[Resolved] CA Warning appeal

Flaneur OBrien

Hi,

I was warned for uncivil behaviour, which I would like to appeal. I have PM'ed the mod in question and we cannot agree.

I refuse to believe that supporting a sex attacker is anything but vile behaviour, and people should absolutely be called out for it. As I say, I never named, quoted, insinuated or otherwise pointed to any poster in particular.

Ten of Swords

Hi Flaneur,

I'm looking at this for you.

I can see that you've engaged the mod and posted up all correspondence so thanks for that, it saves us some time.

In a nutshell you were discussing another poster not the topic of the thread. You even said so in your PM. Whether or not you named them isn't the point (and its pretty clear to anyone remotely familiar with the thread who you were referring to) it was uncivil and unnecessary.

Rather than call out another poster on thread you should have reported their post and left it at that.

I'm inclined to agree with the mods reasoning but is there anything you would like to to add?

Flaneur OBrien

Thanks for looking at it.

I don't understand how calling a poster "vile" for holding vile positions such as defending a proven sex attacker can be deemed uncivil.

If we go by the definition of uncivil to mean impolite, rude and insulting, I don't believe I was, as I was being factual by saying the poster is vile.

I posted the definition of vile above, and believe they fit the bill. "Extremely unpleasant".

Is it not extremely unpleasant to defend sex attackers?

If I report posters that defend sex attackers as being uncivil would they be warned the same I was?

Flaneur OBrien

Unless I wasn't being warned for calling them vile.

Is it uncivil to mention that you have placed someone on the ignore list? Or calling his memes painfully unfunny?

Flaneur OBrien

Hi, just giving this a little "bump" and to ask another question.

If you look at the screenshot, it says my warning is active until May 18. I assume that's 18th May? And what does it mean by active until then? Is it not always active? In that all warnings are considered when trying to figure out if a poster is a good poster or not?

This is the only reason I want the warning removed. I called an unnamed poster who holds vile views, defending a sexual assaulter, "vile". But I can't see that it's uncivil behaviour, I think it's holding people to account, and using the correct words to describe them. "Extremely unpleasant" is the dictionary definition of vile.

I can understand how a cmod or admin might not want a tit for tat with me over this, and I am sorry for taking up your time, but if you view that calling someone vile, in relation to their views on defending a sexual assailant, is uncivil behaviour, then it must be seen that supporting a known sex offender not "extremely unpleasant" on boards.

If it wasn't for calling them, "vile" can you tell me what I was warned about?

awec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120608810#Comment_120608810

Just to answer the question regarding the active warning, the site automatically applies sanctions to your account if you accumulate a particular number of active warnings at the same time. If you accumulate 4 active points it restricts you opening threads for example, or how often you can post.

If you accumulate 5 active points you'll be automatically site banned for 5 weeks. Accumulating 5 active points would require getting at least 3 warnings within a 2 week period.

When the warning expires (in your case, on May 18th), it no longer is counted in your active total, though is still visible and part of your overall record.

Ten of Swords

Flaneur,

Thanks for your patience.

I've given the thread, your above initial explanation and your follow up to my initial posts another read and it seems to me you have missed the point of the warning.

Your posts and explanations indicate you do not get the fact that 'discussing the poster' is fundamentally off topic. You called a poster vile, as I have said it was very clear who you were referring to (and I don't need the dictionary definition of the word). The thread isn't about them so the substance of your post shouldn't be about them or what you think of them. You can disagree with, or challenge, their viewpoints but simply calling them names is not OK.

Re your other queries

I don't understand how calling a poster "vile" for holding vile positions such as defending a proven sex attacker can be deemed uncivil.

Calling a poster vile is uncivil and textbook attacking the poster not the post, it has never been allowed.

If we go by the definition of uncivil to mean impolite, rude and insulting, I don't believe I was, as I was being factual by saying the poster is vile.

The definition is irrelevant in this case, you have attacked the poster as outlined above - THAT is what the problem is

If I report posters that defend sex attackers as being uncivil would they be warned the same I was?

All reports are looked at on a case by case basis so if it's clearly over the line or breaks a site or charter rule then it will be actioned appropriately.

I'm upholding the warning.

Let me know if you want an admin to review this?

Flaneur OBrien

Thanks for getting back to me.

Now that I'm on the other side of the mod team, I don't see the need to get another admin involved as I was warned by an admin already, and I see it as a circling of wagons, and I can not see an admin taking my side on this.

I will be using the report button far more liberally when I see people being uncivil to each other, and to people in general.

We'll see what happens to uncivil, vile posters then. To be honest, I'm not expecting much as the level of what constitutes trolling and flame-baiting here has plummeted over recent years.

Mickeroo

Marking resolved as user has indicated they don't want an admin to look at it.