1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Dismiss Notice
  6. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

Forma v. Ori

Discussion in 'Infraction Review' started by illram, Sep 10, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. illram

    illram Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Messages:
    9,218
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Moderator Action: "Look on this appeal thread, ye mighty, and despair." PM's removed per user request, other than original infraction. Appeal thread otherwise unedited.

    Forma is appealing a 3 point permanent point infraction. PM's below, also he has not provided permission to publish any of the PM communications when this is published in the public appeal thread.

    PM's are spoilered below.
    Moderator Action: PM's removed
     
  2. illram

    illram Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Messages:
    9,218
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Split into two posts since the first post went over the 30,000 character limit for this forum due to the PM's.

    Pretty sure those are all the PM's. Link to the reported post thread is Moderator Action: not here. I'd note that the PP's were given after universal agreement amongst staff, and the PP's were a decrease in the originally suggested infraction since the thread had moved on from this post at that point.

    I would vote to uphold.
     
  3. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    26,810
    Location:
    Sydney
    I think this is a tricky one. My immediate reaction is that the post isn't rule-breaking - you're allowed to call opinions silly and nonsensical. But there's a surrounding context which needs to be taken into account, and other factors at play as well.

    Firstly, because he's on the permanent points program, he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt. He seems to think that means we're out to get him, but it simply means he used up all his chances dozens of infractions ago. He has a track record of breaking the rules, and has been told in no uncertain terms that he no longer receives any leniency, as might be afforded to those with limited infraction records, possibly including those he's arguing against. The permanent point policy is very clear - if you find yourself on the program, all rule-breaking behaviour will result in an automatic 3PP infraction, unless there's some compelling countervailing reason. He is on the program, and hasn't made any recent application to be removed from it, as he is able to do. Also, this post wasn't sought out for infraction (though reading through a thread with an eye for rule-breaking behaviour is not a bad thing), but was simply responded to because it was reported (by someone other than the target).

    Secondly, there is a hint of an argument in the appeal that "if someone else breaks the rules, then I can too". Which is not the case. If his post is rule-breaking, it doesn't really matter for this appeal whether other people have or have not also broken the rules. That being said, non-RD threads present a particular challenge, in that what is rule-breaking is partially determined by the tone of the discussion. A couple of the basic principles behind non-RD threads were that they'd grant a bit of an opportunity to call a spade a spade, or to give as good as you get. If someone enters a peaceful thread and starts acting belligerently, that will be treated differently to the same behaviour in a thread in which they find themselves under attack, or in the middle of a forthright argument. Obviously there are limits, but my point here is that they are flexible limits, highly dependent on context.

    When a poster enters a non-RD thread they are consenting to a bit of rough handling. I think this extends to having your opinions called silly and nonsensical, and I reckon that probably happens fairly often, too. It's probably too simplistic to leave it there, though, because in this case, calling the opinions silly and nonsensical was the sole content of the post. It wasn't that Forma decided to engage with the post and characterise them in that way in passing. He simply made a post for the sole purpose of calling the preceding one silly and nonsensical. The fact that he extended it beyond the opinion in that post, to opinions on the topic generally held by the poster, is also significant. It could with some fairness be said that Forma entered this thread belligerently.

    But even so, I just don't think this rises to a sufficient level to be rule-breaking when you look at a number of the other posts in the thread, or in other similar threads. This is hardly a low-point in the discussion. Given the extent of the bickering seen in the last few days, I've no doubt that Forma has made a worse post somewhere else in the thread, and others certainly have as well (for which they have been infracted). We could, I suppose, say that although this individual post is not worth an infraction, Forma's behaviour in the thread has been worth an infraction. After all, the OT moderating guidelines bundle 'repeated' trolling in with 'serious' trolling. But this infraction is not for repeated trolling. It is framed as being for this one incident, which is said to be an attack breaking the 'jerk' rule. I think it's dubious to come to the conclusion that the current infraction doesn't work on the stated basis, so we should just hang the points on behaviour writ large. It would be better to overturn this infraction, and then separately infract any rule-breaking behaviour which happens to arise.

    So at this stage I would vote to overturn the infraction, on the understanding that Forma should not take this as an endorsement of his behaviour in the thread.

    It's probably worth mentioning the presentation of the appeal as well. The appeal rule states:
    It could be argued that politeness is a mandatory requirement, and that there is no jurisdiction for a supermod review if it is presented in the rude manner which it has been presented in. But I suppose it's probably better to just warn him about that for future reference, and deal with the appeal that's been made regardless.
     
  4. Rob (R8XFT)

    Rob (R8XFT) Ancient Briton Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2002
    Messages:
    10,486
    Location:
    Leeds (UK)
    Vote to uphold. Let's not forget that Ori asked opinions of other moderators prior to this infraction, who all agreed. The fact that Forma has presented his case in such a rude manner does not help him either in my opinion.
     
  5. leif erikson

    leif erikson Game of the Month Fanatic Administrator Supporter GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    23,369
    Location:
    Plymouth, MA
    I agree with much of what Camikaze said in his post, this one is pretty tricky.

    The Permanent Points program is meant to be a members last chance to change their posting style, under pressure unfortunately, and become a more productive member of the site. From Formaldehyde's response to the infraction, I would say he is most likely not going to change. The response is by far worse than the original post in question. He does not take any responsibility for the contents of the post and points to bad behavior by others to justify his own bad behavior. He dismisses the moderator and staff in general. He wants respect by shows none. Everything is a "witch hunt" against him instead of being viewed as a chance to change.

    I think this review should be returned to Formaldehyde with a requirement to present a more reasoned view or let the points stand. Based upon what we see, there is little reason to even take stock of his issues.

    Barring that, I would vote to uphold for the simple reason that I do not want him to think that what he did was acceptable.
     
  6. illram

    illram Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Messages:
    9,218
    Location:
    San Francisco
    So we have 2 to uphold, 1 to overturn, 1 to send back to Forma for a less inflammatory presentation of his appeal.

    I'd like some more input before doing anything else. Anyone?
     
  7. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    26,810
    Location:
    Sydney
    I don't think there's much point in asking Forma to ask us again nicely. How he's asked us is relevant to whether we perform a review, but that's probably a matter for the supermod initially contacted, and if we've decided we actually are performing a review, the politeness of the request doesn't have much bearing on the correctness of the infraction. Just means he's missed an opportunity to persuade us.
     
  8. ori

    ori Repair Guy Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Messages:
    16,233
    Location:
    Baden-W├╝rttemberg, Germany
    I will just chime in even though I am not actually participating in the review.
    I have read and reread the post I infracted and after some reflection have to say I agree with Camikaze. This post as is as well as in the context of the other posts surrounding it would not have triggered an infraction if any other user had posted it. The infraction was almost certainly atleast in part due to the generally belligerent tone of Formaldehyde's posts in the past few weeks - but as it was not directed at that but rather at a specific post that upon reflection does not merit an infraction I believe I should reverse it.

    Note that this would have been resolved quickly with an attempt at actually arguing in good faith about the infraction on Formaldehyde's side instead of the messages he actually sent.

    I suggest that I reverse the infraction and this thread be archived in the public appeals forum.
     
  9. leif erikson

    leif erikson Game of the Month Fanatic Administrator Supporter GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    23,369
    Location:
    Plymouth, MA
  10. illram

    illram Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Messages:
    9,218
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Sounds good to me.
     
  11. ori

    ori Repair Guy Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Messages:
    16,233
    Location:
    Baden-W├╝rttemberg, Germany
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page