[Appeal: Censure] mongrel (1 point - Insulting Others) [OVERTURNED]

[Shankbot de Bodemloze]

mongrel is appealing a Censure issued by the Citizen's Triumvirate.

Referral thread: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?683687
Further Action thread: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?684834

EDIT: Sorry I had to dash off earlier, but I wanted to get the appeal posted. As this is a relatively new thing in practice I would advise everyone who wishes to get involved read through the Appeals sub-section of Section IV, Article 1. A copy is below:

If a referred Citizen is not satisfied with the result of their referral they may request that a public appeal take place. The appeal will be discussed and decided by any Citizen that chooses to participate and the result is binding and is not subject to further appeal.

Procedure

The Curator will post the original private referral and the further action thread in the Questiones Perpetuae and will open a new thread to which they will add a poll containing the following options:

•Keep the ruling
•Overturn the ruling
•Change the ruling
•Abstain

The poll will last for four days.

If the citizens vote to change the punishment, the Curator shall open a second poll for four days. The options are all punishments other than the original punishment and Abstain.

A simple majority of non abstaining votes is required for the first vote. In the case of a vote to either increase or decrease punishment, in the second vote the option with the highest number of votes is the punishment given. Where two options have the same number of votes the punishment given is determined by the multiple transferable vote system.

The poll lasts 4 days.

[Lord William]

I think the Censors went too light on this citizen, i dont believe he is a first time offender. Im pretty sure I've seen his name before in my tenure, I would have suspended for 1 month

[Halie Satanus]

I think the Censors went too light on this citizen, i dont believe he is a first time offender. Im pretty sure I've seen his name before in my tenure, I would have suspended for 1 month

This causes an problem no? since previous records are not submitted in an appeal we are only voting on this case, technically your comment is biasing the case.

Don't be so bloody daft.

In terms of an offensive order this is pretty light. I guess we have to decide if the curia is going to go by the letter of the law. Given the context, letter of the law seems applicable to me. Had it been used in a lighter context 'Liverpool are better than Arsenal - Don't be so bloody daft.' I'd let it slide.

Cheese eating surrender monkey's - Afraid that is what it is, an insult aimed specifically at the French. Again in another context I'd let it slide, but....

Worth appealing and others may think differently, but context for me.

[Aikanár]

Even though I post here as a citizen, not as a moderator, I will abstain in this case since I was the one issuing the infraction - simple: involvement is involvement is involvement.

Abstain.

[Hero of the West]

I do not feel the "don't be so bloody daft" remark to be worthy to the penalty given. Yet the "Cheese eating surrender monkey's" seems to go quite a bit further in being disrespectfull and hurtfell. Overall i feel his manner of debating is at all very hostile and not the kind of attitude we seek in a community member. The remarks given in the context of the rest of the post make me vote for keeping the ruling.

[TheDarkKnight]

Even though I post here as a citizen, not as a moderator, I will abstain in this case since I was the one issuing the infraction - simple: involvement is involvement is involvement.

Abstain.

Abstain as well. Moderators in general probably shouldn't vote on this

[Aikanár]

Abstain as well. Moderators in general probably shouldn't vote on this

You mean, common sense?

[Sir Adrian]

Going after an entire group of people in such a gratuitous manner and calling other users delusional for expressing an opinion (even if it's erroneous) is not in line with what citizens should be doing on and for the site and can give others a wrong impression of citizens as a group. I feel that a slap on the wrist in the form of a censure is sufficient and appropriate.

[ElvenKind]

Yesterday the Greeks were insulted, today it`s the French, tomorrow it`s the Russians.. Insult the post, not the poster is my moto. A TWC Citizen should know better.

[mongrel]

I take it no one referred you all to my earlier (positive) comments on the Free French. if not curious as to why. Meaning no disrespect, I find it bizarre that critising the Petain and Vichy regimes could be seen as at all controversal.

[Veteraan]

"Don't be so bloody daft"

I don't think it's very serious, but I do agree that this in fact falls into the category of offensive orders.

"I think the term "get a life" has to be deployed here"

However, to me this is more insulting, although perhaps it does not technically qualify as an offensive order.

"cheese-eating surrender monkeys"

This could probably be considered funny, but only if all parties involved would recognize it as a quote from the Simpsons. Still to me there is no excuse ever to use this phrase in the context of the WWII and the fate of the Jews in Nazi occupied Europe.

I noticed the term was used earlier in the thread, however at that occasion it was made clear that it was not to be taken seriously. This to me is at least a bit of a mitigating circumstance, but not enough to skip the censure.

Chees-eating surrender monkey apologist. Seriously though, La Resistance, is that all? What about the exploits of the Free French. I doubt if the person in question cares for them, particularly as a sizeable portion were colonial troops. I refer to a much earlier thread of mine , should you care to look it up.

[Shankbot de Bodemloze]

I've moved a load of posts about the process of the appeal to a new thread in the Curia: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?685454

If you have any further questions, could you post them there.

[Genius of the Restoration]

I'm not going to participate in this either, but some food for thought:

"cheese eating surrender monkeys" doesn't refer to the modern French people... as mongrel said, the people who are the surrender monkeys were those in the old regimes. The next sentence starts "Despite the valiant efforts of some, they still surrendered rather too early..." the people who surrendered were the cheese eating surrender monkeys of those regimes. For those who are fine with the "daft" comment, is "cheese eating" worthy of a censure?

[Sir Adrian]

You're missing the bits where he calls the other guy delusional and tells him to get a life.

Delusional. No it wasn't, but it certainly is now.

Because it much be really oppresive to have access to a doctor if sick or injured. Compared with the injustices seen in Zimbabwe, Northern Nigeria or North Korea, I think the term "get a life" has to be deployed here.

Even if the other guy's post was a steaming pile of troll , and it was, and Mongrel was entirely correct to admonish his thinking we are supposed to be above such crap as personal attacks.

This is only a censure, so it carries no associated penalties.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

With my moderation hat off (I'm going to have a go at being an 'active' citizen- one time only offer). Voted to overturn. Was a minor thing. If we're going to judge and punish other citizens, the offense should be something serious, and just to quash any potential 'Your a moderator- you don't see this as serious? %£$%£%!!!!!' Moderation already did our side.

[Navajo Joe]

For me I do not have any problem with word daft, ain't no big deal. I do have a large problem with 'cheese eating surrender monkeys'. A strange behaviour to relate words used by a cartoon character that came into being 50 years after the event, that is discussed. I would expect a lot better from a citizen, his choice of words and content is clumsy and should have been avoided.

[Arachir Galudirithon]

Please berate me if I am unworthy to post in this forum but as a born and bred English speaker I too feel that the 'bloody daft' comment holds no offensive connotations at all. It is mostly used as a replacement for 'mistaken'. For example:
Guest "Shall I make some tea?"
Homeowner "Don't be daft, I'll make that. You are a guest".
I would struggle to find anyone rude or offensive if they used the term daft in any manner. I believe it shows he didn't mean to give offence and merely shows a disagreement with the other posters comment.

Not so sure we can call people 'cheese-eating surrender monkeys' and I would certainly agree that this, no matter how offensive or inoffensive you may find it, flies in the face of what Citizens are to stand for.

We are judged not by the myriad of things we do right but by the few times we do wrong.

I vote to keep the ruling.

[Dark Storm]

I agree with Arachir on the "daft" comment, in my mind the meaning of the term is also; 'mistaken'. On the other comment, I probably wouldn't use it here, as yes it does appear to be insulting, however it is a direct quote from the Simpsons so probably intended for its comedic value. I think Genius also has the measure of it. The infraction has been punishment enough and I think the censure is just rubbing salt in the wound. Voted to overturn.

[Halie Satanus]

I take it no one referred you all to my earlier (positive) comments on the Free French. if not curious as to why. Meaning no disrespect, I find it bizarre that critising the Petain and Vichy regimes could be seen as at all controversal.

No. Because, your previous comments are not what we're looking at. Nor are we here to review the Petain or Vichy regimes, it's the two comments you directed at another member.

However, looking back a couple of posts out of curiosity...

You also inferred he's a 'redneck,' which is just as off key as the comments under review, if not more so. While I empathize with your position(s) [in the debate], bottom line is you let the other persons opinions antagonized you and walked right into it.

[Ngugi]

It is about Citizen behavior. ...for a citizen to do...

I can understand the existence of this fail-safe, but it is obviously not about [moral policing upon a] citizen('s) behaviour, that it at first glance appear to be.

whether or not you find the action taken by the Triumvirate appropriate or not

Yes, it's a fail-safe on whether the referal been handled arbitrary and/or with inadequate competence and rational, or if in line with rules, competently handled and with rational, indeed.
That as institution I deem is acceptable.


On the ground that: I do not find "daft" a serious offense, is of the mind that Genious' set up as alternative for this case of blunt humour ("Je ne suis pas Charlie" but there are points when going puritan is not far away), and that I do not find I'm here to vote on other points than what the citizen was orginally judged for, I concur with DarkStorm:

The infraction has been punishment enough and I think the censure is just rubbing salt in the wound. Voted to overturn.