Query re 'Infraction'

Nodin

I received the following


Reason:

---

Breach of Peace

This yellow card is for what we have deemed mild flaming in this thread. Half of your post attacked a poster an not the post.

You are receiving a yellow card for your contribution here, you will be named at the end of that thread as list of people partly responsible for the vicious circle that we see in Northern Ireland threads.

Any further such posts in a NI thread will result in a 1 month ban and red card on the spot.

---

Original Post:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=60405565#post60405565

---Quote---
---Quote (Originally by futurehope)---

Why (......)there.
---End Quote---

---Quote (Originally by futurehope)---

I assume you're some sort of comic - but then that would generally apply to any Irish Nationalist who lives in The UK.
---End Quote---

---Quote (Originally by futurehope)---

Oh no!!! The end is nigh!!! Terrible!!!
Far worse than the 'nonce nuns' and the 'buggery brothers' in that 'free state' paradise.
---End Quote---

Off again, are we?

---Quote (Originally by Souljacker)---

And you're telling me this because? Are you trying to picking me up on semantics? because that really would be pathetic.

You implied another poster was sectarian for their rejection of unionism. Unionism is not a religon. Rejection of it is not sectarian, nor is it intrinsically linked to a rejection of the religon of the majority of its followers in NI.
---End Quote---


---Quote (Originally by Deedsie)---

Celtic and Rangers FFS what a stupid reason to result in the murder of an innocent man.
---End Quote---

Indeed.
---End Quote---

I've placed in bold the "Half" of the post that "attacked a poster an not the post.", the rest being referred to being quotes. "off again" fairly clearly refers to a pattern of off topic inflamatory posts in what is areasonable manner. Theres no abuse, no 'my tribe is better than yours' or many of the more regrettable things which have been known to surface in such threads to increase the temperature. What precise part of the charter makes commenting on a pattern of posts an offence?

you will be named at the end of that thread as list of people partly responsible for the vicious circle that we see in Northern Ireland threads.

This, I find almost amusing, as one of the first things I noticed here was the frequency with which NI threads were locked. I find it bizarre that something like "off again?" earns me me 'notoriety'.

GuanYin

Nodin wrote: »

I received the following


Reason:

---

Breach of Peace

This yellow card is for what we have deemed mild flaming in this thread. Half of your post attacked a poster an not the post.

You are receiving a yellow card for your contribution here, you will be named at the end of that thread as list of people partly responsible for the vicious circle that we see in Northern Ireland threads.

Any further such posts in a NI thread will result in a 1 month ban and red card on the spot.

---

Original Post:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=60405565#post60405565

Off again, are we?





You implied another poster was sectarian for their rejection of unionism. Unionism is not a religon. Rejection of it is not sectarian, nor is it intrinsically linked to a rejection of the religon of the majority of its followers in NI.
---End Quote---


---Quote (Originally by Deedsie)---



Indeed.
---End Quote---

I've placed in bold the "Half" of the post that "attacked a poster an not the post.", the rest being referred to being quotes. "off again" fairly clearly refers to a pattern of off topic inflamatory posts in what is areasonable manner. Theres no abuse, no 'my tribe is better than yours' or many of the more regrettable things which have been known to surface in such threads to increase the temperature. What precise part of the charter makes commenting on a pattern of posts an offence?



This, I find almost amusing, as one of the first things I noticed here was the frequency with which NI threads were locked. I find it bizarre that something like "off again?" earns me me 'notoriety'.

Your comment offered no contribution to the thread and was designed merely to inflame and incite.

Nodin

And might I ask for a group adjudication on that....?

GuanYin

Nodin wrote: »

And might I ask for a group adjudication on that....?

Ohh I ensured 100% agreement on every infraction and ban from all politics mods before I acted, but I'll let them confirm that here themselves.

Nodin

That would be appreciated.

oscarBravo

All warnings, infractions and bans for that thread were discussed among all the Politics moderators, and consensus was arrived at.

sceptre

It's precisely as GY and oB said.

Your posting added nothing to the thread except an added fanning of a flame war. It was reflected in the issuing of a warning/yellow card, which is the smallest form of formal infraction available. Politics isn't your playground, nor is it the playground of anyone else on the thread who was issued with a penalty.

None of those Northern Ireland threads are locked because the moderators want to see them locked. They're typically eventually locked because of the continued and unwarranted flaming, goading and idiotic actions of people on both sides of the argument who frequently post on them. While I suspect that I may be repeating this paragraph a number of times in the coming days, I don't have a problem with copying and pasting it repeatedly.

Nodin

Well if thats the way it is, thats the way it is, and having been an admin elswhere I'm fully cognisant of my chances of an succesful appeal..

However, given the context of the following (none of which I might add were aimed at me) it does rather strike me as a case of selectively issuing the speeding tickets at the Indy 500.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FTA69
I said that Unionism is fundamentally undemocratic and rooted in supremacy, which it is.

OscarBravo wrote:

Sounds like a bog-standard nationalist inferiority complex to me.

__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by dlofnep
Well it would for you, considering you're a unionist.

OscarBravo wrote:

If you would actually bother to read what people write instead of pulling a canned response from your list of pigeonholes, there's a faint danger you might actually respond with something worth reading.

I live in hope.

__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kev_ps3
What are you rambling about?

OscarBravo wrote:

Grown-ups are talking, you wouldn't understand.

In a world where remarking "off again...." on a series of inflamatory posts "added nothing" and is inflamatory, I'm particulary interested in what the last there does.

Nodin

Please don't all stampede to answer at once now.....

smashey

Nodin wrote: »

Please don't all stampede to answer at once now.....

Not everybody has access here and it's quite possible that those who do and have replied here already may be at work. They will most likely reply when they get a chance.

Nodin

Indeed. My thanks.

Beruthiel

Nodin wrote: »

Please don't all stampede to answer at once now.....

Also, be aware that some mods on this site are in a completely different time zone and could be in bed right now.

sceptre

I'm going to look at this later when I have time.

As a side-note though, it would have been good if you'd actually reported the posts initially during the course of the thread rather than bringing them up at a post-decision time in your own appeal, which to a lesser man might look like sour grapes, especially given that it it's definitely presented as "OK, if mine aren;t OK, what about X" way. While this doesn't in any way influence me while looking at the thread, which hitherto I haven't examined with any great degree of scrutiny, I'm sure you can see it could be reasonably seen as a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc. That's a side-note though, I'm unfortunately well accustomed to it from people who have been previously infracted for other things.

Nodin

As a side-note though, it would have been good if you'd actually reported the posts initially during the course of the thread rather than bringing them up at a post-decision time in your own appeal, which to a lesser man might look like sour grapes, especially given that it it's definitely presented as "OK, if mine aren;t OK, what about X"

I am and have been a member of a number of diverse groups over the years. Some are extremely restrictive, some you can do much as you please, with very few exceptions. As a result, I'm used to changing my tone to whats acceptable in different contexts. As far as I saw, my tone was within what were acceptable parameters within the context of that board and thread, otherwise I wouldn't have made the posts. Thats far from a fallacious linkage.

As for reporting posts at the time, I genally only report what I consider spamming and 'I wipe my ass on your Flag'/'Yore Da voted for Hitler' style posts which result in the vicious cycle I'm apparently partly responsible for. The odd barbed retort or remark was (I thought) perfectly acceptable. OB is merely an example from the thread in question. Its nothing against him personally, nor do we have 'history'.

oscarBravo

For what it's worth, I've joined the ranks of those who received infractions in that thread, which I fully accept, and have apologised.

Nodin

My purpose wasn't to bring about that. Somebody (or a number of people, I don't know), after all, decided what was in excess of the mark and what wasn't previously and didn't deign to remark on them. I doubt very much you thought you were going over the line at the time any more than I did.

Given that, I want to know is exactly what yardstick I'm supposed to apply to my own posts when I'm posting them, when the phrase bolded in the first post is deemed worthy of an infraction, and none of the three I presented in post 8 were at the time. Otherwise I could find myself back here in a few days, weeks or months wondering why I'm banned/infracted again. A bit of clarity and consistency, in other words.

oscarBravo

Nodin wrote: »

My purpose wasn't to bring about that.

You didn't.

Somebody (or a number of people, I don't know), after all, decided what was in excess of the mark and what wasn't previously and didn't deign to remark on them. I doubt very much you thought you were going over the line at the time any more than I did.

No, but in hindsight I was as guilty of contributing to the divisive nature of that thread as anyone else. In a sense, more so, as my initial intention was to criticise divisiveness. Ironic, really.

Given that, I want to know is exactly what yardstick I'm supposed to apply to my own posts when I'm posting them, when the phrase bolded in the first post is deemed worthy of an infraction, and none of the three I presented in post 8 were at the time. Otherwise I could find myself back here in a few days, weeks or months wondering why I'm banned/infracted again. A bit of clarity and consistency, in other words.

The standard has been set by the sanctions handed out by GuanYin, including the one I received. You can take it as given that threads that automatically bring out polarised viewpoints - Northern Ireland, Israel etc - will be subject to close scrutiny, and posts that only serve to drag them down into slagging matches will be actioned.

Nodin

oscarBravo wrote: »

You didn't. No, but in hindsight I was as guilty of contributing to the divisive nature of that thread as anyone else.

One of your posts might be construed in that fashion. The last of the three I put was actually the most questionable in terms of what would be deemed a post that "attacked a poster" IMO and - as I pointed out - wasn't deemed to be. The first which you've now apologised for, would have fallen under the category "partly responsible for the vicious circle " regarding NI threads, as far as I understand its meaning, yet it too was passed over. I however, with four words, was judged to have scored two in one.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ironic, really. The standard has been set by the sanctions handed out by GuanYin, including the one I received.

....the one you received after this thread appeared. I want to know what standard was being employed at the time. If we're just standing on ever shifting sands or the whim of an 'angry god', I'd like to know too, for similar reasons.

oscarBravo wrote: »

You can take it as given that threads that automatically bring out polarised viewpoints - Northern Ireland, Israel etc - will be subject to close scrutiny, and posts that only serve to drag them down into slagging matches will be actioned.

Yes, and discovering what constitutes "posts that only serve to drag them down" is what I'm trying to do. Certainly regardless of whatever subject matter is being discussed, I'm sure when "Off we go...." is an infractionable offence

Grown-ups are talking, you wouldn't understand.

]
runs the risk of being so labelled also. Yet it wasn't.

Certainly when I come across this kind of thing in a thread without knowing where I stand, it does rather put a dampener on procedings.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60449394&postcount=77
When people put a blob of pain on their brush, they usually go and put it somewhere, and not nessecarily back in the paint tin.

I was the second post in that thread, and had I not liked the tone of the OP could easily have said 'Not this crap again'. Would that
have been me for the bin?

GuanYin

Nodin wrote: »

....the one you received after this thread appeared. I want to know what standard was being employed at the time. If we're just standing on ever shifting sands or the whim of an 'angry god', I'd like to know too, for similar reasons.

An angry God.... is that supposed to be me?

No, look, I didn't ban or infract anyone on that thread on a whim. The NI threads are a vicious cycle and when two groups start banging heads repeatedly in the Politics forum, we try to stop it. That is, for better or worse, our job. To stop the forum becoming entrenched in a feud.

I read the thread, the ENTIRE thread post by post.... 232 posts, not something I recommend to anyone.... and noted any and every post that was in breach of peace or the charter.

I then listed them as a digest for the Politics mods with a reasoning - we only infracted one post for each poster, because I reasoned this is the first time we have come down on these things, although repeated thread closures should have served as an obvious warning that something like this was coming.. I'm sorry if that wasn't obvious to anyone...but really... how long before we were forced to clamp down?

When we all agreed, action was taken. OB reasoned at the time that he had posted in a way that may need sanction and accepted that. It takes a little more discussion on matters like that, we're in different time zones on different schedules. So his infraction came a day later. But it is there.

For what it's worth there was no bias in my adjudication, I didn't like handing out infractions to some posters, in particular I respect Hagar as a mod and Dudess has always been very nice to me on boards. But when doing something like this I try to avoid looking at the user when judging the post the first time (if it's borderline I tend to look at the user to try and judge the mindset).

I was the second post in that thread, and had I not liked the tone of the OP could easily have said 'Not this crap again'. Would that
have been me for the bin?

From now on, possibly... personally I'd like posters to take one of two actions. Either read and contribute in a civil and sensible, on topic manner OR close the browser and walk away. Optionally, if something really upsets you, report the post. But don't then respond to the reported post to engage someone.

It should be a given that if a post is worthy of a sanction by us, it isn't worthy of engaging in debate with.

Nodin

Thanks for the detailed answer.

Though obviously I still don't agree, there seems to be enough reasoning going on to assuage my fears re the 'angry god' and shifting sands scenarios, which is better than nothing. I doubt I'm going to get a definition of when barbed retort becomes "flaming", as these things are often more art than science and thus a matter of opinion anyway.

Thanks to everyone for their responses.