Lohrenswald vs Vincour

[ori]

Lohrenswald requests a review of this infraction:

this one:

https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...d-and-start-over.615037/page-20#post-14790050

Basically I commented on what he called me, and not the infraction on the post above, which I'd say is the moderator action I'm not supposed to publicly discuss

If this appeal get's denied, I'd like to suggest moderators quit it with moderator messages targeted against "quirks" of posters, or that they aren't "hand made for them", to put it another way, as this makes for a mean-spirited rhetorical advantage to moderators

Primitive way to "forward", but here you go:
Primitive way to "forward", but here you go:

Lohrenswald,

Your actions in this message (Random Rants LXVIII: Burn it all to the ground and start over!) are not appropriate:

Don't call me Lohren

PDMA is also against the rules.

You should have told me that via PM. I will stop shortening your username as requested.

This is a three point infraction that will expire in a month.

- Vincour

That wasn't PDMA

It was a public response to a moderator action. That is the very definition of PDMA.

It was a response to what you called me, not the actual infraction

Which was in a moderator action. Again, such a request should have been done via PM.

 

[ori]

I am actually unsure about this one.

Public discussion of moderator actions (PDMA)
Public discussion of actions taken or not taken by moderators or admins is not permitted. If you have a problem with something a moderator has done, then PM the moderator concerned. If you are not aware of which moderator made the action, then PM one of the moderators of that particular forum. Moderators are required to answer you and justify their actions, but they are not necessarily required to agree with you. Please give any mod pmed at least 24 hours to respond. If you do not get a response to the PM within that time frame or are not happy with the response you did get, then you can request a review (see details below). In your PMs, it is highly recommended that you be polite. There are occasions where moderators get something wrong, but generally this is a perception issue, and they may not have seen something in the same way that you have. Remember this if you want to have a constructive discussion with the moderators.

General discussion of how and why moderators do what they do are permitted in the Site Feedback forum when the discussion is in the spirit of improving the forum. Discussing specific incidents of warnings, infractions, bans, specific posters or moderators is not allowed. A statement of a fact of a warning, infraction or ban you yourself have received without value judgements is allowed. Publicly discussing a specific instance as a "hypothetical" is not allowed.

If I understand the whole mod text as an action taken by a moderator, then sure its against the rule - however is that the action? Or is the giving a warning an action? I am inclined to uphold the infraction in general on the grounds that he did publicly discuss a moderator action - but frankly this feels more like a coin toss. I would not have given 3 points but can understand that given the poster's history.

 

[leif erikson]

When I first read this, I was concerned that Lohrenswald received three points for this. Digging into it some more, I have found numerous examples where people have called him Lohren or Lohrens without any type of reaction whatever. This leads me to the conclusion that his reaction to Vincour was based upon his being infracted for foul language in the post before the one in question. Furthermore, Lohrenswald has been on a foul language spree for some time now. Since February, he has received 14 infractions for language or PDMA. It is almost as though he is trying to push it to make some kind of point to staff. In fact, after he asked for this review, he posted inappropriate language here and was infracted for it.

Based upon seeing "the whole story", I vote to uphold this infraction.

 

[Camikaze]

'Moderator action' includes everything said within mod tags, as it made clear by those tags commencing with the words 'moderator action' (by contrast, despite what some may think, the concept of 'moderator action' does not extend, and has never extended, to everything a moderator ever does on this website). I recently posted a moderator action here which I think clarifies the issue somewhat - a 'moderator action' isn't just the end result, whether that be the fact of an infraction or the fact that someone has been told to stop swearing. It covers the entire exchange between the moderator and poster concerning the issue.

A comment upon the manner of expression within mod tags is therefore a comment upon a moderator action. Here it was done publicly. If Lohrenswald were concerned about the manner of expression adopted by Vincour, he should have contacted him privately. Vincour would undoubtedly have been happy to listen to Lohrenswald's concern.

As Lohrenswald suggests, this does give a 'rhetorical advantage' to moderators. They can, for instance, say that someone is behaving like a jerk, without the poster having any public recourse to respond to that claim (even though in many cases the narrow 'moderator action' might be conceived to be an infraction for trolling, rather than the use of the expression 'being a jerk'). That is the nature of the moderators being the enforcers of the forum rules. Of course, it would be a concern if moderators were using this rhetorical advantage in a 'mean-spirited' manner, and we're always open to hearing complaints that that is the case. But that's a hypothetical which isn't at all engaged by Vincour using a shortening of 'Lohrenswald'. Shortening someone's username is only mean-spirited if you are aware that they take offence. It's not trolling or otherwise rule-breaking to refer to someone by an abbreviated name in the absence of that specific knowledge, because the notional reasonable poster would not assume that someone would negatively react to what usually amounts to a sign of geniality.

So I agree with an infraction for this post. Given Lohrenswald's recent infraction history, 3 points seems perfectly appropriate to me. Therefore I'd vote to uphold the infraction.

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

It's really looking at the full infraction history that has swayed me to my decision - which is to uphold. I agree with Leif and Cami's comments above.

 

[ori]

So the infraction is upheld and I will publish this thread now.

Moderator Action: moved to Site feedback without edits