1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Photobucket has changed its policy concerning hotlinking images and now requires an account with a $399.00 annual fee to allow hotlink. More information is available at: this link.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  6. Dismiss Notice
  7. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

Agent327 vs Vincour

Discussion in 'Infraction Review' started by ori, Apr 20, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ori

    ori Repair Guy Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Messages:
    16,136
    Location:
    Baden-Württemberg, Germany
    Moderator Action: This thread is posted as is, with one minor edit removing a link to the non-public infraction page. - ori

    Agent327 is asking for a review of the infraction regarding this post.

    The conversation as forwarded by Agent327 is below:

     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2017
  2. ori

    ori Repair Guy Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Messages:
    16,136
    Location:
    Baden-Württemberg, Germany
    My take: calling another user a child and ascribing such traits as being whiny, anti-male, anti-sex in this form violates the "don't be a jerk" rule that is the most basic requirement of OT - for RD threads standards are quite a bit higher. As such I would uphold the infraction though I might straight out call it trolling not merely inappropriate behavior - but that is nitpicking.
     
  3. Bootstoots

    Bootstoots Chieftain Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    8,632
    Location:
    Mid-Illinois
    I agree with ori. This is not appropriate behavior for an RD thread. The line between "trolling" and "flaming/inappropriate behavior" is blurry and this one could be called either one - fundamentally, what an infraction is labeled as is not very important anyway. I'll further note that Agent327 has a pattern of fairly abrasive behavior towards people who disagree with him, which inclines me not to think he has earned the benefit of the doubt on borderline cases, especially following a modtext note warning of even stricter-than-average moderation even for an RD thread.

    I vote to uphold.
     
  4. Rob (R8XFT)

    Rob (R8XFT) Ancient Briton Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2002
    Messages:
    10,353
    Location:
    Leeds (UK)
    I agree with what Bootstoots has said. I can't think of any positive or productive reason why Agent327 would post this; it does seem to be to fall under the "flaming/inappropriate behaviour" umbrella.

    I vote to uphold.
     
  5. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    26,768
    Location:
    Sydney
    Frankly I don't understand Agent327's post, and consequently, who it is meant to be insulting. My initial reading of the post is that he's attempting to say something along the lines of, "you can ascribe negative characteristics to any group which you essentially choose to define by those negative characteristics (in a No True Scotsman kind of way)", and doing so very poorly, especially for an RD thread (though it's probably not quite spam). He could also be saying, "feminists are just extremely childish, so what do you expect?", but I don't think that would fit in with his usual political positions (I don't know what his position is on this particular topic, and he's made no other posts in the thread which might help clarify). But I'm not sure I see how this would be targeted at the OP, unless he's calling the OP "anti-male"? So I would think that whatever he's saying is meant to be adopting the structure of the OP to may some point about the topic, and isn't meant to be calling the OP an 8 year old white boy. The former is usually an acceptable way to edit someone else's quote (so long as it's clear the quote has been edited). Unfortunately, the PM exchange doesn't really clarify; Agent327 hasn't actually told us what he intended the post to mean (although his equally confusing 'racism' example might have been an attempt), he's just reacted with indignation to the infraction. Vincour didn't ever state what he thought the post to mean, either. I'd note that what Agent327 actually intended is not determinative; it just might have provided some interpretive assistance for what otherwise seems a hopelessly ambiguous post.

    Clearly enough if the post was in fact calling the OP an 8 year old, or was comparing the OP to an 8 year old, that wouldn't be acceptable. But given that I can't see how the post could mean that (and I'd be grateful to hear other interpretations of the post), I would vote to overturn the infraction.

    As far as the labelling of the infraction is concerned, I suspect that's because I haven't really set up the infraction categories very well so far. I'll have to work on that.
     
  6. ori

    ori Repair Guy Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Messages:
    16,136
    Location:
    Baden-Württemberg, Germany
    he took a quote by another user who clearly said something in the quoted post and replaced it with "8 year old says" - at the very least it is describing the other user as an 8 year old who is then being ascribed specific positions.
     
  7. Browd

    Browd Dilettante Administrator

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    10,417
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    I agree with Cami that his post could be read any number of ways (many of which would be incoherent without more explanation), but I think anyone reading this would fairly read it as mocking the OP. Perhaps the poster only meant to mock the OP's argument, but it is not a moderator's job to figure out the poster's true intent (however clumsily implemented), and, if the moderator thinks that (presumed) intent was otherwise benign/rule-compliant, let an otherwise noxious post slide (just as a post that is insulting to another poster is infractable even if the poster asserts that he was "just joking" and that the target of his insult was a "friend" who "got the joke").
     
  8. Bootstoots

    Bootstoots Chieftain Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    8,632
    Location:
    Mid-Illinois
    I see there's some ambiguity - I'll delve into the thread a bit more thoroughly later this evening and might change my vote depending on how exactly it seems to come off, in context. Granted, it's not up to the mods to interpret someone's post as charitably as possible, and Agent doesn't deserve much benefit of the doubt here, but I'll look into it nonetheless.
     
  9. leif erikson

    leif erikson Game of the Month Fanatic Administrator Supporter GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    22,671
    Location:
    Plymouth, MA
    Agree with Browd. Vote to uphold.

    Does anyone else find the PM conversation with Vincour as a problem. He does not seem to be able to get to the point, instead he appears to be trolling Vincour and wasting his time.
     
  10. Bootstoots

    Bootstoots Chieftain Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    8,632
    Location:
    Mid-Illinois
    I looked at the first pages of the thread and see Cami's point here. It is plausible that Agent327 may have just meant that you can put in anything such as "8-year old white boy" in place of "feminists" and the argument would have made just as much sense. But in my first reading, it came across as an insult - Agent appeared to be calling civver an 8-year-old white boy, or at least to be calling his argument that of an 8-year-old white boy, even if that was not his true intent.

    I agree with Browd that posters are responsible for how their posts could be reasonably interpreted, not just their true intent, and need to be clear on what they mean if they make a comment like this. This is especially true in an RD thread on a contentious topic, coming after a moderator warning to stay civil. Even more so when you put in an edited quote, because doing so makes it appear that your edited-in remark is directed at the person you're quoting.

    I'm still voting to uphold.
     
  11. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    26,768
    Location:
    Sydney
    I certainly agree with the second sentence of Browd's post, but I still personally find it difficult to construe the post as a dig at the OP. Perhaps that's the power of first impressions. So to be clear, I'm not attempting to seek out an interpretation favourable to Agent327 - my concern is on the interpretation that would be given to the post by a reasonable on-looker. If a reasonable on-looker would think that the post is commenting on the OP personally, then Agent237's intention to express some entirely inoffensive point doesn't mitigate.

    Of course, the fact that everyone else has actually read the post as rule-breaking might be thought to be strong empirical evidence of what a reasonable on-looker would think. But I suppose in answering the question of what a reasonable on-looker would think, we're interested in aggregating our various individual interpretations. So I'll stick with overturn, which leaves us with a fairly solid conclusion of 5-1.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page