I submitted a joint appeal by GHR three days ago relating to my warning for "spamming moderation" (1) and three-day ban for "flamebait" (2).I am unsure as to whether this made it to the appropriate location, I have never used this facility previously and I may have selected the incorrect option. For the purposes of clarity, avoidance of doubt and transparency - particularly given that the ban was given without any note in the thread to that effect, I submit here too the grounds of appeal - I have had more time to consider matters now and so this is considerably more concise than the original. I would thus request that this takes precedence over my original GHR, submitted in the heat of the moment and rather incoherent as a result.
While the three day period has now expired and some may question the point of digging this back up - my interest here is primarily in cleaning my record.
1. Grounds for overturning decision (1) and mitigation for appeal (2) - issues posed by Report/Discussion tags.
My warning was delivered for "spamming moderation", due to the rule that only those "directly involved" are allowed to post in report threads. This warning cannot be sustained for the following reasons:
a) Discussion threads are not allowed to discuss specific incidents - this was confirmed by moderator response in the subsequent discussion thread.
b) There was therefore no place for very valid criticism of the individual decision - and, at the time, it looked like a final decision, it was only later that it became clear that this was being re-evaluated in more detail.
c) My comment criticizing this individual decision because it is unacceptable to ask people to "argue down" clear flamebait therefore had no "allowed" location, despite being fair comment - indeed, the issues raised by this situation have currently led to the viability of report/discussion tags in their current form being discussed seperately.
Thusly, the warning should be rescinded and removed from my record.
2. Mitigation - provocation, misidentification of offence.
I admit that I responded angrily to the accusation of "lying" - but in mitigation I submit that the post did not meet the forum's definition of "flamebait", that the accusation of lying was entirely unnecessary and provocatory in itself. My response was not posted with the intention of provoking an angry response from the moderator - it was venting resulting from perceived unfair treatment - the erroneous accusation of lying and the previous warning. The tone of the post was shocked disbelief and frustration, not an attempt to stir up trouble. The accusation of "lying" - as well as being factually incorrect as pointed out in my response and by Neutraligon's subsequent post, was unneccesary and ill-timed when the matter of thread discussion had just been resolved smacked of unneccessary points-scoring and an attempt to rile. This perception was strengthened by the previous warning - invalid and unfair for the reasons outlined above.
3. Proportionality.
When all is said and done, I have received a three-day ban and a warning for the grand offence of snapping slightly after first being warned unfairly as a result of a now acknowledged procedural issue with the Report/Discussion system, and then being accused of lying when attempting to provide genuinely useful advice as to how future incidents of this type should be handled in future.
I admit that I snapped somewhat. But was my offence really the equivalent - or more, if you add the warning, to the offence of Lyttenburg, a poster with a record of incendiary postings who argued for the reforming of LGBT individuals through hard labour?
It is therefore my opinion that, to maintain a sense of reasonable proportionality, and taking into account the mitigation arguments listed in 1 and 2 above, the three day ban and warning should be struck down and replaced with a single warning - official or otherwise depending on your judgment.
