Answers that read like advertisments for personal grudges

Question

User Iñaki Viggers seems to bear a grudge against a particular Michigan Judge, whom he sardonically mocks and denounces in several lengthy postings on his blog.

In Viggers accepted answer to Are there any indication that article 112 of anti narcotic laws in Indonesia are meant for “dealers” rather than “users”?, he derails a question about Indonesian law with an illustration about said Michigan Judge, peppered with various insulting opinions like:

• "...her JD designation stands for Juris Drugstore instead of Juris Doctor..."

• "...this felon judge..."

...and so forth.

If this were advertising a (non-relevant) product, it would make sense to flag it as spam. Here the "product" is some kind of crusade or grudge.

How should answers of this sort, (i.e. "Down with Official X from Region Y!"), be handled?

Answer 1

Bringing up irrelevant personal vendettas is an insult to the standards Stack Exchange is meant to adhere to, and the audience who has to read through it to get any useful information (including to know that the entirety of the useful topical information has already ended).

A single post of this kind should be flagged as rude or abusive, because that's what it is, and/or edited to remove the material.

A pattern of such posts should normally be met with further flags and eventually a warning or suspension, as a clear breach of multiple policies and the terms and conditions applying to Stack Exchange.

Answer 2

It is Stack Exchange policy that we Be Nice - as per this Meta question and answer I would expect that such answers be edited to remove any non-compliant, non-essential content of this kind, regardless of the user or their target.

Answer 3

I was wondering why my answer on that post is getting so many downvotes lately, but now I see this question. Some clarifications are in place.

First, you are stretching the notions of spam, product, and advertisement. When pertinent, I include in my answers one or more links where the audience can find further information. Sometimes it is case law, other times it is the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, etc., and other times is some post --from my blog-- that encapsulates various related sources. I do so because in the past others have falsely derided that my statements are "not" factually supported.

Second, "felon judge" is not an "opinion". In line with what I explained to you there, the misconduct at issue is classified as felony even in that judge's own jurisdiction. Putting my predictable opinion aside, "felon" is a factual attribute in that specific matter. It is supported by a (publicized) police report and what the statutory law currently is.

Third, my criticism in the blog you cite is not about just one "particular Michigan Judge". Admittedly, that "particular" Michigan judge is mentioned most often there. That is because my personal knowledge, court documents, and litigation experience in her courtroom enable me to highlight items that may go unnoticed by journalists who report her deplorable acts. But I have some material regarding other judges as well; I just haven't had time to work on it, whereas content about that "particular" Michigan judge is more publication-ready, so to speak.

Fourth, you seem indignant by the sardonicism I use in some of my denouncements. Your reproach is indicative of the enviable, good news that you have never been blatantly deprived you of your rights by unfit judges. But I had that unfortunate experience, and I am sincerely proud of how I have handled it during that time and ever since then:

Modesty aside, at all times I've had more dignity than what judicial nominee Brett Kavanaugh displayed during his Senate hearing(s). Unlike him, I never cried in my hearings and never threw tantrums such as the current "Justice" threw during his Senate hearing(s). Unlike him, I didn't even have the privilege of dozens of Senators patting on my shoulder as my rights were unlawfully taken away. For a lot less, that judicial nominee fell much lower than a plain civilian like me (or like many of us). And there are some people whose reaction to adversities is even worse than Brett Kavanaugh's (and impliedly, much worse than mine): those end up mistreating their loved ones or --in extreme, tragic instances-- engaging in shootings. Putting things in perspective, the fact that you can only recriminate my criticism and the evidence I provide therefor is a good thing.

Fifth, I did not derail the question about Indonesian law. I addressed the OP's question, and only thereafter I brought that "particular Michigan judge" to topic. The ramifications of such real-life example served me to substantiate "the importance that legislative terms such as possession and store remain unqualified". That remark of mine pertains to Indonesia's and any country's legislation of narcotics (the topic of that question). You should not miss someone's point only because the violator being discussed is a judge.

We hear all the time --from the judiciary-- the slogans of preserving the appearance of justice and the "avoidance of conduct that is clearly prejudicial to the administration of justice" (MCR 9.205(B)). The denouncements I occasionally make are reflections that the appearance of justice (if not justice itself) oftentimes is grossly missing in some instances. That is inextricable from questions about what the law is and/versus how it is applied (if at all). Accordingly, this type of premised answers is within the scope of Law SE.