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

Owen Glyndwr vs Vincour

Discussion in 'Infraction Review' started by ori, Oct 13, 2017.

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

    ori Repair Guy Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Messages:
    16,417
    Location:
    Baden-Württemberg, Germany
    Owen Glyndwr is appealing the following:

     
  2. leif erikson

    leif erikson Game of the Month Fanatic Administrator Supporter GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    24,253
    Location:
    Plymouth, MA
    Vincour's replies to Owen Glyndwr seem to be missing?

    Are links allowed in OT with no other explanation? For someone like me, not well versed in OT, the content in a link could mean many things?

    Why do people even respond to threads like these, if they ignored them they would die from lack of oxygen?
     
    BvBPL likes this.
  3. ori

    ori Repair Guy Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Messages:
    16,417
    Location:
    Baden-Württemberg, Germany
    Vincour told me he'd get back to me today about this. I do not think there were any replies by him and judging by the tone of the messages. At least I would not have replied either. There was no attempt at all by Owen Glydwr to engage in any meaningful discussion.
     
  4. ori

    ori Repair Guy Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Messages:
    16,417
    Location:
    Baden-Württemberg, Germany
    This is Vincour's input. Its long so please do expand the quote...

     
  5. Rob (R8XFT)

    Rob (R8XFT) Ancient Briton Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2002
    Messages:
    10,613
    Location:
    Leeds (UK)
    Uphold. It was trolling and Owen Glyndwr's reaction to the infraction was OTT.
     
  6. leif erikson

    leif erikson Game of the Month Fanatic Administrator Supporter GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    24,253
    Location:
    Plymouth, MA
    The banter and chat rules:
    "Banter and Chat
    'Banter' between 'friends' is treated no differently from any other forum posts. For example, if you flame a 'friend' and think that because you don't really 'mean it' then it is OK, it will still be considered as flaming and dealt with accordingly. Moderators do not have the time, or inclination, to check with each person whether they are offended by the flaming, and it would also result in the appearance that the rules are not applied consistently.

    If you want to "chat" with another member (or members), please do not do so in one of the threads. Instead, start a conversation."

    What Valessa thinks of the infraction has no bearing on the issue imnsho.

    The .gif is, in itself, trolling.

    Vote to uphold.
     
  7. ori

    ori Repair Guy Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Messages:
    16,417
    Location:
    Baden-Württemberg, Germany
    I cannot see the gif as my browser does not support this filetype...

    As for the link: I agree with Vincour that there it has to be interpreted as trolling and having previous posts link to it does not change it. Also Context matters a simple link drop is something else than a post including some critique of the way the OP is structured and then offering the link as a source. As such I would uphold.
     
  8. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    26,860
    Location:
    Sydney
    Owen certainly should've made a more genuine attempt to resolve the matter with Vincour before jumping to an appeal, which Vincour understandably obliged. I'm sure Vincour would've preferred to amicably resolve the issue without the matter needing to go to an appeal.

    The change in standards between 2008 and 2017 is particularly relevant, and I'm extremely reluctant to vote to overturn an infraction that the current OT moderators regard as rule-breaking according to the current OT standards. But I think Owen does have a reasonable expectation that the post would not be infracted, given it is has been deployed innumerable times in the past, and the sum of official announcements between 2008 and 2017 is that standards have become laxer. It is open to the OT moderators to embark upon a stricter interpretation of the rules, but in the absence of an announced policy, I don't think it's particularly unreasonable for a member to post something that was fine in a pre-'non-RD' environment, and expect that it is still fine in a present 'non-RD' environment, when the same thing has never been infracted at any stage along the way.

    In terms of the OT moderating guidelines, we currently have as follows:
    Of course, the usual proviso applies - the guidelines are not rules, they are simply guidelines, and they can be altered by the current OT moderators if they collectively so wish. But in the absence of some announced change, those guidelines do illustrate the type of standard users of OT might expect to be applied in a particular situation. I don't see how the post in question could fall into anything other than the last category. Given the context, we can reasonably assume that any trolling is 'reckless' rather than 'intentional', and l don't think it's contended that the trolling is anything other than 'mild'.

    Now again, it's open to the OT moderators to change the standards that are applied in OT, but in the absence of clear signalling, I don't think a poster should be infracted where they would have a reasonable expectation that their post is not rule-breaking, and have made the post on that basis. This is not saying that because something was not infracted in the past, you're immune to any action if you post it again. But it is saying that when someone posts something that according to the advertised rules is perfectly fine, we can't suddenly change the standards on them without announcing it. They can reasonably expect that there will be some official indication of the changed standard prior to receiving an infraction for posting something which was previously considered acceptable.

    The 'banter and chat' section of the forum rules I think should also be considered in the context of the non-RD standard that those who enter a thread consent to a bit of rough play. The 'jerk' rule simply rules out attacking those who are not present, and who have not so consented. But if you are posting in a non-RD thread, then the advertised standard in the stickied rules thread in OT is that, "With 'lighter moderation' comes some tolerance for minor flaming of people that you are debating in a given thread", and, "As a clarification of the 'jerk' rule, if A and B are discussing something, then each has some freedom to play rough with the other, and even C can enter the thread and enjoy some of that same freedom in relation to both A and B". Those statements are pretty meaningless if you can't tell someone that failing to accept the stipulations of a hypothetical isn't clever. It's not particularly fair to posters if they are being infracted for something which the stickied rules thread in OT appears to allow.

    I would vote to overturn.
     
  9. leif erikson

    leif erikson Game of the Month Fanatic Administrator Supporter GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    24,253
    Location:
    Plymouth, MA
    I had not noticed that this came from a non-RD thread. In that case, and in light of Camikaze's explanation, I agree with him and would vote to overturn.

    With that, I think there needs to be a discussion of the staff to review how the RD/non-RD system is working and if any adjustments are needed. This would bring new staff members and old hands together on moderation standards and assist with consistency.
     
    Valka D'Ur likes this.
  10. ori

    ori Repair Guy Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Messages:
    16,417
    Location:
    Baden-Württemberg, Germany
    I am finally getting around to wrapping things up. This is a 2:2 vote. We did have that in the past once which was then decided by a late vote switch. so we never came around to decide how a tie is treated. Moderator Action: <snip> - discussion on treatment of tied votes removed as there is no consensus yet
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2017
  11. leif erikson

    leif erikson Game of the Month Fanatic Administrator Supporter GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    24,253
    Location:
    Plymouth, MA
    Moderator Action: <snip> - discussion on treatment of tied votes removed as there is no consensus yet
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 6, 2017
  12. Bootstoots

    Bootstoots Warlord Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    9,166
    Location:
    Mid-Illinois
    I'll make this easy and vote to overturn without really thinking about it, just to break the tie and make the outcome clear.

    Moderator Action: <snip> - discussion on treatment of tied votes removed as there is no consensus yet
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 6, 2017
  13. ori

    ori Repair Guy Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Messages:
    16,417
    Location:
    Baden-Württemberg, Germany
    So I told both of them that the warning is to be reversed and will publish this thread shortly.

    Moderator Action: Edit: published and discussion on treatment of tied votes removed as there is no consensus yet.
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2017
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Ebates: Get Paid to Shop