Insulting Idioms/Loaded questions

fran17

Hello

I was recently involved in a debate where after repeated attempts to receive an answer to a question from another poster,which I felt was very relevant regarding the issue,i was replied to with the question "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?".This was something,as you can imagine,i took issue with so I followed the relevant course of action as we are encouraged to do in this forum.The poster was issued with a red card infraction by the category mod and on appeal in the dispute resolution forum the infraction was upheld by the mod there also after he received additional imput from a multiple of other AH mods.However it was overturned by the admin afterwards.
My questions are twofold,
Firstly I have no issue with the use of idioms per say,however,should the use of a loaded question/idiom which makes light or little of a particularly heinous act be allowed in this forum?
Secondly,If a category mod issues an infraction and this infraction is upheld on appeal by the appeals mod,after consultation with a multiple of other mods before passing judgement,then what information is available to the admin which the category mods and appeal mods do not possess?

P. Breathnach

The question "have you stopped beating your wife?" is a well-established rhetorical one and can serve a useful purpose when properly used.

I think it was properly used in the case to which you allude.

fran17

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The question "have you stopped beating your wife?" is a well-established rhetorical one and can serve a useful purpose when properly used.

I think it was properly used in the case to which you allude.

I don't think it was but hell we all differ and that's what makes things interesting here.But there is many words or phrases here regarding race,the travelling community etc.etc which will get you in bother rather quickly so who differentiates?I feel nobody can distinguish what is or is not insulting in such a matter.Would a victim of spousal abuse brush it off,no.

Dozen Wicked Words

I'd never heard of this and when I saw the thread it did look to me to be an insult. Idiom or not, I don't really think it's necessary and is inflammatory, admin felt otherwise it seems.

Cuban Pete

fran17 wrote: »

I was recently involved in a debate where after repeated attempts to receive an answer to a question from another poster,which I felt was very relevant regarding the issue

You were asking a leading question and when it became clear Links wasn't rising to your bait you tried restricting it to a yes/no answer to try and trap her. You got a taste of your own medicine and now you're annoyed she had her red card removed. That's it.

"Have you stopped beating your wife" is a common example used to explain loaded questions and I don't believe for one second you're at all concerned about anyone being insulted. This is just switching the tack of your objection from personal to general.

Pat Mustard

fran17 wrote: »

should the use of a loaded question/idiom which makes light or little of a particularly heinous act be allowed in this forum?

Insisting on a yes or no answer can be a loaded question; but you already knew that because the idiom was used to highlight the logical fallacy that you attempted to employ in the thread. It is hypocrisy to complain about an idiom which has been designed to expose loaded questions, when you were asking those loaded questions yourself in the first place.

It's like turning out the lights and then complaining about the darkness.

EDIT: I saw this quote and thought it was relevant, in the circumstances:

fran17 wrote:

You remind me of the guy who murdered both parents with an axe and then based his whole legal defence on him being an orphan.

Link
Link

fran17

Cuban Pete wrote: »

You were asking a leading question and when it became clear Links wasn't rising to your bait you tried restricting it to a yes/no answer to try and trap her. You got a taste of your own medicine and now you're annoyed she had her red card removed. That's it.

"Have you stopped beating your wife" is a common example used to explain loaded questions and I don't believe for one second you're at all concerned about anyone being insulted. This is just switching the tack of your objection from personal to general.

Ah now Pete if only everything was as simple as that.I was simply looking for an answer to my question,thats all.You don't believe that then fine.I very much feel that the use of language which is of such an inflammatory nature deserves full scrutiny and idioms cannot be a get out of jail free card.Whats to prevent somebody using this as the template for future matters?

fran17

The Mustard wrote: »

Insisting on a yes or no answer can be a loaded question; but you already knew that because the idiom was used to highlight the logical fallacy that you attempted to employ in the thread. It is hypocrisy to complain about an idiom which has been designed to expose loaded questions, when you were asking those loaded questions yourself in the first place.

It's like turning out the lights and then complaining about the darkness.

Your right it can be used as a loaded question however in this case it was not intended as such.I was forced to simplify it to yes/no through sheer frustration.How can asking for a persons opinion be perceived as a loaded question?I wanted the persons opinion and nothing more.

Dozen Wicked Words

So this isn't really feedback, just people reliving a thread they all had strong opinions about?

My point stands, using idioms like the one mentioned is not necessary and the fact, as the DRP shows, more than one Mod thought it was not appropriate and appears they didn't know the idiom either.

fran17

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

So this isn't really feedback, just people reliving a thread they all had strong opinions about?

My point stands, using idioms like the one mentioned is not necessary and the fact, as the DRP shows, more than one Mod thought it was not appropriate and appears they didn't know the idiom either.

I genuinely came here to get feedback from the powers that be as to when is the use of such idioms appropriate and when not appropriate.I recall threads where a mod would note that the use of certain words/sayings is deemed to offend certain quarters and are not to be used and that's fair enough.I believe that's right but when can you omit some while not others?

Turtwig

The use of idioms and analogies is always fraught with risk. The less familiar people are with dialectics the higher the risk is. There are many different modes by which analogies can be compared. There are many different ways in which idioms and examples of rhetorical fallacies can be illustrated. The problem is always that the audience experiencing such methods may not themselves actually grasp them.

To answer the OP's question. Yes, it bloody well should be allowed in this forum. It's an established rhetorical technique. However, the person using it should be considerate of both the audience they're using it in front of and other unintended interpretations of what they're saying. One would like to think that everyone on a discussion forum is familiar with such techniques but that's like thinking everyone posting on the Rugby Union forum knows all the rules of the sports. When you use analogies and expressions that carry a higher risk of being misinterpreted you should always explain with a bit of context what you mean. It only takes one or two more sentences.

Both parties should chalk it up to a learned experience and move on.

Pat Mustard

fran17 wrote: »

Your right it can be used as a loaded question however in this case it was not intended as such.I was forced to simplify it to yes/no through sheer frustration.How can asking for a persons opinion be perceived as a loaded question?I wanted the persons opinion and nothing more.

Well, that's just not true at all.

You were asking loaded questions in an attempt to corral posters into giving the answers you wanted, you got called on this nonsense by legitimate means and now you're here complaining.

oscarBravo

Turtwig wrote: »

Both parties should chalk it up to a learned experience and move on.

This.

I'm reminded of a kerfuffle once when a politician used the word "niggardly" in its correct context, and was forced to resign over a perceived racist slur.

I can understand someone feeling that the question "have you stopped beating your wife?" is an accusation of spousal abuse before they discover that it's a well-established rhetorical device; I'm puzzled that anyone would continue to think so after they discover it.

We could ban the phrase, in case it upsets people. We could also ban the word "niggardly", in case it's perceived as racist. I personally don't think that either would be appropriate.

Dozen Wicked Words

I would ban niggardly because I can't think of a genuine reason someone would use it, even in the supposed right context, unless they were stirring or trying to be cool on the internet.

I also think reading a thread should, on the whole, be a simple affair and not require Google to make sure something that's been read isn't in fact, a relatively obscure idiom.

Obviously I'm in the minority though so I'll swat up so I can be "in the know" too.

P. Breathnach

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

I would ban niggardly because I can't think of a genuine reason someone would use it, even in the supposed right context, unless they were stirring or trying to be cool on the internet....

It's a word that is part of my working vocabulary, and I use it when it is the most apposite word for conveying what I mean. The idea that I might use it for another reason is preposterous. Do you also want to ban niggle on a similar pretext?

Dozen Wicked Words

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's a word that is part of my working vocabulary, and I use it when it is the most apposite word for conveying what I mean.

Oh, I don't doubt you for a second.

Maybe you're right, and I shouldn't say I'd ban the word, I'd certainly doubt their motives for saying it, as I said, stirring or trying to look cool.

You'd be entitled to use it, and I'd be entitled to my opinion of why you used it.

fran17

The Mustard wrote: »

Well, that's just not true at all.

You were asking loaded questions in an attempt to corral posters into giving the answers you wanted, you got called on this nonsense by legitimate means and now you're here complaining.

I really don't know how this line of posting is contributing to feedback to be honest.I'll chalk it down to you not being fully aware of the contexts in which it was used.But really if your aggressive posting is on the basis of simply saying black when I say white then I don't have a response for you.

Pat Mustard

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

I would ban niggardly because I can't think of a genuine reason someone would use it, even in the supposed right context, unless they were stirring or trying to be cool on the internet..

'Niggardly' is a perfectly acceptable word with a clear meaning. It shouldn't be banned just because it sounds like a bit like a different word with a different meaning.

If some words have more than one meaning, then surely context should be key. It wouldn't make sense if the word 'dyke' was banned from use in its formal meaning as an embankment to protect from flooding, just because it is also a derogatory slang word for a lesbian. Who can know whether the words 'culvert' or 'bridge' might not take on some slang meaning in future years, too.

Just because people may become offended does not mean that they are right. I don't think that we should ban words and phrases for fear that people might make incorrect guesses as to their meanings.

EDIT: I see that you have clarified your point in the meantime. Okay, fair enough.

fran17

oscarBravo wrote: »

This.

I'm reminded of a kerfuffle once when a politician used the word "niggardly" in its correct context, and was forced to resign over a perceived racist slur.

I can understand someone feeling that the question "have you stopped beating your wife?" is an accusation of spousal abuse before they discover that it's a well-established rhetorical device; I'm puzzled that anyone would continue to think so after they discover it.

We could ban the phrase, in case it upsets people. We could also ban the word "niggardly", in case it's perceived as racist. I personally don't think that either would be appropriate.

Yes I concur with large portions of what you are saying however in the context of how it was used in this instance all mods who gave input agreed that it was used to inflame a situation,it was unacceptable and it was used to push it and get a rise out of myself.Does that not have any credence?

BD45

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

Oh, I don't doubt you for a second.

Maybe you're right, and I shouldn't say I'd ban the word, I'd certainly doubt their motives for saying it, as I said, stirring or trying to look cool.

You'd be entitled to use it, and I'd be entitled to my opinion of why you used it.

You want to ban non-offensive words because they're offensive?? That's some mental pc **** right there.

Dozen Wicked Words

BD45 wrote: »

You want to ban non-offensive words because they're offensive?? That's some mental pc **** right there.

No, I said I was wrong to suggest a ban, in fact why not read the post of mine you've actually quoted.

oscarBravo

fran17 wrote: »

Yes I concur with large portions of what you are saying however in the context of how it was used in this instance all mods who gave input agreed that it was used to inflame a situation,it was unacceptable and it was used to push it and get a rise out of myself.Does that not have any credence?

...and I disagreed, and still do so.

I get that you were offended when you didn't understand what the phrase meant. I don't get that you're still offended now that you do understand what it meant. It seems to come down to "I was offended, which can only mean that offence was intended", which doesn't make any sense to me.

The Hill Billy

fran17 wrote: »

Yes I concur with large portions of what you are saying however in the context of how it was used in this instance all mods who gave input agreed that it was used to inflame a situation,it was unacceptable and it was used to push it and get a rise out of myself.Does that not have any credence?

I dealt with this issue in the DRF. I will not discuss the whys & wherefores of a specific appeal in Feedback, however, I wish to point out that the above bolded statement is incorrect.

oB's post above about lessons being learned sums it up.

Pat Mustard

fran17 wrote: »

Yes I concur with large portions of what you are saying however in the context of how it was used in this instance all mods who gave input agreed that it was used to inflame a situation,it was unacceptable and it was used to push it and get a rise out of myself.Does that not have any credence?

It was already explained to you that the phrase is a rhetorical device, not to be taken literally.

So, now that you understand that the phrase is not to be taken literally, why do you persist in the assertion that it was used to get a rise out of you?

kneemos

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

I would ban niggardly because I can't think of a genuine reason someone would use it, even in the supposed right context, unless they were stirring or trying to be cool on the internet.

I also think reading a thread should, on the whole, be a simple affair and not require Google to make sure something that's been read isn't in fact, a relatively obscure idiom.

Obviously I'm in the minority though so I'll swat up so I can be "in the know" too.

Niggardly is a common expression,never even copped the possible offensive nature of it.
Saying threads should be kept simple to read is painfully ridiculous.

Dozen Wicked Words

kneemos wrote: »

Niggardly is a common expression,never even copped the possible offensive nature of it.
Saying threads should be kept simple to read is painfully ridiculous.

No, of course you didn't and you are quite right, I feel your pain.

fran17

The Hill Billy wrote: »

I dealt with this issue in the DRF. I will not discuss the whys & wherefores of a specific appeal in Feedback, however, I wish to point out that the above bolded statement is incorrect.

oB's post above about lessons being learned sums it up.

Point taken tHB,I was coming from the point of view that in the dispute resolution forum this was the stance for upholding the infraction.But yes of course I could not know that all mods who gave input on the matter would agree with this.I withdraw that.

fran17

The Mustard wrote: »

It was already explained to you that the phrase is a rhetorical device, not to be taken literally.

So, now that you understand that the phrase is not to be taken literally, why do you persist in the assertion that it was used to get a rise out of you?

Because this was the reason for upholding the infraction in the dispute resolution forum after it was accepted that the phrase was not deemed to be taken literally.

NachoBusiness

oscarBravo wrote: »

I get that you were offended when you didn't understand what the phrase meant. I don't get that you're still offended now that you do understand what it meant. It seems to come down to "I was offended, which can only mean that offence was intended", which doesn't make any sense to me.

With respect, you have completely sidestepped the point the user made, which was that "mods who gave input agreed that it was used to inflame a situation,it was unacceptable and it was used to push it and get a rise out of myself". You seem to have difficultly with the user's opinion that the rhetorical question was posed (at least the second time) to get a rise out of the user. I'm not sure why, as it seems quite clear to me that it was:

Links234 wrote: »

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

fran17 wrote: »

Hmmm what do you feel would be the outcome if I made a defamatory remark against a fellow poster in this forum regarding spousal abuse? You being a moderator,I'm curious to get your input?

Incidentally, Fran also extrapolated on the question he had been asking throughout the thread, in what I believe was an effort at getting away from the accusation that he was asking a loaded question, when he made the following comments in that same reply:

Your two points are well understood Links,you've now stated it three times.My question though,which you continue to evade,has not been answered.Do you accept that if a prepubescent child shows symptoms of GID and a parent refuses to give concent to any form of treatment,then the matter should end there? Or do you feel there should be a mechanism available to contest the parents decision?

Yet despite this respectful reply he was again met with:

Links234 wrote: »

Fran, have you stopped beating your wife? Stop evading and answer yes or no!

Now, I don't agree with Fran's position in the debate. I think it's wrongheaded but he was badgered beyond belief in that thread (of which I've just read in it's eternity). Accused of lying and being a liar a few times, said that he was not worth conversing with etc etc and under the circumstances, I think he showed great restraint without rising to any of it.

I can't understand how it has not become politically incorrect to use the rhetorical question 'Have you stopped beating your wife?. I know it goes back to 'Have you stopped beating your father? in Aristotle's time, but even so, less crass and provocative terms have bitten the dust. Be nice if that one had also. I'm sure there are many other loaded rhetorical questions which are less inflammatory which could easily be used in it's place.

tl;dr Links had every right to use the idiom on the thread and a dozen times in the one thread if needs be. However, once it was clear that the user didn't appreciate / understand it's use and that it had in fact riled them, directing it at them a second time can really only be seen as doing so in an attempt to get a rise out of them. I mean, if they didn't get the idiom (and clearly they didn't) what's the purpose of repeating it?

Pat Mustard

fran17 wrote: »

Because this was the reason for upholding the infraction in the dispute resolution forum after it was accepted that the phrase was not deemed to be taken literally.

This was not the result of the DRP. The card was not upheld. This is an attempt to avoid the question.

I asked why even though you know that the phrase is not to be taken literally you persist in asserting that it was to get a rise out of you.

You might answer that question, please.

fran17

The Mustard wrote: »

This was not the result of the DRP. The card was not upheld. This is an attempt to avoid the question.

I asked why even though you know that the phrase is not to be taken literally you persist in asserting that it was to get a rise out of you.

You might answer that question, please.

Your just plain wrong,the infraction was upheld in the dispute resolution forum.It was overturned in the admin review.Have you read the appeal thread?This line your taking would have me conclude you did not.

Nodin

NachoBusiness wrote: »

With respect, you have completely sidestepped the point the user made, which was that "mods who gave input agreed that it was used to inflame a situation,it was unacceptable and it was used to push it and get a rise out of myself". You seem to have difficultly with the user's opinion that the rhetorical question was posed (at least the second time) to get a rise out of the user. I'm not sure why, as it seems quite clear to me that it was:

...which is irrelevant, as its been ruled on.

Pat Mustard

fran17 wrote: »

Your just plain wrong,the infraction was upheld in the dispute resolution forum.It was overturned in the admin review.Have you read the appeal thread?This line your taking would have me conclude you did not.

Load of rubbish tbh. The admin review is in the same thread.

You might answer the question put to you, instead of dodging it.

P. Breathnach

fran17 wrote: »

Your just plain wrong,the infraction was upheld in the dispute resolution forum.It was overturned in the admin review....

Admin review is part of the process: so the reversal of the infraction was done within the DRP.

It's rather like a higher court overturning the verdict of a lower court. The judgement of the higher court prevails, and what happened at the level of the lower courts no longer has any bearing on things.

oscarBravo

NachoBusiness wrote: »

With respect, you have completely sidestepped the point the user made, which was that "mods who gave input agreed that it was used to inflame a situation,it was unacceptable and it was used to push it and get a rise out of myself".

I haven't sidestepped it. I disagreed with the mods' decision, and - in case you hadn't noticed - the rules of the dispute resolution process say that an admin's decision is final, which leaves me wondering why we're still discussing it.

The user has a perspective on what happened. That's fair enough, although I've already explained that I'm confused on why that perspective has survived an explanation as to why it was wrong.

The phrase used was apposite to the circumstances in which it was used. That was my reasoning in overturning the card; that remains my view.

I'm having trouble shaking the impression that this whole thread is nothing more than a case of trying to use the Feedback forum as an avenue of final appeal above and beyond the dispute resolution process, which is not what this forum is for.

NachoBusiness

oscarBravo wrote: »

I haven't sidestepped it. I disagreed with the mods' decision and - in case you hadn't noticed - the rules of the dispute resolution process say that an admin's decision is final, which leaves me wondering why we're still discussing it.

The user has a perspective on what happened. That's fair enough, although I've already explained that I'm confused on why that perspective has survived an explanation as to why it was wrong.

You're "confused" because you're not listening to what they said in fairness.

Yes, they took it literately but even after they made it clear on the thread that they found the implication of the idiom offensive, it was still yet again thrown at them, in what I would suggest was a mocking fashion.

The phrase used was apposite to the circumstances in which it was used. That was my reasoning in overturning the card; that remains my view.

You say you haven't sidestepped the user's point, but yet again.. you do. Not once have I seen you address the point that it was the manner in which the idiom was used, not just that it was used full stop.

In the DRP thread, THP posted:

The Hill Billy wrote: »

..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.

The Hill Billy wrote: »

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.

You ultimately reversed the card and posted:

oscarBravo wrote: »

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.

..and so (imo) not only are you failing to address a crucial point of topic here, but in an overall sense are guilty of not addressing it in the DRF thread also, as you closed out by saying that the expression has a "long and well understood history" without ever addressing the "manner" in which the user posted it. Which, after all, is the initial reason it was stated that the infraction was awarded in the first place.

Had an infraction been given to a user for just using that idiom, then I (and I think most reasonable people) would endorse your retraction of it, as it would quite clearly be a nonsense, BUT, the infraction appears to not have been given be given for it's bare use, but because it was used AFTER the user it was aimed at had made it crystal clear that they did not appreciate / understand it meaning and that what it had implied, in a literal sense, had annoyed them and yet still, after all that, the rhetorical question was yet again thrown at them. This is the point which I feel you are sidestepping.

jimgoose

Show us on the doll where the bad man touched you.

tritium

I'm genuinely curious in this one because it seems at odds with the approach many mods take as a general rule. I'll note ip front that i don't have a particular view either way on the original drp thread and can see both sides to some degree.

However...its a fairly standard mod line (including some of the posters here) that the onusn is not on the reader to interpret what a poster meant, and if something can be taken as inflammatory or provocative then responsibility and consequence for that lies with the poster. On this thread someone seems to have decided that that shouldn't apply and what the hell everyone must know and contextualise the particular comment that caused offence. So how is this different to a host of other posts that are ambiguous on the basis of context?

While I realise there has to be a degree of subjectivity the message appears to be that if someone in the appeals process (I.e. one of the layers of moderation 'gets' that you might not have meant any offence then that's fine, but otherwise you'll be held to the letter if yoir words. How exactly is that an effective or fair process?

fran17

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Admin review is part of the process: so the reversal of the infraction was done within the DRP.

It's rather like a higher court overturning the verdict of a lower court. The judgement of the higher court prevails, and what happened at the level of the lower courts no longer has any bearing on things.

The only problem with that argument is that the admin overturned the decision of the dispute resolution forum for reasons that completely ignored the reasons for upholding the infraction.Its all there in the thread,just read it.

Pat Mustard

fran17, I asked one question of you three times previously but you have failed to answer it, consistently. The replies that you have given have amounted to nothing more than obvious dodges; completely avoiding the question.

At this stage, your failure to answer the question which was asked demonstrates no good reason to start this thread, whatsoever. It seems that you were completely outgunned by Links234 on the AH thread. Following on from the AH thread, this Feedback thread seems to be an attempt at retaliation, in the light of your consistent failure to give proper reasons for your apparent outrage at a rhetorical expression, which should not be interpreted literally.

You have never explained how the expression can be an attempt to rise you when it is not to be interpreted literally.

This entire thread is based on a premise that even though matters have been explained to you, somehow you still maintain a belief that you have been offended deliberately. The evidence does not support that view. Therefore, it appears that your posts in this thread have been disingenuous.

P. Breathnach

fran17 wrote: »

The only problem with that argument is that the admin overturned the decision of the dispute resolution forum for reasons that completely ignored the reasons for upholding the infraction.Its all there in the thread,just read it.

No, the admin did not "overturn the decision of the dispute resolution forum". The admin decision was the decision of the DRP.

There is no need to tell me to read the thread: I had already done so - otherwise I would not be commenting on the matter. You seem to believe that people who disagree with you don't know the facts. On what basis do you suppose I said early in this thread "I think it was properly used in the case to which you allude"? Reckless supposition?

Turtwig

tritium wrote: »

I'm genuinely curious in this one because it seems at odds with the approach many mods take as a general rule. I'll note ip front that i don't have a particular view either way on the original drp thread and can see both sides to some degree.

However...its a fairly standard mod line (including some of the posters here) that the onusn is not on the reader to interpret what a poster meant, and if something can be taken as inflammatory or provocative then responsibility and consequence for that lies with the poster. On this thread someone seems to have decided that that shouldn't apply and what the hell everyone must know and contextualise the particular comment that caused offence. So how is this different to a host of other posts that are ambiguous on the basis of context?

While I realise there has to be a degree of subjectivity the message appears to be that if someone in the appeals process (I.e. one of the layers of moderation 'gets' that you might not have meant any offence then that's fine, but otherwise you'll be held to the letter if yoir words. How exactly is that an effective or fair process?

English is a weird language. Dough, doe and d'oh all sound like though but that doesn't rhyme with tough which rhymes with cough and enough. Hiccough doesn't rhyme with anything in the previous sentence.
Idioms are weirder still.

Suppose in the PI's forum a poster is posting about being nervous before a play.
Poster A replies with some incredibly helpful supportive comments but then finishes the reply with the rather insidious "Break a leg!" remark. If what you were implying in your post were true the really helpful advice in the PI thread would have to be actioned if the OP didn't understand that 'Break a leg' meant good luck.

the onus is not on the reader to interpret what a poster meant, and if something can be taken as inflammatory or provocative then responsibility and consequence for that lies with the poster

Thankfully though it's not true.

Here's why it's not a double standard:

Let's take another scenario. A poster is posting in After Hours. They make an obviously racist remark. The thing here is that most racists, most bigots in fact, will deny they are actually being bigoted. So, when a poster pleads they didn't mean to offend anyone that ignorance defence simply cannot hold up. "Oh I em published some comments that were deemed offensive but technically you should understand that I didn't mean that offence and let me off." There's a world of difference between the two scenarios. In one the poster was misunderstood. In the other, at best, the posters intentions were.

Ignorance is generally a weak defence but sometimes it may still be a valid defence. Ultimately, you're right there's a certain amount of subjectivity involved. However, the type of situation described in the OP is a very different kind to the type most generally dealt with when considering inflammatory remarks. The modes by which they are compared is markedly different. Moderation is as they say a complicated issue. Which is there isn't always a black or white; just a spectra for both. We do our best to nail down that spectra as finite and consistently as possible.

nesf

tritium wrote: »

However...its a fairly standard mod line (including some of the posters here) that the onusn is not on the reader to interpret what a poster meant, and if something can be taken as inflammatory or provocative then responsibility and consequence for that lies with the poster. On this thread someone seems to have decided that that shouldn't apply and what the hell everyone must know and contextualise the particular comment that caused offence. So how is this different to a host of other posts that are ambiguous on the basis of context?

There's no ambiguity on the basis of context here, this is a really well known debate phrase being used in a debate. It's akin to me explaining that "No argument here" means I think you made a really good point not that I think you're talking nonsense. If someone insisted on being offended after that being explained they want to be offended and were just looking for a reason. It's a common debate phrase, if someone needs it explained to them fair enough but them taking offense over if after the explanation is utterly unreasonable.

Dades

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm reminded of a kerfuffle once when a politician used the word "niggardly" in its correct context, and was forced to resign over a perceived racist slur.

Just reading about that now I came across a quote that sums this scenario up for me:

"You hate to think you have to censor your language to meet other people's lack of understanding".

fran17

The Mustard wrote: »

fran17, I asked one question of you three times previously but you have failed to answer it, consistently. The replies that you have given have amounted to nothing more than obvious dodges; completely avoiding the question.

At this stage, your failure to answer the question which was asked demonstrates no good reason to start this thread, whatsoever. It seems that you were completely outgunned by Links234 on the AH thread. Following on from the AH thread, this Feedback thread seems to be an attempt at retaliation, in the light of your consistent failure to give proper reasons for your apparent outrage at a rhetorical expression, which should not be interpreted literally.

You have never explained how the expression can be an attempt to rise you when it is not to be interpreted literally.

This entire thread is based on a premise that even though matters have been explained to you, somehow you still maintain a belief that you have been offended deliberately. The evidence does not support that view. Therefore, it appears that your posts in this thread have been disingenuous.

I am very much of the opinion and belief that this insulting question was used in a manner designed to get a rise out of myself.
Firstly I asked quiet a basic question of the other poster,Links234,on three occasions and on all three occasions was met with rather disingenuous sidesteps.In post #278 of that thread I attempted to disengage with Links234 and neutralise the situation.However Links234 responded by reigniting the issue in post #305 by including me in the posting.I did not rise to the bait and respectfully asked in post #314 not to be included in Links234 postings in the future if Links234 was unwilling to engage in proper debate with me:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=94407726

Then in post #319 Links234 asked this loaded question after I already stated quite clearly that I did not wish to be included in Links234 postings.In post #326 I stated that I felt the question was insulting and in very bad taste and Links234 again responded by asking it again in post #331!
Now Mr.Mustard if you still feel after all that that the poster Links234 was not attempting to get a rise out of myself in this situation then I respectfully ask that you reassess your position in this forum,as to come to your conclusion defies belief.

After it was ascertained in the DRF that this question was indeed an idiom/loaded question the infraction was still upheld on the basis of it been used to "keep pushing it and get a rise" out of me and also seen "as inflammatory and still warranting of an infraction" by the resolution mod.
Now in light of this knowledge can you please answer me a question.If the infraction was upheld on these grounds,which I have just stated above in captions,why was the infraction overturned on the basis that it was understood that the question was "an expression with a long and well-understood history?And not on the grounds in which it was upheld?

Penny Tration

Fran, are you giving feedback on the specific idiom used, or trying to insist a reversed infraction (on which an admin's decision is final, as per the DRP rules) is re-applied?

Right now, all you seem to be doing is throwing your toys out of the pram because you were offended by something you didn't understand.

fran17

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

Fran, are you giving feedback on the specific idiom used, or trying to insist a reversed infraction (on which an admin's decision is final, as per the DRP rules) is re-applied?

Right now, all you seem to be doing is throwing your toys out of the pram because you were offended by something you didn't understand.

No Jenny I'm not here to attempt to re-apply an infraction at all.I'm here because there is an obvious anomaly in how this appeal was processed and I'm looking for clarification as to why so.
Everyone,including me,now accepts that the question asked can be used as a loaded question but I still ascertain that it was used to bait me.This was also the reason why the infraction was UPHELD in the DRF.However the infraction was overturned in the admin review,yes its still in the same thread but the admin review is a separate process as the dispute resolution mod REFERS it to the admin,on the logic that the ban was upheld for the reason that it is "an expression with a long and well-understood history" which is not the case.
The infraction was upheld for reason X but overturned for reason Y.

kneemos

fran17 wrote: »

No Jenny I'm not here to attempt to re-apply an infraction at all.I'm here because there is an obvious anomaly in how this appeal was processed and I'm looking for clarification as to why so.
Everyone,including me,now accepts that the question asked can be used as a loaded question but I still ascertain that it was used to bait me.This was also the reason why the infraction was UPHELD in the DRF.However the infraction was overturned in the admin review,yes its still in the same thread but the admin review is a separate process as the dispute resolution mod REFERS it to the admin,on the logic that the ban was upheld for the reason that it is "an expression with a long and well-understood history" which is not the case.
The infraction was upheld for reason X but overturned for reason Y.

You're saying the DRF shouldn't have an appeal process?

P_1

fran17 wrote: »

No Jenny I'm not here to attempt to re-apply an infraction at all.I'm here because there is an obvious anomaly in how this appeal was processed and I'm looking for clarification as to why so.
Everyone,including me,now accepts that the question asked can be used as a loaded question but I still ascertain that it was used to bait me.This was also the reason why the infraction was UPHELD in the DRF.However the infraction was overturned in the admin review,yes its still in the same thread but the admin review is a separate process as the dispute resolution mod REFERS it to the admin,on the logic that the ban was upheld for the reason that it is "an expression with a long and well-understood history" which is not the case.
The infraction was upheld for reason X but overturned for reason Y.

And all admin decisions are final.

Come off it fran, you were baiting Links and Joey, hammering away with the same question like a badly tuned drum. Rather than snapping at you (which I dare say few folk would find the crime of the century), Links employed a fairly standard rebuttal.

P. Breathnach

fran17 wrote: »

No Jenny I'm not here to attempt to re-apply an infraction at all.I'm here because there is an obvious anomaly in how this appeal was processed and I'm looking for clarification as to why so.
Everyone,including me,now accepts that the question asked can be used as a loaded question but I still ascertain that it was used to bait me.This was also the reason why the infraction was UPHELD in the DRF.However the infraction was overturned in the admin review,yes its still in the same thread but the admin review is a separate process as the dispute resolution mod REFERS it to the admin,on the logic that the ban was upheld for the reason that it is "an expression with a long and well-understood history" which is not the case.
The infraction was upheld for reason X but overturned for reason Y.

Why are you trying to rewrite the facts? The infraction was overturned in the DRP.

And which part of "Admin decision is final" do you fail to understand?

It looks to me as if you are trying to abuse the processes allowed in Boards (yes, I'm close to backseat modding, but I think we are allowed a little more latitude in Feedback).

fran17

kneemos wrote: »

You're saying the DRF shouldn't have an appeal process?

P_1 wrote: »

And all admin decisions are final.

Come off it fran, you were baiting Links and Joey, hammering away with the same question like a badly tuned drum. Rather than snapping at you (which I dare say few folk would find the crime of the century), Links employed a fairly standard rebuttal.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Why are you trying to rewrite the facts? The infraction was overturned in the DRP.

And which part of "Admin decision is final" do you fail to understand?

It looks to me as if you are trying to abuse the processes allowed in Boards (yes, I'm close to backseat modding, but I think we are allowed a little more latitude in Feedback).

Guys I really really appreciate all this input however none of you are in possession of the relevant information to answer my question.