BeaconHill
Lost Among Carbon Fields
I am an advocate, filing an appeal on the behalf of @Jackie.
On Thursday, April 21st, 2016, the moderator Orm Embar assigned Jackie 25 infraction points over a discussion of eating with one's hands in the thread The Invention of Edible Cutlery.
The first post in the discussion reads as follows:
While I will not cite the whole discussion here, this post in the middle was explicitly flagged with a moderation banner reading "Violation of Rule 2":
The infracting moderator, Orm Embar, also made an additional post explaining the infraction further; it reads as follows:
The rule at issue is Rule 2, which reads as follows:
Introduction
In a discussion about eating utensils, a brief side conversation started on when one should and should not eat food with your hands. Jackie called eating wet food with one's hands "savage." The conversation was then broken up by a moderator, with Jackie receiving twenty-five points for hatefulness. I cannot interpret this action as anything but bizarre. Jackie simply didn't say anything at all even resembles a Rule 2 violation; indeed, everything she said on the topic was exceedingly mild, and when other posters started to go off the rails, Jackie helped to keep them in line.
What Jackie Said Is Incredibly Mild
I'd like to point out, at the beginning, that what Jackie said is a mainstay of moms everywhere. If "eat with your knife and fork like a civilized person" is hate speech, my mother would not be the only one to be goose-stepping.
Her position is very simple: eating wet food with your hands is kind of gross and kind of uncivilized. She chose to use the word "savage" to express that. This is not, as far as I'm aware, a particularly fringe opinion, and neither is the wording she used especially hateful.
Nothing Jackie Said Fits The Standard For Hatefulness
What does Rule 2 prohibit? The text of the rules is vague, but thankfully the Directors have provided us with a clear list of examples to guide interpretation:
In the directors' well-chosen list of examples, they have decided to emphasize harm and violence. "Serious violence," "any kind of harassment or violence, " "rape, torture, maiming, or other extreme punishments" all come up in the examples. Indeed, the only exception is the third example, discussing slurs. The words "savage" and "civilized" are clearly not slurs; accordingly, an infraction under Rule 2 can only rest on Jackie advocating violence. There's one problem with this, however: when on earth did Jackie wish harm on anyone?
After some searching, I managed to find it:
This quote is, so far as I can determine, the only time Jackie ever discusses harm to any person. She's suggesting that people who eat with their hands might get the runs.
This is clearly not equivalent to "serious violence" or "rape, torture, maiming, or other extreme punishments." Accordingly, I can find no basis for anything at all Jackie said to be infractable under Rule 2.
Jackie Focuses On Eating Behavior, Showing No Animus Toward Any Particular Group
Another aspect of many of the Rule 2 examples is the idea of maligning a particular group. While other people in the conversation do seem to be making comments about specific groups and their eating habits, Jackie doesn't. If you eat wet food with your hands, Jackie thinks it's savage; she applies this to food of all cultures, including fried rice, wet sandwiches, and American barbecue.
Jackie also tried to calm this behavior down when other people tried it. For example, when Cloak&Dagger posted about who we can call savages, Jackie responded like this:
Conclusion
Jackie received a 25-point infraction for hate speech because she repeated a familiar refrain of moms everywhere: don't eat with your hands like a savage. Rule 2 is meant to cover advocacy of "serious violence," "slurs," "rape, torture, or maiming" – but, instead, Jackie suggested that people who eat with their hands might get the runs. That's as bad as it gets. And, when other posters tried to take the discussion in strange directions, Jackie was the one to set them straight.
There is no basis under the Community Compact for Jackie's infractions, and they should be overturned.
On Thursday, April 21st, 2016, the moderator Orm Embar assigned Jackie 25 infraction points over a discussion of eating with one's hands in the thread The Invention of Edible Cutlery.
The first post in the discussion reads as follows:
While I will not cite the whole discussion here, this post in the middle was explicitly flagged with a moderation banner reading "Violation of Rule 2":
The infracting moderator, Orm Embar, also made an additional post explaining the infraction further; it reads as follows:
The rule at issue is Rule 2, which reads as follows:
Rule 2 said:
Introduction
In a discussion about eating utensils, a brief side conversation started on when one should and should not eat food with your hands. Jackie called eating wet food with one's hands "savage." The conversation was then broken up by a moderator, with Jackie receiving twenty-five points for hatefulness. I cannot interpret this action as anything but bizarre. Jackie simply didn't say anything at all even resembles a Rule 2 violation; indeed, everything she said on the topic was exceedingly mild, and when other posters started to go off the rails, Jackie helped to keep them in line.
What Jackie Said Is Incredibly Mild
I'd like to point out, at the beginning, that what Jackie said is a mainstay of moms everywhere. If "eat with your knife and fork like a civilized person" is hate speech, my mother would not be the only one to be goose-stepping.
Her position is very simple: eating wet food with your hands is kind of gross and kind of uncivilized. She chose to use the word "savage" to express that. This is not, as far as I'm aware, a particularly fringe opinion, and neither is the wording she used especially hateful.
Nothing Jackie Said Fits The Standard For Hatefulness
What does Rule 2 prohibit? The text of the rules is vague, but thankfully the Directors have provided us with a clear list of examples to guide interpretation:
- Advocate any serious violence against any group of people;
- Advocate any kind of harassment or violence against any specific person;
- Use racial, ethnic, gender-based, or any other kind of slurs;
- Talk about how great it would be if someone was subject to rape, torture, maiming, or other extreme punishments.
In the directors' well-chosen list of examples, they have decided to emphasize harm and violence. "Serious violence," "any kind of harassment or violence, " "rape, torture, maiming, or other extreme punishments" all come up in the examples. Indeed, the only exception is the third example, discussing slurs. The words "savage" and "civilized" are clearly not slurs; accordingly, an infraction under Rule 2 can only rest on Jackie advocating violence. There's one problem with this, however: when on earth did Jackie wish harm on anyone?
After some searching, I managed to find it:
This quote is, so far as I can determine, the only time Jackie ever discusses harm to any person. She's suggesting that people who eat with their hands might get the runs.
This is clearly not equivalent to "serious violence" or "rape, torture, maiming, or other extreme punishments." Accordingly, I can find no basis for anything at all Jackie said to be infractable under Rule 2.
Jackie Focuses On Eating Behavior, Showing No Animus Toward Any Particular Group
Another aspect of many of the Rule 2 examples is the idea of maligning a particular group. While other people in the conversation do seem to be making comments about specific groups and their eating habits, Jackie doesn't. If you eat wet food with your hands, Jackie thinks it's savage; she applies this to food of all cultures, including fried rice, wet sandwiches, and American barbecue.
Jackie also tried to calm this behavior down when other people tried it. For example, when Cloak&Dagger posted about who we can call savages, Jackie responded like this:
Conclusion
Jackie received a 25-point infraction for hate speech because she repeated a familiar refrain of moms everywhere: don't eat with your hands like a savage. Rule 2 is meant to cover advocacy of "serious violence," "slurs," "rape, torture, or maiming" – but, instead, Jackie suggested that people who eat with their hands might get the runs. That's as bad as it gets. And, when other posters tried to take the discussion in strange directions, Jackie was the one to set them straight.
There is no basis under the Community Compact for Jackie's infractions, and they should be overturned.
