civver_764 vs Vincour
- Thread starter ori
- Start date
- Status
Civver hasn't actually made any attempt to argue why his post is not trolling. He's just stated that it's the result of bias, in relation to which he's purely speculating.
The post was a derailment from the actual topic, in a manner which flies a bit too close to the sun, given the other warnings civver has been given. The OT moderating guidelines in relation to non-RD threads distinguish between deliberate and habitual derailments on the one hand, and inadvertent derailments on the other.
I'm not actually sure the OT moderating guidelines are very helpful in this instance, because it's unclear whether the concept of deliberate and habitual derailment is meant to refer to an objective appearance of intent to derail, or an objective appearance of derailment, regardless of intent, i.e. someone constantly posting about a pet topic which has nothing to do with the thread, but it appears they are unaware of the effect of this behaviour. This would be deliberate in the sense that it's not like their fingers slipped on the keyboard or they've been overcome by some sort of automatism.
Clearly enough, there is room within the rules to clamp down on this sort of behaviour, without worrying about either the subjective intent of the poster, or what objectively appears to be the intent of the poster.
The upshot being that, just because this a non-RD thread, doesn't mean that someone derailing it is not actionable, even if we accept that civver genuinely thought his post was relevant.
Just to link more explicitly to the trolling rules, the point is that it's a provocative post calculated (whether deliberately or inadvertently, in the intentional sense) to produce some negative response, with 'negative response' being a concept which excludes difference of opinion on the relevant topic.
This is not the appropriate venue to discuss civver's more general comments about his place on the permanent points program.
I vote to uphold.
The post was a derailment from the actual topic, in a manner which flies a bit too close to the sun, given the other warnings civver has been given. The OT moderating guidelines in relation to non-RD threads distinguish between deliberate and habitual derailments on the one hand, and inadvertent derailments on the other.
I'm not actually sure the OT moderating guidelines are very helpful in this instance, because it's unclear whether the concept of deliberate and habitual derailment is meant to refer to an objective appearance of intent to derail, or an objective appearance of derailment, regardless of intent, i.e. someone constantly posting about a pet topic which has nothing to do with the thread, but it appears they are unaware of the effect of this behaviour. This would be deliberate in the sense that it's not like their fingers slipped on the keyboard or they've been overcome by some sort of automatism.
Clearly enough, there is room within the rules to clamp down on this sort of behaviour, without worrying about either the subjective intent of the poster, or what objectively appears to be the intent of the poster.
The upshot being that, just because this a non-RD thread, doesn't mean that someone derailing it is not actionable, even if we accept that civver genuinely thought his post was relevant.
Just to link more explicitly to the trolling rules, the point is that it's a provocative post calculated (whether deliberately or inadvertently, in the intentional sense) to produce some negative response, with 'negative response' being a concept which excludes difference of opinion on the relevant topic.
This is not the appropriate venue to discuss civver's more general comments about his place on the permanent points program.
I vote to uphold.
I sent civver the notification message that he was going to be placed on the permanent points program. He never answered me, so bringing it up here is irrelevant.
The post in question seems to have been meant to steer the discussion in another direction instead of answering the questions asked of him. So he is derailing the thread.
Vote to uphold.
The post in question seems to have been meant to steer the discussion in another direction instead of answering the questions asked of him. So he is derailing the thread.
Vote to uphold.
In this case, I totally agree with Camikaze. I vote to uphold.
I agree with upholding for the reasons stated. So this is a unanimous uphold vote. This will now be published without the private messages absent user approval.
Moderator Action: Published without private messages.
Moderator Action: Published without private messages.
- Status
Similar threads
