Point of order

[KiwiNZ]

Using the term "what a dumbassed thread" is insulting. Especially to the person who started it and to those who have participated in it. It could also be regarded as flame bait. This is against the code of conduct for the forums.

That said , the offending peice was moderatd out. We could look at a compromise here and change the infraction to a warning.

Thoughts?

[matthew]

A one point infraction is reasonable and doesn't even amount to a slap on the wrist. It is the equivalent of a mild warning, one step up from a "excuse me, I don't think you realized that you may have offended" to "it seems as though you are unaware that your manner of expression is lacking, please adjust it."

It's a silly thing to fight over as it has absolutely no bearing on your forums access, posting ability, status, or reputation. It was a warning, and while it is intended to be taken seriously, it is not a major thing. Ignoring it could cause a major thing to happen, but this is a minor one.

[jdong]

It would be pointless. Who's going to second guess you.

I merely stated my opinion. I'd like to hope all FC members (and it is the case) have their independent opinions on this and wanted more voices.

I am flexible to all options for this. I would support reducing it to a warning.

[matthew]

KiwiNZ and I posted at the same time. I don't have any emotional attachment to the 1 point infraction vs an infraction warning. Either way is okay with me.

I still think this is making a mountain out of a molehill, though. (Or as a Moroccan might say, "Min houbba, kit'amaal koubba," which means, "From a pimple you are making a shrine.")

[jdong]

It was a warning, and while it is intended to be taken seriously, it is not a major thing. Ignoring it could cause a major thing to happen, but this is a minor one.

That is my view on the use of infractions also. One point infractions should serve as just a heavier warning for when something barely crosses the line. That's why it takes 5 of them within 10 days to amount to any kind of account restriction.

But as I said before I am flexible over this, and if it would really make you happy to have the infraction changed to a warning, I have no objections.

[OrangeCrate]

This is the post just prior to mine:

Quote:
Originally Posted by saulgoode
This substitution of the word "criminal" for "illegal" would provide a proper distinction between breaches of civil law (disagreements between citizens were no crime has been committed) and violations of criminal law. .
The amendment would need to mention the definition of criminal/illegal. Meaning, what country's definition of it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hyper_ch
Even if the servers are not in the US it doesn't matter much.

The US is still in control over .com/.net/.org domains and hence they also control ubuntuforums.org.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the domain name system is controlled (from what I remember) by ICANN, which is an international organization. The US, I believe, only controls .us, .gov (but not .gov.uk, .gov.ie, etc.), an .edu (but not .edu.*).

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=728031&page=6

As you can see, my post did not reference the one above it, nor did I quote any other post in the thread. Therefore, my comments were freestanding, and generalized.

I believe that your Mod pulled the trigger too quickly, based on his own opinion, and not what was actually said.

The snipped part read::

"What a dumb *** thread." (Sorry, I misquoted myself above.)

The infraction, whether it be 1 point, a warning, or whatever, is unjustified, and I would request that you remove it.

[OrangeCrate]

I just discovered that you can't edit these posts...

@jdong

Having written an MBA online, with a post count in excess of 50K, I assure you, that I'm quite familiar with grammatical rules.

When making a general statement, writing in the second person, unlinked, is just as appropriate as writing in the third person.

I posted the alternative, just to show you that I know how.

[OrangeCrate]

I'm blowing the dust off of this thread, as another example of p_quarles shaping the forums in his image, with arbitrary infractions based on his opinion of what should be, rather than what was actually said, or intended by the OP.

I would suggest a review of his posts by Administration, and a determination made as to whether he should continue as a Moderator.

[matthew]

Links, examples and specifics, please.

Saying we should "review his posts" for possible problems is like saying a person needs to perform a self-audit of his finances because someone else thinks they may be doing their tax reports incorrectly. It's like finding a needle in a haystack, a drop (or a bucket) in the ocean, etc.

Sorry if I just sprinkled the dust back on the thread you cleaned off...

[OrangeCrate]

Sorry if I just sprinkled the dust back on the thread you cleaned off...

Well, actually you didn't. My intent was to put the concern on the table, and frankly, the tone and content of your response was fully expected.

Personally, I've scanned many of his posts, and others can certainly do so, by simply going to:

Search > Advanced Search > Search by User Name > p_quarles

Unfortunately, posts alone can't tell me or others what we're looking for, because as members, we can't see a record of issued infractions. Without that, it would be difficult to impossible to check threads and posts for the appropriateness of his actions.

Only you and the other administrators can check for a pattern of abuse of where and when infractions were issued, and whether they were appropriate, or whether they were nitpicking, or in the context of a larger picture, symptoms of a passive aggressive personality.

So, my comment still stands. I have a strong hunch that he's overstepping his authority, but only you Matthew, and the other administrators can say for sure.