[Discussion] Clarification On Participation In Report Thread

[NERVUN]

Well, I didn't necessarily mean to cause a fiasco over this, but I think Fris just thought I was trying to act like a moderator.

That's it, though. Where is the line between expressing your own opinion on the nature of a post that you made (After all, who would know better than you?) and acting like a moderator? I'm not asking for you in particular, though your warning was what caused my confusion, but rather for myself and others on this site who might be hesitant to defend ourselves in the future for fear of increased penalties, or the imposition of penalties where there would have previously been none.

Honest, I do not see saying "That's not a flame" as acting as a Moderator. Again though, I am not saying that happened here.

[Fartsniffage]

Kat has more pictures.

Will they be in any way less spammy than the last one?

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Everyone's been offering their take on it - we're going to pause here and let Fris give his before going any further, thanks.

[Frisbeeteria]

I'm not seeing what the problem here is. "You disgust me" is unquestionably a personal attack. Granted, it's pretty mild by forum standards, and my first inclination was to dismiss it or give an unofficial.

However, when I read the comment "That wasn't a flame. It wasn't even an insult," it became apparent that The Orson Empire didn't want to take ANY responsibility for his post. As such, I chose to bump it from an unofficial to an *** official *** warning.

Sorry about the impression that I was warning for mod impersonation. That had nothing to do with the ruling. Now that I've explained the reasoning, another mod can provide a second opinion if needed.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I'm not seeing what the problem here is. "You disgust me" is unquestionably a personal attack. Granted, it's pretty mild by forum standards, and my first inclination was to dismiss it or give an unofficial.

However, when I read the comment "That wasn't a flame. It wasn't even an insult," it became apparent that The Orson Empire didn't want to take ANY responsibility for his post. As such, I chose to bump it from an unofficial to an *** official *** warning.

Sorry about the impression that I was warning for mod impersonation. That had nothing to do with the ruling. Now that I've explained the reasoning, another mod can provide a second opinion if needed.

Oh, I didn't think that there was a mod impersonation warning there, but I'm not concerned with the post itself as what it seems to signify. What I'm getting from this is that if I defend myself by characterizing a statement as something other than how it is seen by the moderator, I could end up having a warning issued where there would not have been a warning issued before, and that this would be based upon my perceived motivations in how I characterized the statement.

Sorry, I know that's a bit run-on, but I'm going on nearly 40 hours with no sleep due to various emergencies popping up.

[NERVUN]

I'm not seeing what the problem here is. "You disgust me" is unquestionably a personal attack. Granted, it's pretty mild by forum standards, and my first inclination was to dismiss it or give an unofficial.

However, when I read the comment "That wasn't a flame. It wasn't even an insult," it became apparent that The Orson Empire didn't want to take ANY responsibility for his post. As such, I chose to bump it from an unofficial to an *** official *** warning.

Sorry about the impression that I was warning for mod impersonation. That had nothing to do with the ruling. Now that I've explained the reasoning, another mod can provide a second opinion if needed.

Oh, I didn't think that there was a mod impersonation warning there, but I'm not concerned with the post itself as what it seems to signify. What I'm getting from this is that if I defend myself by characterizing a statement as something other than how it is seen by the moderator, I could end up having a warning issued where there would not have been a warning issued before, and that this would be based upon my perceived motivations in how I characterized the statement.

Sorry, I know that's a bit run-on, but I'm going on nearly 40 hours with no sleep due to various emergencies popping up.

That doesn't seem to have been the case here though so...

Edit: And if you've been up for so long... why not get some rest before you fall over? We're not planning on closing up any time soon.

[The 54th Squadron]

"You disgust me" is unquestionably a personal attack. Granted, it's pretty mild by forum standards, and my first inclination was to dismiss it or give an unofficial.

I didn't really read that in the way of a personal attack. I just merely read it as, well, someone being disgusted by the words of another person.

However, when I read the comment "That wasn't a flame. It wasn't even an insult," it became apparent that The Orson Empire didn't want to take ANY responsibility for his post. As such, I chose to bump it from an unofficial to an *** official *** warning.

I'm sure that wasn't his intention. Orson would probably had taken responsibility for his post. He wasn't attempting to be reckless.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Oh, I didn't think that there was a mod impersonation warning there, but I'm not concerned with the post itself as what it seems to signify. What I'm getting from this is that if I defend myself by characterizing a statement as something other than how it is seen by the moderator, I could end up having a warning issued where there would not have been a warning issued before, and that this would be based upon my perceived motivations in how I characterized the statement.

Sorry, I know that's a bit run-on, but I'm going on nearly 40 hours with no sleep due to various emergencies popping up.

That doesn't seem to have been the case here though so...

Edit: And if you've been up for so long... why not get some rest before you fall over? We're not planning on closing up any time soon.

I appreciate it, but I have a special needs daughter (Congenital fiber type disproportion myopathy), and I have to wait for her nurse to show up. And at this point, I'm on my third wind, and likely wouldn't be able to sleep anyway. I'll likely have to fall over.

[Bezombia]

That doesn't seem to have been the case here though so...

It has been said in basically as many ways possible that this thread is not intended to be a discussion about the warning that Orson got, but rather a discussion about possibilities of things like that happening elsewhere.

[Forsher]

I think all this case demonstrates is that we're allowed to defend ourselves but we have to be careful in doing so that we don't make things worse for ourselves. Put another way, not all defences are good ones.

Looking at the example, I think Fris' issue is that Orson's attitude was completely dismissive of the idea that there is anything wrong/inappropriate with telling another poster that they, as a person (as opposed to their ideas), disgust the poster making the remark. The way I see it, it's entirely appropriate to raise the response if an action appears worse when placed in context. That said, I think it is difficult to phrase a defence in such a way, for this case, that wouldn't give this impression of "there's nothing wrong here".

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

I don't think we have an issue of 'not being able to defend oneself', given the explanations. There wasn't much defense, simply a dismissal by the defendee, after all. So ... yeah. Seems clear enough.

So in short - yes, you can participate in a report thread if you are directly involved, and you will not be warned for said participation. However, please bear in mind that what and how you phrase things is taken into account. Same as anywhere else on the forums. There exists no such rule that allows for poor behavior just because 'I was defending myself'. (Not that this was egregious in that regard, but it was taken into account in the final warning.)

[Yumyumsuppertime]

The line between defense and dismissiveness seems a thin one at best to me, and far too easily based on a moderator's mood rather than any reasonable consistent standard. However, a few moderators have politely given their opinions on the matter, and while I can't say that I'm satisfied with the answers--the positions stated seem too open to the whims of the moderator--I'm satisfied that answers have been given, and that there's little point in further pursuit of the topic. It simply means that if I am reported for something in the future, I'll feel the need to walk on eggshells should I choose to defend myself lest I be accused of simply dismissing the initial allegation. Between this and another disturbing ruling that I won't go into, I'll say that this has been an incredibly disappointing few days regarding forum moderation.

Others may have more to say on the matter, but I do not. Please feel free to lock this if you believe that it's run its course.