[Resolved] Flaneur OBrien disputing two warnings in Helpdesk

Hello,

I want to appeal the 2* 2 point warnings handed down to me by Big Bag of Chips last Sunday. I feel 4 points is excessively harsh.

My main interest on boards.ie currently is the US election which takes place on Nov 5th. The four point warning doesn't expire until Nov 17th, so I believe it will prove to be too difficult to not receive one more warning in such a divisive atmosphere, which of course will lead to a temporary site ban.

I recently received a one point warning for calling Trump a rapist, which of course he is, as a judge said in a ruling. Boards has their own rule on this, that it is now banned to repeat the truthful statement that Trump is a rapist on the Harris Vs Trump thread.

I was annoyed at that warning, but didn't appeal, as it had been inserted into the OP, and I hadn't seen it, but mea culpa.

I was then warned (0 point warning) for posting a linkdump.

I still think (as do many other boardsies) that it was not a linkdump.

We were in a flow of back and forth conversation about Harris' interview on Fox News, (at least 20 posts about this particular interview) but no one had posted any link to it. I found a clip of it on twitter and posted it like this:

I enjoyed this quite a lot.

(Embedded twitter link with a freeze frame of Harris and interviewer mid interview, with the headline, 'Harris takes him down')

Might actually watch the full thing. She didn't put up with any sh*t here. Fair play to her.

The instructions in the OP was

And there are to be no link dumps. If you wish to post a link set out what it is about and your own views on it.

Now, I didn't expect to have to set out what the video was about, as we were in full flow conversation about it. I will accept that if a user had just joined boards, and clicked on that thread and my post was the very first post you read, you might not know what I was on about. But it was very obvious considering what the last 20-30 posts were about.

I brought this up in the helpdesk thread.

This one:

I didn't plan on posting in this thread btw, but then the conversation shifted to a more general, "What is a link dump?"

I was tagged in this post:

And I posted about 6 or 7 times, nothing to do with my link dump complaint.

Then BBOC put up the following post:

Although the fact that we have to makes me think some of you are just plain trolling or looking for loopholes.

I found this poor enough form. It had been obvious that what users thought wasn't link dumping, had been considered link dumping by mods and admins. To call people trolls for asking for what defines a link dump is poor form for an admin, in my opinion.

If you are going to post a photo, a link, a video then discuss the content and why you're posting it. One liner "this is good" "she's proving her point here" etc is not discussion. It tells the reader of the thread nothing about the content or what you are adding to the discussion.

I felt this was aimed at me because of the "this is good" and "she's proving her point here" was very close to what I had written.

I replied to BBOC, the first time in that thread where I asked for a definition of a linkdump as what he had posted me confused me. The fact that a links context of where it is in the thread isn't taken into account confuses me.l

I think my confusion is clear here.

There was back and forth over the next two pages as my confusion grew, and then I asked if the following would still be considered a linkdump.

The following is an embedded tweet which features a video of Kamala Harris taking down Brett Baier in the interview.

(Insert Tweet with the caption Kamala takes him down!!! And a still of Kamala Harris being interviewed by Brett Baier)

I enjoyed that, might make me watch the rest of it, she didn't put up with any sh*t from him.

Now the OP warning about linkdumps in the Harris thread is:

And there are to be no link dumps. If you wish to post a link set out what it is about and your own views on it.

Ok.

The following is an embedded tweet which features a video of Kamala Harris taking down Brett Baier in the interview

That sets out what it is.

I enjoyed that, might make me watch the rest of it, she didn't put up with any sh*t from him

And that's my own views about it.

BBOC gave me a one word answer as to whether that would get a warning:

So I am VERY confused now. I'm not trolling. What I posted ticked all the boxes for me, but it still wasn't good enough. Other people were voicing their confusion and BBOC pointed people back to a post he had written:

That's all further discussion though. If you don't want to watch the video, fine. You probably wouldn't want to discuss it anyway. It's very frustrating to see this argument being used about a post taken completely out of context from the thread it was posted in.

I can't find the posts that apparently broke the camels back and resulted in the 2 x 2 point warnings.

I wasn't trolling. I'm still not trolling. I still genuinely have no clue anymore about what a linkdump is.

To me it was always a, "Watch this video and you'll get it" (with a 2 hour video attached.) It was never what I posted, which was in the middle of a conversation.

I'm not on my own either, there's been posts on that Harris Trump thread with people saying they'd post a video usually here, but not anymore. You can see from the thread on helpdesk that a lot of users also thought what I posted wasn't a linkdump.

I know that may be important as it's only what the admin and mod think, but it shows I wasn't and am still not trolling.

I also understand my chance at getting this overturned is minimal, I just ask if an admin can have a look and at least get me out of prison.

Being unable to report posts is a major pain for a start, and I really do t want to be temp site banned with what's about to come up.

I have talked to BBOC who was willing to bring it down to 3 warning points, but that would still have me in prison, hence this appeal.

Thanks,

F

Thanks Spear. Appreciate the help.