Appeal against infraction

[tsuyuri]

https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/...nite-powder-keg.6788583/page-5#post-143050843
Thread is about Hu XiJin backing down on Nancy Pelosi's Taiwan visit. My involvement started as a reply to post #215 when user "Fire Phoenix" claims that Nancy Pelosi's Taiwan visit risks war and she isn't brave. I disagree with the post, and posted a tongue in cheek comment that she is in fact brave, and if Nancy Pelosi were to, according to him, stay at home that would be constitute to a defeatist mindset. "Fire Phoenix" replied by reaffirming his position that Nancy Pelosi staying at home and appeasing the big bully China in this case would be correct and knowing his own weight.
which leads to the infracted post of me saying that I disagree with him, that if Nancy Pelosi were to stay in US to appease the big bully it would be spineless. I then gave an example of how not being spineless can lead to good outcomes i.e. the current situation of Ukraine. But I wrap it up by saying "never bow down to dictatorship", reaffirming my position on Nancy Pelosi's visit to Taiwan is brave and correct. Final line is once again my disagreement with him.

It is incorrect to view giving the example of current Ukraine's situation as derailment, because it is not the essence of the post. I am merely using it as an example to form a basis and foundation to my message, that bowing down to oppressors is spineless, and that Nancy Pelosi showed us she didn't do it nor should we. In the offending post, it's all about my view that Nancy Pelosi's visit to Taiwan is correct and brave, which is all according to thread title, and I stick to the thread title faithfully. And thus, there is no derailment.

 

[Orionz]

Tldr, so exactly which post was infracted, and for what reason?

 

[Mecisteus]

I don't really know the exact post.

But from the post by TS in this thread, I think TS was trying to make a constructive argument or discussion in that thread.

Maybe can give TS the benefit of the doubt.

 

[tsuyuri]

Tldr, so exactly which post was infracted, and for what reason?

I don't really know the exact post.

But from the post by TS in this thread, I think TS was trying to make a constructive argument or discussion in that thread.

Maybe can give TS the benefit of the doubt.

exact post is the link at the very top lor in first post. reason is derail. i copy pasted for ease

"this is called spineless. you never know the result. did ukraine bow down to russia ah beng? no, they brave and fought back and people all come in to help ukraine. now ah beng russia is the one kana hoot jialat. never bow down to totalitarian dictatorship ah beng. if you wanna be spineless humji go ahead. "

but here the essence of the post is referring to Nancy Pelosi's action is not spineless. and we should be like her and not bow down to dictatorship. wrong to say derail what.

 

[Orionz]

exact post is the link at the very top lor in first post. reason is derail. i copy pasted for ease

"this is called spineless. you never know the result. did ukraine bow down to russia ah beng? no, they brave and fought back and people all come in to help ukraine. now ah beng russia is the one kana hoot jialat. never bow down to totalitarian dictatorship ah beng. if you wanna be spineless humji go ahead. "

but here the essence of the post is referring to Nancy Pelosi's action is not spineless. and we should be like her and not bow down to dictatorship. wrong to say derail what.

dont see any derailment since ts is only using ukraine vs russia as a comparison
but the argument like very heated already...

btw derail is how many points? if 6 points for this, really harsh i feel

 

[tsuyuri]

dont see any derailment since ts is only using ukraine vs russia as a comparison
but the argument like very heated already...

btw derail is how many points? if 6 points for this, really harsh i feel

no heated ah, just normal discussion.
3 points. but my post has no good reason to deserve any infraction. if just giving an example is derail then it sets precedence to how a lot of posts in the future can be arbitrarily infracted.

 

[cranthir]

I disagree with him, that if Nancy Pelosi were to stay in US to appease the big bully it would be spineless. I then gave an example of how not being spineless can lead to good outcomes i.e. the current situation of Ukraine. But I wrap it up by saying "never bow down to dictatorship", reaffirming my position on Nancy Pelosi's visit to Taiwan is brave and correct. Final line is once again my disagreement with him.

if this is what you typed in the thread, there will be no point given,

but this is what you typed

this is called spineless. you never know the result. did ukraine bow down to russia ah beng? no, they brave and fought back and people all come in to help ukraine. now ah beng russia is the one kana hoot jialat. never bow down to totalitarian dictatorship ah beng. if you wanna be spineless humji go ahead.

the focus of your explanation was on Pelosi, the focus of your offending post was on Ukraine,

You are already in a contentious thread where many PRC and ROC "patriots" are already arguing, there is no need to invite the Russian and Ukrainian "patriots" to come in to argue by you saying current situation of Ukraine is a good outcome.

in your explanation, appeasement is spineless,
in the offending post, you are referring to another poster as spineless humji if he believe in his belief.

I give you for derail instead of name calling cause the latter is a 6 pts offense instead of 3.

Its also meaningless to say that you did not derail the thread when the thread got derailed
this is the person who replied you and got banned for same reason.

you obviously turn a blind eye to the atrocities Ukrainian army committed

no saint person in war lah, talk so much lol, type until got dragon got tiger, end up probably a nobody

Hope this clarify.

Will check in with the rest of the mod team to see if your points warrant reversal

 

[tsuyuri]

if this is what you typed in the thread, there will be no point given,

but this is what you typed


the focus of your explanation was on Pelosi, the focus of your offending post was on Ukraine,

You are already in a contentious thread where many PRC and ROC "patriots" are already arguing, there is no need to invite the Russian and Ukrainian "patriots" to come in to argue by you saying current situation of Ukraine is a good outcome.

in your explanation, appeasement is spineless,
in the offending post, you are referring to another poster as spineless humji if he believe in his belief.

I give you for derail instead of name calling cause the latter is a 6 pts offense instead of 3.

Its also meaningless to say that you did not derail the thread when the thread got derailed
this is the person who replied you and got banned for same reason.


Hope this clarify.

Will check in with the rest of the mod team to see if your points warrant reversal

1. i have to point out once again that the ukraine situation was just used as an example to back up what i think constitutes as being "not spineless". and i have to provide one here isn't it? else it will be just kaki kong kaki song. to say that giving an example constitutes to "an invite" is wrong, which i will address later.

2. "if you want to be a spineless humji go ahead". it is inaccurate and wrong to say that in the given line there is any indication of me attacking him personally or calling him one. what i'm referring to here is the mentality. spineless humji would equate to a defeatist mentality. given the overall context of the posts it carries the hidden message of "if you want to be a spineless humji go ahead, don't tell us to be one (Nancy Pelosi's action showed us how to not be one)." also here i am presenting choices, to be humji(defeatist) or not(which i think we shouldn't be, and Nancy Pelosi showed us). it's not like i'm saying things like, "eh bro you very humji leh..." or "you are humji for bowing down to.." this would then clearly show i refer him as one.

3. that person is the one who derailed. in his offending post, he started talking about ukraine with nothing according to the thread title, that is derail. it never was my intention to derail. i was still engaging in discussion according to thread title, i.e. Nancy Pelosi's visit = being not spineless/not having defeatist mindset. i merely gave an example. and so he used my example to derail would mean i derail too?

4. going by what you said, if in the future anyone giving examples for instance -
"no i disagree with you (according to thread topic), because if (insert example).."
is this going to be derail too? judgement like this would lead to arbitrary moderation and i don't think we should go down the rabbit hole in this manner.

5. i welcome more mods.

 

[cranthir]

1. i have to point out once again that the ukraine situation was just used as an example to back up what i think constitutes as being "not spineless". and i have to provide one here isn't it? else it will be just kaki kong kaki song. to say that giving an example constitutes to "an invite" is wrong, which i will address later.

I get what you are saying.
No need to keep repeating.
But your intention and how it is interpreted does not match.

and I review the thread further and found that you further derail the thread with this reply so really you explanation of no intention to derail do not gel

what atrocities did Ukrainian army commit? dude, who is the one who invaded ukraine? you wanna do a comparison with russia's atrocities?

"no saint person in war lah, talk so much lol, type until got dragon got tiger, end up probably a nobody" sounds like you

and the nobody sound like a name calling directed at him even when he wasn't referring to you directly

not just you but a couple more other folks also derail but no action was taken as there was no reports.

I will review those posts later.

this will be my last reply on this. I have found that more often than not, Continued engagement allow users to use the feedback forum as a platform to further propagate certain point of views via "clarification",

There is no need for users to keep clarifying when they typed in their original post is clear enough.

I actually do not mind reversing your points and have asked other moderators for their views but nobody who replied me think it should be reversed,

I will leave it at that unless other mod think it should be reversed.

 

[tsuyuri]

I get what you are saying.
No need to keep repeating.
But your intention and how it is interpreted does not match.

and I review the thread further and found that you further derail the thread with this reply so really you explanation of no intention to derail do not gel


and the nobody sound like a name calling directed at him even when he wasn't referring to you directly

not just you but a couple more other folks also derail but no action was taken as there was no reports.

I will review those posts later.

this will be my last reply on this. I have found that more often than not, Continued engagement allow users to use the feedback forum as a platform to further propagate certain point of views via "clarification",

There is no need for users to keep clarifying when they typed in their original post is clear enough.

I actually do not mind reversing your points and have asked other moderators for their views but nobody who replied me think it should be reversed,

I will leave it at that unless other mod think it should be reversed.

that is some poor accusation you baselessly come up with because those are 2 separate things. a simple reply to the original derailed post by icube which quoted my example (which shouldn't be viewed as derail), constitutes as my example (even though used with relevance to thread title) having the intention to derail? even when my so called "offending post" is still sticking to thread title? and i am replying him, of course i have to reply according to what he said right?

going by your logic this is what is happening -
1. thread about chicken rice
2. i post about chicken rice but used duck rice as an example for comparison
3. another user derail by talking about duck rice
4. do i reply that user here with something else? laksa? makes no sense right? it is only natural that i reply him according to what he said, i.e. with duck rice
and now you think 4. can apply retrospectively(even though it is replying to 3. in a sensible manner) that 2. has intention of derailing? this is such a poor conclusion you will never see in a proper setting i.e. courts/debates.

given such judgement, you anyhow go into a thread for example,
https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/threads/twitter-founder-jack-dorsey-says-end-the-ccp.6791265/https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/...dly-outmatched-by-u-s-forces-not-now.6791105/seems like almost everyone is derailing?

"and the nobody sound like a name calling directed at him even when he wasn't referring to you directly", noticed the ""?? do you realize this wasn't my words but the previous poster, i was just borrowing his words and thus the ""? so others say that to me wasn't referring to me, but i quote his exact words back at him = name calling from me? where is the consistency? by the way, that sentence overall is very tame anyway, i don't see any name calling from him. and like what i said, it's not attacking me personally and more like my mentality/ideology.

then reverse lor, look even 2 other forum users also agree with me that giving an example shouldn't constitute to derail. you gave the points but now you shift the responsibility to others? if they are the ones who give i will confront them.

let me end it all by saying this, there is no good reason to say that giving an example equates derailing.

 

[IndianChief]

I actually do not mind reversing your points and have asked other moderators for their views but nobody who replied me think it should be reversed,

Pls mention which mod(s) agreed that it should not be reversed. If dare to agree with this, should have no issues revealing their identity.

on a seperate note don't understand why you ask mods for their opinion? its like a hypothetical scenario where burglar asks his fellow burglar whether should return the stuff which was burgled. Obviously not gonna get any lets return back response.

Waiting for the inevitable reversal by Dragon

 

[tsuyuri]

if this is what you typed in the thread, there will be no point given,

but this is what you typed


the focus of your explanation was on Pelosi, the focus of your offending post was on Ukraine,

You are already in a contentious thread where many PRC and ROC "patriots" are already arguing, there is no need to invite the Russian and Ukrainian "patriots" to come in to argue by you saying current situation of Ukraine is a good outcome.

in your explanation, appeasement is spineless,
in the offending post, you are referring to another poster as spineless humji if he believe in his belief.

I give you for derail instead of name calling cause the latter is a 6 pts offense instead of 3.

Its also meaningless to say that you did not derail the thread when the thread got derailed
this is the person who replied you and got banned for same reason.


Hope this clarify.

Will check in with the rest of the mod team to see if your points warrant reversal

finally, let's look at this thread. thread title is appeal for infraction and the focus is on whether using ukraine's situation as a relevant example while sticking to the appropriate thread title constitutes to derailing.

and look at what is your reply cranthir. you went into accusation of purported name calling and checking with other mods which all has nothing to do with thread focus.

so, going by everything that you have said, i shall hereby declare i am reporting your post as derailing. if i do not see your post tagged as derail, then it is evident for all to see the double standards practiced by edmw mods. and nothing but arbitrary whim infracting on your part.

 

[tsuyuri]

cranthir
my report against you, going by your "standards", gets rejected in less than an hour.
and look at this post everyone!

https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/...-no-more-iphones-gpgt.6790938/#post-143146283

See u everyday spend so much time to type all these. I am wondering u have a life or job? Maybe get some new hobbies?

while this kind of post with blatant name calling and insults with very obvious derailing i reported more than 20 hours ago goes completely ignored!

this is laughable and an utter embarrassment. truly deplorable. you have clearly displayed your hypocrisy and it is unbecoming of someone bestowed with powers. your dishonourable act highlights your questionable moderation.

@Dragon may i please have your time to take a look at this thread? i would like you to have the final say and please do what you deem is just and right.

 

[BlackWing1977]

I think guidelines should be stickied to prevent further misunderstanding and perhaps also for other similar guidelines like do and don't for KYM thread to prevent deletion of it...

And also to get a general consensus among the mods to prevent big difference in moderation standards across different mods...

 

[Dragon]

@Dragon may i please have your time to take a look at this thread? i would like you to have the final say and please do what you deem is just and right.

We have been discussing internally on your appeal and the Moderators will give you an answer soon.

 

[jericho75]

cranthir
my report against you, going by your "standards", gets rejected in less than an hour.
and look at this post everyone!

https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/...-no-more-iphones-gpgt.6790938/#post-143146283


while this kind of post with blatant name calling and insults with very obvious derailing i reported more than 20 hours ago goes completely ignored!

this is laughable and an utter embarrassment. truly deplorable. you have clearly displayed your hypocrisy and it is unbecoming of someone bestowed with powers. your dishonourable act highlights your questionable moderation.

@Dragon may i please have your time to take a look at this thread? i would like you to have the final say and please do what you deem is just and right.

like that also can report? no wonder mods are getting very busy. asking the person as a concern why that person is so free also can become name calling and insults? i think need a mod assigned to personally handle your complaints only?

 

[IndianChief]

like that also can report? no wonder mods are getting very busy. asking the person as a concern why that person is so free also can become name calling and insults? i think need a mod assigned to personally handle your complaints only?

It works both ways. When you say "like that also can report", then you should know the entire basis for this thread is "like that also can infract" has happened in the first place.

If you this this was ridiculous, then the original infraction was ridiculous.

 

[jericho75]

It works both ways. When you say "like that also can report", then you should know the entire basis for this thread is "like that also can infract" has happened in the first place.

If you this this was ridiculous, then the original infraction was ridiculous.

edmw threads are mostly contains irrelevant contents. this is something we are used to and must acknowledged it. this is not some watches forum where ppl only talk about watches and nothing else. those out of topics is deemed as derailing.

the issue now is those that anyhow report, why they never take actions against those that anyhow report? but i feel ts is those that anyhow report things. why recently got such trends of anyhow report? i dun remember last time got ppl so free anyhow reporting things.

 

[IndianChief]

edmw threads are mostly contains irrelevant contents. this is something we are used to and must acknowledged it. this is not some watches forum where ppl only talk about watches and nothing else. those out of topics is deemed as derailing.

the issue now is those that anyhow report, why they never take actions against those that anyhow report? but i feel ts is those that anyhow report things. why recently got such trends of anyhow report? i dun remember last time got ppl so free anyhow reporting things.

He didn't anyhow report. He was trying to make a case that the mod is doing the same thing he received an infraction for. And he was reporting it to show the double standard in practice. When he does it its derailing and infracted but when mod does it its dismissed off as not derailing.

How can there be 2 different ways of applying a rule?

 

[BlackWing1977]

He didn't anyhow report. He was trying to make a case that the mod is doing the same thing he received an infraction for. And he was reporting it to show the double standard in practice. When he does it its derailing and infracted but when mod does it its dismissed off as not derailing.

How can there be 2 different ways of applying a rule?

Exactly I do hope the moderation team can come to a consensus on what is the standard to handle such cases to prevent such misunderstanding.