Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did Mod cause the collapse of evcforum?
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 1 of 424 (566800)
06-27-2010 4:44 PM


In Gender and Humor, Rrhain claimed that "The board collapsed because your incompetence. You, specifically.", referring to me. I think he is wrong.
I would warn anyone that decides to read this thread - it's going to be a long and boring slog through 'he said, she said' nonsense. Rrhain was not happy that I disagreed with him about something related to a cry of homophobia and thus decided to bring up an argument we were having back in the summer of 2007. Essential background reading can be found at General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 11.0. There are some other threads related to it that may come up and this discussion is presumably going to include Rrhain - so be prepared for a billion words on the first page.
I bring this here because Rrhain repeatedly brought it up - and I repeatedly demurred answering him, requesting he take it elsewhere. His continued, so clearly he has a bee in his bonnet. No doubt, if it is ignored - he'll bring it up again in few years and I'd rather it was put to rest. So, to give it a decent burial, we must first exhume the rotting corpse.
So how wrong is Rrhain? Let me count the ways.
In Message 198 he said:
Rrhain writes:
It isn't a game. He wants to be able to spout his homophobia without any consequences to his actions. And given your own personal history regarding the treatment of gay people on this board (*Dan Carroll*cough!*cough!*), you're not exactly helping.
You should probably notify Dan and his girlfriend that he is gay:
quote:
In real life, my girlfriend and I are going as Joey and Caitlin from Degrassi Junior High
from Message 44.
quote:
... the next time my girlfriend goes down on me...
Message 8
I suspect this is actually case #1 of Rrhain being wrong.
I should also add, that there are some gay people who are incredibally satisfied with my treatment of them
Moving on, in Message 224:
Rrhain writes:
You really think that was the problem? Your attention span really is that short, isn't it? N_j insulted gays and berberry called him out on it...and got banned for it.
No. Berberry claimed N_j should be chastised for what Berberry claimed was an insult to gays - and therefore to him specifically. The Admin team seemed to be in consensus that whatever N_J was doing - it didn't merit suspension. Berberry got very upset. Going so far as to make this post in a Moderation Procedures thread (Message 33:
quote:
Fuck you
Emphasis in original. That's the entirety of what he said in that post (excluding title and a quote).
And then, referring to me,
quote:
you insufferable nitwit!
It was for this loss of calm and taking it out on others that seems to have inspired Percy to suspend Berberry. Case #2.
Of course - because he is wrong, Rrhain will continue to repeat the falsehood that it was the criticism that got Berb suspended for calling NJ out rather than the manner in which he conducted himself. It doesn't matter that Berberry managed to make at least 11 posts on the subject previous to that without getting suspended.
Rrhain writes:
Dan Carroll pointed out that it was wrong to ban berberry...and got banned for it.
I didn't suspend Dan for pointing out it was wrong to ban berberry. Case #3, here is the reason I suspended Dan, lifted from Message 188:
quote:
It had absolutely nothing to do with Dan criticizing the moderators and everything to do with the manner of his criticism. This thread is not about calling the moderators names or disrespecting them. It is entirely possible to criticise actions or procedures without getting personal, being disrespectful or such. Doing so will likely get you suspended: and playing a martyr card about how the evil moderators are suppression constructive criticsm will be viewed with equal amusement whether it comes from creationist or evolutionist, theist or atheist.
I'm still amused whenever I see the claim made
Dan made like 14 posts before he got suspended - if I was going to suspend him for pointing out it was wrong to ban berberry why did I not do it immediately after Message 55? Why did I let him make a dozen posts criticising berberry's suspension?
Rrhain writes:
Let's not forget, you specifically said that Dan had not broken any rules
Mod writes:
You've not explicitly broken any rules Dan
An awesome quotemine. I think we'll call this Case #4. He is what I actually said in Message 86:
quote:
You've not explicitly broken any rules Dan, but my best judgement is that you just disrespected a member of this forum, namely myself. Right now since you have stated you are not going to continue with the discussion I am going to make a judgement call and not suspend you for 24 hours. If your tone continues on this forum, my best guess is that my judgement call will be to suspend you to cool down.
Which sheds a bit of a different light on it, since now it becomes a final warning of tone - and giving Dan the benefit of the doubt regarding disrespect. Dan had previously chided my inability to make judgement calls in Message 74:
quote:
The moderators don't call him on it, because that would require some sort of judgement call, and we all know how scary those can be.
Hence my reference to judgement calls in my warning. Here is his cogent contribution that resulted in his suspension, in Message 90:
quote:
Your judgement is balls-on accurate. See how easy that is?
Suspend if you please. My first response on this thread expected a suspension.
An admission to explicitly breaking the rules (ie admitting to disrespecting a member of the forum), continued with the same belligerent tone. So I gave him a short suspension for being off topic, not following moderator requests and disprespecting a member of the forum.
Rrhain writes:
...Even crashfrog pointed it out...And even he realized that you would probably ban him for pointing it out (Message 133)
Case #5. Message 133 was addressed to Percy, not me.
Many people were banned outright, not in protest, but because they dared to ask the moderators to explain themselves.
Case #6. Percy fired the moderators - and then suspended people that either requested it, or he judged were just going to carrry on discussing moderator action, which Percy said was no longer going to occur at EvC (or indeed, anyone that gave Percy the impression that they were divisive).
In another post, Message 232 in the Gender/Humour thread you say
Rrhain writes:
Remember, berberry was suspended not for something he did say but rather because Percy thought he might say something:
Percy writes:
I suspended him to prevent him from saying even more things he might later come to regret
Case #7. Percy said "saying even more things he might later come to regret", which implies he had been saying regretful things. Nevertheless - you can take up your angst with Percy with Percy.
When Dan Carroll pointed out that was bullshit, he got suspended, even though Percy admitted that he didn't do anything wrong:
You've not explicitly broken any rules Dan
Case #8 and Case #9. You've already admitted to wrongly attributing "I suspended him to prevent him from saying even more things he might later come to regret" to me instead of Percy and you have already accepted that you subsequently mistook Percy and I again here - in the gender and humour thread so I include it only for completeness.
And you were...how shall we say..."less than truthful" regarding that action, pretending that I had violated a command of Phat's, though he wasn't wearing his admin hat at the time...and despite the fact that it was Minnemooseus who did the suspending specifically for violating his edict in post 111.
This is not a case. Indeed - you have a valid point about your initial suspension for violating the guidelines. I agreed at the time that Moose was wrong to do it, but Phat had also called for a stop. But yes, he neglected to check a box to post as a Moderator. Phat did that fairly regularly (see Message 88 where he is speaking as a moderator using the Phat account) - but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and concede that suspension was unwarranted. As per your emphatic instructions however, (Message 172.
Rrhain writes:
You need to STOP.
I stopped. I posted A General Reply to explain Dan's suspension and then left it at that.
Then turn around and look at the corpses left in your wake: Schraf, berberry, Dan, Ringo, I can go on.
case #10. I didn't ban any of them. How are their 'corpses' my liability? They aren't. I suspended Dan for like 72 hours, that's it. Dan didn't get perma-banned until the New Year, after I was no longer a moderator, months after the thread in question and after he posted, Message 130. Again - it is Percy you should reserve your ire for, not me. But confusing me and Percy seems to be your forte, neh?
Your next post, Message 235, says:
Rrhain writes:
You suspended Dan Carroll for not breaking the rules.
I suspended him for breaking rules 1, 2, and 10. Case #11
Rrhain writes:
Mod writes:
Fortunately, I'm not as big a prick as you
Right...because I was the one banning people left and right for daring to contradict me.
Mod writes:
you are wrong about this.
You mean there were no mass bannings? Or that I was the one who did them? That you didn't rise to the defense of the moderators? Do I really need to post all of the comments made directly to you regarding your behaviour?
No, that's not what I mean. You were suggesting that I was the one responsible for the mass banning. Case #12 - I wasn't.
I'll make it a cool #13 with this one from Message 218
RRhain writes:
The board collapsed because your incompetence. You, specifically.
I'm not sure a discussion forum that has 50,000 posts per year is showing those symptoms of collapse. It was 3 years ago - we're still here, still discussing. With some new faces - new code being released from the owner. I'd say this was an uncollapsed board.
I don't mind taking a blame for the utter failure that is this board...but I think Percy would want to share some of the responsibility - don't confuse the two of us!

What will it take?

Rrhain writes:
What would it take for you to consider the possibility that you screwed up? And not just in a small way but rather at every single turn?
Someone suggesting that I screwed up at every single turn. I have therefore considered that possibility. I'll require evidence that every thing I did was a screw up before I would accept it as a true statement.
So - if you were to go through all my posts in General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 11.0 and demonstrate that at every single turn I screwed up, defining screwing up first of course, then I'd concede.
I have already conceded that I made mistakes in that post.
Rrhain writes:
But that said, what good would providing evidence do? You'll only ignore it.
If you really think that - there is no point discussing it with me and the only rational thing to do would be to stop trying.
I can be persuaded by evidence, I've done it before. I'm human, and maybe I'll see it better if someone were to civilly and calmly explain - without endlessly questioning my intelligence and my intellectual honesty - what errors I made and what impact those errors had. I don't have high hopes that you will be able to even attempt this method of discussion.

If Rrhain prefers this to be a Great Debate (And I can't see anyone else being interested in it anyway), I'll move it there myself...no need to stand on ceremony eh?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Huntard, posted 06-27-2010 6:29 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 06-27-2010 6:44 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 10 by cavediver, posted 06-28-2010 4:21 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 16 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-28-2010 10:29 AM Modulous has replied
 Message 39 by Bolder-dash, posted 06-28-2010 11:30 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 126 by Straggler, posted 06-29-2010 7:51 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 264 by Rrhain, posted 07-02-2010 4:14 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 6 of 424 (566824)
06-28-2010 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Rahvin
06-27-2010 7:11 PM


Isn't this thread serving solely to stir up the same sort of shitstorm that resulted in the Great Purge?
Yes, you'll have to ask Rrhain why he felt the need to dredge it up.
Does discussion of past moderation actions really serve to do anything other than stir up useless drama?
Nope. Rrhain is the King of useless drama.
I mean, I don't see any recent moderation activities that fill me with righteous fury.
Glad to hear it

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Rahvin, posted 06-27-2010 7:11 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 8 of 424 (566826)
06-28-2010 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by crashfrog
06-27-2010 6:44 PM


Look, we covered this at the time and you weren't willing to listen then. Is anything different now, Mod?
It's three years later. Otherwise - only you can be the judge of that, I suppose.
It wasn't a "he said, she said" question
No it wasn't. It is now.
It was a question of the laity having genuine problems with your moderation and the moderation of a few others, and the moderators in turn perceiving absolutely no problem except the laity complaining.
That basically sums up the 'laities' position.
Rrhain quoting my words from back then gave me occasion to re-read the thread
Sorry you went through that again.
and I continue to be struck by how thoughtful, well-reasoned, well-supported, and polite the critics of the administration were, and how petulant, unfair, and capricious the moderator response was.
Fair enough.
. And the truth is, the answer was no - you couldn't be unfair enough, capricious enough, and cruel enough to get people to see your actions as anything but cruel, capricious, and unfair.
Is there anything that I did that was capricious, cruel or unfair?
We all remember what happened, Mod, despite your revisionist history.
Revisionist history? Is there something inaccurate in my corrections of Rrhain's version of events where I banned everybody for merely criticising moderator actions?
NJ chased Berberry around three different threads offering insulting comparisons of homosexuality to bestiality and rape, under the guise of making an argument about "moral relativism." Predictably Berberry got tired of how this was being ignored by moderators and blew his stack.
Yes, that was your view - I guess that is one thing that hasn't changed
Dan complained and was suspended
But not for complaining.
I showed you how your moderation was serving not to defuse the situation, but to inflame it, and you ignored me.
No, I paid attention.
Rrhain is absolutely correct, as well he should be, since he was there. As was I.
So was I - and I just documented where Rrhain was wrong. He has even accepted being wrong twice. So 'absolutely correct' is clearly false.
So, as you look back on your actions in that thread, Mod, ask yourself now what I asked you, then - did your actions have the desired result?
No. Did yours?
Did suppressing debate about the moderator's role in inciting flamewars prevent the moderators from inciting flamewars?
I suppressed debate? You made 22 posts, most of which were critical of the moderator's actions (or lack thereof). How did I suppress your debate?
Ultimately, Mod, did your actions result in an improvement, or decline, in the general quality of debate and participants?
A decline.
The answer is abundantly obvious to me, which is why I don't post here anymore. What do you think?
How about you - do you think you helped?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 06-27-2010 6:44 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 06-28-2010 3:32 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 9 of 424 (566827)
06-28-2010 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Huntard
06-27-2010 6:29 PM


Re: My thoughts
Who had the bright idea to let normal members discuss moderator actions? That can never lead to a good thing. People will get pissy over the slightest things.
Yeah - it actually worked for many years. Normally there would be a brief discussion. Moderators would reverse an action, or uphold it. If people were still upset about it, they would be told the decision has been made. If they continued to argue against the arbitrattion, lost discipline and strated hurling insults or getting generally pissy, they'd get suspended.
It seems that Rrhain was wrong saying you banned all those people, but since I haven't read his side of the story, I'll reserve judgement for now. Not that my judgement will make the slightest amount of diference anyway.
Fair enough, don't take my (or Rrhain's) word for it.
Since the forum is still here, I'd say it hasn't collapsed.
Yeah - sure we lost a few regular prolific posters - but forum drama happens all over the place, especially when the forum is small enough for relationships to develop.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Huntard, posted 06-27-2010 6:29 PM Huntard has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 17 of 424 (566890)
06-28-2010 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Hyroglyphx
06-28-2010 10:29 AM


Re: Great Purge: The Aftermath
After reviewing the numerous debates (my head hurts from all the reading) that led up to the Great Purge a.k.a. "Night of the Broken Glass", I have concluded that you were as even-keeled then as you are now.
My apologies if I was instrumental in sparking sufficient curiosity to engage in such masochistic behaviour. I've spent plenty of time reading through them - reading what the various parties were saying and constructing a less memory biased picture of the whole thing and trying to change the way I handle similar events in the future.
Thanks for the vote of confidence: But even-keeled or not I was not without fault during the Reichstag fire thread (The one that allowed Hitler Percy to assume dictatorial power that would culminate in the "Night of the Broken Glass"). Crashfrog did raise some valid points about my incessant unnecessary posting - but the blame for making unnecessary posts doesn't fall squarely on old Mod's shoulders, I feel. I certainly accept responsibility for the needless posts I did make.
My particular favourite "Fuck Mod, why did you do that?" was Message 125. Confrontational, snarky, passive aggressive - it has basically no redeeming features.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-28-2010 10:29 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-28-2010 1:31 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 25 of 424 (566926)
06-28-2010 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by crashfrog
06-28-2010 3:32 PM


That basically sums up the 'laities' position.

...and? Were they right, or not?
I don't see the importance of that, now. More to the point, the question is too broad to answer straightforwardly.
as there a single instance in that thread where any moderator admitted than their actions were inciting the very crisis they claimed justified those actions?
Does it matter?
Or, again, is that just all the "laity position", and it was the role of the moderators to convince us poor, benighted laity to accept the judgement of our betters by suspending people until they shut up about it?
You used the word laity, Crash. No - the role of the moderators should have been to state their position - explain it and then terminate further discussion. Much like everyone else.
crashfrog writes:
Mod writes:
Is there anything that I did that was capricious, cruel or unfair?
Yes, abundantly.
Link to the posts demonstrating three examples of my capriciousness, cruelty, and unfairness with an explanation as to how they meet the criteria. If you want to wave your hands and say "it's obvious to anyone with half a brain!!!", I'm not interested.
Well, courtesy of Percy here's a link to all of Dan's posts in that thread. Could you point out, please, which post was the "disrespectful" one? Which comment rose to the point of actually being against the forum guidelines?
I did so in the OP, Untitled
(Message 1)
Thread 14602:Did Mod cause the collapse of evcforum?
Forum 14:Coffee House
', 500)" onMouseOut=" hb.off(0)" onMouseMove="mouseTracker(event)">Message 1 . Do a search for 'cogent contribution' if you're having difficulty finding it.
He got a little too mouthy to you and you whollop'd him. Was that your idea of dispassionate moderation? Is that the conduct you're attempting to defend even now?
Heh - Dan criticised me for not making judgement calls with regards to member behaviour. I advised him in my judgement he broke a forum rule. He confirmed my judgement. I suspended him.
What we're talking about, Mod, is a complete failure of confidence in the moderation of the board that culminated in the Great Purge.
Yes, that's right.
A failure of confidence because the moderators completely abdicated their responsibility to moderate dispassionately and objectively and began moderating on the basis of personal agendas and pique - or from no rational basis whatsoever, such as the moderator inaction that ultimately led to Berb's blowout.
Indeed. The question is, was I being overly passionate? Was I moderating on the basis of a personal agenda and pique with no rational basis whatsoever?
And you still can't see your part in it?
Read my posts in this thread. You'll notice I concede I played a role in it.
Really? It was just our mistake, the whole time? Astounding.
No. It was our mistake. Yours*, mine, Percy, Rrhain, NJ, Berb, Dan....
Don't evade the question, Mod. I didn't say you, specifically, suppressed debate.
This post is about my role in the affair (specifically me - see the first sentence in the OP). I'm not going to defend other people - they can do that themselves if you want to kick up a stink about that too.
But it's undeniable that the moderators did. Isn't this message 160 of that thread:
I'd like to thank everyone for their efforts at talking this through to a mutual understanding, but I think it's time to call a halt to this topic.
Message 160, eh? That's a lot of debate, a lot of the same posts being done over and over again. A lot of people getting frustrated that their powers of persuasion couldn't make the other side 'see the light', resulting in bad blood. You made your point. Nobody stopped you, you had 22 posts. Read the other Moderation threads, see how moderators have done it before. And way before someone got to 22 posts on the subject.
For example, Message 291 , Message 304 , Message 49 and to confirm it was official policy: Message 119 .
Is there something you didn't say in that thread that you wanted to? I'll note that despite the tyrannical suppression of debate (*snigger*, as I noted in the OP, I still find such claims humorous, though normally its Ray Martinez or Randman making them), you still managed to write
So why defend those actions three years later? I don't understand.
I'm not.
Mod, it was never in my power to help, because it was never my actions that were causing the problem.
*Oh right, my mistake. I'll remove you from my list.
The problem was caused entirely by the actions of the moderators, yet there was absolutely no indication in that thread - or in this one - that any of the moderators were prepared to admit that their actions were wrong.
I even conceded my actions resulted in a decline, and you still say that? You must be determined to see the worst in me
Edited by Modulous, : minor annoying grammatical correction that lead to an ambiguous question.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 06-28-2010 3:32 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by crashfrog, posted 06-28-2010 5:39 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 31 of 424 (566940)
06-28-2010 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by crashfrog
06-28-2010 5:39 PM


But what if they're wrong?
Then they're wrong. There exists no higher court of appeal, if you feel the judgement was wrong then you're stuffed, basically.
In other words, I'm accusing you now if the exact blindness you and Percy and the rest showed then - the blindness that says whenever there's a controversy about moderation, it's the fault of the laity for objecting.
It's not the fault of the 'laity' for objecting. We encouraged objections, we discouraged repeating of the same points over and over again, insulting and disrespectful behaviour.
Anybody that engaged in that kind of behaviour is responsible for their own act of that behaviour. That includes me.
It's never, ever the fault of the moderators for doing the wrong thing.
Except where it was, as I've said.
Do you agree that when moderators act unfairly, capriciously, cruelly, follow personal vendettas and respond out of pique, they erode confidence in their ability to do their jobs effectively?
Yes, obviously.
Do you agree that when moderators refuse to address objections to their conduct, and support one another regardless, that erodes confidence in their objectivity
Yes.
Look, let's not be ridiculous, here. I'm putting direct questions to you, and I'd like them to be answered. I think I deserve it. If people want to see your conduct in that thread they can go to it.
Since this thread is about my role in the affair - I asked if your claims of capriciousness etc applied to me. You said they did. I asked for evidence. Now I'm being ridiculous?
That was very helpful, but now I'm confused. I asked you to point out the message that you felt was Dan "disrespecting" you, but you linked to message 90 which is a reply to you accusing Dan of "disrespecting" you.
So, again, which message is it that you felt was the "disrespectful" one?
Message 82 he made a thinly veiled insult. I said it looked like a breach of the forum regulations in Message 86 , suggesting that since Dan had signalled his intent to drop the discussion I would not act on my judgement. Dan responded in Message 90 , by continuing the shitty tone (not following moderator requests), confirming he had broken rule number 10 and being off topic.
crashfrog writes:
Mod writes:
I advised him in my judgement he broke a forum rule.

Er, well, no. You advised him, in fact, that he hadn't broken a forum rule. You wrote:
Mod writes:
You've not explicitly broken any rules Dan, but my best judgement is that you just disrespected a member of this forum, namely myself.

Did you write that, or didn't you? It's your face by those words.
Yep I wrote that Dan hadn't explicitly disrespected me, but that in my opinion he had in fact done so. Dan subsequently confirmed my opinion was 'balls on accurate'.
You accused him of disrespecting you and then you suspended him. I'm trying to tell you - absolutely none of that gives the appearance of dispassionate, impersonal moderation. What it looks like is you not being able to take criticism or disrespect, and suspending someone in revenge.
Disrespect and not following Moderator directions are against the forum rules. It seemed Dan wanted to martyr himself to confirm his suspicions of capriciousness. I even said to him just before "Your chances {of getting suspensions} increase in a discussion with several moderators since it is obviously more apparent."
I don't see how, objectively, there can be any other conclusion. What actions did you take? As you keep reminding us, the only person you yourself took action against was the one person you felt was being "disrespectful" to you. NJ's disrespect to Berberry you not only gave explicit approval to, you actually shortened NJ's suspension when he was suspended for it.
If I was of the opinion that NJ had disrespected Berberry - I'd have warned him, kept an eye on him, and suspended him if he continued. Just like I did with Dan (abe and cavediver, but he only needed a warning, and for that matter NJ (later on) who didn't get a warning). But I wasn't of that opinion.
I appreciate you strongly feel that he did, but I didn't. If NJ had replied to someone's post where it said he was being disrespectful, with 'you're damn straight I was' - then the situations would be more closely comparable.
No, but you did then - you have the second-most number of posts in that thread - and those defenses were a part of how you were central to the erosion of moderator confidence. When authority closes ranks to protect their own and ignore the objections of those their actions are meant to serve, it erodes confidence in their fairness and objectivity.
Not universally: I admonished Moose.
Is there some specific action that I defended that you'd like to talk about I'd like to see it.
I appreciate that when people disagree with the moderators they like to play the martyr or say 'circling the wagons' or 'conspiracy' and other such tactics. Especially when the moderators broadly agree with one another. It is essentially an unfalsifiable conspiracy theory, though. So I know you feel that way, I disagree that that happened, but I agree the perception of it occurring was detrimental to the community.
And yet, clearly it was not enough
You think more of that would have improved evcforum?
Clearly people had more to say, because some of them did continue, and were suspended. Hell you even continued.
Sure people had more to say. Was it usefully moving us towards a better resolution, or creating more bitterness?
You're just asserting that Message 160 is where "enough" debate had occurred
I never said such a thing. In my opinion by the time Message 160 rolled around there had been more than enough
So then why are you saying anything besides "Rrhain and Crash and Dan were ultimately proved right, and I'm sorry for my actions"?
I have conceded the points where I think Rrhain was right. I have conceded the points where I think you were right. I have expressed sorrow - but please also accept my apologies.
I am saying things besides that initially because Rrhain said things that were false about that thread, dredging it up in a thread about Gender and Humour. I detailed them in the OP.
I am saying more because you asked me questions and made claims that I thought were worthy of challenge. Such as my abundant cruelty and my reasons for suspending Dan. If you don't want me to say any more to you, let me know and I'll cease.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by crashfrog, posted 06-28-2010 5:39 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 06-28-2010 7:50 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 42 of 424 (566986)
06-29-2010 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by crashfrog
06-28-2010 7:50 PM


I'm sorry I think maybe you don't understand the question. Not "what if I feel it was wrong", what if it --> is --> wrong?
The answer is obviously the same, hence why I said it both ways. You're stuffed.
Crash writes:
Mod writes:
You said they did. I asked for evidence. Now I'm being ridiculous?
A little bit, yeah. I mean we were --> talking --> about your capriciousness all throughout General Discussion of Moderation 11. Did you miss that, somehow? That it was your conduct being discussed just as much as others?
I don't understand what "evidence" you're asking for in addition to the issues that were raised in GenDiscMod 11.
I asked for some specific posts to look at as opposed to generally waving in the direction of that thread and saying it's obvious.
Right. And then we started discussing that the fact that you found thinly veiled insults "disrespectful" and a violation of forum guidelines when they were directed at --> you --> , but not when they were delivered by NJ towards Berberry was evidence of --> your --> capriciousness and unfairness.
That isn't true though. I do think insults against Berb by NJ would be a violation of forum guidelines. We just disagree over whether that happened. I could understand how ymou might argue that I am 'blind', 'ignorant', 'illeterate', to not see the insult. But I fail to see how it is unfair to not suspend someone when in your best estimation, they haven't broken any rules.
crashfrog writes:
Mod writes:
Disrespect and not following Moderator directions are against the forum rules.
Yes, it is. More importantly disrespect is against forum guidelines --> regardless of who is being disrespected. --> That was the fundamental basis from which you were accused of moderating unfairly - you only took action when the disrespect was directed at yourself.
This is false, I also acted when the disrespect was against Rrhain.
Crash writes:
Mod writes:
If I was of the opinion that NJ had disrespected Berberry - I'd have warned him, kept an eye on him, and suspended him if he continued.
No, of course you were of that opinion.
I was? Of course I was! Thank you for illuminating me as to my own opinions! Do you have a cell number I can reach you on to clarify my opinions in the future.
No, Crash. If you want to brand me a liar - there's no point in trying to have an open discussion since you don't think it is. I give you my word I was not of the opinion that NJ had disrespected Berberry. If you don't accept that, do yourself a favour and stop posting - it isn't worth your time.
What Dan was saying to you was the exact same kind of thing NJ had been saying to Berberry. How did you not get that?
Can you link to the post where NJ specifically called Berberry a retarded monkey - or something equivalent.
Did you think Dan --> really --> thought that "all Christians rape goats"?
Nope.
crash writes:
Did you think that he was really concerned that NJ was making --> unsupported --> statements, as opposed to offensive insulting statements, when he asked:
Dan writes:
Out of curiosity, is there anything in the forum guidelines about supporting one's points... such as, say, the idea that homsoexuality is the same, morally, as rape... with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation? Maybe something about addressing rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument? Maybe, and I know this is a longshot, an admonishment against repeating previous points without further elaboration?
Yes, I think he was invoking another forum rule to see if NJ could be hung on that.
For some reason, when Dan implied you were a retarded monkey, you didn't see that as a challenging philosophical musing about moral relativism.
Can you give me any reason why it should be viewed as a critique on moral relativism?
That forces me to conclude that you didn't see NJ's assertion that Berberry was a rapist that way, either.
I'm fairly sure I said "the infamous rape comment was not on topic, unnecessarily inflammatory and unrepresentative of the solicited opinion of Taz. " If you were referring to another incident, could you remind me? Thanks.
Come on, Mod. It's three years later. It's ok for you to admit that you knew NJ was insulting Berberry - certainly Dan demonstrated it to you with ample proof, to which you had no response - and that you just didn't give a shit.
Yes - I feel no loyalty to the person I was three years ago. But still - I honestly, absolutely, definitely and with great gusto did not think NJ was insulting to Berb.
We all saw what happened - you took action against disrespect only when you were made the victim of it.
And when Rrhain was disrespected. And when NJ disrespected Berb. And other people.
Are you saying you had no idea this whole time? Jesus Christ.
I seem to remember a lot of people claiming that Dan was suspended for daring to criticise the moderators. And that seems to be the way Rrhain remembers it.
If NJ had replied to someone's post where it said he was being disrespectful, with 'you're damn straight I was' - then the situations would be more closely comparable.
What, NJ would have had to --> admit it --> for you to take action? Unbelievable!
No - I didn't say that, did I?
I said if NJ confirmed he was being disrespectful - just as Dan did - the situations would more closely comparable.
Moreover, why? Why would he had to have admitted it, when I knew, and Dan knew, and you knew he was doing it?
But I didn't 'know'.
I'm sorry, is --> this --> what I'm supposed to interpret as a genuine statement of disagreement with Adminnemooseus? This sarcastic, throw-away one-liner?
It wasn't sarcastic.
Please. How fucking stupid do you think I am?
I think you are determined to see me in a negative light.
I'm here to tell you that you believed it not because it was true, but because that's a mindset endemic to being in an under-fire position of shared authority. It's a psychological mind trick every bit as real as the Stanford Prison experiment or the Milgram effect. When you see yourself as standing on the front line against chaos, and all you seem to get for it is shit from the people who should be grateful to you, --> your brain plays tricks on you. --> It doesn't just make you think standing up for your buddy when he's wrong is the right thing to do - it makes you think --> your buddy was right. -->
I'm sure that effect and others were in effect on both sides of the equation. But don't pretend you know what effects were in play - you actually don't.
If it was a case of unconscious defensive behaviour because so much shit was being thrown at the moderators - do you think the answer is to continue throwing shit?
Crash writes:
mod writes:
You think more of that would have improved evcforum?
I told you at the time what you had to do to improve EvC forum - punish NJ and apologize to Berberry, Dan, and Rrhain. Would more talking have convinced you to do that? Given these revelations --> now --> about how little you understood what was being said to you, I'm forced to conclude that, yes, more of that would probably have convinced you.
Wow. Well - we actually tested that hypothesis about six months later. It didn't pan out that way. Rrhain just went nuts accusing NJ of fellating his dog and raping his infant son.
Sigh... I told you --> then --> , Mod, that the bitterness wasn't being created by the discussion. It wasn't being created by what people were --> saying. --> It was being created by what moderators were --> doing. -->
What the moderators were doing was in response to the discussion, in which people were increasingly losing their internet temper and lashing out.
Crash writes:
Mod writes:
In my opinion by the time Message 160 rolled around there had been more than enough
Oh? Then why did you post message 162?
I ask myself all the time. Heat of the moment, naively believing that it might achieve something, who can say?
crash writes:
mod writes:
but please also accept my apologies.
Accepted, and please also accept mine. I'm sorry that I couldn't figure out how to make myself understood. My failure to be clear enough led directly to the Great Purge.
It's a little self-serving as far as apologies go - but I'll accept it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 06-28-2010 7:50 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 2:19 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005

Normal Thread Display

(1)
Message 43 of 424 (566991)
06-29-2010 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Bolder-dash
06-28-2010 11:30 PM


Re: Are you joking still?
Every few weeks I might browse through this site and see if anything has changed at all in the way the discussions are proceeding and the way they are moderated.
I just about choked with laughter and incredulity when I read you wrote that it is against the forum rules to be insulting or disrespectful to other posters-as if this is a concept that is applied evenly and fairly to all members.
It isn't. It has long been observed and accepted that creationists are given a handicap and are treated less harshly than evolutionists. Either to try and avoid bias or because they are chronically unable to keep on topic, support their points etc.
Do I need to post 400 examples of insults and disrespect to creationists or anyone who doesn't toe the Pro-Darwinian evolution line (without moderator objections) to prove this point or can we not just agree that this point is so clearly, obviously transparently true to anyone with even a shred of objective observation-that no further proof of this is necessary.
If you have a specific case of disrespect you'd like to complain about - you should bring it up in Report discussion problems here: No.2 , not here.
As just a small observation on the clear partiality of this site, and the clearly uneven treatment given to posters here by Percy and others, why is there not one single person who doesn't believe in Darwinism who is assigned to be a moderator? I thought this was a debate site-not a Darwinism group mouthpiece ( Ok, actually I didn't really think that it wasn't, but the site does claim that it is not in).
We do. We had more for a few years.
After using this site for just a few short days I saw how ridiculously biased and untruthfully this place was moderated and I was appalled frankly.
Possibly true. But we don't often permanently suspend people, like other discussion boards often do.
Percy wants an echo chamber, and so that's what he gets, and I find it disgusting that he makes claims of it being one of the best moderated sites on the internet.
It's funny because the entire point is that Nemesis Juggernaut (who this whole debacle is about) was anti-evolution and didn't get suspended even when large swathes of the people called for it! Why? One reason given was it was silly to create an echo chamber.
I frankly consider my unjust and petty suspensions I have received here as a Badge of Honor I am proud to receive
I appreciate that being chastised for repeatedly being off topic and ignoring moderator requests is unjust and petty. You'll have to learn to deal with that. This is not a general 'complain about moderatation' thread, I'm afraid. We got rid of those partly as a result of the issues under discussion in this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Bolder-dash, posted 06-28-2010 11:30 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 75 of 424 (567078)
06-29-2010 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by crashfrog
06-29-2010 2:19 PM


You're still not getting it. Forget about me for a second. What do the moderators do?
Could you make the question more specific? Be wrong, seems the most obvious answer - but you won't like that.
Didn't you understand, that was the point? That Dan was very obviously recasting NJ's argument against Berb into an argument against you? Did you really think he thought you were a retarded monkey, and that you needed help learning how to eat a banana?
So in order to demonstrate that one party insulted another party Dan insulted a third party? No - Dan tried the recasting of NJ's argument technique with his goat raping gambit.
I don't need you to tell me what you thought, Mod, because your actions made your thoughts clear.
I'll stop bothering, since you have just explicitly told me it would do no good.
But Dan's critique was that you only correctly apprehended disrespect when it was directed at yourself.
No - it wasn't. Dan's critique was
1) You should suspend Christians offended by "Christians rape goats' Message 55 - a critique of the Berb suspension.
2) NJ was just saying bestiality and homosexuality were the same over and again. Message 56
3) OK, argument 1) wasn't quite right. Then make it ""if you support the right of Christians to worship freely, you have no reason for not supporting the rape of goats." Message 61
4) NJ was saying they were the same over and over again Message 66
5) Mod's 'version' of NJ is more reasonable that NJ, Message 67
6) Mod should do his fucking job. And he's a quote mining bitch Message 69
7) NJ was saying they are morally the same. "By this point, only a retarded monkey who was thrown out of retarded monkey school for being too retarded and monkeylike to pass the qualifying exams for retarded monkeydom could not realize that NJ really has no desire to discuss moral relativism" Message 74
8) Mod is a retarded monkey who is about to take the qualifying exams. Message 82
9) Mod is accurate in his assessment that I was disrespecting him in 8), Message 90
So by your own words I'm forced to conclude that you recognized NJ's words as being disrespectful to Berb, but opted not to take action.
My own words repeatedly said the opposite, but don't let that stop you being wrong about that. It didn't then, and I guess it still won't.
But again, that's the point - we weren't throwing shit. The moderators were throwing shit, and we were engaged in a constructive dialogue to convince them to stop throwing shit.
You were raising a point that when one feels like shit is being thrown at you, you get defensive and circle the wagons. So - do you think that increasing the perception of shit throwing was the correct reaction to the moderators alleged wagon circling? Or would that merely exacerbate the situation?
Mod, if you're admitting to posting in the "heat of the moment", can you admit that it may have been moderators who were acting impulsively, emotionally, and as an obstacle to constructive dialogue?
I actually gave some possible explanations in good faith and said 'who knows?'. I suppose it's to be expected you would read that as an 'admission'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 2:19 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 3:10 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 104 of 424 (567118)
06-29-2010 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by crashfrog
06-29-2010 3:10 PM


It's you being honest, for once, which I appreciate.
I'm not sure that giving a tautologous statement justifies your appreciation. When moderators are wrong, they are wrong. Hardly requires honesty to state that, does it?
So, take it a step further. Is it good for the board when moderators persist in folly?
No.
You weren't a third party.
1st Party: NJ
2nd Party: Berberry
3rd Party: Mod
That's all I was saying.
So Dan set up an experiment to see if you would recognize the same kind of disrespect when leveled at you.
If that is what he was doing - and I don't remember anyone claiming that he did - he failed. It wasn't of the same 'kind' at all. One was something that could offend members of a group 'homosexuals or those that engage in homosexual sex or marriage'. One was directed at a member of this board.
Which you did! You even recognized that's what he was doing, asked him to confirm, and he did. You passed the test and displayed that you could accurately apprehend disrespect. It's just that you only cared about it when it was directed at you.
And against Rrhain. And against Berberry. I could find more - but since you ignore those, I fail to see the point.
es, but I thought I was clear - you were either lying or engaged in false consciousness out of a desire to uphold "the thin blue line." (You never actually told me, and I'm curious - do they say that in the UK? Do your police have "the thin blue line" over there?)
Yes - we have the thin blue line here. The phrase isn't common - though it was raised in our collective consciousness by an awful sit-com of the same name written by Ben Elton and starring Rowan Atkinson
Anyway it seems that when you said
quote:
So by your own words I'm forced to conclude that you recognized NJ's words as being disrespectful to Berb, but opted not to take action.
what you mean to say was
quote:
So by assuming you are lying or circling the wagons I'm forced to conclude that you recognized NJ's words as being disrespectful to Berb, but opted not to take action.
I can only judge you by your actions, Mod.
Then do so. I suspended someone for breaking the rules. I spent too much time needlessly repeating my explanation for so doing and for not suspending someone else.
If that's what I was doing, no, that would not have been the best reaction. But there was nothing about my posts that should have been perceived as "shit-throwing", and if hysterical moderators are in the throes of a delusion where they perceive restrained, constructive dialogue as a torrent of shit, I'm not sure what course of action to take except try to be more reasonable, more restrained, more constructive, and keep talking until they calm down.
I suggest shrugging your shoulders and letting it go - but whatever floats your boat I suppose.
Was I wrong? I don't see how I can be.
I couldn't give a fuck, to be honest. I learned my lessons and moved on. If you didn't learn anything from it - and it simply confirmed all the things you believed already then there you go.
You have been wrong in this thread though. Your possible 'wrongness' at the time is not something I care to go over.
Letting NJ run rampant ultimately resulted in The Great Purge.
If we had permanently suspended NJ - someone else would have made the same argument sooner or later. And berberry and Rrhain would have gone apeshit about it. Worse than that - Nemesis presented a fairly dispassionate argument in Gay marriage and the law (though he did get a warning for being somewhat inflammatory) and it was Rrhain that responded with massively inflammatory content that outstripped NJ's by several orders of magnitude Message 127. Then Rrhain complained for being warned about his behaviour in the moderator thread.
quote:
When so many people are telling you're wrong, Mod, isn't it just slightly possible that you are?
From Message 152. Well - Rrhain was told that he was wrong to do what he did by fairly large number of people, so let's say it's slightly possible that Rrhain was being wrong that time. That Rrhain might possibly have been morally culpable in inflaming the situation to such an extent that Percy decided no more gay issues? Message 131. It had been chatted about in the Private Admin Forum - and a few people suggested we stopped discussing the topic altogether:- Percy was generally against the idea at first and wanted to solicit the opinions of all the other moderators on it. Whose behaviour do you think inspired Percy to take the action he did? Was it Rrhain's outrageous behaviour perhaps? I don't know to be honest, maybe if Percy reads this he'll illuminate us/remind me - but again I hardly feel I was the proximate cause - at best/worst I was a contributing factor.
He suspended jar for what some thought was a mystery (Percy I believe revealed that although he and jar were old allies and he was fond of jar - he felt jar had become so jaded by the debate he had degraded into posting snarky one liners). Then brenna was suspended, apparently after posting concern for Percy's stress levels/health or something. These two led, essentially, to the rest falling on their swords.
Letting NJ run rampant ultimately resulted in The Great Purge. Percy says exactly that in the Purge thread.
Do you have a link to that? I thought it had been thrown into the memory hole. I can only find Changes at EvC Forum now in which he says
quote:
A brief conversation with Nosy followed by some reflection leads me to conclude that the problems had almost nothing to do with the moderator team, who performed admirably with great sacrifice under often difficult and ambiguous circumstances, but more with the lack of leadership, which makes the fault mine.
and
quote:
If there were mistakes it was in believing that the site could be run democratically, not in the sense of voting but in the sense of trying to allow everyone a voice.
If that's the case, then I really do apologize. I thought the way to convince you to do the right thing was to convince you to do the right thing. If I'd known you were just about to figure it out, but then decided not to out of spite, I would have told everybody to shut the fuck up.
It was your belief that wagon circling was going on and that therefore continued criticism, even valid and dispassionate criticism could be viewed as shit throwing. I just wondered why, if you believed that, you continued? I was granting your argument to ask why you acted the way you did, not conceding it was accurate.
Mod, I know why - I still know why - I posted every single message in that thread. Because I was engaged in deliberate, constructive dialogue. When you say "who knows?" what else am I supposed to derive from that but an admission than you weren't attempting to do the same?
Sorry - I was thinking you meant something deeper than that. I thought you were asking 'Why did you think continuing to engage in civil and polite discussion about the subject would improve things, after it had failed to do so after so much time?' And that's a complex issue. Naively thinking I might be able at least get people to understand what I was saying, optimistically believing it could be cleared up, attempts to defend slights against my character, etc etc All could be motivations. I would be lying if I thought I could say for certain the complex milieu of motivations and rationales I might have had at the time. For all I know, 'I was hungry, and my kettle had broken' might have been a key factor. First rule of psychology: The reasons you tell yourself for your actions are rarely the reasons you actually did something.
If you wanted to simply know why, despite Percy saying we should stop I still posted Message 162 then I simply ask you to read Message 162 where I explicitly explained why I did that (I hadn't seen Percy's post yet). As for why I posted Message 165, I got trolled by Rrhain, quotemining me and all that crap. I should have ignored it.
I realized that at the time, and subsequently did not respond to Rrhain's Message 170, Message 171 or Message 172.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 3:10 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 5:49 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 105 of 424 (567120)
06-29-2010 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by crashfrog
06-29-2010 2:56 PM


He simply offered helpful advice on how to peel a banana.
Pff, it was no help at all. I was told I had to peel it before eating it - but I had no idea how one could go about doing that. Eventually I poked out my own eye and ate that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 2:56 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 125 of 424 (567153)
06-29-2010 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by crashfrog
06-29-2010 5:49 PM


Then I guess I don't know what you were saying. Usually when people say "third party", they mean "completely unrelated party."
I suppose it might be usual to use it that way - I'm just used to using it in the technical sense. Generally speaking a transaction has two participants. But sometimes there is a third party that is involved - to assist or to detract from the transaction.
In insurance the policyholder is the first party, the insurance company is the second party and any party that you are involved in an accident with is called a third party. When dealing with Microsoft they might call you the first party, themselves the second party and they might refer to PC World as a third-party vendor.
All it really means is the third person or group under consideration in an interaction of some kind.
It was pretty obvious, Mod. Ringo was doing it too. The "dirty apes" thing?
With Dan it was the goat fucking stuff. We dealt with that - concluding that if worded properly it would be suitable for discussion at EvC without risk of suspension since it was not an argument directed at a member of EvC. If Dan decided that his experiment must succeed and took to directly insulting a member of the board - then he managed to demonstrate that a) directly insulting a member of the board can get you suspended b) doing so to a moderator increases your chances c) doing so in a discussion on moderation procedures may increase your chances, d) ignoring warnings that a suspension is likely to follow will likely follow in suspension and e) challenging moderators for not taking action against rule breakers and then breaking the rules is plain stupid - unless you want to get suspended and become a martyr.
His experiment failed.
But he was glorious as a martyr - so that's got to count for something.
The retarded monkey reference was simply him saying, in typically great Dan style 'If you don't see that NJ was just being obnoxiously offensive, then you are stupid.', then when he figured I didn't see that - he concluded that I was stupid. And then, after a warning, confirmed he meant it disrespectfully.
It was, in fact, exactly the same - which is how I know Dan actually doesn't believe that Christians rape goats.
Dan emphatically did not get suspended for his Christians Rape Goats point. It was a perfectly valid way to make his complaint about administrator behaviour clear. When he raised that point, I said that. We discussed it for a while trying to make it more comparable to NJ's position - and Dan concluded that what came out of that was a somewhat reasonable argument but that NJ wasn't making such a subtle point.
Why did I not suspend for making the Christians Rape Goats argument when he made it? Why did I wait for him to say I was a retarded monkey with an upcoming retardedness test that I was so retarded I'd fail?
And against Rrhain. And against Berberry
I didn't see any examples of that, I guess. You'll have to tell me what you think you're talking about.
I rebuked cavediver for Message 144.
And NJ I reduced Percy's 1 week suspension for the puerile Austin Powers nonsense to 1 day and gave NJ an additional day for the 'infamous rape comment' Message 220 and Message 154.
What I meant to say was what I said, Mod, but thanks for proving yourself so willing to argue with strawmen.
Sorry crash - but you made to points that seemed to contradict one another. On the one hand you said you used the words I wrote to determine things, then when I said that the words I wrote were in explicit contradiction to what you said you resorted to saying it wasn't the words I wrote but the fact that I was lying or circling the wagons that was of import.
So which is it - my words or your conclusion I was not being straightforward with my words? Is there some way to marry the two concepts that I'm not seeing?
quote:
quote:
So by your own words I'm forced to conclude that you recognized NJ's words as being disrespectful to Berb, but opted not to take action.
My own words repeatedly said the opposite, but don't let that stop you being wrong about that.
quote:
Yes, but I thought I was clear - you were either lying or engaged in false consciousness out of a desire to uphold "the thin blue line."

Seems to me it wasn't by my own words at all.
If NJ's conduct was perfectly allowable under the rules, why did it trigger such hurt feelings?
Erm. Under the rules of the constitution of the United States you can say "Fags like to eat poo, are more likely to molest children and die 30 years earlier". But it's likely to trigger hurt feelings. It hurt my feelings when someone did say something akin to that. It enraged me, in fact. Still - I think I managed to express my dissent without getting too personal: Paul Cameron
The rules aren't there to prevent hurt feelings. It would be impossible to moderate on those grounds.
Do you think that Berberry, Dan, Taz, Rrhain, Ringo, Paulk, Arach, Chiroptera, Omnivorous, Dr. A, and myself all coordinated behind the scenes to get insulted by one completely innocuous line of argumentation chosen completely at random?
No. I think you did something perfectly human. When you saw a homophobe say homosexual sex and bestiality in the same sentence you inferred it was like those other times when homophobes have said some incredibly nasty, disgusting, vile, hate-filled (gah don't get me started!) shit. Either saying that gays are dogs OR that homosexual sex was as disgusting and clearly immoral has having sex with a dog.
And trust me, I've met people that did that (only it was sheep, not dogs). To my face. With pool cues. I was wearing a light coloured Wonder Woman crop top with a sheer fishent top over it (showing off my amethyst belly button piercing beautifully) with my hair in bunches - somebody had the audacity to suggest I deserved to have an encounter with homophobic dicks because of the way I was dressed with makeup on and stuff. I know the feeling of rage at hearing such things.
And I think you perceived that was what Nemesis was really driving towards.
How can you possibly explain that? Doesn't the fact that NJ's comments ultimately degraded the board and triggered a crisis of moderation and suppression prove you were wrong about them being a legitimate feature of debate?
There were plenty of things that triggered the crisis of moderation. One of them was the fact that the board wasn't centred around sexuality and morality and those topics tended to be ones associated with very strong emotional feelings that were difficult to moderate. It didn't help that Rrhain trampled in and made it into an issue after he got warned to stay on topic - and he kicked up a stink in the Moderation thread so very provocatively trying to relight the argument he was certain he was right about.
To name a few factors that went into it. I don't see how it necessarily proves me wrong on the legitimacy of the points being raised. Yes - I may be wrong on that issue, I've been wrong plenty of times.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 5:49 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 8:31 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 133 of 424 (567172)
06-29-2010 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by crashfrog
06-29-2010 8:31 PM


Right, and then Dan proved with examples that NJ wasn't wording it that way.
Which examples that Dan came up with prove that NJ wasn't wording it that way?
Now, I know about the fallacy of affirming the consequent. I know that "If A, then B" and "~A" doesn't imply "~B". But switch over to Baysean logic for a sec, and realize that if the rules exist to prevent complete collapse of legitimate dialogue on the board, and then a kind of speech ultimately causes the complete collapse of legitimate dialogue on the board - as NJ's conduct ultimately did - it stands to reason that there's a pretty good chance that the speech in question was probably against the rules. If not, a rule should be made against it.
If NJs conduct ultimately caused the collapse then my role must be rather minimal. The only thing I could do to prevent NJ talking to subbie about morality six months down the line would have been to permanently suspend him. When Rrhain came into the moderation thread to kick up another stink the moderators were in a stick situation. Suspend Rrhain for being inflammatory and we risk further undermining the confidence in the Admin team as people start thinking we suspended him for reasons other than the ones we said we did as with Dan. So Percy decided a decisive action was needed, one way or another. And the rest, is history.
But yes - if NJs behaviour was the single proximate cause of a collapse in dialogue then whatever it was we identify as the core behaviour should be forbidden for the sake of maintaining said dialogue.
I just don't think NJ's behaviour was the single proximate cause.
But again, you're acting like NJ was on the hook for a single instance of speech.
Again? I kept asking for more supporting quotes in that thread because what had been presented hadn't persuaded me.
I thought the best argument was the address rebuttals and avoid repetition one and was hoping this campaign of deliberate anti-gay baiting that is claimed would be simple enough to demonstrate.
Regardless of whether or not you saw NJ engage in offensive gay-baiting, can it really be denied that he was driving around in a car covered in little darts? Just based on the widespread outcry, we would have to conclude that NJ was positively bristling with darts. Like a bright orange hedgehog!
Agreed.
I appreciate that you took a principled stand not to punish someone you felt wasn't guilty of anything. (Boy, where were you all those times I was suspended...) But Percy's old comedian routine seems to indicate that's not actually the standard by which moderation should take place.
Message 97 through to Message 140 But that was before I got drunk on power I guess
But anyway - I appreciate that you appreciate what I was trying to do. Even if you think that in trying to do the right thing I ended up doing the wrong thing.
Simply on the basis of the "suction dart" standard, articulated by Percy as the central basis for moderation, shouldn't you have taken the action against NJ that might ultimately have saved the forum?
I don't think 'number of complaints' should necessarily be reason to suspend someone - but it is definitely enough to warrant examining the situation in more detail. If people get 'prickly', 'personal', or 'argumentative', as Percy suggested in that dart analogy post - it does not make investigating or discussing the matter easier and can lead to unwanted consequences.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 8:31 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 10:07 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005

Normal Thread Display

Message 159 of 424 (567227)
06-30-2010 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by crashfrog
06-29-2010 10:07 PM


Right. What I thought was weird about that is that I perceived almost all the prickliness coming from the moderators. People were raising very cogent and penetrating points, I thought, and what we were getting back from the moderators was "you idiots are whiny crybabies", "fucking let fucking it fucking go", promises of instant suspensions delivered retroactively - combined with Percy's admonitions for us to engage in "constructive dialogue."
Did the lay participants start getting snippy? You bet your ass we did, because almost immediately in that thread our calm, constructive suggestions were dismissed as whining.
Hmm. Well, let's see.
Message 3
Berb writes:
I have absolutely no intention of reading one more fucking word from you until I get an apology for your comparison of gays to animals and your comparison of gay sex to rape. So go to hell.
Calm and constructive seems to have slipped away early.
Message 4
Percy writes:
I guess I'd have to judge every case individually, but in general my own feeling is that the more veiled, subtle and *dispassionate* the insult, the more likely it is to be consistent with rule 10 and fly under the radar.
Not prickly - it was admitting fallibility and stating the pragmatics of moderation.
Message 5
Berb writes:
If the admin/stupid to whom we are referring cannot find any other way to argue against equality under the law for groups of people he doesn't like other than to draw insulting comparison that have no reasonable basis, then perhaps he should be told by an admin with even greater power to simply shut the fuck up.
Not very respectful.
Percy writes:
Without actually reviewing the thread again, I'll just say that something like "Stay the fuck away from me" is kind of blatantly angry, plus it's confrontational and can lead to escalation.
Calm.
Message 8
Berb writes:
hen perhaps you should go back and review the original thread again. It shouldn't be difficult since you've been continuously posting in it. And "stay the fuck away from me" happened a considerable length of time after the original post that AdminPD felt was too harshly worded against that other admin/stupid.
Confrontational.
Message 18
Percy writes:
Berberry, one final thought occurred to me later, so let me express it now. If you want to take insult at the expression of anti-gay attitudes that is your business, but I also believe you have a thin skin that is exacerbated by a history with certain people. If anti-gay attitudes upset you, you should avoid participating in threads with members who have anti-gay attitudes. All that getting upset does is weaken your ability to place such attitudes in the intolerant and bigoted light they so obviously deserve.
Acknowledges Berb might have felt insulted, suggests avoiding those threads and that getting so visibly upset detracts away from the intolerance.
Message 21
Berb writes:
I take deep umbrage at that! I've been posting at this forum for years, and the only thing I have raised anywhere near this much hell about is that bigot's continuing, insulting comments against gay people, specifically drawing comparisons between gays and animals or rapists... Where the hell do you get off saying that I can't handle anti-gay attitudes or that I am trying to impose political correctness?
Prickly.
Message 24
Percy writes:
Obviously I'm just making a bad situation worse. Sorry I couldn't help. Take care.
Message 27
Mod writes:
Well, in fairness rule 10 is about specific members, not groupings of people....
That would probably kill a lot of discussion so we'd just prefer if you grow some thick skin and get used to the fact that some people in the world are unpleasant and realize that compromise means being able to roll your eyes when someone is being intolerant.
Message 32
Berb writes:
I've reached a point in my life where I just can't deal with this type of insulting shit anymore...So things have changed. I'm not as accustomed as I once was to being insulted, so maybe that's the whole problem....
I think maybe Percy has a point, even though I resent the implication from him and all the other heterosexual admins that I'm "thin-skinned" or politically correct. I guess when it gets down to it, most heterosexual men will come down on an outsider before they come down on one of their own.
Message 33
Berb writes:
Fuck You
hmm...
Message 37
Mod writes:
I'm not a heterosexual admin and I think you are being thin skinned.
It is a valid question regarding the morality of homosexual sex and sex with another species and how do we regard one as morally fine and the other as reprehensible?
Message 40
Rrhain writes:
And what does homosexuality have to do with those things that heterosexuality doesn't? Why would it occur to anybody to jump to bestiality or rape when examining same-sex sexual activity but never bring up mixed-sex sexual activity? The mere fact that the comparison is specifically to gay people is indicative of homophobia.
Ah - here comes Rrhain, who seems intent on continuing the argument in the Moderation thread.
Message 38
Taz writes:
Actually, holmes countered this with his own philosophical lalaland logic...Nem jug just can't see any difference between a homosexual and a rapist, and we're not going to see him change anytime soon...You also live in England, which has far less christian bigots than the deep south in the States.
Message 42
Mod to Rrhain writes:
It's an equally valid question - though there are few threads around here concerned with the morality of heterosexual sex. I'm perfectly happy to entertain the question and I don't think it implies that heterosexuals are animals...The fact that somebody is questioning it's morality would indicate to me they are homophobic. That is a given. However - the question is does discussing the morality of bestiality mean that we are comparing gays with animals.
Message 43
Mod to Taz writes:
If Holmes were here, and this were a debate thread I'd respond...I have family in the deep south - I'm related to some of those Christian bigots I'm afraid to say.
Message 44
Taz to Mod writes:
You've been missing a very important detail about nem jug's comparisons here. When we talked about gay marriage, he compared that with marrying an animal or a motorcycle. When we talked about homosexual sex, he compared that with rape. This was what convinced me that nem jug's chosen examples weren't innocent at all.
Message 46
Mod to Taz writes:
What's the problem with that? This is a debate forum after all. If we can't debate people with opinions very different from ours, what's the point? There is only one way to stop ideas we don't like being expressed here and that is to censor debate. Which seems absurd to me. If Nem was being disrespectful to a specific poster that would be one thing, but putting forward questions that are at the heart of the debate is something else entirely
Message 48
Berb to Mod writes:
So let me get this straight: unless I'm prepared to be insulted in the most vile, disgusting and totally baseless manner imagineable by an administrator on this board, then I need to just stay the fuck away from here? Is that what you're saying?
Prickly.
Message 49
Mod to Berb writes:
No, my point is that I do not think you were insulted, though I remain open minded on the subject and am following the discussion in the admin forum as to whether you were...I do not think you need to stay the fuck away from this forum, far from it, I just think it might be wise to avoid certain topics for the time being.
Message 51
Berb to Mod writes:
So far, you and every other admin has avoided answering Ringo's simile, so please don't avoid answering this question again if you reply to me: Would a comparison of African-Americans to dirty apes also be acceptable here at EvC? Would such a demeaning insult likewise earn the respect and defense of the admin staff?
...
As I'm sure the stupid himself is enjoying following that thread. What a perfectly level playing field we have here, huh?
Prickly, personal...
Message 52
Mod to Berb writes:
Yes. African-Americans, like native Americans and Europeans are all covered in dirt and grease and they are all apes. I can see an appropriate comparison. Indeed the standard natural history of mankind is that populations of apes from Africa evolved into the people we call Africans.
It would earn my defence and respect.
Message 53
Berb to Mod writes:
Wow, I guess they were looking for a gay version of Clarance Thomas when they promoted you to admin! It goes just a teensy bit beyond saying it's "immoral", you insufferable nitwit!
Message 54
Percy to Berb writes:
I'm going to suspend you for a week in a way analogous to protective custody, because I'm guessing you're saying lots of things right now that you'll later regret saying. Hope to see you next week, I mean that.
Would you agree that up to the Berb suspension - the prickliness was mostly from Berb? I don't see any moderator response that was prickly, argumentative or personal.
As for the the other points we've been discussing - I think we've said everything that can be said. We might not completely agree on everything - but I think we can be adults shake hands (or curtly nod) and move on. Thanks for explaining your position in more depth, it was useful.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 10:07 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by crashfrog, posted 06-30-2010 1:13 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024