Agent327 vs Vincour

[ori]

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:

Agent327,

1. Your actions in this message (Feminism: An evil ideology?) are not appropriate:
   ↑
   1. 8-year old white boy is anti-male
   
   2. 8-year old white boy is anti-sex
   
   3. 8-year old white boy is whiny
   
   We need better 8-year old parenting
   Click to expand...
   We cannot allow users to be abusive, overly aggressive, threatening, or to "troll".
   
   Specifically, this post is unacceptable as RD replies are required to present an actual argument. Rewriting quotes from other members is not permitted. Portraying the poster as an "8 year old white boy" is equally unacceptable.
   
   For this post, you have been issued a two point warning.
   
   - Vincour
   
   Debate Humanity - My Blog!
   Vincour, Friday at 6:11 AMReport
   Reply
   
   
2. 
   Agent327Observer
   Joined:
   Oct 28, 2006
   Messages:
   16,014
   Location:
   In orbit
   I see, once again, that even for moderators reading is difficult.
   
   Kindly point out where I compare the OT poster to an '8 year old white boy'.
   
   Awaiting your reply eagerly,
   
   Agent327.
   
   Agent327, Friday at 6:14 AMEditReport
   Reply
   
   
3. 
   VincourA Minor CharacterModerator
   Joined:
   Nov 19, 2006
   Messages:
   8,297
   Gender:
   Male
   Location:
   Pacific Northwest
   I feel your quotation fulfills that request suitably.
   
   Debate Humanity - My Blog!
   Vincour, Friday at 6:16 AMReport
   Reply
   
   
4. 
   Agent327Observer
   Joined:
   Oct 28, 2006
   Messages:
   16,014
   Location:
   In orbit
   Your feelings should be irrelevant. You also 'feel' an intent to insult?
   
   Still awaiting a proper reply.
   
   Agent327.
   
   Agent327, Friday at 6:18 AMEditReport
   Reply
   
   
5. 
   VincourA Minor CharacterModerator
   Joined:
   Nov 19, 2006
   Messages:
   8,297
   Gender:
   Male
   Location:
   Pacific Northwest
   The three separate reasons for your infraction were provided for your perusal in the original message of this conversation.
   
   You're welcome to disagree with those reasons and present your argument towards that end. If it's compelling, your infraction may be reduced or rescinded.
   
   You are not welcome to insult me and demand that I justify the infraction to you when the reasons have already been provided.
   
   Debate Humanity - My Blog!
   Vincour, Friday at 6:21 AMReport
   Reply
   
   
6. 
   Agent327Observer
   Joined:
   Oct 28, 2006
   Messages:
   16,014
   Location:
   In orbit
   I did neither insult you nor the OT poster. I urge you to read again.
   
   And I'll give you a second example to help:
   
   1. racism is anti-male
   
   2. racism is anti-sex
   
   3. racism is whiny.
   
   I merely replaced feminism with another term, showing how silly the ' argument' here is. Such a thread title shouldn't even be allowed the pre-fix RD.
   
   Still awaiting a proper reply,
   
   Agent327.
   
   Agent327, Friday at 6:41 AMEditReport
   Reply
   
   
7. 
   VincourA Minor CharacterModerator
   Joined:
   Nov 19, 2006
   Messages:
   8,297
   Gender:
   Male
   Location:
   Pacific Northwest
   I took your advice and read your message again. I stand firm on the belief that telling me I find reading difficult is an insult.
   
   Infraction stands.
   
   Debate Humanity - My Blog!
   Vincour, Friday at 6:43 AMReport
   Reply
   
   
8. 
   Agent327Observer
   Joined:
   Oct 28, 2006
   Messages:
   16,014
   Location:
   In orbit
   I doubt you took my serious advice to heart. And to mention that reading is difficult is not an insult, it's a sad fact.
   
   Here are my objections:
   
   1. You presume an intent to insult
   
   2. You presume my action insults anybody.
   
   I have no intent to insult. That someone feels insulted by anything I write, doesn't prove such an intent on my part. It only proves that someone feels insulted. Since you show no intent of taking my objections seriously (you've escalated from 'I insulted a fellow poster' to 'I insulted a moderator'), you may consider my objection formal and forward it to the appropriate person.
   
   Cheers,
   
   Agent327.
   
   P.S. Since Valka d' Ur already showed the bias of the OT poster's 'arguments', I did not feel I needed to add to that. Frankly, I find such threads insulting. To intelligence. Not to me personally, obviously, but more like an insult in that the author shows a lack thereof. So, in short, he only insults himself. I can understand, however, how someone (say, an actual female) might take it personal.
   
   Agent327, Friday at 7:00 AMEditReport
   Reply
   
   
9. 
   VincourA Minor CharacterModerator
   Joined:
   Nov 19, 2006
   Messages:
   8,297
   Gender:
   Male
   Location:
   Pacific Northwest
   Here are the facts.
   
   1. A mod note was posted in the thread saying that it would be moderated more heavily.
   
   2. RD threads are already moderated to a higher standard.
   
   3. Several posts in this thread have already been infracted for spam, failing to contribute, and for insulting the thread starter.
   
   4. You had not posted in this thread yet, thus providing no prior context that would suggest your "8 year old white boy" rewrite of someone else's message was "merely replacing" a term.
   
   5. Even if your claim that it's not an insult is true, it still breaks the rules because you do not assert anything in your post and you chose to make your alleged point by rewriting someone's entire message. Changing someone's message is allowable when you're using it to make a point that is made vividly clear. You did not do this. You edited someone's post in its entirety and presented that as your contribution. At worst, it's an insult. At best, it's spam. Either way, it breaks the rules of an RD thread that is on a short leash.
   
   Lastly, in regards to your latest message, if you have to label something as a "sad fact" when placing a negative judgement upon another person, it is likely an insult. It is also not up to you to decide what is or isn't an insult when you are not the one being insulted. You are certainly welcome to try and argue that telling someone they can barely read is a civil contribution but I think we both know it isn't and definitely wasn't intended as such.
   
   Valka's contributions to the thread are irrelevant to this subject. If you felt you had nothing to add to an RD thread, you are encouraged to refrain from using the "Post Reply" function in the future.
   
   Debate Humanity - My Blog!
   Vincour, Friday at 7:15 AMReport
   Reply
   
   
10. 
    Agent327Observer
    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    16,014
    Location:
    In orbit
    ↑
    Here are the facts.
    
    1. A mod note was posted in the thread saying that it would be moderated more heavily.
    
    2. RD threads are already moderated to a higher standard.
    
    3. Several posts in this thread have already been infracted for spam, failing to contribute, and for insulting the thread starter.
    
    4. You had not posted in this thread yet, thus providing no prior context that would suggest your "8 year old white boy" rewrite of someone else's message was "merely replacing" a term.
    Well, if properly read, that would be fairly obvious. Seeing as, as you yourself pointed out, it's a modified quote. But apart from that, I've already pointed out that that was precisely what I did. I did not address the OP poster or anyone else. And yet you claim I'm insulting someone. That takes a bit more imagination than I am capable of.
    
    ↑
    5. Even if your claim that it's not an insult is true, it still breaks the rules because you do not assert anything in your post and you chose to make your alleged point by rewriting someone's entire message. Changing someone's message is allowable when you're using it to make a point that is made vividly clear. You did not do this. You edited someone's post in its entirety and presented that as your contribution. At worst, it's an insult. At best, it's spam. Either way, it breaks the rules of an RD thread that is on a short leash.
    I do not assert anything. Correct. Nor do I claim anything. Nor do I, following the first two, insult anyone. What I did was compare. Something which, after claimed multiple readings, has still managed to elude you.
    
    ↑
    Lastly, in regards to your latest message, if you have to label something as a "sad fact" when placing a negative judgement upon another person, it is likely an insult. It is also not up to you to decide what is or isn't an insult when you are not the one being insulted. You are certainly welcome to try and argue that telling someone they can barely read is a civil contribution but I think we both know it isn't and definitely wasn't intended as such.
    Again, you are assuming here. In fact, what appears to be the case: you want me to intend to insult. Sadly, you have no grounds for such an assumption, as I just showed.
    
    ↑
    Valka's contributions to the thread are irrelevant to this subject. If you felt you had nothing to add to an RD thread, you are encouraged to refrain from using the "Post Reply" function in the future.
    Again, an assumption not based on anything I said. If I felt I'd nothing to add, I'd added nothing. I do that quite often.
    
    I'd appreciate it if you passed this matter on to someone capable of going beyond bickering about what I ' intend'. That's also in accordance with the rules. If you are not capable of that, I'm afraid this will have to go public.
    
    Sincerely,
    
    Agent327.
    
    P.S. The fact that you 'feel' insulted, is quite irrelevant. The only one who could feel insulted is the person addressed. But therein lies the problem. I didn't address anyone. If I'd replaced 'feminism' with 'Donald Trump', you'd probably conclude I am insulting Donald Trump. But in the comparison neither Donald Trump nor (unnamed) 8 -year old boy is addressed. You further suggest that by merely mentioning 'sad fact' I am trying to insult you. Sadly, sad facts are merely that: sad facts.
    
    Agent327, Saturday at 6:53 AMEditReport
    Reply
    
    
11. 
    VincourA Minor CharacterModerator
    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    8,297
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest
    I'm completely alright with this being made public in its entirety.
    
    You can begin the appeals process by following these instructions.
    
    Debate Humanity - My Blog!
    Vincour, Saturday at 7:19 AMReport
    Reply
    
    
12. 
    Agent327Observer
    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    16,014
    Location:
    In orbit
    Be that as it may, it's impossible to tell from the People To Note list who is a supermod. A bit more help would be appreciated.
    
    Cheers,
    
    Agent327.
    
    Agent327, Saturday at 7:28 AMEditReport
    Reply
    
    
13. 
    VincourA Minor CharacterModerator
    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    8,297
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest
    A list of super moderators is provided at the bottom of this thread.
    
    ori, Rob (RX8FT), Lefty Scaevola, Methos, Bootstoots
    I think ori may still be on Easter Break but Rob, Lefty, and Boots are safe bets for receiving a prompt response. Not too sure about Methos.
    
    Debate Humanity - My Blog!
    Vincour, Saturday at 7:30 AMReport
    Reply
    
    
14. 
    VincourA Minor CharacterModerator
    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    8,297
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest
    Scratch that. Ori, Rob, and Boots are currently active and can be contacted for a prompt response. Lefty hasn't been around in a week and Methos hasn't been around in two. Apologies.
    
    Debate Humanity - My Blog!
    Vincour, Saturday at 8:10 AMReport
    Reply

• • 

 

[ori]

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.

 

[Bootstoots]

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.

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

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.

 

[Camikaze]

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.

 

[ori]

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.

 

[Browd]

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").

 

[Bootstoots]

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.

 

[leif erikson]

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.

 

[Bootstoots]

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.

 

[Camikaze]

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.