Infraction from After Hours

Links234

I got an infraction that I felt was totally undeserved and unjustified. So, infraction thread is here.

Essentially, I've been infracted for using a common idiom that points out a logical fallacy; eg "Have you stopped beating your wife?" My position is that it's no different to using any other phrase like No True Scotsman or Strawman or whatever else have you, Brutal Deluxe feels differently and says that I am literally accusing fran17 of beating his wife and that I am being abusive.

Context for this is as follows:

Fran17 asks a leading question to me and Joeytheparrot and is quite belligerently asking again and again when he doesn't get an answer he's satisfied with. He's trying to goad us into something, neither of us are taking the bait.

He first asks his question here, and I answer it here. He then asks again here, this time asking for a yes or no answer. He also asks Joey to answer the same question in a yes or no fashion in the following post here. I answer for the second time here, but again he badgers me to answer his question in a certain way here. Now, here's the first instance of invoking of that particular idiom in order to point out what he's trying to do:

Links234 wrote: »

Now, any reasonable person might say that that is a clear and unambiguous answer, that you know, it's not for a parent to "veto" anything, it's for them to give consent. For some reason, that's not sufficient for you and I'm not sure why that is, but you seem to be badgering me to answer it in a certain way... Hey, wait a minute! You're not up to anything disingenuous are you?

By the way Fran, have you stopped beating your wife? Ans pls y/n

I think that even without the context that the question is understood to be an example of a leading question and that I am not literally accusing him of beating his wife, but in the context it is quite clear and unambiguous what is meant. Judging by the current conversation on the thread, I think everyone understands what was meant.

Fran17 then asks his question for a 4th time here, I respond (though not directly quoting) here. This is where I'm infracted.

The Hill Billy

Hi there:

As I am aware that you have attempted to resolve this directly with the mod via PM, can I ask that you forward me a copy of the PM convo. I will then take a look at your appeal.

tHB

Links234

Done

The Hill Billy

Hi Links234:

I have reviewed the posts & received additional input from the AH mods.

The upshot is that while you were attempting to use the a valid debating tool, the manner in which you used it was not acceptable as it served only to inflame an already heated discussion. Being such a regular poster in AH, surely you would have know this to be the case.

The infraction is upheld & I would ask that in future that you report such problematic posts if you feel that they are disruptive to the thread.

You may appeal to an Admin if you wish.

tHB

Links234

The Hill Billy wrote: »

The upshot is that while you were attempting to use the a valid debating tool, the manner in which you used it was not acceptable as it served only to inflame an already heated discussion. Being such a regular poster in AH, surely you would have know this to be the case.

I need clarification on this. You say I used a valid debating tool, I'd concur, but to say that the manner in which I used it was unacceptable? I don't understand how that can be the case, the manner in which it was used was exactly how it's supposed to be used; to counter a louded question. It's a common enough phrase that I would say most people if not everyone understood what was meant, and if they didn't, then the context makes it pretty unambiguously clear.

So if the problem is not the idiom itself but how I used it, then I genuinely do not understand how the manner I have used it differs from any other invocation of said logical fallacy. And no, not for one second would I have known this to be the case, before yesterday I wouldn't have even imagined someone would be taken up on this, it is a situation that is to my mind totally and utterly absurd! It was, to quote one of the greatest minds of his time Vizzini, INCONCEIVABLE!

And I'm not in any way exaggerating, I am quite genuinely shocked that this thread is even taking place. It's an unbelievably common phrase that's used in debate all across this site, constantly! You know this as well as I do! It is in our common vernacular! Look, there's pages and pages just like this:



So no, I absolutely do not accept that I have used it in any way shape or form that was abusive or counts as an accusation, I don't believe anyone could have misconstrued what I meant, and I absolutely don't accept that I should have known this would be the case. It is downright ridiculous! The infraction was plainly wrong, it couldn't be any more clear cut, and I seriously can't believe we're wasting each other's time over this! Over a common turn of phrase, a widely and I would have said universally understood metaphor. I don't understand how you can uphold this infraction, I really, genuinely don't understand.

Do I really need to ask for an admin now? Are you serious? I never would have thought it would go to Dispute Resolution in the first place, never mind getting admins involved! Hell I didn't even think this would go past a quick conversation with Brutal Deluxe. If you're seriously not going to reverse the infraction, then I guess we'll have to call for admin attention, because as far as I'm concerned I did absolutely nothing wrong and said nothing that could be considered actionable, and I think it's utterly unreasonable that this is even be debated!

The Hill Billy

You had already used the idiom earlier in the thread & the other poster failed to, or chose to, take the bait. One way or another it was a good thing that they did as the thread was becoming increasingly heated. Regardless of the idiom used - you decided to keep pushing it & get a rise out of the other poster. The upshot - mod action was required so that it wouldn't further inflame the situation.

As for how you think that this shouldn't have come to DRP - I am baffled. You received an infraction & contested it. When you PM'd the Rec CMods to advise that you were unable to reach agreement with the mod, I advised you to come here for the matter to be dealt with openly & transparently as all appeals should be.

I will flag this for Admin attention now.

tHB

Links234

The Hill Billy wrote: »

You had already used the idiom earlier in the thread & the other poster failed to, or chose to, take the bait. One way or another it was a good thing that they did as the thread was becoming increasingly heated. Regardless of the idiom used - you decided to keep pushing it & get a rise out of the other poster. The upshot - mod action was required so that it wouldn't further inflame the situation.

So, now the issue wasn't the idiom itself, but that I used it a second time? What? Look, after the first instance, fran17 posted here saying I was evading and not answering his question, so I responded to that here. I did not try to push him, get a rise out of him, nor bait him at all, it was a simple reply to him claiming "evasion" and a way of saying I know exactly what you're up to.

Now, I've been given several conflicting reasons why I've been infracted and I don't think any of them hold up at all. 1) The reason stated in the infraction was that I shouldn't make accusations, I think we are all in agreement that I was not accusing him of anything, 2) the reason then changed in conversation with the mod, now I was supposedly being infracted because I was being abusive, this clearly isn't the case, 3) now it's something different again and I'm supposedly infracted because I repeated myself and pushed/baited/tried to get a rise out of him? No, that's just being ridiculous.

So I had asked for clarification, yet the reasons for my infraction are now clear as mud, I am absolutely none the wiser of what I did that was in any way actionable. I've no problem taking an infraction, had I been in the wrong, and I'm not just shocked this has had to go so far, I'm shocked that I even got an infraction in the first place! I flat out did not accuse, abuse, bait or push fran17 in what I posted, nor was I posting in any way that was heated, I merely responded to someone pressing a fallicious argument with a common counter to that fallacy, end of story.

The Hill Billy

Let me clear it up for you...

The initial infraction appears to have been given as the mod was unfamiliar with the idiom & saw it as an accusation & inflammatory. It was clarified that it was indeed an idiom, but still inflammatory & still warranting an infraction.

The Admin have been notified that you wish to appeal.

tHB

Links234

The Hill Billy wrote: »

The initial infraction appears to have been given as the mod was unfamiliar with the idiom & saw it as an accusation & inflammatory. It was clarified that it was indeed an idiom, but still inflammatory & still warranting an infraction.

Look at what you've only just told me in the previous posts, that it was a valid debating tool, that the idiom was not the issue but the manner of my posting was, and you made the claim that I was baiting or pushing the other user. You said, and I'll quote:

Regardless of the idiom used - you decided to keep pushing it & get a rise out of the other poster. The upshot - mod action was required so that it wouldn't further inflame the situation.

Had I been heated, or said something in anger, I could understand this reasoning. But I wasn't. Neither was what I posted inflammatory, overtly or otherwise, it was merely calling out a loaded question, that's all. That is all that was meant, that is all that is ever meant with that phrase, it is a rhetorical device that is used to counter a fallacy and it is no different to saying Strawman Argument/No True Scotsman/Ad Hominen or any other similar term.

People posting currently on the thread in question are even calling out fran17 on being disingenous and pretending to be offended to derail the discussion, such as here, and I don't believe for a second he thought I was actually accusing him of something either. That's a matter I'm going to persue once this infraction business has been cleared up. It's absolutely unreasonable to suggest I was doing anything other than countering a fallacy, I think it's perfectly clear to see, and I think with what's currently going on on-thread shows that nobody at all took what I said to mean anything else.

This is simple, clear and unambiguous. What I said was not abusive, inflammatory, baiting, pushing or accusing or anything else, it was a counter to a fallacy plain and simple.

Links234

And just to further prove this is a common idiom that is used regularly, I've used it myself on AH before here for example, and many others have used it before such as here and here and here and here and here for example, used in the same manner I used it. It's commonly used, people know what it means, and it has never been an issue before.

Dades

Folks, an admin is looking at this. Leave it there for the moment, thanks.

oscarBravo

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.

Links234

Thank you

The Hill Billy

Thanks oB for your decision, & thanks Links for your patience.