# The Ubuntu Forum Community > Ubuntu Community Discussions > Resolution Centre >  Moderator Contradiction

## southernman

This post is in reference to an infraction I was given for "Reason: Insulted Other Member(s)" and the way in which I was told to manage myself. That being... "_No need to make fun of others. If you don't want to help, just keep your mouth shut. I strongly advise you have a look af the forums' Code of Conduct._"

I don't intend (unless requested) to post a link to the thread in question, nor to the moderator that issued the infraction. The former would do no good as it has been jailed and the latter will not be posted to protect the (possibly) innocent.

I replied to the moderators PM, not to make excuses for the post in question but to point out two things primarily. The first point I made was that my post was wrong and I apologized for it. It's just an infraction afterall... not likely to burn my hands or scar me for life. The primary thing I wanted to bring to light was the tone of the remark made in the infraction notice. There is a bit of contradiction in there and ye should not have to try hard to see such.

It is my intention to bring the contradiction to light and respectfully request that moderators be held to the same rules as regular members.

Quote from the COC:
_
If the users' question has been covered in one of the community documents, please give them a description and the links. Some useful sites to point green users are: wiki.ubuntu.com, www.ubuntu.com, the forum HOWTOs, and doc.gwos.org. You can also show the user how to search the forums or tell them about the forum search utility. If you wish to remind a user to use search tools or other resources when they have asked a question you feel is basic or common, please be very polite. Any replies for help that contain language disrespectful towards the user asking the question, i.e. "STFU" or "RTFM" are unacceptable and will not be tolerated.
_

While that is a rule that is written under the *When answering technical support issues*, it directly applies to the contradiction here. Being told if I don't want to help, just keep my mouth shut, is practically the same as telling me to STFU.

In all fairness, I need to add this. I replied to the PM and voiced my concern. To which I received a reply that used the excuse of english not being their native language and an apology was offered. I see that as nothing more than an excuse. I've looked at numerous post made by this moderator and frankly, I don't see the language being a barrier in none of their post. The reply went a little further to say "And anyway it couldn't have been more offensive than the post you made "

Because of the last quote, I'll go on to say that the post being referred to was merely pointing to a thread on the forum... and I commented about it being funny and also commented I probably should have offered to help them but I couldn't stop laughing my butt off.

Some questions to ponder:

Was my post really that far out of line?
Was it really offensive?
In the proper handling of issuing an infraction, should a moderator be telling anyone to "just keep your mouth shut?"
If a moderator knows that they are not proficient in English, should they be moderating a board that is (for the most part) English speaking?
Can the board owner (ubuntu-geek or perhaps Canonical now as I've read rumor of such) not setup templates for the messages sent with each type of infraction? (This could have eliminated my feeling of a need to reply here)
Now that I have both a) gotten an infraction and b) posted about it here... Will I now be doomed to the fiery pits of heboublehockeysticks?  :Wink: 

Thanks for reading and taking this seriously. 

Regards,

~ Steve

----------


## southernman

I guess nobody cares to look into this, given the amount of views and lack of response. Perhaps I titled the thread in a way which leads you to think I am not looking for responses... I am looking for resonses.

In the past few days, I've poured over this forum and have seen worse infractions that simply slip through.

I suppose I should post the converstion since the moderator isn't replying to my recent request of having the infraction removed.

Will someone in charge please get back to me on this.

Thanks!

----------


## KiwiNZ

Can you please post links tothe post/thread in question

----------


## Bachstelze

_"Be respectful of all users at all times"_ - and not only when answering support questions. In the following thread, you were making fun of another user because of his/her lack of knowledge, which, in my opionion,  is not respectful, period.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=3254027

----------


## southernman

Here you are KiwiNZ

Below is the primary conversation with HymnToLife:



> Originally Posted by HymnToLife
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by southernman
> 
> ...


Below is the separate PM (I assume an automated response from core of vB with a section to include special notations), in which the offending remark was made. The remark that triggered this post itself. I'll follow up this quote with a rebuttal.




> Dear southernman,
> 
> You have received an infraction at Ubuntu Forums.
> 
> Reason: Insulted Other Member(s)
> -------
> No need to make fun of others. If you don't want to help, just keep your mouth shut. I strongly advise you have a look af the forums' Code of Conduct.
> -------
> 
> ...


Key points to this matter:

1- I made a post in the community cafe, pointing to a specific thread that I thought was humorous. 
2- Either the thread was reported or HymnToLife read the thread.
3- HymnToLife moved the thread to the jail (autoresponse sent out)
4- HymnToLife issued an infraction (again an auto response is sent - including the offending/contradicting remarks)
5- I reply to the first auto response PM admitting the post probably should not have been made, highlighting HTL's remarks as offense and vowing to be a good boy.
6- HTL's reply uses the "I'm not a native English speaker" argument... I suppose in an effort to dismiss the rudeness of the remark. She also offers a half-hearted apology. I say half-hearted since there was a "but" to the offered apology as if to say that one wrong deserves another.
7- I post this thread hoping to get a response to the contradiction, generically speaking through the entire first post. I realize after a couple of days, I should post the facts and disclose the details.
8- I decide to make a plea to HTL prior to coming here and laying it all on the table, to have the infraction removed. I also accepted her apology, since judging from her reply it was the best she was willing to do. The way the apology was candy coated, if you will.

I've spent some time looking for evidence of this "I'm not a native English speaker" arguments merit. I've not found any. HTL seems to be able to effectively communicate regardless of context of the conversation.

The thread being jailed, was not made to ridicule the OP of the thread, but joking about the context of the thread itself. I didn't call the OP a rapist, axe murdered, child molester or anything of the sort. Does it warrant being jailed... ok, MAYBE so. Does it warrant the infraction... not in my opinion, and I hope yours neither. If it does warrant the infraction, then I feel that actions should also be taken fairly, across the board, and not selectively depending on your status with the forum council.

At this point, with the lack of reply from HTL leading me to believe she doesn't think removal of the infraction is justified, I request that members of the forum council or other staff investigate this matter and make their own decision about how to proceed.


Thanks for your consideration, and your time.

----------


## Bachstelze

> At this point, with the lack of reply from HTL leading me to believe she doesn't think removal of the infraction is justified,


Or maybe was in the hospital to have an auditory brainstem implant activated and had very little time to spend here. But maybe you want a paper signed by my neurosurgeon to prove I'm not lying ? 

I was willing to reconsider the issue, but not quite anymore...

----------


## southernman

> Or maybe was in the hospital to have an auditory brainstem implant activated and had very little time to spend here. But maybe you want a paper signed by my neurosurgeon to prove I'm not lying ? 
> 
> I was willing to reconsider the issue, but not quite anymore...


Oh my! HymnToLife, I am incredibly apologetic and very sincere about that. I had no ideal. I do hope you are doing well and your implant is working as desired.

I simply based that statement on the fact that you had posted to the support forums after my request... as well as to this thread.

I don't see how you can hold against me something to which I had no knowledge of. I do wish you would have just sent me a quick note to inform me of that.

As a side note, my father just had triple bypass and I've had to move back from the Gulf Coast (Waveland, MS) to stay with him and make sure he eats, sleeps, takes his meds, and gets his exercise as instructed by the heart specialist. Not much fun, but I suppose it isn't suppose to be, when a family member, loved one, friend is sick and in need.

Sincerely HymnToLife, I do hope your doing ok. I'll add you to my prayer list.

Best Regards,

Steve

----------


## Bachstelze

I'm not holding that against you, I'm just saying that you should be a bit more careful before drawing conclusions like that. Anyway, off to bed now, we'll see tomorrow.

----------


## KiwiNZ

southernman I am very displeased as to what has transpired here.

If you would care to refer to the banner at the top of the resolution centre you will see why the staff member did not reply 

In particular " The administration staff and the thread starter will converse, other forum members posts/comments will be removed/edited out."

Only the OP and Forum Admin /Forum Council Members post here unless exception has been granted for other staff to do so.

I will look at this situation , but you have to be patient.
Do not make this personal against staff members or I will take further action .

----------


## southernman

> I'm not holding that against you, I'm just saying that you should be a bit more careful before drawing conclusions like that. Anyway, off to bed now, we'll see tomorrow.


Fair enough HymnToLife, point taken. I still hope your doing ok and you get a good nights rest.



> southernman I am very displeased as to what has transpired here.
> 
> If you would care to refer to the banner at the top of the resolution centre you will see why the staff member did not reply
> 
> In particular " The administration staff and the thread starter will converse, other forum members posts/comments will be removed/edited out."
> 
> Only the OP and Forum Admin /Forum Council Members post here unless exception has been granted for other staff to do so.
> 
> I will look at this situation , but you have to be patient.
> Do not make this personal against staff members or I will take further action .


KiwiNZ, I was only looking for replies from the staff (eg. forum council/admin) as well as HTL. I did read the banner you mention (prior to posting this thread) and I certainly wasn't soliciting for outside interference at all.

Honestly I don't see how I was trying to launch an attack on anyone, let alone make it personal. It was (still is) just a quest for answers. The ONLY reason I posted the PM's were as if to give evidence of the things that had transpired to that point. It wasn't with an intent of malice, rest assured of that.

Just wanted to reply to HTL's comment, and yours KiwiNZ... I'll sign off now and await further request or responses.

----------


## southernman

More clarification of the above post.

By _as if to give evidence of the things that had transpired to that point_ I only mean to validate what I had posted to that point... nothing more, nothing less.

----------


## Bachstelze

Hmm, I guess two points is indeed a bit too much, I recently only gave one point for something much more rude than that... I'd be OK to revert the infraction but better wait for KiwiNZ's decision.

----------


## KiwiNZ

OK I have looked at this several times over the last 24 hours and agonised over it as well.

I believe that this whole thing has blown way out of proportion fromwhat I see originally is a simple misunderstanding of interpretations.

And that the misunderstadings continued into this thread and things got a tad heated.

Now as for the original issue, I have looked a this several times and I dont feel that an infraction was required. The post was less than desirable but I feel was not bad enough to recieve an infraction.

I propose we remove the infraction and leave the post were it is.

----------


## southernman

Thank you both HymnToLife and KiwiNZ for your time and consideration. I fully am aware you all have more important things to worry about, which makes my appreciation even greater.

As for: 
- leaving the thread jailed... justifiably so.
- removing the infraction... Thank you!  :Smile:

----------


## Bachstelze

Okay, infraction reversed.

----------


## southernman

Is it possible to have the infraction removed, not just reversed? Reversed still leaves it in my profile.

----------


## Bachstelze

No. And if you're concerned about your reputation, only yourself and staff members can see expired or reversed infractions on your profile.

----------


## southernman

> No. And if you're concerned about your reputation, only yourself and staff members can see expired or reversed infractions on your profile.


With that being your stance, I appeal my request to KiwiNZ or any other Forum Council / Administrators.





> Now as for the original issue, I have looked a this several times and I dont feel that an infraction was required. The post was less than desirable but I feel was not bad enough to recieve an infraction.
> 
> I propose we remove the infraction and leave the post were it is.

----------


## Bachstelze

It is not "my stance", I personnally would have no problem with it. However, the question was "Is it possible ?". I answered you, it is not possible.

----------


## southernman

> It is not "my stance", I personnally would have no problem with it. However, the question was "Is it possible ?". I answered you, it is not possible.


lol - I am very confused!

Your saying that it can't be removed?

----------


## southernman

By "can't be removed" what I am asking is... Is vb (or vb hack) not capable to do such?

----------


## Bachstelze

AFAIK, it must be done directly in the database and u-g doesn't like that. Better wait for an admin, though.

----------


## matthew

The infraction can be removed behind the scenes. It is a little bit of a process. Usually, the fact that only staff and the recipient can see reversed infractions is enough, especially since the reason for the infraction reversal is visible to staff (a note saying something like "staff error" or "apology accepted" are common).

In the interest of good customer relations, I'll dig in the vB admin control panel and make the infraction disappear this time.

----------


## southernman

Thank you Matthew... I do appreciate it.

----------

