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?
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 424 (566866)
06-28-2010 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Modulous
06-27-2010 4:44 PM


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. I have not seen any deficiency in your decision, and I hardly think that Crashfrog is painting an accurate picture about what transpired.
I do see four, clear troublemakers, that inflammed the situation far beyond its merits: I won't mention names, but you were certainly not one of them.
Modulous did not cause the collapse. Collapse is not a good description either. I will go so far to say that it appears Crashfrog's assessment on the popularity and content on EvC has changed. There seemed to be a deeper sense of community in the past (even if it was more divisive). It did seem to have a "the good ole days" feel to it that in some ways is lacking now or days.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Modulous, posted 06-27-2010 4:44 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Modulous, posted 06-28-2010 12:58 PM Hyroglyphx has 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

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 424 (566901)
06-28-2010 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Modulous
06-28-2010 12:58 PM


Re: Great Purge: The Aftermath
(The one that allowed Hitler Percy to assume dictatorial power that would culminate in the "Night of the Broken Glass")
I lol'd
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.
As best I can tell, there were a few people who were seriously acting infantile, crying about nothing, and essentially inciting a riot. I'm sure in hindsight there are some things that could have been handled better, but some people are just completely unreasonable (the person you invited to this thread comes to mind). You can't rationalize with some people, all the while they strut around as if they're the paragon's of rationality.
It's a shame it happened, and the rift clearly has scarred the forum quite a bit. I can agree with some of the people who fell on their own swords out of principle, but overall I think the moderators were doing what they could to explain their position while keeping the peace.
Can't please everyone, especially thin-skinned, whiny brats. Based on what I've reviewed, I think I could count on one hand the true instigators (some not here anymore, some still here). Others who fell by the wayside were caught in the crossfire. For those upstanding citizens, I feel pity for.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Modulous, posted 06-28-2010 12:58 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 19 of 424 (566920)
06-28-2010 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Modulous
06-28-2010 4:01 AM


That basically sums up the 'laities' position.
...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?
Is there anything that I did that was capricious, cruel or unfair?
Yes, abundantly. And in addition to your own cruelty you stood up to defend the cruelty of the other moderators.
Yes, that was your view
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:
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.
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?
But not for complaining.
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.
You made 22 posts, most of which were critical of the moderator's actions (or lack thereof). How did I suppress your debate?
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:
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.
Ultimately, Mod, did your actions result in an improvement, or decline, in the general quality of debate and participants?
A decline.
So why defend those actions three years later? I don't understand.
How about you - do you think you helped?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Modulous, posted 06-28-2010 4:01 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-28-2010 3:40 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 25 by Modulous, posted 06-28-2010 4:55 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 20 of 424 (566921)
06-28-2010 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by cavediver
06-28-2010 4:21 AM


Re: Just for the record...
I'll try to get round to explaining why later, but the gist is that if there is one place where bigotry should not be censored but exposed and ridiculed - repeatedly - for all to see, it is here at EvC.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by cavediver, posted 06-28-2010 4:21 AM cavediver has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 424 (566922)
06-28-2010 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by crashfrog
06-28-2010 3:32 PM


It's a good thing you don't hold any grudges.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

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 23 by crashfrog, posted 06-28-2010 4:01 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 22 of 424 (566923)
06-28-2010 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by AZPaul3
06-28-2010 9:23 AM


Re: It's Not Easy Being Green
You got some kind of thorn stuck in your flipper, Frog?
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.
There was nothing unfair, capricious or cruel about Percy's handling of that whole mess.
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:
The moderator team does not see anything constructive emerging from this discussion.
I wonder if you've considered whether or not the participant team agrees. Isn't that the problem in a nutshell?
No reply was made.
At the time, however, the situation, which you yourself helped to exacerbate with your incessant whining, needed to be addressed and appropriately was.
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.
Have you come back to sling shit at Percy for some perceived injury to your ego?
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.
Suck it up, grow a pair, and get on with life, man. You're not 16 anymore.
Right, you're certainly making a strong case for the continued health and civility of EvC Forum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by AZPaul3, posted 06-28-2010 9:23 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by AZPaul3, posted 06-29-2010 10:01 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 23 of 424 (566924)
06-28-2010 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Hyroglyphx
06-28-2010 3:40 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-28-2010 3:40 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-29-2010 8:59 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 24 of 424 (566925)
06-28-2010 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Percy
06-28-2010 9:29 AM


Re: My thoughts
Just a quick off-topic note to tell you to be careful out there. You evidently pissed off some hackers in a discussion about rape, and last week they successfully hacked into EvC Forum for your password. Hopefully you're not using the same password at wherever this discussion was.
Wait, what? Who?
Well, that's me, making friends everywhere I go.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Percy, posted 06-28-2010 9:29 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Larni, posted 06-28-2010 5:19 PM crashfrog has 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

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005

Larni Posts Only

Message 26 of 424 (566932)
06-28-2010 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by crashfrog
06-28-2010 4:08 PM


My thoughts
Nice to see you again Crash!: I too, did not like the behaviour of NJ hounding Berberry and think it was wrong.
The admin may have erred on that matter (and the many worthy posters falling on their swords lends credence to this): they felt strongly enough to leave this place and become exodites in http://www.worldwideword.net/dreamcatcher/ .
I think though, that this site has changed somewhat (for better or for worse) and wonder what (if anything), is to be gained from raking over the past.
The mods at the time were sacked and came back (to mostly their previous form, mostly*). I can't see what's to be gained from going back over a real mess of a time that I'm sure some people would have played differently if given their time over again.
And the the 'hack message' from our fearless leader is real: Dr A (I think) got totally hacked!
*random film idiom
Edited by Larni, : can't spell 'to'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 06-28-2010 4:08 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Huntard, posted 06-28-2010 5:45 PM Larni has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003

crashfrog Posts Only

Message 27 of 424 (566934)
06-28-2010 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Modulous
06-28-2010 4:55 PM


No - the role of the moderators should have been to state their position - explain it and then terminate further discussion.
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?
Link to the posts demonstrating three examples of my capriciousness, cruelty, and unfairness with an explanation as to how they meet the criteria.
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.
I did so in the OP, Message 1. Do a search for 'cogent contribution' if you're having difficulty finding 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?
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:
AdminMod 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.
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.
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?
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?
I'm not going to defend other people
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.
Message 160, eh? That's a lot of debate, a lot of the same posts being done over and over again.
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"?
I even conceded my actions resulted in a decline, and you still say that?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Modulous, posted 06-28-2010 4:55 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Rahvin, posted 06-28-2010 6:21 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 31 by Modulous, posted 06-28-2010 6:37 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008

Huntard Posts Only

Message 28 of 424 (566935)
06-28-2010 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Larni
06-28-2010 5:19 PM


Re: My thoughts
Larni writes:
And the the 'hack message' from our fearless leader is real: Dr A (I think) got totally hacked!
'twas Drjones*. And Adminnemooseus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Larni, posted 06-28-2010 5:19 PM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Larni, posted 06-28-2010 5:59 PM Huntard has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005

Larni Posts Only

Message 29 of 424 (566936)
06-28-2010 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Huntard
06-28-2010 5:45 PM


Re: My thoughts
Those Doctors all look alike!
I'm sure they bring down the house prices, too.*
*Courtesy of the 'Daily Mail'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Huntard, posted 06-28-2010 5:45 PM Huntard has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2

Rahvin Posts Only

Message 30 of 424 (566938)
06-28-2010 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by crashfrog
06-28-2010 5:39 PM


Confidence in moderation
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?
I just wanted to chime in and say that I have very good confidence in the ability of the current moderation staff to fairly and objectively moderate to the degree that such fairness is practically possible.
This may come as a shock, but occasionally the "fair" action is not the action that best benefits the health of a discussion board. After all, an eye for an eye is fair, but it tends to leave everyone blind in the end.
Healthy discussion requires more than a single viewpoint. Here at EvC, Percy and the others try their best to ensure that the board does not degenerate into various members preaching to the choir. It often means allowing people to express views that the moderators don't necessarily personally agree with (or even vehemently despise) to continue to express those views, simply so that there continue to be at least two "sides" available for debate. This doesn't exclusively apply to issuing suspensions - it also means that the moderation staff need to ensure that all sides perceive that they have a chance at a fair shake around here. Sometimes one individual needs to be moderated more harshly, or another less strictly, in order to create that perception.
The Purge definitely cost EvC many very good participants. But the board most definitely has not collapsed. There are still many vibrant discussions going on around here, with many participants both old and new. The success of the board, the fact that it hasn't been reduced to either an atheistic circle-jerk where we all talk about how stupid those creationists are, nor an evangelical orgy of Praise God, is due in very large part to our very successful moderation staff.
I don't feel the need to agree with every (or even most) of the moderators' decisions. I want a place where I can engage in open debate with a wide variety of perspectives on the subjects of evolution, creation, science, religion, morality, rationality, and anything else interesting that comes to mind, preferably without the fear that I'll be immediately censured for saying something that an individual disagrees with or even finds offensive. I don't get that on other boards, but I do get it here - again, due to our moderation staff.

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 33 by crashfrog, posted 06-28-2010 6:49 PM Rahvin has 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