onejayhawk vs Arakhor

[Bootstoots]

Onejayhawk is appealing an infraction he received from Arakhor for trolling. This is the post in question. It is quoted below for convenience, including Arakhor's modtext.

There was a two year investigation about that. It turned out to be a hoax.

I keep thinking about Barr's phrase, " a thumb on the scales." This is not going to be about big things, like email servers or dead soldiers. It's going to be about fudging reports and going where you know you shouldn't. It's going to be about people who cheated on procedure because they never expected to have to make account. It's the death of a thousand cuts.

J

Moderator Action: Do not troll other users with inflammatory opinions. You are responsible for both your tone and content, regardless of whether you think you are right or not. ~ Arakhor
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Onejayhawk contends that the infraction he received for this post is unwarranted, as his statement was a reference to actual events. He states:

His actions of the last 24 hours would be a case in point [of unfair moderation by Arakhor]. In particular he gave a two point ban for calling Trump asking the Russians to hack the DNC a hoax. It's a fact, established by it's absence from the Mueller report which picked little tiny nits.

Arakhor provides the following reasoning in support of his infraction:

OneJay's calling the entire Mueller investigation a hoax. Now, he either firmly believes that, despite constantly insisting that he's an independent, doesn't take cable TV, isn't exposed to right-wing media etc., at which point he's reached a extremist decision all by himself, or he's actively trolling people in his usual fashion. Throwing out something you know is going to be inflammatory, especially as a mere rhetorical aide, is trolling, whether or not you believe it to be "true".

There was a brief exchange between Arakhor and onejayhawk following the infraction. It is quoted below, starting with the infraction message.

onejayhawk,

Your message (Barr Anti-corruption Investigations) constitutes trolling under our rules:


Do not troll other users, such as by posting opinions that you know will infuriate others. Please keep this in mind when posting or using our site. This is a two-point warning for two months and you will be reply-banned from the thread for three days.

I appeal on the grounds that it is not even a troll, but a factual response.

J

Then appeal to a super-moderator or administrator, not to me.

I thought you could reconsider your own actions. NOt so?

J

I will also refer the matter to Boots.

J

 

[leif erikson]

Staff are asked to do two basic things at CFC. The first is to maintain civility of discussions and the second is to keep discussions on topic. Staff are not arbiters of truth. In today's world, anyone can "shop" for whatever truth they seek from the opinions and spin of news sources, cable outlets or social media sites.

Site members, particularly in OT, are pretty familiar with their fellow member's political and social beliefs. They know what buttons to push to create a negative reaction. Site Rules discuss this topic under trolling and set as trolling anything that is said with the intent of creating a negative reaction. In this case, believe that onejayhawk's post, while he may see it as his factual truth, was made with just such an intention and thus would uphold the infraction by Arakhor.

 

[Camikaze]

I agree with leif.

The defence of "yes, but it's true" is entirely beside the point - the post isn't being infracted on the basis of an assessment of its truth, it's being infracted because a reasonable observer would see this post and think that its purpose is simply to provoke a negative reaction, not to genuinely engage in a debate.

In Arakhor's explanation provided for the purpose of this review, he notes that because it is somewhat difficult in the circumstances to believe that onejayhawk genuinely holds the opinion which he is expressing, it is somewhat easier to reach the determination that the intention behind the post is insincere.

It's true that the more outlandish an opinion is, the easier it will be for a reasonable observer to think that the post is just aimed to spark discord. If you open up a thread about lunar exploration and post "the moon is made of cheese", it's going to be fairly easy for a moderator to reach the conclusion that you're making that post for the purpose of instigating a derailment, rather than for the purpose of participating in the discussion.

But the question remains the objectively determined intention behind the post, not whether the post is correct (and it is clear that's the reason behind Arakhor's decision).

Context is vital to the determination of that operative question. Here, this post taken in isolation might seem fairly innocuous, and posted in other contexts would no doubt be within the rules. However, the post exists in the context of widespread discussion over a number of different threads on the topic of the Mueller report, from which it would be abundantly clear to onejayhawk that describing the report as a "hoax" is a controversial opinion that will elicit a strong response. Pausing there, that in itself does not make it rule-breaking for onejayhawk to repeat his opinion - the fact that others strongly disagree does not mean that onejayhawk is faced with the choice of either changing his mind or keeping quiet.

What shifts the post into rule-breaking territory is the determination that the reason why the post has been made (or the reason why the statement within the post has been made) is to needle or provoke, rather than to engage in a proper discussion. That determination arises from the tone in which the post has been made, given the pre-existing context. That is, despite onejayhawk knowing that he is presenting a hotly contested opinion, he is essentially saying, "oh, did you miss that your opinion has already been definitively proven to be wrong?" Phrased in such a way, how would a reasonable observer interpret the post as anything other than the deliberate waving of a red flag in front of a bull? How could a reasonable observer see this post as a genuine attempt to engage in a debate with Estebonrober?

The point of the infraction, then, is not to protect any delicate sensibilities who are just outraged that someone could express the opinion which onejayhawk is expressing, but to signal the forum's interest in preventing a clearly foreseeable trainwreck and promoting genuine debate instead of mudslinging.

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

I agree with Leif's comments - my vote is to uphold.

 

[Petek]

Agree with leif and vote to uphold. Also, I think the first part of leif's post should be added where it will be more visible (either OT moderating guidelines or The Moderator Handbook).

 

[Bootstoots]

My apologies to everyone, especially onejayhawk and Arakhor, for forgetting all about this. The standard excuses apply: life got busy and I've barely logged in for the past month and a half.

The assertion that the Mueller investigation revealed the "Russiagate" accusations to be a hoax is a common talking point in the right-wing sources that onejayhawk likely frequents. I initially leaned toward overturning this infraction as a simple expression of a political view that is unpopular on this forum but which a member is certainly allowed to express. I believe having a diversity of viewpoints is an asset for a forum that is driven largely by political discussion, and moderation should be as unbiased with respect to political ideology as possible.

However, I find Camikaze's reasoning persuasive. This post does not read as a genuine attempt to have a discussion, but rather to simply rile up the other side in a manner known to provoke an equally hostile response. While this sort of behavior is unfortunately common among posters of all opinions, onejayhawk's pattern of posting is particularly heavy on making short, snappy comments that serve to provoke a hostile response, without adding much that is conducive to real discussion. Each individual post is not trollish enough to provoke moderator action, but viewed as a whole, it is hard not to consider this pattern trolling.

These sorts of patterns of behavior - where individual posts are not actionable but the overall pattern of the poster's behavior serves to reliably drag discussions downhill - are especially difficult to handle, and it is important that we do a better job of responding. At some point, a line really should be drawn, and the point at which this happens may seem arbitrary.

Although I still have some reservations, I vote to uphold.

 

[Bootstoots]

Somehow I never put this in the public appeal forum. I guess I assumed someone else did that, and missed or forgot about leif's post to the contrary asking me to do it. I'll put it there now. Obviously the infraction was upheld.

I apologize to @onejayhawk for this - it should have been up half a year ago.