Sommerswerd would like to appeal this 1-point infraction for '(Minor) Inappropriate Content' issued by leif erikson in the Sports Talk forum. Upon his initial request for an appeal, I requested that he discuss the matter further with leif. He did so, but no resolution was reached, so an appeal is going ahead.
The PMs are as follows:
The PMs are as follows:
Sommerswerd said:Hello again Camikaze,
I have responded to Mod leif erikson as you instructed. He remains firm in his position. I remain firm in my belief that the infraction is unfair. I am requesting your Supermod appellate review.
Thanks again for your help.
leif erikson said:Hi,Sommerswerd said:Hello again,leif erikson said:Hi,Sommerswerd said:I wish to appeal this infraction, for the following reasons:leif erikson said:Dear Sommerswerd,
You have received an infraction at Civilization Fanatics' Forums.
Reason: (Minor) Inappropriate Content
-------
This is not appropriate for a sports thread, especially on the anniversary of September 11th.
Please remember that you are responsible for everything in your post, including the quote of another member.
-------
This infraction is worth 1 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.
Original Post:
[post]14435759[/post]
Excuse me... the applicable phrase is... "Bakka lakka durka Muhhamet Jihad"... Get it right ctd.So is Kaepernick gonna call is audibles by saying "Allahu Ackbar death to America Osama Bin Laden" or what?
Spoiler :
If you wish to appeal this infraction, please follow the process outlined in this post
All the best,
Civilization Fanatics' Forums
1. The focus of our exchange was Colin Kaepernick's protest, which is absolutely sports related. We have been discussing this for weeks in the sports forum. I personally have expressed disdain at Kaepernicks protest as a publicity stunt, and particularly irritating for me as a 49er fan. The point is, that our discussion was clearly sports related.
2. Moderator Action: Removed.
3. The post is clearly a joke as was the post that I was responding to. The clip is from the movie "Team America, World Police" a slapstick/toliet humor political spoof/satire. The point of the movie was to parody American interventionism and the often shallow American perception of other cultures (ie the "ugly American"). The French are portrayed in a similar stereotypical, shallow way in the film for example... the other poster was essentially commenting on how Kaepernick has been cast/maligned as a traitorous, Arab-Muslim, due to his ethnic appearance, coupled with this protest. I responded by pointing out a humorous example of Arab/Muslims being portrayed in a shallow, one-dimensional way.
3. While I am a patriotic American, I do not believe that it is appropriate to enforce 9-11 reverence as if it is a religion by infracting people who fail to show the proper respect for 9-11.
4. I am deeply offended that you would choose to interpret me joking around with another poster about a totally unrelated matter (Colin Kaepernick's protest) as some sort of disrespect for 9-11. Moderator Action: Removed.
5. I wonder if you did not read something into my post that was not there. I know that the other poster briefly had a 9-11 joke reference in his Avatar (which I personally thought was in poor taste, but he quickly removed it), and I think that maybe you are blanketing that issue onto me for simply interacting with him on an unrelated matter. Making fun of a film that generally parodies the American view of terrorists is not the same thing as disrespecting 9-11.
6.The thread is not an RD thread. It seems very heavy handed, and frankly unfair for you to infract me for joking around in a non-RD thread. If you are not familiar with the movie "Team America" maybe it is possible that you misinterpreted the content?
7. I very, very rarely receive infractions, and when they are fair, I just accept them without comment. This infraction is unfair, and I request you please consider reversing it.
All the above aside, I still offer my apologies for offending your personal sensitivities regarding 9-11. It was a very sad and traumatic day for all of us Americans, and I recognize that it may be an even more sensitive and personal subject for others than it is for me.
I sincerely hope you will consider reversing this infraction. Thank you for your consideration.
If you guys wish to discuss Kaepernick's protest, please feel free. However, discussing it in terms of him speaking in Arabic terms and yelling the phrases that terrorists have used is simply not appropriate, whether it is on September 11th or not. Making him out to be some kind of terrorist has nothing whatever to do with his protest.
In addition, the forum is international in nature and could be read by people from many nationalities and/or religions. Casting Kaepernick in that light would be offensive in any number of cultures/nations. It is over-the-top. The rules state:
The trolling rules also cover this as well:Inappropriate content
This is a family-friendly forum. We do not want, for example, people coming here to talk about Civ and being exposed to (in particular) sexual content. While we tolerate some discussion of adult issues, we do not permit discussions that are explicit. We allow "babe" and "hunk" threads to post pictures, and these have their own rules (read the first post in each thread for those rules). Advocating cruelty, violence, hateful or illegal actions may well fall under the category of inappropriate content and be deleted or infracted. Inappropriate content can refer to other topics as well that are very context related. Moderators may at any time close threads or delete content that they deem inappropriate or not in keeping with the purposes of this site or of a specific forum.
Lastly, there is also the discussion of banter and chat:Trolling
Trolling is posting something with the intent to annoy or to generate a negative reaction from other people. It can be interpreted as anything for which it is reasonably foreseeable (in the moderators' opinion) that someone will react to it. It can be a very grey issue, and moderators will use their discretion and judgment.
What I would ask you to do is consider how others might see what you quoted and posted as a video. While you may have been joking between the two of you, others may not see it in that way. The post was reported, so someone else did, in fact, see it in a different way than you did.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 to not have the time, nor 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.
I will just add that this is not about my personal sensitivities. It is about how such a post is perceived by others that may visit this site. They cannot discern what you meant, they can only read the words and apply their own interpretation to them.
I hope this helps you in understanding what this is about. Take care,
leif
I apologize for misinterpreting protocol, the Supermod informed me that I am technically supposed to respond to your response as part of my appeal of the infraction and again attempt to persuade you to reverse it. So here goes:
1. To your first point... I was not "making Kaepernick out to be a terrorist", quite the opposite, I was using humor to lampoon the fact that he was being cast as an Islamic extremist by others. So to the extent that I am being infracted for "making him out to be a terrorist" my post is being misinterpreted and the infraction should be reversed.
2. Also to your first point, I did not "discuss him speaking in Arabic terms and yelling the phrases that terrorists have used"... the other poster did. I made a joke about the phrase itself, in part to acknowledge that the poster was joking and satirizing... again, the fact that Kaepernick was being cast as an Islamic extremist by others. So to the extent that I am being infracted for "discussing him speaking in Arabic terms" my post is being misinterpreted and the infraction should be reversed.
3. To your second point... I don't think my post can be reasonably interpreted to contain "sexual content" or as "advocating cruelty, violence, hateful or illegal actions." If your position is that someone else misunderstood my post and had a knee jerk reaction that is was in that category, I think it is unfair to punish me for someone else's misconception. If you want to delete the post for the benefit of their sensitivities/sensibilities, that seems reasonable, but giving me an infraction for someone else's misconception doesn't seem reasonable.
4. Also to your second point... I understand that you as a Mod have discretion to deem my post inappropriate, regardless of it not being "sexual, illegal" etc., however, my understanding from your post is that you are deeming it offensive because of the two misconceptions I already mentioned, and the fact that someone else found it offensive. Given that, I think a reversal is warranted, since it is not fair to infract me simply because someone was offended by my post. People are offended all the time by other people's posts. Someone simply being offended, especially due to their own misconceptions, should not warrant a unilateral infraction.
5. To your third point... It is not reasonable to define my post as trolling. There is no way to reasonably say that I "intended to annoy or to generate a negative reaction from other people", unless you are taking the position that agreeing with something that others might disagree with is automatically trolling those who disagree. If that is your position it seems unfair, as it is impossible to have meaningful discussion under those conditions.
6. To your last point. I am considerate of how others may feel and I recognize that my post may have been misinterpreted/misunderstood by someone who did not have the full context. Accordingly, I am fine with the post being deleted. However, giving me an infraction for someone else's misunderstanding goes too far.
Again, please reconsider this infraction. Thanks again for your consideration.
The process can be confusing, so no problem with that. Thanks.
Let's deal with point number 2 first as the rules are very specific about this:
The other poster was infracted and so I felt you deserved a point as well because the content posted was offensive.Quoting other posters or sites
You are responsible for everything in your post. If you quote something that someone else has posted, you are responsible for that content as well as your own. If that content is offensive, you may find yourself infracted for it, even though you were not the original poster.
I decided, since we are getting into a point by point legalize type discussion, to dig further into your post. Your video is titled: Durka Durka Mohammed Jihad! In addition, it has someone who is white in blackface saying this. My research pointed out that this is from a satirical movie that was deemed brilliant by some, but also offensive. It took me some time to figure all this out, how many people using the forum are going to take some time to do this? It is simply not acceptable.
The other argument you present is that your post is being misinterpreted. Your job, as a poster, is to be clear in your meaning when you post. It is your responsibility to do that, not the reader's. In these forums, readers do not have any clues as to your intention because all they can see are the words you use. Sarcasm is very difficult to use on this type of forum as readers must be up to speed on what you know when you post it. In addition, satire seldom translates well between languages and cultures. So any misinterpretation is actually your fault, not the reader's as the rule above states you are responsible for what you post.
Take care,
leif