lacks knowledge in that area.

Let me be very clear, attempts to surrupticiously use words or language to insult a poster rather than dealing with the content of their post in a civilised manner will be dealt with by the moderators appropriately.
It certainly wont be tolerated.

So your theory that someone is calling another person ignorant just because he says one of his opinion's is ignorant is totally ridiculous.

Well you are quite entitled to think that, but on the often fractious politics board, we the moderation team will police the board to rule out abuse as best we can and try to encourage as much civil debate as possible.
You can of course bring your liberal view on moderating posters abuse to your own Trad board and impliment same there in that much less fractious environment.

Villain

Vexorg, I appreciate you are busy but I do think this merits an admin's intervention as I believe this ban is unfair, I don't believe I have broken any rule.

PS, I did send Gandalf a pm and as I stated in the mod forum I had hoped to discuss through pm but he instructed me to start a thread here.

uberwolf

gandalf wrote:

We considered it personal abuse therefore you are banned.

for the third time.

It was not me who banned you. as you know. I'm simply appear to be the one with the time to try and explain the reasoning behind the ban. That time is running out quickly however.

We don't believe that trying to distinguish between one occurance of ignorance and multiple ignorances is going anywhere. I'd mutter ignorant f**cker if someone brushed passed me in a queue somewhere. The fact that he's a top judge doesn't mean he hasn't just been ignorant. No excaping I've insulted him.

Your argument did back up your stance IMO. It didn't justify saying it though because it is our position that calling someones opinion ignorant is attacking the poster and not the post, ergo Personal abuse.

We're not making an example of you, the precedent was already set in that thread. You either missed it or ignored it.

Villain

Uberwolf I understand you didn't make the decision to ban me but you are a mod on politics so I am interested in your opinion.

I have it said it many times but I will say it again, I was not trying to insult the poster in any shape or form, I was discussing his opinion which I believed to be ignorant and I went on to say why I thought so. I don't accept that this was personal abuse and I don't believe it was seen as personal abuse in the past as you can see from the links I posted.

Nevyn

/sigh

It is the mods call it is thier remit to ban anyone why see has having broken the rules of the forum they mod.

If someone was to post on the trad forum and saying someone prefering the
Furies over the Woleftones was ignorant and if there was the ' no personal abuse' claus in your charter you would be well with in your remit to ban them.

Two weeks isnt that long really.

bonkey

Politics had - for some time up until very recently - come in for a lot of criticism that too much leeway was being allowed in terms of how people were skirting the rules.

We've seen no shortage of topics here about how the mods were being too lax on this or that person, and how said people were effectively skirting the rules.

Personally, I'm delighted to see that the current mods are taking a tougher stance, as it was clear that the more lenient one was failing to keep things under control.

I predict that as the "less-tolerance" policy becomes clearer and clearer, we will see a whole slew of similar threads - not "the mod was wrong to not strictly employ the rules" as we've seen recently, but rather "the mod was wrong to stricly employ the rules". I also predict that the originators of the complaints will remain largely unchanged, and that the mods (or at least some of them) will be inevitably accused of employing the new stance to further some political/personal bias.

jc

Infini

Hwo about a compromise...1 Week's banning. At least it may allow all sides to come to an agreement. Besides Vexorg has already said it's up to the mods.

uberwolf

bonkey wrote:

employing the new stance to further some political/personal bias.

uberwolf for Taoiseach TBH.

bonkey

irish1 wrote:

I was not trying to insult the poster in any shape or form,

So not intending offence is all that matters...not whether offence was (or could have been) taken?

So if its normal between myself and my mates to refer to each other in a friendly manner as dumb motherf***ers, you'll have no problem with me referring to you as one because I don't mean offence by the term? And given that my mates and I use all sorts of colourful language...that pretty much means that its open-season in what I say....and as long as I clear up after the fact that I wasn't being abusive...it'll be ok?

Yes, I'm giving a far more extreme example, but it should abundantly and clearly highlight that the interpretation of what is and is not abusive changes from person to person, but the mods have to try and enforce a policy as some form of standard across all people. This will inevitably mean that some things which may not be intended to be insulting are simply not acceptable.

If you want a less-extreme, forum-specific example...go check what happened when Sparks told someone to stfu, way back when.

jc

Villain

I understand 2 weeks isn't that long but I believe the ban is unfair and I think others can see that this ban isn't fair thats why I want an admin to look at the situation, I have received a pm from an other mod who thinks it's unfair but doesn't want to say it in public, perhaps others feel the same.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

I have received a pm from an other mod who thinks it's unfair but doesn't want to say it in public,

But not from a politics board mod we aren't shy.

Villain

Yes but Bonkey I used the meaning of the word in it's literal sense and I have done so in the past as have several others (see my links on page1) without any banning.

I don't see how this case is any different, I believed his post was ignorant in relation to the thread matter and I still do but doesn't mean I am insulting him.

bonkey

irish1 wrote:

Yes but

Huh? How can you agree that intent is not all that matters, and then but a "but I didn't mean it to be insulting" after it?

Bonkey I used the meaning of the word in it's literal sense and I have done so in the past as have several others (see my links on page1) without any banning.

Ahh...so its not "but I didn't mean it". Its "but thats not how its always been done".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you have started (or at least participated in) more than one thread complaining that the rules - or the enforcement of them - were somehow unfair/incorrect. Now you're complaining that the moderators aren't enforcing things in the same manner that they used to.

You call for change when you don't like how things are being done, but when you get hit by it cry foul that the mods aren't doing things the same as they used to!

Somewhat inconsistent, isn't it?

but doesn't mean I am insulting him.

Ah...so there was a "but I didn't mean it" in there too

Either its not just the intent which matters, or the fact that you didn't mean it as an insult is not a mitigating factor.

There can be no "yes, but".


jc

WhiteWashMan

irish1 wrote:

Yes but Bonkey I used the meaning of the word in it's literal sense and I have done so in the past as have several others (see my links on page1) without any banning.

I don't see how this case is any different, I believed his post was ignorant in relation to the thread matter and I still do but doesn't mean I am insulting him.

god. shut up already. i think youre posts are ignorant and insutling to be honest.

Stabshauptmann

tbh there is a lot of inconsistency in politics as to what constitutes personal abuse and the definition: personal abuse is whatever a mod thinks is abusive isn’t really fair. Then again allegations of feigned indignation are so common on politics that it really does boil down to a mods opinion of intent. But then again genuine indignation is treated with cynicism. Is a vicious cycle :rolleyes:

If there were a concise definition some pedantic ******* would find a loophole which is what gandalf believes happened here apparently.

IMO there is a LOT of personal abuse in politics in the form of lying, innuendo, condescension, disrespect etc that the mods don’t seem bothered dealing with because no uncivilised words are used.

Personal abuse should be defined IMO as, an intent to hurt, embarrass or outrage another poster.

I think that cuts down on loopholes and excuses and gives mods a lot of discretion over whether or not there was intent

Stabshauptmann

WTF - I thought the word bastard gets filtered out?

hmm ****, ****, prick, twat

hmm

uberwolf

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Personal abuse should be defined IMO as, an intent to hurt, embarrass or outrage another poster.

two big problems. Intent - we could never define what someone was thinking when they published - see the impact of O'Sullivan vs the New York times as evidence of the difficulty of proving intent.

Hurt, etc - this is Boards not real life, people aren't really getting worked up. We aren't going to PM people and poll them on how they thought about or how their peers now view them. The personal abuse rule isn't there to protect peoples feelings so much as to maintain clarity of debate in so far as it is possible.

Caveat - my response shouldn't be read as a willingness to engage in debate leading to finding a definition we're all happy with, but simply to point out the difficulty in finding one. We as mods are happy enough with the rule. Others frequently report posts in an attempt to prevent debate - thankfully our discretion allows assess these posts rather than an automated 'my feelings are hurt, 1 week ban dispensing' mechanism.

nesf

WhiteWashMan wrote:

god. shut up already. i think youre posts are ignorant and insutling to be honest.

I was going to post, but WWM seems to have summed it up rather nicely.

sceptre

Perhaps I should have put my reponse in this thread (I'm not sure which is the main one but I guess it's this one). Anyway, it's here.

Hobart

bonkey wrote:

Huh? How can you agree that intent is not all that matters, and then but a "but I didn't mean it to be insulting" after it?



Ahh...so its not "but I didn't mean it". Its "but thats not how its always been done".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you have started (or at least participated in) more than one thread complaining that the rules - or the enforcement of them - were somehow unfair/incorrect. Now you're complaining that the moderators aren't enforcing things in the same manner that they used to.

You call for change when you don't like how things are being done, but when you get hit by it cry foul that the mods aren't doing things the same as they used to!

Somewhat inconsistent, isn't it?



Ah...so there was a "but I didn't mean it" in there too

Either its not just the intent which matters, or the fact that you didn't mean it as an insult is not a mitigating factor.

There can be no "yes, but".


jc

Bonkey,

you are deliberately trying to muddy the waters with your phrasiology (sp?). He thinks his banning is unfair, due to the context in which he used his choosen terminology. Complaint number 1.

Ok. you have clarified your perception of that from a mods perspective.

However, he seems to have brought up examples where this "policy" has not been enforced. He's asking the sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander type question. Complaint number 2.

Don't try to be "clever" by absorbing 1 into the other.

He may be inconsistent, but he is probably justified in asking for consistency from the mods. Or do you believe the mods should provide an incosistent service?

Hobart

Hobart wrote:

He may be inconsistent, but he is probably justified in asking for consistency from the mods. Or do you believe the mods should provide an incosistent service?

Hobart,
The mods are consistent.We try one policy,it doesnt work, we toughen up that policy, it does work.
Certainly in my time modding the board,I've noticed a marked reduction in reported posts and a profound increase in civility.

We can only be as adaptive as our presence on boards allows us though.
I could be posting this whilst driving through grand parade in Cork and you would have no way of knowing, ergo you don't know if I'm breaking the law whilst posting.
Someone could report me though


Now as regards the examples Irish1 has thrown up in his first post...
The first one I definitely didnt see and the rest apply to a time when I wasnt a moderator on the board.
Myself and Uberwolf are in effect new brushes and sweep clean we will, with the assistance of Gandalf and Sceptre.
Bonkey has already informed this feedback board that the moderators in his time were coming to the opinion that leniency wasnt working.
Clearly the cleanly swept house is not to everybodies liking, but it's going to stay that way.
There may be dust pockets in the corners of threads that we dont get to see and indeed cobwebs growing in threads from back in february or march... but one doesnt have to go into those areas, we'll deal with the here and now rather than retrospecively ban and again I'd urge people to use the report the post feature,it's your friend and we'll decide if what action needs to be taken if any

Hobart

Con,

my comments are not about the Mods and thier actions per-se, more a direct rebuke to Bonkeys comments.

Yourself, Gandalf, Uber et-al (and Bonkey in his time) have done, and continue to do, a great service on a difficult board and I, for one, appreciate it.

The Muppet

Having contributed to the thread in question and considering contributions from other users I have to say I feel Irish1s ban is extreamly harsh. I understand the rasoning behind the ban but I feel marginal decisions like this one will only make the mods task more difficult in future.

ApeXaviour

Knowing no history of Irish1 on the politics board and based solely on the above incident, I reckon the decision was harsh.

Then again I may just be a soft touch..

mycroft

ApeXaviour wrote:

Knowing no history of Irish1 on the politics board and based solely on the above incident, I reckon the decision was harsh.

Then again I may just be a soft touch..

Just be cyncial I suspect (just a theory) Irish1 is someone who sees the report post button as a handier way of rebutting than hiting the quote button.

Of course I could be wrong, but the four examples you've provided are all from posters you've vehemently disagreed with, I'd submit to you, that you picked several posters who you dislike, and keyworded "ignorant" and ignored the time frame, and when they occured (and whether a Mod may have had a word re the language and tone) but the reason you picked those posters was not at random it was specific choice, and raises so many interesting questions......

The Muppet

mycroft wrote:

Just be cyncial I suspect (just a theory) Irish1 is someone who sees the report post button as a handier way of rebutting than hiting the quote button.
.

The mods/admis prefer you to report offensive posts rather than reply to them. At least thats what they told me. The danger of replying in kind on forum is that you will end up being reported and flagged as a troublemaker.

In this instance Irishs1's comment has been taken out of context which is surprising considering he explained the context in the post he made the comment.

Villain

Thanks for the support Muppet, I am very very disapointed in the position the mods are taking.

MyCroft the four examples I gave were just what turned up when I enetered the search criteria of "ignorant opinion", feel free to do the same and you will get the same results.

I also think your comment about me reporting posts instead of discussing them is unfair, I always try to respond to topics which are on topic and been discussed in a proper manner, I do report posts that imo are trolls etc like most of Cork's.

I find the mods in politics to be normally fair and consistent just not in this case as my links have pointed out, and my post was not abusive as I was using the term ignorant in the manner that it should be used.

mycroft

irish1 wrote:

Thanks for the support Muppet, I am very very disapointed in the position the mods are taking.

Well frankly in my opinion they shouldn't give two FF's to your disappointment

MyCroft the four examples I gave were just what turned up when I enetered the search criteria of "ignorant opinion", feel free to do the same and you will get the same results.

Uh huh.

I also think your comment about me reporting posts instead of discussing them is unfair, I always try to respond to topics which are on topic and been discussed in a proper manner, I do report posts that imo are trolls etc like most of Cork's.

Unfair but IMO true, I suspect you have an itchy trigger finger for the report post button.

I find the mods in politics to be normally fair and consistent just not in this case as my links have pointed out, and my post was not abusive as I was using the term ignorant in the manner that it should be used.

And as pointed out those posts are old, many if not most predating many of the current mods reign of terror, and all suspiciously from posters you clash metaphorical swords with.

Villain

Well mycroft since the other thread is closed I will reply to you here.

IMO there is no comparison what so ever between saying someones analogy is thick and saying someones opinion is ignorant and then backing that up with reasons.

My links are not old at all, the dates are :

21/04/05, 09/03/05 and 2 on the 11/02/05.

So how can my post be any different to them.

FYI I don't clash with the mentioned posters that often if at all.