Did Mod cause the collapse of evcforum?

Hi ICANT. Boy, I didn't anticipate the response this thread received! The answer as to why I proposed this thread is in the OP

quote:

---

I bring this here because Rrhain repeatedly brought it up - and I repeatedly demurred answering him, requesting he take it elsewhere. His continued, so clearly he has a bee in his bonnet. No doubt, if it is ignored - he'll bring it up again in few years and I'd rather it was put to rest. So, to give it a decent burial, we must first exhume the rotting corpse.

---

I just want to try and straighten things out with Rrhain, and in this was the only avenue Rrhain would accept (he did not seem to want to do it by PM, my stated preference). But - if Crash has any chance of coming back as a regular (and I hope he does), it was good to talk to him about it too.

I had actually thought that was very likely the case (because I knew NJ's original email address). I didn't want to say anything in case I was wrong and it caused you to incorrectly inherit the crap.I checked the IPs - saw no match and decided to watch. You do realize you've broken the forum rules, yes?

Yes, yes I do. And if you the hammer of God needs to strike down on me, I will accept whatever fate is given. Just bear in mind that I didn't have to reveal myself.

I think an exception can be made given the circumstances. Though Percy might want to talk to you about merging the accounts or something.

Likewise, Oni asked me how I knew so much about EvC's past. I can't quite remember what I said, but they were big hints to anyone paying attention.

Yeah - I caught that but...

Along the way I have left several hints. For instance, when Crash came back a few months ago to explain his absence, I left an image of the same artist who rendered the drawing of my former Admin avatar.

...I totally missed that one - I'd like to see it. Message 21 was excellent

---

It sounds a bit odd but are 'congratulations' in order for the murder of NJ? If I had one real question it would be simply to ask how the evolution of your beliefs changed over time since we last saw NJ.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

After crapping all over your otherwise interesting Gender/Humour thread - I guess I owe you an apology anyway.However your question:

quote:

---

Did NJ relentlessly pursue a point with a gay member on a controversial topic in language that the member in question clearly found deeply offensive?

---

can be answered I think. I just looked through all the gay threads from the era that NJ and Berb co-existed. I may have missed some since topics may not have been reflected by their titles. Here is what I found Oh my God, I'm an Atheist !! Berberry responded to NJ, and NJ did not respond. Jerry Falwell dead. Berb responded to NJ Immorality of Homosexuality NJ did not respond to Berb. Discrimination against homosexuals carried into the 21st century NJ did not respond to Berb Haggard thread #2 NJ did respond to Berb. There was an exchange, Berb started calling NJ names. NJ stopped responding. Haggard Scandal Berb responded to NJSo no - I don't think, based on that evidence, that NJ 'relentlessly' pursued berberry.

In answer to the more general question being asked - we have indefinitely suspended people for gay-baiting since that debacle: Message 9

quote:

---

You were requested to avoid gay topics because you're a gay-baiter/instigator. We took a vote a few weeks ago in the admin forum that came out 3-0 for permanent suspension for you, and I held off because it wasn't 4-0. Because you are again attempting to raise gay issues I'm suspending you indefinitely.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

Message 31Since when is "Modulous is a retarded monkey that's so retarded he'd fail the retarded monkey test.", defending a gay person? Sounds like he's attacking a bisexual one personally if you ask me. Homophobia isn't against the forum rules. Especially in topics dedicated to the morality of homosexuality or homosexual marriage. No - I kicked out Dan for calling me a retarded monkey that was so retarded I'd fail the retarded monkey test. He was allowed to make a dozen posts calling the moderators out. He even came back after his suspension and said some more.I don't have a problem with someone wanting to debate miscegenation, and they wouldn't be suspended simply for so doing. Calling people retarded monkeys that are so retarded they'd fail the retarded monkey test is not how we like to encourage expressing disagreement. I said, Dan hadn't explicitly broken the rules, but in my opinion he had - it was a thinly veiled reference to an earlier post of his. He then confirmed that he had broken the rules, making it explicit. And he got banned.I've said this several times already. I'm saying that it is evidence that it wasn't for criticising the moderators that Dan was suspended. Of course, had I done it at post 1 or post 13 - it'd all be evidence for Rrhain's conspiracy theory. Dan called me a retarded monkey that was so retarded it would fail the retarded monkey test and got suspended for that and not being on topic and ignoring moderator requests. I know you want to really believe he was a martyr to the Great Purge. Saint Dan or something, but really - he broke the rules. If I was a problem (after having done nothing) - then Dan should probably have followed crashfrog's methodology. It worked out for Crash. Directly insulting members of the board didn't work out for Dan.Feel free to rewrite history. It seems I was right though. You didn't post any evidence, you didn't put much of a civil argument forward. You just repeated yourself."More reasonable than thou" is not humility, Rrhain. It's the exact opposite. You post with a tone of absolute superiority - which I think is worse. I'll let others decide on such issues since neither of us is sufficiently detached. Apologies for thinking the worst of you there. It seems the message never got to me.

Hey - I did concede that consent wasn't a unifying principle Anyway - My thread from the time, A critique of moral relativism, is still open if anyone is interested in going back. The answer - I contend in the above thread, is 'descriptive' versus 'normative'. Descriptively I'm a relativist. Normatively, I'm a fallible absolutist. Hence why I can say rape is always 'wrong', while also observing that some cultures have felt non-consensual sex in some contexts is perfectly moral.

I'm just embarrassed he's showing off his bedroom attire in his avatar. Sideburns, for what it's worth, are excellent for 'motorcycling' shall we say.

Hi Crash. You've said this several times. You have not provided the evidence to support your belief. I suspect your own biases may be coming into play. Whatever the case, I assure you that I understand your position, and you don't need to find a new way to express it.But Crash, you gave some anecdotes about abuses of authority positions. Allow me to provide another anecdote, I won't find the specific case I'm thinking of - but there's plenty of TV shows that document similar cases.Two officers walking through town one Saturday night came upon a fight. They split the two offenders up and try and determine the cause of the fight. After ascertaining it was minor scuffle and both parties had calmed down the officers sent them on their way home - in separate directions. But one of the fighters suddenly took umbrage to police involvement and started swearing and getting aggressive. One officer said "Turn around, go home, or you'll be arrested under section 5 of the public order act", or something. But he became more louder and aggressive, and got arrested.Then Crash acts as the guy's defence lawyer and argues that his client was arrested for fighting (rather than a later public order offence).Just because someone criticises moderator action in one post, that does not mean they get immunity from being suspended for breaking forum rules later. It's a classic tactic on internet forums: criticise the owner/moderators. When the criticism isn't adopted, apologies doled out whatever, the critic restates their criticism in a more angry tone, escalating until they are suspended/banned and then a claim of being suspended for criticising the moderators is espoused.You've already accepted that Dan broke the rules, but in this post you argue that in spite of that - it was unprecedented to be suspended for such a minor infraction: I did not suspend Dan because his words upset me.But your claim of "never in the annals of EvC" is a trivially easy thing to check. I mean clearly - it would be unlikely for someone to be suspended for saying the exact same things that Dan said - but the reasons for suspensions are publicly available.Have you developed an allergy to evidence?So, let's take a look through those annals: Message 184 CK suspended for 24h for posting

quote:

---

ah so you are full of shit as people suggested.
Well no need to lurk on this thread any longer - you've got nothing.

---

Message 70 RAZD and contracycle suspended for 24h for posting a 'thread reopen request in the wrong thread. Message 100 earned PecosGeorge 24h Message 82 Eta Carinae 24hours for posting "ID=Creationism=Bullshit." Message 300 resulted in 24 hours for Percy. Message 90 CK gets 48 hours for

quote:

---

Wow - the rage combined with the hair shirt must really itch. I can't for the life of me see why you keep coming back. Is it like an S&M thing? you whack one off to the threads?
I'm truely baffled what your actual purpose is here.

---

Message 81 Jerry Don Bauer gets 24h for

quote:

---

Then I demand you stop trolling me idiot! Do not post to me further if you are going to get pissed at my responses to you. You are obviously abusing your position as a moderator as you want to interchange ideas and if you don't like my responses to them, then bye bye baby. LOL

---

Message 70 is deemed worthy of 24 hours suspension for edge:

quote:

---

You are a troll, PH. Nobody is this stupid.

---

For fun, Message 222, Rrhain is suspended indefinitely for not following moderator instructions in a general discussion of moderator therads:

quote:

---

So, to Rrhain and anyone else involved in the posting of so many words and messages about this whole affair - DROP IT; LEAVE IT BEHIND.

---

Message 112 where hitchy gets 24 hrs for

quote:

---

You follow the principles of St. Augustine when he advocated the suppression of truth that is contradictory to the faith. In other words, you lie in order to get people to support your subjective "truth". Hmm, I smell hypocrisy!

​

Don't worry, I am having a good day! Smiles all around. I hope you have a good day as well. Or, barring that, make up a good day for yourself. You seem to be good at making things up

---

Message 12 contracycle gets suspended for talking in a disrespectful manner to Percy and having an 'attitude'. Rrhain responds with a classic "Realizing that this will get me suspended...." criticism in Message 30 and Percy replies with a familiar "Lol! You'll have to do better than that to get suspended." Message 276 is enough for 24h against roxrkool:

quote:

---

You are a joke. An absolute joke.
I gotta hand it to you, you may not know squat about the sciences of geology, chemistry, biology, or physics, but you are most assuredly an expert in the science of shit-flinging.

​

When you fail to convince anyone with your tripe arguments, you start running away. Well run, chickie, it's that time again.

---

Message 213: Crashfrog got suspended for a few posts, including such things as,

quote:

---

Hey, if someone like you tries on the shoe of an arrogant, baboon-faced, smelly, sycophantic, drooling mouth-breather and finds that it fits, what can I say?

---

Message 220 NosyNed gets suspended for 48 hours after criticising Randman the person, rather than the content of his posts. Message 236 brenna 24h:

quote:

---

thanks for the vote of confidence asshole.

---

Message 75Evopeach suspended for 24h for saying "What an idiot" and a few other less direct insults such as "there is no hope for your intellect" Message 203 Nuggin For the title "From Stupid to completely Retarded" in reference to a specific member. Message 105 Ray gets 3 days for "You are unread and completely ignorant."So, no - I don't think suspending someone for calling another member a retarded monkey that is too retarded to pass a retarded monkey test is all that unprecedented.Having read through all that (or just skimmed it), I'll save you the trouble of constructing a response. Your confirmation bias will see this as evidence of the capricious unfair cruelty of the moderators that is endemic and since that was your central thesis you have been vindicated after all!If so, and that's what you call capriciousness et al, then you are entitled to believe so. But as you say:

quote:

---

I'm sorry, Mod, if you chafe under the constant assumption of bad faith in your administrative duties. But that's what comes with authority. The constant assumption of bad faith is the only reasonable stance in regards to authority, because regardless of the level of power - forum administrator to elite law enforcement - all of the incentives run precisely the opposite of acting in good faith.

---

I will endeavour to ignore your criticisms, as I would anyone else that admits they are deliberately interpreting my actions in the worst possible way. I will continue to reap the incentives of receiving angry emails from barely coherent creationists, and public accusations of lying for having the audacity to suspend someone from posting to an internet forum for less time than this thread has been open after they seemed intent on getting themselves suspended one way or another.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

So you have said already. And Dan had only the purest motives at heart right? People who are not moderators never break forum rules during moderator criticisms and then hope people so inclined will interpret moderator reactions as evidence that moderators are silencing criticism. If that had been the criticism levelled at the time - I would have agreed. Moderators should exercise caution under those circumstances. I would point out that I was cautious: I expressed I would not suspend Dan for calling me a retarded monkey that was so retarded he'd fail the retard test on the grounds that
a) he was going to drop the subject
b) it was only an implied insult.
And made it conditional that were he to continue he'd have adopt a civil tone or he would be suspended.Sure - I could have gone through the process of asking another moderator to make the call, as I have done in the past. But there is a system in place to correct for that - other moderators who can countermand an unfair suspension. And there was ample motivation to do it - imagine the praise any moderator that unsuspended Dan would have received! I appreciate that for someone such as yourself you can fall back to circling the wagons as a reason no reprise for Dan came. I wasn't responding to the claim you made in this message, I was responding a claim you made in Message 302.

quote:

---

After all, never in the annals of EvC had telling someone how to eat a banana risen to the level of meriting a suspension. Berberry was repeatedly accused of "oversensitivity" but nobody seems to have a comment on Modulous's oversensitivity. And what is it but oversensitivity to react so strongly to being told how to eat a banana? Or even to being called a "retarded monkey", which on the Triumph-Black Scale of Comedic Insult is about 1.21 mili-Mahers?

---

And I never said it was about retarded monkeys until after you did. You were the one that said that in Message 34:

quote:

---

For some reason, when Dan implied you were a retarded monkey..

---

I have never said it was about retarded monkeys before, and was just using your understanding of Dan's disrespectful comments that you entered into discussion. You presumably inferred that because he mentioned 'the test' - and there was only one test that might have anything to do with bananas he had previously mentioned.Even if Dan had not said anything about the retarded monkey test it was clearly indicating that I needed instruction on peeling bananas which is itself disrespectful. Dan confirmed it was. He was suspended after he admitted to breaking the forum rules to a moderator. Kind of like admitting to breaking the law to a police officer might get you arrested."Looks like you are trying to break into that house, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt if you come down here.""No, officer - I am breaking into this house and I'm not coming down.""You're nicked."Now granted - it would be perfectly fine for someone to suggest that a personal grudge between the particular criminal and the police officer might mean the police officer would lie about what the criminal said and did. But on these forums - the words are preserved. Ultimately - unless you dispute he broke the rules, it fails as a dispute. The fact is he did break the rules, you can question my motivations for wanting to suspend him - but he did break the rules, and did so under warning of suspension. He was either terminally stupid, or he wanted to be suspended as a martyr.As I said - and I appreciate you won't believe me as per your stated policy - Dan didn't upset me, offend me, make me cry or feel embarrassed with his cutting wit. He just became uncivil, went off topic and ignored moderator requests and so I acted on that. I agree.It was the unreasonable criticism I was going to ignore. The ones that come from people that are determined to assume all authority is always acting with the worst possible motivations as a means of defending themselves against having their compliance exploited.I don't have a problem with "That looks bad.", or "That could be seen as abuse of privelages." And as a moderator, I understand the need to bend over backwards to avoid bias and maintain impartiality. But if another moderator had suspended Dan - by your own principles you would be forced to have interpreted that as 'circling the wagons' syndrome. That's the nature of your unfalsifiable position.

The moderator team. If he was driven by a motivation to prove the moderators were evil, and was going to stoop to disrespect in order to do that - that's a problem. It's not difficult to criticise moderators without disrespect, keeping it on topic (about procedures, not people) and while following moderator requests to keep the tone civil. You managed to do it within acceptable limits. At least keep the goalposts fixed down, moving them around all the time is just not cricket old chap. The criticism I was talking about was 'moderators should exercise extreme reticence to take action when they're the target of a rules infraction.' Your quote was about moderators having unwritten rules of ignoring civil requests, and that members will be suspended for raising good arguments against moderators.Did you raise the point that "moderators should exercise extreme reticence to take action when they're the target of a rules infraction" in that thread? There it is again - a perfectly reasonable point that moderators shouldn't act on offences against them. That was the one I didn't see raised at the time.But you would have interpreted other moderators acting here as circling the wagons - by your own admission...so I fail to see how it could have increased your confidence in the moderators. It was a post in which Berb insulted me (insufferable nitwit! etc) that seemed to inspire Percy to suspend him...but that act of impartiality didn't raise confidence in moderator actions did it?I did my job with regards to NJ. I read a crap load of his posts and didn't see an infraction. That they disagreed doesn't give Berb and Dan a free pass to break the rules. But you interpreted Dan's words as being more than 'advice on banana eating'. And Dan confirmed it was not just friendly advice on banana eating (and if it was, it would still have been off topic). You were the one that interpreted it as implying I was a retarded monkey. I'm fairly sure there were examples amongst that list that beat your interpretation of what Dan was saying.Anyway - you said "Hey, if someone like you tries on the shoe of an arrogant, baboon-faced, smelly, sycophantic, drooling mouth-breather and finds that it fits, what can I say?". It wasn't that you were calling EltonianJames "an arrogant, baboon-faced, smelly, sycophantic, drooling mouth-breather"...just that he fit the shoes of one. You still got suspended. Percy implied that Faith was stubborn and thought her critics were all idiots. He got suspended for it. I keep saying I wasn't insulted. I guess you are in 'la la la I won't believe an otherwise nice person who has been potentially corrupted by the power of being able to suspend people and edit their posts!" mode. As you agreed "Indeed I'm fairly certain that his words didn't upset you." so why are you now claiming that I was being sensitive? Which is it? Am I hypersensitive or are you fairly certain I'm not? I think "Yes -your judgement that I was breaking the forum rules is accurate" should suffice to settle the case as to whether or not a forum rule was broken. And I'm not denying anything. I was merely pointing out that it didn't need to be about retarded monkeys for it to be disrespectful.Given that it might possibly have been viewed as friendly advice on eating a banana by someone who was trying to be a pedantic asshole (such as you are being with this line of argument) - I didn't suspend Dan (You haven't explicitly broken the rules Dan) because as you say, he could have been just posting info on fruit eating. He didn't need to confirm it was in fact disrespectful. He didn't need to post an off topic post. He didn't need to continue posting with a crappy tone after being warned to keep it civil.He did do that. He got suspended for so doing. And your criticism was that he shouldn't have got suspended for criticising moderator's actions - not that I shouldn't have suspended someone who was directing a forum rule breach at me. It was my opinion that he wanted to be suspended, yes. But I wasn't going to suspend someone based on that, not really. That's why I cited 3 forum rule violations - at least one of which he admitted. If you dispute the other two let me know. You don't need to explain it again because I'm not stupid. But I keep explaining that saying "I know you'll suspend me for this" doesn't give you immunity from breaking the rules. Some people are often saying "I know you'll suspend me for this" and they don't get suspended. He wasn't suspended for saying that. After all - he said it and we didn't suspend him for the post in which he said it.Sometimes those people will continue to become less and less civil until they are suspended which then makes them feel vindicated because they 'predicted I'd be suspended for criticising the moderator'. You were one of those that said something along those same lines. Difference is - you didn't become particularly uncivil in so doing.Some people people use the tactic to try to avoid getting suspended too. If they post that, a moderator might be afraid to suspend someone where they might otherwise have done so without hesitation. "Come see the unfairness inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" And being suspended isn't just a penal thing. Well, when a person admits their criticism is unreasonable - it makes determining that a whole lot easier. At the time, I didn't realize your posts were stemming from the fact that you were of the position that you would simply believe the worst possible interpretation was true.That's unreasonable - because it cannot be reasoned with. Whatever is said against the criticisms is assumed to be a lie, wagon circling, authority bias etc etc etc. Well sure, we could simply have let members say and do what they like to whom. We could let the discussion of moderator procedures thread become the 'flame the moderators thread'. And Percy said back then

quote:

---

Back to suspensions. I think both you and Berberry have to ask what you want out of this process of discussion with moderators. If there's only one outcome acceptable to you, and if you post more and more strident messages each time your request isn't granted, then it isn't really a discussion. Put slightly differently, if you'll only relent when you get what you want, and if there's nothing moderators can do or say to get you consider other alternatives or perspectives, then there's no point to the discussion.

​

Before your suspension we'd about gotten to the point where I was already going to raise this issue. Are you posting to this thread merely to make clear your dissatisfaction with board moderation? If so, then once that message has been communicated there's no reason to continue. And if you're trying to make clear to moderators where they went wrong while learning more about the rationale behind moderator actions and working toward a common understanding and mutually agreeable solutions, as time went by and you posted more messages that seemed increasingly unlikely.

---

You thought one thing was 'the right thing'. The moderators disagreed. That's fine - post your criticism. We were fine with that. Which is why we let Dan post a dozen messages that were critical of moderator action. I didn't. I was addressing the reasonable criticism you did make - so I'd appreciate it if you responded in kind. You argued that another moderator should have stepped in. I suggested that if they had, and had they agreed with me and suspended Dan - it would not have changed your views on moderator impartiality at all. Nor anybody else who has chronic suspicion of anyone with a even a modicum of 'authority'.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

read Suspensions and Bannings Part III and let me know your analysis. Then examine member Faith. See how often she has been given second chances. Then randman. Then Ray Martinez...

Faith was extremely disruptive and was given a series of indefinite suspensions. Some lasting for months or longer. When she returned, things were OK for a while, but soon things would degrade into accusations of dishonesty, lying and other things that disrupt civil discussion. See Message 754. Percy could have simply indefinitely suspended her, but he came up with a compromise:

quote:

---

I'm asking Faith to find a partner who shares her views, and she and that partner can only advocate positions they both share. In this way I hope to avoid the constant protests of "That's not what I said, you're all misunderstanding me," and also to avoid the advocacy of positions that make no sense to anyone, creationists included, because when Faith gets her dander up she won't back away from any position, no matter how ridiculous.

---

She refused - Percy appreciated it was kind of an unreasonable request, but they discussed possible solutions and nothing worked. Can you find a forum which would be fairer? If you feel Dr. A or AzPaul are being problematic at any given time, you can take your concerns to Report discussion problems here: No.2. I can't remember either of them becoming so problematic that an indefinite suspension is merited - but Dr. A fairly regularly gets short suspensions which tends to serve as adequate reminders.We have, of late, allowed debate to take on a more 'rough and tumble' dynamic - with has its advantages and disadvantages. It certainly makes knowing where the line is more difficult.

And Dan was arguing against Percy. When I told him what that would imply (that I would have suspended him) he responded: 'see how easy that was?'. Hoist on his own petard, eh? Sounds like I did something right, after all. Without waving in the general direction of the thread again - could you provide an example of the reticence of moderators to discuss application of moderator philosophy? As you say a certain amount of that is required to keep debate going. But from my recollection it was Berberry that would respond to NJ saying things to other people. See my first post in that thread.The complaint against NJ was primarily that he was comparing gays to zoophiles and inferring they were equivalent, if we're now taking him at his word:

quote:

---

I have NEVER compared homosexuals (whom I have no objections too whatsoever these days, I'm pleased to report) to pedophiles, incest, polygamy, zoophiles, yada, yada. The evidence is all documented, and it seems that I have been vindicated by people who didn't like my former self.

---

quote:

---

But I meant then, as much as I do now, that I never hated them. That is the honest truth. And back then it was very much about my fascination for absolutes vs relativism.

---

quote:

---

If you feel that I was baiting Berb, then okay. While I realize that I was construed as offensive, I was not trying to intentionally hurt Berb personally. By the very nature of my moral stance with homosexuality at the time, it was inevitable that he, being a gay man, would be offended on some level.

​

The issue is whether or not I was equivocating homosexuals as being pedophiles or zoophiles. I wasn't. I think it is overwhelming that my arguments had more to do with moral relativism than it did with anything else.

---

quote:

---

I don't think {NJ} was "gay-bating," but even supposing he was, so what? Quite honestly if you were all too dumb not to take the bait, then he won that little social experiment, don't you think?

---

quote:

---

Maybe I wasn't trying to consciously "gay-bait" but was gay-baiting.

---

I kept asking for evidence of infractions - moderators might be chosen (correctly or otherwise) for certain qualities, but perfect omniscience and recall isn't one of them. I tend to avoid suspending people when the evidence is a little shaky. Exactly! Dan had an out. I gave it to him explicitly. He closed the door on it, not me. It was an indirect insult - although my opinion was that it was an insult I didn't moderate it. But Dan didn't want the out. He ruled it out. Good - I'm glad you have now dropped the charge that I was being 'hypersensitive'. Inane, crash. I didn't seriously think he was telling me how to eat a banana. I moderated on that interpretation, told Dan that my judgement call (the style of moderation he wanted) would have been to suspend him but that I wasn't going to as long as he continued with a civil tone and he responded uncivilly to confirm my interpretation was accurate and nothing more. But the charge isn't 'oversensitive' it's "suspending someone for not insulting you". Stick to one. I've explained it several times to you. Because he could use it to vindicate his belief that the moderators were capriciously suspending people. Also - suspensions aren't purely for punitive purposes...sometimes they are for others to observe and avoid the mistakes people made. Just as you apparently did.Anyway - I missed the part where Dan complained about it - could you give me a link? There is a difference between rational scepticism and radical scepticism. As I said: You could have simply posted:

quote:

---

I think Mod should not have suspended Dan given the fact that Dan's offence was during an argument with Mod. It looks questionable, and there's no way to be sure he wasn't just acting in anger or something worse...

---

Which would have been more reasonable than posting under the assumption that I was in fact acting with the worst possible intentions. How could you have missed that he wasn't calling for NJ to be suspended? During time of impasse, the moderators win - unfortunately. They are the arbiters. What compromises do you think went ignored?Edited by Modulous, : Was logged in as Admin Mod without realizing it.

This leads me to assume no further constructive discussion is possible with you. I'll leave our sometimes interesting discussion with Dan's own words:

quote:

---

It's worth noting that I haven't asked for NJ to be banned or suspended for making offensive remarks, nor suggested that he shouldn't be allowed to do so.

---

From Message 80Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.