Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


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 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

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 32 of 424 (566941)
06-28-2010 6:39 PM


The impossibility of a moderator's job
As a former admin, I'll add my two cents worth.
Firstly, an incident from my past. I was in a basketball team as a teenager. I remember one game I was in, where a player from the opposing team charged straight at me. I braced myself for the expected collision. The collision occurred. The referee called a foul. The foul that he called was against me, for "shouldering the other player."
That's pretty much the situation for a referee. He can only call a foul against what he can see. That I was being charged, and needed to protect myself against possible injury, was apparently not visible to the referee.
Now back to the problem of moderation.
At times debater A will say things that are not directly insults, but that debater B will take as insulting and offensive. If this is repeated enough, then debater B will get a little testy and perhaps respond with an insult.
Even if a moderator sees precisely what is going on, and sees that the actions of debater A are what instigated the incident, the moderator still has little choice. He can ask debater A to avoid provoking debater B. But since only debater B has actually broken the rules, only debater B can actually be suspended for the incident. This may look grossly unfair to debater B. The moderator might even recognize that it will appear grossly unfair. But the moderator's hands are tied by the fact that he is limited to enforcing the rules and debater A has managed to stay within those rules.

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 06-28-2010 8:00 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 33 of 424 (566942)
06-28-2010 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Rahvin
06-28-2010 6:21 PM


Re: Confidence in moderation
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?
Do you think he's going to stop just because you ask?
Do you think that if you disrupt the thread enough, the admin attention is going to fall on him, not you?
Nobody's saying that you don't get to have strong feelings; do you honestly think that you're expressing them in a way that's going to accomplish anything?
If you answered "yes" to any of the above questions - what the fuck is wrong with you?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Rahvin, posted 06-28-2010 6:21 PM Rahvin has not replied

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


Message 34 of 424 (566951)
06-28-2010 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Modulous
06-28-2010 6:37 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Modulous, posted 06-28-2010 6:37 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Modulous, posted 06-29-2010 3:51 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 50 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-29-2010 10:35 AM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 35 of 424 (566953)
06-28-2010 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by nwr
06-28-2010 6:39 PM


Re: The impossibility of a moderator's job
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.
That's pretty much the situation for a referee. He can only call a foul against what he can see.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by nwr, posted 06-28-2010 6:39 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-28-2010 9:13 PM crashfrog has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 424 (566957)
06-28-2010 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by crashfrog
06-28-2010 8:00 PM


That forces me to conclude that you didn't see NJ's assertion that Berberry was a rapist that way, either.
This is the root of my disagreement.
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.
You really really think that NJ really thought that Berberry was a rapist? And that he was not musing about moral relativism?
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?
Because you didn't know.
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?
I agree with the guidlines here. Argue the position, not the person. You can't really tell the poster's intent from this medium. Berberry and Rrhains intents should be irrelevant.
So when your talking about things like:
NJ's disgusting personal attacks against him
...
calling Berberry a rapist week after week
I think your're bringing too much judgment of the intent.
And there's problems with that... People can get good at trolling. More cleverly hidden insults slip under and the retaliating fuck-you's get the ban hammer.
Its the nature of the beast, this medium.
If someone's gonna get terribly insulted and upset, then maybe it isn't the right one for them. Ber was being too thin skinned and you guys were overreacting to what you were judging as NJ's intent.
I don't think having a "constuctive exploration of the issues" would have done anything. You can't really judge what peoples' intents really are from their posts and you can't prevent people from being insulted from what they are judging the intent to be.
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.
Yes, it is. Everyone's judgment is gonna be different and you can't really know what the intent is.
The best bet is to just leave intents out of it, and go with the text on the screen. Argue the position, not the person. Like the rules are.
And I think Mod did not do a terrible job in trying to inforce the rules. Hell, even Dan said that he expected to be suspended.
Now, I think NJ was being disrespectful to Ber. But Ber responded with fuck-you's. Too much was applied to NJ's intent. If the position, as opposed to the person, had simply continued to be rebutted over and over, then it would have been nothing.
And literally all they had to do was suspend NJ for calling Berberry a rapist week after week.
I do think there's line that can be crossed. If someone would have put together a bunch of NJ's posts proving that he was being disrespectful enough to warrant suspension, then I think it would have happened.
But bitching about moderation when its judging the intent differently from you was against the rules in the first place.
Percy's right that y'all aren't getting the rules. Jar's right that y'all are crybabies. Its a fucking internet discussion forum, geez.
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?
According to the rules, yeah. But you guys want to act like you know what NJ was thinking, argue the person and not the position, and have the rules be different. Bitching about moderation because it isn't against the rules isn't the way to change the rules. As is evident.
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.
I think the board is just fine. Its not as bad as you're painting it.
I'd prefer the rules as they are. Don't judge people's intent, argue the postion not the person. More formal debating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 06-28-2010 8:00 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by crashfrog, posted 06-28-2010 10:13 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 40 by Taz, posted 06-29-2010 1:01 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

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


Message 37 of 424 (566965)
06-28-2010 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by New Cat's Eye
06-28-2010 9:13 PM


You really really think that NJ really thought that Berberry was a rapist? And that he was not musing about moral relativism?
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:
Admin writes:
My own opinion is that NJ engages in gay-baiting in these threads, and that he does so subconsciously and isn't aware he's doing this.
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 think your're bringing too much judgment of the 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.
Berberry and Rrhains intents should be irrelevant.
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.
Everyone's judgment is gonna be different and you can't really know what the intent is.
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.
Now, I think NJ was being disrespectful to Ber. But Ber responded with fuck-you's.
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?
Crashfrog writes:
Do you think he's going to stop just because you ask?
Do you think that if you disrupt the thread enough, the admin attention is going to fall on him, not you?
Nobody's saying that you don't get to have strong feelings; do you honestly think that you're expressing them in a way that's going to accomplish anything?
If you answered "yes" to any of the above questions - what the fuck is wrong with you?
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.
Percy's right that y'all aren't getting the rules. Jar's right that y'all are crybabies. Its a fucking internet discussion forum, geez.
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.
I'd prefer the rules as they are.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-28-2010 9:13 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by New Cat's Eye, 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 38 of 424 (566966)
06-28-2010 10:36 PM


"Constructive Dialogue"
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.

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 39 of 424 (566976)
06-28-2010 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Modulous
06-27-2010 4:44 PM


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. If you believe this, then crashfrog is certainly correct-you must be under some sort of psychological mind trick akin to the Stanford prison experiments.
There is no way under any God's green earth that you can say that people who do not share Percy's (or your) ideas about science or philosophy get equal treatment to those that do. Absolutely no way. 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.
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).
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. I don't know about the specific cases you guys are talking about-but I know exactly the basic concepts of unfairness that crashfrog is talking about. People who are pro-Darwinists are allowed to regularly insult (think Dr. A, Cavediver, etc), make scientific claims without proof, make assertions without evidence, change the direction of discussions, and assert their self proclaimed superiority of knowledge at will, while behavior from anyone who is not pro-Darwinian is attacked regularly for anything even resembling a hint of disrespect or for even simply retaliating to a barrage of insults-many of them at the hands of the moderators themselves, with Percy being one of the worst culprits.
How many frank scientific discussions are on the front page of the all topics list now? Any? And of the very few that even resemble a scientific discussion (strewn in amongst the plethora of discussions from atheists questioning why the bible says this and God does that, as if they can know) how many are participated in by non-Darwinians? Do you think it is just a coincidence that they all have abandoned this site?
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. As to how I have seen you personally be involved in discussion and moderations, I don't have a big problem with it, but at the same time you do begin virtually all conversations with an aire of "Well, let me do you a favor of explaining the truth to you..." and then it becomes a prolonged battle on the part of the responders to unravel the reasons why something isn't necessarily the truth, while at the same time being hurled at mercilessly with tomatoes by 10 of your philosophical cohorts, and then Percy.
Not a very rewarding experience for most people obviously-and I have about as thick of skin as anyone who would ever post here, I can promise you that. I frankly consider my unjust and petty suspensions I have received here as a Badge of Honor I am proud to receive (although admittedly not very difficult to be rewarded with if one is a non-Darwinian -as the stats clearly show) for sticking around just long enough to give Percy back a piece of my own mind before he covers his ears once again.

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 41 by Blue Jay, posted 06-29-2010 1:03 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 43 by Modulous, posted 06-29-2010 5:41 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 44 by Larni, posted 06-29-2010 6:58 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 51 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-29-2010 10:52 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 40 of 424 (566983)
06-29-2010 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by New Cat's Eye
06-28-2010 9:13 PM


CS writes:
You really really think that NJ really thought that Berberry was a rapist? And that he was not musing about moral relativism?
At the time, I tried to read NJ's comments in different ways. Taken in context of individual posts that he made this comment in, then yes one could argue that he was only musing about moral relativism. But since he kept bringing it up and kept asking what the moral difference was between homosexuality and rape, I really saw no other interpretation except that he was baiting.
We're not idiots. I know the moral difference between homosexuality and rape. You know the moral difference between homosexuality and rape. And I'm pretty darn shure NJ knew the moral difference between homosexuality and rape. Yet, he kept bringing this very topic up and asked the same question across half a dozen thread. The only interpretation that made sense for his behavior was either baiting or snide.
Without looking up the threads themselves, I even remember the first time berberry lost patience. NJ made the usual "if we allow homosexuals to get married, then what's to prevent people from marrying kids and dogs?" argument. Berberry replied with "we're not kids or dogs, you twit" or some other name calling. Berberry got a warning for that. So, apparently, it was ok to compare berberry to kids and dogs with a thin veil of moral relativism, it was not ok to call NJ a twit or some other name.
After that saw NJ's explanation that he was talking about moral relativism rather than comparing gay people to dogs, I stood back and watched. Then NJ went ahead and made the same comparason in half a dozen other threads in the name of moral relativism. It became apparent pretty fast that he was either making thinly veiled snide comments or he was baiting.
Take it how you will.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-28-2010 9:13 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-29-2010 10:01 AM Taz has replied
 Message 52 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-29-2010 11:51 AM Taz has replied
 Message 56 by Huntard, posted 06-29-2010 12:30 PM Taz has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 41 of 424 (566984)
06-29-2010 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Bolder-dash
06-28-2010 11:30 PM


Re: Are you joking still?
Hi, Bolder-dash.
Bolder-dash writes:
...why is there not one single person who doesn't believe in Darwinism who is assigned to be a moderator?
Did you miss the thread announcing Slevesque as a moderator?
New Moderator: AdminSlev
Edited by Bluejay, : dBCode mistake
Edited by Bluejay, : What's going on with the dBCodes?

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

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


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


(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

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


(1)
Message 44 of 424 (566998)
06-29-2010 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Bolder-dash
06-28-2010 11:30 PM


Re: Are you joking still?
There is no way under any God's green earth that you can say that people who do not share Percy's (or your) ideas about science or philosophy get equal treatment to those that do. Absolutely no way.
Completely correct.
Creos get away with post after post with no evidence and merely assertion after assertion.
Just look at the Buzzsaw Hypothesis threads.

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

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 424 (567012)
06-29-2010 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by crashfrog
06-28-2010 4:01 PM


I didn't open the thread. Modulous did.
Irrelevant, insofar as you still seem quite perturbed by all of the moderators and by what transpired over two years ago. I'd say that's a grudge, and so would most sensible people.
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.
I've browsed through some of your past threads yesterday, particularly on threads involving moderators bantering back and forth with you. The allusions I interpreted was a very cynical view of all moderators in general. That being the case, it gives the impression that you're not merely an impartial observer, but are suspicious of moderators before the fact, and your perception of them coveting power. So I don't know how accurate your testimony is since it is mired down in bias.
You give off the impression that you're still really pissed, and that all of it is the fault of the moderators. I read through a lot of the threads and concluded that they were generally even-handed in the matter. There were a lot of instigators who were acting completely unreasonably. Did that fact escape your attention? Did you miss the hysterical fits displayed by Berberry?

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 2:30 PM Hyroglyphx 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