[Staff Referral] Harry Lime - Insulting Others (3 points) [Further Action]

[Aikanár]

EDIT: The original post for what Harry Lime received his infraction for was edited by me according to the request of the referred.
Harry Lime has been referred to the CdeC for Insulting Others by Moderation Staff.

Post: D&D rules and enforcement discussion
User: Harry Lime
Infraction: insulting others
Points: 3

Administrative Note:

Insulting

Message to User:

Wow HL I dont know what brought this on, but as you mentioned in your post we cannot let something this blatant slide. You know how it works better than most. I dont know what set you off like this, but if you want to talk then shoot me a PM.

Original Post:

Yes, actually, I think you probably need a very intimate understanding of the D&D and the Political Mudpit in order to have an educated opinion on the rules governing it. And to be honest, speaking as the person who probably has the most posts in the PM, it's pretty obvious you neither understand nor in fact attempt to hide your contempt towards the Discussion and Debate forums.

For example, I don't think it will possible to explain to you why aggressive posting in political debate is not a bad thing, it is a healthy and normal thing. For people who, unlike you, have a passion for politics, the stakes could not be higher. This is the matter of governing all we love, hate, aspire to and fear. And there are no right answers - but there is good debate, there is good argument and there is the successful employment of data and sources.

Then there is the evil undercurrent of humanity that proponents disguise as political discourse. Tribalism, racism, sexism, fear and loathing.

Once, we had a thriving political forum where very, very aggressive debate flourished between genuine political concerns. Right v Left, Bush v Kerry, Iraq v Peace. Huge matters, bigger stakes and we enjoyed titan talents on both sides. I would never know as much as I do about the world if it wasn't for the fact that if I made a mis-step in the Political Mudpit then correction was immediate and overwhelming. It was an insightful place to be - but it was not the place for the thin skinned.

Then some thin skinned people decided this was all inappropriate, and employed crap like the trolling and flaming rules, and their off-topic descendants. This suppressed the Mudpit's atmosphere over a course of years, and I am sure that is what the staff wanted to do. But the consequence is that all the great debaters left because their forum no longer existed, and the debates could no longer take place. I am the last of that generation left here, and I will be banned soon enough.

But all this had a side-effect - there were always nazis on TWC. There were always conspiracy theorists. But they suffered so much when they dared to post their crap that they never lasted long. And before any idiot tries to make it out that I am saying that we should be allowed to insult people for what they believed, that is not what I am saying. But we should be allowed to be frank. If a member posts racism, I should be able to call them a racist. That is not asking much. But the nannying of the staff prevented this, and they were emboldened. They were not attacked directly. They multiplied. And here we are, with an utterly destroyed Political Mudpit.

Why wait until the rules are changed let's start right now.
Edit. The Curator.

[Aikanár]

Defense request has been blocked due to the inbox of the referred being overloaded. Clearance requested via VM.

[Diamat]

Holy crap! He only got 3 points for this? How did he manage to bypass the censor like that? Further action is self-evident.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Edit. The Curator.

.......Go Harry Go!!!!!



Mumma Mia, what a ing mess.....

An extremely reluctant FA I throw down here. If's there was a plusible way out I would take it. Oh well, let's see what you'all come up with here....

[Aikanár]

My personal opinion: clear breach of the ToS, clearly deserving further action, but seldom read a post containing more percepted personal truth or speaking more from my heart.

[Robin de Bodemloze]

Further action...but by god do I agree with him.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

My personal opinion: clear breach of the ToS, clearly deserving further action, but seldom read a post containing more percepted personal truth or speaking more from my heart.

Yep...

....

[Robin de Bodemloze]

I've changed my mind. How about we show some mettle as a collective and all vote dismiss. How about that gents.

[Aikanár]

Well, it is your decision, based upon your discretion.

One could argue that Harry was only giving Ferrets54 what he was asking for to receive, the right to insult others in the mudpit and therewith was merely acting similar to what we experienced in the Tribunal Commentary thread not that long ago: using an example in order to demonstrate a case.

In the end, Gentlemen, it is your decision.

And, of course, be aware that this case can be made public, so be prepared to take some heavy FLAK.

[Diamat]

What Aik said. We would really have to ask ourselves if we are just another version of the tribunal (a citizens tribunal) handing out punishments in accordance with the law, or if we are the elected heads of a community body. If we are the latter, then yes, we could do something like this, if we believe it to be in the best interest of the citizen community, by setting an example. But if we are more like another tribunal, then we will have to punish strictly.

What are my fellow councilors' opinions on this? What are we?

[Robin de Bodemloze]

The tribunal is the tribunal. I don't dare call ourselves "leaders" of all citizens, but were each councillor not elected to use our best judgement and to use discretion to most effectively serve those who place their trust in us?

[Diamat]

Indeed, Robin, indeed. But I'm worried. How far can we go before we lose sight of objectivity?

[Robin de Bodemloze]

Aye, indeed. It is not an easy decision to make. My mind is made - for Harry, for what I see as the great good, whatever it may be. If that comes to a vonc vote then so be it. Each man must make a decision he is at peace with.

[Diamat]

But tell me more about this Ferrets guy. I've heard so much negative stuff about him (everyone seems to hate him), and I've seen some of his tribunal cases, but does this justify such a harsh invective against him?

[Leonidas The Lion]

I will vote to dismiss. I cannot bring myself to vote further action.

[m_1512]

Personally, I would like to say something.

Making a decision from the perspective of a tribunal would make us look like fools as we'd be deciding against a long time magistrate and tribune. Also, we should not be getting carried away with a dangerous term as punishment.

The CdeC's role isn't to punish members for infractions. That's the moderation's job, I believe. The CdeC is an elected body to decide whether a person's actions are unbecoming of a citizen and if so, what action to be taken.

Concerning this case, I think HL gave him what was coming. The fact that he did so with full knowledge of the consequences but went ahead with brutal honesty is in fact admirable.

[Diamat]

I am torn, my friends.

Should we decline punishment because we agree with someone's opinion, even if the way in which this opinion was expressed is entirely unbecoming of a citizen? I mean, there are many other ways in which HL could have expressed himself, but instead he chose to deliberately bypass the censor and severely insult another member. Even if we would hate the insulted party, does this excuse the means which were employed to deride him? Wouldn't it set a bad example to other citizens? Imagine if someone posts porn. Now a councilor may feel aroused () from seeing it, but this would not stop him from punishing it, since it is clearly unbecoming of a citizen. Or similarly, we may all hate Nazis, but if someone physically assaults a Nazi for being a Nazi, wouldn't it be right to punish the assaulter regardless? Wouldn't it set a bad example to practice self-righteousness?

Just some thoughts.

[Aikanár]

Indeed you are not a Tribunal and indeed you are to decide what is and what is not behaviour becoming of a citizen. While your decision is limited to dismiss/further action/abstain/miss a vote or censure/suspension/ostrakon/abstain/miss a vote, your discretion is limited by nothing besides your conscience. Your decision in a referral, just like in an application is a very subjective one. Your either are or are not of the opinion somebody is worthy of rising in rank given his special circumstances a.k.a. contributions and behaviour. You either are or you are not of the opinion that something somebody has done is behaviour becoming of a citizen given the special circumstances a.k.a. context.

Concerning this case, this has nothing to do with porn, it has nothing to do with stealing modding works of others, nothing with censor bypass (even though it contains some) or disruptive posting or what not. It is insulting others. And you don't need to set this case in relation with other cases. You are not bound to precedent.

It is not your business to deliberate whether or not the infraction was warranted, but whether what Harry did in the very circumstances he did it was what you believe is becoming or unbecoming of a citizen. If you feel that no, in such a discussion with such members a citizen should keep his calm and should not post like this. Then that's OK.
If you believe that Harry kept his calm and deliberately just posted this to demonstrate what Ferrets54 and other members like Caduet and whomever are actually asking for in order to demonstrate where that would lead the discussion and debate fora. Then that's OK also.
And every other conclusion you draw from the case and every decision you take is also OK.

Please only remember to provide a reason for your decision even though you are not constitutionally required to post one, I really encourage you to do so.

[M D]

We are not here to judge whether what he did was against the ToS or not, but whether it deserves further action due to him being a citizen. Its obvious he broke the rules, but many of you feel he exemplified the view of most citizens, which would mean we can't judge for further action.

[m_1512]

I agree with Aikanár. As again we are not here to decide punishment or the fairness of it. But since we are talking, let's us do some post analysis.

But we should be allowed to be frank. If a member posts racism, I should be able to call them a racist. That is not asking much. But the nannying of the staff prevented this, and they were emboldened.

Reading between the lines, Ferrets was justifying the proposal by the argument that he wants to call people names like racist or bully, which in itself is defined as insults by the ToS, not to mention that it is a serious accusation. While I am against racism and bullying, insulting is simply not a solution to any problem. I might add that it will simply aggravate it.

Then we come to the next part.

Why wait until the rules are changed let's start right now.

I also post this in the sure and certain knowledge that I will receive at least 12 points for insulting others/censor-bypassing, despite never having received an infraction before, and it would be well warranted. What an insulting I am.

So, what could this mean? In my opinion, the first quote itself is his trump card. This cold show that the intent of the entire post is like something what you call taste of your own medicine.

Now coming to the important part. Punishment, we can entirely forget about it. The moderation has done it's job by issuing the infraction, and should he appeal, the tribunal will do it's job. Now we are to decide our actions.

Personally, this is a once in a blue moon case where the CdeC has been given a chance to show their mettle. Why dismiss the case on the reason that it is the wish of most people? The way I see it, HL did what seemed right for him, standing up without thinking of the consequences. If we think that is a citizen like behavior, then we can dismiss the case.