Unexpected Infraction Humanities

DrFroggies

Hi Guys,

Apologies in advance for the length of this post but as i've not been given any specific information on my infraction i'm left to consider a variety of possibilities.(link to thread at bottom of this post)

I'm writing this in relation to an infraction i recently received (for allegedly breaking the 'attack the post not the poster' rule) on the Humanities Forum and the response i received on seeking clarification (i.e. Where was evidence found to justify this infraction.)

I should point out that i have no previous conflict with the poster i'm accused of attacking. The moderator who imposed the infraction has been very clear on at least one thing that it is a specific poster that i'm accused of attacking.

I was bewildered as to how never having named, or directly quoted anyone in my initial post could i be accused of deliberately setting out to attack a specific poster. My only intent ( over 2 posts on the whole thread) was to highlight that i felt many posters had responded in aggressive and overly defensive terms to a very polite OP and that could make usually articulate posters appear childish - my overall objective was to highlight that a less myopic view would be more beneficial.

When a poster aligned themselves to the behavioural group i had outlined I suggested that this could be because the poster was aware that they'd behaved in a way which would make it applicable to them but made it abundantly clear that i was NOT trying to reproach "any one person merely the direction some have endeavoured to take the thread in" I acknowledged that having read back over the thread again i felt the poster was 'probably accurate' in including themselves in that group but again reiterated "rest assured I’m not targeting anyone here" I also noted that running a strikethrough along my entire post and dismissing it out of hand seemed a juvenile response; a claim which related to how this poster chose to respond to my post and not to an overall profile of the poster. Certainly not an attack of any sort, it is a claim which i stand by.

I PM'd the moderator who had imposed the infraction seeking clarification and all i received was a generalisation on my post and a very blunt assumption on what my intent was in making the post. I even asked to which of the two posts i'd made did the infraction relate.

I received no answer in the responding email.

I read over my posts and explored possible misassumptions which could have been made on specific areas and asked if any of those (including the ones above) could be the culprits...i also took the time and effort to explain them and clarify my intent in each section (which seemed unnecessary, i did so in the hope of swifter resolution).

Again no answer was forthcoming in the responding email.

What i received instead were accusations of ‘pretending’ and being ‘disingenuous’ along with rather snide and inappropriate remarks about both the presentation of my posts and the presentation of the pm's i'd sent in an effort to resolve the issue.

I even requested as an aside that a remark relating to Male Vs Female flamewars be at least removed from the bottom of the post in which i received the infraction as it had nothing to do with my infraction (the remark was directed toward all but could easily be mistakenly connected to my infraction) this would have been a small courtesy and an easy action to take at little inconvenience to the moderator but is a significant issue for me.

Even this small concession wasn't made.

Being honest my issue is not with the infraction, it in itself is a small issue but i am very conscientious in making my posts and make it a point of being as civil as i can while trying to offer straight and unambiguous opinion where possible, so to be accused of attacking another poster when there is absolutely no reason for me to attack said poster and when i have no history whatsoever of being abusive or deliberately attacking anyone on boards is incredibly disappointing to me.

And i have noted previously where people have referred to posters past - warnings etc - in completely unrelated threads in efforts to discredit the opinion of posters which is one of the reasons i contribute so selectively and with such careful consideration before posting and why i take such exception to not only the action taken against me but how that action was taken.

My post on this thread was (especially relative to other posts on the thread and in humanities in general) not confrontational toward any specific poster, nor mischievous, it was observational and i feel relevant. One poster took exception to the post on thread and suggested that i'd broken the charter which is what seemed to convince the moderator (although having requested a second time that some explanation be given for my infraction the Mod informed me that there had been reports but still refused to deliberate over a minor sanction instead offering a further mocking analysis of my written concerns) Also the poster I'm accused of attacking clearly states after my posts that they feel they're not aimed at them. I quote: "I'm not saying they're aimed at me." Obviously i have no idea who reported what and on what legitimate basis but i can say no one else on that thread suggested (on that thread) that i'd attacked a specific poster.

I also fail to understand why the moderator (as i've made clear with the moderator in question) i contacted in such a civil manner responded so discourteously and with such suspicion and with so many personally snide comments on my messages.

The whole thing baffles me...even if i'd been told to reword my post i would have happily re-worded it (i'd have contended that it shouldn't need to be done but i'd have no problem doing so if required).

If requested/required i'll post all the details (names and correspondence without hesitation in relation to this matter)

Regards and thank you,
DrF

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056223392&page=7

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

Hi DrF,

I'll have a look through the thread.

cordially,
Scofflaw

DrFroggies

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hi DrF,

I'll have a look through the thread.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hi Scofflaw,

Thanks for that. If required i'd be happy to post the (PM) correspondence referred to above also - which followed the infraction - if it helps in investigating the matter.

Regards
DrF

Scofflaw

DrFroggies wrote: »

Hi Scofflaw,

Thanks for that. If required i'd be happy to post the (PM) correspondence referred to above also - which followed the infraction - if it helps in investigating the matter.

Regards
DrF

Hi DrFroggies,

it's probably not necessary. Overall, my view here is that the infraction is warranted on the basis that your post could reasonably be expected to start exactly the kind of exchange it did start, and that the degree to which that's regarded as acceptable is very largely up to the mods of the individual forums. There's the further point that, as Permabear said, this, while phrased fairly indirectly, is directly insulting of the individual poster in question:

Once again this seems a very juvenile response, the fact that you assume that references to 'childish' 'aggressive' etc elements in my post are aimed at you suggests that you're aware that you have behaved in a way that would make this applicable to you.

On the other hand, there are very much two of you involved, and my view is that liah should also have been infracted.

cordially,
Scofflaw

DrFroggies

Hi Scofflaw

Thanks for your reply and apologies for taking so long to get back to this – I’m not trying to be a nuisance dragging it out so long but haven’t had the opportunity recently to respond due to particularly hectic times in the ‘real world’.

Scofflaw wrote: »

as Permabear said, this, while phrased fairly indirectly, is directly insulting of the individual poster in question:

In my exchange with Liah I don't think my response was anything less than accurate, it could be interpreted to be insulting but so could many posts and points made on Humanities it doesn’t mean the intention is to insult (but if it was the trend of a particular Moderator or common to a particular forum that any direct negative comments resulted in an infraction I would accept it - neither are the case here).

Having also repeatedly and clearly stated that i was referring to behaviour of posters earlier on the thread the only way to conclude that i was deliberately attacking a poster is to assume that the issues i highlighted were my sly efforts to insult posters (with whom i have no history) whilst statements i made clarifying that i was not trying to target anyone and was more concerned with the general 'direction some have endeavoured to take the thread in' were my blunt lies designed to misdirect. This requires me to be some kind of hand rubbing 'Iago' - plotting surreptitiously in the background.

There is no basis for this, I have no previous axe to grind with anyone involved and no history of mischief on boards.ie. My post was sincere, my response was candid and in clarifying my stance i was direct and truthful.

The obvious question is…looking at that thread and reading over either of my posts, is there anything in my analysis that is inaccurate or unfair?

Regardless of all of that I would have no problem accepting the infraction had it been doled out by a Moderator evenly administering penalties on any but the most delicately worded posts...but that simply hasn't been the case here and I absolutely accept that what's 'regarded as acceptable is very largely up to the mods of the individual forums' again i have no problem where some moderators accept certain posts and others don't but that's a very different thing to moderators accepting a general tone of posts but only from specific posters...that's just too personal.

There is an obvious and inappropriate bias here:

Firstly in the context of that thread and of many in Humanities my post was not particularly lacerating - it was unflinching and deliberately so and certainly admonishing of the behaviour of certain posters - but I generally consider that conduct in a given forum/thread would be considered acceptable/unacceptable relative to the overall accepted conduct on that thread/forum; if my post was in Personal Issues it would be far more delicate and if it was in After Hours it would possibly be more sarcastic.

Scofflaw wrote: »

On the other hand, there are very much two of you involved, and my view is that liah should also have been infracted.

That's a huge issue here, I strongly feel that (on this forum/tread) had the exchange been between two different posters the comment would have been accepted. That Permabear should have an affection for Liah's stance and a distaste for mine is fine but to allow this (which is what i suspect has happened here) to colour his Moderation is inappropriate. There are some bitingly aggressive, insulting and dismissive comments throughout the thread which seem not to have troubled Permabear nearly so much. This just doesn't ring through as unbiased moderation.

I could go through the usual affronted poster thing of adding quote after quote here to support all this but would rather not unless contested on this point as it seems at this stage a little overly pre-emptive.

This is an issue of principle – Reasoned debate cannot exist within such a biased framework.

And also for me, practicality – how can I feel comfortable contributing to Humanities when I’m aware both through behaviour on thread and in PM, Permabear has shown a degree of personal contempt for me?

As the infraction is i think lifted by now maybe this is not the place for this

I'd appreciate it if you'd let me know if it should go straight to Admin at this stage.

Regards,
DrF

Scofflaw

Hi DrFroggies,

I think that if you are seeking a review of a mod's moderation in general rather than just a review of a particular decision, then you would probably be looking to the Admins.

In respect of the original issue, I infracted liah.

moderately,
Scofflaw

DrFroggies

Hi DrFroggies,

I think that if you are seeking a review of a mod's moderation in general rather than just a review of a particular decision, then you would probably be looking to the Admins.

In respect of the original issue, I infracted liah.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Hi Scofflaw,

Thanks for looking to this and responding.

Sorry to ask but could you tell me the process for contacting admin? I've looked on FAQ but it only mentions that admin would be the next stage but not how to proceed to that stage.

Regards
DrF

Scofflaw

DrFroggies wrote: »

Hi Scofflaw,

Thanks for looking to this and responding.

Sorry to ask but could you tell me the process for contacting admin? I've looked on FAQ but it only mentions that admin would be the next stage but not how to proceed to that stage.

Regards
DrF

Asiaprod will usually review all DR threads, but it's currently a holiday period in Japan, so give him a couple of days.

cordially,
Scofflaw

DrFroggies

Scofflaw wrote: »

Asiaprod will usually review all DR threads, but it's currently a holiday period in Japan, so give him a couple of days.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Will do, thanks.
Regards
DrF

Asiaprod

Hi DrF
I have undeleted Permabear's reply.

Permabear please feel free to enter this chat.

Here is the post again so we don't have to keep scrolling up and down the page.

In relation to the infractions, I agree that you both get them as they were equally deserved.

Lets take it from there.

C-Mods/Admins:

Just some brief responses to the issue that DrFroggies has brought to DRP.

Firstly, this is the post that I infracted.

DrFroggies wrote:

I was bewildered as to how never having named, or directly quoted anyone in my initial post could i be accused of deliberately setting out to attack a specific poster.

In the infracted post, you quoted liah, and then wrote:

DrFroggies wrote: »

Once again this seems a very juvenile response, the fact that you assume that references to 'childish' 'aggressive' etc elements in my post are aimed at you suggests that you're aware that you have behaved in a way that would make this applicable to you.

Labelling liah's response "juvenile," you also characterize her behaviour as "childish" and "aggressive," which crosses the line from attacking the post to attacking the poster. The remark above is addressed directly to her, and so I fail to understand why you are "bewildered" as to how your post could have been construed as a personal attack.

I even asked to which of the two posts i'd made did the infraction relate.

I received no answer in the responding email.

The infracted post was quite clearly indicated in the infraction message that you received. In the forum, it is also labelled with a red flag in the bottom right-hand corner. Therefore, don't see how there could be any confusion here as to which post received the infraction.

I read over my posts and explored possible misassumptions which could have been made on specific areas and asked if any of those (including the ones above) could be the culprits...i also took the time and effort to explain them and clarify my intent in each section (which seemed unnecessary, i did so in the hope of swifter resolution).

Again no answer was forthcoming in the responding email.

In responding to your PM, my goal was to explain my rationale for infracting you. It wasn't to engage in a lengthy hermeneutical dialogue that would consider every conceivable interpretation of your exchange with liah. As I told you previously, I stand by the infraction as it was given, because, in my view, this was a classic instance of going after the poster rather than the post. It is now up to the C-Mods and Admins to decide whether to uphold or overturn that decision.

What i received instead were accusations of ‘pretending’ and being ‘disingenuous’ along with rather snide and inappropriate remarks about both the presentation of my posts and the presentation of the pm's i'd sent in an effort to resolve the issue.

I stated that your periphrastic efforts to cast the above remarks as something other than a personal attack on liah were disingenuous. I am happy to stand by that characterization, given that that is how it appeared to me at the time, and how it still appears. I have said nothing "inappropriate" in my PMs to you; in fact, I am happy to forward the entire exchange to a C-Mod or Admin, if requested.

I even requested as an aside that a remark relating to Male Vs Female flamewars be at least removed from the bottom of the post in which i received the infraction as it had nothing to do with my infraction (the remark was directed toward all but could easily be mistakenly connected to my infraction) this would have been a small courtesy and an easy action to take at little inconvenience to the moderator but is a significant issue for me.

Even this small concession wasn't made.

As I explained to you in a previous communication, these additional remarks were quite clearly not directed at you specifically, but at all posters on the thread. It is quite common for mods to issue a general on-thread warning while infracting a poster. You really had no business insisting that those remarks be removed, which is why I ignored that request.

My post on this thread was (especially relative to other posts on the thread and in humanities in general) not confrontational toward any specific poster

The infracted post was confrontational because it directed personalized insults at liah, who is a specific identifiable poster.

....the Mod informed me that there had been reports but still refused to deliberate over a minor sanction instead offering a further mocking analysis of my written concerns....

From memory, I stated that I was not willing to engage in a Moriarty Tribunal–length deliberation over a minor sanction, especially given that I was responding to you at the hour of 12:30 a.m. There was no "mocking analysis" here, simply a desire to cut through a lot of your irrelevant commentary and address your central objection to the infraction.

Obviously i have no idea who reported what and on what legitimate basis but i can say no one else on that thread suggested (on that thread) that i'd attacked a specific poster.

That is because posters are not allowed to make complaints about posts or other posters on-thread. The Reported Posts function exists for that function. Furthermore, it is none of your concern who reported your posts or for what reason. Moderators are not required to disclose either the identity of anyone making a complaint or the content of the complaint. Mods are required only to decide whether a complaint is actionable, and if so, what sanction to impose.

I also fail to understand why the moderator (as i've made clear with the moderator in question) i contacted in such a civil manner responded so discourteously and with such suspicion and with so many personally snide comments on my messages.

As previously noted, I object to your allegation that I have behaved in an uncivil, discourteous, or snide manner towards you. Again, I am happy to forward our entire PM exchange to any C-Mod or Admin who requests it.

The whole thing baffles me...even if i'd been told to reword my post i would have happily re-worded it (i'd have contended that it shouldn't need to be done but i'd have no problem doing so if required).

That is not how Boards protocol works. You are responsible for what you post. There is no onus on any moderator to request that a post be edited before issuing an infraction or ban.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

DrFroggies

Asiaprod wrote: »

Hi DrF
I have undeleted Permabear's reply.

Permabear please feel free to enter this chat.

Here is the post again so we don't have to keep scrolling up and down the page.

In relation to the infractions, I agree that you both get them as they were equally deserved.

Lets take it from there.

Hi Asiaprod,

Thanks for opening this for further discussion.

There is a lot to respond to in Permabear’s two posts so in the interests of clarity I’ll summarize my main issues here if that’s okay and respond to Permabear’s individual points in a separate post and hopefully future exchanges will be less elaborate as I’m aware this dispute thread is becoming quite extensive.

The issue of concern for me is that Permabear was unnecessarily personal and unbalanced in his moderation on this occasion – not the infraction itself – but the manner in which he imposed it and the obvious bias he showed in doing so. For some reason using the issues with the infraction to attack my character

As stated previously I’ve noted that he allowed (and generally allows) a certain amount of headroom and was absolutely permissive of robust and fairly animated debate throughout the thread, issuing only one warning (after a particularly invective post) in which he not only generalised the caution but to my knowledge issued no sanction – my issue of course is not with whether or not he sanctions anyone else, nor I hasten to add am I claiming that’s any of my business but the fact that his tolerance in this instance seems based on whim or preference over objective moderation…it is impossible to gauge what is acceptable or not when the moderation on a thread or forum is unbalanced.

He is being selective in his moderation not in terms of how strictly or leniently he moderates, which would be no issue whatsoever, but in who he imposes his authority as moderator on and in how he behaves in doing so. As much as he may dispute it, his references to me and exchanges with me have been inappropriately personal and displayed a very clear disdain (which - having read through some of his responses here - is unfortunately quite likely to become mutual). It seems something in my posts and exchanges have hit a nerve and he has persistently tried to discredit both my contribution to the thread and my efforts to resolve this issue. Even in this effort to resolve the issue he persists in trying to reproach quite inconsequential elements in my posts and elevate them into tangent contention points. I’d rather not lurch off on these tangents but since he seems enthusiastic in his endeavour to demean my character I’m compelled to respond to each one and have done so in the other post. But I would prefer to focus on the main issues.

His stated reason for the infraction was not that my post had the effect of insulting Liah but that I was ‘pretending’ – in other words lying – he may suspect that (though its absolutely untrue) but he has no basis to accuse me of such and to persistently try to ridicule my efforts at resolution.

He could have issued the sanction without the use of such snide wording, he could have responded to a simple request for clarification as to which post I’d been infracted for by simply…clarifying and I think surely he should have maintained an even hand throughout the thread in terms of moderating as no poster should feel unfairly targeted.

I’ve repeatedly explained the motivation behind my initial post, I also repeatedly stated that I accept the infraction (though I maintain that within the context of many of the posts on that thread it was unexpected and even unfair) but I do not accept that Permabear was unbiased in issuing it.

The fact that both you and Scofflaw felt that infractions for myself and Liah were equally deserved yet Permabear refuses to acknowledge this along with his comparatively very relaxed Moderation throughout the thread suggests the he clearly has shown a bias here.

In the following post I’ve responded to his contentions and highlighted his deliberate misinterpretation and misrepresentation of parts of our exchange, of my posts and responses. I’ve also highlighted instances of his inappropriately derogatory tone.

Apologies again for the length of these posts.
Regards
Dr F

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

DrFroggies

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I would suggest that any concern over a moderator using his position as a vehicle for bias or responding to members in a way unbefitting to his role as moderator especially (if the attempt is to falslely represent or characterize said members) should be considered more than 'ancillary minutiae'.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Asking for specifics and then responding like this?
It seems absurdly evasive. How can this be seen as contributary to resolution?

The fact is...there's little ambiguity in my posts above. There's plenty of evidence of falsehoods and contrivances on Permabears part in his effort to misrepresent my contribution here and throughout our exchange, there are other outstanding contradictions in his responses and claims but, for now, highlighting them would be overlabouring my point. I'm sticking to what is clearly apparent and already fully evidenced in my previous contribution. This is kind of walking on eggshells for me as I'm trying to be as clear and honest as i can without inviting claims that i'm being abusive (and therefore further sanctioned) - on the other hand if i'm too careful i could again be accused of being circuitous. The important issues all along have been principle and concern over inappropriate moderation response and those issues remain.

So just to be clear.

I fully acknowledge that my infraction has been upheld by both Scofflaw and Asiaprod and even if there was the consideration of a reversal based on the above contributions it would no longer be possible as the only way to reinstate the integrity of that thread would be to (A) remove my sanction which would also require removing Liahs which would just complicate things further and undermine the original effort to restore balance or (B) sanction all the above posters and any others worthy of sanction in that thread (which I absolutely wouldn’t want and would probably result in several other DR threads being opened up)...fair? Possibly! But reductive to Humanities and far too messy.

My sanction (as originally issued by Permabear) was unfair based on the context of that thread and, what i believe, was the less than impartial incentive for PB in giving it (i also maintain that I do not and have never engaged in 'baiting') The dismissive obstinacy of Permabears stance throughout (and his further questionable responses) I feel raise questions for a community which prides itself on 'talking'. I also feel that his last post suggests an effort at deflection (especially since he himself asked for specifics on some of those issues)

To that end the falsehoods and seemingly deliberate efforts to misrepresent my contributions/character are fully highlighted above, (these are facts, not accusations on my part) it’s all clearly evidenced. There are other outstanding contradictions in his responses and claims but at this point highlighting them would be overlabouring my point. Saying that i'm happyto give honest response to any challenge to the veracity of those issues i've previously highlighted.

If Permabear’s conduct and coloured moderation in this instance are considered acceptable on boards then that’s just the way it is and if required I'll drop the issue here, I will of course reconsider offering contributions to Humanities for now as I don't see the benefit to anyone in contributing to a forum which I believe is narrowed by a surreptitious moderation presence.

PBs attitude toward my concerns on this thread have further evidenced the all too personal objective in his response to me.

That being the case, I would prefer that his comment in issuing the infraction on the thread was removed (as being directed only at myself it represents me as being a singular mischief maker) or at the very least that the unwarranted reference to gender flamewars was moved away from my sanction. However this is a request not an insistence and if it's ignored outright, and again its required of me, I’ll pursue the issue no further.

I've been open to any exchange and i think tolerant of PBs attempted misrepresentations in a way which is i hope fully compliant with the expectations of members on boards and if any further clarification is required on any of my posts or claims I would have no problem in complying.

Regards
DrF.

Permabear wrote: »

However, if the Cat Mods or Admins believe that this thread should give rise to a wider discussion of Humanities forum moderation, I (and my co-mod, if necessary) would be completely open to that.

I can't comment on this as my issue is only with one moderator and based on this particular experience.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

DrFroggies

Yes I think it's enough now...there's been almost 2 thousand views to this thread: an issue has been highlighted and publicly viewed and my assertions have proved clean and so remained uncontested, I'm content that my integrity and the validity of my claim is beyond reasonable question at this stage.

How this reflects on the integrity of Moderation representation on boards/humanities (or the credibility of humanities as a forum for rational intellectual discussion) is a real question...but it's one that's probably best explored elsewhere as it's of no satisfaction to me to cause Permabear further embarrassment which i understand is a possibility as long as this thread runs. My hope is that this will encourage him to consider a more responsible and civil approach to his moderation in the future.

For myself, I continue to hope that the unecessary comments thrown in with my infraction are removed but as stated previously I won't prolong the debate if this request is declined.

As previously stated i'm open to any questions regarding my posts and am happy to respond to any challenges to my contentions here. Outside of that I'm happy enough to consider the issue closed if that's the preference.

Thanks
Dr F.

Silverfish

DrFroggies, your case has been reviewed, a Cmod and Admin have both upheld the decision.

I have now read through this myself, and you are once again in my opinion attempting to personalise the discussion by discrediting Permabear's moderation.

You received an infraction you felt was unfair, you brought it to the DRP, the original decision was upheld, so I'm marking this as resolved.