"That's "Harassment"????" Topic

So Bandit is on gaol for calling a guy out who will absolutely not accept that everybody MUST accept his premise, despite all evidence to the contrary.
That's Harassment ?
I dunno.
We must be using different dictionaries.

Perhaps he made the same post in other threads, or sent multiple private messages or multiple complaints?

Free The Bandit!

In cases like this, the definition of Harassment seems to carry less weight than the vociferousness of the complainant.

I posted just once on that same thread, attempting to warn Bandit (and others) that they were wasting their time, and that got me a Harassment warning from The Editor. Apparently, one does not actually have to Harass a poster in order to be credibly accused . . . all you have to do is disagree with them. Getting all those who refuse to agree with you DHed for imaginary offenses is a strange way to win a debate.

It is ironic that one of the "aggrieved" parties (who complained of "bullying" and immaturity on the part of others) is now DHed for name-calling.

In cases like this, the definition of Harassment seems to carry less weight than the vociferousness of the complainant.

That seems to be true. PaintPig's "blasphemy" DH was not the result of doing something wrong, but merely being the target of a complaint. I'm sure the Editors would have not noticed the post or done anything if there wasn't a complaint.

I'm really struggling to see how Bandits post could be viewed as harassment.
I noticed that there's yet another repulsive Tango-bashing thread doing the rounds at the moment. That is what I would call real harrassment, and yet the Editor won't nuke those threads. He decided to put Bandit in the slammer for an innocuous and well reasoned comment instead. Go figure.

I'm really struggling to see how Bandits post could be viewed as harassment. I noticed that there's yet another repulsive Tango-bashing thread doing the rounds at the moment. That is what I would call real harrassment, and yet the Editor won't nuke those threads. He decided to put Bandit in the slammer for an innocuous and well reasoned comment instead. Go figure.

James,

Long ago I gave up looking for logic in the moderation of these boards; 'abatory' and 'capricious' seem most apt.

Arbitrary?

…or perhaps he meant an adjective version of 'abattoir'?

Arbitrary?

That too ;-)

"who will absolutely not accept that everybody MUST accept his premise"

That is absolutely not true. I clearly stated the vast majority on that thread did not agree with my observations. I have no problem with anybody not accepting my premise. The thread after all was really just a yes or no question.

Although harassment can be identified in one posting it's more often the result of more. I understand that Bandit was previously warned that his behavior was not acceptable. The last time was from the Editor. If you look at his last post you will note that not only was he DH for harassment, but the Editor also removed content from his message that was inappropriate.

There are many ways to harass someone. If the Editor sends you a "Harassment warning", in his eyes and probably at least one other person you are breaking the rules. If anyone is unfortunate to get one then they should take it as a wake up call and it's time to change the way they behave on TMP.

It seems to me that Bandit simply ignored the warnings.

Wouldn't that make Tango threads a form of harassment?

Yeah, Tango harassing TMP.

So Bandit is on gaol for calling a guy out who will absolutely not accept that everybody MUST accept his premise, despite all evidence to the contrary.
That's Harassment ?
I dunno.
We must be using different dictionaries.

This is a case of someone who has been warned, and who – in my judgment – crossed the line with his recent post.

As a general rule, disagreeing with another forum member is fine, but psychoanalyzing him or drawing conclusions about his home life is getting too personal.

The starting up of all those threads intended to demean Tango (however slyly-worded and cloaked these OP's are) is obviously harassment. It's clear bullying of one member by a number of other members.

If the Editor is really trying to control harassment then IMO these type of horrible threads should be nuked in the future, including the latest one.

Tango is now so "prominent" on TMP as to amount to being a public figure, and his posts do, arguably, affect the enjoyment of many other members, and that is not always in a positive way.

I'm really struggling to see how Bandits post could be viewed as harassment.

Yeah, I'm with you on that. I don't have a dog in this fight, but Bandit's post wasn't inflammatory, demeaning, or anything of the sort. I just read it as a pretty reasonable assessment of the situation, not a personal attack.

Oh, and why must Tango be mentioned in every thread now?

The tango threads are a disgrace. I can sympathise with the people who find his posts annoying, but if they have a problem they should take it up directly with the editor. Then either stay and accept his decision or leave. To have thread after thread about a member who isn't breaking any site rules is embarrassing and a downright disgrace. Has to be the clearest case of harassment and personal attack ever!

Has to be the clearest case of harassment and personal attack ever!

Reminds me of the Dark Times when people were making polls about restricting another member's posting privileges.

I wasn't a fan of bullying then, and I'm not a fan now.

BUT EVERY THREAD DOESN'T HAVE TO MENTION TANGO.

"Bandit's post wasn't inflammatory, demeaning, or anything of the sort. I just read it as a pretty reasonable assessment of the situation, not a personal attack."

He was not charged with a personal attack, it was harassment. I think he made around five posts on the thread and not one had anything to do with the actual thread. I don't think he ever even answered or responded to the original question. I don't even think he has any 6mm figures. So what was his purpose on the thread?

His assessment had nothing to do with the thread either. The question on the thread was a simple yes or no. It looked to me like he was trying to rub my nose in some kind of insulting survey. That's pretty inflammatory and demeaning to me.

The Editor has clearly stated that he had been warned about his behavior before. In his view he not only crossed the line again, but he also had to remove parts that were clearly inappropriate.

To me this is a very clear case of harassment.

It was not the reasonableness (or lack thereof) of Bandit's posts that constituted the perceived Harassment, but the repetition; hence my warning, which may have been a little too oblique to have the desired effect.

There is nothing in the rules prohibiting a member from posting a statement or opinion which another member finds inane, unintelligent, or just plain wrong. There is also nothing in the rules prohibiting that member from reposting said opinion in the same (or other) threads, but the rule is worded so that any other member who disagrees with said opinion, reasonably or not, on more than one thread can be accused of Harassment, if the original poster is thin-skinned enough to perceive it as such.

If you perceive a member as pursuing a personal agenda (which is also not against the rules, as anyone supporting a particular set of rules, scale of figures, or style of play could be seen as such, by someone . . . such behavior can have the same deleterious effect on rational discourse as harassment, but it is not prohibited) it is best to just ignore them (not stifle, necessarily) rather than follow them "from topic to topic, deliberately annoying them and disagreeing with them on everything" (quoted from the FAQ).

The lesson here is that you may safely disagree with an idea proposed by a member once, but if you do so every time it is proposed you open yourself up to accusations of Harassment, justified or not. State your case, then let it go.

As "TMP Talk" board is "For discussion of community issues involving the website", raising the issue of Message Board threads disappearing from the front page, and in some peoples' view the swamping of other content, due to the actions of any single user appears to be appropriate within the reason for the board's existence. But those discussions must not of course develop into sustained personal attacks (or counter-attacks) that The Editor may have to rule on as harassment. That is why taking it up directly with The Editor if it is an ongoing issue, as "badwargamer" reminds us, is the appropriate step prior to deciding whether you wish to continue frequenting TMP.

But this thread has led me to ponder an interesting question. Take the hypothetical example of manufacturer who appears to be swamping a board to keep interest on their ranges, by pushing down posts about other manufacturers' new products. Raising that sort of opinion on TMP Talk would allow a discussion to take place. But no doubt the all too familiar bands of pro and con posters would pop up, with an avalanche of posts from both sides, with a percentage calling for a foul of harassment on the original poster.

So would raising that opinion in the first place count as a personal attack on the manufacturer (after all many wargames companies are essentially single person operations), and be called harassment? Or is it an appropriate use of TMP Talk? Where does the rule of not attacking an individual stop, and raising concerns about commercial sharp practice start? Perhaps The Editor can give some indication on what his view would be on this.

No one has the right to "hijack" this forum, no matter how needy they are. In my opinion thats what Tango was doing.

For the purpose of clarity I wish to respond to some factual points that have been raised in this thread about me being DH'd:

Perhaps he made the same post in other threads, or sent multiple private messages or multiple complaints?

I did not make repetitive posts in multiple threads. I sent no PMs to the member who complained about me and the best of my knowledge only one member complained about me.

I understand that Bandit was previously warned that his behavior was not acceptable. The last time was from the Editor.

I was warned exactly once, by The Editor, not multiple times.

I think he made around five posts on the thread and not one had anything to do with the actual thread.

I made two posts on the thread before I was warned, then two additional posts which I believed were outside the context of the warning I received. Three of the four were about the intent and direction of the thread, the other was piggybacking what another member had posted, ironically about the potential harm that can come to yourself for disagreeing with someone who then complains about you. That post was not called to my attention as inappropriate.

I don't think he ever even answered or responded to the original question.

I disagreed with the premise and conclusion of the original poster.

The Editor has clearly stated that he had been warned about his behavior before.

I have received a single warning regarding this specific issue and it is the only warning I have ever received from The Editor about any issue. I went back to my PMs to check, they go back to December 2008.

psychoanalyzing him or drawing conclusions about his home life is getting too personal.

I did not do this. I said that the thread was following the same cycle as other recent threads where a specific member stated he was being attacked in response to being disagreed with. I have no idea what that member's feelings are, what his/her home life is like or what flavor of ice cream the member enjoys.

That said, this is Bill's [The Editor] website so while I disagree with his decision in this matter, I don't have to agree with it to accept that it is a matter of "Bill's playground, Bill's rules". Thus I'll seek to comply so long as I desire to continue using TMP and should I cease seeking to use TMP… well it won't matter if I comply because I'll stop posting.

What I do ask is that the rules are consistently applied:

I have been called names by the member I disagreed with, the member has stated that he has a vendetta against me based on our past disagreement, the member has posted that my silence is a positive start toward improvement and the member has posted that I should receive additional and greater punishment for the issue discussed in this thread. Now that member is threatening me that he'll get me in big trouble again if I respond to his posts, including those that talk about me.

I believe these actions are in violation of specific TMP forum rules and I ask that they be enforced.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Now that member is threatening me that he'll get me in big trouble again if I respond to his posts, including those that talk about me.

Then hit the complaint button every time he posts your name or posts about you, as he was probably the one who got you your DH. Two can play at that game.

Can't we all just get along? Come on, group hugs all round ….

Can't we all just get along? Come on, group hugs all round ….

Heck, I'd be happy if we could disagree without accusing each other of stuff. Disagreement isn't bad, it provokes conversation… accusations… we all make them but it is a spiral slope…

Cheers,

The Bandit