2024-AT-10: Staff and Dalmity - Upheld

imya t'loak

imya t'loak

forums.sufficientvelocity.com

2024-AT-10: Staff and Dalmity Upheld

Hello, I would like to appeal this 25-point infraction I incurred here. https://forums.sufficientvelocity.com/posts/30119233/ I'm not exactly sure if this exact post was the cause or the moderator has decided it was multiple posts together pushing them towards giving out this infraction. But I...
forums.sufficientvelocity.com forums.sufficientvelocity.com

Edit: When I was reading the thread in detail, I thought for sure that the overturn side would win the way - but I thought I had checked the results to make sure the thread title was correct. I guess at this point I don't fully understand 1b)
 
Last edited:
I basically agree with @BiopunkOtrera 's and @Nyvis 's initial posts. Failing to make any explicit moral judgment on an atrocity should not be construed as either dismissing or approving of the atrocity when said atrocity is a tangent to the post's complete argument and the only time the post mentions the atrocity is to say so. If this is how Active Conflicts policy 1b is interpreted, I should not participate in the subforum.

Why? Trauma buttons. Atrocities tend to push readers' trauma buttons by resembling other horrific things. Mandatory tangents about atrocities push the buttons harder. It's kinder to talk around them whenever it doesn't affect my chain of argument, but if that isn't permissible then I know my participation (except in extremely restrictive ways like posting a news article with minimum commentary) will either be a net negative experience or draw infractions.
 
I think as I read it I was shifted to the Uphold side, on the basis of it not being thoughtful, though at the same time I feel by that standard most of that thread would be hit for one post or another.
 
I think that an arbitrator could have made the earlier post more effective, and that may have changed the opinion of the council. Or maybe not.
 
BurnBright said:
I think as I read it I was shifted to the Uphold side, on the basis of it not being thoughtful, though at the same time I feel by that standard most of that thread would be hit for one post or another.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeah this feels like a standard that only get applied because we're already in a tribunal. I don't necessarily disagree that this wasn't the most thoughtful way to approach that topic but that's a standard entirely out of step with regular rule enforcement and only got brought up because a mod had taken offence for the freedom fighter label. Other cases shouldn't weight on the current one in an ideal world but this should also prompt reflection on why other cases that don't hit mod buttons as hard are being slept on. Thoughtfulness is definitely not the name of the game in those threads.
 
I thought @PoptartProdigy's post was extremely good and persuasive, and more impressive when you consider that they are a new parent and probably haven't had a full night's sleep in four months. I'm not usually that cogent under good circumstances.
 
I was pretty convinced by the "Of course they want to murder all the Jews... but they have good reason to!" that the infraction was pretty just. Like, that's just what "there's a complex history there" means.
 
NeremWorld said:
I was pretty convinced by the "Of course they want to murder all the Jews... but they have good reason to!" that the infraction was pretty just. Like, that's just what "there's a complex history there" means.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't think I agree there? Acknowledging a complex history doesn't say they have a good reason, it just says that they have a reason. Its just still not cautious enough for a thread with heightened standards.
 
BurnBright said:
I don't think I agree there? Acknowledging a complex history doesn't say they have a good reason, it just says that they have a reason. Its just still not cautious enough for a thread with heightened standards.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I guess I should clarify that when you're saying that their antisemitism motto doesn't matter and yeah sure they have a genocidal desire versus Jews "but there's a complex history", the context is trying to excuse/justify the genocidal desire. Since you wouldn't need to point out the complex history. And generally excuses/justifications are considered good reasons.
 
NeremWorld said:
I guess I should clarify that when you're saying that their antisemitism motto doesn't matter and yeah sure they have a genocidal desire versus Jews "but there's a complex history", the context is trying to excuse/justify the genocidal desire. Since you wouldn't need to point out the complex history. And generally excuses/justifications are considered good reasons.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I did provide the context in one of the follow up posts in that tribunal. It wasn't convincing to people and that's fine. Like one of the councillors said, intent doesn't matter as much as how it is read in such a thread.
 
Graviator said:
I basically agree with @BiopunkOtrera 's and @Nyvis 's initial posts. Failing to make any explicit moral judgment on an atrocity should not be construed as either dismissing or approving of the atrocity when said atrocity is a tangent to the post's complete argument and the only time the post mentions the atrocity is to say so. If this is how Active Conflicts policy 1b is interpreted, I should not participate in the subforum.

Why? Trauma buttons. Atrocities tend to push readers' trauma buttons by resembling other horrific things. Mandatory tangents about atrocities push the buttons harder. It's kinder to talk around them whenever it doesn't affect my chain of argument, but if that isn't permissible then I know my participation (except in extremely restrictive ways like posting a news article with minimum commentary) will either be a net negative experience or draw infractions.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
My interpretation is that you are free to not make moral judgement on atrocities, at least when others mention them, but what you cannot do is bring up an atrocity yourself and then not follow up on it. Presumably if you had been in the thread with Dalmity and Alratan you would have no obligation to comment on the Houthi's stances towards Jews. What Dalmity did not talk around it. He pointedly brought it up, in an unjustifiably dismissive manner.
 
I'm talking about the ability to explicitly ignore the Atrocity, to say one's argument is not at all related to the Atrocity (in Dalmity's case, that the Houthi's intentions towards Jews are irrelevant to their relationship to Saudi Arabia) without letting the Atrocity itself derail the argument by hitting someone's trauma button.
 
I feel like this is a correct outcome by the existing rules enforcement standard of SV.

It will shock noone that I feel the rules enforcement standard of SV could be better.
 
It is, indeed, okay to support a genocidal state right now. As long as you don't literally say "I support genocide"
 
stratigo said:
It is, indeed, okay to support a genocidal state right now. As long as you don't literally say "I support genocide"
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
OK can you please fucking not.

I mean, It's not like people on other forums I interact with are saying that Israel is an 'illegitimate country' that shouldn't exist and implying that all of the folks who are Israeli citizens should be deported back to europe right now /s (They are. Which would also be genocide, equally much as deporting all of the 'white' americans to Europe and the 'black' ones to Africa, which I have ALSO HEARD suggested by similar so-called 'progressives' which would be bad EVEN IF you could even distinguish between the two groups that cleanly, WHICH YOU CAN'T. Since apparently the only way to resolve generations old colonialism is to send the descendants of the colonists back to europe even if they're part native and I cannot deal with this shit today so PLEASE DON'T).
 
Last edited:
Tithed_Verse said:
OK can you please fucking not.

I mean, It's not like people on other forums I interact with are saying that Israel is an 'illegitimate country' that shouldn't exist and implying that all of the folks who are Israeli citizens should be deported back to europe right now /s (They are. Which would also be genocide, equally much as deporting all of the 'white' americans to Europe and the 'black' ones to Africa, which I have ALSO HEARD suggested by similar so-called 'progressives' which would be bad EVEN IF you could even distinguish between the two groups that cleanly, WHICH YOU CAN'T. Since apparently the only way to resolve generations old colonialism is to send the descendants of the colonists back to europe even if they're part native and I cannot deal with this shit today so PLEASE DON'T).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

SV isn't other forums and if anyone suggested that here, they'd get banned.

But you can say "I think Israeli strikes are legitimate". This is genocide support.
 
Warning: This is not the I/P thread.
  • Staff Post
    • this is not the i/p thread.
    This is not the Israel/Palestine thread. This is not the place to continue the debate on Israel/Palestine. This is not the place to argue what does or does not constitute genocide or genocide support.

    There are appropriate places and threads for all of those things. If people continue to try and make this thread into them, they will be removed from the thread.

    To underscore this point, both @stratigo and @Tithed_Verse have been removed from the thread for 72 hours.
     
  • Staff Post
    • You must login or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top