RugbyRebels

Yesterday, the mods received a substantial number of complaints regarding behaviour on this board, relating to two posters. The complaints concerned:
Abusive behaviour
Threatening behaviour.

Both are contrary to board rules.

As a result, two posters have been banned. In the interests of open justice, I will give the rationale for each below.

Cashead has been banned for two days for abusive posting. This was a first offence but the moderators felt that the nature of his posts required a harsh punishment than just a warning.

UG has been banned for two weeks for abusive posting. This is not the first ban. He has been banned twice before and has two open warnings, all for abusive posting. Clearly shorter bans were having no impact so the duration has been increased.

The allegation of threatening behaviour is still under review and may lead to a separate, consecutive ban.

Seriously? Someone felt threatened by a comment on a message board? On the basis that I have no idea what anyone looks like, or where anyone lives, if I was to threaten someone would anyone really pay that threat any attention?

Thanks Sandy. Transparency is much appreciated. My opinion is that 2 weeks is disproportionate though, given that UG was apparently provoked by cashead.

Zhivago wrote:Thanks Sandy. Transparency is much appreciated. My opinion is that 2 weeks is disproportionate though, given that UG was apparently provoked by cashead.

Reading the thread through, it appeared to us that both parties were provoking the other. The fortnight ban is purely predicated against past record. If this were a first offence, it wouldn't be two weeks.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:Thanks Sandy. Transparency is much appreciated. My opinion is that 2 weeks is disproportionate though, given that UG was apparently provoked by cashead.

Reading the thread through, it appeared to us that both parties were provoking the other. The fortnight ban is purely predicated against past record. If this were a first offence, it wouldn't be two weeks.

You are the mod, so it's at your discretion of course. Now you've deleted all the posts, except the last one... everyone who didn't read it at the time will have to trust that it went exactly as you say. All I can say is that the thread was a meaningful discussion before cashead joined the fray. It should have been shut down sooner. Maybe we need more mods with more individual discretion in this politics forum, as it can get fiery fast.

I like chatting with both those guys and have a great deal of respect for their knowledge. Also agree, however, that the transparency is a good thing and, if anything, this forum seems remarkably fair & lenient.

I was banned by the tier 2 & 3 forum totally out of the blue, apparently for being too argumentative (I'd received a couple of warnings, but wtf? - forums are designed for debate and I didn't think they'd actually ban me permanently for it). I suspect the real reason was there were just too many long-standing members who didn't like my views, and one or two of them were refusing to post on the forum while I was there. So they just banned me on a pretext, and when other posters questioned this, the moderator launched into some libelous tirade to justify himself. & that's the basis most rugby forums seem to operate on, so far as I can tell. So it's refreshing to find this one where warnings are given, bans are not permanent, and explanations are provided.

This is all news to me.

Worst are Planet Rugby & NZ's Silver Fern. Zero ethical standards at all.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:Thanks Sandy. Transparency is much appreciated. My opinion is that 2 weeks is disproportionate though, given that UG was apparently provoked by cashead.

Reading the thread through, it appeared to us that both parties were provoking the other. The fortnight ban is purely predicated against past record. If this were a first offence, it wouldn't be two weeks.

You are the mod, so it's at your discretion of course. Now you've deleted all the posts, except the last one... everyone who didn't read it at the time will have to trust that it went exactly as you say. All I can say is that the thread was a meaningful discussion before cashead joined the fray. It should have been shut down sooner. Maybe we need more mods with more individual discretion in this politics forum, as it can get fiery fast.

Mods are volunteers, so you will never have someone 'on duty' all the time. The best advice is if someone acts like a complete cnut, report them and let it go until a mod can take action. When you raise a report, we are emailed so someone can normally log in.

That was a short 2 days...

cashead wrote:You might want to follow a similar model to other forums when a poster gets banned. On the Something Awful forums. When someone gets banned there, their avatar becomes this:

Not much use if you don't see avatars having blocked them for being somewhat jejune. It was noted somewhere t'other day I was being a party pooper over a different matter, but I like to think that my disdain for avatars and similar will bring some mirth to the board.

cashead wrote:You might want to follow a similar model to other forums when a poster gets banned. On the Something Awful forums. When someone gets banned there, their avatar becomes this:



for the duration of their ban (until they re-register. Temporary bans are called probations).

Posters also have a rap sheet that is accessible to everyone accompanying them, which provides a list of their bans and probations, why they were banned/probated and a link to the specific offending post, as well as which mod requested the ban, and which admin approved it.

There is also a running list of every single ban or probation accessible at the top of the page called the Leper's Colony.

I'd like to know what forums you're referring to. Certainly not any rugby forums I'm aware of. As mentioned earlier, this is actually the first rugby forum I've encountered that has any kind of a transparent disciplinary system at all. The others just ban at will anyone whose opinions they don't like.

cashead wrote:

Zhivago wrote:That was a short 2 days...

Usually 2 days is 48 hours, but in this case, it was actually 45.3.

In which case you owe us 2.7 hours. Can you shut it for a bit Cas?

cashead wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

cashead wrote: Usually 2 days is 48 hours, but in this case, it was actually 45.3.

In which case you owe us 2.7 hours. Can you shut it for a bit Cas?

Hey man, I can't be held responsible for the whims of fate and the odd glitch in the space time continuum.

Were you travelling very very fast for those 45.3 hours? If so we'll let it pass.

I actually quite like UG these days.

Just sayin'.

2nd smartest fellow on this forum

I don't feel the need to agree with everything anyone on here says. UG can be a pain, but he can also be thought provoking. I don't think we can afford to get rid of too many thought provoking posters.

Mikey Brown wrote:I actually quite like UG these days.

Just sayin'.

The hell happened to you in the past 2+ years?

Are you on the medical maryjane or Prozac?

... and I've always liked UG.. He is passionate and doesn't mince words... and he likes ambrosia.

There is nothing wrong with being passionate and sticking to one's views. We try to understand that passionate argument sometimes spills over into abuse, which whilst not acceptable is forgiveable.

What is not forgiveable is repatedly threatening another poster. Leaving aside for the moment that it's a criminal offence, it's clearly contrary to the letter and the spirit of the rules of the forum. People come here to enjoy themselves and we will protect them from threats. A poster who can't be trusted not to threaten someone else can't be on the forum. As for "well it's on the internet so it doesn't matter" well that's obvious nonsense, quite apart from the fact that UG suggested threats irl.

Accordingly I've banned UG permanently. I couldn't give a monkey's what his politics were and you can all feel free to be trotskite or anarchist socialists or crypto-fascist for all I care. Just don't threaten other people and expect to stay on the forum.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:There is nothing wrong with being passionate and sticking to one's views. We try to understand that passionate argument sometimes spills over into abuse, which whilst not acceptable is forgiveable.

What is not forgiveable is repatedly threatening another poster. Leaving aside for the moment that it's a criminal offence, it's clearly contrary to the letter and the spirit of the rules of the forum. People come here to enjoy themselves and we will protect them from threats. A poster who can't be trusted not to threaten someone else can't be on the forum. As for "well it's on the internet so it doesn't matter" well that's obvious nonsense, quite apart from the fact that UG suggested threats irl.

Accordingly I've banned UG permanently. I couldn't give a monkey's what his politics were and you can all feel free to be trotskite or anarchist socialists or crypto-fascist for all I care. Just don't threaten other people and expect to stay on the forum.

Permanently?

I guess I missed what happened to cause somebody to feel unsafe, or threatened by typewritten words. Unless, of course, it was written in caps... That surely means yelling right?

Mods judgement call, and I guess if there was a threat of terrorism or death.. Its justified. Take your word that it was serious, although it takes some of the zest out of the posting personalities here. Thats what gave it life imo.

So he held a .44 to your head and said "Go ahead... Make my day." ?

Did you honestly feel the fight or flight response surge through your body ?

(Btw, thank you for the explanation)

Coco wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:I actually quite like UG these days.

Just sayin'.

The hell happened to you in the past 2+ years?

Are you on the medical maryjane or Prozac?

... and I've always liked UG.. He is passionate and doesn't mince words... and he likes ambrosia.

I'm not knowingly taking either of those, but he provides some... different points of view and a lot of it is quite interesting. I don't contribute to the politics threads (I think I've come to it too late in the game to really tell who is bullshitting and who isn't, it's seemingly everyone) but it's most of what I read on here and he certainly gives you some things to think about. It appears like he said some idiotic things, I'm not remotely surprised, but it is a shame.

I don't feel like everyone agreeing with eachother- except Rowan- will provide as much entertainment or food for thought. There seemed to be plenty of other instigators in the frequent arguments/bickering (between him and basically anybody else) which did slow things down quite a lot.

I don't think I've got a stance on ambrosia. Is that that weird creamy, rice thing?

Devon knows how they make it so creamy

I am still a bit bemused by his choice of a rugby union forum as his preferred vehicle for political ranting.