Unsportsmanlike behaviour of Mitty

[Sai]

On two occasions I have been personally flamed by Walter Mitty, including being called an asshole and dickhead.

I'll get over it, but according to rule 216 this is specifically not allowed.  It is the sort of thing that lead to the degeneration the last game, and I think it should be discouraged as laid out in rule 216 by the award of a yellow card.

Please vote.

[Sai]

Apologies.  This requires seconding, not voting.

[Selena Oleck]

To be perfectly honest, I feel it's you rather than him who should be
getting nominated for a yellow card, but at the same time I don't
think anything you said was out of spite, so I'm against any yellow
card here.

[Selena Oleck]

And just to be clear, you started up the whole thing with this
comment, twelve days after the rule had passed:

"In my current apparent naysaying spirit and due to the fact that I
loathe this rule more than I could have imagined possible, I'm going
to try and counteract it a little by voting nay to any proposal
written in this form."

[Sai]

Are you saying it's okay to call somebody an asshole or dickhead in this game?  You don't think it's a flame?  You think we should only apply rule 216 if you agree with the argument that starting the flaming and insults?

This isn't about whether or not you like or agree with my strategy to cope with my anticipated points deficit, it's about whether a personal attack and flaming took place or not.

My statement on the thread came later, once I realised the predicament I was in with this rule.  I didn't fully explain my tactics in that short comment, but I don't think I should have to explain my game tactics all the time.

[Selena Oleck]

No, I'm saying that what you said seemed like it was more intended to
illicit an angry response, which would make YOU guilty of flaming.

What you're claiming to be flaming is this:
"I'm only unhappy with what I perceive
(rightly or wrongly) at Sai's assholery/ dickishness"

He isn't calling you an asshole.

[Sai]

He publicly said he thought I was responsible for assholery and dickishness, when all I said was I was going to vote against such proposals, which I said because I was fed up with them and the disadvantage it puts me at for not wanting to write what I think are silly rhymes.  That's not a flame on my part.

So okay, "assholery" vs "asshole".  "Dickishness".  I had slightly the wrong words.  He still said what he thought of me in terms of insulting/derogatory/inflammatory terms.  That's a flame by any definition.

The point of rule 216 is to warn people when they start to do this.  So warn...

[Walter Mitty]

Good morning everyone.

Now, I believe I saw Sai's "current naysaying spirit/ loathe this rule
more than I thought imaginable" comment about 48 hours ago, give or
take, and that is what's triggered this whole mess. I have no beef
with you otherwise, Sai, except now you've escalated it to yellow
cards and rules-based callouts. That's fine and well within the rules.
I understand why you might be hurt, and my second (very sarcastic)
comment was expressly designed to hurt you. I admit as much. I also
regretted having posted that, but I had a busy day and didn't have
time to say so until about 10 hours ago, by which time you'd decided
to invoke Rule 216. Fine, that's your prerogative as a player.

It is also well within your right to say as you wish within the group.
I stand by my second response, where I stated explicitly that I was
'unhappy with [your] assholery/ dickishness'. However you might wish
to frame it now, your statements about 'loathing it more than you
thought imaginable' and 'naysaying spirit' - I mean, wow, tactics are
tactics, but those are very mean things to say about a rule. Whether
we're playing Nomic or not, behaving or saying things like an asshole
are going to raise hackles. I don't know whether you intended to be
offensive, but you were offensive, period.

It's also entirely your choice as to whether and how you wish to
express your tactical decisions within the game, and that you chose to
express it in such a manner speaks more about your intentions. I leave
it to the other players to decide for themselves what that intention
is. Only you know for certain - all I have to work on are the words
you used, and they hurt. Yes, hurt isn't accounted for in the rules.
Maybe it should be. I don't know.

Now: I personally regret having posted the sarcastic comment, because
that was wholly unnecessary and a waste of everyone's time and effort,
and I definitely shouldn't be taking this game that seriously. "It's
only a game." I'm certainly not flaming out, because I think the
game's generally been conducted pretty civilly so far, and I would
like to continue playing.

By the by, do you really think "loathe it more than I thought
imaginable" is qualitatively the same as "fed up with [proposals which
use the rule]"?

If I may, there is a rule which I would like to draw your attention
to:

-----

Rule 111

If a rule change as proposed is unclear, ambiguous, paradoxical, or
clearly destructive of play, or if it arguable consists of two or more
rule changes compounded, or is an amendment that makes no difference,
or if it is otherwise of questionable value, then the other players
may suggest amendments or argue against the proposal before the vote.
A reasonable amount of time must be allowed for this debate. The
proponent decides on the final form in which the proposal is to be
voted on and decides the time to end debate and vote. The only cure
for a bad proposal is prevention: a negative vote.

A player always has the option to forfeit the game rather than
continue to play or incur a game penalty. No penalty worse than
losing, in the judgement of the player to incur it, may be imposed.

-----

I allowed reasonable time for the debate, and it was duly voted on.
You exercised your negative vote and expressed your discontent, but it
was passed and is now a rule. Not liking the rule doesn't make you an
asshole or a dickhead, I agree, but what I took umbrage at was the way
you expressed it (i.e., "In my current apparent naysaying spirit and

due to the fact that I loathe this rule more than I could have
imagined possible, I'm going to try and counteract it a little by

voting nay to any proposal written in this form. ") and I stated as
much ("I'm only unhappy with what I perceive
(rightly or wrongly) at Sai's assholery/ dickishness"). Perhaps you
would like to amend your disingenuous callout?

[Sai]

"I loathe this rule more than I could have imagined possible"

Quite true, I'm sorry, but I think possibly taken the wrong way.  I agree, the words do sound strong and possibly over emotive, but it is true.  I really strongly dislike the fact that I am being essentially forced to write rhyming rules, which I strongly dislike for a number of reasons.  "Loathe" is not an inappropriate word for this I think.  "More than I could have imagined possible" refers to the fact that I really honestly didn't think anybody would come up with the rule that bothered me so much.  But being forced to do things I hate doing does bother me.  It doesn't mean I loathe it more than I believed it was possible to loathe anything, which I can see it might have been taken as.  I do loathe other things in the world more than this :)

Naysaying was only referring to the fact that I seemed to be saying NAY to votes a lot, even though I had no intention of doing that (as I said in my first naysaying comment).

The rule is worded as a reward for writing rhymes, but it is equally or perhaps more appropriately a penalty for anybody that doesn't write rhymes.

Also, it's just a rule.  I don't like it.  I said as much.  I never flamed or insulted you personally.

I feel like I am being treated as a guilty person for just saying I loathe a rule, whereas your quite nasty personal attacks seem perfectly acceptable.

It seems I am now also considered the person going overboard, but you were the person that got worked up and starting making personal attacks because I didn't like a rule that happened to have been proposed by you.  I didn't even know who made the rule when I commented I didn't like it.  It's just a rule.

The fact that you explicitly still stand by your personal insults is very disturbing too...

[Walter Mitty]

Nobody is forcing you to follow the rule. Period. Regardless: The rule
is not under discussion, my - and your - behaviour is.

The basic facts are as such: You made a provocative statement. I
responded with a provocative statement. You then made a sarcastic
statement. I responded to your sarcasm with sarcasm of my own.

On that grounds I believe your callout/ attempt to get me carded is
unfair, both because your initial callout was, at best, inaccurate,
and at worst, disingenuous, as the facts were misrepresented. To be
fair, you should reword it to reflect the situation correctly while
also attempting to get yourself carded for using unnecessarily
provocative language and then resorting to ambiguous, sarcastic
language, or withdraw your callout.

[Sai]

No, I don't agree.  The basic facts are I strongly didn't like a rule and I said so.  I don't understand the problem with that.

You responded with a personal attack on me.

My sarcasm was pretty minor and just surprise at how you responded personally to my slightly off-the-cuff comment on the rule and my plans.

Your sarcasm was pretty strongly insulting -- again a personal attack.

I don't believe I have done anything that deserves carding.  I just expressed my opinion of a rule I don't like.  I said I won't be supporting rules written in such a form (since, amongst other reasons it is likely to be less clear and cause later problems of interpretation).  And that is my right to do so.  It is your right to continue to post rhymes if you wish.

I agree; this thread is about your behaviour not the rhyming stuff (and sure, my behaviour too if you like).  I complained about a rule. You made personal attacks on me.  There seems to be a world of difference to me.  A rule cannot be insulted.  A rule doesn't take it personally.

You had an opportunity to take back personal attacks against me, but you chose instead to re-iterate them (!).

Rule 216 seems pretty clear on this.  That is a clear case of a personal flaming, and you should be awarded a yellow card.

Apparently others don't see it this way as well, which greatly puzzles me.

[Walter Mitty]

I see we are not going to reach common ground on this, and that you
are going to insist that I deserve this card, while refusing to reword
your initial, disingenuous callout - which, to me, suggests that you
are making this a very personal thing. At this point I'd suggest that
you are guilty of being a troll, and I will certainly call you out on
it in the future if you persist in such ill-considered behaviour.

You have - cleverly - acted within the rules and I have - foolishly -
left myself open to your attacks. So be it.

I will have no choice but to accept the yellow card if your motion is
both seconded and then voted on as a regular proposal, as per rule
216.

If not, then I would suggest that you lay it to rest and perhaps think
about how you want to play the game and interact with other human
beings.

[Alyssa Knox]

I wonder if misreading of tone is the original culprit here. I have to say, I have also had a negative reaction to some of Sai's posts, but reading through this thread, I think I was assuming tone/attitude that was not intentional.

I think the best remedy here might be to take a step back and reconsider the intent here. It looks to me like Walter Mitty misread a comment that was not intended to be offensive (I made the same error, personally) and reacted accordingly.

Would both parties consider apologising and accepting an apology?

(Sorry, I hope it's not out of line for me to suggest this. I just think there was no malicious intent here on either side--one misread comment and one possibly over-harsh reaction--and I think it would be a shame to give a card and potentially create game-long bad feelings, when perhaps the issue could be resolved player-to-player instead.)

[Walter Mitty]

Personally I find your suggestion to be a reasonable compromise and am
willing to do so.

I apologise sincerely and unreservedly for any injury and/or insult
perceived by Sai and will no longer engage in such behaviour, and if
riled will wait at least 12 hours before responding. (Responding
immediately has invariably been a poor decision.)

I would also accept any sincere apology on Sai's part if he is willing
to make one.

On Aug 22, 11:11 am, Alyssa Knox <amk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I wonder if misreading of tone is the original culprit here. I have to say,
> I have also had a negative reaction to some of Sai's posts, but reading
> through this thread, I think I was assuming tone/attitude that was not
> intentional.
>
> I think the best remedy here might be to take a step back and reconsider the
> intent here. It looks to me like Walter Mitty misread a comment that was not
> intended to be offensive (I made the same error, personally) and reacted
> accordingly.
>
> Would both parties consider apologising and accepting an apology?
>
> (Sorry, I hope it's not out of line for me to suggest this. I just think
> there was no malicious intent here on either side--one misread comment and
> one possibly over-harsh reaction--and I think it would be a shame to give a
> card and potentially create game-long bad feelings, when perhaps the issue
> could be resolved player-to-player instead.)
>
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 12:43, Walter Mitty

> <person.from.porl...@gmail.com>wrote:

[Sai]

Well, I apologise in as far as I never meant it to be insulting.

However I still very strongly dislike that rule and will oppose its use since I think it damages the game (and I hate writing rhymes, and I think it is unfair that I should be penalised for my crappy rhyming abilities).

And I still don't think there's any excuse for the nasty personal attacks I received.  That is exactly the point of rule 216, and that hasn't changed.  Attacks made.  Rule invoked.  There should be consequences as a warning to other players that this rules wasn't for no reason and such actions are not what we collectively want in this game.  If we just allow personal insults to go on, what was the point of having the rule?

[Walter Mitty]

Your apology is laden with such a lengthy qualifier that I'm not sure
it can be construed as sincere.

[Sai]

The apology is sincere.  I certainly never meant to insult anybody.  I didn't even imagine anybody could take offence at me not liking a rule.

I'm just saying my opinion of the rule still exists.

[Walter Mitty]

I don't really think there's anything further to be gained from my
continued participation in this thread, as it's reached the point
where it's clear that neither Sai nor myself will see eye-to-eye on
this issue and he has evinced a reluctance to apologise in a sincere
manner, choosing instead to tack on a reiteration of his previously
stated assertions in the guise of a qualifier for his apology and
further rationalisations for his continued trolling.

I will accept the judgment of the player-community on this issue. That
is all I have to say on this matter, and will only return to it if
newer substantive points are made that I need to defend myself
against.

I leave you with this to consider, from the clearly authoritative
source of knowyourmeme.com:

Trolling: A troll is someone who will state something only with the
intention of stirring up controversy. Typically the statement is so
absurd that only the most noobish of noobs will get offended and
respond.

from http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/subcultures/trolling#.TlHVX1keY-A

[Sai]

I really don't understand your angle.

Bottom line is direct personal attacks were made by Mitty to Sai, for which there is no excuse and which were re-iterated even in this thread.  I've called for a judgement under rule 216.  That's what this thread is about.  The current status is awaiting a seconder that agrees that personal attacks should not be allowed.

If nobody seconds it, obviously it will be left to lie.  In fact, even if somebody does second it, it will be left to lie at this point I expect.

So I don't really expect to see it seconded at this point.  Nobody wants to make enemies when their future vote is at stake.

I hope it serves as a reminder anyway about future personal attacks and insults.

[Tim Lifschitz]

I considered seconding this, but I don't think it's warranted here.

Saying that someone is a dick is a direct insult.  Saying that a certain behavior is dickish is not a personal attack.  It is a comment on the behaviour.

The difference is subtle, and Walter did escalate into swear words first.  I think it's best to avoid them altogether, but the yellow card rule is meant for more malicious offences than this one.  

I really hope you guys can move on from this.  The game has only a few players, and we need to be able to discuss rules and move forward without obstructing each other's rule for personal reasons.

                      - Tim