Here's my take on why I got banned from the JREF Forums. I am not going to link to evidence for each claim because without an active account, I can't access what I need. Besides, it will make it too long. If you question a claim, e-mail me or submit a comment.
In a Nutshell
Simply put, I think the mod team, especially Darat and LashL, were looking for an excuse to be rid of me because I was a pain in the ass to them. I'm not saying it was some conspiracy. I think it was a case of colored judgment based on personal dislike, a perfectly human response. But that doesn't make it right. Cooler heads should prevail, especially when the mod team proudly proclaims to be free of bias and only enforcing the membership agreement.
Of course, there's no smoking gun (and no pretrial discovery where I could read their internal discussions). All I'm left with are series events where each one by itself is not a big deal but when looked at as a whole indicates a pattern of bias. As such, I will need to relate a large number of incidents that culminated in my banning. I'm sorry it's so long, but you really have to look at the big picture to know where I'm coming from.
I should note that normally one is not banned until after a series of escalating suspensions (1 day, 3 days, 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month has been typical) followed by a probationary period. I was on the 3 day mark. There was no probation and absolutely no communication that I was anywhere near the edge of being banned except for a few people (not mods) who commented publicly and privately that the mod team was looking for an excuse to ban me.
So, let's start at the beginning.
Initial Registration (October 2008) through September 2009
In my first year I did not have any infractions outside of Forum Management. I had one or two in FM for not being civil (bickering with other members - Plumjam and Remirol, I think). I posted mostly in favor of the mods and bickered with "whingers". Over time I came to see that there was a pattern of mistreating members, favoritism, and extreme rationalization to defend mod actions, so I began to speak out.
When Robert Lancaster, a nice guy whom I respect, returned from his stroke, it came to a head. He was clearly receiving favorable treatment in that he was allowed to start multiple threads about his personal life in General Skepticism while others were suspended for using the forums as ther "blog" or repeatedly starting threads in the wrong forums. Somebody spoke out in FM, and I chimed in with my opinion. A moderator, who was posting as a moderator, called me "petty" and "mean spirited" for discussing this, but that post was not actioned as a personal attack. The mods claimed there was absolutely no favoritism for RSL.
Disgusted and frustrated, I decided to take a break and asked my account be set not to allow me to post. Around the same time I sent an e-mail to Jeff Wagg at the JREF outlining my case for favoritism. He responded briefly telling me, "Robert Lancaster has a relationship with the JREF that extends beyond the forum. He does get special treatment because of this." In other words, I was right and the mods were either lying or wrong.
During this time that I could not post, I was still able to log in and use features like subscribed threads and reporting posts. I reported several posts for hot-linking (a pet peeve of mine). They were actioned. I then reported a new thread by RSL that was yet another personal story in GS&P. I was a smart-ass and wrote something like, "This thread is better suited for Community. Unless, of course, this is another case of RSL getting special treatment." I then quoted Jeff Wagg's comment above.
I think this is when it all really started going downhill for me.
Six hours later Darat had changed the password on my account without telling me. A bunch of crap ensued where I believe Darat lied about their procedures claiming that it was customary to change passwords on "unregistered" accounts and mine was an oversight. If that were true, then why does the forum have a customized "access denied" screen that says you can't access certain areas if your account is unregistered (a term unique to the JREF and not part of the vBulletin software)? The only way you can see it is if you are logged in, but if your password is changed, you can't log in?
This was a bitter battle, and my account was reinstated. I decided at that point that I would hold the mods accountable for their actions, so I resumed posting.
My First Non-FM Infractions
Within a few weeks of my return, I received my first ever infractions outside of Forum Management (both by Locknar). Both were reversed - one on appeal and the other simply by starting a thread in FM to ask about it. Seems like I had a bullseye on my back already. My posts were no diferent than I had made before. Only now I had pissed off the mods.
Advocacy of Suicide Debacle & Abusing the Reporting System
A member was suspended for "advocacy of suicide" for telling me, "If you don't think your senses are reliable, try walking on the train tracks and ignoring them." It was ridiculous, and I protested vehemently. Trick argued that even if it was clearly not an advocacy of suicide (like in this case) but somebody could mistakenly think it was one, they had to suspend.
So I saw a post by Darat that told somebody simply to "Drink the TEA." Not knowing that TEA was, I searched high and low for that acronym. Turns out to be a poisonous chemical, so I reported his post as an advocacy of suicide to make a point. I got a warning for abusing the reporting system, but I didn't care. They needed to see how stupid their rule and their reasoning was.
A month goes by and then Remirol, a member who loves to ride my ass, called me "dude" in yet another rude post directed my way. Recalling Darat infracting somebody for calling him "Daraty-boy" and Jihad Jane bitching about being called Jihad, I reported the post requesting that this person be instructed not to call me dude. For this I was suspended for "abusing the reporting system."
In my appeal I cited mainstream articles about the root of the term as well as its modern usage indicating quite clearly that it's used both as a friendly and derogatory term. I also cited posts I had made many months before where I publicly objected to the use of the term. So, while it may not have been actionable, I clearly had good cause to report it and find out. My appeal was denied because they just "knew" I did it to mess with them.
Name Calling - Target Matters
Interestingly, when I later in the year reported two posts by a member calling me a "forum bully" in a thread where that member had already received an infraction for a personal attack directed at me and two mod boxes had been posted telling people to be civil and polite, nothing was done. I had a member calling me "uber dad" with impunity. VisionFromFeeling used to call people "hon" or "honey" all the time despite complaints. However, when I referred to Schrodinger's Cat as "sweetheart," my post was redacted, and I was told I almost got an infraction because I was "belittling" her. In that same thread I was called "dude" at least once if not more.
Seems mighty inconsistent to me.
More of the Bullseye
Around March 2010 in a thread discussing whether it was appropriate to discuss James Randi's revelation that he was homosexual, I argued that it was not appropriate since he didn't bring it up on the forum. Wolfman disagreed. I wrote essentially, "Suppose somebody saw a picture of gay rights parade, recognized you marching in drag, and brought it up in the forums? Even if you were okay with it, would you think it was inappropriate since you didn't bring it up?"
Locknar nicked me for not being civil and polite as well as for attacking the arguer. I appealed. Lisa Simpson reversed the civil and polite infraction but upheld the other claiming that I was still "personalizing" the disucssion. I was in contact with Wolfman, and he didn't see anything wrong with what was essentially a "how would you feel if..." type argument. I mean, who's reporting this stuff?
Pissing Off Darat Some More
There was a period last spring where I butted heads with Darat. He was closing threads left and right, and I, like many others, felt he was trying to quell dissent. I got a couple of infractions for posting things he deemed were topics already covered in closed threads. He went so far as to nick me for ignoring a mod box posted a month earlier in a different thread. Yeh, like I'm gonna remember that.
Shortly thereafter Darat closed down FM to restructure it. Some told me privately that they felt the new structure was a result of my posting habits. Regardless, it was not well received by anyone. It was a knee-jerk reaction by Darat.
Gaming the System
Under the new FM they quickly closed threads in Questions. In one thread I asked follow-up questions that were subsequently ignored. They then closed the thread. In the past I would have simply started a new thread to re-ask my questions. Instead, while trying to heed the new rules, I started a thread asking if we were allowed to re-ask unanswered follow-up questions in a closed thread.
For that I was suspended from Forum Management for 30 days for 'gaming the system." Well, I think that was the reason. Nobody on the mod team ever explained to me what I did, which makes it really hard not to do it again. Even former mod, Chillzero, said she saw nothing wrong with my post and couldn't see how that was gaming the system. She thought it was a legitimate question.
Shortly before my FM suspension was up, I wrote a long post about my thoughts on gaming the system and the effectiveness of FM suspensions. I sent it to two long-time members who regularly contributed to FM both for and against the mods. They gave me their feedback, and I adopted most of the changes. After a few revisions, both agreed it was a useful post. I then submitted it to Darat just to make sure it would be OK. He gave it to the mod team, and Locknar replied a few days later telling me that if I posted it, I "might" be considered to be gaming the system again, which could result in me being banned from FM. No explanation was given. No suggestions were made on how I might bring up the points in my post without "gaming" the system.
But at least I was listening to the mods, right?
Me and Rule 12
In August another member accused LashL of bias. She simply denied it claiming she was not biased. I then posted over 20 quotes by her in Forum Management from before she became a mod. These quotes demonstrated a disdain for "whingers" and an attitude that the mod team is always right. I then tied it together stating in effect that since her "evidence" of not being biased is based on only her word, we should examine prior statements to assess her credibility. For this I was nicked for "attacking the arguer" even though I did not make any comments about her personally. Since there were no appeals in FM allowed at that time, the infraction stood.
A week or two later I got my first Rule 12 infraction outside of FM. It was an iffy call that I appealed to no avail. That very same member whom I allegedly attacked about a month later wrote in another thread about the Ground Zero Mosque, "If any of my friends die in Iraq, I am personally holding you [me] responsible." This was reported and not actioned. How is that not personalizing the discussion? Again, it seems the target matters.
Now, about six months later I get hit with my second Rule 12 infraction outside of FM, my fourth total in a year and probably 3,500 posts. That's the one in my prior blog where I simply pointed out that a member's comments about her sexual experiences are useful to judge her opinions about the sexual maturity level of others (I also said that my experiences were relevant to judging my opinions). This member was allowed to repeatedly accuse me of just "wanting to fight" and not really having an opinion. She accused another member of faking having a girlfriend. However, I received the only Rule 12 infraction. I was suspended for 30 days, and a few days later that was turned into a ban.
My suspension came a day after my infraction. During the interim I started a thread complaining about that specific infraction and what it means to the forum as a whole if bringing up prior in-thread statements is attacking the arguer. That thread stood for three days. Then it was moved to AAH (I received no notice). The only other post was, "Did you appeal it?"
Why was that thread moved? The writing was on the wall.
Reposting Redacted Text
Last March or so I was informed that if a mod redacts text, even if it just to preserve the rest of the post and not issue an infraction, that we're not allowed to repost it in FM for discussion or even link to another site where it's posted. We had to paraphrase, which conveys the same meaning. Sounds silly to me, but whatever. For the next nine months that's exactly what I did. I listened to their instructions.
Last November in an FM thread I had the need to refer to redacted text again, only this time the specific phrasing was important. So what I did was eliminate what I thought were the objectionable terms, so it was only partially redacted. I was arguing with a mod, so it's not like I thought I was sneaking something. I received an infraction. I appealed, and it was denied. I was suspended from the entire board for three days and FM for 30 days. I wrote to Darat that I honestly thought what I was doing was permitted and apologized for being wrong. After that time I had to refer to redacted text again, and once again I paraphrased.
It was a honest mistake treated extremely harshly, especially considering that there is no rule for the mods about what should and should not be redacted. If on a whim a mod redacts it, you can't quote it in Forum Management to discuss it. Sounds like a petty power play to me. More on that later.
Ignoring a Mod Directive
During my second FM suspension, I started a joke thread in Community asking for suggestions as to what I could talk about while on on an FM suspension. Several members joked around with me. The thread drifted to the number of views various members had on their suspension notices. For this Locknar issued me an infraction for Rule 11 (off topic) and for ignoring Lisa Simpson's directive not to discuss FM issues outside of FM. First, there is no Rule 11 in Community, so that part was reversed. In case you're keeping count, that's two full reversals and two partial reversals for infractions Locknar issued to me.
But as I wrote in my appeal, the number of views on suspension notices is not discussing FM issues. It's no different than other threads in Community about how many infractions you've received. How many views in Public Notices has nothing to do with managing the forum. Since others discussed it as well, why wasn't the thread split and moved to FM? Hell, if I had started a thread in FM about that, it would have been moved to Community or AAH for not being appropriate.
It's another case of the mod team being insecure bullies. On one hand they stress how it's "just a discussion" forum not to be taken so seriously, yet on the other hand if I write anything even remotely related to FM (even as part of a joke), you are "disobeying" them. It was petty and silly. At worst a "that's a little too close to the edge" PM would have sufficed. You don't skin a grape with an axe.
Posting Something Indecent
This one is a doozy. Somebody asked in FM how one could associate piss with glory. I replied, "Glory hole?" This was redacted as being indecent. If you search the board, people have referred to glory holes numerous times including a very crude thread in Community. It was another silly mod action by (guess who?) Locknar. No infraction, though.
Truth is, I have sent PMs to the mods several times before posting asking if my post/link was appropriate. Some were, and some weren't. I started a thread in FM asking for the best way to refer to adult websites in a thread where it was essential to refer to them. In other words I had never had a problem with "indecent" posts, and this was just nitpicking by Locknar. I wonder who reported it? But it shows that I listen to the mods.
Rule 11 and Human-Sheep Hybrids
What a piece of work this one was. I received a Rule 11 infraction for impeaching a member's claim of medical expertise in a thread each time she claimed medical expertise. It was a terrible infraction. LashL wrote in my infraction that I was exhibiting "stalker-like" behavior. I started a thread in FM asking her to clarify, but she never responded. I presented quite a bit of evidence that I in no way "stalked" one of the five most prolific posters on the board. This member, Skeptic Ginger, posted after me in just as many threads as I posted after her. It was an enforcement abuse of Rule 11, and LashL overstepped her bounds by accusing me of stalking. It was even more egregious that she never elaborated.
Posting Private Information? Huh?
A member in a medical related thread was claiming to be a doctor. I didn't believe it. The member used what looked like a first initial and last name for their member name. He said he was a member of the American Board of Bariatric Physicians and had a practice in south Texas. It took all of a minute to search the ABBP site to find the one doctor by that last name. Turns out the practice was in south Texas. Only the first name was that of a woman. I Googled that name. It came up on Facebook. The public profile listed her husband as having the same last name and a first initial that matched that on the JREF. He was the practice manager, not a physician. I posted my evidence and impeached his claim of being a doctor. He later claimed his wife was sometimes posting on his behalf.
That post was moved to AAH. Bookitty started a thread in FM asking about it in general terms. Darat, Trick and others responded saying that if information is easily found via Google, it's certainly not private (the very opposite, actually). They also said that if a member is claiming expertise by profession, it's relevant to submit evidence that the claim is untrue. It seemed like my post would be moved back to the thread.
It wasn't. It got moved to Deep Storage, never to be seen again. I sent a PM to a mod asking about it, but I received no reply. Four days later I received an infraction for posting private information about another member (thanks, LashL). Anyone remember LongTabber PE? Turns out he lied about being in the Army and being in law enforcement. Links to his private information were posted, and the mods declared it to be permitted. VisionFromFeeilng claimed to have a 4.0 average. When a member looked her up on the university website and found it not to be true, it was allowed to stand. When I discovered that VFF toured Poland as Alenara the Breatharian, that "private" information was allowed to stand.
Why was this case singled out?
Random Acts of Strangeness
Here are some other strange things the mods did to me. After VFF was banned, all of her threads were taken off moderated status. I started a thread about Jeff Wagg's idiotic decision to have her on Rational Alchemy. In the course of that thread a moderator (posting as a member) asked me a question. I answered. My post, and only my post, was moved out of that thread and into the dormant General Discussion thread about VFF. This then happened a second time a day or so later. I appealed, but I was told my posts belonged in the other thread even though they were both part of an ongoing discussion. None of the questions and none of the follow-ups to my two posts were moved. It was just my two, about two days apart. Why was I singled out? I guess you can ask Locknar.
As I said before, I have a pet peeve about hot-linking, so I typically report them. I always check to see if my reports are actioned or not. For some reason, two weren't (about a month apart). This is a no-brainer. Either it's hot-linked or it's not. If it is, fix the post. It was only after I started threads in FM several days after the reports that I was told the posts were accidentally overlooked. Once, maybe. But twice? When has something like that ever happened. Never, actually, besides with me. Are the mods seeing reports by me and saying, "Ah, screw him," or something?
A few days before my banning I reported a post in Community that linked to a page that contained foul language including the F word. If you clicked around that site, you would see graphic pictures of vagina sculptures. I reported the post and suggested the link have NSFW (not safe for work) tags put around it, which is standard operating procedure. If you're at work, it doesn't look good if your boss sees that kind of language/imagery. It's just courteous. Why didn't a mod step in? Again, by itself, no big deal. But in the grand scheme of things...
There was a thread in FM that was split into a new thread. Not really sure why, but whatever (ask Locknar). The first post in the new thread was mine. However, I wrote it as a continuation of another post I had written (two posts back), and I said as much in the intro. I reported the new thread and asked the mods to make my prior post the first one since that's when the "new" subject started. I even pointed out how the current first post referenced the prior one. No action was taken. Strange, huh? Basic housekeeping ignored? Why?
And how about the several complaint threads I started that cited numerous amounts of evidence (dozens of quotes)? Not a single one had any responses from the mods. It seems I was studiously being ignored. It seems like I was being baited into starting a thread in Questions to ask why no mod responded. If you recall, that was what Wolfman did, and he was suspended for "gaming the system." I'm not the only one who saw it that way. Another member pointed out the same thing warning me, "Don't do it. They are just looking for an excuse to ban you."
Last year after my return VisionFromFeeling received about five Rule 12 infractions over a period of two days (that's more than I got my entire time there). A few of them were directed at me. She blatantly accused me of "adultery," which is libelous. Were her posts sent to Deep Storage? No. Was her post redacted? No. To this day you can read her blatant lies on the JREF Forums.
Remember my post asking Wolfman how he would feel if something happened to him? It was moved to AAH and redacted. Remember my post talking about the number of views of suspension notices? That was redacted and moved to AAH. It seems kind of strange, right? Not really. Redacting my posts makes it very difficult for me to start a complaint thread. After all, if members can't judge the exact words, how can they render an opinion?
Like I said, none of these incidents in isolation mean all that much. Taken together, though, it shows a pattern.
Improperly Handled Appeals
I had one appeal of mine sit for 40 days. Not four - 40. I bumped it several times to no avail. I appealed one infraction that had no explanation as to what I did. I assumed it was one thing. It turns out it was for something else entirely (ignoring a mod box from a month ago in another thread). I was not allowed to re-file my appeal. In another appeal I suspected that the admins were not actually reading the arguments, so I asked the admin to post "I read this" in the decision so I could be assured that it was read. She didn't. I complained to Darat, and his response was tough noogies for me.
On my very last infraction, I submitted it at 10:30 PM. It was approved as a new thread at 10:42PM, and the ruling was posted at 10:44 PM. The admin handling the appeal, LashL, was the same one who gave me the infraction. That is against the rules. I complained to Darat, and he agreed it was improper. He then rubber-stamped the appeal to uphold it.
It's Not Any One Thing
None of these incidents by themselves mean all that much. What matters is that for a year I had virtually no problems with the moderators. After the debacle with Jeff Wagg and Darat where the membership convinced them that they acted inappropriately (I was no angel either), all of my problems started. The more vocal I became about moderation issues, the more it seems I "violated" the rules. And not just in FM.
During the whole VisionFromFeeling saga, I never received any infractions. I saw a number of people receive Rule 12 and Rule 0 infractions for posts directed towards me, but none went the other way. Did my posting style suddenly change? Maybe. Or maybe the mods got sick of me. And now, instead of arguing with a woo like VFF, I started butting heads with members who are, well, let's just say "more well liked" than I. It seems like since then virtually every encounter I had with the mods was questionable.
And the steps leading up to my banning are suspect. If you look around, some members get more Rule 0 and Rule 12 infractions in a month than I got in over two years. I'm a prolific poster, and I engage in some heated discussions. However, I don't get out of line more than anyone else. Truth is, there are probably five times as many Rule 0 and Rule 12 infractions given to members directly addressing me than I have received towards others. Some members have a few dozen infractions. I have maybe a dozen total in 7,000+ posts.
I believe I was railroaded, plain and simple. I was not treated fairly, and I was certainly treated differently than any other member. The claim of "repeated breaches" is disingenuous at best. Go through AAH and see for yourself how many infractions some people receive within a short period of time. Look at how many posts far more egregious than mine are simply tossed to AAH without infractions.
The mods love to say that banning is a last resort and that a member most certainly knows he's about to get the axe. That's not true in my case. Who has gone from a 3 day suspension to a banning for getting his fourth Rule 12 violation in 7,000+ posts over 2+ years?
No Conspiracy
As I said at the start, I'm not calling this a conspiracy. It's not like I think the mods consciously decided that they would conspire to be rid of me. I think they were biased, and I think they looked for ways to justify dealing with me harshly and ignored other possible explanations. I think a lot of confirmation bias was at work - you can rationalize all manner of posts as being against the membership agreement if you try. If you read my threads in Forum Management, you'll see that several of my infractions were heatedly debated with a number of people speaking out against the mod decisions. It's unusual for a member to complain and be supported by other members, but it happened with me a lot.
How many questionable calls all going the other way does it take to show bias? I'm not saying that every single item I listed above is definitely evidence. I'm quite sure that some had perfectly reasonable explanations. But the reality is that there are just too many of them to dismissed with a wave of the hand.
I'm a pain in the ass. I'm aggressive and tenacious. But I'm not a detriment to the forum as a whole, and I did not deserve to be banned.
Changes in Moderation Since I've Been There
Most people don't realize how many things I complained about were changed. I can't claim that I'm solely responsible, but here's a list of things that I've fought against and seen changed.
- Advocacy of suicide rule has been relaxed to a more rational level
- Appeals were brought back to Forum Management
- Thread closure policies in FM have been changed (my biggest complaint)
- Mods now post in an FM thread telling members that they are no longer participating (this was my suggestion)
- Copyright violations and hot-linking are now separate rules.
- The FM structure has been changed back to something more reasonable.
Addendum: A Problem with Women?
It has come to my attention that Lionking is claiming that I have some sort of issue with women. That's confirmation bias at its best. I have butted heads with a lot of people. Here are some of the men (or I think they are men): Darat, Jeff Wagg, Remirol, Lionking, Perpetual Student, RJordan, Dancing David, jiggeryqua, Tranewreck, LittleRoundMan, Gandalf's Beard, GreNME, UnlovedRebel, and Zooterkin (that's just off the top of my head). Most of them have received an infraction for being uncivil or making a personal attack against me. A few have pointedly and publicly put me on ignore.
I piss off a lot of people. I don't care about their gender. I typically only jump into threads where I have a strong opinion. When I have a strong opinion, it's based on a solid foundation of knowledge. Combine that with an aggressive style, a touch of arrogance and tenacity, and you have yer UncaYimmy. I really don't care who's on the other side. I argue the issues.
And as for always wanting to be right, who doesn't? What has always amused me about the Internet is that every time someone is accused of wanting to be right, there's somebody on the other side wanting just as badly to be right. It takes two to tango, but it seems that the one with the more aggressive style is always accused of being the bad guy.