Cool Vids & Pics & Links > Name that Art.

locum-motion

Hello, CMods,

Firstly, in case you're unfamiliar with it, allow me to introduce this thread. The idea is that someone posts a camouflaged artwork, and progressively reveals it as people guess what it is until someone gets it right.

Over two weeks ago, user GrumpyMe posted an image (post # 219). Over the course of two weeks, during which nobody made any guesses at all, GrumpyMe posted five further times. Clearly becoming frustrated, s/he eventually asked "Does anyone care?"

I replied "Not me, anyway."

For this, I was warned and a yellow card issued. The reason given by the mod (PawwedRig) was "Trolling" which was defined as "posting in an intentionally provocative fashion in order to gain a reaction from other members."

I PM'd PawwedRig:

The questioner was clearly wondering whether interest in the thread is waning.
As a regular user of the forum, I answered the question that was asked.
There is no way that that constitutes trolling.
Please rescind this warning immediately.

and

In support of my position that my post was not trolling, please take note that the person who asked the question that I answered has since thanked my post.
"Trolling" is "posting in an intentionally provocative fashion in order to gain a reaction from other members."
I absolutely was not posting in that manner. Again, I was answering a question that was trying to gauge the continuing level of interest.

PawwedRig replied:

You posted a response to a rhetorical question by a poster in a thread you clearly have no interest in (judging by this and your previous contributions to the topic). Being a regular poster does not exempt you from the rules of the forum and posting in such a manner will invariably lead to problems. It is irrelevant who thanked the post.
On this basis I have no doubt that a warning was justified in this case.
That said if you can agree to post in the spirit of the thread (engagement/guessing/putting up pics where you guess correctly) from here on, then as a matter of good faith I am happy to overturn the yellow card.
Please let me know if you are agreeable.

I have several problems with this, but the ones that I chose to engage with PawwedRig on are:

1. The question was not rhetorical, and the answer was genuine.

It was not a rhetorical question that GrumpyMe asked. If you'd care to look back at the thread;
1. GrumpyMe posted a picture on Tue 27/1.
2. Over the course of the next two full weeks (until Tue 10/2), GrumpyMe posted 5 updates revealing more of his picture.
3. In that time, not one single person posted a guess as to what the picture was.
4. On his/her last post, GrumpyMe was obviously getting a little frustrated and was wondering if interest was waning, and so asked "Does anyone care?"
5. I answered that question honestly.

2. My post just simply does not fall into the definition of trolling.

Again, "Trolling" is defined as "posting in an intentionally provocative fashion in order to gain a reaction from other members."

It just simply is not the case that I was posting to provoke a reaction. I answered the question; that's all.

Now, if you want to warn me for Chat in picture thread, then that would be a different story. I am guilty of that. But I am not willing to allow an allegation of trolling stand when it simply is not true. Other mods of other forums can see my 'disciplinary record' on the site, and it could happen at some time in the future that someone might think that I have a history of Trolling.

I wish to point out again; I do not wish there to be a record stating that I'm a troll. I'm not.

3. I was offered that the card would be rescinded on conditions. The conditions were that I would have to engage positively with the thread in future.

...agree to post in the spirit of the thread (engagement/guessing/putting up pics where you guess correctly) from here on...

This in turn poses further problems.

a. The warning/yellow card was simply issued wrongly. I should not have to satisfy any conditions in order to have it rescinded. When I'm wrong, I say I'm wrong and I apologise. PawwedRig seems incapable of doing the same.

...I do not believe that any such undertaking should be required - the warning was quite simply incorrectly issued in the first place, and so there should be no conditions placed upon having it rescinded.

b. I have no intention of ever posting in that thread again. How can I promise to post positively when I have no intention of posting at all?

... I am highly unlikely to ever post in the thread at all. I have little or no knowledge of art, so I'm unlikely to ever guess (although I did twice guess pics correctly in this thread) and I have neither the software nor the skills required to put up a pic.

Nonetheless, I did offer that

... in the highly unlikely event that I do ever post in the thread again, yes I will try to keep in the spirit.

This was not sufficient to satisfy PawwedRig

We obviously see it differently so if you want to get a third party to adjudicate feel free.

{I mentioned above that I only chose to engage with PawwedRig on some of the points he raised in his second PM. However, I have a further problem that I didn't raise; PawwedRig's comment seems to imply that my previous contributions to the thread were disruptive. They were not. My first contribution was a correct guess (post # 61), following which I offered my 'turn' to someone else. My second contribution was when the thread descended into chaos (between post # 129 and '140) my correct guess was the post that brought it back (# 143). Thus, my contributions to the thread have definitely been positive, not negative.}

Hence this request for a review.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Thanks,
L-M.

The Hill Billy

Hi locum-motion:

Thanks for the comprehensive description of the issue. It is also good to see that you & PawwedRig have attempted to resolve the matter before you lodged your appeal. I shall respond to the points you specifically made.

locum-motion wrote: »

1. The question was not rhetorical, and the answer was genuine.

The question I feel was posed out of frustration at the lack of response. While your answer may have been genuine, it very easily could have cause offence & further frustration to the poster. The fact that the poster Thanked your post is irrelevant as it could very easily have gone the other way & upset them - you weren't to know when you posted.

locum-motion wrote: »

2. My post just simply does not fall into the definition of trolling.

As I am sure you are aware - mods have a set list of options to choose when giving a Warning. The Trolling option was probably closest in PawwedRig's mind at the time. Uncivil would also have been a valid option in my opinion in this case.

locum-motion wrote: »

3. I was offered that the card would be rescinded on conditions. The conditions were that I would have to engage positively with the thread in future. This in turn poses further problems.

a. The warning/yellow card was simply issued wrongly. I should not have to satisfy any conditions in order to have it rescinded. When I'm wrong, I say I'm wrong and I apologise. PawwedRig seems incapable of doing the same.

b. I have no intention of ever posting in that thread again. How can I promise to post positively when I have no intention of posting at all?

In summary & to address your final points - I feel that the card was warranted as it not helpful in any way to the poster concerned (again, regardless of the fact that they Thanked your post - maybe they just have a strange sense of humour?). PawwedRig was very fair in offering to rescind the card on the terms given. If you choose not to post in the thread again that is up to you.

I uphold the card.

You may appeal to an Admin if you wish.

tHB

locum-motion

The Hill Billy wrote: »

Hi locum-motion:

Thanks for the comprehensive description of the issue. It is also good to see that you & PawwedRig have attempted to resolve the matter before you lodged your appeal. I shall respond to the points you specifically made.

Thanks.

The Hill Billy wrote: »

The question I feel was posed out of frustration at the lack of response. While your answer may have been genuine, it very easily could have cause offence & further frustration to the poster. The fact that the poster Thanked your post is irrelevant as it could very easily have gone the other way & upset them - you weren't to know when you posted.

With respect to you, that's complete bunkum. The context of the post was very definitely that GrumpyMe wanted to know if people were interested or not. If you don't believe me, ask him/her.

The Hill Billy wrote: »

As I am sure you are aware - mods have a set list of options to choose when giving a Warning. The Trolling option was probably closest in PawwedRig's mind at the time. Uncivil would also have been a valid option in my opinion in this case.

Fine, then. Change it to 'Uncivil' if you want. I don't mind having a warning for 'Uncivil' on my record.

What I objected to all along was the accusation of 'Trolling'.

One might occasionally slip into being 'Uncivil' through frustration or even by accident.

'Trolling', however, is a horse of a completely different colour. 'Trolling' is deliberately disruptive.

I am NOT a troll.

The Hill Billy wrote: »

In summary & to address your final points - I feel that the card was warranted as it not helpful in any way to the poster concerned (again, regardless of the fact that they Thanked your post - maybe they just have a strange sense of humour?). PawwedRig was very fair in offering to rescind the card on the terms given. If you choose not to post in the thread again that is up to you.

I uphold the card.

You may appeal to an Admin if you wish.

tHB

I suppose it was sort of fair for him to offer to rescind under conditions, but only if the warning had been warranted in the first place. If I agree to the conditions, then I admit to 'Trolling'.

I disagree with your assertion that the comment was unhelpful to the poster; they asked a question which I answered.
When a person asks a question (unless it's obviously rhetorical) then the default position has to be that they want answers to that question.
If one follows your logic, then every time anyone asks a question, then the best course of action is not to answer it, because the questioner doesn't actually want answers unless they've got a weird sense of humour.
I'm sorry, but you have that backwards.




In conclusion, any of the following outcomes are acceptable to me:

1. Rescind the warning entirely and admit that it should never have been given. Obviously, this is my preferred option.

2. Change the reason for the warning from 'Trolling' to 'Being Uncivil' or even something like 'Breaching charter by chatting in a photo thread'. This then would remove the word 'Trolling' from the equation.

3. If (2) is done, then there is no obstacle to me undertaking to post in a more constructive manner in the thread in future (if I post at all). I shall then give the undertaking, and therefore you guys can follow through on the offer to rescind the warning. This option satisfies everyone's honour; I will have admitted to having been wrong, and so will PawwedRig/Boards, while at the same time the 'Trolling' accusation will be gone.

If the above options are unacceptable to you, then please escalate this to an appeal to the Admins.

Thanks for your reply,
L-M.

locum-motion

A similar situation has just arisen in the came CV&P&L forum: A poster has started a new thread about 'Food Porn' and has asked the question "Is there a market for a thread like this?"

I think there isn't.

If I answer the question with the word 'No', is that trolling?

The Hill Billy

Seriously?

This has nothing to do with your appeal.
FWIW - This is a different scenario to the one for which you received the warning.

PM a CVPL mod for matters relating to day-to-day running of the forum.

locum-motion

OK, I was being a little facetious and tongue-in-cheek when I posted that, but there are more similarities than you're acknowledging.

In both cases, a person asked users of the CV&P&L forum if they were interested in the subject of the thread.

I answered in one case and I have been labelled a troll for it.

I think it is a legitimate question to ask if it would be considered trolling if I answered in the other case.

If nothing else, an answer would help me determine where exactly the line lies, so that I can avoid crossing it in future.

I shall ask the relevant mods, as per your suggestion.

Thank you,
L-M.

The Hill Billy

Hi locum-motion:

I have given this further consideration & am happy for the card to stand 'as-is'. In my opinion the Trolling option was validly applied to the Warning based on how your post looked in response to the poster's question.

While you may not consider yourself to be a Troll, your response was 'trollish'.

You may appeal to an Admin if you wish.

All the best,

tHB

locum-motion

The Hill Billy wrote: »

...I have given this further consideration & am happy for the card to stand 'as-is'. In my opinion the Trolling option was validly applied to the Warning based on how your post looked in response to the poster's question...

So what made you change you mind? Given that you previously said:

The Hill Billy wrote: »

... Uncivil would also have been a valid option in my opinion in this case...

To move the goalposts in this manner is fundamentally unfair. One minute you say 'Uncivil' was appropriate, but when I agree to this, all of a sudden it's no longer appropriate and you're back to labelling me a Troll?

I cannot say this bit frequently enough: 'Trolling' is defined as being DELIBERATELY disruptive. I was answering a question that was asked in a genuine way. I absolutely, positively was NOT trying to disrupt the thread/forum.

The Hill Billy wrote: »

...You may appeal to an Admin if you wish...

Yes, please.

So, what's the procedure? Do you simply invite the Admins to view what's written here, or do I have to type it all out again in a different forum.

If nothing else, I hope the Admins will take into account the way both the Mod and the CMod have moved the goalposts.

The Hill Billy

Just to be clear - there was no change of mind. I happened to mention that Uncivil may also have been an option. Not that it should have been the one chosen. And the mod was, in my opinion, correct in selecting 'Trolling' as it appeared that you were deliberately seeking to upset the poster.

No goalposts have been moved.

You have nothing further to do now but wait for an Admin to come & review the appeal & let you know if my decision on this matter was correct in the circumstances.

All the best,

tHB

Spear

I've given the admins a nudge to get this looked at.

locum-motion

Look, I'm sorry about this; I realise I'm probably not supposed to be contributing any further here until the Admin's decision has been made, BUT...

It is now almost two weeks since I asked for this to be appealed to the Admins. Yes, I know that Mods are unpaid volunteers, but Admins aren't, right? Admins are the bosses here, so presumably they're paid employees. It seems to me that there is no excuse for a delay such as this one.

Remember, justice delayed is justice denied.

Spear

Admins are not paid employees, they're unpaid volunteers, same as all the other mods.

Dades

Thanks Spear.

Okay, apologies for the delay, which might have had something to do with the wall of text in the first post and the time that promises to steal and never return.

Usually a wall of text adds something more to the situation in the form of context or history, but not in this case. You simply seem to have an interpretation of the posts in question at odds with common perception. I'd very much see GrumpyMe's question as a rhetorical "why am I bothering?" post, and your reply as, well, unhelpful.

I do however believe you weren't intentionally trolling, and although I think a card was warranted, I'm happy to remove that reference and replace it with "uncivil", which is as close to the scenario as can be described from a limited number of options you can chose to accompany a card (there is no custom description feature).

So, the card is upheld, but let me know if you want me to change the "charge" in the label (without another lengthy appeal, or this option is revoked).

locum-motion

Spear wrote: »

Admins are not paid employees, they're unpaid volunteers, same as all the other mods.

Thanks for the clarification.

locum-motion

Thank you Dades.

So if I'm reading you right, you are happy for the accusation of trolling to be downgraded to being uncivil. Thank you. This is acceptable to me.

Once I can see that there is no record of me being a troll, I can then happily give the undertaking requested by Pawwed Rig (ie that I will engage positively) and he can then remove the card as per his original offer.

Dades

locum-motion wrote: »

Once I can see that there is no record of me being a troll, I can then happily give the undertaking requested by Pawwed Rig (ie that I will engage positively) and he can then remove the card as per his original offer.

That ship sailed when you refused the offer and brought it to DR over wording that wasn't even going to appear on your record. I'll have the card removed and reapplied with the different label.