First, to explain the lack of discussion between Owen and I: His initial reply to the infraction was dismissive and insulting. There was nothing I could say in response to either of his points ("you're lucky I'm busy" and "you're ruining OT"). His follow-up reply, meanwhile, refers to me in the third person and is written from the perspective of him, well, not arguing his case with me. Instead of redirecting the argument back to me I abode by his attempt -- that attempt being an appeal -- and told him who to contact if he wanted to appeal the infraction and who to contact if he wanted to tell a superior I was a net detractor from OT.
Owen and I have previously clashed in a private discussion where he used some hyperbolic language in response to a PM warning to alter some behaviour regarding inappropriate language on CFC (a matter that's been addressed by administrators at this point), and he made reference to this clash in the "what do you like/dislike about CFC" thread in Site Feedback. While I bear Owen no ill will, it is clear that any attempt at an actual discussion between he and I would likely lead to the same sort of clash occurring. I don't think forcing the issue in our private conversation about the infraction would have led anywhere useful for either party.
---
About the trolling infraction itself, I mostly feel it's self-explanatory but I'll explain my thinking regardless. While the thread is not an RD thread (it was originally but I removed the tag), the reply still exceeds any notion of 'fair play'. Owen's reply was unprovoked and serves to goad a negative reaction. There is no 'innocent' reason behind replying to someone with an eye-roll gif from the show Arrested Development and then linking to a 9 year old thread wherein the OP says repeatedly in bold that the intended reader is stupid. Some nitpicking room is available here where one can say the OP only says you look stupid but I don't find that a particularly compelling distinction in this instance.
There are far better ways to express disappointment that someone isn't keeping with the spirit of a hypothetical, and the way Owen did it is not one of those ways. The gif, and using an inappropriate thread as a primary discussion tactic, are both inappropriate in today's CFC environment. The theory that this was trolling is then confirmed by Valessa's reply with a gif of a middle finger and a silly "go kick rocks"-esque reply. Even if the two parties think it's a golly good time, their public actions don't express that and the rules are fairly clear that there are limits to camaraderie.
---
About Owen's defense, I had originally planned a much longer reply deconstructing it but after the above two explanations I'm not sure it's necessary. I'll still address it, though, and it'll still probably be fairly long.
I will start from the bottom and go from there.
So to reiterate: no trolling, flaming, or rules breaking was occurring in my post, or at least none that falls outside the bounds of accepted precedent on OT and the OT subfora. I was merely calling out Valessa for disregarding the framework of the hypothetical provided in-thread, which, again, is something that has been done with no problem in pretty much every hypotheticals thread for the last decade. Any meaningful argument towards a possible trolling would be on the basis of "he called the poster's argument dumb (and, to reiterate, not the poster themself)" which, although is mentioned explicitly in the rules, has largely gone uninfracted for basically the entire time I've been a member of cfc. I would say, moreover, that it's a pretty good indictment of an infraction being unwarranted when even the (nominally) injured party is remarking on the absurdity of the infraction, as happened here.
Owen admits in this block that his post breaks the rules but that he should get a pass because at some point in the past, it wasn't infracted. He also believes the infraction should be overturned because the person he was trolling thinks it's fine. I dismiss both points. First, something being infracted (or not infracted) in the distant past isn't exceptionally relevant to today's moderating, especially when the rule being invoked is one that has a strong 'moderator's discretion' clause. And beyond that, Valessa's private approval of the conduct is irrelevant since Valessa is not a moderator and is often getting into trouble themselves. Two rule-breakers thinking their behaviour is fine isn't a compelling point, and this isn't a power-in-numbers situation.
Owen also makes a claim that behaviour like his has gone uninfracted during his entire stint on CFC. I'm unwilling to go searching through the report logs for this but I know this isn't true. Posts that express the same language as the linked thread does are infracted regularly, and Owen linking to a 9 year old thread instead of saying it verbatim himself doesn't absolve him of the responsibility of what the content is conveying.
Moving back to the top of the appeal...
1) Fifty's hypotheticals post has been referenced in pretty much every hypotheticals thread from the time he made that post (many times by me, in fact) and, from what I can deduce through rudimentary google search, never once has anybody received even a warning to the effect that it is problematic.
e.g. https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...-good-consequences.368465/page-4#post-9294431
https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...or-those-you-care-about.441523/#post-10927309
https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...ism-as-a-failure.411679/page-33#post-10313109
This point, in my opinion, is irrelevant. The links provided are from 2010 and 2011, two of which are posts made by permanently banned members. Owen is right, these posts weren't infracted... back in 2010 and 2011. That they weren't isn't a precedent for 2017, and even Owen would have to admit that the linked posts are different than his reply to Valessa that got him infracted. The first linked reply would be infracted in today's OT. The second would be borderline but let go probably. The third would be fine since it was packaged with a real reply. Even then, however, I'd probably edit out the URL to the 'problem thread' since we have progressed as a community beyond the point where telling people in bold font they're stupid is kosher. This final point leads into the next...
2) People generally haven't been infracted for linking Fifty's thread because Fifty doesn't call any poster stupid in the post (as the moderator alleges). He rather refrains to the phrase "makes [the poster] look stupid [because of the illogic of their argument]". This isn't calling the poster stupid. This is calling the poster's argument bad. Which, again, cfc has a long history of doing.
I don't believe this distinction or the point being made. When you are wielding this thread as a replacement for your own effort in a discussion, I don't consider there to be a wide gap between telling the member they're stupid or telling them they look stupid, especially when the point is put into bold text SIX times. Perhaps the points being conveyed in the 9 year old thread from Fifty are true and reasonable, but the truth and reasonableness is being lost in that they are being packaged in phrasing that would, today, get the user dinged with a flaming infraction.
There is nothing in Fifty's thread from 2008 that cannot be written in a more reasonable manner today in 2017, and the only reason I can see for someone to wield that thread as a primary tactic is to be able to tell someone they are/look stupid. This isn't a scenario where someone is linking to the thread and then accompanying it with their own thoughts. This is a scenario where the person in question posted an eye-roll gif and then linked the thread with no accompanying commentary. I feel there are better ways to express one's disappointment over someone not abiding by the very strict terms of a hypothetical.
Owen also goes on to say that CFC has a long history of people calling arguments bad/stupid which is more than true. Unfortunately, that isn't what is happening here. Valessa did not make an argument. There was no discussion taking place. Valessa answered the hypothetical's question and Owen's response was the eye-roll and the thread link. He wasn't calling an argument bad. He was trolling someone because they didn't participate in the hypothetical the way he wanted them to.
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/youre-fired.622755/page-16#post-14883053
https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...y-with-iii-reich.476314/page-10#post-12648180
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/the-east-asia-thread.483395/page-51#post-13259633
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/greatest-dynasty-of-india.307030/page-2#post-7908864
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/pirates-or-ninjas.299757/page-21#post-8218372
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/pirates-or-ninjas.299757/page-21#post-8220571
Just to digress a moment, here's a fun bit of irony: posters being infracted for disregarding the stipulations of a hypothetical:
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/debate-is-egoism-really-a-bad-thing.117582/#post-2725473
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/debate-is-egoism-really-a-bad-thing.117582/#post-2725586
I'm not too sure what to say about these links. Owen presented these as though they supported his argument but they don't, from what I can tell at least. The first link is a post made by a member recently banned, and it was in direct response to a dismissive post made about one of his replies. This falls under 'fair play'.
The second link is from 2013 in the World History forum. WH isn't in my wheelhouse, it certainly wasn't back in 2013, and as far as I know the discussion taking place in that thread involves a couple people who are now permanently banned on CFC for behaviour that is being referenced by Traitorfish's reply. This also seems to fall under 'fair play', although I don't know if World History makes use of that.
The third link is from 2014 and seems wholly unrelated to Owen's points. I don't know why this was linked. It's a good post.
The fourth link is from 2009 and is in World History. Again, not my wheelhouse and this is from 8 years ago. The post itself seems fine.
The fifth link is from 2009 and is in Humour & Jokes. Same point as above. The reply is fairly dismissive/insulting. I'd probably ding it in OT if there was a negative reaction to it.
The sixth link is from the same thread as the fifth and seems completely fine.
Owen then goes on to link to two moderator actions from 2005 as a demonstration of irony. I don't really have a response to this as it was 12 years ago.
---
Apologies for the lengthy reply. Hopefully I covered all my bases. I approve of any and all publication.
