You have received an infraction

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Quote:

Dear mrochester,



You have received an infraction at AppleInsider.



Reason: Insult/Ad Hominem Attack

-------

Don't PM me.

-------



This infraction is worth 1 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.



Original Post:

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?p=1375632

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by h3ndrix View Post

Call me retarded for defending this one but isn't this exactly what USB audio interfaces are for? The use of non proprietary audio equipment like headphones, monitors, etc? Just sayin.

You're retarded. The standard 3.5mm headphone socket is loosing connection with standard 3.5mm headphones. There's clearly a problem here!

All the best,

AppleInsider



LOL, this place is ridiculous.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 12
    you should count yourself lucky. I got an infraction for a typo.
  • Reply 2 of 12
    An infraction for calling someone retarded who ASKED to be called retarded is, well, retarded.
  • Reply 3 of 12
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,548moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mrochester View Post


    An infraction for calling someone retarded who ASKED to be called retarded is, well, retarded.



    That's a personal attack, another point.



    Just kidding. The forum guidelines are clear and the rule regarding attacks is very simple.



    Basically you can say, 'I think that idea is retarded' but you can't say 'I think you are retarded'.



    Attack the idea, not the individual presenting it.



    I can understand your grievance and I personally avoid giving infractions to people who throw personal insults at me if I'm involved in that discussion to be more impartial. I wouldn't feel right encouraging someone to insult me and then reprimand them for it. However, the responsibility for tolerance lies with whoever has a notion to turn an ideological discussion into an attack on an individual.



    It's quite easy to comply with this really. Look at all your text when you post and look for places where you address the individual directly and if they are negative, consider redirecting those towards the opinion that they have or comment they made.
  • Reply 4 of 12
    I agree with that, but when the person has specifically asked to be called retarded, there are certainly no grounds to receive an infraction for that. If they didn't want to be called retarded, they shouldn't have asked to be. It's not as if I randomly or maliciously called someone retarded for no reason whatsoever.
  • Reply 5 of 12
    Questioning the decisions of the mods is possible grounds for banning, so don't act surprised.
  • Reply 6 of 12
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,548moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mrochester View Post


    I agree with that, but when the person has specifically asked to be called retarded



    I think it was a figure of speech.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mrochester View Post


    It's not as if I randomly or maliciously called someone retarded for no reason whatsoever.



    Whoever issued the infraction didn't see it that way. I can see what angle you were aiming at - like the whole 'call me a cab', 'ok you're a cab' type thing.



    I wouldn't worry about it too much. The infraction you got was really a warning. Try and avoid making comments that can be taken the wrong way. Think of it like avoiding saying 'I have a bomb' in an airport. You know you're kidding but it's hard to convey that intention sometimes.
  • Reply 7 of 12
    call me retarded - but I dont see the problem, someone was intentionally provoking me, and I said I wasn't going to fall for that, cunning stunt.
  • Reply 8 of 12
    bageljoeybageljoey Posts: 1,937member
    Morochester, I'm with you on this one. I am very grateful that these forums are actively moderated--those that are not are often overrun with corse idiocy. HOWEVER, I saw the original post that you made and I did not find it offensive in any way. I did not see it as a personal attack in any way. It was a tongue-in-cheek response to someone who asked for it--literally.

    It seems to me that the Moderator who pushed the infraction button did so in haste or without looking at the situation.



    Quote:

    Basically you can say, 'I think that idea is retarded' but you can't say 'I think you are retarded'.



    This makes sense in general, but not in this specific case. This is a letter of the law Vs. intent of the law issue...
  • Reply 9 of 12
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,664member
    I got an infraction once for joking about invading Canada, because "Canadians" complained.



    I have no point to make, I just always thought that was funny.
  • Reply 10 of 12
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,664member
    OTOH, the recent heavy spamming of General Discussion is making this particular forum almost unusable. I realize the mods don't spend 24/7 staring at their screens, but maybe there could be some kind of emergency measures taken just with GD?



    Pretty much every time I look the first 6-10 threads are spam.
  • Reply 11 of 12
    e1618978e1618978 Posts: 6,075member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    I got an infraction once for joking about invading Canada, because "Canadians" complained.



    I have no point to make, I just always thought that was funny.



    The Africans on the board must have thicker skins. I have zero infractions - at least, if I have them I don't know how to find them.
  • Reply 12 of 12
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,664member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post


    The Africans on the board must have thicker skins. I have zero infractions - at least, if I have them I don't know how to find them.



    Heh. Oddly enough, I think that's cause you were being more or less serious (in a nothing personal against Africa sort of way) whereas I was rattling on about taking Ann Murray hostage and melting their hockey rinks, or something.
Sign In or Register to comment.