You have received an infraction

mrochester · February 13, 2009 7:39AM

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.

nordkapp · February 13, 2009 8:32AM

you should count yourself lucky. I got an infraction for a typo.

mrochester · February 13, 2009 8:45AM

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

Marvin · February 13, 2009 12:29PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrochester

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.

mrochester · February 13, 2009 12:58PM

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.

SpamSandwich · February 13, 2009 1:02PM

Questioning the decisions of the mods is possible grounds for banning, so don't act surprised.

Marvin · February 13, 2009 1:19PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrochester

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

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.

nordkapp · February 13, 2009 5:00PM

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.

bageljoey · February 15, 2009 8:25PM

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...

addabox · February 15, 2009 8:52PM

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.

addabox · February 15, 2009 8:55PM

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.

e1618978 · February 15, 2009 10:15PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by addabox

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.

addabox · February 16, 2009 12:28AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by e1618978

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.

You have received an infraction

Comments