2024 at 02 staff and assaultraven

[Tithed_Verse]

2024-AT-02: Staff and AssaultRaven Increased

I was infracted 25 points for the following post, on being asked why I oppose college affirmative action. Text of the infraction: I respectfully appeal this infraction in its entirety, on the grounds that it incorrectly applies Rule 2. The infraction cites me for advocating for stricter...

forums.sufficientvelocity.com

All I really have to say in response to this is "It's a good idea to know how to quit when you're ahead."

 

[samdamandias]

Trying to get a zero-pointer overturned is certainly someone not lacking in effort.

But it's zero points, it's an official "And don't do it again." For probably 99% of the active posters, such a zero-point warning would be the only time they got dinged by the mods.

 

[AssaultRaven]

I appreciate the explanations of the Councilors' reasoning, which I feel may be more useful to me going forward than saving the 25 points would have been. It's one thing to take away "be more sensitive", but another to operationalize it. At least in that respect, I ended the appeal better off than I started.

Edit: To clarify, I had not considered this angle until well into the Tribunal; it was not my motive for appealing.

 

[Starfield]

So, the prevalent narrative about AA out there is false, and it has taken far too long for me to hear about how it really works. *headdesk*
I would like to thank @Academia Nut and @Pawn Lelouch for being the first ones in far too many years to bother to correct this public misconception.

Listen, a lie may be racist, but if you don't call out the lie too, you leave those that aren't interested in the subject enough to do their own research the wrong impression.

 

[Sotek]

I am glad council was mindful of the potential for a chilling effect, even if I do agree that the circumstance was pretty obscure and thus the effect is likely minimal.

Not much else to say here, council was generally thoughtful and made decent arguments, the outcome is good.

 

[Grek]

I really feel like the Council somewhat dropped the ball on this one by pushing for 25 points instead of Uphold. The original infraction reads:

When advocating for stricter standards for higher education a statement such as "It sucks if the only reason someone can't be an aerospace engineer is that they're severely mentally disabled from lead poisoning as a child in their racially red-lined neighborhood, but acknowledging that history won't make them better at calculus." is not what we would be consider being mindful of the subject matter at hand. Particularly in the context of the controversial removal of policy that is meant to give disadvantaged minorities a step up, the subtext reads as essentially pulling the ladder up while leaving these groups at the bottom.

Click to shrink...

Bold for emphasis mine.

Both the original infraction text and Academia Nut's defense of the original infraction essentially make the argument that because Affirmative Action is a good, anti-racist policy, any arguments made against Affirmative Action are themselves a violation of the Don't Be Hateful rule solely on the grounds that opposition to Affirmative Action action as a policy is an act of racism. You should be allowed to argue that policies which were intended to be anti-racist ended up being ineffective or counterproductive. You shouldn't be penalized (either directly or in terms of harsher punishments for tangential infractions) for making a good-faith argument in support of what turns out to have been the losing side of a debate. The question of who was right in the Affirmative Action debate should never have come into it in the first place - AssaultRaven should be allowed to present the argument against without penalty, so long as the argument is made in good faith.

That leaves the actually problematic part of the original post in the SCOTUS thread:

It sucks if the only reason someone can't be an aerospace engineer is that they're severely mentally disabled from lead poisoning as a child in their racially red-lined neighborhood, but acknowledging that history won't make them better at calculus.

Click to shrink...

This IMO fully merits a warning and/or 0 point infraction on 'be considerate' grounds. It wasn't considerate and AssaultRaven should think twice before phrasing their points like that. But Ralson makes a very good point here:

I don't feel that the statement in question reveals hate or prejudice against groups of people, and I don't think it's in the same ballpark of content as saying slurs or calling for genocide or torture or ideation of revenge fantasy, or things of that nature that make up the bulk of Rule 2's criteria. So the part of Rule 2 we're left with is that you have to be considerate of how other people might interpret your post. And, I guess I don't agree with the level of care that my fellow councilors are now considering as a minimum to participate.

Click to shrink...

The analogy made was insensitive, but Rule 2 isn't Don't Be Insensitive. It's Don't Be Hateful. What AssaultRaven said only rises to 'hateful' if you assume that all opposition to Affirmative Action is itself de facto racist. Without that assumption, it was just warning-tier inflammatory.

That said, I would also like to concur with Sotek above me regarding how good it was to see incoming Council continue to do a good job of contemplating and carefully handling possible issues with chilling effects from their rulings. Good job there.

 

[hghwolf]

I'm really in two minds about this one. On the one hand I absolutely agree that this is very much over the line and deserving of a point-bearing infraction, because the apellants statement really does, intentionally or not, hew very close to thing like The Bell Curve where a de facto racially negatively prejudiced policy or policy proposal is justified on the basis of (presented as) 'colour blind' concerns, realities and data. By all accounts the apellant is now cognizant of that issue, so the infraction seems to have been quite reasonable and useful even beyond the base function of making SV an accepting and welcoming enviroment. I don't know if the points were neccesary towards that end, mind you, but I can see the argument that not applying them would work to create a structure where a show of contrition, even a disingenuous one, forgives all sin and consequence.

I am... having a hard time feeling good about the re-application of points after the arbitrator reduced the infraction though. As I said, it appears to me to be the eminently correct and most productive outcome and corrects what I feel is a mistake by the arbitrator but I don't feel great about the council 're-instating' the original infraction from a perspective of forum policy. My feeling is that such outcomes will make apellants less willing to engage the tribunal process in general, and for user side, well, appeal process this is overall not worth applying a 'more correct' verdict in a low intensity case such as a first or second offense 25er.

I don't think there was a plainly good outcome here from the moment of the arbitrators decision and the council essentially had to pick between two bad options and I kinda wish they'd forced errored differently here.

 

[Nyvis]

I'm really in two minds about this one. On the one hand I absolutely agree that this is very much over the line and deserving of a point-bearing infraction, because the apellants statement really does, intentionally or not, hew very close to thing like The Bell Curve where a de facto racially negatively prejudiced policy or policy proposal is justified on the basis of (presented as) 'colour blind' concerns, realities and data. By all accounts the apellant is now cognizant of that issue, so the infraction seems to have been quite reasonable and useful even beyond the base function of making SV an accepting and welcoming enviroment. I don't know if the points were neccesary towards that end, mind you, but I can see the argument that not applying them would work to create a structure where a show of contrition, even a disingenuous one, forgives all sin and consequence.

I am... having a hard time feeling good about the re-application of points after the arbitrator reduced the infraction though. As I said, it appears to me to be the eminently correct and most productive outcome and corrects what I feel is a mistake by the arbitrator but I don't feel great about the council 're-instating' the original infraction from a perspective of forum policy. My feeling is that such outcomes will make apellants less willing to engage the tribunal process in general, and for user side, well, appeal process this is overall not worth applying a 'more correct' verdict in a low intensity case such as a first or second offense 25er.

I don't think there was a plainly good outcome here from the moment of the arbitrators decision and the council essentially had to pick between two bad options and I kinda wish they'd forced errored differently here.

Click to shrink...

We did consider the chilling effect and I originally didn't post to restore the points. But the others convinced me that the chilling effect on people appealing already reduced infractions isn't really a problem, and it's only really a worry if we go above the original infraction. If the next person who get reduced to 0pts decide to settle for that because of this, I won't be that mad about it, they were already doing well.

 

[Derpmind]

I do not understand how the following post, linked by @all fictions in the tribunal, did not get an infraction after being reported.

It's not. School shootings just aren't a big deal. For context, 76 children died in Texas alone last year from drowning, compared to 15 from school shootings in all of the US. Ideally both of those numbers would be zero, but for some reason we don't have wall-to-wall national press coverage about the issue of child drowning, and about how Something Needs To Be Done. This is a hype-driven issue.

(Drowning comes immediately to mind as a point of comparison to a highly publicized kind of violence because it is also true that if Al Qaeda had carried out a 9/11 scale attack every year, they'd have almost made themselves as dangerous to Americans [of any age] as drowning.)

Even supposing it were worth worrying about at all, I would also compare this to when people talk about "crime" more generally. Is crime a problem? Absolutely. Do I trust people who make fighting crime a pillar of their political platform to propose effective and proportionate solutions? Absolutely not.

Click to shrink...

I understand that since this is over a year old, it's long past the chance to see any further moderator action. But I don't understand how a moderator looked at this post and did not infract it for being massively insensitive and inflammatory.

 

[The Englanderish]

There's something to be said for learning to quit while you're ahead here.

Broadly I would say rule 4 probably fit better than 2 because the key aspect was notsomuch active hatefulness, and more disruptively using a form and style akin to throwing a molotov into the thread of a topic that warrants more care. But that's kind of a six of one, half a dozen of the other, and the result is the same, so... [shrugs].

 

[Ori]

I feel the need to offer some clarity in that this was a very difficult infraction to actually write in the first place. Not in the sense that I don't think it was justified but in the real sense of 'Trying to put a useful and accurate explanation on this' and I fully admit that while I don't think I fully dropped the ball it could've been much clearer and precise with what the issue was. I'm only human though 💀.

 

[Arthur Frayn]

There's something to be said for learning to quit while you're ahead here.

Broadly I would say rule 4 probably fit better than 2 because the key aspect was notsomuch active hatefulness, and more disruptively using a form and style akin to throwing a molotov into the thread of a topic that warrants more care. But that's kind of a six of one, half a dozen of the other, and the result is the same, so... [shrugs].

Click to shrink...

Yeah, if they'd just accepted the Arbitrator's reduction they'd have gotten away clean - deciding to double down with a self-admitted "but I'm right!" defense and trying to not just get the infraction erased but somehow prove their point in the court of public opinion was...not the brightest move.

 

[Akiri]

I am confused by one element of this Tribunal. It appears that AssaultRaven proceeded without an Advocate, and several Councilors criticized them for that. But in post #11, AssaultRaven says that they did request an Advocate, but "have yet to receive a response".

My understanding is that Advocates may choose not to assist, and that's none of my business if so. Certainly if I were an Advocate, I'd raise my eyebrow at the idea of further appealing a reduced infraction. So normally I wouldn't question it. But this apparent radio silence happened during the Council turnover stuff that delayed the entire thing, so I'm concerned that there may have been a process failure somewhere? If AssaultRaven's case fell through the cracks, that would be worrisome, and I don't know enough about how things work behind the scenes to be sure there's no connection.

 

[Potato Anarchy]

There is not really a specific process where Advocates are concerned, as the desire has generally been to avoid trying to systematize their work in a way that would reduce their independence from staff or make a volunteer position more onerous. If there is an Advocate available and willing to help, they can get tagged into things. That is not always the case. The user and advocate have to connect and then inform staff of what's up.

 

[AssaultRaven]

I am confused by one element of this Tribunal. It appears that AssaultRaven proceeded without an Advocate, and several Councilors criticized them for that. But in post #11, AssaultRaven says that they did request an Advocate, but "have yet to receive a response".

Click to shrink...

I posted a thread in the Request An Advocate forum and received no response. At this point I could have solicited individual Adovcates in PMs, but procrastinated on that until Council elections were over in a day, said "oh fuck", and rushed a response, figuring that a request for more time at this point would be poorly received. Yet in retrospect, I did not actually have a hard deadline yet and still could at least have PM'd a request for a quick second check.

 

[Nyvis]

I posted a thread in the Request An Advocate forum and received no response. At this point I could have solicited individual Adovcates in PMs, but procrastinated on that until Council elections were over in a day, said "oh fuck", and rushed a response, figuring that a request for more time at this point would be poorly received. Yet in retrospect, I did not actually have a hard deadline yet and still could at least have PM'd a request for a quick second check.

Click to shrink...

Unless staff tell you so, requests for time will not be received poorly, especially if your explanation is that you're looking for an advocate.

 

[Exponent]

Eh, I could've done with the 25 points being restored initially, but the U-turn did happen later.

Academia Nut's breakdown was also appreciated.

I am... having a hard time feeling good about the re-application of points after the arbitrator reduced the infraction though. As I said, it appears to me to be the eminently correct and most productive outcome and corrects what I feel is a mistake by the arbitrator but I don't feel great about the council 're-instating' the original infraction from a perspective of forum policy. My feeling is that such outcomes will make apellants less willing to engage the tribunal process in general, and for user side, well, appeal process this is overall not worth applying a 'more correct' verdict in a low intensity case such as a first or second offense 25er.

Click to shrink...

I'll be real, I'm fine with the outcome because the post was that problematic, to put it lightly, though I'm willing to separate the post from the poster here because I don't really know the appellant well. What he said was ignorant and that had consequences, though.

I say this as someone who is not a fan of every Councilor, but feels this was a satisfactory outcome, regardless of the chilling effect.

 

[Pidl]

I am... having a hard time feeling good about the re-application of points after the arbitrator reduced the infraction though. As I said, it appears to me to be the eminently correct and most productive outcome and corrects what I feel is a mistake by the arbitrator but I don't feel great about the council 're-instating' the original infraction from a perspective of forum policy. My feeling is that such outcomes will make apellants less willing to engage the tribunal process in general, and for user side, well, appeal process this is overall not worth applying a 'more correct' verdict in a low intensity case such as a first or second offense 25er.

Click to shrink...

I'm not really seeing the issue?
I mean, I don't get the whole appealing a 25-point infraction in the first place, especially when you don't have any other active infractions, because there isn't really a point to it.
But I don't think it's going to make appellants less willing to engage with the tribunal because the fact that you are appealing means you honestly believe you shouldn't have been infracted in the first place, so getting a 'harsher' sentence will enter their mind even less.

 

[poaw]

I'm not really seeing the issue?
I mean, I don't get the whole appealing a 25-point infraction in the first place, especially when you don't have any other active infractions, because there isn't really a point to it.
But I don't think it's going to make appellants less willing to engage with the tribunal because the fact that you are appealing means you honestly believe you shouldn't have been infracted in the first place, so getting a 'harsher' sentence will enter their mind even less.

Click to shrink...

• The principle.
• To increase the "cost" of an infraction to the staff.
• You feel a genuine error has been made.
• To give yourself a venue to talk about exactly what you were talking about outside of a context where it can be shut down by saying, "This isn't what the thread is about. Stay on topic."
• Because the first 2 appeals are free.

I do not understand how the following post, linked by @all fictions in the tribunal, did not get an infraction after being reported.

I understand that since this is over a year old, it's long past the chance to see any further moderator action. But I don't understand how a moderator looked at this post and did not infract it for being massively insensitive and inflammatory.

Click to shrink...

Because there is likely no way to make that argument without being read as insensitive or inflammatory.
"I disagree that we should be doing anything about school shootings, and the things we have done should be reversed.", would still piss people off if was written by a piece of wood and read aloud by Ben Stein.

The rule against generally infammatory or wildly insensitive statements doesn't preclude inherently inflammatory or insensitive positions:
"The more controversial your opinion is, the more effort you need put in to ensure that the tone of the discussion remains positive and constructive. For example, a soldier being allowed to kill another soldier in wartime is not particularly controversial; being allowed to shoot someone in self-defense is more controversial; being allowed to shoot someone who has stolen your neighbour's TV in the back while they're fleeing is very controversial, and needs to be raised and discussed carefully and mindfully."

Obviously the staff are the ultimate arbitrators of how mindful someone needs to be, but that post of his doesn't seem to contain anything extra beyond straight-line statements and justifications. People are allowed to hold positions others, even a majority of users, find anathema to their personal beliefs. If the staff felt otherwise then the topic as a whole would be treated like gun control and forbidden as a topic of discussion.

 

[SerGregness]

I mean, I don't get the whole appealing a 25-point infraction in the first place, especially when you don't have any other active infractions, because there isn't really a point to it.

Click to shrink...

• The principle.
• To increase the "cost" of an infraction to the staff.
• You feel a genuine error has been made.
• To give yourself a venue to talk about exactly what you were talking about outside of a context where it can be shut down by saying, "This isn't what the thread is about. Stay on topic."
• Because the first 2 appeals are free.

Click to shrink...

Not to mention that staff can and will use previous infractions against you in the future. And I'm not even saying that's unreasonable. Someone being consistently disruptive should get the stick. On the flipside though, it does mean that for the user on the receiving end of a marginal infraction, it can increase the likelihood and severity of future infractions. I recently went through this when I had a post of mine that should have been at most a warning (it was warning-worthy if you take the least charitable reading), infracted in part because I had "been warned for this before", when said warning was from five years ago (we're talking "Warning for Marginal Behavior". Not even recent enough to be a Staff Notice) and unique circumstances and I was advised back then that appealing wouldn't be worth it even though I was worried about getting hit with basically the exact situation that ended up playing out. I got it mostly sorted out in arbitration, but that's still hours of my life writing the appeal and like, general stress that I'm not getting back, y'know?

 

[Pidl]

I got it mostly sorted out in arbitration, but that's still hours of my life writing the appeal and like, general stress that I'm not getting back, y'know?

Click to shrink...

So you'd spend hours on an appeal for a current infraction in order to avoid having to spend hours on an appeal for a future infraction...
I mean, just take the infraction and move on with your life.
The only time it would matter is if your next infraction would lead to a week-long ban or something, but if that's the case you're racking up infractions fast enough that getting one overturned is just a stay of execution.

 

[DoobleDeeDooble]

But spending X hours fixing a problem now is generally less stressful than spending X hours fixing that problem significantly later, thinking about how you didn't get it fixed back when you should have and what if you can't get it fixed now; not to mention the stress cost if you worry in the interim about 'Oh I should have solved that problem, what if it matters, ugh'.

You could argue rationally there shouldn't be any difference between those costs, but that doesn't mean there in fact isn't.

 

[Pidl]

But spending X hours fixing a problem now is generally less stressful than spending X hours fixing that problem significantly later, thinking about how you didn't get it fixed back when you should have and what if you can't get it fixed now; not to mention the stress cost if you worry in the interim about 'Oh I should have solved that problem, what if it matters, ugh'.

You could argue rationally there shouldn't be any difference between those costs, but that doesn't mean there in fact isn't.

Click to shrink...

But it's not the same problem?
You are spending time now so that you might get an infraction overturned, so that when you might get an infraction later it might be such an edgecase that it gets reduced to a warning because you didn't have that previous infraction.
Instead of all that, you could just not repeat what you did to get that infraction in the first place.

 

[DoobleDeeDooble]

I mean, my personal strategy is 'Just don't do things that could get infracted' and I think that's the superior method, for sure, but... If we're talking someone who gets infracted apparently once every five years I'd say they're kinda already doing well on that front? Like that's not really particularly wanton repetition of problematic behavior, to my eyes. In which case see previous statement about how stress costs work.

If one is someone who is going to stress out about infractions on this website despite that one is well-behaved enough that there's no practical issue with the number of points accrued, then one is going to stress out about them, and may as well try to get it solved sooner rather than later even if there's a chance there will never actually be a later.

 

[Vyslanté]

I mean, I don't get the whole appealing a 25-point infraction in the first place, especially when you don't have any other active infractions, because there isn't really a point to it.

Click to shrink...

Because mistakes happen? Like, there's infractions I did not contest because, yeah, fair enough, play stupid game win stupid prizes. And there are some that I did complain about — and were overturned — because they had been issued on a faulty reading, a translation error, or any other reason.