Sanction In Cafe

Nodin

On the 24th of march in the Café I responded to a section of a post - exchange as follows

"Of course, that’s not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons."

(my response) "Sheer bigotry, devoid of any point except hate for its own sake."
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=99167394&postcount=1592

I thought and think this fair comment on the above remark. However I was carded (yellow) for "Being uncivil".

I have contacted the moderator in question and asked them to reverse the decision but we have failed to resolve the issue.

K-9

Hi Nodin, I'll bo looking into this for you. Can you send on the pm exchange between yourself and the mod to give some background on it, thank you.

Nodin

Thanks, I've forwarded on the messages.

K-9

Cheers, that's great.

K-9

Okay, I had a look at your post, the one you replied to, plus the lead up and aftermath of the exchange. I looked at all that again, after you forwarded on the pm discussion with the mod.

I was looking at it to see if I could give you the benefit of the doubt with your reply, but I'm struggling to see how I can.

.............................................
Of course, that’s not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.

‘................
Sheer bigotry, devoid of any point except hate for its own sake.

1. You did a Fixed your post edit on the original post you replied to. This leaves out 95% of the rest of the post and changes the overall point made in the original post. No attempt was made to debate or argue the detailed statistics provided.

2. You called it sheer bigotry without any reasoning as to why it was. If you're going to make a claim like that, you need to point out how it is bigoted.

3. While you didn't technically call the other poster a bigot, saying a post is full of bigotry and hatred without adding anything of substance yourself, is overly personal.

Overall I think the warning is reasonable as I don't see any attempt at refuting the post in your reply. If you had debated some of the statistics or pointed out flaws in the general gist of the post, I might have been able to give you the benefit of the doubt. Instead, the post is just a personal attack with nothing to redeem it really.

On that basis I think the warning was fair and my decision is to uphold the yellow card.

Nodin

K-9 wrote: »

Okay, I had a look at your post, the one you replied to, plus the lead up and aftermath of the exchange. I looked at all that again, after you forwarded on the pm discussion with the mod.

I was looking at it to see if I could give you the benefit of the doubt with your reply, but I'm struggling to see how I can.



1. You did a Fixed your post edit on the original post you replied to. This leaves out 95% of the rest of the post and changes the overall point made in the original post. No attempt was made to debate or argue the detailed statistics provided.

2. You called it sheer bigotry without any reasoning as to why it was. If you're going to make a claim like that, you need to point out how it is bigoted.

3. While you didn't technically call the other poster a bigot, saying a post is full of bigotry and hatred without adding anything of substance yourself, is overly personal.

Overall I think the warning is reasonable as I don't see any attempt at refuting the post in your reply. If you had debated some of the statistics or pointed out flaws in the general gist of the post, I might have been able to give you the benefit of the doubt. Instead, the post is just a personal attack with nothing to redeem it really.

On that basis I think the warning was fair and my decision is to uphold the yellow card.

I have to say that's somewhat suprising, and on another level disappointing. The overall thrust of the post I was replying to is quite clear
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=99167365#post99167365

I did not do a "fixed your post" on the post in question. I - as I have done for the last eight (far too many) years take a phrase from a post and cut down the size of the original. I do not misrepresent the posts I answer. You and I had this exact conversation in private before, when you modded politics, and I did the same with a post as above. You accepted my intent and method and reversed the infraction.

I don't see how pointing out a post is bigoted "overly personal", as that would mean that its impossible to point out bigoted posts, and indeed avoid being personal in doing so. The mention of "bigotry" would essentially become a cardable offence. If a poster espouses left wing politics and I state that the post is politically leftwing, does that mean I'm personalising the debate?

I might add that the comment
"Of course, that’s not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons"
is, in any context or devoid of it, clearly bigotry and thus can be described as such.

Based on the above, I might ask you to reconsider.

Nodin

Just as an addendum -

"This leaves out 95% of the rest of the post and changes the overall point made in the original post. No attempt was made to debate or argue the detailed statistics provided."

I was under the impression I was being carded for "being uncivil" as the mod stated I was calling the poster a bigot. The overall point in the post - an irrational hatred and fear of muslims - is essentially what I responded to.

Your "detailed statistics" are from a chain e-mail/article that's been bouncing around the internet for many years, written by an anti-gay apartheid apologist who shoots kids on Halloween with paintball guns because they're being unchristian.

https://russellbuchanan.wordpress.com/2010/02/10/the-politics-of-email-you-send-it-you-own-it/

http://www.frontline.org.za/index.php?option=com_content&id=1266:the-director

And - regardless of the fact that's not what I was carded for - its decidedly odd to task me to tackle any "detailed figures" in a forum where the one bolded line in the charter states

"Discussions that emphasize higher standards and rigourous content should be conducted in one of the other Politics forums."
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72752099&postcount=1

K-9

I'll address your second reply first. Mods pick 1 reason from a list when giving a card/ban. There is nothing definitive about that reason, and often cards/bans are not for one thing alone and may be for a couple of things, which don't readily fit on a drop down list. More on that later as well as your third point about the charter.

Now, for your second point. I'm not arguing that those "statistics" are, or are not, based on fear, prejudice or come from a rather biased and unlikeable source. My point, outlined in 1. in my original reply is, you didn't give any reason at all why they were bigoted, you just threw a huge ad hominen at the poster.

Indeed, you just posted back up for your position. If you had posted some of that in your reply on the thread, we probably wouldn't be here.

As regards your first reply, the overall thrust of the post you replied to maybe clear to you but probably isn't to the original poster, the 11 people who thanked it and others reading. Mods can't allow threads to descend into slurring matches with people calling posts bigoted or racist with no reasoning or back up as to why.

As for fyp, you chose not to engage with 95% of the post and as I'll address later, this is a recurrent problem for you and the mods on this thread, something you are aware of. That card btw was given 4 years ago.

Your point about calling a post bigoted, I've addressed. We can't let the thread turn into a slagging match with people saying that is bigoted or this is racist, with nothing else to add.

Coming back to the charter and the politics cafe in general. The forum is light touch moderated and that includes many forms of modding. There are numerous on thread warnings on that megathread and the 2? previous ones. Mods write friendly and advisory pm's to posters to try and help them if there's an issue. One of the mods already wrote to you advising that your replies can be overly dismissive and pedantic at times. I believe there was a second exchange of pm's after a mod gave you a previous yellow.

A C-Mod pm'd you inviting you to a private forum that cafe mods and some regulars have used before to try and resolve issues. Unfortunately that invitation was refused, which of course is your right, but is a pity, because I don't think this issue would have come up if that forum had been availed of.

So in summary, the post was carded because it is uncivil, which it is, but also because it basically totally ignored any point made by the previous poster. The post was overly dismissive, something a mod previously pm'd you about. The mod team have spent a fair bit of time communicating with you trying to give you advice and help you out. All alternative avenues have been exhausted at this stage, and unless you try and meet the mods halfway, I'm afraid more cards and maybe possible bans are likely.

That would be a terrible shame. The cafe mods put a lot of time, care and attention into not giving out cards and bans, and really don't want to see good posters who can add to the forum picking up needless cards and bans. Volunteer mods can give only so much time, attention and patience to posters if they refuse to take any of the advice given to them.

Nodin

K-9 wrote: »

I'll address your second reply first. Mods pick 1 reason from a list when giving a card/ban. There is nothing definitive about that reason, and often cards/bans are not for one thing alone and may be for a couple of things, which don't readily fit on a drop down list. More on that later as well as your third point about the charter.

Now, for your second point. I'm not arguing that those "statistics" are, or are not, based on fear, prejudice or come from a rather biased and unlikeable source. My point, outlined in 1. in my original reply is, you didn't give any reason at all why they were bigoted, you just threw a huge ad hominen at the poster.

Indeed, you just posted back up for your position. If you had posted some of that in your reply on the thread, we probably wouldn't be here.

As regards your first reply, the overall thrust of the post you replied to maybe clear to you but probably isn't to the original poster, the 11 people who thanked it and others reading. Mods can't allow threads to descend into slurring matches with people calling posts bigoted or racist with no reasoning or back up as to why.

As for fyp, you chose not to engage with 95% of the post and as I'll address later, this is a recurrent problem for you and the mods on this thread, something you are aware of. That card btw was given 4 years ago.

Your point about calling a post bigoted, I've addressed. We can't let the thread turn into a slagging match with people saying that is bigoted or this is racist, with nothing else to add.

Coming back to the charter and the politics cafe in general. The forum is light touch moderated and that includes many forms of modding. There are numerous on thread warnings on that megathread and the 2? previous ones. Mods write friendly and advisory pm's to posters to try and help them if there's an issue. One of the mods already wrote to you advising that your replies can be overly dismissive and pedantic at times. I believe there was a second exchange of pm's after a mod gave you a previous yellow.

A C-Mod pm'd you inviting you to a private forum that cafe mods and some regulars have used before to try and resolve issues. Unfortunately that invitation was refused, which of course is your right, but is a pity, because I don't think this issue would have come up if that forum had been availed of.

So in summary, the post was carded because it is uncivil, which it is, but also because it basically totally ignored any point made by the previous poster. The post was overly dismissive, something a mod previously pm'd you about. The mod team have spent a fair bit of time communicating with you trying to give you advice and help you out. All alternative avenues have been exhausted at this stage, and unless you try and meet the mods halfway, I'm afraid more cards and maybe possible bans are likely.

That would be a terrible shame. The cafe mods put a lot of time, care and attention into not giving out cards and bans, and really don't want to see good posters who can add to the forum picking up needless cards and bans. Volunteer mods can give only so much time, attention and patience to posters if they refuse to take any of the advice given to them.

I've received no advice to "help me out" save one message from a moderator that I should compromise my views. If somebody believes that you can't be - for example - Irish because of race or ethnicity, that's wrong. There is no "half way" about it. Others described flippant remarks in the "light hearted" forum as 'borderline trolling', yet for some time the comment "rape apologist" was fired at a number of posters without sanction.

The card was given 4 years ago in regards to the statement that SF was in some way like the Nazi party, which I dismissed, in a serious forum, as utter nonsense unworthy of consideration. You essentially agreed. If that thesis and statement is nonsense, how much more is
"Of course, that’s not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons."
and how rather ridiculous that stating the obvious - that it is a bigoted statement (regardless of its context or lack of context) - is cardable. Personally I don't see how the passage of time erodes the logic in the cards withdrawal.

To create a situation where every proposal is entertained as valid and must be addressed in depth essentially means that every time a racist, xenophobic or religiously bigoted and inaccurate statement is made, an argument must be made from first principles all the way through again and again. We are no longer expected to publically argue that gay people are not child molesters again and again, and the same would normally apply to holocaust denial and other such obvious facts. Why then should something that states 1.6 billion people have a blood lust that needs sating require in depth refutation?

However it's clear that this is now a closed case, as it would seem that there is a consensus among moderators and category moderators that this is what should be, for whatever reason I can't imagine. As a result my future posting will result in an inevitable ban, as I've no intention of treating any racism, religious bigotry and anti-semitism - all fairly freely allowed in the thread in question despite reporting of posts - with anything other than the contempt it deserves.

I also am sorry to say that what I thought was a fair and thorough system that I defended a number of times over the years allows such bile to be posted, while punishing its criticism. And again, it was criticism of the content, not the poster. Because of this - a disappointment alluded to earlier - I now close my account and move on, as I've no intention of being associated with a site that allows that kind of view without proper and free right of reply, be it brief or at length. Doubtless this will be viewed a "victory" by a small coterie, but the facts as ever say otherwise.

K-9

Just to be clear, this thread is about the yellow card and whether it was given out correctly, that is not to say concerns you have raised are not valid or mods aren't aware of them. Those are matters outside the remit of this procedure.

You have the right to appeal my decision to uphold the card to an admin if you so wish.

Zaph

As the OP has closed their account I'm closing this one.