[2018-XI] [Citizen Referral] Elfdude - Appeal

[Belthasar Bolton]

Elfdude has appealed the result of censure for his citizen referral. The citizenry now votes on whether to uphold, overturn, change the ruling of the further action thread. The regulations and procedures can be referenced here. The original referral thread and further action thread are now accessible. Please discuss the case in this thread.

[PikeStance]

If we valued citizenship then we should value the idea that a higher standard must be maintained. The higher standards cannot be just avoiding the ToS or not violating it but appeal to the higher standards advanced by Katsumoto's proposal here.
Elfdude was referred in the past for off-topic posting here. It was eventually dismissed, but I found his defense to be of greater importance.

I will attempt to hold myself to a higher standard in the future, but I would ask that the staff also think about the practices in the Mudpit leading to the gross violation of debating standards. The mudpit should not be an anything goes forum (in those terms it was always the general forum which was that sort of forum) but rather should be a forum consistent with the standards of debate and discussion. Genuine debate and discussion. Topics should be narrowing guided by the OP and related topics discussing even subtly different concepts should be left separate.

I could not agree more with is sentiment here. If he makes a promise, however, he should upkeep it. If he wants higher standards in the mudpit, then he himself must be the torch bearer.
We awarded him the Phalera for a good reason. It was because of his exceptional posting. His own standards that he had created in the past, has fallen dramatically.

Sorry Elfdude, I will uphold the ruling of CENSURE (which I think is light) and hope that you can once again be the torch bearer of high standards that the Mudpit so badly needs.



Some clerical notes:
We should at least get a copy and paste of the referral and the defense in the OP. The subsequent debate does not have to be, but at bare minimal, we should get the referral. At least that is who I remember this being done in the past.
Also, the ruling should be in the question.

[Gaius Baltar]

After reading through the material, I found the use of personal slur in the second post to be most offensive. It does seem out of place with his past accomplishments, but this is not the first time an accomplished member has ventured into the mudpit and got, well, muddy. Elfdude appears to have a distinguished past posting history, with site awards and a Phalera medal as well. So there is some good in there somewhere. The Censure appears to be the most appropriate resolution of this issue.

I am concerned about his trend towards more aggressive posting, and wonder what issues seem to underlie that.

[Halie Satanus]

Is this, and the other two threads, supposed to be visable?...

[Ngugi]

Yes, that's the process when the referred appeal the Triumvirate's decision to the Curia:

If a Citizen is not satisfied with the result of their Referral, they may request a public appeal. The appeal will be discussed and decided in the Curia.⁹ The result is binding and is not subject to further appeal.

(...)

⁹ The Curator posts the original private Referral, and the further action thread in the Questiones Perpetuae, and opens a new poll thread with the options to keep, overturn or change the ruling, or abstain.
The poll lasts for four days. If the Citizenry votes to change the punishment, the Curator opens a second poll for four days. The options are all punishments excluding the original punishment, and abstention.
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.

[Quintus Hortensius Hortalus]

Is this, and the other two threads, supposed to be visable?...

Very much so because you shall vote here. The whole Curia decides if the appeal is granted. And we can't do so without the other 2 threads.

On the matter itself:
I agree with Pike on the matter of higher standarts.
The tone of the 2 posts is agressive. Furthermore he accuses the person he adresses of childish behavior ("You're faux ignorance is the ploy of a child when they know they're wrong.").
Furthermore these following lines have an agressive tone too:
"Your argument is an insult to yourself."
"Jesus christ, are your fingers broken?"
"Good luck defending your indefensible claims, your argument is among the worst I've ever seen. Congrats."
All those are at least very near insulting someone or the off-topic rule. As the higher standarts we demand from citizens can not be just avoiding a ToS violation which is here the case we appellant was not up to the higher standart we request from all citizens.
So the decision of the Censors for Further Action was right.

In addition the Censure was the right choice too. The appellant did not violate the ToS. In addition I can't see a history of breaking the ToS and I think the appellant will might change his behavior in the future so that harsher measures are not required.

[b0Gia de Bodemloze]

I also believe the Censure was the right choise too.

[Halie Satanus]

Not for me.

A mildly aggressive debate between to old debating dogs who know the game. I’m amused by Ponti’s rolling over to fein submission, but I’m not suckered by it.

Overturn.

[Adamat]

Uphold because of the earlier promise to keep themselves to higher standards and the apparent failure to do so

[Elfdude]

I do think this is something that requires context in order to understand. Whilst I agree the statements were aggressive they were not violating of the TOS as far as I am aware.

It should be noted that this is a case where Ponti made the assertion that what the CSA did was no where near as bad as other examples of regimes whose symbols he did support removing. That was utterly lambasted by not just myself but at least 3 other posters.

The exchange follows from here:

First post: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post15569546

Ponti dismisses a picture of the wounds suffered by slaves. From reports we have this is not a-typical, it's important to note that in some states slaves made up over half the population. No one likes being enslaved in this sort and maintaining that level of slavery based on race requires some rather monstrous tactics. This is dismissed as a non-argument.

Second post: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post15569569

I clarify context. As this debate has happened numerous times in the same thread involving the same people Ponti knows better. The level of atrocity has come up at least twice during his participation and he keeps claiming the same argument that it wasn't all that bad.

Third post: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post15569631

Another typical response of pontifex, the submissive outlook is a facade. He dismisses the photograph again and attempts to quantify his argument. He cites the alabama code, a great example of someone making a claim about civility of slavery laws without reading the actual code. His attempt to diminish the atrocities of a generation raised in slavery in a cage which has been legally constructed for hundreds of years by referencing that most slaves were sold by fellow africans (as if this matters whatsoever) is hallow. Note that we're not saying the CSA was worse than Nazi regimes or the USSR (although it's certain such an argument could be made) we're saying that removing a monument which defends this sort of behavior is justified, many of the CSA monuments are nothing more than this.

Fourth Post: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post15569719

Another poster calls him out and points out his argument is tenuous at best.

Fifth post: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post15569725

Ponti concedes the tenuous nature of his argument but maintains that relatively speaking the USSR and Nazi germany were far worse.

Sixth post: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post15569731

The degree and scope are countered as far more egregious

Seventh Post: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post15569733

Another poster points out that if Ponti admits the crimes of slavery are morally repugnant that his demand for additional proof of their horror in order to justify the removal of icons of slavery is weak and intellectual dishonest at best.

Eighth post: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post15569735

Ponti digs in his heals and tries to backpedal claiming that slavery is still worse. His number of 4.4 million is questionable but he's quick to utilize the most liberal estimates of horrors for more recent atrocities whilst using the most conservative (and inaccurate, records show around 12 million slaves in conservative estimates since 1630) of slavery and the atrocity therein. He's willfully biasing his argument and attempting to frame it as unbiased.

Ninth Post: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post15569741

Another poster points out the genuine intention.

Tenth Post: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post15569747

Ponti moves the goal posts and strawmans the opposite argument. A typical ploy of someone with an empty argument. He goes big and claims he just doesn't want to see the beauty of the KKK sculture on stone mountain blasted off the face of the mountain. This underscores the particularly silly nature of his argument given the rather direct issues with this particular monument and associated groups.

Eleventh Post: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post15569782

I point out the issues with his argument up to this point.

Twelfth post: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post15569786

Ponti starts with an indictment of tone. Then claims I have no backup for my argument demanding sources for easily available knowledge. This is not only moving the goalposts it's an attempt to paint the argument as one where if I don't respond then he wins by default. This is amongst the lowest forms of argumentation, and while I support someone who makes extraordinarily spurious claims having to source them, when something is literally well known using numbers which anyone can find in the first result on google demanding this is little more than a red herring.

Thirteenth post: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post15569801

Another poster again points out that the argument itself has not been addressed by ponti and the comparison is still valid

Fourteenth post: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post15569803

Ponti demands more evidence setting up a very specific goal post to move to in order to try and invalidate the pushback he's recieved.

Fifteenth post: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post15569809

Poster obliges but notes that this is intellectually dishonest and tedious to satisfy ponti's rather ridiculous demands less we be outright dismissed or branded as ruffians who had no interest in debate.

Sixteenth post: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post15570075

Ponti claims the source is behind a paywall. Doesn't seem to understand even if it was there's countless ways to view the source.

Seventeenth post: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post15570125

Posters confirm it's not subscription required. Also notes that the arguments being made against the maintenance of the monuments here are largely supported by historians, SJWs and local governments.

Eighteenth post: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post15570136

Ponti's support starts to make posts asking a rather silly question about whether or not hitler was responsible for the holocaust or stalin for communist russia... The false premises of this question are so inaccurately stated that it makes it quite clear how leading they are from the outset. To say however that nazism (for example) was responsible to one man is hilarious. Institutions are propped up by support of many powerful people most often.

Nineteenth post: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post15570169

Ponti likes the echo chamber and agrees that this is an appropriate response to our arguments. Note this is the guy who just said that he was arguing in a genuine and respectful manner. He knows the problems with this argument but isn't above endorsing it.

Twentieth post: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post15570234

The apparently very insulting statements I made. Ponti made a statement that my argument didn't have a source regarding the idea that proportionally to the population slavery was a much greater impact and effect than the holocaust and demanded a source. Using even conservative numbers of the time compared to occupied europe is something anyone can do and even the most grossly exaggerated comparisons will indeed support the truth there. It is a childish argument to demand proof for something which is plainly available for you to see. I also copied some of the statements from the article which he can't apparently see for him. It should also be noted my question of whether or not his fingers were broken is because despite being aware of several posters posting evidence of monuments being removed in a way which satisfied his (admittedly already moved) goal posts, he claims its only conjecture in an attempt to reframe the debate rather than indict his own inability to do something which no one else is having difficulty doing?

Twenty-first post: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post15570244

Asking ponti to familiarize himself with the basic facts of the debate. In genuine honesty the only person resting on conjecture is ponti.

What follows is more back and forth where ponti pretends to be ignorant and plays opossum until every goal post he moves to is satisfied and every fallacy he makes is demolished:

What we're left with is this gem:

Slavery, because in the age of intersectionality everything is racist and must be destroyed and all history is the same. CSA = Nazis = Stalin, and anyone who argues otherwise is "intelectually bankrupt"

Articulating any sensible standard for judging monuments individually must fall in the face of whitewashing history to mollify unidentified snowflakes.

So not only does he grossly oversimplify and strawman the literally hundreds of lines of argument where nuance to an obscene degree was explained in total support, he finishes up by calling those who make our arguments snowflakes. Because really here, this is a case of him making an argument he knew was spurious, precisely because he thinks CSA is fine and dandy and anyone who doesn't is a snowflake who should be ignored. Exactly as he did throughout the course of that debate up until he tipped his hand.

Does ponti admit this? Does he debate upholding the quality expected of a citizen? No. He uses some fallacious ploys and in the end pretends the argument never occurred.

What I'm more concerned about is whether he was allowed to frame the argument as tennable and a good argument for those who may read them. I don't care about ponti's interpretation because I know that few if any are likely to be honest enough to change their argument publically even when they realize they're wrong. However I don't want his words to support cultivating those who share his atrocious views and I do feel that my efforts along with others when read in context are not personally insulting to ponti whatsoever, but insulting to the argument he posted, an argument which rightfully should be insulted. That is the responsibility of those who have these arguments. Not to each other, but rather to the silent majority who read through these threads for clarity on volatile ideas.

[Sir Adrian]

Personal attacks from a Phalera holder are not tolerable. Personally I would have gone for 2 weeks but censure is acceptable.

Uphold.

[Elfdude]

The offending portions of the argument have been edited to more appropriately highlight what I'm getting at. I didn't do this earlier because the post was part of an active investigation but have been informed that the relevant parties have copies of what was said and can see edits. I should note I was informed that I was being reviewed for censure less than two hours after posting that. A faster turn around than most moderation.

Edited post: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post15570234

Spoiler for Edited post: 

Come on Elfdude, that tone is just counterproductive. I respect you and as such I automatically respect your arguments enough that I wouldn't respond to them unless I had evidence to back up my arguments. We're both experienced enough to reply to one another in good faith here, without much of an emotive response. I know you're capable of high quality debate, which is why I supported you for the best debater accolade. I just ask that you engage with my points like I'm not an , I have provided evidence after all...

Regardless of your respect of my character I have zero respect for the quality of your debate. Your debate is hollow and you know it. You have not shown any difference whatsoever. Demanding sources of something which is common knowledge is just stonewalling.

I'm not your enemy here, I just want to exchange ideas.

No you don't you want to whitewash an abhorent cultural mistake that the US made in an attempt to preserve shoddy monuments constructed by the KKK.

I already demonstrated the proportional impact was identical based on my sources, of which you have provided none. This effectively disposes of your half-arsed argument of proportions.

So proportional impact was identical? Let's pretend this is true (BTW nazis 10 million was certainly not a third to a half of the population not proportional) you've succeeded in proving my basic thesis that the CSA was just as monstrous.

Yes and? Where's your source? I provided one.

Look, requesting sources for something which isn't hard to find and is relatively well known seems to me to be little more than a ploy and a distraction from the argument at hand. It seems like faux ignorance the ploy of someone when they know they're wrong. Stop using it if you want to have your debate treated with respect.



There were well over 100's of millions of people in these countries. Even if we restrict them to those countries which systematically employed genocide we still come up with a number which isn't higher than 1 in 10. European jews composed 1.7% of the population, even at the most inflated estimates no more than 3% of the population was subjected to genocide. To do so would've required a force germany simply couldn't sustain because unlike the CSA we had not robbed europe of all humanity, rights and raised generations of slaves under brutal tyranny.

I'm not sure what you're requesting a source on. Are you requesting a source on their population? Are you requesting a source on the number affected? Be specific because all I see is someone retreating into vague goalpost shifting rhetorical devices. Why should I do the work to research something which is obvious for you? I mean if I was to say that slavery was 100x worse that's one thing, but all I did is directly compared the two and you declared it invalid on the basis of literally nothing.

Oh really? And your source? I provided one.

Here's 80 different scholarly citations discussing the treatment of slaves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatm..._United_States

Ok, and your source? I provided one.

One which was utterly insufficient to sustain your claim that these things aren't comparable? Good job.

I did demonstrate it. Do you have a source...or? I provided one.

You demonstrated nothing. You made a spurious claim about the numbers massacred in WWII and a vague claim about USSR without delving into anything related to proportionality or impact or depth or really anything else. You solely used one piece of quantitative data whilst ignoring the reality of the meaning of that data.

The KKK wasn't the primary funder of the Monument

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...he_Confederacy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Mountain

This isn't even disputed. United Daughters of the Confederacy and Sons of the Confederacy are two 501c4 charitable foundations which are tax exempt organizations put together by the KKK.

and perspectives on its removal are highly controversial, even among African Americans. Besides, the entire park is privately owned.

It was claimed in direct conflict with federal treaties, it could be repossessed at anytime the government wants to.

Where's your source for the KKK funding the monument? I happen to know who funded it, but given your ridiculous assertions here I'm not going to throw you any lifelines. Honestly Elfdude I'm sorry for your assumed attitude in this discussion. I once thought very highly of your posts but this has been a big let down for me.

I could care less about your views on me. The fact of the matter is you made a shoddy argument that you should be ashamed about and are doing your best to justify it whilst the foundation slides out from beneath you. You have no argument which begs the question of why do you really care here? I can hazard a guess.

You have failed to provide a single source for your arguments which honestly you should know better than to do. I truly do not mean this as an insult here. I know you are capable of better debate than this but your arguments here are truly awful.

Because a source is required for obvious information. With arguments like these there's no cause for insult. The argument you're making is empty and full of fallacies, it should be treated with disdain. That has nothing to do with my feeling or lack there of for you.

If so, which monuments have been removed in the US which mimic those removed elsewhere on the basis of the depravity of the regime? Not a single source has been referenced on the opposition, despite my references. What, seven of them so far? Do any supported arguments for this exist? Or is it just all conjecture? So far it all seems like unsupported conjecture.

Jesus christ. There's a dozen different ways to see a article which has been pay-walled. No one else is seeing this pay way either which is odd, I'm not certain why you're seeing a pay wall at all but we've done our due diligence. Distilling that to conjecture when we satisfied your constantly moving goal posts is a poor debate tactic which does little to sustain or reinforce your point.

I'm behind a pay wall for some reason

It's a free article. But since your ability to peruse a freely accessible article which can be accessed on a variety of sites and through a variety of methods is hitting a wall I'll pull out a few highlights:

Spoiler for the source you refuse to look at: 

Annapolis, Md.Roger B. Taney statue removed
A statue of Roger Taney was taken down from its post in front of the State House at about 2 a.m. on Aug. 18. Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican, called for its removal earlier this week, reversing a previously stated position that removing symbols like the statue would be tantamout to political correctness. Though not a Confederate official, Justice Taney was the chief author of the 1857 Dred Scott decision, which ruled that African-Americans, both enslaved and free, could not be American citizens.

Baltimore
Four monuments removed
The mayor of Baltimore, Catherine Pugh, ordered the removal of four monuments to the era of the Confederacy, saying it was in the interest of public safety after the violence in Charlottesville. The statues were taken down before dawn on Aug. 16.

Boston
Confederate monument
covered as state weighs options
A Confederate monument on Georges Island in Boston Harbor has been covered up as the state decides what to do about it. Governor Charlie Baker, a Republican, said in June that "we should refrain from the display of symbols, especially in our public parks, that do not support liberty and equality."

Plaque honoring Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy, removed
The plaque at Horton Plaza Park was removed on Aug. 16. "Monuments to bigotry have no place in San Diego or anywhere!" City Councilor Christopher Ward wrote on Twitter.

You're right. It's just a hyperbolic way to make the CSA look as evil as Nazi Germany without providing any proof or argument that it was. The level of evidence here has been reduced to posting pictures.

Hahaha. Because a picture is worth a 1000 words.

Good luck defending your indefensible claims, your argument is simply bad. Respect of you has nothing to do with it.

[Love Mountain]

Elfdude has been fair to himself and the opposing argument. I've been on the receiving end of engaging in fruitless debate and it does become infuriating at a certain point. Attempting to maintain civility becomes exceptionally difficult even if your remove yourself from the argument and return to it at a later time. Does this excuse the behavior? Of course not , but it paints context and punishment should be measured accordingly. It's clear that the behavior was caused by the course of the discussion and the antagonism between the two users, not natural maliciousness and not even a natural inclination to crude behavior. There's also the extended history of debate between the two users to consider.

I consider the entire episode and publicity to be punishment enough. I don't see the need for censure.

[Iskar]

There are two lines in all of this I find objectionable:

You're faux ignorance is the ploy of a child when they know they're wrong. Stop using it.

Jesus christ, are your fingers broken?

In the first one, the ignorance part is ok, as it describes debate behaviour, not a personal characteristic and is not eminently respectless. The problem lies rather with the "ploy of a child" comparison, which does drag the thing into ridiculing the opponent, as well as the almost offensive order "Stop using it." A citizen should never order other debaters around in such a rude manner.

The second one is entirely derisive, adds nothing to the discussion and just serves to make fun of the opposing argument instead of addressing it. I consider that very uncitizenlike.

Now for context: I know it often takes two to tango and that is indeed the case here, and I also know that repetitive arguments and stonewalling are frustrating, but a citizen should be above getting riled up by that (or know their limits and when to step away). Furthermore this is about elfdude's particular behaviour, so "he did it, too" or "he started it" arguments don't cut it and neither does the reference to whether one side in the argument at hand was "right" or "wrong". (If Ponti's behaviour was uncitizenlike as well people might consider referring him as well. Two people comitting the same transgression against each other does not nullify the transgressions in a net perspective.)
In real life we have the concept of mitigating circumstances, as you cannot step away from real life for a moment. On a forum you can, and as such transgressions need to be sanctioned regardless of context.

Hence, I suggest to uphold the Censure.

[Poach]

Certainly a poor debating tactic that arguably undermined his own legitimacy but a censure seems too far.

[♔atthias♔]

If we valued citizenship then we should value the idea that a higher standard must be maintained. The higher standards cannot be just avoiding the ToS or not violating it but appeal to the higher standards advanced by Katsumoto's proposal here.
Elfdude was referred in the past for off-topic posting here. It was eventually dismissed, but I found his defense to be of greater importance.



I could not agree more with is sentiment here. If he makes a promise, however, he should upkeep it. If he wants higher standards in the mudpit, then he himself must be the torch bearer.
We awarded him the Phalera for a good reason. It was because of his exceptional posting. His own standards that he had created in the past, has fallen dramatically.

Sorry Elfdude, I will uphold the ruling of CENSURE (which I think is light) and hope that you can once again be the torch bearer of high standards that the Mudpit so badly needs.



Some clerical notes:
We should at least get a copy and paste of the referral and the defense in the OP. The subsequent debate does not have to be, but at bare minimal, we should get the referral. At least that is who I remember this being done in the past.
Also, the ruling should be in the question.

Very much so because you shall vote here. The whole Curia decides if the appeal is granted. And we can't do so without the other 2 threads.

On the matter itself:
I agree with Pike on the matter of higher standarts.
The tone of the 2 posts is agressive. Furthermore he accuses the person he adresses of childish behavior ("You're faux ignorance is the ploy of a child when they know they're wrong.").
Furthermore these following lines have an agressive tone too:
"Your argument is an insult to yourself."
"Jesus christ, are your fingers broken?"
"Good luck defending your indefensible claims, your argument is among the worst I've ever seen. Congrats."
All those are at least very near insulting someone or the off-topic rule. As the higher standarts we demand from citizens can not be just avoiding a ToS violation which is here the case we appellant was not up to the higher standart we request from all citizens.
So the decision of the Censors for Further Action was right.

In addition the Censure was the right choice too. The appellant did not violate the ToS. In addition I can't see a history of breaking the ToS and I think the appellant will might change his behavior in the future so that harsher measures are not required.

Uphold because of the earlier promise to keep themselves to higher standards and the apparent failure to do so

Personal attacks from a Phalera holder are not tolerable. Personally I would have gone for 2 weeks but censure is acceptable.

Uphold.

There are two lines in all of this I find objectionable:

In the first one, the ignorance part is ok, as it describes debate behaviour, not a personal characteristic and is not eminently respectless. The problem lies rather with the "ploy of a child" comparison, which does drag the thing into ridiculing the opponent, as well as the almost offensive order "Stop using it." A citizen should never order other debaters around in such a rude manner.

The second one is entirely derisive, adds nothing to the discussion and just serves to make fun of the opposing argument instead of addressing it. I consider that very uncitizen- and unphaleralike.

Now for context: I know it often takes two to tango and that is indeed the case here, and I also know that repetitive arguments and stonewalling are frustrating, but a citizen should be above getting riled up by that (or know their limits and when to step away). Furthermore this is about elfdude's particular behaviour, so "he did it, too" or "he started it" arguments don't cut it and neither does the reference to whether one side in the argument at hand was "right" or "wrong". (If Ponti's behaviour was uncitizenlike as well people might consider referring him as well. Two people comitting the same transgression against each other does not nullify the transgressions in a net perspective.)
In real life we have the concept of mitigating circumstances, as you cannot step away from real life for a moment. On a forum you can, and as such transgressions need to be sanctioned regardless of context.

Hence, I suggest to uphold the Censure.

because of the good points made above which expressed it better then I could I vote for uphold the ruling

[Elfdude]

I should note that my prior defense referencing holding myself to a higher standard was in regards to a referral for off-topic posting. While I'm not excusing an aggressive tone in this case, it'd be inappropriate to connect two unrelated referrals for vastly different reasons.

[PikeStance]

Whilst I agree the statements were aggressive they were not violating of the TOS as far as I am aware.

I should note that my prior defense referencing holding myself to a higher standard was in regards to a referral for off-topic posting. While I'm not excusing an aggressive tone in this case, it'd be inappropriate to connect two unrelated referrals for vastly different reasons.

It should be noted that in cases of citizenship application in which we are evaluating a Civitate, it has been argued and people have voted accordingly, that simply not violating the ToS is not sufficient enough. In the case of a Phalera, the standard id much higher. It is inappropriate for anyone holdings Large award (and especially a Phalera) to be anything less than a model debator. This means skirting the ToS service is unacceptable. Moreover, the "devil made me do it" is not a good defense. A Phalera would be expected to take the "High road" and debate accordingly. Thee are "Civitates" who have opted to resign their badge because they could not hold themselves to a higher standard.

Lastly, the quote was added to show that you expect yourself to behave at a higher standard. It is not restricted to one ToS rule but all. You cannot pick and choose when to hold yourself to a higher standard and when to succumb to "devil." It is all or nothing proposition.

[Veteraan]

I should note that my prior defense referencing holding myself to a higher standard was in regards to a referral for off-topic posting. While I'm not excusing an aggressive tone in this case, it'd be inappropriate to connect two unrelated referrals for vastly different reasons.

You reserve your higher standards for avoiding off-topic posting only?

As there is a lot of clarifying going on, I will state here, as I did in the referral threads, that my decision for a Censure had nothing to do with the arguments made in the debate thread. They are largely irrelevant when it concerns this case, from this Censor's view at least. Censors look at behaviour, not at the quality of arguments in a discussion, which would be totally unworkable in practice.
Also the Triumvirate may look at ToS violations, but that is not the only thing. It's stated in the constitution that Citizens are bound to a higher standard and that means more than just abiding by the ToS. I don't know if Elfdude's posts were reported to moderation, or if a moderator looked at them. However, the fact that there has been no infraction being issued by moderation, does not mean that there is no case for the Triumvirate.

It is good to see that Elfdude knows exactly which parts of his post may have needed some editing. The "improved version" would most likely have been dismissed right away.

Edit: partly Ninja'd by Pikestance, I see.

[Elfdude]

It should be noted that in cases of citizenship application in which we are evaluating a Civitate, it has been argued and people have voted accordingly, that simply not violating the ToS is not sufficient enough.

This is an inflexible standard which can be best summed as your view. Citizenship applications are (at least mine was) reviewed on degree of contribution to the site and whether that was a positive element which contributed to an overall better site. In the case of civitates that's whether they contributed content which raised the standard of debate be it through respect, detail, logic, or some other incalculable quality. A ToS violation of any sort is not unheard of. Rare it may be but even my own behavior has only err'd on the side of bad faith a small handful of times. You're painting with broad strokes here. I agree that citizens should be better behaved insofar that they're usually aware of the rules much more keenly than their counterparts but no standard should be perfection. In this case the referral is clearly in regard to frustration at the dismissal of a hollow argument designed to invalidate the poster in a methodology not dissimilar to poisoning the well.

In the case of a Phalera, the standard id much higher. It is inappropriate for anyone holdings Large award (and especially a Phalera) to be anything less than a model debator.

I stand beside the idea that I am a model debator. I do not presume to claim I'm perfect. However, I'm intellectually honest and resist the crux of rhetoric. I presume good intentions on behalf of those I debate which and while I become bemused often by crappy arguments I'm thorough in pointing how why I view them as crappy. I err'd on the side of verbosity here which lent itself to crossing a line in my descriptions not because I sought to attack Ponti in a way which skirted the ToS but rather because I was searching for how to phrase the frustration at his argument.

This means skirting the ToS service is unacceptable.

No one said it was, nor was anyone advocating for it. This is a presumption of my motivation levee'd by yourself.

Moreover, the "devil made me do it" is not a good defense.

No one said this either. However I want you to consider the precedent set when someone debates and their opposition refers them for referral. The referral system is present to specifically hold citizens accountable to offenses which can't realistically be pinned to ToS alone and to hold them accountable to ToS violations themselves. This isn't there to prescribe certain behavioral standards and I resist the implication that an argument which is tantamount to diminishing the worth of a human should not be effectively smashed into the ground. While speech should be free, response to that speech should also be free, rather it should be lauded as an admirable pursuit for it's not those who make spurious claims who are facing the greatest difficulty but those who endeavor to respond to them.

A Phalera would be expected to take the "High road" and debate accordingly. Thee are "Civitates" who have opted to resign their badge because they could not hold themselves to a higher standard.

I do not think resigning your badge in protest of the way the governance of TWCenter is going offers much support for your argument. Any citizen resigning their badge willingly for any reason should be cause for pause from the curia. I'm surprised you aren't more aligned with this perspective considering your attempt to revitalize TWCenter.

Lastly, the quote was added to show that you expect yourself to behave at a higher standard. It is not restricted to one ToS rule but all. You cannot pick and choose when to hold yourself to a higher standard and when to succumb to "devil." It is all or nothing proposition.

Your attempt to frame this argument as you will is a farce at best. You can definitely hold yourself to a higher standard of relevancy without claiming to hold yourself to a higher standard of behavior. Noting one flaw does not make you immune to all flaws nor even more apt to see them. Furthermore, the idea that me holding myself to a higher standard should be obvious to your causal assessment is dangerous at worst and foolhardy at best. I am discussing a volatile subject, known for its volatility for a reason. I don't ask that you condone or sanction my behavior I ask you understand it and view it in context. While I accept that my behavior is not the best, I do not see any evidence that my behavior continued in that manner or that one should presume I'm skirting the rules for rules sake. When you strip out statements of mine without context you rob your judgement of the nuance necessary to make quality judgement.

You reserve your higher standards for avoiding off-topic posting only?

That's a stretch. No. Neither my statement nor my sentiment. My higher standards are by my own awareness and assessment. It would be like challenging me for failing to do the dishes then getting mad that I eat my cereal too loudly and expecting the former conversation to translate into a solution for the later action. Does that not seem a strange leap to you?

As there is a lot of clarifying going on, I will state here, as I did in the referral threads, that my decision for a Censure had nothing to do with the arguments made in the debate thread. They are largely irrelevant when it concerns this case, from this Censor's view at least. Censors look at behaviour, not at the quality of arguments in a discussion, which would be totally unworkable in practice.

They do look at behavior, but my contention is behavior is meaningful in context. It's not unworkable to do so and given that this adjudication is happening in excess to any supposed ToS violation I don't think it's inappropriate to expect those responsible for its resolution to take into account variables which are not well defined by the ToS itself. I think it's entirely acceptable for TWCenter to legislate itself into a happy go lucky world where no one offends anyone in any sense, but I also think that's a standard of dizzying complexity. Were it to have been adjudicated by moderators something would've been much easier to justify censorship. However in this case the first step was to push for referral. That seems like an odd leap.

Also the Triumvirate may look at ToS violations, but that is not the only thing. It's stated in the constitution that Citizens are bound to a higher standard and that means more than just abiding by the ToS. I don't know if Elfdude's posts were reported to moderation, or if a moderator looked at them. However, the fact that there has been no infraction being issued by moderation, does not mean that there is no case for the Triumvirate.

I would not say there was no case. I would however say that such a case should be handled with considerable care and understanding of the spirit the Triumvirate was attempting to uphold. I see none of that.

It is good to see that Elfdude knows exactly which parts of his post may have needed some editing. The "improved version" would most likely have been dismissed right away.

The message one receives from this punishment has little to do with modifying their behavior positively but rather to not risk responding to a terrible argument which deserves response. It also tells them that if they don't like someone's post and even if moderators decline to do anything that they should first turn to referral to try and eliminate their standing in the community.

These are dangerous precedents to set.