Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Insulting Idioms/Loaded questions
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
oscarBravo wrote: »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.
Which is why I said: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) ...
And is also why I feel in the OP it was asked :If a category mod issues an infraction and this infraction is upheld on appeal by the appeals mod,after consultation with a multiple of other mods before passing judgement, then what information is available to the admin which the category mods and appeal mods do not possess?
In fairness, it is supposed to be a transparent dispute process and so one wonders why anything regarding something as straightforward as this infraction would need to be privy to only mods and admin. I mean, if a mistake was made and the initial reason posted in the DRP for issuing the infraction was incorrect, then surely it would be a simple matter to acknowledge that. I say that as it's the only reasonable conclusion to come to for why the user's manner was not addressed when you revoked the card.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.
Of course it is understood that it is part of the process for admin to overrule mods/cmods when needed (an all too rare one if anything
) but surely acknowledging the basis on which the mod decided to ban/infract is crucial, before then going on to state why it is that you disagree with it and are deciding to overrule. You did not do any of this. Or again, that is how it appears from the outside.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.
This is laughable. You are deliberately avoiding the point and you know it. Come on now. You say you disagreed with the Cmod who upheld the card but yet here is your only post on that thread: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.
How could that qualify as addressing the CMod's assessment and basis for upholding the card? You don't even acknowledge it. Your words suggest the user was incorrectly infracted for just using an idiom, in which case, who wouldn't support your retraction of the card. But, as you know from the Cmod's comments in the thread, they upheld it because that user had "keep pushing it" after Fran had clearly shown that the idiom was lost on him. Again, it was the "manner" in which they posted which saw the user infracted. You can keep saying you're not sidestepping this point, but until you address it, then that is precisely what you are doing.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.
Oh you are, but listen, I have just one question for you, oB:
Why, in your view, do you think the user directed the rhetorical 'Have you stopped beating your wife?' question at the OP, the second time, after they had clearly shown that they were riled by it (or at the very least, did not understand it). What do you think was the purpose of that user directing at them again? I suggest you go back to thread before you answer, as it's quite clear that in context of the replies that followed Fran's post, directing the same question again had quite a different purpose than the first time it was posted and with respect, I think if you can't see that, then you are very naive.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.
Nah, I think you saw what you wanted to see.
The idiom was used correctly, initially, but the second time it was used, after the user had made it patently clear that it was lost on him, and that he found the topic it concerned offensive (male on female domestic violence) it was now being used for an entirely different purpose and that was: to rile.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement