[vitor 9968]

i wanted to file a complaint for the unjust banning of a sherdog member by boxing mod tam tam in this thread

http://www.sherdog.net/forums/showth...62#post6503862


the member gave his opinion with well thought out facts to support his opinion on a topic with mild fighter bashing,bashing that the rules cleary state is cause for double yellows.

while i do not agree with the members opinion or mild fighter bashing,it was not cause for the banning of a member with over three thousand posts giving a logical, well thought out opinion on a subject.

several sherdog members also agreed in the thread that this ban was unjustified and i ask this matter be investigated .

[ThirdPartyView]

Copied over for citing purposes on his fighting bashing statements:

Originally Posted by 36thDisciple

Animal Squables was a lameass but that in no way constituted a ban. in fact, u couldnt even get him for trolling, obviously he believed what he posted. i guess its not a huge deal, being it was Animal Squables and all, but that was still a pretty lame fuckin ban decision. dubs worthy at best.

I would consider these gems as fighter bashing:

Braddock who sucked and scored an upset over Baer who had no skill

Braddock was garbage.

Braddock sucked and got an upset over Baer.

Then theres Joe Louis... well he beat Buddy Baer and Joe Walcott.

(Seems like he was a big Jim Braddock fan...)

Also, as Kid McCoy pointed out earlier, his 'argument' was basically projecting all of Louis' negatives and making it seem as though that was all he had, which at the best is horrible debating tactics and at worst, trolling. Plus, the fact that he had tried to argue these points once before in a thread I cited didn't help his cause, either (and could be construed as trolling since he already 'tested the waters' on his opinion, so all he was doing was trying to start shit up with the forum again). Finally, excessive fighter bashing (or excess of any double yellow offense, really) is a bannable offense. Bashing once or twice may be worthy of only double yellows, but if you continually bash someone, you can be banned (this has been stated before by a number of mods and admins and been set as precedent). In addition, nowhere in the fighter bashing forum rule does it say you can only get banned for having one particularly bad bashing post.

In conclusion, I would say the ban was 100% justified, considering that the 'victim' (Animal Squables) had already done the topic before in another thread (and even admitted as such), but decided:

the other thread was about Louis, Dempsey, and Jack Johnson. This is only about Louis. I was going to title it "I still think a prime Tyson would have KOed Louis." but I didnt want to look like a Tyson nuthugger.

In the second reply to the thread (in reply to "Didn't you post this exact shit some time ago, or was that someone else?")

So, a combination of both his 'debating' method (read: loaded 'point' fighter bashing as Kid McCoy said in the thread, as he only pointed at Louis' flaws rather than his benefits) and his intention to bash fighters a number of times in the thread (mainly Jim Braddock outright) shows more than enough justification for a ban.

[vitor 9968]

Originally Posted by ThirdPartyView

Copied over for citing purposes on his fighting bashing statements:



I would consider these gems as fighter bashing:









(Seems like he was a big Jim Braddock fan...)

Also, as Kid McCoy pointed out earlier, his 'argument' was basically projecting all of Louis' negatives and making it seem as though that was all he had, which at the best is horrible debating tactics and at worst, trolling. Plus, the fact that he had tried to argue these points once before in a thread I cited didn't help his cause, either (and could be construed as trolling since he already 'tested the waters' on his opinion, so all he was doing was trying to start shit up with the forum again). Finally, excessive fighter bashing (or excess of any double yellow offense, really) is a bannable offense. Bashing once or twice may be worthy of only double yellows, but if you continually bash someone, you can be banned (this has been stated before by a number of mods and admins).

In conclusion, I would say the ban was 100% justified, considering that the 'victim' (Animal Squables) had already done the topic before in another thread (and even admitted as such), but decided:



In the second reply to the thread (in reply to "Didn't you post this exact shit some time ago, or was that someone else?")

So, a combination of both his 'debating' method (read: loaded 'point' fighter bashing as Kid McCoy said in the thread, as he only pointed at Louis' flaws rather than his benefits) and his intention to bash fighters a number of times in the thread (mainly Jim Braddock outright) shows more than enough justification for a ban.

if restarting a debate to get more new ideas on it was a bannable offence,90 % of the mma forum would banned.futhermore,is was not the exact same topic.the new thread was soley debateing louis legacy,not louis and other old time greats

it is not trolling if you put logical opinions to support your arguement

he did bash,but it was not extreme bashing such as calling louis a ***got or making any other personal attacks against louis or any other fighter.his attacks were bashing them by
undermining thier skills to support his point,not personal flames such as calling them ***gets or piles of shit


futhermore,tam has banned members for questionable offences before,as well as banning
someone for a short period of time and letting them back later as a joke when they dont agree with him


1. Fighter Bashing (including refs, promoters and the like) won't be tolerated anywhere on the board. Criticism is fine, flaming isn't. Minor bashing such as "so and so sucks, is a dick, etc." is a double yellow, while extreme bashing like "so and so is a pile of shit, ***got, etc." will result in a ban

[ThirdPartyView]

Originally Posted by vitor 9968

if restarting a debate to get more new ideas on it was a bannable offence,90 % of the mma forum would banned

So why didn't he pop up the old thread with Louis, Dempsey and Johnson on it if he had anything new to add? Doesn't exactly take much effort. Nonetheless, this alone isn't worth a ban (and maybe not even double yellows).

it is not trolling if you put logical opinions to support your arguement

Kid McCoy disagrees that it was a logical opinion, and not simply selective bashing.

he did bash,but it was not extreme bashing such as calling louis a ***got or making any other personal attacks against louis or any other fighter.his attacks were bashing them by
underming thier skills to support his point,not personal flames such as calling them ***gets or piles of shit

He bashed Jim Braddock excessively (at least 3 times, as I cited), and Max Baer twice. And, as I said, no where in the rule you keep on citing does it say that excessive fighter bashing (such as attacking Braddock relentlessly for a number of posts) isn't a ban worthy offense. It just sorts the individual bashings by level, but never. And I remember ShootoPanama (I think) stating to someone in a thread in the MMA forum that excessive fighter bashing, even if not extreme, can and will lead to a ban. So it's not just Tam-Tam's 'crazy idea', sorry to tell you.

futhermore,tam has banned members for questionable offences before,as well as banning
someone for a short period of time and letting them back later as a joke when they dont agree with him

Since I don't know anything about these cases (or at least don't remember them offhand), I'll let him argue with you about it.

[vitor 9968]

Originally Posted by ThirdPartyView

So why didn't he pop up the old thread with Louis, Dempsey and Johnson on it if he had anything new to add? Doesn't exactly take much effort. Nonetheless, this alone isn't worth a ban (and maybe not even double yellows).



Kid McCoy disagrees that it was a logical opinion, and not simply selective bashing.



He bashed Jim Braddock excessively (at least 3 times, as I cited), and Max Baer twice. And, as I said, no where in the rule you keep on citing does it say that excessive fighter bashing (such as attacking Braddock relentlessly for a number of posts) isn't a ban worthy offense. It just sorts the individual bashings by level, but never. And I remember ShootoPanama (I think) stating to someone in a thread in the MMA forum that excessive fighter bashing, even if not extreme, can and will lead to a ban. So it's not just Tam-Tam's 'crazy idea', sorry to tell you.



Since I don't know anything about these cases, I'll let him argue with you about it.

1.the new thread was not on louis,dempsey,and johnson,but soley to discuss louis

2.just because one member thinks there is no logic on his opinion,does not make it so.
me and other posters thought he did have a point.if compareing louis to ali and stating louis was knocked down by lesser oppenents and ali was not,that is a logical statement to support your side of the debate that ali was better.and thats what forums are for.

3.he should be warned for bashing,and that is what dubbs are for.but to ban a two year member with three thousand post for minor bashing making no personal or hateful attacks is wrong.

[ThirdPartyView]

Originally Posted by vitor 9968

2.just because one member thinks there is no logic on his opinion,does not make it so.
me and another poster thought he did have a point.if compareing louis to ali and stating louis was knocked down by lesser oppenents and ali was not,that is a logical statement to support your side of the debate that ali was better.and thats what forums are for.

Actually, he said that Animal Squables was intellectually dishonest by blatantly ignoring the positives of Joe Louis and making him out to be completely horrible (also, he ignored some faults of Ali in the argument, so it wasn't unbiased). Some would argue this is trolling or flame baiting because the poster, knowing both sides of the story, intentionally ignores one side to get a firey argument started, which is what it seemed like, to be honest.

3.he should be warned for bashing,and that is what dubbs are for.but to ban a two year member with three thousand post for minor bashing making no personal or hateful attacks is wrong.

That's your opinion, but I disagree. He was vitriolicly attacking Jim Braddock over and over again. Sure he didn't call him slurs, but continually bashing a fighter just because you don't like the guy is not a minor issue after a while. I remember Tito Ortiz was driven off these boards for being called 'big head' over and over again.

[vitor 9968]

Originally Posted by ThirdPartyView

Actually, he said that Animal Squables was intellectually dishonest by blatantly ignoring the positives of Joe Louis and making him out to be completely horrible. Some would argue this is trolling or flame baiting because the poster, knowing both sides of the story, intentionally ignores one side to get a firey argument started, which is what it seemed like, to be honest.



That's your opinion, but I disagree. He was vitriolicly attacking Jim Braddock over and over again. Sure he didn't call him slurs, but continually bashing a fighter just because you don't like the guy is not a minor issue after a while. I remember Tito Ortiz was driven off these boards for being called 'big head' over and over again.

when you are debating someone,you only debate the points that support your veiw on the topic,otherwise you are only debating yourself.

he was stateing his facts to support his view that louis should not be rated next to or above others.and while he bashed louis oppenents by undermining thier skills,he was stating that louis top oppenents were not as good as others top oppenents and stating louis's weaknesses

and most would agree that louis oppenents were great fighters,most would also agree they were not as good as foreman,listen,frazier.proved by the fact that most people have these fighters in the top 15 of all time heavyweights,while most dont have louis's oppenents in the top 15 of all time

i think louis is the #2 of all time,but if i am debating someone that thinks louis is #1 over
ali,i have to state some of louis's negatives to make my point.

and thats what that guy was doing,but he bashed louis's oppenents rather then just undermine thier skills to show that others such as ali,forman ,ect had better oppenents then louis

and he should be dubbed for it

[ThirdPartyView]

Originally Posted by vitor 9968

when you are debating someone,you only debate the points that support your veiw on the topic,otherwise you are only debating yourself.

No, what you are supposed to do is either present both sides of the case (as there is another side that you are trying to 'defeat', afterall), but mainly focus on the strengths of your side, or at the very least acknowledge that the other side exists and try to tear down their argumentation offered. Also, you are not supposed to intentionally call every opponent a fighter has faced as horrible if that is not true, just to 'get over' your point (that's intellectual dishonesty as you are manipulating/falsifying points to satisfy your conclusion; I would hope no one called Ken Norton a 'bum' for getting iced in a round by Gerry Cooney & Earnie Shavers or that Ali's chin is questionable as he was decked by the likes of Sonny Banks in an attempt to bash Ali's achievements). Here's his opening post:

Louis had no chin. He got dropped by sorry ass guys like Tony Galindo, James Braddock, Max Schmeling, Buddy Baer. He was losing to Billy Conn, who was a middleweight who moved up and was beating Joe Louis which is exactly what was happening to John Ruiz against Jones and Toney and Ruiz gets all kinds of shit for it. He lost his first fight against Walcott but got a gift decison. His biggest wins were against and old Max Baer, and old and useless Primo Carnera, and old Max Schmeling who had previously KOed , Billy Conn who was a middleweight who was winning after 12 rounds, Braddock who sucked and scored an upset over Baer who had no skill, and Walcott who had previously beaten him. So really his only good wins were against Walcott and Braddock. Walcott beat him once and Braddock was garbage. Joe Louis is overated and got dropped by people who dont even really have power. He had heart and always got up but it's against guys like Tony Galindo, How would he have done against the power of Foreman?!?!?!

om Dempsey on excluding people he fought...

I say Louis gets KOed by Foreman, Tyson, Marciano,Liston, Dempsey, Frazier, Lewis, Bowe, Holyfield
I say Louis gets outboxed by Holmes, Ali,
I say Louis beats Patterson, Johansen, Tunney

Calling Schemling, Baer and Bradddock 'sorry ass'? Calling Max Baer 'old' when he was 26? Max Schmeling was 'old' at 33? Jim Braddock 'sucked'? We can go on and on with his debating/argumentative faults, but the point is simple:

Animal Squables was not engaging in a true debate. He was basically calling every achievement of Louis' shit, and therefore he was a horribly overrated fighter with no chin (therefore being intellectually dishonest in an attempt to 'get over' his point). I don't see how this post wasn't inflammatory and flame baiting material.

[vitor 9968]

Originally Posted by ThirdPartyView

No, what you are supposed to do is present both sides of the case (as there is another side that you are trying to 'defeat', afterall), but focus on the strengths of your side (or at the very least acknowledge that the other side exists and try to tear down their argumentation). Also, you are not supposed to intentionally call every opponent a fighter has faced as horrible if that is not true, just to 'get over' your point. Here's his opening post:



Calling Schemling, Baer and Bradddock 'sorry ass'? Calling Max Baer 'old' when he was 26? Max Schmeling was 'old' at 33? Jim Braddock 'sucked'? We can go on and on with his faults, but the point is simple:

Animal Squables was not engaging in a true debate. He was basically calling every achievement of Louis' shit, and therefore he was a horribly overrated fighter with no chin. I don't see how this post wasn't inflammatory and flame baiting material.

when john kerry and george bush debated,kerry always said the US went in alone ,he never mentioned the other contries that were there in token amounts, as he was trying to make his point that the U.S should have got U.N support. he never mentioned the other countries .and these are the biggest debates in the world.(see where i am going on the subject of debates ?)



while i agree he debated in very poor taste,the end of his arguement was that louis was not among the very elite in hw champs,his sole purpose was not to bash a fighter or make insults such as someone saying ortiz has a big head

his thread was louis is overrated,not louis or his oppenents are a piece of ****

[ThirdPartyView]

Originally Posted by vitor 9968

when john kerry and george bush debated,kerry always said the US went in alone ,he never mentioned the other contries that were there in token amounts, as he was trying to make his point that the U.S should have got U.N support. he never mentioned the other countries .and these are the biggest debates in the world.(see where i am giong on the subject of debates ?)

Yes, although that doesn't mean Kerry was following proper debating protocol. In fact, I could argue it wasn't debating, it was mudslinging, because it was a political 'debate'. Just like Bush was doing to him. Kerry technically was intellectually dishonest, but that's 'expected' in these types of environments (as ad hominem attacks are the norm, unlike in true debates).

while i agree he debated in very poor taste,the end of his arguement was that louis was not among the very elite in hw champs,his sole purpose was not to bash a fighter or make insults such as someone saying ortiz has a big head

his thread was louis is overrated,not louis or his oppenents are a piece of ****

Well, calling fighters 'bums', 'sorry ass', 'garbage' and so forth for 75-90% of his posts makes it very likely that the sole purpose was to fighter bash (under the guise of making an 'argument' that Louis was overrated). After all, I didn't see any counter-argumentation, just bashing of Louis and his opposition.