Tigranes versus Bootstoots

[leif erikson]

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:

Post: The Gay Agenda strikes again: Kentucky Clerk jailed for refusing to obey law
User: Tigranes
Infraction: (Major) Flaming Other Member(s)
Points: 3

Administrative Note:
Message to User:

This is for three posts, all of which were unacceptable flaming of other members:

Says who? An author of a troll thread?Must be very boring to be you with all your hatred and gloating.

And by the way, useless (what a fitting name). Chances are you are gloating on the misfortunes of this brave woman while yourself at work, you are refusing to do your JOB while you post here. Ready to go to jail?

bhavv, there are 2 reasons why I cannot discuss your opinions. I have seen your picture as bearded male while you have chosen to be funny with your female gender qualifier. And second -- you are <removed>. I rather avoid provoking you.

Discuss your beliefs without attacking individual posters. In particular, your response to bhavv is going way past the line, by using his mental health as an ad hominem attack against him. Never use anything like that against someone in any debate.

Original Post:

But tbh your posts are worse than form's.

bhavv, there are 2 reasons why I cannot discuss your opinions. I have seen your picture as bearded male while you have chosen to be funny with your female gender qualifier. And second -- you are <removed>. I rather avoid provoking you.

Here is the PM exchange between Bootstoots and Tigranes:

Dear Tigranes,

You have received an infraction at Civilization Fanatics' Forums.

Reason: (Major) Flaming Other Member(s)
-------
This is for three posts, all of which were unacceptable flaming of other members:

Says who? An author of a troll thread?Must be very boring to be you with all your hatred and gloating.

And by the way, useless (what a fitting name). Chances are you are gloating on the misfortunes of this brave woman while yourself at work, you are refusing to do your JOB while you post here. Ready to go to jail?

bhavv, there are 2 reasons why I cannot discuss your opinions. I have seen your picture as bearded male while you have chosen to be funny with your female gender qualifier. And second -- you are <removed>. I rather avoid provoking you.

Discuss your beliefs without attacking individual posters. In particular, your response to bhavv is going way past the line, by using his mental health as an ad hominem attack against him. Never use anything like that against someone in any debate.
-------

This infraction is worth 3 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
[post]13949113[/post]

But tbh your posts are worse than form's.

bhavv, there are 2 reasons why I cannot discuss your opinions. I have seen your picture as bearded male while you have chosen to be funny with your female gender qualifier. And second -- you are <removed>. I rather avoid provoking you.

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

All the best,
Civilization Fanatics' Forums

Moderator Action: Using someone's mental health problems against them is completely unacceptable on this site. Don't ever post something like this again.

Dear Bootstoots,

As per forum rules, I have to try to discuss an issue with you before I go through an appeal.

In general, given the climate of constant trolling against Christianity on this subforum that you moderate and near constant ridicule and mocker of religious feelings of few remaining faithful here I would not bother to appeal you single me out in this heated discussion. Just like the judge in the thread quoted you have "executive discretion" in overlooking constant flames in my address and elevating my emotional responses to the category of flames. Fine with me, never seeked the approval of majority or authority when standing up for what is right.

But what prompted me appeal is you completely twisting my genuine consent for the well being of my opponent, by choosing not to engage him and presenting it as if I used it against him? What in a world, really? I am not going to get into intense heated discussion with the guy who is <removed> and can be provoked by something that person without disability would have taken lightly. How is refusing to debate on humanitarian reasons considered to be "flaming" the said user? You can see yourself that user understood my words as they were meant by me, he took no offence, because there were none.

As for the other users I simply commented on the screen name chosen by one of them, and described actions of the other, without calling them any names. Calling someone idiot is a flame, calling someone hater is simply describing his actions. But I did neither.

Here ends the attempt to discuss the issue.

My interpretation of your post was that you were using bhavv's being <removed> as a reason to dismiss him, which I saw as a personal attack. Perhaps you didn't intend that, but it is definitely not clear from your post that you actually meant to be humane rather than dismiss him based on his personal problems. There's also the fact that this was your third negative comment directed at a specific user in the thread; this infraction covers all three of these. Personal attacks (even relatively mild ones) against specific posters are considered "being a jerk" and will reliably result in infractions. The rule is that you are supposed to discuss the posts, not the posters.

You are free to appeal this at this point if you do not wish to continue discussing with me. Send a PM to any active supermod to start that process.

And the PM from Tigranes requesting the review:

Hello,

This is the first time in 7 years of my life on forum when I am contacting supermods with an appeal.

I was in the middle of heated debate currently dividing the country -- federal judge sending Christian woman to jail instead of granting her exception under KY RFRA be removing her name from gay marriage licenses. I was the only voice in her support and naturally got dogpiled by gloating opponents.

What prompted me appeal is mod completely twisting my genuine consern for the well being of my opponent, by choosing not to engage him and presenting it as if I used it against him. My words were: "I don't want to provoke you" -- how can this be anything than a genuine concern? I am not going to get into intense heated discussion with the guy who is <removed> and can be provoked by something that person without disability would have taken lightly. How is refusing to debate on humanitarian reasons considered to be "flaming" the said user? You can see yourself that user understood my words as they were meant by me, he took no offence, because there were none.

As for the other users I simply commented on the screen name chosen by one of them, and described actions of the other, without calling them any names.
This was not red diamond thread, sparks been flying on me in much greater numbers but nobody been accused of "flaming". If I genuinely believe that opening a thread just to offend religious feelings is trolling, why would it be flaming in my part if I state that fact? And commenting on person's nickname which forum rules allowed to register without considering it offensive -- can hardly worth Major infraction in my humble opinion.

I respectfully ask moderator to reverse his action and especially remove his comment addressing me in the thread. Avoiding debate with an opponent who has openly discussed his disability many times is a responsible thing to do. But instead I was publicly schooled in humiliating manner.

I sent this PM to Tigranes:

Hi,

Received your request for appeal of the Bootstoots infraction and have started the process.

As part of the process, the results will be posted publicly in this thread. You may have the PM's you sent to moderators redacted if you wish, please let me know your wishes.

Thank you and take care,
leif

And to Bootstoots:

Hi Bootstoots,

Tigranes has appealed this infraction. Just wanted to check to see that you felt he has tried to resolve the issue with you and ask if you have anything further to add. He sent me a copy of your PM discussion.

Thanks and take care,
leif

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

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.

 

[leif erikson]

From Bootstoots:

Hi Bootstoots,

Tigranes has appealed this infraction. Just wanted to check to see that you felt he has tried to resolve the issue with you and ask if you have anything further to add. He sent me a copy of your PM discussion.

Thanks and take care,
leif

Hi leif,

He did make an attempt to resolve it with me, and I am fine with taking it to an appeal at this point.

This infraction was partly for this post against bhavv, in which he appears to dismiss bhavv's opinions because he is <removed> and that he would therefore "rather avoid provoking him". This seems to be a rather clear case of trolling someone based on a personal characteristic they have shared, in this case bhavv's mental illness. I am unconvinced by the claim that he did not with to debate for "humanitarian" reasons; if this were the case, he should have just not responded to bhavv at all rather in a way that appeared to be dismissive and insulting.

It is also partly for two other attacks against Formaldehyde and useless.

The rules that I believe were violated include these two, under Trolling:

&#8226; Discussing the person, and not the topic. Ad hominems are generally not tolerated. We want people to focus on the discussion topic, not on the people discussing it. As a guideline, if your post only discusses the person (eg. their opinions, their background etc.) and is not related to the topic, you may be considered to be trolling. Discussing the poster, when civil and directly relevant to the topic, may be tolerated.
&#8226; Using personal information gained about people to attack them, or to get them to react in an unrelated thread. E.g. if you know that someone has gone to a certain university, works a certain profession, or is a certain religion, making oblique comments about this may be considered trolling (even if you don't mention the posters specifically).

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:

Thank you for starting the process. No need to redact anything, please.

 

[illram]

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.

 

[Browd]

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.

 

[Camikaze]

"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:

Certain material will be redacted from the published thread. For starters, PMs between poster and moderator will be redacted unless both parties consent to their inclusion; these messages are intended to be private, after all. Other material which may be redacted includes, but is not limited to, particularly inappropriate content and discussion of third parties. We acknowledge that removing too much material would defeat the purpose of publication, so redaction will be conducted sparingly.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Yeah, remove the <removed> bit under third party privacy.

 

[ori]

I'd also uphold an infraction on either of the three posts.

 

[leif erikson]

Looks like a unanimous five vote to uphold. Will inform him today of the result.

Thanks.

edit- Sent this PM:

The review you requested has been completed and the infraction has been upheld.

The reasons given for upholding the infraction are that, while we generally believe that you did not intend to offend, it was very personal to talk about his need for <removed> in a public thread. In addition, the other two posts that Bootstoots quoted as a part of the infraction were seen, in combination, to be enough to warrant a temporary ban for trolling in addition to the points that were given.

Moderator comments in thread will remain there.

In future, please stick to the arguments and leave out the comments about other posters that are personal to them.

Take care,
leif