2016-AT-09: Staff and Jackie III

Status
Not open for further replies.
SV ate the last one, apparently, so I have to post it again and shorter.

I've been undecided on this for a long damn time, but in the end it comes down to this: We've established multiple times that hateful and/or racist messages can be infracted in aggregate, not just if that one single post happens to be incredibly mild language (And I agree, that one single post *is* incredibly mild language. Savage in relation to table manners is not something I personally take umbrage with.) Unfortunately, Jackie dug her heels in when someone called her on it and that aggregate of posts is in violation of rule 2.

So, personal feelings of agreeing with Jackie about eating goopy food bare-handed being disgusting (in the cultural, not (just) hygienic sense) aside, yes, it violates rule 2, yes, the moderator action taken at the time was the correct one and yes, the magistrate decision to uphold also was the correct one.

Therefore,

[x] Uphold
 
I don't like labelling stupidity as hate (and what Jackie defended was that). And I get Ralson's arguments better than MJ12's. If it had been anything other than rule 2...

[X] Overturn
 
Last edited:
foamy said:
I believe that makes @Vorpal the only one who hasn't commented, correct?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I don't think there's going to be an actual majority in any situation here though. It's 5-2-4 uphold/overturn under equitable grounds/overturn for some other reason, and the 2 "expire the infraction because of the delay in processing" are votes which are meaningfully different from deciding that the infraction was wrongly applied in the first place. After all, there's a difference between "the infraction is valid but the procedural irregularities overshadow this" and "the infraction wasn't valid at all."

That said, I will just note that although I voted to uphold the infraction on substantive grounds I am (and have been explicitly) willing to endorse an overturning of the infraction under the narrow equitable grounds of "the staff should have found another magistrate to take over rather than subject @Jackie to a 2 month delay."
 
Last edited:
Information: Therefore
  • Staff Post
    • As always, the staff would like to thank you all for your consideration.

    Clearly this issue has been divisive for the Council. Five councilors voted in favor of a clear violation of Rule 2. Two councilors were primarily concerned with the procedural delay, and four councilors believed both that there was no Rule 2 issue and a procedural issue.

    The position of the staff is perhaps obvious, given that this infraction made its way all the way to the tribunal, but I will elaborate regardless.

    The word "savage" has a long history of being used to degrade others. That is near to its only use when used to describe other people - it compares them to animals. It carries the connotation that they are less than the speaker, that their customs are without value, and that they themselves do not deserve to be treated with the respect due "proper" people. Denying that a civilization is one serves a similar end; such language degrades those it is targeted at, denying them the same essential respect and legitimacy we expect to be treated with.

    Many of you have encountered this quote before - it was part of an announcement made some time ago - but I think it bears repeating:
    LordSquishy said:
    To deny others respect, or dignity, is to crumble away their agency and the legitimacy of their views and to destroy what is a necessary part of their participation in our pluralism.

    …

    Rule Two represents a refusal to turn our backs. It is an attempt- the kind of attempt that I think everyone who believes in the values of free expression public participation must make- to protect, to encourage, and to strengthen a diversity of viewpoints and of opinions.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    This kind of rhetoric violates the most basic principles underpinning Rule 2. It has no purpose but to undermine the dignity of those it is aimed towards, to communicate that they are not worthy of respect.

    The position of the staff, then, is that Rule 2 was indeed the appropriate rule to use for this infraction, and that the infraction remains appropriate.

    Given the staff's position above, the procedural problems surrounding the time taken to reach this point, and the divided vote of the Council, I have decided as follows:
    therefore To accommodate all of these factors as well as can reasonably be done, I will be retaining the infraction, but reducing its severity to zero points on the basis of time elapsed.

    Thank you all for your time.
     
  • Staff Post
    • Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Back
    Top