Results 1 to 1 of 1
  1. Default Disputing an infraction? Read this.

    This thread will discuss poor arguments used by users to dispute infractions. By creating this thread, I hope to not only save you guys some time in learning how to properly dispute an infraction, but also to save my own time in not hearing the same poor argument over and over. I would suggest that you read over the arguments presented here and never use them in an infraction dispute.

    Argument I: "He did it too!"
    "I am disputing this infraction because other people have performed similarly or worse to what I've done in the infracted post and have not been infracted for it. You can see these examples here (link) and here (link). Because these people did not receive infractions, I should not receive one either."

    This dispute makes two major assumptions. It assumes that we moderators read through every post on the forums with a critical eye. It also assumes that we read over every other post before infracting your post. The fact is we moderators simply do not have the time or the energy to read through every single post and determine if it deserves an infraction or not. We can only infract the posts we see. Not all moderators can view all posts.

    Consider the following example:

    DRIVER: But officer! There were other vehicles going down the road 10 MPH faster than me. Wouldn't it have been more worthwhile to stop them instead of me?
    OFFICER: Tell me, son, have you ever gone fishing?
    DRIVER: Well, sure.
    OFFICER: Did you catch all the fish in the pond?

    Also, consider this example:

    JUDGE: Mr. Chinchilla, you are brought here to determine two counts of grand larceny from two major banks in the area. How do you plead to these charges?
    MR CHINCHILLA: Not guilty to all charges.
    JUDGE: On what grounds, Mr. Chinchilla?
    MR CHINCHILLA: John and Jane Q. Public, two well known bank robbers throughout all of Chinchilladom, are still at large and have not been punished. Because they have not been punished for their crimes, I should not be punished for mine.
    JUDGE: wat

    If at any point you would like to see another person infracted for a post you deem necessary, just report it and place your argument there for why that post deserves an infraction. Let's talk about your infraction for your dispute.

    Argument II "I didn't mean it that way" / "You're reading more into it"
    I am disputing this infraction because when I said, "I should get me some more f'aggots", I was referring to a bonfire that other users referenced to. It had nothing to do with me rounding up gay people to throw them in the fire, and I didn't mean it to be offensive in any way.

    The problem with this argument is that it leads to a stalemate which just resolves into a "difference of opinion" argument. In these arguments, a difference of opinion does nothing to prove that you are right in wanting the infraction removed - only that two opinions differ. If you want the infraction removed, attack the infraction itself and not the difference in opinion of the infraction. This type of argument is most often used in rule pushing, because the person who was infracted isn't doing anything inherently wrong, and yet they try to get away with it only by showing a differing of opinion on the matter.

    If anyone has to resort to this argument, it means that the person infracted said something which shouldn't have been said at all in the first place.

    Argument III: "No one is offended, so my post isn't offensive"
    If you look at the trolling infraction, it states that it should "incite others to flame" or something like that. I don't see anyone being incited to flame or even get close to that. So why am I receiving this infraction when no harm was done at all?

    There are many problems with this argument. First of all, we have hundreds of users online at any given time. Any of them could read that post and feel incited to flame. Yet, if that person flamed then they would be getting infracted. This argument presupposes that someone has to flame first before the infracted post is actually considered offensive, and that's not true. Many posts can be offensive even if no one is present to view them. Consider a person creating a drawing of Jesus or Muhammad having sex with a goat. Is it not offensive because no one else saw it? Is it not offensive if no one slaps you in the face for drawing it?

    The best ways to get your appeal granted:
    1. Argue with logic - things that are demonstrably true. Do not fall back on merely a "difference of opinion" because you will lose.
    2. Don't assume you know who infracted you. We know who infracted who. Making assumptions like this reduces the validity of your argument.
    3. Use precedent. A person not being infracted for a post is not precedent. Eos or Mira stating that something is not infractable is good precedent. Infracted posts are good precedent. Be careful, though. Sometimes precedent changes when law changes.
    Last edited by Eos; 2010-09-03 at 01:52 PM.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts