Warning appeal

KomradeBishop

I've followed the DRP process of contacting the mods before posting this thread - might not be able to reply to this over the weekend.
I was given a warning on this thread, where I'm told that my post is attacking the poster rather than his post.

In that thread, the poster Brian Shanahan was criticizing another poster over "constant strawmanning and misrepresentation" to the point that there was "no discussion left in the thread", and the poster I replied to was attacking Brian's post, in (what I judged as) an attempt to dissuade bringing that style of posting to mod attention.

My post, was (satirically) pointing out how the poster I replied to has a well known history of posting in the above-quoted manner, and pointed out this conflict of interest (for lack of a better way to put it) in his post - given that he was just accusing another poster of 'running to Teacher', there wasn't really any argument to reply to in his post.

I view this as being similar to pointing out another posters hypocrisy (except this is closer to pointing out a 'conflict of interest' or such), which is a regular part of debate and doesn't seem to warrant mod action - I think if I had made the same point, but didn't put it in a satirical/pithy way (which makes it more ambiguous), it probably wouldn't have gained mod action - in any case, mod action in this case seems kind of harsh.

Tokyo

Afternoon KomradeBishop,

as you have already contacted the moderators in question, I'll look into this warning for you over the weekend. Can you forward on to me your PM exchange with the moderators discussing this, so that I can use it as a jumping off point?

Regards,
Mike

Tokyo

Actually, don't worry about forwarding on the PM exchange - I've just taken a look at the post in question and unfortunately (and somewhat predictably) it seems to be a prety clear cut case of attacking the poster rather than the post:

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Yes, jank would have no motive for defending posters being allowed to kill discussions, through posting constant strawmen and misrepresentations - this really is about some sense of 'honour'.

Being blunt, looking at your history under your accounts here, there seems to be a pattern of systematically going thorugh the SOC forums, turning over the same old stones with the same posting style and then questioning why you are getting infracted for it. And nothing seems to be learned in the process. Your contributions make for interesting reading - until they cross that all too familiar line - and it's getting to the point where we seriously have to weigh up your contributions to the SOC forums vs. the workload it creates for moderators.

Regarding the infraction issued - it stands. Your post was an attack on the poster, simple as that, and in my opinion you came away quite light with just a yellow card. As per the process outlined above, you are welcome to request an admin review, though my own feelings on this is that a period of reflection might on your posting style might be far more appropriate.

Tokyo

Morning KB,

Are you satisfied with my assessment of the infraction, or do you wish for an admin review? If not I will take the necessary steps to mark this as resolved.

KomradeBishop

Hi mike_ie - ya, even though I still view this as similar to pointing out a posters hypocrisy, you can mark this as resolved.