(the old) Tribunal Commentary Thread

[Erich von Manstein]

In the interest of making the Tribunal system more efficient by sparing the Tribunes and moderators from having to read through dozens of comments from parties not impacted by the case being appealed, this thread is being created for the purpose of allowing the community to comment on cases before the Tribunal without actually cluttering the case threads. So, if you'd like to make an observation or contribute your version of an amicus brief, feel free to do it here

[Garbarsardar]

Let me just add that:

In the case that you would like to share pertinent information or you feel that a comment needs to be posted in the case thread you can always PM any of the Judges of the Tribunal.

[Ferrets54]

My case was just decided by using posts from an entirely different forum, a forum I have never seen or heard of, a forum with entirely different members and rules. That's the most ridiculous thing I've seen in the tribunal to date.

I mean, the decision wasn't even that I had posted disruptively, it was that quad posting had been known to be disruptive somewhere on the internet. Well **** a doodle do, Americans have been known to accidentally kill themselves with pillows, doesn't bear any relevence to an American.

Seems to be that somebody spent some time on google actively seeking out some justification to deny the case - a case that was embarrassingly one sided in favour of me in both the site's rules and common sense from the very beginning. The decision is awful, quad posting is not even suggested in the ToS's description of disruptive posting. This case was as simple has opening the ToS and looking at it, which I doubt the judges did.

[sapi]

That may well be because the ToS were written with a small degree of common sense in mind.

No offence to you intended, but I'd question anyone who suggests that quad posting with remarks such as yours did not constitute 'disruptive' and 'spammy' posting.

[Scorch]

That may well be because the ToS were written with a small degree of common sense in mind.

No offence to you intended, but I'd question anyone who suggests that quad posting with remarks such as yours did not constitute 'disruptive' and 'spammy' posting.

Thank you.

Perhaps you should attempt to apply some common sense to your own analysis instead of trying to justify them 'legally' in a sense, as that defence has already been rejected by the tribunal.

[Ferrets54]

That may well be because the ToS were written with a small degree of common sense in mind.

No offence to you intended, but I'd question anyone who suggests that quad posting with remarks such as yours did not constitute 'disruptive' and 'spammy' posting.

Yes, it derailed such a valuable thread, didn't it?

[sapi]

Yes, it derailed such a valuable thread, didn't it?

What does that have to do with anything?

You can't seriously be suggesting that the ToS only apply in 'valuable' threads?

This is not a decision debate thread; this is a commentary thread, so I'm not going to continue this discussion any further than to point out that a bare minimum of 4 moderators had to agree with the judgement on your original case (the Mod who delivered it, the CoM who I assume you appealed to, and 2/3 tribunal judges); so I think that anyone here would agree with me when I say that the topic is well and truly closed...

[Ferrets54]

No, no. I will hear you out. What did I disrupt?

[sapi]

I'm quite honestly not interested in debating this, only to say that the decision made was ratified by representatives of both the staff and citizenry (remember that the Tribunal is still 2/3 elected) and is the one that I would have made myself, were I in that position.

Like it or not, we do not debate the letter of the ToS but rather the meaning. It is not and should not be the job and burden of any moderator to constantly double-check their decisions against the aforementioned document in order to check that they will stand up to scrutiny; we, or should I say Hex, appoint people because they are trusted to make the right decisions at the time.

Sometimes such decisions are not written down in the ToS; sometimes a mod is forced to use their common sense in order to arrive at one. That's to be expected, and not disputed.

To answer your original question; I honestly don't care what you disrupted. You broke the rules, and that's that - there is not one set of rules for one situation and one for another, and nor should there be.

[Ferrets54]

Seems the meaning of the ToS has become black is white and up is down then. And Sapi, I will say this slow, the point is I have broken no written rule.

[Scorch]

Seems the meaning of the ToS has become black is white and up is down then. And Sapi, I will say this slow, the point is I have broken no written rule.

And his point is that is based on your interpretation of the ToS.

That would be quite a valid interpretation of the ToS, except for the fact that - as sapi stated - a minimum of four senior moderators had to agree with a separate interpretation that opposes yours.

[Ferrets54]

No, you aren't listening.

There

is

no

rule

about

quad

posting

or

any

amount

of

posting

under

disruptive

posting.

Perhaps you are suggesting that the judges interpreted the space between rules as to mean 'quad posting is despicable, will not be tolerated'?

[sapi]

Ferrets, this is going to be my last post on this issue, because we are really going around in circles.

I think I've said twice now that it is preposterous to argue that quad-posting is not disruptive. To suggest that quad posting is 'allowed' by the ToS would be to suggest that I could call you a 'bloody idiot' and not be flaming - both are not explicitly mentioned in said document but both are not allowed, because both the posters and moderators are expected to use common sense in the interpretation of the ToS.

It is expected that you would understand, for example, that such a flame is not permissible on this site; and I've no reason to believe that you don't understand that. It should then be quite clear that, if intrepreted properly, the ToS do prohibit your actions. As Scorch pointed out, four senior moderators disagree with me on this issue. You're welcome to interpret the ToS however you want; but be prepared to be judged by a reasonable interpretation thereof.

There really is nothing more that I can say on this issue...

# Flaming (Insulting Other Users)
Posts clearly insulting other board members, individually or as a group, directly or indirectly, are not allowed. This includes, but is not limited to:

* Name-calling ("You're an idiot", "You moron")
* Direct insults ("Screw you")
* Offensive orders ("Go kill yourself")
* Insinuations ("Are you stupid or something?") or insults towards family ("Your mom...")

[Scorch]

No, I'm sorry, you aren't listening. There is no one thing about your complete spasm of posting that occurred in that thread that broke the rules. The whole thing together, quadruple posting combined with complete disregard for another members personal beliefs, ridiculing and practically insulting another member and derailing the thread are among the things that your posting in that thread achieved, and thus the whole thing, considered in context comes quite clearly under the topic of disruptive posting.

But then again, what am I doing? I defended my actions quite similarly in the Tribunal, and not only did a minimum of 3 senior moderators agree with me (though many more share than sentiment), but the fact that I gave you an infraction has been publicly ruled as the right decision.

I can't win, but perhaps I can suggest that you realise that when such people are combined against you, there is the smallest inclination you may be wrong.

[Ferrets54]

Ah, so it's flaming now, is it! So you agree there has actively been an attempt to seek out a way I could have broken a rule?

And might doesn't equal right, Scorch. I have more knowledge of the rules than you or Sapi, I feel.

[Scorch]

Ah, so it's flaming now, is it! So you agree there has actively been an attempt to seek out a way I could have broken a rule?

And might doesn't equal right, Scorch. I have more knowledge of the rules than you or Sapi, I feel.

Wow?!

That's practically my only response.

Did you read my post at all?

There was no active attempt to seek out how you broke a rule, and it's ludicrous to suggest otherwise. I was simply correcting your false view that you were cautioned for quadruple posting.

I give up. Read my posts, read the posts of staff in the Tribunal and read the posts of anyone else who knows what they're talking about on the matter. You'll find you're actually extremely lonely on your side of the fence, and if you applied the common sense that some of your debating posts have assured me you possess, you may realise that the ridiculing, consecutive, insulting and ludicrous posts you made on that night had a disruptive effect on the entire thread, and a caution for disruptive posting is quite a just outcome.

If you still find yourself on the aforementioned lonely side of the fence, then I'm afraid there is little I can do to sway you.

So either way, continuing this debate, which I'm sure is just rehashing the tribunal thread, is quite pointless really.



Just to clarify Mein Fuhrer (Manstein) is this a place for people to discuss active tribunal threads? Or to complain about an unfavourable verdict they suffered?

[Ferrets54]

I assume you'll warn yourself for that under disruptive posting.

[sapi]

...sigh - I knew that was a promise that I couldn't keep.

Ah, so it's flaming now, is it! So you agree there has actively been an attempt to seek out a way I could have broken a rule?

No, of course not. You were punished based upon both your actions in that thread and your history. If you feel that this is unfair, for example, because it is not even handed, you have the 'report post' button available to you.

And might doesn't equal right, Scorch. I have more knowledge of the rules than you or Sapi, I feel.

Considering that Scorch and I both have current moderating experience at a TW site, based not on reading of scripture but practical interpretation thereof, I think that's a pretty odd argument to make.

Still, you're welcome to have that point of view.

Any proof that you have, other than sticking to scripture, would be much appreciated.

I assume you'll warn yourself for that under disruptive posting.

Well, if he intends to take the rules literally, he might just have to.

If he actually applies them to the real world, though, that's a pretty stupid comment to make.



I concur with Scorch. This debate has already been held; Ferrets lost. It's over.

[Ferrets54]

So we're punishing people on this history, are we now? Hrmmm, you step on increasingly thin ice with your.... reasoning, for lack of a better word.

It doesn't matter. Garb at the least will be able to explain himself without leaping from one explanation to the other. No, I want to talk to the judges, not two minor players who are only saying anything because they feel the need to gang up when (shock horror) staff are criticised.

[sapi]

Garb. has already passed his judgement; this farce of a debate would not be happening if it had been in your favour.

I really am amused, and nothing more, to see you dismiss out of hand the arguments from two people (one of whomn is the very reason you're in this situation, considering that you're not likely to blame yourself) who are only trying to point out the logic in the case brought against you.

I'm not sure if you realise what was meant by the history comment, btw, so allow me to explain with a simple example. It does require some leaps of faith, however. The first of these is thus: mods aren't stupid. Funny, eh? Who would have thought!

With that accepted, you have to realise that when these not-so-stupid people see an infraction from a member, they are going to check up on that member's history to see if they have previously done the same thing. That, of course, is the whole point of the cautionary and warning system.

Once that has been established - and I honestly don't know nor care what the result was in your case - a reasonable level of warning and/or caution is applied. To suggest that someone with a history of, say, racist remarks against Jews would be treated in the same way on their 52nd offence as their first is just not reasonable.

And so there I rest my case, as I intended to do a post ago and would have done if you had not attempted to degenerate all arguments opposing you to nothing while leaving your own illogical ones in their place.

Good day - I've got things to do, and as hard as it may be to believe, some are slightly more important than this.