Ridiculous infraction

brianthebard

I received an infraction for this post; http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63178904&postcount=79

Apparently suggesting that a poster is following or approves of FF policy is now an insult, even though it is blatantly obvious that this is the case. The post does not break any rules from what I can see in the charter. I pm'd the moderator who infracted me who was unhelpful, which is why I have posted here (after they gave their consent). I would like the infraction to be removed, since it clearly is not justified.

sceptre

Hey Brian

As a moderator you're no doubt familiar with the difference between a yellow and red card. The yellow ones are warnings, the red ones are infractions (or technically infraction penalties but they're just labelled infractions). You got a yellow. That's a warning.

Moving on, I'd have slapped you with a warning for that. Coming back with "Take a look outside the FF walls" and one of those overused and underpaid rolleyes smilies isn't doing much other than goading another poster. Especially given what it's replying to, but either way, it got a warning, specifically labelled by the mod as a mild offence and deserved that warning - I don't see the necessity of getting directly personal with the other poster or it was meant to achieve within the bounds of the rules in any case. Not much of a penalty, as I often say, a bit of a nudge.

Scofflaw

The infraction in question was a warning, given for what was clearly intended as a dismissive and insulting comment, but not sufficiently rude to justify a full infraction. The suggestion is clearly that the poster referred to blindly follows the line given by a political party rather than thinking for themselves.

The context of the warning is the already heated exchanges in the Irish Economy forum, where this kind of comment is extremely unhelpful.

moderately,
Scofflaw

brianthebard

That was not the suggestion at all scofflaw, the suggestion is clearly that the poster agrees with and advocates the FF policy of cuts, which is extremely apparent from their posts. Therefore, how can it be an insult if its true? Will people who suggest that you are pro-EU/Lisbon be infracted from now on since this is also an insult?


Sceptre, I received a warning for a post which was not even reported, therefore ws clearly not insulting for the other person. What was wrong with a verbal warning in thread, or a polite message telling me to cool down (if it was required) rather than an infraction? As I already said, if a poster clearly advocates cuts, it is not getting personal to say they support FF policy, its just the opposite. I was annoyed iwth the poster and rather than replying with a long post about different parties and their alternatives, I made a one liner but there is no insult involved.

sceptre

Mods aren't expected to wait until a post is reported before acting on it. If we merely did that, most of the time we could get by with one mod.

I suggest in future staying away from the dismissive one-liners, especially if you are annoyed, as they tend to be less than constructive when anyone makes them. Especially on threads where people are beginning to get hotheaded, as was the case here.

As I said above (see post 2), it wasn't an infraction, it was a warning. There's a reason the distinction exists.

brianthebard

The line was not dismissive since it was a fact that the poster in question supported the FF policy of cuts. This is absolutely clear. I was warned for insulting someone, because apparently suggesting somone supports a FF policy is now an insult. I have not received a satisfactory explanation as to how this is an insult.
Furthermore I see nothing in the charter to suggest I deserve either a warning or an infraction. If I had stated the obvious fact that scofflaw supported lisbon during the time of the referendum, would I have received a warning?

sceptre

Saying that someone is a supporter of FF policies isn't inherently an insult, nor is it inherently regarded as one. Please don't straw man your own case by implying that this is what has happened here. Telling someone

brianthebard wrote: »

:rolleyes:
Take a look outside the FF walls.

in a contentious thread in response to a simple query caused by a previous post of yours which begged the question of what you would propose (which is what was asked) deserves a warning. Which it got, regardless of how you'd like to describe it or hair-split it.

Whether or not it was intended to be insulting, it was rude, dismissive, non-constructive, goading/flame-baiting/peace-breaching and mildly insulting based on context. Hence it deservedly got a yellow card, including a note that the offence was mild. I'm dismayed that you can't see that despite having access to the entire thread and this one too but I don't propose to spend any more time examining it.

brianthebard

sceptre wrote: »

Saying that someone is a supporter of FF policies isn't inherently an insult, nor is it inherently regarded as one. Please don't straw man your own case by implying that this is what has happened here.

I am not strawmanning anything, the reason I was given for the warning is that saying someone supports FF policy is an insult. That was the only reason given for my warning, whether you wish to add other reasons now is besides the point. You can read the infractions forum so you can easily see the precise statement given to me on the matter by scofflaw and it had nothing to do with the reasons you suggest.

sceptre

I didn't include the phrase "mildly insulting" in the listing I made above just for fun. I get the impression you're ignoring bits of what I'm typing but they're there nonetheless.

OK Brian, rather than go around in circles until Christmas, eventually, the appeal comes with an upheld or a denied and it's the latter, rationale above. That's a no. I note your points and case but don't agree with them. I completely recognise that you don't agree with the ruling, nor are you likely to. If you feel the need to take the last word, please do so.