face kicker banned

Jim10000

Hi,
I was wondering why face kicker was banned. I thought he was pretty funny and the boards were a richer place with him around. I can't imagine anyone found him that annoying and his posts were short and infrequent, so they could easily have been ignored.

And also, why was John_dub's thread on After Hours concerning face kicker's ban locked? It might have been in the wrong place but maybe whitewashman could have just moved it to here?

I think moderators can be a bit heavy-handed sometimes, creating an atmosphere which hinders natural, open communication.

mathie

Jim10000 wrote:

Hi,
I think moderators can be a bit heavy-handed sometimes, creating an atmosphere which hinders natural, open communication.

Agreed. I was banned from Personal Issues for my contributions on a thread in there.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=293858&page=2&pp=20

M

muckwarrior

Personally I found his replies quite amusing. But i'm sure it would have gotten pretty tiresome after a while. Unless he kept them infrequent.

Beruthiel

Jim10000 wrote:

Hi,
I was wondering why face kicker was banned. I thought he was pretty funny.

you're joking right?
funny if you're about 5 :rolleyes:

oh and mathie
quit your whinging and take your ban

Gilgamesh

well just read you posts in that thread in relation to how many times the mods actually warned you and everybody and put one and one together

seamus

Jim10000 wrote:

I was wondering why face kicker was banned. I thought he was pretty funny and the boards were a richer place with him around. I can't imagine anyone found him that annoying and his posts were short and infrequent, so they could easily have been ignored.

If we were to let everyone who wanted to post crap, do it, and "easily ignore" them, we'd soon be overwhelmed with spammy ****e, and boards would become unusable.

And also, why was John_dub's thread on After Hours concerning face kicker's ban locked? It might have been in the wrong place but maybe whitewashman could have just moved it to here?

a. It was posted in the wrong place. By AH rules, that means lock or bin.
b. It's easily the dumbest question asked in a long time.

I think moderators can be a bit heavy-handed sometimes, creating an atmosphere which hinders natural, open communication.

6,500 new posts per day would seem to disagree with you.

Talliesin

What is this, national whinge day or something? Two of the most obvious and straight-forward bans for pointless crap-pulling ever.

If people are going to do stuff that's obviously engineered to result in them being banned that's there problem. We can't send a trained counsellor around with a box of tissues to sort out their attention-seeking issues.

I'm not sure whether Jim10000 is doing the same in a subtler way, or honestly believes that in preventing someone from posting the suggestiong that you kick someone in the face into random threads is "hindering natural, open communication", but either way just get a clue.

mathie

Beruthiel wrote:

you're joking right?
funny if you're about 5 :rolleyes:

oh and mathie
quit your whinging and take your ban

So we're not allowed discuss bannings and their relative 'fairness'? :rolleyes:

Keeping threads on topic is fair enough but don't you realise that conversations can serendipitously move in different directions?

Is it fair to ban someone for going off on a tangent in real life?

M

seamus

Conversations meander. Off-topic is talking about something unrelated to the original thread. Particularly in PI, the original posters aren't interested in the tangents that the discussions go off on. If you want to discuss something which stemmed from a PI topic, take it to Humanities.

This isn't real life. You were told "Go off topic and you'll be banned". You went off topic. Did you expect anything else? Were you the kid who always had to move 5mm to the left when the teacher told you not to move?

mathie

seamus wrote:

Conversations meander. Off-topic is talking about something unrelated to the original thread. Particularly in PI, the original posters aren't interested in the tangents that the discussions go off on. If you want to discuss something which stemmed from a PI topic, take it to Humanities.

This isn't real life. You were told "Go off topic and you'll be banned". You went off topic. Did you expect anything else? Were you the kid who always had to move 5mm to the left when the teacher told you not to move?

Perhaps I should have opened a thread in here on it. I didn't realise commenting on the threat of a ban was grounds for a ban. Hence why I thought it was harsh. Anyway arguing on the internet is etc etc.

M

Beruthiel

mathie wrote:

but don't you realise that conversations can serendipitously move in different directions?

Is it fair to ban someone for going off on a tangent in real life?

mathie wrote:

didn't realise commenting on the threat of a ban was grounds for a ban.

from both of the above comments, it is quite clear to me that you didn't bother reading the PI Charter, or you would already know the answer. :rolleyes:

Gazza22

mathie wrote:

Agreed. I was banned from Personal Issues for my contributions on a thread in there.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=293858&page=2&pp=20

M

What contributions!? You waffled on off topic, your supposed to help in PI...

Theres no point in whinging, you went off topic and you should have read the charter:

most of all, if you have nothing relevant to add to the topic, please refrain from posting anything at all.
Off topic behaviour will result in a ban

So then Beruthiel says:

Beruthiel wrote:

the next person to go off topic gets banned
B

And guess what? Mathie, instead of taking his issue to PM, where it belonged, goes off topic again...thus hes banned

stevenmu

mathie wrote:

Keeping threads on topic is fair enough but don't you realise that conversations can serendipitously move in different directions?

Hence every forum has a 'New Thread' button.

Except the ones you're banned from of course.

seamus

This thread may be right up your alley mathie:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=274366

Talliesin

mathie wrote:

So we're not allowed discuss bannings and their relative 'fairness'? :rolleyes:

No, it's the "Personal Issues" forum, not the "Bannings and their relative fairness" forum.

mathie wrote:

Keeping threads on topic is fair enough but don't you realise that conversations can serendipitously move in different directions?

Not on a forum where people are seeking advice on specific issues - the chances that a meandering discussion can serendipitously arrive at interesting ideas is one thing, the chances that a meandering discussion can serendipitously arrive at something that of use to the OP's issue is very slight.

Really, how exactly could your struggling with your own inability to read rules before griping about them serendipitously arrive at Sammyjo's issues with a guy she'd intended dating?

mathie wrote:

Is it fair to ban someone for going off on a tangent in real life?

Ban them from what? Even by the standards of your posts today that's a pretty stupid argument.
It is true though that if people were engrosed in the middle of a conversation and someone suddenly started talking about something completely irrelevant that they may find themselves ignored.

[Jackass]

Jim10000 wrote:

And also, why was John_dub's thread on After Hours concerning face kicker's ban locked?

I never usually enter into these banning discussions, but after reading a recent saga involving a banning and a obsessive fan (Boards.ie is MY LIFE!!! :eek:), I now realise how entertaining they can be.

But honestly, how can you even ask that question? Surely a banning is between the mod and the person banned...and not a oppertunity to discuss people (who can't even reply) in a general chat forum, a cuckoo forum, or even a feedback forum for that matter.

I appreciate the humour a banning discussion (aka bitching session) can have, but that is what the prison is for, so the banned person can bring up the issue because they wish for it to be discussed, and are able to be involved in the discussion, and can make a fool of themselves there, or even perhaps have a reasonable chat with a mod, and come to an agreement for future conduct.

But i believe all threads concerning bans, including this one, should/will be locked, if they are not discussed in prison,and brought to issue by the banned person, so they can have their say, and not have their friends/enemys having a discussion about them. It waists mods time, and is never constructive.

Regarding the debate about the "Fairness of Bans", i feel it's very simple. From my experience, i've always found common sense prevails. Lets be honest, if you read the charters, discuss what's being discussed, don't insult people who disagree with you, and dont talk absolute crap, no-one will ever have a issue with you.

I've seen, perhaps once, a banning i didn't nececeraly agree with, but i didn't feel it was harsh, because i trusted the fact that the person probably had a track record of being a muppet, and that's what the mods are there for. I certainly didn't feel the need to start a big debate about it however, because the issue dosen't involve me.

It's also what prison is for, so these people can bring it to the attention of the relevant mods, have it reviewed and perhaps get unbanned. It's a fairly fool proof system, and Boards.ie seems to be doing OK by following it, so i don't see an issue. I would personally be more interested in what im doing rather than what the mods of boards.ie are doing.

mathie

seamus wrote:

This thread may be right up your alley mathie:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=274366

Nah I'd miss the interesting chat too much!

M

mathie

Talliesin wrote:

Ban them from what? Even by the standards of your posts today that's a pretty stupid argument.
It is true though that if people were engrosed in the middle of a conversation and someone suddenly started talking about something completely irrelevant that they may find themselves ignored.

I was making a point :rolleyes:

Tangents are part of real life. In a real life conversation does someone turn around after someone goes on a tangent go 'Oh you're banned now you can't say anything more because I deem it so' or (as you point out and more naturally and the point I was getting at) would the comment be ignored?

M

Shabadu

Yes, I'm sure the next time you're having a conversation and some randommer pops in with the comment 'Maybe I should kick you all in the face' you'll roffle away merrily and congratulate him on his witty contribution.

What are these mod's like? Interrupting all the scintillating conversation with their unfair and randomly meted out bans.

Talliesin

mathie wrote:

I was making a point :rolleyes:

I know you were making a point, I wasn't disputing that, just pointing out that it's a stupid point.

mathie wrote:

Tangents are part of real life. In a real life conversation does someone turn around after someone goes on a tangent go 'Oh you're banned now you can't say anything more because I deem it so' or (as you point out and more naturally and the point I was getting at) would the comment be ignored?

Structured conversations take place in real life too. Some have chairpersons, facilitators, counsellors or whatever (depending on the purpose of the structured discussion) who can indeed ban you from them.

PI is a forum intended to enable people to seek advice on a particular issue, the style of moderation used is intended to assist this, and as such it's closer to a structured discussion than a chat in your living room or a pub (AH, for comparison, is closer to the pub, Cuckoo's Nest is closer to the pub after you've been in there all day and are quite sloshed).

Hank_Scorpio

Hi all,


As for the FaceKicker, his posts were amusing at first, but they were threating to other people in a physical matter so it's only too right that they he was banned.

I think what Mathie was getting at is that questioning a threat of a ban to someone shouldn't ultimately lead to a direct ban. Maybe directions to the appropriate forum for complaints would of been a more suitable 1st step. As not everyone knows Boards.ie as intimately as the moderators.

But that ban resulted as a direct result of my actions on the thread where I, apparently, inappropriately used the forum for trying to pick up a woman. In this case I think his ban was unfair. In my defence, she said she was supposed to go to dinner and then had to go to a pub and didn't get to eat. I thought this was part of her personal issue, along with the joker that asked her out. I stated that I was hungry and hadn't eaten in days so I suggested maybe we could have dinner together. And I was given a warning for trying to pick up women on the forum. But the moderators pointed out the errors of my ways which I fully accept and have no excuse. I must state, I have never done this before and will never do again as it's a personal rule of mine never to meet somebody from an internet site.


I was just trying to offer a solution to both our problems.

I fully appoligise to the moderators of the boards.ie if I was anyway out of line and I hope this post is not thought to be threating or in violation of any of the boards.ie rules, or indeed any of my posts to this date.

Kind regards,
Eugene

Sarky

Face kicker was a one trick pony, and it was a very shoddy trick at that. I'd forgotten about him until I saw this thread. I'll have forgotten him again in less than ten minutes.

Talliesin

Hank_Scorpio wrote:

I think what Mathie was getting at is that questioning a threat of a ban to someone shouldn't ultimately lead to a direct ban. Maybe directions to the appropriate forum for complaints would of been a more suitable 1st step. As not everyone knows Boards.ie as intimately as the moderators.

They were warned, they persisted. They quite likely just want something to feel persecuted over.

Hank_Scorpio wrote:

I fully appoligise to the moderators of the boards.ie if I was anyway out of line and I hope this post is not thought to be threating or in violation of any of the boards.ie rules, or indeed any of my posts to this date.

You were warned, you stopped. Grand. Completely different kettle of sea-food.

Hank_Scorpio

Fair enough people were warned. But the warning did not come with the advice of an alternative course of action. To me that is not a warning, it's a threat. Maybe this is the point that is being made.

As a moderator of my own forum I constantly have to warn people. But I always provide an alternative course of action. This way the person has no excuse if they continue to break the rules.

Hope that makes sense

stevenmu

I don't think there was an alternate course of action to advise them of (other than to stop going off-topic). They were breaking the rules, they were warned that continuing to break the rules would lead to them being prevented from futher breaking of the rules, they continued breaking the rules and were duely prevented from further breaking of the rules.

You wouldn't expect a bank robber, caught in the act, to be told he could keep trying to rob the bank in which case he'd be thrown in jail, alternatly they could all sit around and have a chat about why he felt he should be allowed take the money.


(of course, I've nothing to do with the PI forum, I'm just sticking my nose in because like DubGuy, I love these banning threads.)

seamus

Hank_Scorpio wrote:

Fair enough people were warned. But the warning did not come with the advice of an alternative course of action. To me that is not a warning, it's a threat. Maybe this is the point that is being made.

As a moderator of my own forum I constantly have to warn people. But I always provide an alternative course of action. This way the person has no excuse if they continue to break the rules.

Hope that makes sense

I see your point. Largely though, I know I don't need to suggest an alternative course of action. People, in general, know that what they are doing is wrong, so a warning is just sufficient. Each forum has its own particular style. On AH for example, I can quite often say "Open a new thread if you want to discuss X, now stay on topic". On PI though, the mods don't want people to open a new topic for discussion - it wouldn't belong on PI, it's a board with a very specific purpose. "Stay on topic" is a threat, not a suggested course of action - in the context of PI, it's the only course of action.

From my reading of mathie's posts though (and mathie feel free to correct me), if Beruthiel had suggested "Stay on topic, or open a new thread elsewhere about it", mathie would have replied to that thread in PI with his above "Topics meander" point, and would have been banned anyway.

As I see it, the issue here is the poster not understanding the policy, as opposed to a flawed policy.

Hank_Scorpio

Fair enough if that's your policy. But imho I think the policy needs to be reviewed. I can see the sense in what the moderators are doing and I appreciate there are a lot of posts each day. But every thread goes off topic every day, why was this thread treated so rashly? I know I was wrong in what I posted, but the starter of the thread had no problem with what I asked, so why should the moderator? In fact it was the moderators post on the thread that lead to Mathies question on the policy and was duely punished for asking a question. No explananation to the reasoning (other than "it's off topic" or direction to a charter of the boards.ie was given. So in my opinion that poster was treated very unfairly.

Even this thread has gone off topic, it's meant to be about facekicker. Am I to be banned now from this thread for going off topic?

seamus

Hank_Scorpio wrote:

But every thread goes off topic every day, why was this thread treated so rashly?

It's that particular forum. Most other forums will tolerate a meadering thread, until the current discussion has absolutely zero to with the the thread title. Personal Issues though can't tolerate it. It's a not a forum to "discuss" topics. People look for help with their problems, and although moral, political, etc topics may be brought up in the course of giving this advice, it's absolutely not OK to start talking about them in the thread, and this is clearly laid out in the charter for that forum.

So in my opinion that poster was treated very unfairly.

I would agree, if it was any other forum. Though in general it's accepted that questions regarding Moderator policy/actions shouldn't be discussed in a live thread (unless of course, that's the topic of the thread).

Even this thread has gone off topic, it's meant to be about facekicker. Am I to be banned now from this thread for going off topic?

Of course not. Although the titles is to do with face kicker, the actual problem the OP has is

I think moderators can be a bit heavy-handed sometimes, creating an atmosphere which hinders natural, open communication.

Which is essentially what we're talking about now.

Hank_Scorpio

Well I can't argue with that.

But my main point is that moderators could be a little more diplomatic in their explanations. Rather than saying something like "Go off topic again and you'll be banned. A more diplomatic way of saying that could be "Please do not make posts of this nature, please see the charter for this forum <insert hyperlink>. Any further misuse of this thread will result in a ban from this particular thread"

Please note that these are not actually quotes.

ecksor

This forum is practically unmoderated at times. It gets out of hand because of that at times and people get away with some stuff they probably shouldn't now and again, but I think it's useful just because this is last refuge for complaints.

WhiteWashMan

Hank_Scorpio wrote:

Well I can't argue with that.

But my main point is that moderators could be a little more diplomatic in their explanations. Rather than saying something like "Go off topic again and you'll be banned. A more diplomatic way of saying that could be "Please do not make posts of this nature, please see the charter for this forum <insert hyperlink>. Any further misuse of this thread will result in a ban from this particular thread"

Please note that these are not actually quotes.

can we expect users to be as equally diplomatic when they get banned?

the problem with banning, is that each mod has a different style, and depending on the day of the week, a different tolerance level.

some days i will let meandering crap go on PI, and sometimes i wont.
Sometimes i will make comments that other would deem inappropriate, and other days i dont.

the fact of the matter is that you cant please all of the people all of the time, but on average and overall, i think we all do a good job.

yes, sometimes there are exceptions to the rule, and yes, people make mistakes, and sometimes there are exceptions that *prove* the rule.

over all, moderators do their best each and every day, and you know, if one day someone does something stupid, im not going to get heavy on them. becuase i know that the next day it will be me, or someone else. we all do our bit.

there are a finite number of moderators, and there are a growing number of users. users who will also have off days, who will get offended by something today, that wont offend them tomorrow, who are sensitive to something tomorrow, after it was posted today etc etc etc.

and there are a lot of people who just want to talk rubbish, who want to spam, who want to annoy, disturb and mess around. there are people who want to disrupt the running of forums, of threads and of boards.ie as a whole.

so occassionally, we mistake someone as a trouble maker.
ive never heard of you before, but if you popped up on a forum and it was your one 'bad' post of the century, to me you would be remebered for that one bad post.


you build a hundred bridges, you will be known as an engineer.
you fúck one goat, you will always be know as a goat fúcker...

make sense to you?

Hank_Scorpio

Not really.

I know what you're saying that moderators have off days just like anyone else. But if you were to treat people diplomatically and be not seen as threatening then you wouldn't have forums exactly like this one complaining about moderators.

I think all has been said here that can be said. Thanks to the moderators for explaining their situation on the bans and taking the time to make everyone a little wiser to the situation.

And i think ****ing a goat is a little different to having one bad post?

Liked the saying though, made me laugh.

WhiteWashMan

Hank_Scorpio wrote:

But if you were to treat people diplomatically and be not seen as threatening then you wouldn't have forums exactly like this one complaining about moderators. .

i think we have established that the vast majority of the time, and im talking 95% of the time, the person banned deserved to be banned.

but regardless of what we do, we will always get complaints.

for example, as i type this i continue to get posts from an individual who is PMing me over a ban he received IN AH for calling someone a príck.

he feels he was justified because someone made a racist comment.
i dont agree.

people will always complain. regardless of how nice you are.

so i think most people have been nice to you, but youre still here complaining....

Hank_Scorpio

I'm not complainig... I'm suggesting.

Just out of curiousit, I was wondering what the policy on setting up a thread for boycotting a certain company who let me down recently. Is it legal and what forum should I use?

ecksor

In general we don't want to know. We're not usually interested in standing over your complaint. Especially if it's that DELL mistake you got burned on.

Hank_Scorpio

So is it ok to start the thread?

ecksor

I thought I had answered that.

No.

Hank_Scorpio

Thanks esksor for taking the time to answer my question, it's appreciated.

ecksor wrote:

In general we don't want to know. We're not usually interested in standing over your complaint. Especially if it's that DELL mistake you got burned on.

It left me a little confused. The words 'in general, 'not usually' are a bit non-descript to me. I just don't want to get banned.

ecksor

Well, if you felt that yours was an unusual situation that didn't match the general case then there would be some ambiguity about it alright, but I haven't seen anything to indicate that.

rsynnott

Hank_Scorpio wrote:

Fair enough people were warned. But the warning did not come with the advice of an alternative course of action. To me that is not a warning, it's a threat. Maybe this is the point that is being made.

As a moderator of my own forum I constantly have to warn people. But I always provide an alternative course of action. This way the person has no excuse if they continue to break the rules.

Hope that makes sense

If they're too stupid to be able to avoid breaking the rules, they're not wanted, as far as I can see...