Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did Mod cause the collapse of evcforum?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 424 (567079)
06-29-2010 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by crashfrog
06-29-2010 2:44 PM


We don't need to know NJ's intent. His intent is irrelevant. We observed that he was taking the --> action --> of comparing consensual homosexual relationships to rape and bestiality, suggesting that they were morally equivalent.
Nope. Totally wrong. You're arguing the person and not the position.
That action violates the forum guidelines and should be subject to censure
I don't think so. Someone who argued that nothing was morally wrong could put homosexuality and rape as morally equivalent without being disrespectful to anyone.
And you could very easily be misunderstanding what NJ was trying to say, thereby making his "action" something totally different than what you thought it was.
That's why, for you to not be arguing just the position, but to bring the person into it as well, is judging their intent and should be avoided.
Well, no. That's false. Berb was never insulted by what NJ was --> thinking --> , he was insulted by what NJ was --> saying. --> Just as I don't have to read your mind to know what --> you're --> saying, neither Berb nor anyone else had to read NJ's mind to know what he was saying.
Yes, you do. Simple lines of text can so easily be misunderstood that you have no place whatsoever to determine if what he typed should be considered as insulting as you are taking it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 2:44 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 3:26 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 77 of 424 (567080)
06-29-2010 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Hyroglyphx
06-29-2010 10:35 AM


Re: Offensive = suspension
Even supposing there was an equivocation, was it customary to suspend people for being offensive?
I don't know about now, where it's apparently acceptable at EvC forum to call your opponent a "child" and tell him to "grow a pair", but back then, yes, it was against the rules to make insulting, offensive imprecations against people. And look! Like a shriveled appendix, that rule survives in the forum guidelines, apparently as a disregarded atavism:
quote:
Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.
Quite frankly it boggles the mind how many overly-sensitive people were on the forum at that time.
Well, let's be perfectly honest. The reason that offensive ad hominem attacks were against the forum guidelines, back then, wasn't because forum participants were shrinking violets who needed to have their feelings protected from mean people on the internet.
It's because, back then, it was felt desirable that discussions remain on-topic, and take the form of (largely) dispassionate evaluation of evidence and response to argument. But when your opponent gets personal, that's frequently an excuse to avoid addressing his actual argument and start playing the game of "who can write the best insults".
I dunno, I thought it was a good rule, even though I ran headlong against it all the time. I'm dismayed to see it no longer in effect, apparently.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-29-2010 10:35 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-29-2010 3:35 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 78 of 424 (567082)
06-29-2010 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Blue Jay
06-29-2010 2:45 PM


NJ didn't direct any of his insults at Berberry or anybody else specifically.
I'm sorry but that's simply not the case. It was always very clear precisely to whom NJ was directing his comments. Frequently he was replying to Berb's posts.
If you want to get technical, after all, at no point did Dan say "Mod, you're a retarded monkey." He simply offered helpful advice on how to peel a banana.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Blue Jay, posted 06-29-2010 2:45 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Modulous, posted 06-29-2010 5:31 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 219 by Blue Jay, posted 06-30-2010 5:14 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 424 (567084)
06-29-2010 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by crashfrog
06-29-2010 2:19 PM


Maybe it was you?
That was your ultimate failure as a moderator, the failure of the entire moderation team, and as NJ's repeated gay-baiting spiraled out of control, Percy fired the moderators and suspended the complainers. Even though he knew that NJ was the central cause of the controversy.
As inconceivable as I'm sure it may seem to you, did you ever stop to think that perhaps it was you, and a handful of uber-sensitive souls, that was the central cause of the controversy?

"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 67 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 2:19 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 3:35 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 80 of 424 (567085)
06-29-2010 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Modulous
06-29-2010 2:49 PM


Be wrong, seems the most obvious answer - but you won't like that.
It's you being honest, for once, which I appreciate.
So, take it a step further. Is it good for the board when moderators persist in folly? (Here's a hint - according to subsequent events, no it was not.)
So in order to demonstrate that one party insulted another party Dan insulted a third party?
You weren't a third party. You were the "moderator party", the one who was having trouble accurately apprehending disrespect and therefore were having trouble executing your duties effectively. So Dan set up an experiment to see if you would recognize the same kind of disrespect when leveled at you.
Which you did! You even recognized that's what he was doing, asked him to confirm, and he did. You passed the test and displayed that you could accurately apprehend disrespect. It's just that you only cared about it when it was directed at you.
No - it wasn't.
Certainly Dan had reason to critique more aspects of your conduct, yes. Mostly because you kept dong and saying the wrong thing.
My own words repeatedly said the opposite
Yes, but I thought I was clear - you were either lying or engaged in false consciousness out of a desire to uphold "the thin blue line." (You never actually told me, and I'm curious - do they say that in the UK? Do your police have "the thin blue line" over there?)
I can only judge you by your actions, Mod.
So - do you think that increasing the perception of shit throwing was the correct reaction to the moderators alleged wagon circling?
If that's what I was doing, no, that would not have been the best reaction. But there was nothing about my posts that should have been perceived as "shit-throwing", and if hysterical moderators are in the throes of a delusion where they perceive restrained, constructive dialogue as a torrent of shit, I'm not sure what course of action to take except try to be more reasonable, more restrained, more constructive, and keep talking until they calm down.
Was I wrong? I don't see how I can be. Letting NJ run rampant ultimately resulted in The Great Purge. Percy says exactly that in the Purge thread. Were you guys going to take action against NJ until Dan, Rrhain, and I told you to take action? Did us telling you to do that convince you not to do it?
If that's the case, then I really do apologize. I thought the way to convince you to do the right thing was to convince you to do the right thing. If I'd known you were just about to figure it out, but then decided not to out of spite, I would have told everybody to shut the fuck up.
I actually gave some possible explanations in good faith and said 'who knows?'.
"Who knows" implies you don't know why you posted that. Generally people take actions they can't justify when they're acting emotionally.
Mod, I know why - I still know why - I posted every single message in that thread. Because I was engaged in deliberate, constructive dialogue. When you say "who knows?" what else am I supposed to derive from that but an admission than you weren't attempting to do the same?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Modulous, posted 06-29-2010 2:49 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-29-2010 3:16 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 104 by Modulous, posted 06-29-2010 5:27 PM crashfrog has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 424 (567086)
06-29-2010 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by crashfrog
06-29-2010 3:10 PM


You weren't a third party. You were the "moderator party", the one who was having trouble accurately apprehending disrespect and therefore were having trouble executing your duties effectively. So Dan set up an experiment to see if you would recognize the same kind of disrespect when leveled at you.
Which you did! You even recognized that's what he was doing, asked him to confirm, and he did. You passed the test and displayed that you could accurately apprehend disrespect. It's just that you only cared about it when it was directed at you.
Seeing someone admit they were being disrespectful is not the same as thinking you can read peoples' minds and accurately judge their intent to determine that an unobvious disrespect was in fact one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 3:10 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 82 of 424 (567087)
06-29-2010 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Blue Jay
06-29-2010 2:19 PM


The Beginning
Started in the previous moderation thread with Berberry's complaint (Message 284).
The thread in question: Oh my God, I'm an Atheist !!
Nem's post: Message 81
Berberry's response: Message 82

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Blue Jay, posted 06-29-2010 2:19 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Blue Jay, posted 06-30-2010 4:19 PM purpledawn has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 424 (567088)
06-29-2010 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Straggler
06-29-2010 2:32 PM


This is probably the most accurate depiction I've yet seen throughout this thread.

"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 70 by Straggler, posted 06-29-2010 2:32 PM Straggler has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 84 of 424 (567089)
06-29-2010 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by New Cat's Eye
06-29-2010 2:50 PM


You're arguing the person and not the position.
No, that's exactly backwards. We're objecting to the position, not the person. The position that gay relationships are the moral equivalent of rape is an offensive position that violated the forum guidelines.
Someone who argued that nothing was morally wrong could put homosexuality and rape as morally equivalent without being disrespectful to anyone.
No, to specify homosexual relationships and rape as being the same under a rubric of all actions being the same is still provocative and offensive. After all, if all actions are the same, morally, why be specific about rape and homosexuality? Why not, say, whisting and bank robbery? Or tying your shoelaces and genocide? Or cooking and murder?
Let me leave you with the words I originally said to NJ, because I think they apply to you, too:
quote:
At the very least, using trigger language like you did makes people respond to your language instead of your argument, so you should reconsider making such comparisons simply from a practical standpoint of not giving your opponents an excuse to avoid your points.
If I say something like "a nigger leaves a train station going south at 50 mph, and a spic leaves another station 50 miles south, going north at 30 mph, how fast are they going when they drive-by each other?" it doesn't really matter that I'm trying to make a point about algebra, not about race. I've been deliberately offensive and opponents, obviously, are going to ignore my much less interesting point and react to my bigotry. Why should I expect them to do any different?
I invite you to use other comparisons in the future, if only out of self-interest.
NJ never had any reply to this, and continued to gay-bait for months. I think that made his intent perfectly clear, but again - his intent was never relevant in the first place.
Simple lines of text can so easily be misunderstood that you have no place whatsoever to determine if what he typed should be considered as insulting as you are taking it.
Try to remember the history, though. Nj was repeatedly and politely informed that, regardless of his intent, his comparisons were insulting and he should discontinue them. But after being informed that they were insulting, he magnified them.
Regardless of the relevance of his intent, doesn't that make his intent pretty obvious? If somebody pokes you, and you tell them "oh, ouch, that actually hurts, could you please stop?" and they say "oh, that hurts, does it?" and you say "yes, it does!" and in response they dig in even harder, isn't their intent pretty clear?
NJ wasn't jumped on the first time he made the comparison. It's not like he just blundered into it, accidentally, and Berb exploded at him. He was repeatedly told that people were insulted by the comparison, at decreasing levels of circumspection and tact, and then after a few weeks of it moderator attention was requested, and then the moderators acted like they'd never seen him do it at all. After a week of non-stop gaybaiting directed at Berb, that's when Berb blew up at NJ, NJ responded with a quip, Berb and NJ were suspended for a week, and Modulous shortened NJ's suspension to a day.
Like I said, even though we don't need to care about NJ's intent, his intent was quite obvious. But the Forum Guidelines weren't administered based on intent back then, they were administered on the basis of people's actual actions.
And independent of his intent, NJ's actions merited a suspension, and when his behavior was not interdicted it resulted in the crisis of confidence in moderation that ultimately led to out-of-control bickering, the firing of the moderators, and the permanent suspension of the most vocal critics.
You can say "no you're wrong" again, CS, and that's fair - I guess defending your arguments with evidence is something that simply isn't done around here anymore, either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-29-2010 2:50 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-29-2010 3:43 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 85 of 424 (567090)
06-29-2010 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Hyroglyphx
06-29-2010 3:02 PM


Re: Maybe it was you?
As inconceivable as I'm sure it may seem to you, did you ever stop to think that perhaps it was you, and a handful of uber-sensitive souls, that was the central cause of the controversy?
Hyro, go back and take a look at my posts in the thread, which you show no indication of ever having read. Here'sa convenient link. I first get involved in message 22 where I'm the one telling Berberry to chill the fuck out, and rethink his approach. Then I agree with Berberry that it doesn't look like the moderators are going to come down on NJ at all.
And then I literally said nothing until a hundred messages later, after Dan and Rrhain had been suspended for their objections. (Dan's suspension we've been arguing about, but I notice nobody has even tried to defend the suspension of Rrhain.) That's when I got involved, but when Percy asked us to drop the discussion, that's precisely what I did.
I voiced my objections, was never disrespectful, and followed all moderator requests. I never participated in GenDiscMod14 nor in "Changes at EvC Forum" at all.
So, yeah. I'm willing to consider the possibility that I was somehow "the central cause of the controversy", but what is your evidence that I was?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-29-2010 3:02 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 424 (567091)
06-29-2010 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by crashfrog
06-29-2010 2:53 PM


Re: Offensive = suspension
The reason that offensive ad hominem attacks were against the forum guidelines, back then, wasn't because forum participants were shrinking violets who needed to have their feelings protected from mean people on the internet.
Regardless, I still haven't seen one clear instance of Nem using ad hominem or equating gays to any number of taboo things. I am growing very skeptical, much like Bluejay, that anything described even exists.
Can anyone provide a link that would condemn Nemesis J? So far Modulous seems to be very convincingly vindicating him.

"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 77 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 2:53 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 3:49 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 87 of 424 (567092)
06-29-2010 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Straggler
06-29-2010 2:32 PM


But they are examples of the sort of thing that NJ was getting at. And are very valid questions.
And if NJ had ever given any indication that he actually wanted to talk about them, those valid questions might have begun an interesting debate.
But what did NJ actually do? He "raised those questions" in unrelated threads. He opened new threads to "raise those questions" and then never, ever responded to them in any way but to repeat them and re-assert that homosexual conduct was the moral equivalent of rape and bestiality.
If he'd just done it once, and then Berb had thrown a fit about it, your justification and the moderator actions of the time would have been reasonable.
But that's not what happened. NJ kept at it, with exactly the same language, long after he'd been informed that he was being insulting. He responded to the information that he was insulting people not by apologizing and promising to do better, or by trying to make the same argument about "moral relativism" using different examples - after all, you could use any two things as examples in that argument - but by being even more direct about how he thought homosexual conduct was exactly the same as rape and bestiality.
Reasonable people, at that point, have to conclude that this is no longer an inept attempt at moral philosophy but an offensive vendetta.
If he'd just done it once, it wouldn't have resulted in anything at all. NJ did it for months after he'd been informed it was insulting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Straggler, posted 06-29-2010 2:32 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Straggler, posted 06-29-2010 4:47 PM crashfrog has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 424 (567093)
06-29-2010 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by crashfrog
06-29-2010 3:26 PM


No, that's exactly backwards. We're objecting to the position, not the person.
In order for the arguments to hold any water, you have to be objecting to more than the position. Otherwise, you can't say what he was really doing as opposed to simply what the words he submitted were.
The position that gay relationships are the moral equivalent of rape is an offensive position that violated the forum guidelines.
And I disagree. Firstly, because I don't think he was saying that gay relationships are the moral equivalent of rape, and secondly, because I don't think it necessarily violates the forum guidelines.
No, to --> specify --> homosexual relationships and rape as being the same under a rubric of --> all --> actions being the same is --> still --> provocative and offensive. After all, if --> all --> actions are the same, morally, why be specific about rape and homosexuality? Why not, say, whisting and bank robbery? Or tying your shoelaces and genocide? Or cooking and murder?
It doesn't have to be. And that's why you simply argue the position. It doesn't matter what the examples are to make the point. That someone would find offense at those is unwarranted, especially in this medium. Otherwise, we'd all be tiptoeing around because somebody somewhere can probably take offense to anything that anybody says.
And then I could be crying about why you picked cooking as a random example, because I like to cook and now I'm all insulted and offended No, that's not how it should be.
Let me leave you with the words I originally said to NJ, because I think they apply to you, too:
I think that's good advice. But too, people are not supposed to be responding to the language instead of the argument. So the thing you're objecting to as a consequence shouldn't be a consequence in the first place.
Try to remember the history, though.
Why? The intent is irrelevant. Look at the position and not the person.
Regardless of the relevance of his intent, doesn't that make his intent pretty obvious? If somebody pokes you, and you tell them "oh, ouch, that actually hurts, could you please stop?" and they say "oh, that hurts, does it?" and you say "yes, it does!" and in response they --> dig in even harder --> , isn't their intent pretty clear?
The analogy would be better if you weren't even touching them at all and they still said it hurt them.
NJ wasn't jumped on the first time he made the comparison. It's not like he just blundered into it, accidentally, and Berb exploded at him. He was repeatedly told that people were insulted by the comparison,
And they shouldn't have been. Besides, the insult only comes off if you're looking at the person instead of the position.
Like I said, even though we don't need to care about NJ's intent, his intent was quite obvious. But the Forum Guidelines weren't administered based on intent back then, they were administered on the basis of people's actual actions.
And independent of his intent, NJ's --> actions --> merited a suspension,
I don't think they did. He wasn't calling homos rapists nor saying they were morally equivalent and the offense was unwarranted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 3:26 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 3:59 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 89 of 424 (567094)
06-29-2010 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Hyroglyphx
06-29-2010 3:35 PM


Re: Offensive = suspension
Can anyone provide a link that would condemn Nemesis J?
Dan gave links to examples in that very thread which Modulous ignored.
Seriously, Hyro, these issues were amply documented at the time. I mean, you could just click Nemesis Juggernaut's name and see every post he ever wrote. Why don't you go read through those and see if you can finally arrive at the conclusion that everybody, including Percy, arrived at three years ago?
Just a thought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-29-2010 3:35 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-29-2010 3:54 PM crashfrog has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 424 (567095)
06-29-2010 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by crashfrog
06-29-2010 3:49 PM


Re: Offensive = suspension
Dan gave links to examples in that very thread which Modulous ignored.
Seriously, Hyro, these issues were amply documented at the time. I mean, you could just click Nemesis Juggernaut's name and see every post he ever wrote. Why don't you go read through those and see if you can finally arrive at the conclusion that everybody, including Percy, arrived at three years ago?
Here's Percy's reply, Message 89:
quote:
In the case from a month ago, NJ appears to be arguing that if bestiality (I don't believe beastiality is an accepted variant, but maybe someone knows for sure) is judged acceptable, how does one know where to draw the line about anything else.
In the case from a week ago, he appears to be assigning to others the view that it's not possible to reject as wrong acts to which we have not been subjected ourselves.
I can't see how these are the same thing. Can you find a case where he repeatedly ignores the same rebuttal of the same point? Sort of like Randman used to do with Haeckel's drawings?
He doesn't seem to be agreeing, and niether did he the last time you referred to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 3:49 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 4:05 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024