Warning to Beathan in "Events in CDS"

This forum is used to enable the SC to decide appeals by citizens over Forum Moderator sanctions

Moderator: SC Moderators

Post Reply

Should the decision to give Beathan a warning be upheld?

Poll ended at Wed Jan 17, 2007 3:01 am

No votes
Total votes: 2

Diderot Mirabeau
Master Word Wielder
Master Word Wielder
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:28 am

Warning to Beathan in "Events in CDS"

Post by Diderot Mirabeau »

[quote="Beathan":2r72r6ep]On Tuesday, December 26, I was one person subjected to the following
[quote="Diderot Mirabeau":2r72r6ep]This thread has been locked in accordance with article 5.5 of the
Forum Moderation Guidelines:
"5.5: A moderator may proactively decide to lock a thread if it has
drifted from its original topic, contains posts that are bordering on
being in violation with this document or are in other ways deemed to
be detrimental to the purpose of the forums. The moderator will post
a message in the thread giving justification for locking the thread. "

The thread has been locked because it contains discussions of Roman
history and of the Judiciary Act: An exciting topic which may be
discussed in a total of three different forums on this site but not
in the events forum, the description of which reads:
"Announcements of activities and events in Neufreistadt"

I maintain that it is permitted to post in extension of an
announcement in this forum but only in so far as it pertains to
matters directly related to the event in question. Topics falling
under this definition include but are not limited to:
Event transcripts, corrections of initial announcement, questions in
relation to the event, related events, other kinds of follow-ups

The following posters have posted in violation of these guidelines
and are therefore warned that repeated infringements may result in
- Ashcroft Burnham (6 times)
- Publius Crabgrass (6 times)
- Michaelmanen (6 times)
- Gxeremio Dimsum (1 time)
- Beathan (8 times)
- Oni Jiutai (1 time)
- Fernando Book (1 time)

The following guidelines are considered to have been violated:
3.2: Make sure that the topic of your post falls within the subject
of the forum in question. Notice that some forums are intended for
announcements or questions only and thus have certain restrictions on
who may post there.

3.3: When responding to a post, consider if the topic has drifted
away from that of the original post and if so, consider posting your
reply as a separate thread.

This decision may be appealed to the Scientific Council by anyone who
feels wrongly admonished or that the sanction is disproportionate in
accordance with provision 7.1 of the Forum Moderation Guidelines:
7.1: The decision of a moderator is subject to Neufreistadt
jurisdiction and the citizen affected by the decision may therefore
lodge an appeal by email or note card in world to the Dean of the
Scientific Council of Neufreistadt or his/her archivist."[/quote:2r72r6ep]

I request that this warning be modified or removed insofar as it
relates to me. The warning indicated that I posted eight off topic
posts. However, two of my posts were duplicates of a proper post, and
were deleted and had no content. The post they duplicated was a call
to the moderators to do exactly what you did -- call a foul on the
hijacking of the thread. Two other posts were similar calls for
moderator intervention.

By my count, no more than three of my postings were tangential. Two
were erased duplicates of a proper posting; two were postings that
pointed out the diversion of the thread; and one was a response to
Publius who gave his reason (a good one) for believing that the
diversion actually served the greater interest of the thread. I
request that the warning be modified to reflect these facts.

I also request that the S.C. clarify the penal effect of a warning.
Is a warning a free pass, or will multiple warnings increase the
possibility of, or require, a more serious sanction. For instance,
will repeated yellow cards result in a red car and get a poster
thrown off the pitch? If so, for how long?

I also request that the forum posting rules be clarified and
reconciled with the UDHR protection of free expression of opinions,
Article 19. As an official forum of the C.D.S., the forums are
subject to the UDHR. The UDHR should trump any forum posting rule
that contradicts the rights set forth in the UDHR.

I see two potentially applicable UDHR articles -- Article 12 and
Article 19. Dimsum has posted a thread on this point.

Article 12 of the UDHR, as it relates to speech, is one of the most
confusing, perhaps flawed, articles in the UDHR. On one hand, it
protects personal correspondence from arbitrary interefence; on the
other hand it prohibits attacks on honor or reputation. I take this
to mean that communication channels shall be open -- but that states
must provide some protection from defamation. However, having some
rule against defamation does not tell us what that rule should be.
First, truth is always a defense to defamation. Caveats in expression
also avoid defamation. I am personally confident that I have not even
approached defamation in any comment I have written anywhere in any
post on these forums.

I also note that Article 12 does not require that we speak with
decorum or Engish civility. Rather, it requires only that we avoid
malicious and dishonest attacks on the intangible persons of our
fellow human beings. We cannot make false statements about another's
honor and reputation. This has two components -- first, it applies to
statements (claims of fact -- rather than expressions of opinions or
suggestion of potential fact); second, the factual claims must be
false -- even intentionally false.

Unlike Article 12, Article 19 is very clear -- freedom of expression
of opinions is absolute. Therefore, we can express our opinions about
another's character -- even if our opinion is wrong -- provided we do
not falsely claim to have facts casting the other into disrepute.

How do we reconcile the Articles? It's not hard: provided a person
expresses doubts about the honor of another person, or about the
deservedness of the other's reputation, as opinions of the speaker,
rather than as facts, such expressions are protected and are not
prohibited as defamation. However, if a person makes untrue claims
that dishonor or demean another person, and makes those claims as
claims of fact, not opinion, and without caveats such as ("it is
possible that" or "perhaps"), then the statements are prohibited

In addition to a request for clarification and modification of the
forum warning, I request clarification of the forum posting
guidelines in light of the requirements of the UDHR.[/quote:2r72r6ep]
The thread in question may be found [url=http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtop ... 1:2r72r6ep]here[/url:2r72r6ep].
User avatar
Patroklus Murakami
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 5:54 pm
Location: Neufreistadt, Colonia Nova and Locus Amoenus and Locus Amoenus

Post by Patroklus Murakami »

I voted to uphold Diderot's moderation decision.

Beathan complains that he didn't make eight tangential postings. He did, however, continue the tangential debate on Roman history, as did others in the thread. Diderot was right to include his name when 'naming names'. It is questionable how many of the 8 posts were tangential though. A sensible compromise would be to delete the numbers next to Beathan (and others') names.

I see no reason to accede to the request for clarification of 'the penal effect of a warning'. The response should be to refer Beathan to the forum posting guidelines. Provided posts are within those guidelines there should be no issue.

Finally, the forum guidelines are compatible with the UDHR and require no further 'clarification'.
Post Reply

Return to “Forum Moderation Appeals”