Ajidica vs Vincour

[Bootstoots]

Ajidica is appealing a PDMA infraction given by Vincour for this post, in the white identity politics thread.

This post is closely related to two other infractions that he received just before this one, and the infraction involved his PM replies to those infractions, so I have requested and received the PM chains for all infractions from both Vincour and Ajidica. Ajidica has already consented to making these public.

Ajidica is not appealing the first two infractions, which are for violating the modtext rules that Vincour stipulated when the thread was opened. He is only appealing the PDMA one. However, they are relevant to this appeal. In chronological order, the infracted posts are as follows.

Not being appealed, but relevant:

I'm just wondering why a person who previously posted on this forum about his pride in his Palestinian heritage and ethnicity is suddenly concerned with the fate of the White Race.

I can't think of a single Nazi or white supremacist groups that thinks of Palestinians as humans, let alone members of the Whiter-Than-A-Klansman's-Hood Race.

Moderator Action: You are not exempt from the moderator notes that have been posted in this thread. Please avoid making posts that simply target the OP. - Vincour
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Perhaps that is because the only being who are invested in the "proud to be white" Thing are racists, Nazis, and their fellow travelers goose stepping on their way to hell with the deplorables behind them like a perverse Pied Piper.

Moderator Action: Again, you are not exempt from the moderator notes. Stop this. - Vincour
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

This is the infraction that is being appealed:

Am I the only person here who has been around long enough to remember the days when any discussion of the British National Party was banned because always turned into all-too-accurate labels like "Nazi" and "Racist" being used?

Moderator Action: Please don't publicize our private correspondence. You may disagree with the moderation... privately. - Vincour
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Here is the PM chain for the relevant, but not appealed, first of the two infractions for ignoring moderator instructions. The second one is for continuing to ignore the thread rules and does not appear to have a PM chain of its own besides the infraction message itself.

Ajidica,

Your actions in this message (White Identity Politics) are not appropriate:
Perhaps that is because the only being who are invested in the "proud to be white" Thing are racists, Nazis, and their fellow travelers goose stepping on their way to hell with the deplorables behind them like a perverse Pied Piper.
Click to expand...
Please re-read the mod notes in this thread. Consciously ignoring their contents does not exempt you from following what they say.

This is a two point infraction which will expire in a month.

- Vincour

If someone espouses concepts shared only by Nazis and racists it should not be a violation of forum rules to call out those statements for what they are; especially when the poster making those statements got previously infracted and thread locked when he made those exact same statements but without a thin veneer of moderation covering up the vulgarity of the core beliefs.

I know you are new-ish to moderating, but ask the old timers like Plotinus if the ban on discussing the British National Party still stands; and if it no longer stands, why it was there in the first place. That whole topic was under a gag order because it was impossible avoid all-too-accurate labels like "Nazi" and "racist" being used.

It's not impossible, you're just choosing not to.

If someone were to say "I believe in securing a future for our White Children", an actual Neo-Nazi slogan, it would be completely accurate and appropriate to call them a Nazi, or at least a fellow traveler.

But regardless, I'm still curious if the ban on discussion the BNP for reasons identical to why civver's racist thread is causing an impressive number of infractions still stands.

No, it's not appropriate on CFC.

You may contact Plotinus if you are curious about his policy about a thread that has been long abandoned.

This is the PM chain for the related PDMA infraction that Ajidica is appealing:

Ajidica,

Your actions in this message (White Identity Politics) are not appropriate:

Am I the only person here who has been around long enough to remember the days when any discussion of the British National Party was banned because always turned into all-too-accurate labels like "Nazi" and "Racist" being used?

Of course, PDMA is against the rules. I'm not sure why you would take our PMs to the public. Please don't do that again.

This is a three point infraction which will expire in a month. Further posts that break the rules in this thread will result in a thread ban.

- Vincour

I do want to contest this infraction. At no point in the thread did I give any indication that my post was related to any PM conversation and was posted contemporaneously with a comment I made on #fiftychat that seemed relevant. Per the forum rules, the definition of PDMA is:

At no point in my comment was any indication given it was in the context of a moderation action; nor was it making a public comment on a specific moderator's action (or lack thereof). Rather, it was referring back to a policy that previously was enforced by multiple moderators on this forum when we had a similar issue involving an individual poster whose support for similar policies was sufficiently disruptive to the forum the moderators implemented a general ban.

Again, I do genuinely want to appeal this infraction.

Your explanation for why it isn't PDMA is directly saying it's PDMA, but I can't stop you from appealing this.

I will say though that it might play against you in the appeal process since it can be definitively proven that you said this to me in a PM: "I know you are new-ish to moderating, but ask the old timers like Plotinus if the ban on discussing the British National Party still stands; and if it no longer stands, why it was there in the first place. That whole topic was under a gag order because it was impossible avoid all-too-accurate labels like "Nazi" and "racist" being used."

... and then posted this in the public thread three minutes later: "Am I the only person here who has been around long enough to remember the days when any discussion of the British National Party was banned because always turned into all-too-accurate labels like "Nazi" and "Racist" being used?"

... after being infracted for posting this: "Perhaps that is because the only being who are invested in the "proud to be white" Thing are racists, Nazis, and their fellow travelers goose stepping on their way to hell with the deplorables behind them like a perverse Pied Piper."

If with all that in mind you'd still like to appeal this, you can do so by contacting @ori or @Bootstoots.

Ajidica's reasoning for appealing this PDMA infraction is given in his appeal PM to me.

Hello,

Vincour gave me a PDMA infraction in the "White Identity Politics" thread.
I had commented to him in a PM for an infraction I am not contesting that in the past, to my understanding, there was a blanket ban on discussing the British National Party because once someone starts posting thinly-veiled neo-Nazi talking points any chance of civil discussion is virtually nil. I mentioned he might want to ask some of the older mods like Plotinus who were around and moderating at the time to see if that ruling was still in force. I did not say he should change the infraction I previously received.

I then made a subsequent post in the thread expressing a similar sentiment.

Am I the only person here who has been around long enough to remember the days when any discussion of the British National Party was banned because always turned into all-too-accurate labels like "Nazi" and "Racist" being used?

Absolutely no reference was made to Vincour's actions toward my earlier post or any reference to him period. Nor was there a reference to a specific moderator action I felt he should (or should not have made). As Vincour himself rightly pointed out in the PMs, the moderator policy I was inquiring about and referring to was several years old, and made by moderators who were not involved in the thread (or even present in the thread), and more resembling a historical curiosity than anything else.

That this post had anything to do with a conversation I had with a moderator (and not his action!) was when Vincour took exception to the post, gave it a three point infraction, and told the world that it had any relation to a moderator.

As far as I understand it, the relevant portion of the PDMA rules is as follows:

Public discussion of actions taken or not taken by moderators or admins is not permitted.

Nothing I said in the infracted post gave any suggestion or hint it had to do with an action of Vincour and nor was any intent present to discuss a moderators actions (or lack thereof) in a thread. I acknowledge in retrospect it may have been borderline, but this is a thread where someone is allowed to post "We must secure a future for our White Children", an actual Neo-Nazi slogan, yet does not receive an infraction for violating the forum's hate speech rules while anyone who points out it is an actual neo-Nazi talking point gets infracted for using "charged phrases".

If a general mention to moderation policy last used several years ago constitutes PDMA -in a post with absolutely no indication it was related to a PM conversation with a mod- comprises PDMA, then perhaps the rules need to be clarified. While in retrospect my post may have been borderline, the complete lack of any link to a mod PM conversation-let alone an action (or lack thereof)- which only became present when vincour edited the post should count against a three point infraction in a thread already seeing rampant violations of the forums hate speech laws and inconsistent moderation toward calling an actual neo-Nazi talking point a neo-Nazi policy.

Oh, and I allow all of my PMs -current and future- to become public should it end up in a thread.

Vincour then gave me his reasoning behind this infraction, which is this. It starts by pointing out that Ajidica remarked in the PM chain that discussions of the BNP used to be forbidden because they turn into trainwrecks just like the thread in question did. He then made the same comment three minutes later in the public thread. The bolding is Vincour's:

If someone espouses concepts shared only by Nazis and racists it should not be a violation of forum rules to call out those statements for what they are; especially when the poster making those statements got previously infracted and thread locked when he made those exact same statements but without a thin veneer of moderation covering up the vulgarity of the core beliefs.

I know you are new-ish to moderating, but ask the old timers like Plotinus if the ban on discussing the British National Party still stands; and if it no longer stands, why it was there in the first place. That whole topic was under a gag order because it was impossible avoid all-too-accurate labels like "Nazi" and "racist" being used.

Three minutes after he sent me that PM, he made the post in the public thread that got dinged for PDMA.

In essence, besides it airing something said in PM (which I will admit is not something members can know), it's PDMA by simple virtue of what he's saying. He called someone a Nazi, got infracted for doing so, and then made a post complaining about not being allowed to call people Nazis. There is a period of twenty minutes between Ajidica being infracted for calling Civver a Nazi and then making a post casually wondering about a past concept that got banned because they weren't allowed to call people Nazis. I don't see how that isn't PDMA.

 

[Bootstoots]

My vote is to overturn this infraction.

It is true that Ajidica repeated the same comment in private conversation with Vincour and in public. Still, I don't think this matters because no actual reference to Vincour's actions is made in the public thread.

I do not believe it is against PDMA rules to say the same thing in a private PM chain related to an infraction and in a public thread, again provided no actual reference to any specific moderator action is made in public. It is also allowed to post comments about previous or current rules, as long as no specific moderator action is commented upon.

Ajidica's post is a comment that there used to be a policy of not allowing threads on the BNP, because this type of thread always turns into a disaster with labels like "Nazi" or "racist" being thrown about. He does indicate that he thinks these labels are correct in his opinion, but this isn't a complaint about his being infracted for using terms like this against civver_764.

He does say that labels like "Nazi" or "racist" are "all-too-accurate", but he does not seem to be complaining that calling other members racists or Nazis should be allowed in this thread, or that his two infractions for doing this are illegitimate. Nor does he seem to be commenting on any other action Vincour took in this thread.

Certainly, this remark was inspired by the string of infractions (including the two to Ajidica himself) that Vincour issued as a result of the thread going downhill quickly. But overall it does not appear to me that the PDMA rules were breached.

(edit: rearranged paragraphs, minor additions)

 

[leif erikson]

The purpose of PDMA rules are to prevent threads from becoming discussions about site policies or moderator actions instead of about the subject of the thread. I think it is clear that Ajidica wants to discuss whether the thread is allowed or not instead of the topic of the thread. He should have sent a PM (conversation) to Bootstoots, Ori or an Admin questioning why the OT moderators were allowing such a thread after he asked Vincour about it. Vincour offered to him that he may contact Plotinus if he wished to know why the discussion of the British National Party ban was implemented, that is what he should have done instead of then going ahead and posting about it publicly. If nothing else it was off topic and could have derailed the thread.

What is said in a private message belongs in a private message, it shouldn't be for public consumption nor spread around to others. However, Ajidica did not say anything about the contents of the private message and I do not think he breached that confidence. I can understand how Vincour may have felt about it, however I do not think anyone on the public side knew anything about the messages between Ajidica and Vincour.

This walks a very thin line because it skirts PDMA, questioning whether the thread should be allowed, instead of being on topic. I would vote to uphold but reduce the points to 1 or even make it a zero point warning. But I could be convinced to change to overturn this if someone makes a good argument.

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

No-one would have linked the comment to a pm to Vincour - though I can understand him being quite frustrated at this stage; we're all human after all. It's easy to look at things in retrospect and perhaps a pm to Ajidica stating that he was disappointed that something from their private messages had reached the forum would have been the way forward. I vote to overturn the infraction.

 

[Camikaze]

I think focusing on the PM distracts from whether the post is designed to do anything other than comment on the moderator action initially posted in post #76, and then followed up through a series of infractions. How is the post at all relevant to the discussion, other than a means of saying, "I don't like the way this thread has been moderated - if this sort of thread is to be allowed to stay open, we should be able to call people Nazis"? That seems to me to be the case regardless of what he was saying to Vincour via PM, although the fact that it was the same thing helpfully serves to confirm that the post was intended to be a comment on Vincour's moderator action(s).

I vote to uphold.

 

[Browd]

I'm also inclined to uphold, for reasons similar to Cami's. Putting aside for a moment the poster's PM exchange, his post is clearly intended as a public comment on what he apparently believes to be moderator inconsistency. The poster is pointing to moderator actions over a decade ago to close BNP-related threads (like this, this and this) as a basis for his objection to how this thread has been moderated. In my view, whether he's commenting on Vincour's current actions or other moderators' decade-old actions, it's still PDMA.

The fact that he raised his concerns in PMs before popping off in the public thread also indicates that he knows the proper way to question moderator actions, so I think the points are also appropriate.

 

[ori]

There have been numerous instances in which people pointed to the BNP ban - which we rightfully I think did not ding as PDMA, mostly as it was more site policy than any moderator action being pointed to and this should be open to being mentioned at the very least and actually open to discussion in my view (similiarly stating that nudity is being moderated and that we did have threads in the past in which this general rule was relaxed should not in itself be regarded as PDMA).
As for this specific post:
It can be construed as commenting on the moderator action in #76, it can also reasonably be construed as a general call for closing the thread. It is not directly discussing a moderator action the poster was subject of and while it is trolling for an adverse reaction by Vincour in that it drags a private discussion into the public realm (withou actually giving any indication of doing so in itself), As such i feel it is not PDMA and should not have been infracted as such. On the other hand I believe it is quite directly designed to hamper any good faith discussion with the acting moderator and feel that Vincour should have asked another moderator to look into this specific post (my personal reaction would have been to issue a temporary ban for this). In conclusion I believe that this action should be overturned on the grounds of it being the wrong type of action, even though the correct type of action in my book should have been more severe than mere points.

 

[Camikaze]

While I agree that discussing the BNP ban is not PDMA, as it's a matter of policy, not individual moderator action, I don't think construing it as a comment on the lack of thread closure or the moderation of the thread in general makes it any less PDMA, than if it's construed to specifically be about moderator action towards Ajidica. PDMA isn't limited to discussion of moderator actions to which the poster engaging in the public discussion has been personally subjected. It's true that Vincour may have misidentified the basis upon which it's PDMA, but it's not an instance where the type of infraction that has been landed on is incorrect, which I think might be a valid basis upon which to overturn an infraction.

 

[ori]

in this vein we would need to label as pdma any post that states the thread should be closed after a moderator did anything else but close it in the thread. I strongly believe this is casting too wide a net on this rule.

 

[Camikaze]

That's possibly true. I'm not sure I agree, though, that there isn't a line between this post, and any post that calls for a thread to be closed when a moderator has overtly not done so. This post comes on the back of a string of relevant moderator action, and carries what to me seems a clear sub-text; that the decision to infract people for 'calling out' Nazis is wrong, when there's a clear precedent for closing the thread instead. It's not just an idle observation that the thread could do with closing and that happens to have not happened yet; it's a direct challenge to specific moderator action.

That's all of course a matter of interpretation, and I can see how not everyone would necessarily interpret the post that way. But I think on my interpretation at least, there's still room for letting go basic "this thread should be closed" posts.

 

[Bootstoots]

So far, we have 3 upholds and 3 overturns if I'm reading this right. My opinion hasn't really changed; although I certainly do see the other side of it, I don't think that this really falls on the wrong side of the PDMA line.

What do we do now? How does a split decision go, and should we solicit other opinions?

 

[Camikaze]

There are probably two options:

1. A majority is required to overturn the infraction, the benefit of the doubt going to the moderator;
2. A majority is required to affirm the infraction, the benefit of the doubt going to the poster.

Putting aside what the result would be in this case, I think the former would be more consistent with our approach to infractions - we're looking at whether the moderator has done anything incorrect, rather than re-exercising the moderator's original discretion. That would be consistent with this being an appeal. I suppose it could also be thought of in terms of the original moderator having a vote as well.

A third option would be that the presiding moderator's vote carries the day, as they've probably looked at the matter in most detail.

This might just be dragging the matter out further, but it's probably worth discussing and/or deciding which of those approaches we should generally take.

 

[Bootstoots]

I don't know if I quite agree with a split decision going in the issuing moderator's favor. I can see the reasoning behind it - a moderator made a decision and there was no consensus on whether the infraction was warranted, so it reverts to the original decision. Still, it would make us look bad to award a tied decision to the moderator.

A possible compromise would be to use leif's suggestion of upholding but with a reduction to 0 or 1 points. Or perhaps we can get someone to show up and break the tie one way or another. Lefty was active in a different contemporaneous appeal thread; maybe we could bug him and get him to give his opinion? Or any other supermods and admins, for that matter.

Tied decisions are rare enough that I'm not sure we need to hash out a formal plan to deal with them. Just getting someone else to participate, or upholding but going with the most lenient "uphold" opinion (leif in this case), would seem to work fine.

 

[Petek]

My vision has improved sufficiently to read this thread. I'll break the tie and vote to reverse the infraction. Rationale: Since a group of experienced staff members can't agree on whether the post (or posts) was PDMA, we can't expect Ajidica to do so.

 

[Bootstoots]

So is that it then? Should I tell them both that it was overturned on a 4-3 split and ask for PM publication consent?

 

[leif erikson]

Yes, I think so.

 

[Bootstoots]

Both have consented to PM publication, and Vincour has reversed the infraction. I'll go ahead and publish the thread.