• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

(OLD) Contest Unfair Infractions Here

Status
Not open for further replies.

Emma

The Cassandra
Site Staff
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Location
Vegas
There have been cases of private communication about infractions being ignored in the past. This damage of trust has only made things worse and made it even harder to communicate. This thread is for discussing infractions members have received that they feel are unfair or unwarranted. This provides a public forum for moderators to review issues that they might not be aware of and adds some extra accountability to make sure it gets attention. And hopefully improve communication to help resolve disputes more amicably.

Before posting here, please try to communicate with the mod in question, or any other you feel you can talk to, privately through a PM or through IMs like Skype so that they have some record of the conversation they can use to help sort it out with all the mods. If you still don't get a response or feel that what you are told still seems unfair, then you should post here. Describe your situation and the context and the nature of the infraction. Please stay respectful and keep things as calm as you can. It's understood that you will be frustrated and there will be some latitude allowed for that. But please try your best to keep things cool. And please keep things serious, joke replies are not going to earn you any favors.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Locke

Hegemon
Site Staff
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Location
Redmond, Washington
I've subscribed to this thread, so I'll read any complaints posted here. Of course I want to stress that there are other means of contacting us. This thread should help those who have lost faith in those other means, and hopefully we can eventually build back enough trust so we don't need this thread anymore.

I moved the posts debating this thread to the suggestions thread where the related discussion took place. From now on, please use this thread only to discuss specific infractions.
 
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Might as well go first since Mod Vanessa said she wouldn't hear me out. I got infracted for saying this: "http://zeldadungeon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=822947#post822947".

I find it unfair because it wasn't anything insulting (i.e. there is no profanity or flaming) and you'd have to interpret it very deeply to find passive aggressiveness. Think of it more as just "that's nice to know".
 
Joined
Feb 15, 2013
Might as well go first since Mod Vanessa said she wouldn't hear me out. I got infracted for saying this: "http://zeldadungeon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=822947#post822947".

I find it unfair because it wasn't anything insulting (i.e. there is no profanity or flaming) and you'd have to interpret it very deeply to find passive aggressiveness. Think of it more as just "that's nice to know".

That link doesn't seem to work, can you post a screenshot?
 

Locke

Hegemon
Site Staff
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Location
Redmond, Washington
Might as well go first since Mod Vanessa said she wouldn't hear me out. I got infracted for saying this: "http://zeldadungeon.net/forum/showthread.php?p=822947#post822947".

I find it unfair because it wasn't anything insulting (i.e. there is no profanity or flaming) and you'd have to interpret it very deeply to find passive aggressiveness. Think of it more as just "that's nice to know".
"Good for you" is almost always interpreted as sarcastic or passive-aggressive. I get that you were trying to say that his point was irrelevant (and it was), but given that it's an MD thread, you should have simply explained that his point was irrelevant. The infraction wasn't for insulting or antagonizing (there are more serious infractions for those), it was for the considerable lack of effort put into explaining yourself clearly. Again, this is only because it's in MD where our expectations are much higher. Johnny's response to your post should be evidence enough that there's something wrong with it. I'm inclined to agree with Vanessa on this one.

For others' reference, here's the source thread. RL's post and Johnny's reply to it were trashed.
 
Joined
Oct 20, 2008
Gender
Timecube
Today I was infracted for a blog I posted (which was removed, but was a play on the title of another member's blog, though not directed at that member). The reason was "Reason: Insulting/Flaming Other Members (3rd Degree)". I contest this because I did not attack the other member, or "flame" in any way. The blog was a simple joke and did not mention or direct anything at any one.

Furthermore, after I posted the blog I was flamed in the shoutbox:

Shoutbox Archives said:
17/03/2014 00:04 <43ForceGems> DAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH I ****ING HATE YOU
17/03/2014 00:03 <43ForceGems> CAN'T YOU JUST ****ING STOP THIS YOU MOTHER****ER
17/03/2014 00:03 <43ForceGems> I WAS JUST TRYING TO MOTHER****ING SHARE SOMETHING
17/03/2014 00:02 <43ForceGems> **** Kitsu -.-

While I personally am not offended by what 43 said above, it does seem hypocritical that I received an infraction for flaming, yet I was the one who was flamed. Again, the blog was just to be silly, and I did not intend to hurt anyone in posting it.
 

Emma

The Cassandra
Site Staff
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Location
Vegas
Today I was infracted for a blog I posted (which was removed, but was a play on the title of another member's blog, though not directed at that member). The reason was "Reason: Insulting/Flaming Other Members (3rd Degree)". I contest this because I did not attack the other member, or "flame" in any way. The blog was a simple joke and did not mention or direct anything at any one.

Furthermore, after I posted the blog I was flamed in the shoutbox:

Shoutbox Archives said:
17/03/2014 00:04 <43ForceGems> DAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH I ****ING HATE YOU
17/03/2014 00:03 <43ForceGems> CAN'T YOU JUST ****ING STOP THIS YOU MOTHER****ER
17/03/2014 00:03 <43ForceGems> I WAS JUST TRYING TO MOTHER****ING SHARE SOMETHING
17/03/2014 00:02 <43ForceGems> **** Kitsu -.-


While I personally am not offended by what 43 said above, it does seem hypocritical that I received an infraction for flaming, yet I was the one who was flamed. Again, the blog was just to be silly, and I did not intend to hurt anyone in posting it.

I do believe this is a religiously-motivated infraction. It might not have been the smartest idea. But it was not a big deal. And certainly didn't warrant the attack it got. If it was not a religious topic, no one would have particularly cared. Cracking down on offending religiously is really something that has been continuously going on and is only causing more problems and only encourages people to get defensive and hostile if they feel offended.
 
Joined
Feb 15, 2013
Today I was infracted for a blog I posted (which was removed, but was a play on the title of another member's blog, though not directed at that member). The reason was "Reason: Insulting/Flaming Other Members (3rd Degree)". I contest this because I did not attack the other member, or "flame" in any way. The blog was a simple joke and did not mention or direct anything at any one.

Furthermore, after I posted the blog I was flamed in the shoutbox:



While I personally am not offended by what 43 said above, it does seem hypocritical that I received an infraction for flaming, yet I was the one who was flamed. Again, the blog was just to be silly, and I did not intend to hurt anyone in posting it.

The "I was jokingly pointing an unloaded shotgun at bobby's head when all of a sudden it's not there anymore" excuse doesn't usually work. In this case I particularly side with the infraction, at least if the following I read was true

17/03/2014 03:05 <43ForceGems> I made a blog about a song we sang at church tonight that really touched my heart and he made a blog post about a "Song he heard at flying spaghetti monster church" and it was a video of a song of a guy rapping about how stupid Christianity is and how we ruin the world and how he'd become a nazi before a Christian
 

Emma

The Cassandra
Site Staff
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Location
Vegas
The "I was jokingly pointing an unloaded shotgun at bobby's head when all of a sudden it's not there anymore" excuse doesn't usually work. In this case I particularly side with the infraction, at least if the following I read was true

17/03/2014 03:05 <43ForceGems> I made a blog about a song we sang at church tonight that really touched my heart and he made a blog post about a "Song he heard at flying spaghetti monster church" and it was a video of a song of a guy rapping about how stupid Christianity is and how we ruin the world and how he'd become a nazi before a Christian
Yeah.... not agreeing with someone's religious beliefs doesn't automatically mean it was wrong. If the situation was reversed, I doubt anyone would support any action at all, not even the atheist on the receiving end. As I just said, this is a very, very bad thing to do because it sends the message that personal feelings are more important than other people's beliefs and that it's okay to get furious and attack them for not agreeing with them and the establishment will back you up if you do. I think we're improving on that front. But some people still aren't getting it and still try to criminalize disagreeing.
 

Locke

Hegemon
Site Staff
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Location
Redmond, Washington
Today I was infracted for a blog I posted (which was removed, but was a play on the title of another member's blog, though not directed at that member). The reason was "Reason: Insulting/Flaming Other Members (3rd Degree)". I contest this because I did not attack the other member, or "flame" in any way. The blog was a simple joke and did not mention or direct anything at any one.
Jokes are fine, even satire's fine. But not at the expense of another member. If you had made that blog at any other time, or given it a more original title, there wouldn't be a problem. But the way you framed it devalued 43's blog and 43 himself, whether you intended it to or not. We value all members and we want to encourage healthy communication. Your blog negated both those goals and I think it received an appropriate response.



Furthermore, after I posted the blog I was flamed in the shoutbox:



While I personally am not offended by what 43 said above, it does seem hypocritical that I received an infraction for flaming, yet I was the one who was flamed. Again, the blog was just to be silly, and I did not intend to hurt anyone in posting it.
What 43 did is completely irrelevant to your case.
 
I think this specific case can also be used to assess current blog policies in general. Right now it's pretty vague when a supposed joke blog should be considered trolling instead. Is it trolling when a specific person is mentioned in a parodying matter? There was a lot of dissent about this issue with the "Why is Dan Banned?" blog and the issue is popping up here again so it's high time to lay down the law for blog entries.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom