| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Appeal of Warning | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 14 2012, 10:39 AM (334 Views) | |
| Minuet | Feb 14 2012, 10:39 AM Post #1 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
Big surprise here. I am appealing the warning given in the following thread http://s2.zetaboards.com/SisterTrek/topic/5143295/7/#new Simply put - I thought RTW was being facetious when he wrote his comment. At that time I did not think he himself believed the document was fake. That is why I referred to "those who believed" and did not at any time state "boy are you stupid for believing". No one mentioned any personal insult at the time because I don't believe anyone on this site fell into the group of people I called stupid and everyone knew that I was not accusing any individual member of this site, including RTW of believing that Obama was not a citizen. I believe we all have the right to proclaim a generic group of people idiots if we want to. If this warning is upheld I think it will set a very bad precedent where no one will be able to make comments about "lefties" or "right wingers" without a warning. Do I get to choose my arbiter? Edited by Minuet, Feb 15 2012, 11:05 PM.
|
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| Minuet | Feb 15 2012, 08:13 AM Post #2 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
A further question. There is a time limit mentioned in the board rules for filing an appeal. Does this time limit also apply to the moderators for a reply? I believe it is only fair to request that an arbiter be appointed within the 48 hour time limit. |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| Wichita | Feb 15 2012, 08:38 PM Post #3 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Minuet, Due to the following, there was an extra issue to consider. 1) In your appeal, you included the following sentence:
Normally, I would not comment on the content of this thread. However, since you chose to include me in that sentence, I will respond to that statement. However, before I do so, I am going to give you the opportunity to remove the sentence from the appeal. If you remove it, I will not comment on it. If you chose to leave it in, then you will not have the option to complain about my response. 2) No, you do not have option to chose your own arbiter. I will let you know when one is appointed. |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| Minuet | Feb 15 2012, 11:06 PM Post #4 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
Post edited per your instructions. |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| Minuet | Feb 17 2012, 10:52 AM Post #5 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
What is the time frame for getting this taken care of? The forum rules say ideally it should be three days. If this is not taken care of in a timely manner then the warning should be automatically removed. |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| Wichita | Feb 17 2012, 07:16 PM Post #6 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
I'm glad to see that you read the rules. That tells me that you are already familiar with the protocol: "Only the people involved in the arbitration will be allowed to comment in the appeals thread. " Also that Administration should not interfere in the process. My role SHOULD have been simply to choose the arbiter, inform all concerned, and then let the arbiter handle it. Unfortunately, you made the choice to speak on my behalf. In order to make the process run as indicated in the forum rules that you are quoting from, I first had to extract myself from the position you put me and find a way to do so without giving another opinion. Doing so required an entire new layer of work for me and is responsible for the delay. |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| Wichita | Feb 17 2012, 07:18 PM Post #7 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Swidden has agreed to arbitrate this appeal. He will be posting in the thread as soon as he is able and then we can get this finished. |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| Swidden | Feb 17 2012, 07:53 PM Post #8 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
Hello, I have reviewed at length the original thread from which this dispute has originated. As such I believe I am ready to render a decision based on the original information available. However, I am willing to give both parties a chance to make an additional statement here in support of their argument. I will look back as much as possible over the next couple of days. If there are no additional postings by Monday, I will render my decision. |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| Minuet | Feb 17 2012, 10:08 PM Post #9 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
Thanks for getting this moving. I just would like to state again for the record that I referred to "those who actually believe this" in a manner that indicated that I was going along with the joking that was taking place. I did not think at the time I made the comment that RTW believed that Obama was not a citizen. The comments that he and others were making appeared to be made in a joking manner and not serious - therefore my comment should not be taken as aimed at any of those who made what I took to be jokes. The key is in the word "actually" - I did not say to RTW "I can't believe you actually believe this" instead I referred to outsiders "those who actually believe this" the very sentence itself says that I assumed he did not believe it. Edited by Minuet, Feb 17 2012, 10:13 PM.
|
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| Hoss | Feb 19 2012, 10:10 AM Post #10 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
It's almost like you haven't been on this board for years. RTW has mentioned at great length this topic before, I believe. Regardless of that, you popped into a thread, with nothing of real substance to offer, called people stupid, offered nothing in the way of participating in the discussion, arguments in favor of your position, or references of any kind. It was an insult and flame. I have been lectured by some that I should stop this sort of thing. |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| Minuet | Feb 19 2012, 03:54 PM Post #11 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
Excuse me - nothing of real substance? The topic was glitter bombing. OTHERS brought up a totally non related topic of the President not being a citizen. They were the ones joking around and I get blamed for bringing nothing of real substance to the thread? Unbelievable!!!!!! The comment RTW made seemed to be going along with the joking. Plain and simple. All I did was mention that those who actually believed were stupid. I think it is quite clear that RTW was joking at that point. He even said later that he was sure the President is a citizen. What he questioned was WHY the certificate seemed odd. He wanted to know what the President gained from posting a false document. There is no question that I was referring to outside people and not any members of this board when I made my comments. Therefore I don't see how I could possibly be accused of baiting or flaming. There has to be a member of this board that believes it and whom I wanted to annoy for the comment to actually be baiting. Since no such person exists then how can that possibly be baiting? And I question the judgement of someone who thinks this is baiting when he allows regular comments with regards to the stupidity, etc... of "liberals" As someone who is rather liberal in her thinking should I take each and every comment as a bait? If so I have some threads to go back into and some reporting to do. Edited by Minuet, Feb 19 2012, 03:55 PM.
|
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| Swidden | Feb 19 2012, 09:26 PM Post #12 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
Okay, before this goes any further I am going to issue my ruling. I read through the entire thread in question and reviewed the most recent moderating policies available for the Politics forum. The policy is posted in the politics forum and anyone can look it up there. First and foremost the thread went off the rails almost from the get go. In my opinion it should have been closed or redirected back to the subject much earlier on. The first reference, officially, comes from Wichita at post # 82. Policy on tangents is:
Now we come to the real question here. Insult. From specifics and from content it is pretty clear that Minuet is not calling RTW stupid. Post #96 by RTW indicates, by content, that the President's citizenship is not really in question, only the authenticity of the certificate. We have in the moderating policies a section that determines how warnings for insults are to be applied. It is seriously worded in a way that is very broad. If I apply it specifically as worded more than one person, including the moderator (for comments in post #2 referring twenty-something occupy-ers) should be on the receiving end of a warning. Instead I am going to interpret it narrowly and suggest that the wording be looked at for revision. Text follows.
I take the implicit name calling to mean that it must follow that it is in some way directed at someone within the ongoing debate who holds "that particular belief". RTW in this case apparently did not. To leave it so broad would open us to possibility of someone with a grudge going back through threads to find similar instances and filling up the report file. I really don't think we want or need that to happen. Again, I strongly recommend that the language in the "Insult" category be tightened up. Since I don't see that anyone who was a party to the debate believing that the President is not a bonafide US citizen there is no insult and therefore no grounds for a warning. I recommend that the Glitter Bombing thread be closed as well. Please see that this thread is closed. |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| « Previous Topic · Warning Appeals · Next Topic » |


2:39 PM Jul 11