Administrative Tribunal Commentary Thread

[Ford Prefect]

In the grand tradition of the fourth estate ...

This thread will serve as the place for users to comment on Tribunal hearings. In line with the reformed process, when a new matter comes before the Council for review, this thread will be open and the opening argument of each party will be presented.

At the conclusion of a Tribunal, the hearing will be archived in a publicly viewable place. This thread will remain open for a week from that point, allowing users to discuss the Tribunal and its results among themselves and with members of the Staff and Council.

All discussion must be in accordance with the Community Compact, along with the posting guidelines I will provided in the post below. A failure to adhere to them will, at minimum, result in your removal from this thread.

Now, with all that out of the way, let's all enjoy something that only SV offers: genuine internet courtroom antics!

 

[Ford Prefect]

As with all threads on SV, the Administrative Tribunal Commentary Thread is subject to the Community Compact and all other active policies. In addition to the Compact, it has its own guidelines.

What not to do

Do not make personal attacks

We're not here to discuss the individual personalities involved. Leave your insults at the door. This applies particularly to Councilors, appellants and advocates, but also applies to staff and other users.

Do not be combative

This is not a debate thread. There is absolutely nothing to be won, and long arguments will not serve the purpose of the thread. That is not to say that you can't dispute something that another user has said, or that you have no right of reply when someone disputes what you have said. Just don't go ten rounds with each other.

Do not restart old arguments

It will be normal to refer to previous events and decisions in order to discuss current matters. However, this is not an excuse to have an argument about old matters. Confine yourselves to the ongoing matter.

What to do

Be constructive

This is a good opportunity to be heard on SV's little criminal justice system, but if you're going to be involved in the discussion you should have something to actually contribute.

Chill out

Seriously.


If necessary, you will be ejected from the thread for three days. If you consistently fail to live up to these guidelines then you may be removed from the thread for longer periods as deemed appropriate.

 

[Ford Prefect]

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.'

Click to shrink...

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?'

Click to shrink...

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.'

Click to shrink...

Subsequently, he also states:

'If I hear a noise out of this thread I will come down on it and everyone making trouble.'

Click to shrink...

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.

 

[Ford Prefect]

Before we begin, a small announcement. Barack Hussein Obama, the President of the United States, has retired from the Council due to personal reasons. Following the conclusion of this and any other Tribunal matters, we will be running a special election to fill the vacancy. We wish him well as he returns to the less stressful job of running the world's most powerful country.

In any case, a new Tribunal is picking up some momentum, so it's that time again.

2015-REV-06 Staff and magic9mushroom

This is an appeal against a specific part of Pale Wolf's decision. It turns on the application of III 15(4) that reads:

Posting anything in a thread in which it does not properly belong that might cause a disruption of that thread.

Click to shrink...

In the course of his duties as a moderator, Nuts! entered this thread and barred discussion that was in support of infanticide. For the sake of convenience, I refer to this as 'the alternative discussion topic.' Nuts! appears to do so on a legal basis, which would normally not be subject to appeal - however, Nuts! is not a Director, and so cannot properly exercise rule 1. Pale Wolf instead considered the barring of the alternative discussion topic and upheld it on other grounds, in this case III 15(4).

The ultimate question the Council must answer is whether Pale Wolf's decision to uphold the barring of the alternative discussion topic can be supported by an ordinary, diligent reading of III 15(4).

magic9mushroom provided the following statement:

Honored Councillors,

I hereby appeal the judgement of moderator Nuts! in the thread "Father killed five-week-old son because he felt Fatherhood meant 'his life was over'", as partially upheld by magistrate Pale Wolf.

Summary of events so far
- Shenron made the thread's opening post, posting a news article about a man attacking and accidentally killing his unwanted five-week-old baby, and commenting "Sick Bastard"
- I posted in the thread, expressing my guarded support for the idea of infanticide, but condemning the man on other grounds
- Nuts! made a moderator post forbidding posters from expressing support for infanticide
- I made a post seconds after said moderator post (without having seen it)
- Nuts! deleted that post with the summary "No." and no associated infraction
- I lodged this appeal against Nuts!'s deletion of my post and injunction against expression of my views
- notanautomaton made a post similar to mine
- Nuts! made a second moderator post reaffirming his earlier injunction
- Geomax made a post along the same lines as mine and notanautomaton's
- Admiral Skippy made yet another moderator post, infracting Geomax for ignoring Nuts!'s injunction
- Pale Wolf responded to my appeal, restoring my deleted post but upholding Nuts!'s injunction

Specifics of appeal
- I am appealing Pale Wolf's decision upholding Nuts!'s injunction against posts supporting infanticide
- I am (obviously) not appealing Pale Wolf's restoration of my deleted post
- I am not appealing the infraction given to Geomax

Reasons for appeal
Nuts!'s original injunction does not cite any specific rule as justification, which is itself problematic. He does offer this vague sentence:

I don't care how anyone thought that infanticide is a rational response to fathering a child, and I don't care to risk violating national laws to find out.

Click to shrink...

I can understand his incredulity regarding my position, but this is not a justification for suppressing it. His allusion to "violating national laws" appears to invoke ComCom III.1, but is not reasonable; the discussion of real and hypothetical crime (or, indeed, a proposal to decriminalise infanticide) is not in fact illegal.

Pale Wolf also does not cite any rule in upholding Nuts!'s injunction, but offers the justification that the topic of the morality of infanticide "is a highly inflammatory derail of the topic". This appears to invoke ComCom III.15.4, which Admiral Skippy also explicitly invoked when infracting Geomax:

You agree that you will not do anything considered trolling or harassment, including, but not limited to: Posting anything in a thread in which it does not properly belong that might cause a disruption of that thread

Click to shrink...

This is also unreasonable, because the topic of the thread is a report of a man killing his baby and the opening post makes a moral judgement on his behaviour. Discussion of the morality of killing babies directly addresses the topic; therefore, it "properly belongs" in the thread and does not constitute derailment. Pale Wolf's decision "was incorrect".

Pale Wolf also notes in his post (though outside the Verdict box) that the matter is controversial. While this is true, it is also true of a large proportion of threads in the Current Affairs forum; those threads are not immediately closed. Pale Wolf's invocation of GamerGate as precedent is flawed; GamerGate was discussed for over 90 pages before the topic was barred. Pale Wolf's ruling, if upheld, would in fact create the much more undesirable precedent that potentially-controversial but otherwise valid topics may not only be barred from discussion before posters' viewpoints are even expressed, but have victory for one side enforced by the moderators (as the moderators barred the Singer utilitarians like myself from expounding our views, but specifically refused to bar others from arguing against our muted voices).

So, is there any rule in the Community Compact that is violated by our arguments and justifies this injunction? Our position (which is shared by genuine and respected philosophers) is not illegal or hate speech (as noted by LordSquishy here), it doesn't appeal to the prurient interest, it is not spamming, it does not contain spoilers, it is not derailment (as I noted above, it directly addresses the topic of the opening post), it is not bad-faith debating (as Pale Wolf has admitted), it is not trolling or harassment, it does not taunt or challenge the moderators, and it is not related to the ignore or report functions. There is no "ordinary, diligent reading" of any rule which would support the actions taken by the staff regarding this thread.

But in fact, this injunction is not merely unjustified by the rules. It is specifically forbidden by ComCom IV.5.2:

We will not: Attempt to influence the course of a dispute or suppress a particular point of view which is not against the rules.

Click to shrink...

In summary, Nuts!'s actions as upheld by Pale Wolf not only "could not be supported by an ordinary, diligent reading of the rules"; they are in direct defiance of those rules, and should be overturned.

Pale Wolf provided the following statement in response:

I will elaborate on my reasoning for my decision.

This is essentially three potential issues packaged together.

#1, a derail of the topic.

#2, potential legal threat, as cited by Nuts!

And #3, the reasonable expectation that such a discussion will turn into a gigantic mess of rageposting and infractions by the dozen.

Any one of these, if correct, justify the injunction against continuation of the topic - whether or not Nuts!'s stated reasoning is correct, the topic still cannot be allowed in the thread unless all three are overturned.

#1 is arguable. A thread about the murder of a child is perhaps a viable place to discuss the ethics of infanticide. In general I would consider it best to take this matter to a thread of its own - the topic is certainly related, but it's not the same topic, and the existing thread may favour focusing on the specific incident rather than the ethics of infanticide itself. Frankly I don't think Magic9Mushroom's desired discussion would be especially productive in that thread - it opened up with a rather visceral account of a child's murder, which sets a less than philosophical tone for the ensuing discussion. Even taking as given that the topic is allowed on the board, I believe the topic is still better-served in its own thread.

#2 and #3 are, quite simply, outside of my authority, and in #2's case outside of my qualifications as well.

#2, the presence or absence of legal issues, is flat-out the decision of the Directors. They're the ones qualified to evaluate such, and they're also the ones who are vulnerable in the event of any legal issues. A potential legal issue can only be evaluated and overturned by Director agreement.

And #3 is a question of board policy, which is not within my authority to determine.

Simply put, I do not believe it is within my authority to permit the topic on the board. Therefore, my chosen response was to direct magic9mushroom to our Questions and Review forum, where he would be able to obtain a ruling from the staff as a whole regarding his desired discussion.

---

As always, this matter will be open for discussion during deliberations and for one week following the final decision of the Council. Please be aware of the thread guidelines when deciding to post in this thread.

 

[Squishy]

So we have Staff v. Seadart II now; this thread will remain open for a further week following that.

 

[RadiantPhoenix]

They have one now:

[alert=Thread Policy]This is a new policy for this thread. Follow it.[/alert]

The boxes have been reworked slightly as follows:

[stop=Stop]Infraction/Locked[/stop]
[warning=Warning]This is a user warning.[/warning]
[alert=Thread Policy]This is a new policy for this thread. Follow it.[/alert]
[information=Official Staff Communication]Official Staff Communication Goes Here.[/information]

Click to shrink...

Proposed alternate icon for Thread Policy announcements:

 

[Ford Prefect]

A new Tribunal is currently underway. This will be the last Tribunal heard by the current Council before the upcoming election, and will take them to the end of the term.

Additionally, I hope to get back into the habit of posting these blurbs indicating when a Tribunal is underway, so ti can be discussed in parallel. As this is the first time I've done this since we started the altered system, please make an allowance as I experiment with how best to do it.

2015-REV-15 - Staff and Cloak&Dagger

This is an appeal by Cloak&Dagger with BeaconHill speaking on his behalf. Cloak&Dagger an received an infraction for the following post:

Then you aren't in your right state of mind and need medical assistance.

Click to shrink...

Then your opinion is extremely odd, and irrelevant to the wider debate, and should you ever try to move on it I hope laws are in place to make it difficult, and that if those fail that people are around to prevent it, and that if that does not happen, prompt medical treatment saves your life and you are placed on suicide watch, forcibly confined if necessary, and given mental health assistance.

Click to shrink...

Well I think you're crazy too, and dismiss your political opinions on that basis.

Click to shrink...

He was infracted by Strypgia under III 15(6) of the Community Compact, which reads:

You agree that you will not do anything considered trolling or harassment, including, but not limited to [...] Debating in bad faith, i.e., intentionally mischaracterizing opposing positions, intentionally ignoring evidence that contradicts one's position, etc.

Click to shrink...

Usandru upheld Strypgia's action as being a reasonable one under a clear, diligent reading of the rule. The question before the Tribunal is:

1. Does Cloak&Dagger's conduct in the post in question fall within an ordinary, diligent reading of III 15(6), as Usandru decided? If not, the infraction must be overturned.


As always, please discuss while being aware of the thread policy.

 

[Squishy]

2015-AT-16: Staff and King Arthas.

I will note that as a result of this Tribunal, all other pending appeals by King Arthas were terminated as moot.

 

[Squishy]

Staff and Bacle.

 

[Squishy]

New Tribunal has been brought live:

2015-AT-19, Staff and TehChron