Motors infraction

Tragedy

Hi there,
I received a yellow card infraction on 05/04/2013 in the Motors forum from TestTransmission for

Reason: N/A

Unfortunately I can't link to the post as it was deleted.

When I PM'ed TT and asked specifically why the post was deleted, the reply I received was:

Sorry for the late reply, been busy away from boards.

The warning was for this and then subsequently deleted.

I asked again why it was deleted (while stating that I expected an infraction and that I wasn't questioning the infraction) and got this reply:

Why was it deleted?To stop an argument on thread basically.

1): The infraction.
These are relevant snippets from the Motors charter:

* No personal attacks on other members

* Repeated occurrances (sic) of “that’s crap” or “you muppet” and other abusive comments in posts will result in a warning and then a good hard banning. If a moderator feels that it is warranted then a ban may apply following just one such comment.

Context: I posted a generality here, the generality being that 'Smiles per Gallon' only applies up until you run out of money (i.e. you need a certain level of comfortable wealth to be able to express that attitude), and that most of the people I had come across talking like that had tended to own relatively normal/standard cars (I post/lurk on Pistonheads.com, volvoforums, saabscene, the75andztclub, dtdirl among many others). It wasn't aimed at anyone whatsoever and I even highlighted a very obvious exception (MattSimis) to show that it wasn't a personal dig at anyone.

Instead of disagreeing or discussing or arguing, MetzgerMeister replied with a comment directed at me personally (i.e. not a generality). He implied that I was a hypocrite and shouldn't be discussing the topic at hand as I 'had no interest in smiles per gallon', and did so in a rather condescending and snide manner. Your take on it might be different, but a regular reader of Motors will note that it isn't the first (or the tenth) time that MetzgerMeister has condescended to people who drive 'lesser cars' to his, or has an attitude of being superior for driving a high performance car - so my reading of it is obviously coloured by that prior knowledge.

To the point: I replied with a short history of my recent car ownership, highlighted that I went from an efficient diesel to a hideously inefficient petrol car just for the joy of it, and gave some brief examples of what I sacrifice day to day to be able to enjoy the luxury of Motoring in Ireland. I ended the post with

In short, you're an idiot

Firstly: MetzgerMeister personally attacked me with an obvious example of an ad hominem fallacy (attacked my character rather than the content of the post).
Secondly: I did not personally attack or abuse him. While 'Idiot' can be abusive, it is tied to the context in which it is used. In this case, MetzgerMeister made a fallacious personal attack at my circumstances despite obviously having no clue whatsoever as to my personal circumstances. The result was, MetzgerMeister's whole post (predicated on my driving an average boring fuel efficient car and thus not being qualified to talk about 'smiles per gallon') was rendered laughably wrong given my personal circumstances re: driving/motoring/smiles per gallon.

That's idiotic behaviour, and MetzgerMeister was an idiot to post that. It's no different to someone wandering into the Economics forum, replying to a post by 'blucey' stating that blucey shouldn't post on Economics topics as he knows nothing about Economics, while a few seconds search would show that blucey is a Professor of Finance in TCD.

Thirdly: Personal attacks/abusive posts are frowned upon, rather than the term 'idiot'. Idiot turns up 98,083 posts across boards, and 6705 within Motors in particular. I didn't check, but I'm fairly sure there weren't 98,083 infractions issued for using the word Idiot - so obviously it's context related.

MetzgerMeister personally attacked me. I did not personally attack him, I did not attack his character. I explained at length as to how his personal attack on me was incredibly wrong, and summed up the post at the very end by stating that he was an idiot (specifically for the post quoted, obviously). It might have been different if I had just replied with "You're an idiot" and nothing else, or called him a '****ing idiot' but I didn't - I had explained how his attack was idiotic.
So, context, and it's my firm belief that context in this case means I don't deserve a yellow card - especially given the prevalence of posters calling each other (and the wider public) idiots site wide.

2): I'm not sure if this can be addressed here, but why was my post in its entirety deleted? Even if one finds that the idiot term deserved an infraction: what does that have to do with the rest of the post?
TestTransmission's stated reason (to stop an argument) was already served by issuing a yellow card. Yellow cards are warning of bad behaviour and to not continue. And even with that case, why weren't both posts deleted? It seems unfair to target one and not the other, when both were guilty of 'arguing'.

Summation:
1) I was personally attacked (against the quoted rules). I did not personally attack the other poster, nor did I repeatedly abuse him as per the rules, my only sin was a statement of opinion - an opinion of which I went to great efforts to explain in detail as to how I came to it - and have a valid reason for believing and expressing.
2) Deletion of post for no apparent reason, different treatment of posters for same offence(arguing?).

As I said in PM to TestTransmission, I didn't really have an issue with the infraction - I can't really be bothered appealing yellow cards anymore and I figured one would be coming even if I disagreed that I should receive one - but the combination of post deletion, TestTransmissions reasons given for such and the general attitude made me change my mind (plus it's an excuse to avoid studying!).

Cheers,
T

Trojan

Tragedy wrote: »

As I said in PM to TestTransmission, I didn't really have an issue with the infraction - I can't really be bothered appealing yellow cards anymore and I figured one would be coming even if I disagreed that I should receive one

Similarly, with the exception of where they directly result in a ban, we don't DRP yellow cards as DRP is extremely costly in volunteer (mod/Cmod/admin) time.