[2016-2] [Appeal] mishkin (Citizen Referral) [OVERTURNED]

[Iskar]

mishkin has requested an appeal of the Censure verdict issued by the Triumvirate for this Citizen Referral.

The case is open for discussion by all citizens and a poll to be added will contain the options:
- Keep the Ruling
- Overturn the Ruling
- Change the Ruling
- Abstain

In the third case an additional poll will be held to determine the new ruling.

You can discuss the case right away, but mishkin will also post an official appeal statement.

[mishkin]

Thanks a lot Iskar.


Hi. I appeal the decision of the triumvirate mainly because I prefer to be judged publicly by all citizens rather than privately by citizens elected to do so. I'm not against their decision (although I have some doubts), but against the system used to judge my attitude or actions. I also considered whether this decision (publicly appeal) would be detrimental to the image of the curia. Recently (about 4 months ago) there was discussion at the Curia Commentary Thread about how the politicking, heated discussions and vendettas in the form of referrals were damaging the image of the curia. Decisions, decisions, decisions.

The main accusation (the only accusation with some basis in my opinion) is this post:

Oh yes, it was 1984. I do look forward to the next satirical literature.

A Confederacy of Dunces.

Oh man. I deserve like +100 rep points for this one.

To me, at first sight, that was just some kind of pedantic joke. I thought I had nailed it in a moment of inspiration. Great, mishkin, great. But I understand that, analyzed, can be considered a veiled insult. With that joke I was implicitly saying that Pike reminds me of the main character of the mentioned novel, when it is commonly accepted that said character is an individual of negative characteristics.

What would have happened if instead of that novel I had mentioned another? Lets say, Death in Venice. Would anyone consider that I was insulting Pike? This would have bothered him? Would anyone infer that I was calling him (simplifying things) pathetic old man? What is the difference between the two cases? Perhaps I have previously called Pike pedantic or grandiloquent? Not that I recall. It is complicated.

Another message for which I am accused is as follows:

This is, in my humble opinion, the stupidest thing TWC could do. I will try to explain my point of view later.

It was a friendly response? Certainly not. Constructive criticism? Don’t know. What I know for sure is that is not an answer where I am insulting him (veiledly or openly). Not being friendly (or being aggressive, putting ourselves in the worst cases) and purely constructive is an attitude unbecoming of a citizen?

This in my opinion leads us to the next, generic accusation: “mishkin continuously attacks Pike’s character and intelligence”. Short answer: No way. Long answer:

I've never liked Pike. That of course does not mean that I have dedicated myself to pursuing or insulting him. I guess we know each other for four or five years and I think it is worth noting that I have never violated any rule in my relation with him (no personal references, harassing, insults, offensive orders, insinuations or whatever).
In most of the occasions, when we have interacted both we have tried to behave like civilized people. Undoubtedly both him and myself we would like the curia was a peaceful place, but as young people say, **** happens. How often? I do not know. I've been thinking about it for these last days and only remember three incidents: During VoNCs and during a discussion at the Townhall (and I only remember that last incident because of the intervention of Flinn).

Already started this referral, he sent to the triumvirate another proof of my attitude, this “offending statement”:

The way I see it, you prefer an amendment with your name to participate in a broader process.
Based on my congenital malice, I oppose.

Yes, I could not help but respond in this way to a person who had just launched a referral against me.

Let me add another example to illustrate my unfortunate attitude towards him during these last days:

I wouldn't worry about any backlash on an Internet forum. I express my opinion all the time and people do not like it. The mature ones move on. Some hold a grudges, but who cares. Life is short. In fact, I rmember say I didn't like Lord of the Ring in this very thread. People got into a huff, but they move on.

Holly Yisus, Pike.

Holly
Yisus

[……...a really big wall of text………]

Let's put this another way.... someone 5 or ten years from now is going to read these threads and think we are absolutely nuts and they would be right. Seriously, If I was a new member reading these threads, i would want to stay the heck away from this place. Let's do ourselves a favor.... like an idea, not like an idea, but stop personalizing it. 905 of the Curia's problem is people not doing this.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I am about to explode Pike. Congratulations.

(Spoiler in the video added by me)

Closing.
- I understand that, given the context (my relationship with Pike), my “Confederacy of Dunces” post was unfortunate or inappropriate, and even that can be considered “unbecoming of a citizen”.
- (I hope this does not sound defiant or something like that). If anyone sees this referral as something with a possible educational or coercive utility, I would love a peaceful a friendly relation with every user, but I can assure that my general "attitude towards Pike" is not going to change since I do not consider it inappropriate.

My apologies if this has been an excessively long “allegation”. Thanks for your time.

[Shankbot de Bodemloze]

A question on procedure, I thought Citizen referrals were anonymous? Or did Pike specify somewhere he was fine with it being known? As far as I know only the Curator should know the identify of the person who sent the referral.

[Iskar]

The constitution says:

If a Citizen is referred by another Citizen, the process is the same, except that the warning is substituted for the referrer's accusation, and the defendant shall receive an anonymous copy of the accusation from the Curator.

I understood this in such a way that the full referral message is posted in the Politia and the referred citizen receives an anonymised version, which is what mishkin got when the referral was started. There is no precaution for anonymisation if the referred requests public archivation.

[mishkin]

I have never been informed about the identity of the accuser.

[Flinn]

Pardon my total ignorance, but I need to understand; if I got it right, the Triumvirate decided for a Censure, isn't it? What does this imply and what are the consequences for the Censured Citizen?

Another question: are we allowed to give our general view over the situation that lead to the referral or should we stick only to the specific case? Asking because this is a story that comes from far and it needs a bit of context IMO.

thanks in advance

[Quintus Hortensius Hortalus]

Pardon my total ignorance, but I need to understand; if I got it right, the Triumvirate decided for a Censure, isn't it? What does this imply and what are the consequences for the Censured Citizen?

Another question: are we allowed to give our general view over the situation that lead to the referral or should we stick only to the specific case? Asking because this is a story that comes from far and it needs a bit of context IMO.


thanks in advance

A censure is a message sent to the citizen explaining what he has done wrong and a sort of "last warning".

To your second question, I would stay close to the specific case but if you the that your ruling needs I wider explanation you are free to share it. Anyway the is no constitutional border.

[Iskar]

As long as only the posts and not the personalities (or other non-transient qualities) of the users at hand are being discussed you can bring as much context into consideration as you desire, I think.

[Flinn]

tnx gents

so a censure is the equivalent of a note, right?

Anyhow, backing to the matter in discussion, I'm inclined to overturn the ruling, because I don't see it as an insult personally, reasoning below:

I mentioned the context because this is a situation that comes from faraway and because in my opinion no judgement should be taken outside of the same; both citizens involved (and not only them) have been fencing over the months on practically everything, with tones going up and down quite often (words as trolls/trolling where used for instance) and in my book the whole situation is detrimental for the image/purposes of the Curia, hence I would have preferred this to be stopped ages ago, but since it seems that this kind of confrontation is fine and well within the boundaries of what is considered appropiate for the citizens' higher behaviour, then I don't see the referred post to be worse or offensive more than many other posts/comments that have been used on such discussions. Either the whole matter will be reviewed and all the involved citizens called to think on what they did and possibly censured (which is a simply warning, as I understood it) or I don't see why this specific case could be considered worse than the others.

[Quintus Hortensius Hortalus]

so a censure is the equivalent of a note, right?

If I'm right the one sent in this case is here

[Flinn]

uh uh true, and I already saw it

thanks again

[Inkie]

Would I be right to assume that with a censure being considered a warning, if mishkin continues to post in this way deemed inappropriate that he'll be suspended from the Curia?

[Iskar]

That would be the general idea (though you need to replace "Curia" with "Citizenry" to be precise), but each verdict is subject to the discretion of the Censores and not bound by any binding escalation of penalties.

[Sir Adrian]

Mishkin's behavior was inappropriate and he admits it, and even though the act of referring other people disgusts me thoroughly regardless of what was done or who the referrer is, mishkin is a mature man so it should be sufficient to remind him to watch what he types. I vote overturn.


As a side note if I was censor I would seriously consider a suspension the next time an incident occurs between the two of them. That is, of course, what I would do and not a suggestion to the triumvirate.

[Aikanár]

I like the Triumvirates reasoning ...

The Triumvirate appreciate that you are an intelligent and self-aware person. Therefore we also have full confidence that you knowingly, as displayed in your responses to the referral, acted in either a provocative manner, or in one that could be experienced as provocative, for its own sake. As a consequence of this, the Triumvirate has decided to censure you.

This is not a kindergarten where all 'have to be friends' or all conflict should be restrained (as you well know as a long time member and from serving as Censor yourself). Still, in the spirit of the rules of the site: content and not the poster should be addressed, and it is not befitting the community and citizenship when the discussions become a tool for taking pot shots merely for the sake of conflict.

We desire to see no further acts of this kind as both you and PikeStance have the right to interact on TWC without fear for personal assaults or aggravations. As a citizen, we implore you to take a more considered approach to members of the site, even those that you view with animosity.

source.
... with regards to the spirit of the site, that one should attack the content of a post and not the poster.

However, with regards to the postings in question that form the basis of the accusation, I'm not too sure that the reasoning matches up with the content of those postings. I think that the Triumvirate took a wider context into consideration to form their opinion (as indicated in the ruling and some postings). I've to read up on the context before I can form myself and informed opinion about whether I can follow the reasoning of the Triumvirate or not.

[PikeStance]

I just to point out a few points not addressed thus far...
I have made several overtures to miskin via PMs. These have not worked. I later put miskin in ignore. After a brief period he asked to be removed. I did so. After short time; miskin left the door open to address an issue he had with my supposed attitude with him. I took the time to craft a a sincere post to address his concerns and to ease the conflict between us You can read it here. It appeared to help usher in a period of understanding, however this would change again and without warning. Things were fine up to the point to his long absence. Upon his return, I even took the time to welcome him back to the forum. Within a few hours, I received a number of unprovoked provocative posts from him. I was left with three choices; PM him again, place on ignore again, or issue a referral. I tried everything else. I felt that I have made every reasonable attempt to resolve whatever conflict he has with me.

In the past, whenever someone have said anything "provocative" towards me, I generally simply laughed it off and moved on, believing that ignoring it, it will eventually stop. I actually receive a number of sympathetic PM/ reps to this effect. I have no idea why miskin has this dislike towards me. I type what I think and sometimes what I feel. I do not feel I am more or less vigorous in my arguments than the next guy. This isn't anbout a dislike for me. I hold no malice towards anyone. A difference of an opinion is a difference of opinion. Nothing more or nothing less. People talk about the Curia being a place of higher discussion, but things always digress.

I want to make it clear that this was not the first step, but the last step in the hopes of resolving a conflict. I only want to discuss things in a friendly environment.

[Hitai de Bodemloze]

mishkin is a mature man so it should be sufficient to remind him to watch what he types. I vote overturn.

Surely the censure is the reminder for mishkin to watch what he types, so why overturn?

Myself, I don't see much wrong with the offending comments, but if mishkin himself admits to the first comment effectively being an insult - and that the intention behind it was more negative than positive, more a snide remark than a joke between friends for example - then I guess the ruling should be kept.

[Harry Lime]

Really, really mild and fairly witty. The Curia was built by people who said much nastier and albeit wittier things to each other most of the time. I can believe that we have become so thin-skinned that such statements are deemed worthy of a referral as that seems to be the inexorable drift in both society and TWC in general but I don't have to agree with it and I will be voting to overturn it.

[Iskar]

Poll has been added. It will last for four days.

[mishkin]

Edit: I have deleted my reply to Pike. Too heated, maybe. If anyone thinks that this edition is somewhat unfairly, I have kept a copy, I'll repost it.