civman110 vs illram

[Rob (R8XFT)]

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, and the removal of any content deemed inappropriate.

civman110 is appealing an infraction given to him by illram.

<snip>

Dear civman110,

You have received an infraction at Civilization Fanatics' Forums.

Reason: Flaming Other Member(s)
-------
"Perhaps for historically ignorant individuals who are also victims of botched lobotomies." Implying the poster you are responding to was the "victims of botched lobotomies" is flaming.
-------

This infraction is worth 2 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

<snip>

If you wish to appeal this infraction, please follow the process outlined in this post

All the best,
Civilization Fanatics' Forums

<snip>

My response to Civman110 was this:

I have lodged the appeal with my colleagues; please allow about a week before I come back to you with the findings, as we need to give everyone a chance to properly look into the situation.

One other point - I will relay the decision to you and act according to the process, but I won't be entering into a chain of pms discussing the merits of the findings or my opinion on the matter. I'm sure you'll understand this.

Best,
Rob.

 

[leif erikson]

Would vote to uphold.

It is not as clear as he claims in his reply to Ilram who he means are "historically ignorant individuals ... that are victims of botched lobotomies". Further, not clear which people are "walking mental disorders who aren't capable of critical thinking". It sounds to me as though he also means those that do not agree with him?

In addition to this lack of clarity, the language is completely uncivil. There is no need to use this kind of language.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

I have looked at this twice and am still undecided.

 

[Camikaze]

I think the infraction is fine. The post falls into a pattern of uncivil posting such that it's difficult to draw the conclusion that he wasn't directing the attack at other users. Even with the slight phrasing change, he's still at best implying that Timsup2nothin is a 'historically ignorant individual'.

 

[Browd]

I would agree. A fair reading of his post is that Timsup2nothin is included in his blanket flame. I would uphold.

 

[illram]

For what it's worth, normally I would reverse this after discussion with the poster but given civman's general caustic style I didn't give him the benefit of the doubt. So, my infraction was as noted based on understanding the post as still flaming Tim even though he tried to edit it after the fact and make it more "general."

 

[ori]

I agree with Camikaze.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

There is 4 uphold, 1 abstain, Illram recused, and Rob (R8XFT) has not voted.

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

I'm an abstain. I can see how someone could think it referred to posters, but the explanation civman110 gave afterwards should have been enough to sort this out.

 

[Plotinus]

I thought that civman's explanation sounded reasonable until I read through as much of the thread as I could stomach, and it's fairly clear to me that while Tim did attribute the view in question to others, he was at least implicitly endorsing it. And so while civman's response was ostensibly about third parties, it was at least implicitly about Tim. Looking at their past history confirms that. If civman wanted to distance his comments from Tim he should have been much clearer about it. So I would vote to uphold.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

On my third time though, I vote to overturn, but it is a close issue.
I can also easily see how the OT guys have a much better read on civman110 than I do.

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

I have sent civman110 this pm:

civman110,

Your appeal of your infraction for flaming other members has been rejected; the general opinion being that the language used was quite uncivil and that it was difficult to draw the conclusion that you weren't directing the attack at other users.

As stated in my previous pm, my role here is merely to report the information to you and I will not be entering into a discussion about the validity of the decision.

The appeal thread will be posted in the 'Infraction Review' subforum. At the moment, the first post is your pm to me outlining the case as you see it. Before the thread is posted you have the choice of that post (containing your pm) staying as it is or for it to be redacted, in which case I will replace your pm with a brief summary of the request. Please let me know what you would prefer.

Rob.

 

[Plotinus]

Thank you!

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

I've still not heard back from civman110, but will give it until the weekend.

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

As I've not heard from civman110, I will publish this thread with his pms deleted.