1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Photobucket has changed its policy concerning hotlinking images and now requires an account with a $399.00 annual fee to allow hotlink. More information is available at: this link.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  6. Dismiss Notice
  7. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

Tigranes versus Bootstoots

Discussion in 'Infraction Review' started by leif erikson, Sep 7, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. leif erikson

    leif erikson Game of the Month Fanatic Administrator Supporter GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    22,660
    Location:
    Plymouth, MA
    Moderator Action: This appeal thread is in its original form, save for the removal of a medical condition that was posted.
    Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

    Tigranes has requested a review of his 3-point infraction given by Bootstoots on 3 September for this post. The infraction PM:
    Here is the PM exchange between Bootstoots and Tigranes:
    And the PM from Tigranes requesting the review:
    I sent this PM to Tigranes:
    And to Bootstoots:
     
  2. Rob (R8XFT)

    Rob (R8XFT) Ancient Briton Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2002
    Messages:
    10,351
    Location:
    Leeds (UK)
    To be perfectly honest, whilst the part where Tigranes speaks about bhavv is the most talked about of the three comments, the other two are bad enough to pick up an infraction in my opinion.

    Going back to the comment to bhavv - if he's not going to provoke him then best not to mention him at all.

    I uphold Bootstoots' decision.
     
  3. leif erikson

    leif erikson Game of the Month Fanatic Administrator Supporter GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    22,660
    Location:
    Plymouth, MA
    From Bootstoots:
    Bootstoots also sent a copy of the PM exchange between them and it is the same as posted in the OP.

    edit - and from Tigranes:
     
  4. illram

    illram Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Messages:
    9,218
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Yeah I agree with Rob. The first two are worth it in their own right. As for the third, telling someone they don't want to provoke them because they are <removed> sounds more patronizing as opposed to sympathetic, and as boots points out it's unnecessarily bringing up personal things in an unrelated argument.
     
  5. Browd

    Browd Dilettante Administrator

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    10,414
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    Could not agree more. The <removed> comment is trolling, as it is neither necessary nor appropriate and seems intended to provoke a response. The right response was to refrain from commenting, not to comment in this manner. Vote to uphold.
     
  6. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    26,768
    Location:
    Sydney
    "I'm not going to discuss your opinions because there's something wrong with you" falls squarely within the trolling rules. I'm willing to believe that Tigranes honestly thought he wouldn't cause offense, but being unaware of the natural effect of your words is not a valid excuse. 'Inadvertent trolling' is entirely possible (or as stated in the OT moderating guidelines, "the troll is reckless as to whether their post is likely to draw a negative reaction"). 3 points seems fair given his limited infraction history - probably saved him from a ban.

    Would it be preferable in this case, or fair to the target, to remove the precise nature of the comment from the published version of this appeal? This isn't an issue that has arisen with the other appeals published thus far. The relevant portion of the rules is:
     
  7. Lefty Scaevola

    Lefty Scaevola Moderatus Illuminatus Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2000
    Messages:
    9,793
    Location:
    San Antonio TX USA
    Yeah, remove the <removed> bit under third party privacy.
     
  8. ori

    ori Repair Guy Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Messages:
    16,136
    Location:
    Baden-W├╝rttemberg, Germany
  9. leif erikson

    leif erikson Game of the Month Fanatic Administrator Supporter GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    22,660
    Location:
    Plymouth, MA
    Looks like a unanimous five vote to uphold. Will inform him today of the result.

    Thanks.

    edit- Sent this PM:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page