Intent Matters. (Why the Appeal Process is flawed)

[Ryika]

Text removed + deletion requested.

It seems like I misunderstood the rules and thought this threads would be okay, but apparently it is not.

 

[Gedemon]

The rules are set so that civil conversations are possible, if a post has two meanings, one of them being an insult, you can be sure it will be interpreted the bad way by some readers, and that some posters will write their messages this way intentionally so they can use the "first" meaning as a defense.

IMO someone contesting an infraction should base his/her defense on the fact that they didn't break the rules, not on the potentiality that a moderator believe that they didn't meant to break them.

 

[Synobun]

I haven't seen the problem you're referring to in any of the infraction appeal threads. Note that this isn't a request for you to go and point them out as that'd be PDMA. I'm making a general statement here that what you're claiming is a deep flaw of the system isn't something I'm seeing.

Your assertion in the final paragraph is something I feel is incorrect. We are responsible for our actions and not our intentions. If the majority of a ruling body agrees that someone has phrased their content in a way that is rule-breaking, "I didn't mean it like that" is essentially an irrelevant point to make unless the person is arguing for a lesser sentence and has made suitable strides towards proving their claim that they intended something else. As a real life analogy, you're still responsible for breaking someone's property even if you did it accidentally. Your intentions have no relevance to the "crime" being committed unless your intent is grievous (which leads to harsher punishment). If your intent is baseline or more innocent, all it means is that your sentence may be reduced or just remain as-is.

The infraction appeal process has never been strictly for determining if a first impression is correct or not. The member's behaviour is taken into consideration. It just won't take up too much time in the debate if the member is belligerent or disrespectful. There's an expectation of civility that needs to be met. A member's behaviour also won't take up much time in the debate if their counterarguments are simplistic or lack substance. The onus is on the member to prove their innocence, not on the moderator to believe the claim. Beyond that, as mentioned, a user's intent does not change whether or not their post broke the rules.

 

[Ryika]

intentionally

That's an assumption on your part though. The person may not actually have intentionally worded their post that way, and that you're automatically assuming that a person has intentionally worded something in a way that it has two meanings is baffling.

I can say from personal experience that I've made posts, then later re-read them and realized that what I've written could be interpreted very differently from what I've actually meant. The example I made may again not be perfect in conveying that, but it's about how moderators react to it in the first place.

That does not free a person from the responsibility of how their post is then reasonably conceived, but not taking it into consideration at all, is pretty ridiculous in my opinion.

unless the person is arguing for a lesser sentence and has made suitable strides towards proving their claim that they intended something else.

Yeah, but that exactly is the point. How would the moderators even know that he wants to do that if they don't bother reading through what they have to say in their defense?

And how am even supposed to make the case that this is true? I have the perfect example of where I think that happend, but I can't comment on it because "PDMA!".

 

[Synobun]

Yeah, but that exactly is the point. How would the moderators even know that he wants to do that if they don't bother reading through what they have to say in their defense?

They do read through it. This question seems akin to asking how a surgeon is going to perform brain surgery if they're nowhere near the subject's brain. The process of brain surgery has their presence as a prerequisite.

The process of an infraction appeal has reading the PM conversation as a prerequisite, otherwise they have nothing to deliberate on. The panel agreeing with the moderator who issued the infraction doesn't mean the panel merely ignored the member.

And how am even supposed to make the case that this is true? I have the perfect example of where I think that happend, but I can't comment on it because "PDMA!".

You can contact a super moderator or administrator privately, unless you feel they're in on it and will simply toss your argument in the trash. If that's a belief you hold, however, I'm not sure what you hope to gain by publicly arguing about this perceived problem.

The specifics of moderator acts have always been allowed to be brought up privately. The admins and super moderators in the current system will take what you share under consideration.

 

[Gedemon]

That's an assumption on your part though. The person may not actually have intentionally worded their post that way, and that you're automatically assuming that a person has intentionally worded something in a way that it has two meanings is baffling.

please, quote the whole sentence "some posters" is essential to understand the (unique) meaning of my post, of course some others will not have intentionally worded their posts that way.

 

[Ryika]

You can contact a super moderator or administrator privately, unless you feel they're in on it and will simply toss your argument in the trash. If that's a belief you hold, however, I'm not sure what you hope to gain by publicly arguing about this perceived problem.

In a post that Camikaze linked me to he clearly stated that it is okay to discuss the general outlines of the process, which is why I created this thread. Nobody has told me that I should go around and bother Supermods in private for these things, I thought a public discussion would be both, less work for the mods, and a better opportunity for an open discussion, but now that you have, I guess I'll do that instead.

please, quote the whole sentence "some posters" is essential to understand the (unique) meaning of my post, of course some others will not have intentionally worded their posts that way.

Yes, I know that that's what you mean, but you have no way of differentiating between the two groups, other than making further assumptions about their motives. You literally cannot know that "This person has worded their post to be understood in more than one way.", unless they specifically tell you that they have. So I don't understand what point you're trying to make, other than that there are obviously people who will do it intentionally. ...which I never denied, my point is that the moderators don't even get to that point if they're focused solely on what their first impression of a post is.

 

[Synobun]

In a post that Camikaze linked me to he clearly stated that it is okay to discuss the general outlines of the process, which is why I created this thread. Nobody has told me that I should go around and bother Supermods in private for these things, but now that you have, I guess I'll do that instead now.

Nothing I have said goes against what Camikaze shared. If you want to discuss the specifics of an infraction appeal, you can contact a super moderator or administrator privately. The benefit of exercising that ability here is that it will provide helpful information to those who are best suited to enact a change about this problem should it be recognized after your explanation.

 

[Ryika]

But I don't want to discuss the specifics of an infraction appeal (as in "a specific case"), I want to discuss whether the way infraction appeals in general are handled is helpful or not, and whether the current goal of infraction appeals is ideal.

To do that, I feel like I have to point towards a concrete example, otherwise all I'm saying can just be washed away as "I don't think that's accurate."

 

[Gedemon]

Yes, I know that that's what you mean, but you have no way of differentiating between the two groups, other than making further assumptions about their motives. You literally cannot know that "This person has worded their post to be understood in more than one way.", unless they specifically tell you that they have. So I don't understand what point you're trying to make, other than that there are obviously people who will do it intentionally.

Because I think that if we believe poster A when he says that he didn't means to post an insult in a message that has a double sense, then we should also believe poster B, C, and all others using this as a defense (because why believing A and not the others ?)

IMO, while I agree that it surely doesn't seems fair for some cases, if there was any infraction of that kind reverted on that basis, it would be equivalent to add a new rule saying that insults are allowed as long as they can be also interpreted in a non-insulting way.

 

[Arakhor]

How would the moderators even know that he wants to do that if they don't bother reading through what they have to say in their defense?

And how am even supposed to make the case that this is true? I have the perfect example of where I think that happend, but I can't comment on it because "PDMA!".

Then don't make a thread about it, because it won't excuse PDMA by proxy. Moreover, if you think that the moderators are biased against you, this isn't going to be a terribly productive thread, to say the least.

 

[Ryika]

Then don't make a thread about it, because it won't excuse PDMA by proxy.

Alright, I see how my post could be understood that way and deleted it.

I will now start contacting people in private as open discussion is not wanted.

 

[leif erikson]

Thread closed.

 

[Camikaze]

Moderator Action: As a coda, the relevant distinction is between discussing the infraction review process without reference to specific real examples, and discussing the infraction review process with reference to specific real examples. The latter is PDMA, as it involves comment on specific moderator actions, even though the object of that comment may not be to criticise that specific moderator action. Essentially, the rules require silence on the conduct or outcome of any specific infraction review. If you wish to introduce a specific example into the discussion to highlight a particular point, you should convey that example to a super moderator or admin privately. We recognise that specific examples might be quite useful to illustrating your point, so you are encouraged to bring them up in private if you think that's the case. But we ask that public discussions on this forum be conducted in accordance with the forum rules.