Disputing a yellow card

Sir Oxman

Hi,
I've waited the requisite time as in I appreciate no-one can be expected to be on this forum 24/7 especially those tasked with voluntary moderating.
Hope I'm doing this correctly.
Following post was marked as 'attacking a poster' by Ten of Swords and given a yellow card.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116479916&postcount=4521

I PM'd but they insisted it was definitely attacking a poster.
I again PM'ed seeking clarity but they haven't been back online for almost two days.


I have the PM's but will wait to get permission to post if they are needed.
Obviously, I disagree with the line taken, hence this request for another pair of eyes to help me ensure I'm (hopefully) not going doolally.


Thanks.

Tokyo

I'll drop a note to the CMods to take a look.

Pawwed Rig

Hi


I can look at this for you. Please provide the pm exchange you had with the mod on the matter.

Sir Oxman

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Hi


I can look at this for you. Please provide the pm exchange you had with the mod on the matter.

Note: the top reply by Ten of Swords quoted below came after my opening of this thread.
I didn't reply to ToS's justification on PM.
Firstly, I didn't see that the op I replied to was 'actioned' as 'abusive' and 'personal' - ToS then says that 'read to them' like I was enabling a 'pile on' or facilitating the starting of a 'pile on'
That is untrue.
"Your post was not a stand alone item as it quoted another abusive post and it was aimed specifically at the other poster with the intention of reducing the value of their argument/point of view."
I mean, this is a very large, elasticy stretch - is it now the case that posters method of argument (as evidenced thoroughly throughout the thread) cannot be mentioned?
Will this apply to every single thread on CA when it is central to what is being discussed?

The reduction of opposite pov's to that poster's own, for example, is frequently diminished by absolute pile-on territory with unverifiable accusations of bigotry and every phobia under the sun which are actually personal attacks, yet almost every accusation of that kind levelled remains - my comment was aimed at the method of a theory which is central to where we find ourselves now - I offer zero comment on that poster personally and most definitely do not encourage 'pile-ons' even if someone elses imagination believes so.



==


Hi Sir Oxman,


Please excuse the delayed reply, I have not been online much today.



Re the card, I am looking at the overall context of the post. You quoted a post that was uncivil and needlessly personal towards another poster (and was actioned accordingly too) and your post read to me as agreeing with, and building on it. That's how a pile on can start, it's unfair for multiple users to start on one they disagree with (not to mention against the forum charter).


Your post was not a stand alone item as it quoted another abusive post and it was aimed specifically at the other poster with the intention of reducing the value of their argument/point of view.


Based on the above I do not see a reason to overturn the yellow card. I see you have already opened a DRP thread about this.



Kind regards





Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Oxman
I know people are not on this place 24/7 but can you maybe give me an answer to my question below as soon as is possible?
If not, can you tell me what is the next step for me to do to rectify this please.


PS link dumps are still occurring on thread that do not have any relevance to the topic nor are they accompanied by much comment for discussion. I'm even attempting to generate some tenuous discussion around them but nada so far.

Could you or somebody else have a look at that maybe?



rgds



Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Oxman
"It's virtually impossible to have a conversation with a critical queer theorist. Believe me.
The whole murky hypothesis is an assault on intelligence."


Where is the attack personally on that poster please?


First sentence is my opinion on conversing with people who espouse cqt - it's a purist, illogical circular method of thinking which by the way, frequently involves direct personal attacks on people trying to converse (as witnessed by many on this threda and never once were the instigators of those personal attacks 'carded'

This is through experience ('believe me') and very well supported by many, many posts on the thread.


I may be completely incorrect in surmising that poster adheres to cqt, but that does not equate to a personal attack in any sense.



Second sentence is attacking the hypothesis that is cqt.


Now could you please point out the personal attack on that poster.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Ten of Swords
Hi Sir Oxman,


There is no way that post can be interpreted as anything other than a personalised remark aimed specifically at the other poster, I see no reason to overturn the card.


As for the other item you mentioned, most likely it was another moderator as I have been online infrequently over the last number of days however you have not given me any specifics so I have no idea what post you are referring to I'm afraid.



Kind regards




Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Oxman
Hi
I object to this.
How is that attacking a personal attack - it's attacking his theory, his beliefs, his way of conversing on the board following an uncomprehensible series of links and posts.


I've already had a *sneaky deletion of a post (was that you as well?) which was making light of that posters deflecting,completely offtopic link dumping which curioulsy enough is still on the thread.


I would like you to withdraw/reverse this please.
I let one egregious silly decision go the other day, not this one.



*sneaky as in no rhyme, reason or note left.


rgds





Quote:
Originally Posted by Ten of Swords
Dear Sir Oxman,

You have been warned for being uncivil.

Typically, this means that you are posting in a needlessly aggressive or confrontational manner being disruptive on the forum or causing stress for the other members. We don't want that here.

For more information please refer to the Boards.ie FAQ.



Ten of Swords

Moderator Note

Attack the post not the poster

Your post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Oxman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gruffalux View Post
I am just going to quote this because it is indecipherable demoralising gobbledegook, and then put you back on ignore. It is too frustrating to attempt any debate with you, not least because of your infinite contempt for the wrong kind of women.
It's virtually impossible to have a conversation with a critical queer theorist. Believe me.

The whole murky hypothesis is an assault on intelligence.

Sir Oxman

Hi
Any update?

Pawwed Rig

It'll be the weekend before I get to it. I've been too busy this week

Pawwed Rig

Hi


Thanks for your patience


I think the mod hit the nail on the head with this comment


'Your post was not a stand alone item as it quoted another abusive post and it was aimed specifically at the other poster with the intention of reducing the value of their argument/point of view.'


Debate is fine on any thread but your comment did not add to the debate in anyway. On that basis I am upholding the yellow card (which is the minimum sanction available). If you cannot engage with a poster in a civil manner then use the ignore function.


An admin review is open to you should you wish to pursue it.

Sir Oxman

Hi

Admin review please.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Hi


Thanks for your patience


I think the mod hit the nail on the head with this comment


'Your post was not a stand alone item as it quoted another abusive post and it was aimed specifically at the other poster with the intention of reducing the value of their argument/point of view.'


Debate is fine on any thread but your comment did not add to the debate in anyway. On that basis I am upholding the yellow card (which is the minimum sanction available). If you cannot engage with a poster in a civil manner then use the ignore function.


An admin review is open to you should you wish to pursue it.

Sir Oxman

For the admin:
My reply about the ordinary mod's late response does not appear to have been taken into account by the category mod who says:
"I think the mod hit the nail on the head with this comment
'Your post was not a stand alone item as it quoted another abusive post and it was aimed specifically at the other poster with the intention of reducing the value of their argument/point of view.'
Debate is fine on any thread but your comment did not add to the debate in anyway. On that basis I am upholding the yellow card (which is the minimum sanction available). If you cannot engage with a poster in a civil manner then use the ignore function.
"

I addressed the points in the bolded part previously, summarised thus:
1. I did not see that the post I replied to was deemed 'abusive' by the mod when I posted.
2. I addressed the method of argument applied, NOT the poster.
3. This device is used on virtually every single debate thread on this site and has been since I have been a member - unless suddenly that's now banned.
Whereas my comment was not related in any way to personally attacking a poster but attacking the method of argument the theory(ies) demand their defenders use while in this type of debate.
My comment is a comment on the method of argument of one of the two intertwined critical theories.
4. I don't care what colour the card is, if it's wrongly applied it's wrongly applied and that should not really come into it.

thks.

Tokyo

Admin here.

I can see no fault with the arguments put froward but eh mod and CMod here with respect to your yellow card. The post has nothing of substance other than to add to another poster's issues with a third party. Nor do I feel you were addressing the method of argument either.

Card upheld.