Ryika v. leif erickson

[Browd]

Ryika has decided to appeal his 2 point infraction for Trolling, handed out by leif erickson on May 11 for this post.

This is the infraction PM:

Dear Ryika,

You have received an infraction at Civilization Fanatics' Forums.

Reason: Trolling
-------
Please leave this out of the game threads. There is no need to go here.
-------

This infraction is worth 2 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
[post]14264341[/post]

When Trump takes Office in January 2017 he'll make Preorder great again.

Moderator Action: Enough of this. Please leave politics and current issues out of the game threads.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

If you wish to appeal this infraction, please follow the process outlined in this post

All the best,
Civilization Fanatics' Forums

And here is the initial PM that I have received from Ryika asking for an appeal:

Hello Browd,

I would like to appeal an Infraction given to me by leif erikson. This one to be exact:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=14264341#post14264341

"When Trump takes Office in January 2017 he'll make Preorder great again."
...in response to...
"Pre-ordering a game with such little detail available and so far from release is pointless. Well really, pre-ordering is generally a racket to begin with but doing it at this point is taking the piss."

I have already contacted leif, he disagrees with my position and is rather dismissive overall. Here's the full exchange - ordering is a bit strange, sorry for that:

You only read the quotes and assumed that they're from the OT, didn't you? Those links in my last response were NOT from the OT, all of them link to posts in the Civ VI General Forums, the same place where I got the Infraction. I really can't think of a more perfect example to show that classifying my post as "spam worthy of an infraction without any prior warning" is completely void.

But alright, I'll submit my appeal tomorrow.

Please stop sending me examples from OT, there are different moderation standards for OT than for the rest of the forums. Moderation was loosened up and, frankly, I have always been concerned that that would lower standards in other parts of the forum. Obviously, you think they should. As far as I am concerned, what happens in OT has no relation to what happens in the game threads.

I have explained the rationale and you have rejected it. Your recourse is to appeal the infraction.

Take care,
leif

Your examples are all from Off Topic. Trump stuff belongs there, different forum, different moderation standards. Your examples are invalid as far as I am concerned.

How can my examples be invalid? I made those to show that your assumption that mentioning trump automatically leads to anger and heated comments - which was the explanation you gave for why you consider my post to be "trolling" - is wrong, not that my comment was placed perfectly.

I already said that I see why my comment would be seen as misplaced (I still disagree with it, I made a joke refering to the topic at hand, not a completely unrelated joke.), but how is making a joke in the wrong forum worth an infraction, especially as somebody who has never gotten an infraction for doing something like that?

Spam is posting something that does not make a significant contribution to the discussion at hand.

A 2-point infraction. For a single post.

"The world is flat! Do we really need to have this conversation? You people are so uncivilized "
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=567214
Offtopic-joke, doesn't contribute to game-discussion. Where's the infraction? Not even a warning.

"Civ2 manual was awesome. I had it on my toilet for years."
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=567309
Offtopic-joke, doesn't contribute to game-discussion. Where's the infraction? Not even a warning.

"I take it you are on the left of the political persuasion then?"
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=567250&page=3
Political Question, doesn't contribute to game-discussion. Where's the infraction? Not even a warning.

Other posts from the same thread:
"I take it that my political persuasion is not part of jokes I make on a gaming forum."
"What ever floats your boat. I do not Judge - even on the internet!"

To be clear: I don't think ANY of these posts are worth an infraction and I'm that if I were to report them none of them would actually get an infraction. I found all of those by randomly clicking through a few threads. I could find hundreds more. Those semi-offtopic-jokes and comments are made all the time.

Meanwhile, in this thread...
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=567324&page=4
...people call each other names and have an off-topic discussion over who is the bigger idiot and the result is a mod warning them that if they don't stop they get an infraction for trolling. They get a warning. After 'spamming' for more than one post.

How does an infraction for making a non-offensive, mild joke fit into the overall picture of how forum moderation is handled?

"Anything Trump on these forums is going to become negative, so it is trolling."
That isn't even true though. I see Trump references being made on the OffTopic-Forums all the time and when they're made as jokes the reactions are usually also jokes and nothing "becomes negative".

See this thread as an example: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=564627
The same reference I made resulted in 3 Pages of people making jokes and having some debates, while not a single post that comes even close to being worthy of an infraction was made.

Here's a light-hearted thread about what would happen if Trump became president: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=566892
Again, no hostility. No riots. Not a single post even close to an Infraction.

Your premise is simply false, and I don't see how I could be expected to assume that making a fun reference would cause a major incident. That could be true if I made a comment endorsing or opposing a political candidate, but my comment wasn't politically charged in either direction, it was a joke and the responses I expected were people posting some funny preorder-bonuses like free Town Walls or something. Not for people to get offended and negative for no reason other than reading a "Trump will make X great again"-joke.

The trolling part simply doesn't make sense to me. It was a joke, and not even a mean-spirited one.

"Current events do not belong in a game thread when the game spans 4000 years or more. It derails the thread and does not belong there. You want to joke about Trump, please do so in Off Topic."
Yeah, I can see that. I still think my comment was on topic and again... there doesn't seem to be a rule against political references while talking about the game, but maybe it wasn't the right place - how is that worth an infraction though? The post was as mild as it gets and while I have accumulated some infractions over time I don't have a history of EVER dragging gaming threads into political discussions, so why do I get a 2-point-Infraction for what could (and in my eyes should, at best,) just have been a warning?

It just seems like a total overreaction to me, so if that's your last word then I'll appeal the Infraction.

So, after reading the rules a few times now I still can't figure out what rule exactly I could have broken in your opinion. There is no "Please leave politics and current issues out of game threads"-rule as far as I can tell. If such a rule existed threads like this one certainly wouldn't be allowed to continue: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=14225210

And I don't think my post falls under what is defined as "trolling" in the forum rules either. I made a joke that had an political element, but one that was completely on-topic, namely that pre-ordering the game doesn't give any benefits as Erudain, EulerMcE (to whom my post was a response) and civvver rightfully pointed out shortly before my post. I jokingly said that Trump would change that once he's president, it wasn't making fun of anyone (well, strictly speaking it was making fun of Trump), my comment wasn't designed to "generate a negative reaction from other people", it was merely a joke I made as a reaction to the fact that people still pre-order although there's no real incentive to do so.

Please explain to me what exactly I've done wrong in your opinion.

Dear Ryika,

You have received an infraction at Civilization Fanatics' Forums.

Reason: Trolling
-------
Please leave this out of the game threads. There is no need to go here.
-------

This infraction is worth 2 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
[post]14264341[/post]

When Trump takes Office in January 2017 he'll make Preorder great again.

Moderator Action: Enough of this. Please leave politics and current issues out of the game threads.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

If you wish to appeal this infraction, please follow the process outlined in this post

All the best,
Civilization Fanatics' Forums

Anything Trump on these forums is going to become negative, so it is trolling.

Current events do not belong in a game thread when the game spans 4000 years or more. It derails the thread and does not belong there. You want to joke about Trump, please do so in Off Topic.

As far as I am concerned, you did troll and, as the rules state:

It (trolling) can be a very grey issue, and moderators will use their discretion and judgment.

Hope this helps. Take care,
leif

"Anything Trump on these forums is going to become negative, so it is trolling."
That isn't even true though. I see Trump references being made on the OffTopic-Forums all the time and when they're made as jokes the reactions are usually also jokes and nothing "becomes negative".

See this thread as an example: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=564627
The same reference I made resulted in 3 Pages of people making jokes and having some debates, while not a single post that comes even close to being worthy of an infraction was made.

Here's a light-hearted thread about what would happen if Trump became president: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=566892
Again, no hostility. No riots. Not a single post even close to an Infraction.

Your examples are all from Off Topic. Trump stuff belongs there, different forum, different moderation standards. Your examples are invalid as far as I am concerned.

Your premise is simply false, and I don't see how I could be expected to assume that making a fun reference would cause a major incident. That could be true if I made a comment endorsing or opposing a political candidate, but my comment wasn't politically charged in either direction, it was a joke and the responses I expected were people posting some funny preorder-bonuses like free Town Walls or something. Not for people to get offended and negative for no reason other than reading a "Trump will make X great again"-joke.

Again, you are not in OT, you are in the game threads. Game threads belong on topic and Trump has nothing to do whatever with Civilization 6. If you did not understand the difference, then you do now.

The trolling part simply doesn't make sense to me. It was a joke, and not even a mean-spirited one.

From the rules concerning trolling:

In short, be civil, polite and discuss the topic.

Please not the last three words.

I could have called it spam if you feel more comfortable with it. Spam defined in the rules:

Spam
Spam is posting something that does not make a significant contribution to the discussion at hand. The forums are discussion forums, and it is therefore expected that posters will post in a way that contributes to discussion. It is also expected that new threads will promote discussion. Moderators may periodically allow some lighter or more frivolous threads, but this will be at their discretion. Posting isolated links without meaningful poster input as to the value of such a link does not contribute to the discussion as will be considered spam. There is a lower tolerance for spam in threads where there is a good discussion taking place.

Does a joke in the game threads significantly contribute to the discussion?

Or I could call it Inappropriate Content as it was not part of a civ6 discussion.

Please understand there is a difference between what is acceptable in OT and what is acceptable in the gaming threads. Derailing the gaming threads is not acceptable.

Take care,
leif

I don't have much to add to what has already been said in that exchange. I find this Infraction to be drastic and not in line with how that sort of post - a non-offensive joke that wasn't 100% on topic (or maybe "wasn't 100% serious" would be the better phrase) but certainly didn't try to derail the thread by introducing a completely new topic - is usually punished - namely: Not at all, as evidenced by the other posts I linked in the exchange above. I disagree that the post could reasonably be considered "trolling", and trolling people was certainly not my intent. I made a joke and hoped to get some funny preorder-suggestions.

Calling it spam... well, if that sort of post counts as spam worthy of an infraction, then there are a lot of similar posts still waiting for infractions, some of which I had also already linked in the PMs above. I also find that, if that sort of post is considered to be unwanted, a simple warning would have been more than sufficient to get that message across, especially given that there was no malintent in my post and that even threads where people go completely offtopic and start discussing each others credibility instead are handled exactly like that as long as people don't start seriously insulting each other.

And a follow-up PM:

After reading my post again I realized that I didn't specifically answer this question (although it is probably obvious, not sure how "formal" this must be so I'll add a more concrete answer):

What outcome you are seeking.

My desired outcome is for the Infraction to be removed. I understand that posts like that are unwanted and, although I disagree with it, will of course stop making such posts, but I do not think that my post was "worth" an Infraction. I did not create that post with the intention to offend, annoy or spam anyone and although I have gathered some infractions for other things I am not known for spamming that kind of posts in the gaming forums. Similar and more severe cases are handled by giving out a warning, and a simple warning would have done the job in this case as well.

I haven't asked Ryika if he consents to publication of his PMs, but will do so before we publish this thread.

At this point, I haven't studied the PM exchange closely enough to express a view as to whether to uphold or overturn.

 

[Camikaze]

The infraction seems to me to be a composite one - it isn't straight trolling, or straight spam, it's a kind of mild spam that is infused with mild trolling such that the two combine to be greater than the sum of their parts. I would say the problem with the post in question is predominantly spam, but it's the trollish nature of it that pushes it over the line in a way in which other similarly spammy posts are not pushed over the line. Anything Trump related in the Civ forums is reasonably likely to provoke some sort of negative reaction, or off-topic reaction.

Of course it's not like this is the worst post in the world. I think it's pretty borderline, and Ryika seems to acknowledge this when he states that he would agree it's worth a warning. The question then seems to be whether it's worth 2 points.

A poster with a recent infraction history is less likely to be cut any slack in this regard. The fact that he was already sitting on 6 points suggests that he's already well-acquainted with the trolling rules, and shouldn't need a warning to know what's acceptable. The function of warnings is really to give people notice of posting behaviour which they may not have realised was against the forum rules. Someone with a string of recent trolling infractions can't really claim to not know that they should be careful in posting comments with even a small degree of trollish content.

If I had come across this post first, I might have given it 1 point as (Minor) Trolling instead, but I think it was perfectly open to leif to make it a 2-pointer. So I'd vote to uphold the infraction.

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

What Camikaze said, basically. I think that the post does deserve at least one point and can understand why Leif has gone with two. Vote to uphold.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

I concur that it is more spam than trolling, but is some of both. Given his recent activity, I can vote either no change or a reduction to 1 point.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Count me as a vote to uphold.

 

[Plotinus]

I don't think it's worth two points. I would give it one point for spam rather than for trolling. It's spam because it's introducing a new and potentially divisive topic into the thread for no good reason, which is what differentiates it from the other examples that Ryika gives.

 

[Browd]

Having now waded through this PM exchange, I would vote to uphold. It is arguably more problematic as spam than trolling, but it has flavor of both, making it somewhat worse. Certainly could debate 2 points vs. 1 point, but I'm comfortable with 2 points (particularly where the poster has enough experience with trolling and flaming infractions to know better). The fact that other spammy posts may have been overlooked, or that we occasionally utilize mod text to persuade posters to behave better, is irrelevant.

By my count, there are now 4 votes to uphold and 1 vote to reduce to 1 point. Anyone else want to weigh in?

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

The fact that other spammy posts may have been overlooked, or that we occasionally utilize mod text to persuade posters to behave better, is irrelevant.

Yeah, many appeals have missed this part in black and white in the rules posted in Site Feedback

We are not publishing these rules so that “bush lawyers” can use them to try to prove that the moderating team or the rules are inconsistent. We have published them so you can better understand why moderators and Administrators do what they do. Moderators are encouraged to use discretion in the application of these rules and should not be expected or assumed to blindly apply "the rules" in each and every case.

I get the sense that ainwood, who did most of the work reducing the "the rules" to writing, had an unfortunate experience with a lawyer once upon a time.

 

[Camikaze]

I think this could be wrapped up now.

 

[Browd]

The poster has been informed of the decision to uphold and has consented to publication of his PMs, so I will publish this thread shortly.