Domen vs ori

[ori]

Moderator Action: This thread has had two edits. The first edit was the removal of all PM's sent by Domen and this was done at his request. The second edit was the addition of the internal infraction log data to allow you to see the original post and the reason it was infracted.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Domen would like to appeal his last infraction leading to his permanent ban due to accumulation of non-expiring points as per his placement on the permanent points program.

The infraction is below:

Spoiler :

Post: Greek Prime Minister announcing referendum on the eurozone deal
User: Domen
Infraction: Spam - End of permanent points program
Points: 41

Administrative Note:

Spam - End of permanent points program

Message to User:

Domen,

you have been warned repeatedly to stop spamming threads wih unrelated or tangentially related posts about among other things historic genetic makeup of their populations. As you failed to heed these warnings, this infraction now results in your permanent ban.

ori

Original Post:

Gangleri2001,

Basques do actually have a genetic distinctiveness when compared to the rest of europeans (both indoeuropeans or finnougric) and this has been proven multiple times.

Yes they probably do, but their distinctiveness doesn't necessarily has to be extremely ancient.

It could be caused by a relatively recent demographic bottleneck and / or by a founder effect:

This explanation is quite likely, considering that the Basques have been a numerically small population for many centuries.

In fact, lots of scholars (if not most) who study the question of the origin of the Basques assume that proto-Basques appeared somewhen between 20.000 and 15.000 BC, being the period from 18.000 BC and 16.000 BC the most likely period.

Highly unlikely that the presence of Proto-Basque language in Europe dates so far back.

Basque language is not Indo-European, but it is most likely not the language of European hunter-gatherers either.

Basque most likely evolved from the language(s) of Near Eastern farmers who migrated into Europe during Neolithic times.

Even in historical times a lot of related Non-Indo-European languages were spoken in Iberia, not just Basque.

Before & during Greek (IE), Carthaginian (Semitic) and Roman (IE) expansions, the following languages were used in Iberia:

1) Non-Indo-European languages:

Iberian - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberian_language
Tartessian - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartessian_language
Aquitanian - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquitanian_language
Turdetanian - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turdetani
Basque - https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Basque_language

2) Indo-European but Non-Celtic languages:

Lusitanian - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lusitanian_language
Sorothaptic - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorothaptic_language

3) Celtic languages:

Celtiberian - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtiberian_language
Gallaecian - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallaecian_language

These languages of Ancient Iberia - both Non-IE, Non-Celtic IE, and Celtic - are extinct by now. They were replaced by Latin.

And Latin evolved into Romance languages spoken in modern Iberia.

The only exception is Basque, which survived - but the area where Basque is spoken today, is much smaller than in the past:

In terms of paternal lineages (Y chromosome) the Basques are not so extremely different from surrounding Iberian groups. The main difference is that the Basques (especially rural Basques with native Basque surnames) have much higher % of individuals with DF27 sub-group of R1b haplogroup:

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/suppinfo/ejhg2015114s1.html

In this chart below M269 includes L11; L11 includes U106 and S116; S116 includes S116*, U152, M529, L238, DF19 and DF27:

xM269 is simply everything else, which is not M269 (in other words, xM269 is everything which is not part of R1b haplogroup):

High % of DF27 seems to correlate with historical distribution of not just Basque, but also Iberian, Tartessian, Turdetanian, Aquitanian languages:

Of course Y-DNA lineages is just one part of the story. There are other genetic things in which the Basques are also quite distinct.

I don't know about Basques, but whenever "Estonian-ness" is discussed, it is almost inevitably brought up just how mongrel we are.

Actually Estonians indeed have the highest percent of "Western Hunter-Gatherer" (WHG) admixture of all Europeans.

It is called "western" because it is based on DNA extracted from prehistoric hunter-gatherer bones found near Luxembourg.

But nowadays this ancestry from prehistoric "western" hunters is actually most common in North-Eastern Europe.

Estonians are in about 49,0% similar to those prehistoric WHG people (by comparisons the Basques only in around 33,5%).

Source: "Ancient human genomes suggest 3 ancestral populations for present-day Europeans", 2014

Link to the study: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1312/1312.6639.pdf

Link to appendices: http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2014/04/05/001552.DC4/001552-3.pdf

Our Communication to date is posted below in chronological order.

Could someone else take this from here on, please - as I am involved and won't participate in this review any further.

 

[ori]

Moderator Action: This post contained the Private Message exchange between Domen and ori. Domen requested that his PM's not be published, so I have redacted the PM's.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Camikaze]

There is no review on foot until he follows the steps described in the rules. It is his responsibility to contact a supermoderator with a review request, which he hasn't done. We cannot conduct a review if there has been no valid review request. It is important that this process is followed in a published review, so as to not raise any expectation that the outlined process can be subverted.

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

So...I take it that we're waiting for that before we discuss it any further?

 

[illram]

He asked Ori (a supermod) to appeal, didn't he? I skimmed the massive wall of PM's, am I missing something?

I'd vote to uphold, this is a pretty crystal clear infraction as he was warned about this numerous times, and he has a record a mile long of doing this stuff.

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

If we are voting, then mine is to uphold; the post was spam after all and Domen has had numerous warnings. I'm sure he knew what he was doing but probably felt we wouldn't do what we've done - well, tough - we did infract and permaban him.

 

[leif erikson]

Vote to uphold.

Please see this thread Bootstoots compiled in the recycle bin of Domen's recent posting of spam. Any one of these could have been infracted but it seems we held back because we were reluctant to permaban him.

 

[Camikaze]

He asked Ori (a supermod) to appeal, didn't he? I skimmed the massive wall of PM's, am I missing something?

Admittedly, the rules don't explicitly set out that you shouldn't make the review request to the supermod who has issued the infraction. But as "the supermod you contact will preside over the review", it's implicit in the rules that this should not be the infracting supermod. So the process isn't that the poster can just declare their request for a review as part of their "genuine attempt to resolve their concerns" and make the infracting supermod do the rest. They're actually meant to present the issue to another supermod - to make a case of sorts beyond their PM discussion with the infracting supermod.

Beyond just creating more work for the infracting supermod, the course Domen has chosen prevents the review process from being properly 'presided' over. It's procedurally problematic to have the review initially framed by the infracting supermod, and then to not have a supermod designated as presiding. Step 4 is pretty much avoided, too.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

I note that this is not an RD thread, and I note that He has had multiple specific warning on genetics spam. How do these two interplay?

 

[illram]

In my opinion the multiple explicit warnings override the usual freewheeling leeway we give non RD threads.

Cami I think you're right, the infractee should ask another supermod other than the infractor, but since that is not totally clear in the rules, I think we should lean on the side of just getting the appeal started and not get too hung up on the technicalities.

 

[Camikaze]

Fair enough, so long as a take-away message for any readers is to please follow the procedure set out in the rules.

I agree that user-specific instructions trump the regular non-RD rules. When Domen was told to not spam this sort of thing, it was clear that the instruction didn't simply apply to RD threads. So this seems to be pretty clear spam, and an infraction of 2 points is therefore justified (the higher number of points simply being to properly give effect to the consequence of the infraction).

Of particular relevance is this warning (for this post), which was in a non-RD thread.

Though it should probably be noted that there was later on this warning (for this post), in which the wording was a little more ambiguous. But not ambiguous enough that he should've been under any misapprehension as to the allowance for making the post the subject of the infraction now under review.

In this infraction (predating his place on the permanent points program, for this post), it was specifically noted that the user-specific rule in relation to Poland applied to non-RD threads; there's no reason to think that spam on other topics would be fine in those threads.

 

[leif erikson]

Just received a PM from Domen and my answer:

Spoiler :

Moderator Action: PM's redacted as requested by Domen.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[leif erikson]

Seems it is unanimous to uphold, save Lefty's question.

Other comments please.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

I am satisfied, that he had direction on the issue.


Vote Uphold

 

[illram]

Perhaps appropo of nothing but is he spamming Leif via PM with irrelevant stuff in the same PM that he is appealing a very similar infraction? Or were you guys recently discussing Attila the Hun?

 

[leif erikson]

We were not discussing it. I think he was trying to be helpful.

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

I was thinking the same thing as illram - where did the Attila the Hun stuff come from? Spamming whilst appealing a ban due to spamming!

 

[leif erikson]

It is from this thread.

 

[leif erikson]

Sent this to Domen:

Hi Domen,
It is the unanimous decision of the supermods/admins to uphold your infraction for spam. This action also permabans you from posting at CFC or sending PM's.

Also want to address your request to be removed from the permanent points program. In that request you noted that you had not been infracted for 2.5 months and characterized your posting style as flawless. I reviewed our reported post thread and found several instances where your posts were reported but moderators felt that, while they were spam and should have been infracted, they did not rise to a level that would make you receive a permaban, so they did not infract.

I apologize for the time it took to complete this, just wanted to make sure everyone had a chance to participate as it means permaban.

Best of luck and take care,
leif