P.M. Infraction Policies - About the Forums

Oski · 10-13-2011, 12:14 PM

I have some general questions about 2p2 policy on infracting P.M.'s

First, I will lay out some assumptions (Comments are welcome if you disagree):

1. Content infractions remain in place for all communictions on the site - P.M. or public.

2. Trolling and/or spamming infractions remain in place for P.M.'s.

3. (Procedure): If you respond to a mod's PM with a message violating 2p2 content guidelines, you can be infracted directly by that mod. Indeed, there have been a number of discussions on this topic in ATF.

4. (Procedure): If you respond to a poster's PM with a message violating 2p2 content guildelines, this should be reported to a mod for action (as a matter of common sense, I don't see how the infraction could be imposed unless a mod was notified, anyway).

QUESTION: What if you are sent a PM by a mod that is not acting in the role of a mod at the time? In other words, the PM is a de jure "personal message" and not connected to any mod duties, issues, or responsibilities, and:

1. Poster (okay, me) responds with a profanity-laced tirade? Sure, infraction time, no doubt. But, shouldn't the matter be referred to another mod for review?

Comment: I did not solicit said PM, and I (reasonably, or not) took the initial message as hostile. I made it clear that I did not appreciate receiving the message and that I was responding to the fellow as a mere poster, not a mod. If he was discussing site business, I would have taken another approach (most likely). Anyhow, I was infracted 20 points. I agree that the content of my Reply warranted an infraction, I just have issues with the procedure. Indeed, a mod (for lack of better term) trolls me with a "personal message" and infracts me directly for my response.

2. After being infracted, there was a back-and-forth between mod and myself which was entirely personal (as in poster-to-poster). To save you all, it was just two guys talking trash and nothing came of it. So, the PM thread continued from the original. After every reply from me, he would reply back. Back-and-forth. No consecutive posts from either party (although, I made an epic, 5-part reply at one point which was clearly designated at the time as such).

In other words, neither party was bombarding the other with PM's. IF one wanted to stop, all they had to do was not reply to the other. In any event, I changed things up and posted in an overtly-polite manner. That is when things get weird:

At that point, the other party (I supposed in process of putting his mod hat on) started warning me that my PM replies could be infracted as they were "sarcastic" and "lacking respect." I told him that I just wanted to be his friend and that the idea of having a pen pal was growing on me. I told him I loved seeing the Red PM box light up every time I logged on.

Well, after every, single REPLY, he would respond within the same chain. I would respond back, many times with questions or with answers to some of his questions.

At that point, he told me if I were to continue replying to his PM's he would infract me for "trolling."

Of course, I asked him under what rules and policies he could do that, especially since I had never understood how one could "troll" by replying to PM's. I pointed that out to him and he told me he had the authority to do what he warned of, and that he wasn't going to answer my questions about it.

Of course, he kept Responding to my Replies. At one point, I told him that if he really believed he was being trolled and did not want to hear back from me (see, because he has a mod account, we can't block each other) that he should stop sending me PM's. Well, he kept sending me PM's and I kept responding. I continued to ask him:

a) to define "trolling" for the purposes of his threat to infract me for PM Replies; and

b) to provide me some direction to where I could find the "established policy" on this that gave him the authority to infract me as stated by him.

He would not answer my questions and he told me to take it up with ATF. I responded that I thought he would be the most appropriate person to answer the questions.

Eventually, he stopped responding the my Reply RM's, but also gave me a 20 point infraction.

So: what is the rule? Can you really be trolling by merely responding to PM's?

Can you be infracted for being sarcastic and "disrespectful" (in this case, being overtly congenial)?

Let me make it clear. I am not interested in outing the other party. I am not interested in having my infractions removed (I like to live on the "edge"). I am interested in discussing this apparent extension of forum rules on trolling to now cover PM replies and the content-based extension to now include "sarcasm" and "disrespect."

**Rapini** · 10-13-2011, 12:16 PM

Can you elaborate a bit?

**dkgojackets** · 10-13-2011, 12:22 PM

If you want to complain then sack up, call someone out, and let people talk about the specific example instead of these long worded vague generalities.

Oski · 10-13-2011, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dkgojackets

If you want to complain then sack up, call someone out, and let people talk about the specific example instead of these long worded vague generalities.

How is that vague?

In any event, who cares? I am asking about a discussion about policy. It is an open question. Let our hair down and explore the space. Maybe some cowbell will help you out.

I made it clear I am not complaining, I am asking about policy.

1. Do you think "trolling" includes responding to P.M.'s? I don't.

2. Do you think being "sarcastic" and/or "disrespectful" in a PM response is infraction-worthy? I don't.

What do you think?

By the way, the "specific example" contains about 50 PM messages. Do you really need to read the content to discuss the specific questions I raise?

Also, I am never afraid of "sacking up" or mixing things up, so to speak. However, I am interested in the rules and policies that cover these situations. If I post the PM exchanges (which I have express permission from the other party to do) the thread will degenerate into nittery about the exchanges and will ignore the broader concepts.

Oski · 10-13-2011, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rapini

Can you elaborate a bit?

If you think about it, that is probably not the question you want to ask me.

LFS · 10-13-2011, 12:34 PM

Somebody, imo, is mad.

soah · 10-13-2011, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rapini

Can you elaborate a bit?

modroll

Oski · 10-13-2011, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LFS

Somebody, imo, is mad.

Serious question: Why do you think I am mad about this? (I am not mad at all; but I am pretty curious about the issues stated.)

Texas Chuck · 10-13-2011, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rapini

Can you elaborate a bit?

with gold like this--how do so many people not like you? Guess B&M is seriousbuisness

Texas Chuck · 10-13-2011, 12:55 PM

this does sound like a legit beef tho.

**killa** · 10-13-2011, 12:58 PM

Im going to answer this simply , if you start "mouthing off" with aggressive or abusive PM to a mod they have the right to ban you. However before you escalate it to that point you may want to another mod or admin.
In other words don't take matters in your own hands and start berating a mod in PM's because you feel you are in the right...

Oski · 10-13-2011, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by killa

Im going to answer this simply , if you start "mouthing off" with aggressive or abusive PM to a mod they have the right to ban you. However before you escalate it to that point you may want to another mod or admin.
In other words don't take matters in your own hands and start berating a mod in PM's because you feel you are in the right...

Indeed, I conceded that point in the assumptions and my comments thereto. I unequivocably stated that my profanity-laced tirade was worthy (and worth) the infraction. I must correct one thing in your comment - I did not send a PM. I replied to a PM. I did not seek out this other party.

However, the further infraction was for "trolling." The "trolling" as issue for for REPLYING to PM's. Not sending PM's, but Replying to PM's.

**Rapini** · 10-13-2011, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Chuck

with gold like this--how do so many people not like you? Guess B&M is seriousbuisness

Apparently ATF is "seriousbuisness" as well thanks to Chuck.

Just fyi I already knew the backstory of this matter before Oski posted it. I know that I might be in the minority, but I enjoy Oski's posts in OOT.

However, I think that what he was doing to the mod in question amounts to harassment and he should have been at least tempbanned for it, preferably by an admin.

Oski · 10-13-2011, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Chuck

this does sound like a legit beef tho.

If anyone should know about beef, it would be someone from Texas.

Oski · 10-13-2011, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rapini

Apparently ATF is "seriousbuisness" as well thanks to Chuck.

Just fyi I already knew the backstory of this matter before Oski posted it. I know that I might be in the minority, but I enjoy Oski's posts in OOT.

Christ, I don't even enjoy my posts in OOT.

Quote:

However, I think that what he was doing to the mod in question amounts to harassment and he should have been at least tempbanned for it, preferably by an admin.

Fair opinion. I guess, you have cut further into the onion than others. But, I am still curious about the general questions I ask.

For example: How can I be trolling someone if I am only replying to their PM's? Why can't the other party just stop sending me PM's?

Mind you, I was not out roaming around and creating new issues and thus inviting new PM's. This was all on the same topic. All within the same exchange.

Furthermore, this exchange was poster-to-poster. The other party conceded early on that he was not PM'ing me as a mod. All of a sudden it starts going like: "Well, your replies are sarcastic and disrespectful, I have the power to infract you if you reply to my PM's ... so don't Reply anymore."

Under those circumstances, is it not appropriate to ask the poster (now wearing the mod had) to clarify the rule on "trolling" or to direct me to the authority? I think it is; others may disagree.

Is it not fair for me to assume that the other poster is being disingenuous about "being trolled" when he actively initiates, participates, precipitates, perpetuates (after he contemplates, lifts some weights and does figure-8's) and resuscitates the conversation?