PDA

View Full Version : Removing A Reversed Infraction



Lster
August 20th, 2008, 04:03 PM
Hi

I was given an warning infraction by Joeb454:


Dear Lster,

You have received a warning at Ubuntu Forums.

Reason:
-------
Dismissing Comments as "Throw-away"

Other members are trying to be helpful and contribute to the thread, however you are being dismissive of their contributions & what some (including myself) would consider as being rude or belittling.

Please do not do such things in future.

The warning lasts 7 days :)
-------

Original Post:
5627093


You may want to ask Graham about his opinion but IMHO liking features is not enough: Both Graham and Joel Spolsky (another outspoken and rich guru) are both proponents of liberal arts education, because (in their opinion) most critical part of programmer's education is critical thinking. One of then says: ~~ "Teaching Java is vocational training, you don't need college for that. If you did not learned to think about how you think, you wasted your money".

Critical thinking is indeed a favorite subject of mine (with philosophy and mathematics) but has no more relation to programming than to any other subject.


Of course they are wasted time, they are Arguments from Authority and Lster has no regard for that ;)

And that should be the opinion of anyone who has studied philosophy or critical thinking. Seriously, your comments seem to fall quite short of substantial content; they're just throw-away comments.

Warnings serve as a reminder to you of the forum's rules, which you are expected to understand and follow.

All the best,
Ubuntu Forums

To which I replied:


I have to disagree that a warning is warranted. I am respectful of all members at all times and my comment was merely meant with regard to what CptPicard posted as a hint that I thought his comment was a bit derogatory:


Of course they are wasted time, they are Arguments from Authority and Lster has no regard for that ;)

It is basically making fun of my opinion that arguments should be based on content rather than the authority of those who argue it. It is a throwaway comment as I mentioned as it serves nothing to the discussion. It simply makes it clear that CptPicard disagrees with my opinion... It need not be said (especially in such a condescending way) and I actually think that it is more warranting of a warning than my post. It is clearly disrespectful.

You say I shouldn't dismiss his comments as thowaway, but as said, it was throwaway.

Perhaps the reason it was found offensive was that I used a plural when I only meant to refer to that one sentence; that I apologize for, but I still don't see how it is in breach of the CoC. That said, CptPicard has posted similar comments recently that seem a little less than respectful...

So I must ask you to reconsider. I understand that the warning will disappear in 7 days, but I don't like my name to be dirtied! Perhaps a good resolution would be if I were to edit the post in question to use only a singular (as intended) and I'll be sending an apology for any offense caused to CptPicard, shortly.

Thanks,
Lster


I see what you mean, after reading your proposed resolution I am happy to reverse the warning

The posts above detail all the happenings relevant. My argument is detailed in the second quote. Ideally I would like the infraction entirely removed as I feel I was within the CoC for the whole part.

Thanks,
Lster

Lster
August 20th, 2008, 07:39 PM
Is this being looked into?

KiwiNZ
August 20th, 2008, 08:19 PM
Some patience please . You only posted 4 hours ago. This is a very busy forum,
I will consider this and come back as soon as I can

KiwiNZ
August 20th, 2008, 08:53 PM
It is an incident that occurred and there should be a record of it. It is only visible to you and staff.

Lster
August 20th, 2008, 09:00 PM
Can I ask whether you agree with the warning? Surely if it is not warranted, it should be removed, right?

KiwiNZ
August 20th, 2008, 09:12 PM
With regard to the validity of the warning , I have not considered it, it was not the purpose of this review.

Your second point, no it should not be removed , it is an incident that occured and for administrative purposes there is to be a record of it.

As stated earlier it is only visible to you and staff.

Joeb454
August 20th, 2008, 09:17 PM
KiwiNZ here is the original report: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=895412

Lster
August 20th, 2008, 09:19 PM
If its validity isn't judged now, I fear this warning may impact on later decisions with regard to moderation of my posts. If it stays, I ask you either don't use it in any decisions about future posts or that you find my posts in violation of the CoC.

KiwiNZ
August 20th, 2008, 09:50 PM
It has been reversed , so it has been judged.

We will judge future incidents on their merits.

Lster
August 20th, 2008, 09:59 PM
OK, it's just in:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=5628680&postcount=9

LaRoza gave me the impression that infractions were often reversed even when they were warranted leaving my infraction as still questionable. I would really appreciate a good guide on all of this - at the moment I am left half-guessing what each thing means.

KiwiNZ
August 20th, 2008, 10:23 PM
OK, it's just in:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=5628680&postcount=9

LaRoza gave me the impression that infractions were often reversed even when they were warranted leaving my infraction as still questionable. I would really appreciate a good guide on all of this - at the moment I am left half-guessing what each thing means.


That was 6 hours ago and not "just in"

It has been made clear . The reversed warning will not be removed. It is visible to you and staff only.

Future affect. We often review a members entire history when circumstances warrant it. And no I am not going to elaborate on that , I am not into crystal ball gazing.

The original warning has been reviewed and reversed.No further action is needed at this time.

This is now going in circles and should now be considered finalised.

Lster
August 20th, 2008, 10:29 PM
I'm not questioning anything, I quite understand it's finalized. :)

But you misunderstood me. The "OK, it's just in" was meant to be read as "OK, it's just, in the thread"...