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

Intent Matters. (Why the Appeal Process is flawed)

Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by Ryika, May 5, 2017.

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

    Ryika likes cookies and milk.

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2013
    Messages:
    9,200
    Text removed + deletion requested.

    It seems like I misunderstood the rules and thought this threads would be okay, but apparently it is not.
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2017
  2. Gedemon

    Gedemon Modder Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,733
    Location:
    France
    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.
     
  3. Synsensa

    Synsensa Warlord Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    14,688
    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.
     
  4. Ryika

    Ryika likes cookies and milk.

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2013
    Messages:
    9,200
    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.

    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!".
     
  5. Synsensa

    Synsensa Warlord Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    14,688
    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.

    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.
     
  6. Gedemon

    Gedemon Modder Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,733
    Location:
    France
    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.
     
  7. Ryika

    Ryika likes cookies and milk.

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2013
    Messages:
    9,200
    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.

    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.
     
  8. Synsensa

    Synsensa Warlord Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    14,688
    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.
     
  9. Ryika

    Ryika likes cookies and milk.

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2013
    Messages:
    9,200
    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."
     
  10. Gedemon

    Gedemon Modder Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,733
    Location:
    France
    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.
     
  11. Arakhor

    Arakhor Dremora Courtier Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Messages:
    28,921
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    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.
     
  12. Ryika

    Ryika likes cookies and milk.

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2013
    Messages:
    9,200
    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.
     
  13. leif erikson

    leif erikson Game of the Month Fanatic Administrator Supporter GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    24,238
    Location:
    Plymouth, MA
  14. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    26,860
    Location:
    Sydney
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Ebates: Get Paid to Shop