Official Infraction Appeals Decisions

Herein You'll find the Appeals Decision Opinions. Big thanks to Uni for recovering these from the old site

Case 1:

The appeal deals with the following two issues. The first is should the user be infraction for his signature, and the second is the actual content of the signature.

The first issue is the signature which can be seen here:

User A wrote:

Mod A wrote:

[sic]

The user then adopted a signature including a personal attack in it, which was taken down by the staff. The user proceed to put the signature back up, despite staff deletion. The staff concludes that even though the signature violated the rules (sec I-1, personal attacks, sexually oriented) and was correct in taking down the signature in accordance with section I-5, the staff did not provide the user with the reason for deleting the signature, in accordance with section I-5-a-i. Therefor, further warnings cannot be issued for the user for reinstating his signature despite the provisions of section IV-1-a-ii. The user should consider this decision his formal reasoning for the signature deletion, and if the user puts up the signature with the objectionable material in it again, he will be warned in accordance with the aforementioned sections.

Second, is the issue of a moderators initial comment that sparked the signature in question. The staff has found that the moderator was wrong in his conduct and the language of his arguments. The initial defense of posing it in a form of a question, versus actually coming out and saying it has been found to be faulty. Asking "Are you retarded?" is the same as calling someone retarded, and in the future the staff will conduct rulings accordingly. Further, as moderators, we should hold ourselves to a higher code of conduct, and the moderator in question was definitely in the wrong. However, after further discussions with staff and Stalin, we have decided against further action. The following quote sums up the position of the staff:

"...People can get pretty aggressive in there, and just because someone aggressively attacks your argument doesn't mean they have the right to come to us and ask for a ban. However, personal attacks are a line which cannot be crossed. Long story short, we should let people know that attacking the idea/argument is ok, attacking the person is not." - Stalin

In the future, staff will conduct themselves fully in accordance with the site rules, and will be subject to punishment otherwise.

In closing, the user will not be infraction, but will be if he decides to post the signature again. The user is free to contact the staff for further inquiry, however they consider the matter closed.

Case 2:

The appeal deals with the personal insults clause of I-1. In a debate in the "Breivik is an Knights Templar. (Freemason)" thread (See Appendix A) the appellant insulted another user (User A) to the point where the user reported his comments to the staff (See Appendix B). The staff then decided to infract the user for the following comments, in accordance with I-1 of the site rules.

"...Wait, [User A] actually believe templars and masons are the same? Didn't even notice it. Chalk up another fucking stupid conspiracy theory for him...

...I know what you said. You spouted a bunch of conspiracy theory bullshit...

...It was completely coherent, although I wouldn't expect someone with 5 errors in that post to have much skill with the English language.
And are you that fucking stupid that you just don't understand what I'm saying, or are you just pretending?" [sic]

The appellant appealed the decision "on the grounds that in was in response to [User B] insulting me. Also, [he] didn't say he was a fucking idiot. It was a question. Obviously, [he] meant no harm. It's not against the rules to ask a question."

On the first point, we found that the user was the initial aggressor in this instance. Further, that the level of the users insults were of a much higher severity then the defense of the other user. While the insulted continued to try to present an argument on his position, the insulter did nothing more then dismiss it as "conspiracy theory bullshit" and attack the intelligence of the insulted. While the closing salvo by the insulted (Your the one that mostly trolls on the forums! YOUR THE ONE THAT HAS LOW IQ!!!!! [sic]) is most likely of an insulting nature, it has no bearing on whether the original comments of the insulter are in violation of rule I-1. As such, the insulter certainly met the standards laid out by Stalin and reinforced by the Case-1 decision, see Appendix C.

On the second point, that the insult was phrased in the form of a question and thus inadmissible as an insult, the staff wholeheartedly dismisses this argument. The staff again cites the Case-1 decision, which clearly stated "The initial defense of posing it in a form of a question, versus actually coming out and saying it has been found to be faulty. Asking "Are you retarded?" is the same as calling someone retarded, and in the future the staff will conduct rulings accordingly".

In summation, the Senate, in an unanimous decision with the People's Tribunals, and Stalin himself, uphold the initial decision to infract the user. The users involved may contact the staff for points of clarification, but they should consider the specific matter decided and closed.

Appendix A

viewtopic.php?f=11&p=80265#p80265

Appendix B

"I'm not to happy with [The Appellant's] reply to one of my messages. He was directing insults on my English literature by cleverly ignoring the main topic. I find this to be a little insulting, so i thought i would file a complaint and hope for some reply or something."

Appendix C

"personal attacks are a line which cannot be crossed. Long story short, we should let people know that attacking the idea/argument is ok, attacking the person is not" - Stalin