Tribunal Commentary Thread

[Squid]

That's too obvious, everyone has to agree to it after all.

[GrnEyedDvl]

Should you make a permanent announcement to that effect GED?

I cant count the number of times I have posted on this issue. Its already out there in numerous places. Making it an Announcement would have little or no effect. Half the people on the site ignore the stickies anyways, or have never read the ToS.

[Silent Assassin]

I cant count the number of times I have posted on this issue. Its already out there in numerous places. Making it an Announcement would have little or no effect. Half the people on the site ignore the stickies anyways, or have never read the ToS.

I agree with GED, annoucements and stickies are rarely read by members, this is also true for the majority of existing sites, small or big there is no difference so why bother making a big annoucement.

The only thing I would like to add to this: I don't know if some of you remembers but once, maybe 2 years ago there was an annoucement made by Garb asking if there was members interested to donate to the site as at the time the Owner was looking to buy a new server or new euipment, this annoucement was not only visible in the annoucement section but also on our profile, maybe something like this could have a better effect. And IIRC the first time I logged in it pop-up in a similar way that PM does.

It's just an idea

SA

[Genius of the Restoration]

Defiance is a conscious act.

Reasonable comment.

I might also add that it's been a rather inquisitorial hearing.

[Jom]

Reasonable comment.

I might also add that it's been a rather inquisitorial hearing.

It's hard to prove one way or the other if something is conscious, so for someone as well-versed in how the forum works as Seth, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that he was conscious of his act.

[Chris Death]

@JFK's case:

I don't get how the sarcasm can be overseen that has been made in the infracted post.

This is not insulting a group.

~S~ CD

[xcorps]

@JFK's case:

I don't get how the sarcasm can be overseen that has been made in the infracted post.

This is not insulting a group.

~S~ CD

I agree. The first glance skim might make you think he's calling religous people stupid, but after a complete reread it's obvious he's taking a shot at the post he quoted.

[Primo]

It's hard to prove one way or the other if something is conscious, so for someone as well-versed in how the forum works as Seth, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that he was conscious of his act.

So you think this infraction should stand because of an assumption?

[xcorps]

It's hard to prove one way or the other if something is conscious, so for someone as well-versed in how the forum works as Seth, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that he was conscious of his act.

The infraction was based on a reasonable assumption. The defense is also reasonable.
A reasonable explanation should trump a reasonable assumption.

[Genius of the Restoration]

It's hard to prove one way or the other if something is conscious, so for someone as well-versed in how the forum works as Seth, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that he was conscious of his act.

I suppose it depends which way you err. What he's describing seems reasonable to me. Himster's post

Nobody claimed that everyone agrees on the definition of atheism, but that still doesn't change the meaning of atheism.

is still in the thread, despite DBH's warning that

If you wish to rehash previously stated arguments, or discuss who said what... then please do it via pm.

I think it's understandable that TDLS would be under the impression that he was allowed to refer to previous arguments when quoting a post that explicitly talked about previous posts. Given that Himster's post wasn't touched, I'd think there was something else wrong as well. To me, it's an unequal application of the warning and one that could reasonably be taken to cause confusion. TDLS quoted the Himster's post, so I don't think it's likely that the moderator missed it.

[Harry Lime]

Reasonable comment.

I might also add that it's been a rather inquisitorial hearing.

In complicated cases the Tribunal has to adopt an inquisitorial system to ascertain the full facts and circumstances surrounding an infraction in order to properly deliver a verdict that is, as far as the judges can evaluate, consistent with the Tribunal's mandate. We would be in dereliction of duty to the appellant and moderation not to do so.

[xcorps]

Would you agree that TDLS made a reasonable defense? He never once complained about his freedom of speech or persecution by zealots.

Defiance is a conscious act. I can't defy a moderator if I think that a moderator is not taking any part in it at all. I simply gave an example as a factual point (that Tankbuster said that there was a consensus on the definition of a word) against Himster's claim (that nobody made such a claim that there is consensus) about what I said (that my main point was to point a lack of consensus as I was acknowledging a point made by Lord of Lost Socks) as I saw his post to be present after the warning thinking that it was not covered by the warning.

That's pretty solid.

I'm starting to feel that you're being unreasonable and rude for no real reason as well.

And that's about as measured and reasonable complaint as the Tribunal has ever seen, not that it reflects on the guilt or innocence of TDLS, but it does display respect for the process and rules...which does reinforce his claim that he wasn't playing chicken with moderation.

[Jom]

So you think this infraction should stand because of an assumption?

All human communication is based upon assumptions. When you're talking to someone, you're making the assumption that you both have shared experiences and common perceptions. Similarly, if someone says "You are an idiot", we have to assume that in their mind, just like in most others, being an idiot is something seen as negative and an unpleasant label to give someone. It's like Derrida said: everything is a text, but when reading the text that you've written, I have to assume that you have more or less the same texts as reference point as I do (i.e. understandings of reality). Therefore I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that if someone does something three times over the course of 8 hours, it was done deliberately. I'm hoping that you arrive at the same conclusion because you're using the same textual references as I am, i.e. general knowledge of how humans behave.

[xcorps]

All human communication is based upon assumptions. When you're talking to someone, you're making the assumption that you both have shared experiences and common perceptions. Similarly, if someone says "You are an idiot", we have to assume that in their mind, just like in most others, being an idiot is something seen as negative and an unpleasant label to give someone. It's like Derrida said: everything is a text, but when reading the text that you've written, I have to assume that you have more or less the same texts as reference point as I do (i.e. understandings of reality). Therefore I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that if someone does something three times over the course of 8 hours, it was done deliberately. I'm hoping that you arrive at the same conclusion because you're using the same textual references as I am, i.e. general knowledge of how humans behave.

The question isn't really if he posted three times deliberately. He certainly posted 3 times deliberately. The question is "Did he post in defiance of a moderators explict demand to not post?"

If I missed where TDLS was told not to make those posts, I stand corrected.

I suppose you could make the argument that he "should" have known that the thread warning was directed at him specifically... but if he "should" have known then it leaves room for doubt as to if he actually DID know.

If he did not know, then there is no mens rea. Actus reus does not exist without mens rea.

[TheSutekh]

I don't understand how it's reasonable to assume that a seasoned member would play chicken with a moderator. You don't play chicken riding a bicycle against a bullet train.

[pannonian]

The question isn't really if he posted three times deliberately. He certainly posted 3 times deliberately. The question is "Did he post in defiance of a moderators explict demand to not post?"

If I missed where TDLS was told not to make those posts, I stand corrected.

I suppose you could make the argument that he "should" have known that the thread warning was directed at him specifically... but if he "should" have known then it leaves room for doubt as to if he actually DID know.

If he did not know, then there is no mens rea. Actus reus does not exist without mens rea.

I do believe the defying moderators rule was brought in specifically as a result of people keeping on reposting what had been deleted, edited or closed by moderators. That is the general understanding of the rule since it was brought in (some time in 2009 IIRC). The Tribunal can judge whether or not what TDLS did crosses the line of the rule as generally understood. Whether or not Arcturus exists without mens wear should be irrelevant. The rule is there. The evidence is there. Does the evidence fit the rule?

Of course, if TDLS wants to argue intentions and whatnot, he can try the Praetorium, which allows any arguments the appellant desires, rather than the strict comparison of evidence against the rules which the Tribunal works on.

[Heinz Guderian]

I think Seth would have a strong case in the Praetorium. I say the word "Praetorium" in a similar way to Russell Crowe in Gladiator (except he says "Praetorian!" after he asks for a "clean death...a soldier's death" before he spies the mounted Praetorian Guardsmen after overcoming his executioners (it was the frost - sometimes in makes the blade stick (Maximus' knowledge of fighting in the North alerts him to this possibility))). I have always thought that the guy who says "General?" in RTW when you click a unit or "Sarmation Mercenaries!" also sounds like Mr.Crowe. But that may not help Seth in the Praetorium. Still has a good chance though.

[TheSutekh]

I don't really see a difference between the Tribunal and the Praetorium other than the fact that one of them is private.

[Genius of the Restoration]

The Praetorium can grant clemency for a breach of the rules if you're decent about it and they're all feeling generous. The Tribunal can only overturn a decision by moderation if it's against the rules.

In complicated cases the Tribunal has to adopt an inquisitorial system to ascertain the full facts and circumstances surrounding an infraction in order to properly deliver a verdict that is, as far as the judges can evaluate, consistent with the Tribunal's mandate. We would be in dereliction of duty to the appellant and moderation not to do so.

I agree with you, but that's not the sort of inquisitorial approach I was talking about. It's rare to see an appellant reply so dispassionately with points of argument when the inquisitor comes calling. TDLS comes off looking more objective.

Whether or not Arcturus exists without mens wear should be irrelevant. The rule is there. The evidence is there. Does the evidence fit the rule?

The rule is about defying moderators. TDLS makes a reasonable claim that defiance is a conscious act, which would mean the intention is relevant.

[TheSutekh]

The Praetorium can grant clemency for a breach of the rules if you're decent about it and they're all feeling generous. The Tribunal can only overturn a decision by moderation if it's against the rules.

Then the Praetorium would be futile for me as I'm not their most favorite member on this forum.