bhavv v Bootstoots

[Camikaze]

Moderator Action: This appeal thread is in its original form, save for the removal of PM correspondence due to the lack of the poster's consent.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

bhavv has requested a review of a 3 point infraction received on 21 June for this post. The infraction PM is as follows:
<removed>

The entire PM correspondence with Bootstoots following the infraction is as follows:
<removed>

He never replied to Bootstoots. Presumably he's not contesting the two day ban, which has now expired, but simply the number of infraction points (though these points have also expired and did not contribute to his current ban - he won't be unbanned if successful here). A 'genuine attempt' to resolve concerns is a precondition of a review, and I've told him this, because he also wanted to appeal his infraction by leif, before he'd bothered discussing it with leif. In this case he at least sent one PM, and Bootstoots is happy for the review to go ahead, so I haven't rejected the review out of hand.

bhavv adds the following in the review request and a subsequent PM:
<removed>
<removed>

On the page of the thread before the infraction, Bootstoots gave this warning. So two things that are irrelevant are 1) whether the post would normally be in breach of the non-RD thread OT rules, and 2) whether the mod text was necessary in the first place (as the mod text is binding regardless of its necessity).

The question then is whether in the context of the mod text warning, this post is worth 3 points.

 

[Camikaze]

Bootstoots has provided further reasoning:

Here you go. He never replied further than this, but I'm fine with taking it to an appeal.

Thanks. Do you have any further reasoning to submit for consideration?

To my mind this is a pretty clear-cut case of trolling, which resulted in an infraction and a two-day ban when it continued past my warning.

bhavv posted in the Happy Ramadan thread that he was going to celebrate Ramadan by eating pork, a comment that seemed designed to get a negative reaction from Muslims. When other people complained that this was inappropriate, he replied by essentially repeating his comment. I replied with modtext telling him to cut out the trolling.

He then tried to argue that it shouldn't be considered offensive for a non-Muslim to eat proscribed food on Ramadan, an argument I allowed in the thread but really wasn't the point from a moderation perspective. The issue was that, by loudly advertising the fact that he was eating pork on Ramadan in the thread on that holiday, he seemed to be trying to offend religious Muslims. He then continued to belabor the point, eventually switching back to outright trolling, including a picture of Cookie Monster with a star and crescent here and then saying that he was committing "sweet, beautiful blasphemy" here, at which point I finally issued an infraction and a short ban for trolling and ignoring modtext.

I would subscribe to that view and uphold the infraction.

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

Particularly with the further reasoning in mind, I uphold the infraction.

 

[leif erikson]

Given his continued posting despite the warnings, it certainly constitutes "being a jerk".
Vote to uphold.

 

[Petek]

Also vote to uphold.

 

[ori]

Not much I can add to this but vote to uphold as well...

 

[Browd]

Also vote to uphold.

 

[Camikaze]

I have sent bhavv the following PM:

Hi bhavv,

The review of your 3 point infraction received on 21 June has been completed. A panel of 4 supermods and 2 admins considered your infraction, and unanimously agreed that it should be upheld.

It was agreed that your posts in the thread in question were seeking to offend, and that you had continued these posts following a moderator warning requiring you to stop.

The appeal thread will be posted in the Infraction Review subforum, with your PMs redacted as requested.

Kind regards,
Camikaze