As a Tribunal is currently in full swing, in line with the policy that I outlined I will present the opening arguments of both parties for discussion.
2015-REV-03 Staff and Poaw
Poaw provided the following statement:
Tribunal Appeal Form
On [25 March], [50 point infraction] was [UPHELD] by Supervisor Moderator
Pale Wolf.
I am appealing because I believe that the Supervisor Moderator's decision was unreasonable because:
[X] The Supervisor Moderator failed to take into account the
fact that:
my posting was not a strawman insofar as it was a real position directly espoused by Selwyn and supported by Flectran, The Curious Fan, firefossil, Reveen, Arch-Vile, Jace911, 1986ctcel, asdx, helnae, 00mega, Redium, TheBleachDoctor, MJ12 Commando, spacemonkey37, Fission Battery, Pale Wolf, Euryale, Enohthree, notthepenguins, samdamandias, Dangerman, Peanut Butter, *, Ottriman, E73S, trob030490, anisarian, Roadie, Bran the Blessed, Rook, Ser_Serendipity, ebolasos, GnosisEater, and therefore the Staff Member's
interpretation of the post [WAS NOT] one that a reasonable person could have come to, because:
my position was based on a verbatim reading of both Selwyn's post and the subsequently high degree of support she enjoyed for that position. People actual believe this and said as much within the thread.
Additionally, it is very hard to believe that Pale Wolf handled my appeal in good faith, given that he was among those who supported Selwyn's position. To have him turn around and dismiss my position as a strawman was both wrong (as indicated above) and improper given the conflict of interest involved. I assume no malfeasance of the part of the directorship on this specific issue, but I am disappointed that this appeal process was drawn out five weeks before foamy's promotion and thereby allowed a bad faith actor to insert himself into the process.
[ ] The Supervisor Moderator failed to take into account __________, and therefore the Staff Member's interpretation of
the Rules [WAS / WAS NOT] one that a reasonable person could have come to, because: __________________.
Swordomatic then provided a statement on behalf of the Moderation section:
The Infracted, poaw, states that his
post was not a strawman, and was, as stated in the quote:
'instead based on a verbatim reading of both Selwyn's post and the subsequently high degree of support she enjoyed for that position. People actual believe this and said as much within the thread.'
Thus, his infraction should not be reversed.
After reading through the entire thread and getting a gist for the arguments therein, I must state that whether his post was a strawman or not is ultimately irrelevant to the infraction at hand.
poaw was ultimately infracted for violating a rule: CC. III. 15. 5.: 'Posting personal attacks or
ad hominem arguments which go beyond the level of what might reasonably be expressed in frustration in the course of a debate'. In his post, he states (and I quote) that
'Yes, if your reaction to people asking you for sex is to think about murdering them, then you need to be tied down to a table and fed Jell-o for the rest of your life. Because if something that minor triggers fantasizing then how low is the threshold for actually doing some heinous shit? For the good of society if you know that Elliota Rodgers is walking around why wouldn't you be worried about exactly what normal day to day interaction sends her to Gunbroker.com to finally put her plan into action and get even with the world?'
Though he does not directly address Selwyn with the infracted post, it is clear that he is referring to her, as shown by the fact that the gist of his statement is identical to his arguments with Selwyn earlier in the thread. As such, he was infracted for making a personal attack, and it is clear that he has done so against Selwyn in a roundabout but still obvious fashion. Thus, the infraction is justified.
In addition, regardless of the validity of poaw's posting, the fact of the matter is that he violated Ford Perfect's earlier warning in the thread, as quoted:
'Find it in yourselves to not be screaming hotheads. If you've got a problem with what someone has said, you can make that clear. You don't even have to be particularly polite about it. But if you can't prevent yourself being needlessly aggressive, give yourself some space first.'
Subsequently, he also states:
'If I hear a noise out of this thread I will come down on it and everyone making trouble.'
In both statements, there is the clear implication that any further continuation of the argument with Selwyn will be found as a violation of CC. III. 15. 5. and thus met with harsher moderator action. As was presented above, it is clear that he continued the argument in a roundabout
yet clear fashion in an attempt to attack Selwyn's stance, in clear violation of the Community Compact and Ford Perfect's warning. Thus, as is standard procedure, he was infracted for double the points for willfully ignoring a staff warning to avoid such activity and carried on regardless.
Whether or not the post was dismissed by the Magistrate handling the appeal as a strawman argument or not is ultimately irrelevant to the infraction at hand, for poaw was not infracted on the basis of bad faith debating or poor posting behavior. poaw was infracted for violating CC. III. 15. 5. and his infraction magnified by his willful ignorance of a staff member's verbal warning within the thread, by posting after less than twenty four hours had passed and assuredly long after he had read the warning posted by Ford Perfect. In this, it is blatantly clear that, regardless of the personal opinions of the arguments within or their validity thereof, poaw's infraction was justified, and thus should not be overturned.
LordSquishy then laid out the question presented to the Tribunal:
For the Tribunal:
Question Presented:
1.
Was it reasonable for Ford Prefect to conclude that poaw violated his warning to "chill the fuck out" and "cool off with that shit" when he posted "Yes, if your reaction to people asking you for sex is to think about murdering them, then you need to be tied down to a table and fed Jell-o for the rest of your life."?
2.
Was it reasonable for Ford Prefect to conclude that, in the context of the thread, poaw's comment constituted a personal attack on Selwyn, and- considering your conclusion with respect to (1) as either a mitigating or aggravating factor- that it rose to the level of a violation of 15.5, a "personal attacks or
ad hominem arguments which go beyond the level of what might reasonably be expressed in frustration in the course of a debate"?
Please note that we are currently in a transition period as we implement the full range of new systems, so unfortunately this Tribunal was a little slow to implement and looks kind of messy. In future everything should be neater and more professional. As always, please abide by the guidelines laid out above.
