2024 at 02 staff and assaultraven

Pidl said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It gets easier to write effective appeals with practice.
Effective appeals have a chilling effect on weak infractions.
Some individuals take the scrutiny to heart.
In the case of small infractions the risk is relatively small, like dudes are talking about it like AssaultRaven got perma-banned or some shit. I went in expecting to get one of those really good meltdown tribunals and instead got leftover oatmeal tribunal.

And it really shouldn't take hours to write an appeal for a marginal infraction.
All you need is, "I ain't break rule X, because Y. If I did break rule X it doesn't rise to the level of punishment Z because Za and Zb. If I did break the rule then I should be extended clemency because of extenuating circumstance A."
 
One question I have about 0-pt infractions compared to staff notices.

I know the more infractions you get, the longer it takes for the points to expire (it starts at 6 months, then goes up). Do 0-pointers count towards increasing that threshhold?

This is probably a very marginal edge case thing, but curious.

Another thing , is the infraction system based in any way on the AFL Footy Tribunals I've heard about? Given the Australianness of some of the site's founders- I've always wondered.

On the case itself, 25 seems fair for this.
 
Last edited:
poaw said:
And it really shouldn't take hours to write an appeal for a marginal infraction.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I mean, sure, some of that's probably a 'me' issue. I was being thorough, and I'm not a super fast writer in the best of times. :V

I don't want people to take my 'stress' comment for more than it's worth. It's not like I've lived in dread the whole five years since the last one, but getting singled out in a big thread for a perceived mistaken ruling doesn't feel great, having to figure out the whole 'you have to make two posts in two subforums if you also want an advocate' business which is technically there in the guidance but isn't, like, super clear comes with its own worries also since the guidance that is there lends an air of 'guess I better not fuck this up'. Having now read a bunch of these threads and seen people take the piss out of the process for being legal larp deflates it a lot, but a first-time appellant doesn't know that going in.
 
Pidl said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I mean, if one wishes to appeal an infraction, they have the right to do that, even if it is something so blantly bad. Like with mine, I did choose to appeal on the belief that the infraction wasn't taking into account of how the argument, that i was in, ended. So like, sure people can just take an infraction and move on, but the option is still there.
 
Pidl said:
Instead of all that, you could just not repeat what you did to get that infraction in the first place.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It seems that part of the problem here was not understanding why the infraction was given in the first place, and the appeal was necessary to avoid repeating the offending behavior instead of needlessly avoiding inoffensive behavior and getting infracted anyway.
 
Is there something in the water at "I put a raven in my name" that causes you to make really bad affirmative action takes?
 
I seem to be in the minority here in feeling that he should never have been infracted in the first place, and at most should have gotten a warning to watch out for potentially insensitive phrasing re: mentally disabled children. I completely disagree with his points, but feel he was entirely within the rules to argue them. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
 
Rule 2: Don’t Be Hateful: Don't use slurs, even if you're putting them into the mouth of someone else.
stratigo said:
Absolute free speech is and has never been a good idea.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yes, and if he'd been saying 'I oppose AA because those NOPE deserve what they get' he'd have absolutely deserved worse than he got. But the fact that AA is an anti-racism policy does not make opposition to it inherently racist nor make it immune to criticism.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The person you're responding to is not saying that, nor even that there are negative side effects of affirmative action; only that there could, in theory, be criticism of it leveled at such. And that hypothetical criticism wouldnct necessarily be racist.

More black people being able to go to college is not a "side effect" of affirmative action, that's one of the principal intended effects. So criticism of that nature is like, the one thing the theoretical argument that I think people are talking about isn't aimed at.

At least I don't think this is people arguing against affirmative action or even judging assaultraven's prior argument, just like. The abstract principle that there could be a non-racist argument against a policy that aims for racial equity, that's all.

This isn't really the place for an argument about affirmative action, and I don't have an argument to make on it, to be clear. But the idea that a law passed with intention to do good stuff could in fact have problems in its implementation, probems that one could criticize without criticising the good intentions behind it or the good that it does do... is kind of an important idea to be aware of, in general?
 
Last edited:
Sure that can happen. You can criticize a pro equity policy if it doesnt give out good intentions you can do that.

But affirmative action, that has been implemented for 60 years, that helped black people get into college for 60 years, because they were denied college admissions for over a century, is not one to criticize. I don't give a shit if the criticism has good intentions either.
 
So that's an argument that affirmative action has either no side effects or only ones which so pale under the positive effects they are not worth criticizing the whole for; i.e. not an argument that, because affirmative action is well-intended, any criticism of it is racist. Which is the first thing you said that got the response above that I tried to re-explain.

"Well-intentioned" wasn't being used to describe the criticisms, it was being used to describe the law.

I'm either explaining myself poorly or we're just not on the same wavelength but anyways it seems like the thing in question has been passed by now so I guess my part's done regardless.
 
Last edited:
Kingcrusader said:
But affirmative action, that has been implemented for 60 years, that helped black people get into college for 60 years, because they were denied college admissions for over a century, is not one to criticize. I don't give a shit if the criticism has good intentions either.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

If you want to make it better, you have to criticize it though. I am not expert about AA, but I am sure there are rooms to make it better, more efficient, to help more people and so on. And for that, you need to criticize it.

I don't think that AA has fallen to make the old saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" true, but it probably could have been done better.
 
We're getting kinda off topic guys. Would you like to make a thread for discussing adfirmitive action? It might be a good idea, it seems like a lot of people want to talk about it.
 
Tithed_Verse said:
We're getting kinda off topic guys. Would you like to make a thread for discussing adfirmitive action? It might be a good idea, it seems like a lot of people want to talk about it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I honestly don't want to because I will get angry during the whole thing and I will begin to insult people in it. So I want to avoid that.

Honestly, I already made my case in this thread anyway, so I am good.
 
Last edited:
You must login or register to reply here.
Back
Top