DENIED: Case 83 (RZZZA)

[RZZZA]

Another day, another tribunal. Firstly I want to apologize for being such a handful.

Yesterday I got another warning and subsequent suspension from Manstein for my comments in the Anti-Religion thread. Theyve now been edited out and if someone can repost what I said here, that would be nice. To the best of my recollection, it was a reply to Sir Dinidan, when he asked why Atheist Peace was being kicked out of the group, I answered "Because he is unstable..."

This was interpreted as another personal attack, and I was warned and suspended again. Well, I have news for everyone who reads this...AP is unstable. This is not a personal attack, its a truthful observation. His instability is the reason he was demoted from his moderator job. His instabiliy is the reason he is no longer a civitate. His instability is the reason he was suspended just a few days ago for calling me a quote "F'in moron". And now, his instability is the reason he is no longer a member of S.I.N.

I ask for no reprimand against manstein, I just wish for these heavy handed, trigger happy mod tactics to end. If I can be punished for being controversial, for being unfriendly, and now for stating the obvious...what next? Am I to be warned and suspended for not covering my mouth when I cough?

Gentlemen...I thank you for your time, and I trust justice will prevail.

[RZZZA]

The issue in context, very much WAS if AP is unstable or not. May I point out that I never sought to provoke AP, or indeed never even sought to draw his attention, until AFTER he was suspended for swearing and flaming at me in the Depression thread. I only started to smugly provoke him after he came back from his suspension, in the Dream Retirement thread.

The reason I cited his instability as an excuse to remove him from the group was precisely because on 2 seperate occasions prior he replied to my posts and said some not very nice things. The first time by indirectly calling me stupid in Sir Dinidans thread and the second time being much more severe in the Depression thread, which resulted in his suspension. I decided then that I'd have to remove him due to his instability, he was picking fights with me in public and making S.I.N. look bad.

Thats all I meant by instability, not that hes mentally challenged, just that hes shown some instability in the past and I made the decision to remove him. It was an honest reply to an honest question, perhaps if someone had just asked me "what do you mean by unstable?" instead of suspending me, all this could have been avoided.

edit: sought is the word...not seeked...

[Erich von Manstein]

The issue in context, very much WAS if AP is unstable or not.

The issue in content is whether AP is unstable or not, as the cause of action in this case is the post in controversy. The issue in context, however, is whether RZZZA's comments regarding AP were in violation of the ToS. RZZZA's actions, not AP's, resulted in the infraction. His only involvement was to be the subject of your post. Other than that, his past behavior is irrelevant in the case at hand.

I mantain that the post in controversy was a violation of the ToS regarding personal attacks and/or trolling. RZZZA alleges that the post was made while AP was suspended. This should make no difference. RZZZA knew that AP was suspended, not banned, and hence was aware of the fact that AP would be returning. These posts do not take the form of verbal statements which dissipate as soon as they are said. Posts are in a written form and may be acknowledged and understood long after they have been created. Therefore both the personal attack and trolling charges should stick, as RZZZA's argument that AP was not capable of accessing the boards at the exact moment of his post is irrelevant (indeed, AP returned an hour later).

The reason I cited his instability as an excuse to remove him from the group was precisely because on 2 seperate occasions prior he replied to my posts and said some not very nice things. The first time by indirectly calling me stupid in Sir Dinidans thread and the second time being much more severe in the Depression thread, which resulted in his suspension. I decided then that I'd have to remove him due to his instability, he was picking fights with me in public and making S.I.N. look bad.

As I said before, this is irrelevant to the case at hand.

It was an honest reply to an honest question, perhaps if someone had just asked me "what do you mean by unstable?" instead of suspending me, all this could have been avoided.

Whether right or wrong (and I am of the opinion that it is right), public perception of the word "unstable" is that it implies mental instability, a.k.a. mental illness. This is quite different from mental retardation. I saw no need to ask RZZZA whether his personal definition of the word "unstable" as used in the context of the post was different from that of the public jargon. As I said before, a public forum such as this is no place to advertise one's non-professional opinion that another member of these boards is mentally unstable. Whether factually correct or not, such opinions are best resolved privately, not in a manner in which potentially thousands of viewers may witness it.

[RZZZA]

The issue in content is whether AP is unstable or not, as the cause of action in this case is the post in controversy. The issue in context, however, is whether RZZZA's comments regarding AP were in violation of the ToS. RZZZA's actions, not AP's, resulted in the infraction. His only involvement was to be the subject of your post. Other than that, his past behavior is irrelevant in the case at hand.

I mantain that the post in controversy was a violation of the ToS regarding personal attacks and/or trolling. RZZZA alleges that the post was made while AP was suspended. This should make no difference. RZZZA knew that AP was suspended, not banned, and hence was aware of the fact that AP would be returning. These posts do not take the form of verbal statements which dissipate as soon as they are said. Posts are in a written form and may be acknowledged and understood after they have been created. Therefore both the personal attack and trolling charges should stick, as RZZZA's argument that AP was not capable of accessing the boards at the exact moment of his post is irrelevant (indeed, AP returned an hour later).

no, you got it twisted, I dont allege that the post in question (He is unstable...) was made while AP was suspended. He was NOT suspended at this time, he had already been unsuspended for awhile and he made a post in the Anti-Religion thread to taunt me. Enlarging his "Member of SIN" signature while knowing full well that I wanted him to remove it, and posted saying something like "Hey lets start a new SIN, an anti RZZZA sin...". You can go view all these posts in the anti religion thread now, theyre all still there.

Above APs post was Sir dinidans, asking me more or less why I was removing AP from the group. I answered back "Because of his instability" hearkening back to his penchant for publically insulting me in previous threads.

This is all ridiculous semantics. I know what I meant by unstable, and what I meant was fracturization of S.I.N. due to one member attacking another in public. That is group instability, when members are at eachothers throats.

Who knows better what I meant, you or me? I absolutely hate walkin on eggshells with language, I dont like to have to second guess myself and go "gee, should I not use this word because it may be misinterpreted and misconstrued?" I dont think like that. The word 'instability' has a number of definitions, why are you cornering me into only one of them and then claiming that that is what I meant?

"Instability-the tendency to behave in an unpredictable, changeable, or erratic manner" <-that is AP to me

[Erich von Manstein]

As both parties have presented their arguments, I suggest an end to the discussion and that the case be taken under review by the Tribunal.

[Erich von Manstein]

The post in question:

You dont have to agree with my views, you just have to be a stable person. And AP is unstable, I reserve the right to remove anyone who would make S.I.N. look bad.

My reasons for the warning and subsequent suspension were two-fold. I am of the belief that a manner of civility is required by the ToS when posting on these boards. At issue here is not whether AP is unstable or not. Instead it is whether one should be allowed to advertise on a public forum their opinion that another member is 'unstable', which typically implies mental illness. My reading of the ToS is that this would qualify as a personal attack. Ultimately the accurate interpretation is for the Tribunal to decide.

As for the suspension, I felt that RZZZA warranted it for a few reasons. He and AP have traded several inflammatory posts with one another over the past 48 hours, one of which resulted in AP's suspension for 24 hours. The post in controversy appeared to be a continuation of that feud. I suspended RZZZA for 24 hours to give him a chance to cool off rather than as a punishment. I would have been within my powers as a moderator to suspend him as a punishment, however, given the numerous warnings for personal attacks he has accrued in the past few days.

Both sides involved in this case have presented the facts; I leave it to the Tribunal to make a decision regarding it.

[Mímirswell]

While unstable is a vague personal attack, you were clearly using your position in SIN to incite AP and calling him Unstable was a further attempt to achieve this goal. As such, it was trolling. Appeal Denied.