Infraction in humanities

MungBean

I received an infraction for this post which was in response to what I believe to be trolling. I was infracted for insulting another poster with the words "childish attitude" that I used to describe their previous posting manner where they took offence (without valid reason) and posted childish statements to ridicule and dismiss my opinion.

The reasons given to me by the mod are:

The proper response, if you feel that someone is trolling, is to report the post and let the moderators deal with it. Accusing another poster on-thread of having a "childish attitude" is guaranteed only to provoke an escalation, which is why I warned you. Please note this part of the charter:

"If you find a post insulting, offensive, or upsetting, do not take any action beyond reporting it. If you attempt to take matters into your own hands, you may find yourself on the receiving end of a sanction. "

No action was taken on the trolling post despite it breaching several charter rules.

Trolling: Trolling means deliberately posting in a manner designed only to provoke anger or annoyance.

Criticize the post; don't attack the poster personally.

Making stupid, pointless, foolish, off-topic, or trivial posts: Stupid, pointless, foolish, off-topic, or trivial posts are strongly discouraged in Humanities

There was this post which to me is the exact same as my post. Yet no action was taken. The mod posted on thread to warn me and the other poster to stop the handbags. Which he thinks is enough of a warning for the other poster. The mod also distinguishes my post as a personal attack yet the other posters post as not personal because he directly referenced my post, to contrary of the humanities charter.

Note that merely substituting "Your post is moronic" for "You are a moron" will not help you evade a sanction

The reasons the mod gave me as to why I was infracted were not applied to the other poster for the same offences. In addition the other poster displayed many more offences than myself.

I know its only a yellow card but I dont think it too much to ask for a mod to be consistent. Either a warning to stop the handbags is sufficient or they are going to implement the charter to the letter. In this particular case though the mod seems to have decided that I am to be held to standards not applied to the other poster. For what reason I dont know. But its double standards and its unfair.

Dades

Hi MungBean,

First off - you weren't given an infraction - you were given a warning. That is, a warning to let you you know that something you've said is in breach of the charter. More 'serious' stuff might get an infraction (or red card) straight off, and also puts 'points' on your record.

Regarding the warning I understand why it was given, and see nothing untoward in the explanation given by Permabear. You were correctly warned that suggesting another poster has a "childish attitude" is in breach of the charter.

So, to the question as to why the post you responded to wasn't warned (although this really has no bearing on your own warning). I'll admit the tone of the post was somewhat lacking in refinement, but that doesn't constitute a breach of charter. P. Breathnach may have knocked on the door, but you opened it.

As Permabear suggests, reporting posts you find disagreeable is always better than rising to them in-thread. Even if nothing happens with the report - you don't run the risk of causing yourself problems.

Anyhow, that's my thinking on the matter. If you still want to pursue this, you can request here that an Admin take a look.

Dades

MungBean

Dades wrote: »

Hi MungBean,

First off - you weren't given an infraction - you were given a warning. That is, a warning to let you you know that something you've said is in breach of the charter. More 'serious' stuff might get an infraction (or red card) straight off, and also puts 'points' on your record.

Fair enough but regardless of points on my record that warning is still visible and would be taken into account should I receive mod attention in future. Which is my reason for disputing it, I dont think it warranted a warning when the mod posted on thread and warned both of us to stop posting as we were. Which meant the mod obviously felt that both of us were not posting content acceptable for the forum.

Regarding the warning I understand why it was given, and see nothing untoward in the explanation given by Permabear. You were correctly warned that suggesting another poster has a "childish attitude" is in breach of the charter.

Given the way it was explained to me and the definition in the charter itself its entirely consistent with the other posters postings in which he dismissed my argument using curt responses aimed at me personally "You need to clear those clouds" being one example which is a breach of the charter in the form of attacking the poster, arguing using stupid, foolish statements and posting a response for the sole purpose of creating tension.

So, to the question as to why the post you responded to wasn't warned (although this really has no bearing on your own warning). I'll admit the tone of the post was somewhat lacking in refinement, but that doesn't constitute a breach of charter. P. Breathnach may have knocked on the door, but you opened it.

It absolutely has bearing on my own warning given the context of the discussion and the view of the moderator as to whats acceptable. I have been warned for getting personal while the other posters posts have been validated by a mod and now a cmod. I have already pointed out several ways that it can be seen to be in breach of the charter. The only question is why am I held to account for getting personal and not the other poster. Its double standards.

Anyhow, that's my thinking on the matter. If you still want to pursue this, you can request here that an Admin take a look.

Dades

I would like an Admins opinion on it yes. As I think the mod has shown in his non action with other posts on the thread and you have also shown it here that the charter is very much open to interpretation. So I reject this "You broke the cardinal rule I have no option but to issue a card" argument.

If my words are to be interpreted as the "personalisation of the discussion" (mods own words). Then why are the other posters words not interpreted the same way when they are the same thing ? As it states in the charter saying "Your post is moronic" instead of "Your a moron" amounts to the same thing.

So why does the mod distinguish between "argue in a reasonable manner without dismissing things with a childish attitude" in the context of asking another poster to discuss points and not just dismiss them and "you need to clear those clouds", "your post was nasty and dishonest". While at the same time using statements such as "I doubt it", "And you think what I say is cloudy" along with other sarcastic responses to ridicule and dismiss my opinion. ?

I'd like to know why I am being held to a standard that the other poster isnt.

Dades

MungBean wrote: »

I'd like to know why I am being held to a standard that the other poster isnt.

Well, as I've already stated, I don't see the two posts as comparable. I feel you crossed the line where the previous post teetered on the edge of it. So we disagree.

Let's leave it to an Admin. Your case has been made.

Trojan

Take the warning. Dades has made the logic clear, and has given this matter more attention than it deserves.

Cmod decision stands. Case closed.