Did Mod cause the collapse of evcforum?

Look, we covered this at the time and you weren't willing to listen then. Is anything different now, Mod?It wasn't a "he said, she said" question. 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.Rrhain quoting my words from back then gave me occasion to re-read the thread, 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. And I continue to be struck by how prophetic I turned out to be when I asked: I had left some time after saying that, but apparently the Great Purge followed shortly thereafter. 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. Funny how that works.We all remember what happened, Mod, despite your revisionist history. 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.Berb was suspended for things he was apparently about to say; NJ was suspended briefly, after the fact, for some token offense (a suspension you yourself shortened.) Dan complained and was suspended. Rrhain complained about that suspension and was suspended. I showed you how your moderation was serving not to defuse the situation, but to inflame it, and you ignored me. You, Moose, Jar, and Percy acted like the problem was everything but the moderation, and that we just needed to get over it, and to help us get over it, you were going to hand out suspensions until we did. Which you did. Which didn't help.So, yes, absolutely without a doubt you played a central role in the mass exodus of everybody interesting from EvC Forum. Rrhain is absolutely correct, as well he should be, since he was there. As was I.If you can't see how you were central to the crisis that ultimately led to the Great Purge, then I don't know what to say. Everything that happened in the Purge occurred almost exactly as I predicted in that thread. Absolutely none of the issue raised with the moderation were responded to in any way, by any moderator in that thread, except "You're wrong, and maybe also suspended."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? Did being capricious and cruel get people to stop complaining about the cruelty? Did covering for the intemperate and wrong actions of other moderators convince them to stop being intemperate and wrong? Did suppressing debate about the moderator's role in inciting flamewars prevent the moderators from inciting flamewars?Ultimately, Mod, did your actions result in an improvement, or decline, in the general quality of debate and participants? The answer is abundantly obvious to me, which is why I don't post here anymore. What do you think?

Head over and read that huge thread. The problem wasn't people getting pissy, it was moderators getting pissy at people objecting to their unfair, ignorant, and capricious actions. Rrhain didn't say that he banned all those people. But Mod's centrality in the crisis that led to the Great Purge can't be denied; it's a matter of record in the General Discussion of Moderators thread. You'd have to know what it was like before to say, I think. Trust me when I say, it's collapsed.

...and? Were they right, or not? Was there a single instance in that thread where any moderator admitted than their actions were inciting the very crisis they claimed justified those actions? Was there a single instance in that thread where any moderator admitted that the laity actually had a point? Was there a single instance in that thread where any moderator admitted that their actions were working against the very goals they claimed to be for?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? Yes, abundantly. And in addition to your own cruelty you stood up to defend the cruelty of the other moderators. Yes, that was the objective reality. Dan Carroll demonstrated it, with ample evidence from NJ's own posts, and in response you suspended him for "disrespecting you."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?Oh, but that's right - you didn't suspend him for violating any of the forum guidelines: 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? No, for sassing you. You think that's better? Astounding.What we're talking about, Mod, is a complete failure of confidence in the moderation of the board that culminated in the Great Purge. 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.And you still can't see your part in it? You still can't see how your actions contributed to a perception of impropriety on the part of the moderators?Really? It was just our mistake, the whole time? Astounding. Don't evade the question, Mod. I didn't say you, specifically, suppressed debate. But it's undeniable that the moderators did. Isn't this message 160 of that thread: So why defend those actions three years later? I don't understand. Mod, it was never in my power to help, because it was never my actions that were causing the problem. 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.But those actions must have been - because they resulted in the exact opposite outcome as the moderators intended. Suspending people for complaining about suspensions didn't stop the complaints. Telling people they had to fall in line or leave resulted in them leaving, not in them falling in line. Moderator actions that appeared motivated by personal pique and capriciousness - and a general ignorance about events that had transpired - didn't inspire confidence that moderators were acting objectively and effectively. Funny how that works.After all this time, Mod, after what has happened to the forum, how can you possibly conclude that you were anything but wrong?

But we're not talking about "bigotry", in the abstract; we were talking about a concerted campaign by NJ to chase Berberry around three different threads, telling him that he was a rapist.That conduct has no place at EvC, then or now, and I shared Berb's frustration at moderators who would look over that vendetta and say "well, I don't agree, but I'm going to allow it. Also, Berb, you can't hit back." Berb shouldn't have exploded, but Jesus, he endured a week of homophobic taunting by NJ with the tacit approval of Modulous and the other admins.And I was hardly the only one who felt that way. It's real easy, Cave, to say that EvC should be a museum of bigotry - though I doubt that was ever Percy's intent for the forum - but you weren't the one being targeted. Berb was, and he deserved much better moderation than he received. The tacit moderator approval of the equation of consensual homosexuality with rape - a hideous and violent crime against humanity - continues to be EvC Forum's most shameful episode.

No, just two eyes and a brain behind them. It's incredibly helpful when it comes to perceiving what is right in front of my nose. Maybe I'm just not being clear.I don't think it's possible to break down the episode into "this moderator was fair; this was not" because, as you read through the General Discussion thread, it's striking how unified the moderators are. There's absolutely no sense whatsoever that the moderators disagree about any of each other's actions. Maybe those disagreements happened behind the scenes, I don't know. But what was presented to the rest of us was a pretty unified front, where no matter what any individual moderator did, all the other moderators would close ranks and stand behind them.Rrhain gets suspended because he "didn't fucking let fucking it fucking go"? (That's a direct quote from Moose's suspension of him. Does that sound like dispassionate moderation?) Modulous stands up to defend the suspension. Percy acts like any objection to the suspension is a matter of the laity not understanding the goals of moderation. Moose gives no compelling justification for suspending Rrhain for violating a request that hadn't been made yet. Jar calls us all "whining crybabies" and reaffirms his confidence in his fellow admins.Above all, there's never any sense that the objections of the participants are being taken seriously, or that the problem is anything but participants who won't stop complaining - never that moderators are taking action that sapped public confidence in their objectivity and fairness.I asked: No reply was made. Here's a link to my posts in that thread.Could you please identify which posts were "incessant whining"? I think I made my objections clearly, calmly, dispassionately, respectfully up to the point where it was clear respect was being ignored, and when Percy asked that we stop talking about it and fall in line, I stopped talking about it and fell in line. In other words I think you need to go back and read the thread; your description of it doesn't seem to be true. I guess I don't understand. Do you believe that this is about how I was treated? I was never suspended. I still have posting privileges here. I didn't even bring up the issue; Modulous did, when Rrhain accurately referred to his central role in the crisis of confidence in moderation that ultimately led to the degradation of the forum.I don't feel slighted in any way. But Mod wanted to talk about the issue, so I broke my vow of non-participation to come back and oblige him, since I was a central voice in the issue, and ultimately because time proved me right. Right, you're certainly making a strong case for the continued health and civility of EvC Forum.

I didn't open the thread. Modulous did. Why do you think this is my vendetta? He wanted to talk about it; I'm obliging him. I feel that's only right given that I was one of his central interlocutors in that thread.Can you explain how that's me "holding a grudge"? I was was the subject of precisely zero moderator censure during the Purge Crisis on Infinite EvC Forums. I felt then that the actions of moderators were eroding confidence in their objectivity, and events ultimately proved me right.Where's the grudge, there?

Wait, what? Who?Well, that's me, making friends everywhere I go.

But what if they're wrong? What if their explanation is that "these actions are consistent with enforcement of the Forum Guidelines", but they're actually not? What if their actions are defended as intending to promote the goals of the forum, but their actions don't actually promote their goals?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 never, ever the fault of the moderators for doing the wrong thing.Look, it's Percy's joint - like Rrhain kept saying. I agree. It's not a democracy. I'm not and have never asked for it to be one. All I'm asking is, can you or can you not see how that is eroding to confidence in moderators? And can a discussion forum survive when participants have no confidence in the fairness of moderators?Can you see that, Mod? 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? Do you agree that when moderators refuse to address objections to their conduct, and support one another regardless, that erodes confidence in their objectivity?These are universal features of authority. They apply in any situation. For instance, imagine a police shooting where a white cop shoots an unarmed black man. Suppose there is videotape showing that the cop never identified himself as police but simply drew and fired on the man. Imagine if it came to light that the black man had been an outspoken critic of police brutality. Imagine that these police were your neighborhood's officers.Wouldn't you find your confidence in their effectiveness and objectivity to be eroded? If the police department closed ranks and refused to break "the thin blue line" (do they have that expression in the UK?), refused to refer to the shooting as anything but a completely legal and justified "righteous kill", wouldn't your confidence in their professionalism be eroded? Wouldn't your confidence in your safety be eroded, now that you have reason to suspect that even entirely prosaic encounters with your local police could end in your death at their hands?Surely the answer to these questions is "yes." So the question isn't whether moderators can pursue personal vendettas, defend each other unswervingly regardless of merit, and act to suppress complaints and objections. Obviously they can do those things because they did do those things.The question is, is it right for them to do so? Is it useful for them to do so? Does it help or hinder their ability to do their jobs when they take actions that erode confidence in their objectivity? 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. 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? Er, well, no. You advised him, in fact, that he hadn't broken a forum rule. You wrote: Did you write that, or didn't you? It's your face by those words.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.It's the kind of thing that erodes confidence in your ability to be objective. It certainly eroded mine, which is why at the time I described you as being one of the worst moderators I had ever seen at the forum. Taking moderator action because someone "disrespected you", but not against someone else who had disrespected Berberry, made it pretty clear that you weren't using your moderator power to enforce respect among debators, you were using it to enforce respect for yourself. 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.Did you not understand at the time, that's what I was complaining about? That you seemed to consider disrespect against your most holy person the only disrespect worth exercising your moderator power over? Jesus, what did you think I was on about, the whole time? 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. And yet, clearly it was not enough. Clearly people had more to say, because some of them did continue, and were suspended. Hell you even continued. You're just asserting that Message 160 is where "enough" debate had occurred, but do you have any reason to believe that besides Percy saying "that's 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 mean it seems like you've answered the question you posed in the topic. Did Mod cause the collapse of evcforum? You seem to be admitting that you did.

I don't disagree with any of that.But again - when moderators seem more concerned about disrespect to them instead of disrespect to others, when moderators feel that the only public comment they can make about each other is "this person is an excellent moderator and has never made a mistake", when moderators respond to a months-long campaign of persecution against a specific individual by suspension of the victim and those who subsequently complain, confidence in moderator fairness is eroded. I don't see how that can be denied.Nobody has ever demanded that moderators have the wisdom of Solomon. Three years ago, though, I warned that administrative refusal to countenance the prospect of unfair, personally-motivated moderation would cause people to have reason to doubt the fairness and the competence of the moderators.Subsequent events proved that I wasn't just grousing, that it wasn't just a matter of "whatever moderators do will provoke some criticism." Subsequent events proved that what was happening in the General Discussion of Moderation thread wasn't just the regular background noise that happens when people hit the guardrails. There really was a crisis in confidence in the fairness and objectivity of the moderators. I don't see how that can be denied. It's a matter of record, like everything else that happens around here.If you, or anyone else, are under the notion that my conduct in General Discussion of Moderators 11 was simply me standing up for my buddies, let me disabuse you of that notion right now. I hate Rrhain, he's terrible to try to argue with. But he was right then and he's right now. As for Berberry, remember what I said in my first post in that thread? Does that sound like me standing up for my buddy? I was trying to forestall Berb's eventual eruption, one that I could forsee coming once it was obvious moderators had sanctioned NJ's disgusting personal attacks against him.Look, I'm all for swift, decisive moderator action with little regard for complaints about what's fair, when it serves to promote legitimate debate, defuse tensions, and preserve an environment of respect for all persons. (That's the style of moderation that should have immediately been applied to NJ, and it would have prevented the Purge and the degradation of EvC.)Can anyone, honestly, look in the General Discussion 11 thread and conclude that's the moderation we got? AdminMod sanctions disrespect only when it's directed at him. Percy insists that the source of all the controversy is a laity that doesn't understand the forum guidelines. Moose, ham-fisted as ever, only bestirs himself to take precisely the action that is most controversial, least justified, and inciting. AdminJar tells us all what stupid whiny crybabies we are.The most striking aspect of that thread is how petty, dismissive, and completely uninterested in dialogue the moderators act throughout.I don't know exactly what Rrhain meant when he suggested the board had "collapsed" but it simply can't be denied that this place is a shell of what it used to be. Disrespect and unsupported arguments seem to run rampant, threads careen off-topic instantly. Can anyone tell me what the huge discussion in "Gender and Humor" is actually about? It's clear that, even now, the moderator community finds it difficult to do their job. I have to ascribe that to the complete collapse in the public's confidence they can be fair.And literally all they had to do was suspend NJ for calling Berberry a rapist week after week. "All for the want of a horseshoe's nail", indeed.

There exists no higher court of appeal, if you feel the judgement was wrong then you're stuffed, basically.

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?Stop me now if you don't understand how what I'm asking is different than the question you're answering.

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.

Yep I wrote that Dan hadn't explicitly disrespected me, but that in my opinion he had in fact done so.

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 it looked like you were using your moderator powers to enforce personal vendettas, not regulate discussion. That the only respect you were interested in fostering was the laity having respect for your moderation.So to ask for "examples of your capriciousness" --> now --> given that our discussion in GenDiscMod11 was almost entirely --> about --> your unfairness is amazing to me.Did you just not get it, back then? Did you truly have no idea what we were talking about? I kind of wish you had said so.

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.

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 (and cavediver, but he only needed a warning). But I wasn't of that opinion.

No, of course you were of that opinion. 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? Did you think Dan --> really --> thought that "all Christians rape goats"? Did you think that he was really concerned that NJ was making --> unsupported --> statements, as opposed to offensive insulting statements, when he asked:

Dan Carroll 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?

For some reason, when Dan implied you were a retarded monkey, you didn't see that as a challenging philosophical musing about moral relativism. That forces me to conclude that you didn't see NJ's assertion that Berberry was a rapist that way, either.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. We all saw what happened - you took action against disrespect only when you were made the victim of it. That was Dan's point the whole time. Go back and read his posts.Are you saying you had no idea this whole time? Jesus Christ.

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!Moreover, why? Why would he had to have admitted it, when I knew, and Dan knew, and you knew he was doing it? Percy was pretty clear that enforcement of the guidelines isn't based on speculation about motives:

AdminPercy writes: ​ As the Forum Guidelines have evolved over the years we've tried to keep this in mind. As much as possible we want to avoid making forum guideline enforcement a judgment call. I don't think we've done anywhere near as well as the NFL in this, but that is our goal, to --> never make judging a member's intent part of the assessment. -->

Did anybody ask Berberry his intent? Did anybody ask Rrhain his intent?

Not universally: I admonished Moose.

I had to look this up, because I thought to myself "not the way --> I --> remember it, bub", and I found this:

AdminMod writes: ​ I hereby retrospectively pardon Rrhain admonish Moose and suspend Rrhain retrospectively for continuing to discuss the bestiality issue after the request was made for the participants to stop. Is that better?

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?Please. How fucking stupid do you think I am?

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.

And I appreciate that there's a certain level of grousing that happens simply as a result of moderators taking action. Taking any action. Taking no action at all. As the old joke goes, the difference between toilets and administrators is that the toilet only has to take shit from one asshole at a time.Cops have to put up with the same crap - every criminal complains about "brutality", they're subject to spurious complaints that have to be investigated, and the like. When cops hide behind the "thin blue line", it's not because they think they have to participate in a conspiracy to protect a friend they think hasn't done anything wrong.They participate because they firmly --> believe --> that their buddy did the right thing. I believe you firmly believed that none of the moderators had done anything wrong. I do!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. -->

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.

Was it usefully moving us towards a better resolution, or creating more bitterness?

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. -->I guess you didn't understand what I meant. I wish you had said something at the time instead of just pretending I hadn't said it at all.

In my opinion by the time Message 160 rolled around there had been more than enough

Oh? Then why did you post message 162?

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.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

I feel that Rrhain addressed this, prophetically, those three years ago. Either he can see the future or, like me, he's noticed that the defenses of authority frequently shake out along the same lines, regardless of the context.Let me quote at length:

quote:

---

(*chuckle*)

​

You still don't get it, do you? We have been working toward a constructive exploration of the issues.

​

You, however, have refused to consider it. Again, it's your sandbox and you get to make the rules. I understand why you're being so resistant: Nobody likes being wrong; especially on his own turf and being shown so by people he doesn't respect.

​

It's like we're back in grammar school. A kid is being picked on and he complains to the teacher. The teacher does nothing and the kid continues to be picked on. When the kid finally decides that enough is enough and retaliates, the teacher comes down on the kid instead of the bully, and sends the kid to the principal.

​

The principal, refusing to listen to the kid, tries to play some psychology on the kid and asks, "What would you have me do?" The only reason the principal asks this is because the principal has no respect for the kid, thinks the kid is simply being hysterical, and thinks that the kid won't have an answer to this.

​

The kid, however, comes up with the correct answer: "Punish the bully. Detention at least, possible suspension, and I wouldn't be averse to explusion."

​

The principal, taken aback, sputters, "Well, I can't do that...."

​

The kid, undaunted, presses on, "Yes, you can. You're the principal. That's your job, to watch over the students and make sure that the bullies don't make things miserable for the other kids. Why are you hesitating?"

​

And, of course, the principal's heels get firmly dug in.

---

The advantage of EvC Forum is that nothing is "he said, she said." Everything that happens here happens on the record. You can always go back and look. There's nothing that can happen here between two participants that is invisible. It's not Rashomon, where events survive only as memories which may differ among those involved. It's a matter of permanent record what is said in this place.The excuse that moderators have to "call em as they see em" is untenable in this context. Moderators and participants are, by definition, seeing exactly the same thing.

I think NJ was pretty clearly on the record for thinking that homosexuality was the moral equivalent of rape, yes. I think that because NJ opened topic after topic to say exactly that, and when he wasn't opening topics to say it, he was saying it in any thread that was even tangentially related to homosexuality.No, I don't think he was "musing about moral relativism", and neither did anybody else. Even Percy knew what he was doing: But for some reason, time after time it was only NJ's intentions that mattered. Nobody asked what Dan's intent was; nobody asked Rrhain's intent; nobody asked Berberry's intent. I apologize but I see no statement or judgement of intent in the material you quoted whatsoever. Intent is irrelevant to whether or not someone is being compared to a rapist - they're either being so compared, or they're not. NJ's intent should also be irrelevant, but for some reason, the moderator community decided to make it central, and to decide that they simply couldn't respond to NJ's out of control personal attacks until NJ's intent was made perfectly and abundantly clear.The ultimate result - the direct result - was that Percy decided that no matter what moderators did, a storm of criticism was sure to ensue. Hence the Great Purge. In this judgement he was sadly incorrect, there would have been one course of action that would not have provoked a storm of criticism, and it was the action that had been requested for months: suspend NJ for gay-baiting across half a dozen threads.I mean we only told the moderators what we wanted, a hundred times. They did everything except that. Astounding. But again - intent shouldn't matter. And indeed, in most cases the moderators acted like intent didn't matter. Except in the case of NJ, where it was apparently determined that intent was paramount.Why was that? It's never been satisfactorily addressed. The most reasonable interpretation is that one or several moderators simply decided that's how they were going to treat NJ, and then the rest of the moderators felt they had to support them in that. The results was months of people begging for moderator action against NJ, who was disrupting threads with disgusting anti-gay hate speech. You're right - after months, months of asking for moderator action in response to NJ's vendetta. I'm not saying that I wouldn't have suspended Berb myself. Did you read what I posted to him in that thread? Let me disabuse you of the notion that I didn't think Berberry's conduct merited suspension. But he didn't come out of the gate saying those things; they were the end of a months-long campaign of gay-baiting that went on for no other reason than that the moderators apparently decided to allow it.If moderators had acted instead of doing nothing, and telling us how lucky we were for it, Berb would have had no reason to explode as he did. Once he did explode, yeah he deserved a short suspension. No question. But NJ deserved a very long suspension, had deserved it for months, and when he finally got one, Mod decided to shorten it.I mean, you could have knocked me over with a feather. Who on Earth could have thought that was the way to deal with the situation? Well, apparently once one moderator had decided that was how they were going to deal with it, they all decided to go along, because it was clearly more important for moderators to do the same thing, not the right thing. And it runs according to certain rules, and the rules are intended to enact certain goals. But the moderation on display in GenDiscMod11 and GenDiscMod14 wasn't consistent with the Forum Guidelines, and didn't move us towards fruitful and constructive discussion. It moved us towards a state of anarchy because nobody could trust the moderation anymore. Did you even read the thread? Jesus. We were fine with the rules. We loved the rules.We just wanted the moderators to start following them. That's all.

Additionally I'd like to highlight that, while participant response generally included specific, impersonal criticism, suggestions for desired action, and other features of what I would consider "constructive criticism", moderator replies largely consisted of wholesale rejection of the opposing viewpoint, admonitions against being a "whiny crybaby", profanity ("wouldn't fucking let fucking it fucking go"), and speculations about motive and mindset ("critics are just being rash".)The most striking feature of these two moderation threads was the degree to which moderators were refusing to engage in constructive debate, and then blaming participants for not being constructive.

You're still not getting it. Forget about me for a second. What do the moderators do? But we can't disagree. It's impossible for there to be disagreement, because the things Dan said to you were objectively the same things NJ was saying to Berb.And when Dan said them to you, you correctly identified them as disrespectful. You even asked Dan to confirm that they were disrespectful, and he confirmed your judgement. Remember? He said it was "balls-on accurate?"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?Jesus, Mod, what else did you miss in that thread? But again - this is not possible. It's simply impossible for you not to be of that opinion, because when Dan made the same statements to you that NJ made to Berb, you accurately apprehended them as disrespectful. And you asked Dan if that was indeed the case, and he confirmed it. He told you your judgement was "balls-on accurate." He told you that he "fully expected to be suspended from his first post." Why did he expect that? Because he was purposefully engaging in the conduct NJ was engaged in, and he knew that you knew that conduct merited suspension.And indeed, you suspended him! So you must have known that NJ's conduct merited suspension, because you suspended Dan for engaging in it.I don't need you to tell me what you thought, Mod, because your actions made your thoughts clear. You knew the conduct NJ was engaged in merited suspension, because you suspended Dan for engaging in it. None at all, Mod, because - like NJ - Dan was not engaged in a critique of moral relativism. It was never his intent to put forth a critique of moral relativism. It was his intent to put forth the exact same conduct that NJ was engaged in, only directed at you so you would accurately apprehend its meaning.And you did! You even asked Dan if you had accurately apprehended his meaning, and he confirmed that your judgement was "balls-on accurate." And so you suspended him, because the conduct he was engaged in merited suspension.But you never suspended NJ. You actually shortened his suspension. But Dan's critique was that you only correctly apprehended disrespect when it was directed at yourself. You claim that's not the case - that you can apprehend disrespect when its directed to people who are not yourself.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. That was your ultimate failure as a moderator, the failure of the entire moderation team, and as NJ's repeated gay-baiting spiraled out of control, Percy fired the moderators and suspended the complainers. Even though he knew that NJ was the central cause of the controversy. But the moderators Had Ruled, there could be no going back on the explicit approval of NJ to gay-bait, and therefore the only apparent solution was to suppress dissent.So, yes, Mod - you caused the collapse of EvC forum, along with Percy and the other moderators. All you had to do was suspend NJ when he engaged in gay-baiting. All for the want of a horseshoe's nail, indeed. 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. Because you let NJ keep gay-baiting! Even Percy recognized it. And I have to ask, if even Percy saw it, why didn't anybody take the extraordinarily obvious action of suspending or banning NJ for gay-baiting?Because for about 300 posts over several months various moderators had explicitly stated that they weren't going to do that, and it's endemic to persons in shared authority that it's more important for them to do the same thing than to do the right thing. 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? (Suspending Rrhain for "won't fucking let fucking it fucking go" was all the evidence I needed.)Or are you still intent on portraying this as a situation where participants simply wouldn't see reason?

I hadn't even thought about the issue until Rrhain linked to those posts in the other thread, so no, I'm not nursing any grudges, here.And again - Mod opened the thread, not me. In response to Rrhain. So likely it's Rrhain's grudge.I'm surprised he hasn't posted in this thread yet, but perhaps when he does you can ask him why he dredged all this up. I maintain that the only reasonable and objective attitude towards authority is to be a priori suspicious of their actions, because being in a position of authority has known psychological effects that corrupt cognition. See the Stanford prison experiment.But, sure. By the time GenDiscMod11 rolled around I'd had my own issues with some of the moderators. Are you saying you never have? Well, maybe they're better nowadays. If that's the case then I feel my statements had some effect. No, and I told you that I didn't. Are you listening? Remember when I asked Berberry "what the fuck was wrong" with him? Berb deserved his suspension, but the only reason he blew his top in the first place was NJ's campaign of gay-baiting, directed specifically at him, that went on for months with explicit moderator approval. The moderators needed to own up to their role in that. Mod still refuses to. I guess it really doesn't matter now.