Insulting Idioms/Loaded questions

Nodin

NachoBusiness wrote: »

With respect, you have completely sidestepped the point the user made, which was that "mods who gave input agreed that it was used to inflame a situation,it was unacceptable and it was used to push it and get a rise out of myself". You seem to have difficultly with the user's opinion that the rhetorical question was posed (at least the second time) to get a rise out of the user. I'm not sure why, as it seems quite clear to me that it was:

...which is irrelevant, as its been ruled on.

Pat Mustard

fran17 wrote: »

Your just plain wrong,the infraction was upheld in the dispute resolution forum.It was overturned in the admin review.Have you read the appeal thread?This line your taking would have me conclude you did not.

Load of rubbish tbh. The admin review is in the same thread.

You might answer the question put to you, instead of dodging it.

P. Breathnach

fran17 wrote: »

Your just plain wrong,the infraction was upheld in the dispute resolution forum.It was overturned in the admin review....

Admin review is part of the process: so the reversal of the infraction was done within the DRP.

It's rather like a higher court overturning the verdict of a lower court. The judgement of the higher court prevails, and what happened at the level of the lower courts no longer has any bearing on things.

oscarBravo

NachoBusiness wrote: »

With respect, you have completely sidestepped the point the user made, which was that "mods who gave input agreed that it was used to inflame a situation,it was unacceptable and it was used to push it and get a rise out of myself".

I haven't sidestepped it. I disagreed with the mods' decision, and - in case you hadn't noticed - the rules of the dispute resolution process say that an admin's decision is final, which leaves me wondering why we're still discussing it.

The user has a perspective on what happened. That's fair enough, although I've already explained that I'm confused on why that perspective has survived an explanation as to why it was wrong.

The phrase used was apposite to the circumstances in which it was used. That was my reasoning in overturning the card; that remains my view.

I'm having trouble shaking the impression that this whole thread is nothing more than a case of trying to use the Feedback forum as an avenue of final appeal above and beyond the dispute resolution process, which is not what this forum is for.

NachoBusiness

oscarBravo wrote: »

I haven't sidestepped it. I disagreed with the mods' decision and - in case you hadn't noticed - the rules of the dispute resolution process say that an admin's decision is final, which leaves me wondering why we're still discussing it.

The user has a perspective on what happened. That's fair enough, although I've already explained that I'm confused on why that perspective has survived an explanation as to why it was wrong.

You're "confused" because you're not listening to what they said in fairness.

Yes, they took it literately but even after they made it clear on the thread that they found the implication of the idiom offensive, it was still yet again thrown at them, in what I would suggest was a mocking fashion.

The phrase used was apposite to the circumstances in which it was used. That was my reasoning in overturning the card; that remains my view.

You say you haven't sidestepped the user's point, but yet again.. you do. Not once have I seen you address the point that it was the manner in which the idiom was used, not just that it was used full stop.

In the DRP thread, THP posted:

The Hill Billy wrote: »

..while you were attempting to use the a valid debating tool, the manner in which you used it was not acceptable as it served only to inflame an already heated discussion.

The Hill Billy wrote: »

Regardless of the idiom used - you decided to keep pushing it & get a rise out of the other poster. The upshot - mod action was required so that it wouldn't further inflame the situation.

You ultimately reversed the card and posted:

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm going to reverse the card. I can understand the gut reaction from a moderator who wasn't familiar with the expression, but there's no disputing the fact that it's an expression with a long and well-understood history.

..and so (imo) not only are you failing to address a crucial point of topic here, but in an overall sense are guilty of not addressing it in the DRF thread also, as you closed out by saying that the expression has a "long and well understood history" without ever addressing the "manner" in which the user posted it. Which, after all, is the initial reason it was stated that the infraction was awarded in the first place.

Had an infraction been given to a user for just using that idiom, then I (and I think most reasonable people) would endorse your retraction of it, as it would quite clearly be a nonsense, BUT, the infraction appears to not have been given be given for it's bare use, but because it was used AFTER the user it was aimed at had made it crystal clear that they did not appreciate / understand it meaning and that what it had implied, in a literal sense, had annoyed them and yet still, after all that, the rhetorical question was yet again thrown at them. This is the point which I feel you are sidestepping.

jimgoose

Show us on the doll where the bad man touched you.

tritium

I'm genuinely curious in this one because it seems at odds with the approach many mods take as a general rule. I'll note ip front that i don't have a particular view either way on the original drp thread and can see both sides to some degree.

However...its a fairly standard mod line (including some of the posters here) that the onusn is not on the reader to interpret what a poster meant, and if something can be taken as inflammatory or provocative then responsibility and consequence for that lies with the poster. On this thread someone seems to have decided that that shouldn't apply and what the hell everyone must know and contextualise the particular comment that caused offence. So how is this different to a host of other posts that are ambiguous on the basis of context?

While I realise there has to be a degree of subjectivity the message appears to be that if someone in the appeals process (I.e. one of the layers of moderation 'gets' that you might not have meant any offence then that's fine, but otherwise you'll be held to the letter if yoir words. How exactly is that an effective or fair process?

fran17

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Admin review is part of the process: so the reversal of the infraction was done within the DRP.

It's rather like a higher court overturning the verdict of a lower court. The judgement of the higher court prevails, and what happened at the level of the lower courts no longer has any bearing on things.

The only problem with that argument is that the admin overturned the decision of the dispute resolution forum for reasons that completely ignored the reasons for upholding the infraction.Its all there in the thread,just read it.

Pat Mustard

fran17, I asked one question of you three times previously but you have failed to answer it, consistently. The replies that you have given have amounted to nothing more than obvious dodges; completely avoiding the question.

At this stage, your failure to answer the question which was asked demonstrates no good reason to start this thread, whatsoever. It seems that you were completely outgunned by Links234 on the AH thread. Following on from the AH thread, this Feedback thread seems to be an attempt at retaliation, in the light of your consistent failure to give proper reasons for your apparent outrage at a rhetorical expression, which should not be interpreted literally.

You have never explained how the expression can be an attempt to rise you when it is not to be interpreted literally.

This entire thread is based on a premise that even though matters have been explained to you, somehow you still maintain a belief that you have been offended deliberately. The evidence does not support that view. Therefore, it appears that your posts in this thread have been disingenuous.

P. Breathnach

fran17 wrote: »

The only problem with that argument is that the admin overturned the decision of the dispute resolution forum for reasons that completely ignored the reasons for upholding the infraction.Its all there in the thread,just read it.

No, the admin did not "overturn the decision of the dispute resolution forum". The admin decision was the decision of the DRP.

There is no need to tell me to read the thread: I had already done so - otherwise I would not be commenting on the matter. You seem to believe that people who disagree with you don't know the facts. On what basis do you suppose I said early in this thread "I think it was properly used in the case to which you allude"? Reckless supposition?

Turtwig

tritium wrote: »

I'm genuinely curious in this one because it seems at odds with the approach many mods take as a general rule. I'll note ip front that i don't have a particular view either way on the original drp thread and can see both sides to some degree.

However...its a fairly standard mod line (including some of the posters here) that the onusn is not on the reader to interpret what a poster meant, and if something can be taken as inflammatory or provocative then responsibility and consequence for that lies with the poster. On this thread someone seems to have decided that that shouldn't apply and what the hell everyone must know and contextualise the particular comment that caused offence. So how is this different to a host of other posts that are ambiguous on the basis of context?

While I realise there has to be a degree of subjectivity the message appears to be that if someone in the appeals process (I.e. one of the layers of moderation 'gets' that you might not have meant any offence then that's fine, but otherwise you'll be held to the letter if yoir words. How exactly is that an effective or fair process?

English is a weird language. Dough, doe and d'oh all sound like though but that doesn't rhyme with tough which rhymes with cough and enough. Hiccough doesn't rhyme with anything in the previous sentence.
Idioms are weirder still.

Suppose in the PI's forum a poster is posting about being nervous before a play.
Poster A replies with some incredibly helpful supportive comments but then finishes the reply with the rather insidious "Break a leg!" remark. If what you were implying in your post were true the really helpful advice in the PI thread would have to be actioned if the OP didn't understand that 'Break a leg' meant good luck.

the onus is not on the reader to interpret what a poster meant, and if something can be taken as inflammatory or provocative then responsibility and consequence for that lies with the poster

Thankfully though it's not true.

Here's why it's not a double standard:

Let's take another scenario. A poster is posting in After Hours. They make an obviously racist remark. The thing here is that most racists, most bigots in fact, will deny they are actually being bigoted. So, when a poster pleads they didn't mean to offend anyone that ignorance defence simply cannot hold up. "Oh I em published some comments that were deemed offensive but technically you should understand that I didn't mean that offence and let me off." There's a world of difference between the two scenarios. In one the poster was misunderstood. In the other, at best, the posters intentions were.

Ignorance is generally a weak defence but sometimes it may still be a valid defence. Ultimately, you're right there's a certain amount of subjectivity involved. However, the type of situation described in the OP is a very different kind to the type most generally dealt with when considering inflammatory remarks. The modes by which they are compared is markedly different. Moderation is as they say a complicated issue. Which is there isn't always a black or white; just a spectra for both. We do our best to nail down that spectra as finite and consistently as possible.

nesf

tritium wrote: »

However...its a fairly standard mod line (including some of the posters here) that the onusn is not on the reader to interpret what a poster meant, and if something can be taken as inflammatory or provocative then responsibility and consequence for that lies with the poster. On this thread someone seems to have decided that that shouldn't apply and what the hell everyone must know and contextualise the particular comment that caused offence. So how is this different to a host of other posts that are ambiguous on the basis of context?

There's no ambiguity on the basis of context here, this is a really well known debate phrase being used in a debate. It's akin to me explaining that "No argument here" means I think you made a really good point not that I think you're talking nonsense. If someone insisted on being offended after that being explained they want to be offended and were just looking for a reason. It's a common debate phrase, if someone needs it explained to them fair enough but them taking offense over if after the explanation is utterly unreasonable.

Dades

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm reminded of a kerfuffle once when a politician used the word "niggardly" in its correct context, and was forced to resign over a perceived racist slur.

Just reading about that now I came across a quote that sums this scenario up for me:

"You hate to think you have to censor your language to meet other people's lack of understanding".

fran17

The Mustard wrote: »

fran17, I asked one question of you three times previously but you have failed to answer it, consistently. The replies that you have given have amounted to nothing more than obvious dodges; completely avoiding the question.

At this stage, your failure to answer the question which was asked demonstrates no good reason to start this thread, whatsoever. It seems that you were completely outgunned by Links234 on the AH thread. Following on from the AH thread, this Feedback thread seems to be an attempt at retaliation, in the light of your consistent failure to give proper reasons for your apparent outrage at a rhetorical expression, which should not be interpreted literally.

You have never explained how the expression can be an attempt to rise you when it is not to be interpreted literally.

This entire thread is based on a premise that even though matters have been explained to you, somehow you still maintain a belief that you have been offended deliberately. The evidence does not support that view. Therefore, it appears that your posts in this thread have been disingenuous.

I am very much of the opinion and belief that this insulting question was used in a manner designed to get a rise out of myself.
Firstly I asked quiet a basic question of the other poster,Links234,on three occasions and on all three occasions was met with rather disingenuous sidesteps.In post #278 of that thread I attempted to disengage with Links234 and neutralise the situation.However Links234 responded by reigniting the issue in post #305 by including me in the posting.I did not rise to the bait and respectfully asked in post #314 not to be included in Links234 postings in the future if Links234 was unwilling to engage in proper debate with me:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=94407726

Then in post #319 Links234 asked this loaded question after I already stated quite clearly that I did not wish to be included in Links234 postings.In post #326 I stated that I felt the question was insulting and in very bad taste and Links234 again responded by asking it again in post #331!
Now Mr.Mustard if you still feel after all that that the poster Links234 was not attempting to get a rise out of myself in this situation then I respectfully ask that you reassess your position in this forum,as to come to your conclusion defies belief.

After it was ascertained in the DRF that this question was indeed an idiom/loaded question the infraction was still upheld on the basis of it been used to "keep pushing it and get a rise" out of me and also seen "as inflammatory and still warranting of an infraction" by the resolution mod.
Now in light of this knowledge can you please answer me a question.If the infraction was upheld on these grounds,which I have just stated above in captions,why was the infraction overturned on the basis that it was understood that the question was "an expression with a long and well-understood history?And not on the grounds in which it was upheld?

Penny Tration

Fran, are you giving feedback on the specific idiom used, or trying to insist a reversed infraction (on which an admin's decision is final, as per the DRP rules) is re-applied?

Right now, all you seem to be doing is throwing your toys out of the pram because you were offended by something you didn't understand.

fran17

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

Fran, are you giving feedback on the specific idiom used, or trying to insist a reversed infraction (on which an admin's decision is final, as per the DRP rules) is re-applied?

Right now, all you seem to be doing is throwing your toys out of the pram because you were offended by something you didn't understand.

No Jenny I'm not here to attempt to re-apply an infraction at all.I'm here because there is an obvious anomaly in how this appeal was processed and I'm looking for clarification as to why so.
Everyone,including me,now accepts that the question asked can be used as a loaded question but I still ascertain that it was used to bait me.This was also the reason why the infraction was UPHELD in the DRF.However the infraction was overturned in the admin review,yes its still in the same thread but the admin review is a separate process as the dispute resolution mod REFERS it to the admin,on the logic that the ban was upheld for the reason that it is "an expression with a long and well-understood history" which is not the case.
The infraction was upheld for reason X but overturned for reason Y.

kneemos

fran17 wrote: »

No Jenny I'm not here to attempt to re-apply an infraction at all.I'm here because there is an obvious anomaly in how this appeal was processed and I'm looking for clarification as to why so.
Everyone,including me,now accepts that the question asked can be used as a loaded question but I still ascertain that it was used to bait me.This was also the reason why the infraction was UPHELD in the DRF.However the infraction was overturned in the admin review,yes its still in the same thread but the admin review is a separate process as the dispute resolution mod REFERS it to the admin,on the logic that the ban was upheld for the reason that it is "an expression with a long and well-understood history" which is not the case.
The infraction was upheld for reason X but overturned for reason Y.

You're saying the DRF shouldn't have an appeal process?

P_1

fran17 wrote: »

No Jenny I'm not here to attempt to re-apply an infraction at all.I'm here because there is an obvious anomaly in how this appeal was processed and I'm looking for clarification as to why so.
Everyone,including me,now accepts that the question asked can be used as a loaded question but I still ascertain that it was used to bait me.This was also the reason why the infraction was UPHELD in the DRF.However the infraction was overturned in the admin review,yes its still in the same thread but the admin review is a separate process as the dispute resolution mod REFERS it to the admin,on the logic that the ban was upheld for the reason that it is "an expression with a long and well-understood history" which is not the case.
The infraction was upheld for reason X but overturned for reason Y.

And all admin decisions are final.

Come off it fran, you were baiting Links and Joey, hammering away with the same question like a badly tuned drum. Rather than snapping at you (which I dare say few folk would find the crime of the century), Links employed a fairly standard rebuttal.

P. Breathnach

fran17 wrote: »

No Jenny I'm not here to attempt to re-apply an infraction at all.I'm here because there is an obvious anomaly in how this appeal was processed and I'm looking for clarification as to why so.
Everyone,including me,now accepts that the question asked can be used as a loaded question but I still ascertain that it was used to bait me.This was also the reason why the infraction was UPHELD in the DRF.However the infraction was overturned in the admin review,yes its still in the same thread but the admin review is a separate process as the dispute resolution mod REFERS it to the admin,on the logic that the ban was upheld for the reason that it is "an expression with a long and well-understood history" which is not the case.
The infraction was upheld for reason X but overturned for reason Y.

Why are you trying to rewrite the facts? The infraction was overturned in the DRP.

And which part of "Admin decision is final" do you fail to understand?

It looks to me as if you are trying to abuse the processes allowed in Boards (yes, I'm close to backseat modding, but I think we are allowed a little more latitude in Feedback).

fran17

kneemos wrote: »

You're saying the DRF shouldn't have an appeal process?

P_1 wrote: »

And all admin decisions are final.

Come off it fran, you were baiting Links and Joey, hammering away with the same question like a badly tuned drum. Rather than snapping at you (which I dare say few folk would find the crime of the century), Links employed a fairly standard rebuttal.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Why are you trying to rewrite the facts? The infraction was overturned in the DRP.

And which part of "Admin decision is final" do you fail to understand?

It looks to me as if you are trying to abuse the processes allowed in Boards (yes, I'm close to backseat modding, but I think we are allowed a little more latitude in Feedback).

Guys I really really appreciate all this input however none of you are in possession of the relevant information to answer my question.

Penny Tration

fran17 wrote: »

Guys I really really appreciate all this input however none of you are in possession of the relevant information to answer my question.

Probably shouldn't have posted it in a public forum if you don't want non-mod answers.

We've all seen the DRF thread, we've all seen the initial AH thread, you made sure of that by talking about them here. So we're all pretty free to post.

nesf

fran17 wrote: »

Guys I really really appreciate all this input however none of you are in possession of the relevant information to answer my question.

Then why are you wasting people's time on Feedback rather than just taking it up with the Admin in question?

kneemos

fran17 wrote: »

Guys I really really appreciate all this input however none of you are in possession of the relevant information to answer my question.

A DRF decision got overturned on appeal.
Really don't see the problem.

It was fifty fifty at worst by the sound of it.

nesf

kneemos wrote: »

It was fifty fifty at worst by the sound of it.

Not even close to that.

Penny Tration

Fran, you say we're not in possession of enough facts to answer your question -

Can you clarify what, exactly, your question is? All of your posts have been muddled, so there isn't really a clear cut question.

oscarBravo

fran17 wrote: »

I am very much of the opinion and belief that this insulting question was used in a manner designed to get a rise out of myself.

...and I disagreed, and still do, and as an administrator of the site, that was my adjudication on the dispute in question, and - as per the rules of dispute resolution - that decision is final.

I can't do anything about your decision to be offended by something. If you want to be offended, you're welcome to be offended, but - in the immortal words of the great modern philosopher Ricky Gervais - just because you're offended doesn't mean you're right.

P_1

fran17 wrote: »

Guys I really really appreciate all this input however none of you are in possession of the relevant information to answer my question.

Then the site has a wonderful function called the private message that I suggest you avail of. If you chose to use a public forum to make a silly argument then do not be surprised if people point out just how silly it is.

NachoBusiness

oscarBravo wrote: »

...and I disagreed, and still do, and as an administrator of the site, that was my adjudication on the dispute in question, and - as per the rules of dispute resolution - that decision is final.

Yeah, well it was a farcical adjudication.

Links could see from the user's respectful reply that they did not get the idiom. So how in the name of God could your view be that the second time it was directed at them, it was done for any other reason than to aggravate them? Or in the words of the CMod: "to get a rise out of the other poster".

oscarBravo

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Not saying that they do, but if I was the mod that issued that infraction and my reason (as appears to be the case) was the manner in which a user behaved on a thread and an admin came along and reversed it (and didn't at least acknowledge the reasons behind why the card was given) suggesting the user was just infracted for merely using an expression, I would without question feel undermined and somewhat disrespected.

With the greatest of respect: if you were the mod that issued the infraction, you'd be privy to a great deal more discussion behind the scenes than you currently are.

As for feeling undermined and disrespected: the nature of an appeals process is that moderator actions will sometimes be overturned. If that wasn't the case, then there would be no point in having an appeals process. It's also the nature of an appeals process that sometimes those whose decisions are overturned will disagree with the reasons for overturning them. Again, if it were only possible to overturn a decision with the permission of the original moderator, then there would be no point having an appeals process.

I'll spell this out one more time, although I think I've made myself quite clear already: I overturned the card in this case because I disagreed with the reason it was given, including disagreeing with the assessment of the category moderator who upheld it. And - one more time - my decision is final, so I'm not sure why we're even discussing it here.

So, no: I'm not skirting around your points, or glossing over them, or whatever it is you feel I'm doing. I'm disagreeing with you. I don't believe that the idiom in question was used to deliberately inflame, but in its correct rhetorical context.

You may disagree. That's fine. You're welcome to do so. The point you seem determined to miss is that, in this case, it's my call to make, and I made it.

oscarBravo

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Yeah, well it was a farcical adjudication.

Thank you for your feedback. When you're a site administrator, you'll have the opportunity to make adjudications that are more to your taste.