Did Mod cause the collapse of evcforum?

Modulous avoids the question:

quote:

---

I suspended one person for 72 hours. I've acknowledged it

---

What was it you said in the other thread? Oh, that's right:You aren't actually arguing in good faith.For crying out loud, Modulous. This isn't about you acknowledging that you banned Dan Carroll.It's about you acknowledging that you were *wrong* to have banned Dan.Answer the question, Modulous:Do you think n_j (Hyroglyphx) did anything wrong? He sock puppeted the board in order to post homophobic bullshit all over the board.Was that OK? Did he do anything wrong?

quote:

---

Even after emphatic directions to stop the discussion by the moderators - it continued and we faced a dilemma for how to deal with it. Ignoring it seemed to have no effect, suspending people made people martyrs.

---

So it never occurred to any of you to get rid of the person who started it? That someone who ALWAYS compared being gay to rapists, murderers, pedophiles, drug addicts, etc. and that this ALWAYS derailed the thread might not be the best person to keep around?What is it with supposed "adults" who can't seem to handle the idea of punishing the bully but instead get pissed at everybody else who has to deal with the bully? Somebody points out to you that you have an ass on your board and you get upset that they called him an "ass"?

quote:

---

Percy finally commented that the suspensions were in his opinion a mistake and removing privileges from the thread/forum the thread was in would have been a better solution - which I agreed with after one of the hardest facepalms of my life. At the time it was a function that wasn't discussed frequently and thus almost universally overlooked. After that thread, we began to deploy it more regularly. Lessons learned.

---

Nope.That wasn't the lesson you were to learn.It was to have paid attention to berberry and focused your moderator functions on the person causing the problem:n_j, AKA Hyroglyphx.Notice he's still here but berberry is the one that's banned.When someone points out to you that a homophobic bigot is spewing hatred all over your board, you don't drop the ban hammer down on the person who brought it to your attention simply because you didn't like his attitude.You drop it down on the bigot. Followed immediately by: And you don't see any contradiction in that? "I don't think you broke the rules, but I am going to suspend you for breaking the rules."

quote:

---

I believe Moose suspended you for continuing the discussion after receiving moderator direction to cease. In Message 111, 19-July-2007

---

Which we know was incorrect. After all, which message was I suspended for?Oh, that's right: Message 110. Now, I realize that I'm only a mathematician and thus I haven't studied simple arithmetic in over 40 years, but I am of the opinion that 110 < 111.I got suspended for a message that was posted BEFORE ADMINNEMOOSEUS MADE HIS DIRECTIVE.Can you understand that? This isn't the first time this has been pointed out to you. Is there a reason why you have such a problem remembering? I mean, I know you don't think anybody did anything wrong and that might be part of the reason why you're having such trouble, but try to get this through your head:I got suspended for violating a directive that hadn't been made yet.And that's just me. berberry got suspended for posts he hadn't made yet...just fantasies that Percy had regarding posts he thought berberry might make.All because none of you would deal with the root of the problem:nemesis_juggernaut, AKA Hyroglyphx.A homophobic bigot spews hatred all over the board, derailing EVERY thread that has to do with sexuality, and your response to is to kick off everybody who is pointing it out rather than the bigot.None of you have acknowledged this.
None of you have apologized for this.
Nothing has changed.

quote:

---

The whole affair was sorrowful, and I feel regret and sorrow for the way events played out.

---

That isn't an apology, Modulous. That you're sorry other people were hurt only means you're sorry you got caught, not about what you did.Are you sorry about what you did?Do you think n_j (Hyroglyphx) did anything wrong? He sock puppeted the board in order to post homophobic bullshit all over the board.Was that OK? Did he do anything wrong?

quote:

---

If there are any further things you'd like me to acknowledge, you are at leisure, as you have been for 8 years now, to post them to this thread where we can discuss them like adults.

---

That still, after over a decade, you still don't know what the problem is shows that no, you cannot discuss this like an adult because you have been told over and over and over again what the problem is:nemesis_juggernaut spewed homophobic bigotry over the board, and doing it as a sock puppet to boot.When it came to your attention, you shot the messenger. Do you acknowledge this error?When others pointed out that you shot the messenger, you shot those messengers. Do you acknowledge these other errors?When he admitted that he sock puppeted the board to engage in this monstrous behaviour, you let him stay. Do you acknowledge this error?And can you make a real apology for them? That the problem is not the "sorrow" that happened in the aftermath of your actions but rather that your actions were wrong in the first place, that they were wrong at every turn, that nobody is responsible for them other than yourselves, and that you understand just how detrimental your actions were?

quote:

---

I'm not sure how an act of contrition would work in a forum environment. Did you have something in mind?

---

At this point, it's very difficult. The first would be to ensure that it doesn't happen again. After all, Hyroglyphx has refrained from spewing his bigotry over the board. Some called for you to step down as a moderator since you seem to be incapable of responding rationally regarding this issue (both the instigating issue and the aftermath). Again, it's been so long that what good could come of it?You could unban berberry and Dan Carroll and all the other messengers that got shot. I have no delusions that they would ever come back, but it would serve as a symbol that you understand just how screwed up the reaction of the moderators was so that if they did decide they wanted to come back, they could.Some sort of statement regarding how bigotry will not be accepted on this board would help. I'm not calling for Hyroglyphx to be banned at this point. It's too late. But should that side of his personality rise again, should Faith decide that she should pick up where he left off, should someone else come along to do it, are you all willing to respond to the bigot rather than the people pointing it out?I used to run a board of my own. We had someone who decided to put out the "Jews are descendants of Satan" idea. Ban hammer happened immediately. There was no discussion. Reason? "Christian Identity anti-Semitism."Now, people got a bit upset over that stated reason: "You mean if I identify as a Christian, you're going to assume I'm anti-Semitic?" I then pointed out that no, it wasn't a person's identification as a Christian that did it but rather that there is a white supremacist group known as "Christian Identity" that is the source of this idea that Jews are descendants of Satan. Those who promulgate such nonsense are not welcome and will be banned without discussion.So if a person comes along and compares gay people to rapists, murderers, pedophiles, drug addicts, etc., they get the ban hammer. I'm OK with a suspension as a warning not to do it again followed by the ban hammer on the second strike, but that should be the standard. Thinking gay sex is icky, thinking that your god doesn't like gays, wishing that you could live in a theocracy where gay people would be criminalized, that's up for debate. But to directly compare gays to rapists, murderers, pedophiles, drug addicts, etc. as Hyroglyphx did under his sock puppet of nemesis_juggernaut? Buh-bye.

quote:

---

Dan should have been suspended

---

And that's why you still haven't learned your lesson.Someone points out that you have a guest taking a dump in the punch bowl. You ignore this and shoot the messenger. Someone else tries to point out that you just shot the messenger and there's still someone taking a dump in the punch bowl. You blow them off. They call you an ass hat for your incompetence and you think the problem is that they called you an ass hat?Modulous: Dan would never have "disrespected" you if you had simply done your job and dealt with the problem of nemesis_juggernaut.We're back to the question you refuse to answer:Do you think n_j (Hyroglyphx) did anything wrong? He sock puppeted the board in order to post homophobic bullshit all over the board.Was that OK? Did he do anything wrong?

quote:

---

I don't think NJs homophobia construed a problem in the context it was being discussed as I've said numerous times.

---

And that's why this will continue to be brought up.You don't understand what you did wrong. You don't understand why it was wrong. You're sorry about the destruction your actions caused but you are completely clueless as to how you are the one that caused it. You keep looking for other people to blame and never consider the possibility that the blame lies solely on you and the rest of the moderators. For crying out loud, Modulous, you quote berberry's direct statement regarding it: Hyroglyphx in his sock puppet of nemesis_juggernaut spews homophobia all over the board and the response of the moderators is to punish the person pointing it out? Percy agrees that n_j is being insulting, but it's berberry who is the hysteric?And you wonder why berberry said, "Fuck you"?That you think berberry was suspended for "getting increasingly pissy" is the reason why you are wrong.That you think you banned Dan Carroll for "disrespect" is why you are wrong.That you think I was banned because I "violated a directive" is why you are wrong.We all got banned because we told the moderators about the homophobia being spewed over the board by Hyroglyphx in his sock puppet form of nemesis_juggernaut and you didn't want to hear it.You're just inches away from doing it again, Modulous, aren't you? If I piss you off, you're going to say that it's because I'm "disrespecting" you or being "off topic" rather than confronting the root cause:Y'all fucked up big time. A bigot showed up and you sided with the bigot rather than the target. And as the noise from the crowd trying to get you to pay attention to the bigot got louder, y'all dug your heels in deeper and started complaining that they weren't being nice rather than paying attention to the bigot.Do you think n_j (Hyroglyphx) did anything wrong? He sock puppeted the board in order to post homophobic bullshit all over the board.Was that OK? Did he do anything wrong?Are you sorry for what you did? Not for the aftermath but rather because you recognize that you (and the other moderators) bear the sole responsibility for this? That everything you did was wrong?Edited by Rrhain, : Typos

what would you have him do? Crawl to you and grovel at your feet? It may well be true that the forum was wrong many years ago. people make mistakes. Some of us are racist. Some homophobic. And some are activists who feel that they must fight for some vague cause of honesty and acknowledgment. Perhaps someday the world will be free of all of its biases and favoritism. More likely though, noisy activists, even if correct, will be unpopular due to their public antics and overreactions. Its 8 years ago. Its simply a small internet forum where many are familiar with one another. Granted, some of us are too proud to admit our errors...or feel that allowing you to be right is not an option. Continue being an activist and fighting for God knows what slight you feel you or your group has suffered. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

I have acknowledged that I probably shouldn't have suspended Dan, but he did merit a suspension but that another should have been the one to do it. NJ didn't sock puppet. NJ was his main and only account at the time. The Hyro account was created some time later.Did NJ do something wrong? A broad statement. To the point however, he didn't break the forum rules - although later on he did, and was suspended for it. I didn't see NJ start something that was against the Forum rules. I asked for evidence and that which was presented it to me didn't persuade me that he had. I only saw NJ pointing out that atheist morality / moral relativism struggles with determining moral and immoral acts. I was fine with NJ being an ass, that's not against the forum rules - you'll be glad to hear.The only person I got 'pissed' at was Dan, who called me a retarded monkey for disagreeing with him over subject. There were plenty of people who managed to make their points surrounding their view of how NJ was to blame, without insulting people. I disagree that NJ was causing the problem. It seems unlikely you'll be able to do a better job today than people were doing then. So if that's what you want, you probably won't get it - but feel free to try. I didn't see any hatred being spewed. I don't see a contradiction in saying that Dan broke the rules in my opinion and that Dan was suspended for breaking the rules, no. I assume you misread that. The correct paraphrase would be "I think you broke the rules, but I'm going to ignore it as long as you stop posting or start posting in a more respectful and constructive manner." Had you not made the post after Moose had gave his directive, I'm confident you would not have been suspended. The reason then, that you got suspended was for the post you made after the directive. I not only remembered, but I referenced this fact twice in the post you are replying to here. Had you taken care in reading it you might have seen that. Here are those references:

quote:

---

you argued that your gripe was a separate issue

---

quote:

---

Your suspension was light, even if was in error.

---

To be clear, the directive is Message 111 - to drop the subthread over the whole homophobe thing. Then you posted Message 116, which really was part of the same subthread:

quote:

---

n_j directly and specifically insults gays

---

This post was made at 10:15 AM using my board clock. You were suspended at around 11:00 AM using the same clock: Message 216. The suspension message cites Message 116 as the reason for the suspension.Your argument at the time was:

quote:

---

Adminnemooseus seems to think that I was talking about the gripe between n_j and berberry. I wasn't. That was only incidental. Instead, I was talking about the way the admins have responded to it.

---

Thus, as I said in my previous message "you argued that your gripe was a separate issue" - but its a tenuous argument at best - but I did afford you the benefit of the doubt.The idea you were suspended for no reason, lacks merit. Being as charitable as possible you were suspended in error. I've made this point several times now but berberry was suspended for posts he had made, and to inhibit him from making further regrettable posts. Suspensions aren't only a punitive tool. It wasn't meant as an apology, Rrhain. You challenged me on whether or not I had expressed sorrow. I indicated I thought my tone was overall a sorrowful one, but then went on to express the sorrow explicitly. I didn't say I was sorry other people were hurt. I am sorry for not bringing in another Admin to make a decision about Dan.
I am sorry for posting way too many posts, treating it like a debate etc. It's not that I don't know what you think the problem is, it's that I disagree that it was a problem. He posted as NJ, his only account at the time. And although he expressed his homophobic opinions, I didn't see his comments as contravening the rules. I only suspended one person - long after the matter had come to my attention - for something quite different from bringing the matter to my attention. Even if we credit Dan as being the one that brought it to my attention - that doesn't give him the ability to break the rules himself with impunity. All I did was explain why I suspended Dan and why I didn't suspend NJ. Hardly shooting the messenger. He did not admit to any such thing.He told us that he had left EvCForum for a while, and during that time he had reflected and his views on religion and homosexuality alike had changed. He created a new account upon his return some months later.

quote:

---

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. There are a few reasons I did

​

1. When I was going to come back, my Nemmy account was closed.
2. I had changed, and in a sense, didn't Nem die when Hyro was born? I'm obviously the same person, but my views are very different now.

​

So now I must clear the air. I legitimately was away from the forum twice, each time for about 8 months at a time. What can I say, my philosophies have evolved, much to the pleasure of many I'm sure.

​

To be perfectly honest, the biggest reason I didn't say anything was not because I was afraid of what my former detractos would think of me, but for the sake of Buzsaw. And Buz, if you're out there watching, it's you I want to apologize to more than anyone.

---

Message 172Given the specific nature of the circumstances I didn't think it warranted punitive measures - though I did point out it was technically a breach of forum rules - and I deferred the decision to Percy who decided that merging the two accounts was the way forward. There is no absolute guarantee - but has it happened in the intervening eleven years? Have I done anything you find terribly egregious in that time as a moderator? I think changes in moderating principles, rules and protocols have been a significant factor as well as just generally learning from mistakes as individuals. I was fired during the Great Purge. In fact - my being fired was the first volley of shots during that time: Message 1:

quote:

---

Everyone's moderator status but my own has been removed,

---

I was reinstated a few months later. As I said in my previous post I have already unbanned berberry and Dan. Message 258. I didn't ban them in the first place, but as a gesture of good faith I have done so. The rest were bans that had nothing to do with anything I did - they were all Percy's decision (he was the only moderator during the Great Purge as noted above), or the decision of the individual members themselves. Take the rest up with Percy. Bigoted opinions can be argued here, although members should be cautious when doing so. You can put forward an argument as to why you think homosexuality is immoral or mixed-race marriages or whatever. However, EvCForum isn't a medium to host hateful rants and they won't be tolerated here. If someone were to do exactly as NJ did, I would not suspend that person. I wouldn't suspend someone for expressing their opinion that it was unacceptable. I didn't blow Dan off (fnar) - I explained to him why I didn't find his argument persuasive. I saw no dumping in the punch bowl by the guest, NJ. Dan tried to generate a number of arguments to show that NJs actions were punch bowl dumping. I didn't agree. So he called me an ass hat. That was certainly a problem. If you can't discuss things with a moderator without insulting them, then you don't get to continue discussing things for a little while. He came back later, of course..In Dan's case he went to a bouncer and issued his complaint. The bouncer said that whatever NJ was doing, wasn't worthy of him getting kicked out. So Dan insulted the bouncer. Try this in any establishment. See if insulting the security staff persuades them to do anything but either ignore you or kick you out. But NJ wasn't being a problem in my view. Dan disrespected me because he disagreed with my view. Sometimes you disagree with the moderator in a debate. Hurling insults at them is not the correct way to proceed. I've never refused to answer. Homophobia is a wrong stance, morally. Arguing from a homophobic position is not against the forum rules. Arguing that your opponents' moral system cannot determine what is moral sexually and what is not moral sexually is not against the forum rules. You are welcome to continue to try to persuade me. If berberry had merely pointed it out, he wouldn't have got suspended. He started attacking the moderators in a variety of ways and it seemed to be escalating in intensity.If NJ was directly insulting a specific member of the forum, that'd be a problem. Causing a specific member to be offended while you are discussing the morality of sexual activities (or anything else) is not against the rules. That theory is falsified by the fact that Dan did it repeatedly without getting suspended. Berberry said it repeatedly without getting suspended. You did it repeatedly without getting suspended. Dan got suspended after insulting a moderator for disagreeing. Berb was suspended after he accused the moderator team of bias due to their sexuality - and then when I pointed out my sexuality compared me with Larry Craig, then said 'fuck you', then insinuated he thought I was a dirty ape or a racist or something....You were suspended after the discussion had been going for a week and the direction to stop was given. Whether or not that was in error is irrelevant to the reason.Crashfrog did not get suspended.So no, I'm afraid the theory doesn't stand. You piss me off all the time Rrhain, why would you think am remotely interested in suspending you? In the eleven years since that incident - and several years before it, do you have any other examples of me suspending people for anything of this nature? You've cited one example of me handing out a 72 hour suspension once that you find disagreeable. You have another example of a time you think I should have suspended someone but didn't (but then, we had a rather large roll of moderators back then and I don't see you having hounded them over this particular bugbear). You do however, seem to have a habit of merging my actions and Percy and Moose's together, and blaming me for all the things you find they did wrong.How about this? Message 122I suspended someone for calling me a motherfucker. It was a little before all that kicked off - unacceptable? Or was modi's argument so crushing to my worldview that I suspended him out of malice?I will however ask for moderator adjudication the next time you decide to derail an unrelated thread with this nonsense. We sided with allowing discussion. Personally I'd rather homophobic arguments be publicly dismantled by competent people rather than censored. Loudness was not a good technique. We were all aware of NJ and we were paying attention. I was involved directly in some of the relevant debates with NJ. It wasn't that we were not aware and needed people to tell us, it was that we were aware and we didn't think it was a forum rule violation. All the repetition, the volume, the insults in the world won't change that. I have said what I feel responsible for, and have apologized accordingly.I am sorry I suspended Dan rather than having another Admin do it. I am not sorry Dan got suspended.
I am sorry for continuing to try to explain the reasoning, rather than closing off the discussion - bringing more heat than light in the process.
I am sorry for the occasional moments of being snarky.
I am not sorry for not suspending NJ.Dan was responsible for his own actions. He wanted us to make judgement calls, we told him that judgement calls can go the other way. He insulted a moderator. The moderator said that in his judgement that would merit a suspension - but that it would be overlooked under certain conditions. Dan broke those conditions, confirmed the judgement was correct and got a short suspension.Percy and Moose are responsible for their actions - take up any complaints you have with them.Berberry had the capability of expressing dissatisfaction and registering his complaint without splurging anger, casting aspersions etc.Other members did so without a problem.My expectations are that you will either ignore the key points I've made here and elsewhere in your response or find what I say insufficient. If you feel the repetition will be helpful or useful, you are free to continue. Either you lack the skill to persuade me that NJ should have been suspended, or NJ should not have been suspended. I don't see that state of affairs changing and I don't really see the point in going over things over and over again.But I am trying to accommodate you, I've given you my completely honest assessment of the situation. I've tried to acquiesce to as many of your requests as I find it is reasonable to do. I will continue to work through things with you as long as you want, spending many hours of my time to this discussion.In return, please make the effort to read what I'm saying in good faith, to remember what I've already said, to try and avoid this discussion being an endless loop saying the same things over and again. And if you can, try and adopt a tone more appropriate to working towards a mutual understanding - even if we don't anticipate complete agreement on all points.

Phat responds to me:

quote:

---

what would you have him do? Crawl to you and grovel at your feet?

---

That's a bit overkill but given the severity of the problem, it's in the ballpark.I've said repeatedly what needs to be done:1) Acknowledgement of the mistakes made. "I spoke too much" doesn't cut it. "I shouldn't have engaged after the announcement" doesn't cut it. "The siding with the homophobic bigot rather than the victim was the source of the problem and every decision made afterward continued that fundamental error" is a start.2) Apology regarding the actions taken. "I'm sorry you're upset" doesn't cut it. "I'm sorry the board got hurt" doesn't cut it. "My inability to take the problem of homophobia seriously, both in general and in the specific way it was wielded against one of the members of the board, is a major failing and I am sorry that I failed both the individuals who tried to point this out to me as well as the rest of the board."3) Action to prevent this from happening in the future. Multiple people have requested that the admins in question step down due to the blatant display of incompetence. If Percy had done that at the time, that might have been helpful...but then again, Percy was part of the problem. Still is, actually. So since that's off the table, and I'm not calling for it, some sort of statement that the actions of Hyroglyphx will never be tolerated here and will be handed swiftly.

quote:

---

It may well be true that the forum was wrong many years ago. people make mistakes.

---

Of course. That's why you acknowledge the error, apologize for it, and take action to prevent it from happening in the future. To deny the problem, to continue to ignore it every time it flares up again, to allow the passage of time to happen without doing the work of acknowledging, apologizing, and taking action doesn't make the problem go away.It exacerbates it.To this day, nobody seems to think Hyroglyphx did anything wrong. After all, he's still here while his victims were suspended and banned. They let a homophobic bigot sock puppet the board and spew his bigoted bullshit in every thread that dealt with sexuality, derailing it instantly, and specifically targeted a member of the board.And at every turn, the moderators SIDED WITH THE BIGOT.And when *you* were brought into this, Phat, you failed to step up. Minnemooseus banned me for violating a directive he hadn't made yet. This was then retconned into some sort of claim that I violated a directive *you* made, but you weren't wearing your admin hat. So where were *you* to correct the record? I'm giving you a pass in the mishandling of Hyroglyphx because you weren't that vocal in the maltreatment of berberry, but you were being used to justify Minnemooseus' treatment of me. Where were you?

quote:

---

Some of us are racist. Some homophobic. And some are activists who feel that they must fight for some vague cause of honesty and acknowledgment.

---

And yet we have administrators who were being called out by multiple members of the board regarding exceedingly specific homophobic actions and they still to this day can't seem to understand what happened and how they went wrong.Look at you, Phat. You're trying to pass off the hounding of berberry as a "vague cause of honesty and acknowledgement." Percy...the very founder of this board...called berberry an hysterical, menstruating woman. And yet here you are, dismissing this as if it were merely a side dish you hadn't ordered.And Modulous is upset that Dan Carroll called compared him to a "retarded monkey" for his complete incompetence in this regard? He has the unmitigated gall to think that the problem is his hurt feelings rather than a bigot sock puppeted the board to spew homophobic bullshit and bully one of the members of the board?This isn't "vague," Phat. This goes to the fundamental ability of the admins of this board to take things seriously. By refusing to act against Hyroglyphx, they sent the message that it's OK to attack members of the board for their sexuality. They sent the message that it's OK to attack members of the board for their sex. They sent the message that if you dare try to point out that someone on the board is bullying members, *you* will be the one who is punished for bringing it up.Yeah, "vague cause of honesty and acknowledgement."

quote:

---

Perhaps someday the world will be free of all of its biases and favoritism.

---

Oh, spare me the wailing and gnashing of teeth. Perhaps to put it in language you would understand:Get off that cross. We need the wood.You are not the martyr in this scenario, Phat. You're the problem.

quote:

---

More likely though, noisy activists, even if correct, will be unpopular due to their public antics and overreactions.

---

And that's why you're the problem, Phat.A homophobic bigot sock puppeted the board and spew his bigoted bullshit in every thread that dealt with sexuality, derailing it instantly, and specifically targeted a member of the board.And you're SIDING WITH THE BIGOT.

quote:

---

Its 8 years ago.

---

And nothing has changed.That's supposed to make it OK?

quote:

---

Its simply a small internet forum where many are familiar with one another.

---

Bigotry is OK if you know the bigot? Bullying is OK if you know the bully?Simple question, Phat:Did Hyroglyphx do anything wrong?Yes or no.

quote:

---

Continue being an activist and fighting for God knows what slight you feel you or your group has suffered.

---

And that's why you are part of the problem, Phat. You are precisely the person you rail against: Too proud to admit your error and feel that allowing me (both generally and specifically) to be right is not an option.Answer the question, Phat:Did Hyroglyphx do anything wrong?

Modulous responds to me:

quote:

---

Did NJ do something wrong? A broad statement. To the point however, he didn't break the forum rules - although later on he did, and was suspended for it.

---

And that's the problem, Modulous.The words you are looking for are:Yes. He was a homophobic bigot who derailed the board in general and attacked a board member in particular. When it was brought to our attention, he should have been suspended immediately, apologies made to berberry for having allowed it to continue as long as it did, and not allowed in the future.That you can't bring yourself to say that, that you think this is a "broad statement," that you have the gall to claim "he didn't break the forum rules," is the reason why this is still festering.You have no integrity and no intellectual honesty and you will be called out for those failings every single time.A homophobic bigot was spewing bullshit over the board, and you sided with the bigot, not the victim. You claim that this is somehow "We sided with allowing discussion" as if bigotry is "discussion." Despite the fact that every single thread had this bigotry thrown in by the same person and every single time, it derailed the thread and brought all discussion to a grinding halt, you seem to think that to do nothing was to "allow discussion."And you wonder why berberry said, "Fuck you"?Everything else is ancillary. That you don't think Hyroglyphx as nemesis_juggernaut did anything wrong is the source of the problem and until you fix that, it will never be resolved.A bigot came to the board and you sided with the bigot.

Well if he did attack a particular board member and he wasn't suspended for it, then I would certainly apologize for that oversight! I didn't however, see this attack, and when I asked, the only responses I got where of NJ NOT attacking a particular board member.If you think I overlooked an instance of NJ attacking a board member in particular I'd be happy to review it. Well whether or not an individual did 'something' wrong is a broad statement. NJ did do some things wrong, and where they were against forum rules he was either warned, suspended or not noticed.We've been over it before, but if you feel the need as I said above - please do point out where he broke the forum rules and I'll either apologize for not suspending him for it or I'll explain why I believe it didn't break the forum rules. I suggested you work on the tone a little, with a view to reaching a mutual understanding. You are free to ignore this of course, but do you think this confrontational style is actually going to help here? It seems to me, if I am the terrible person you make me out to be - aggressive attacks on my character would only serve to entrench my position as I become defensive.I would have thought adopting a friendlier attitude may cause me to lower my defenses and let slip something that categorically shows the world my terrible motivations, lack of integrity or whatever.But, I guess that isn't really your intent here is it? I wonder that your motivation here isn't to try and resolve this matter at all - but just vent at me. Well if that is indeed what you want I'm happy to oblige. Vent away. Because, you know, I'm a terrible person that way. I think the derailment was a function of people thinking NJ was spewing homophobic hatefilled bigotry and reacting to that, rather than reacting to what NJ was actually doing.Let's look at the climactic thread as an example. That thread was Gay marriage and the law. This is the thread that basically broke the camel's back and resulted in the Great Purge.The opening references an earlier thread that had been derailed - all it took was NJ saying he agreed with Ron Paul's stance on gay marriage to spark that off - a flurry of responses followed that. In this case Subbie opens regarding the law and rights etc.NJ responds with the following points

• Marriage is defined as a man and a woman
• Freedom is regulated by laws and a justice system
• Legalizing gay marriage would be a slippery slope to allowing further sins
• More people are saying they are bisexual - this seems to be socially driven as it is mostly young people
• On the one hand maybe we should not prohibit gay marriage, but on the other - relaxing our stance may lead to further taboos being questioned, and legitimized such as paedophilia

Pretty standard Christian talking points surrounding gay marriage and the law.He then replies to Schraf's response with some requests for support, expanding on his socialising/cultural argument and asking her if there are any repercussions to accepting homosexuality. Message 9Subbie gives a list of historical things which have been legitimate (Slavery, racism, sexism, religious persecution, etc) and argues that these are things that were put in place supposedly for societies benefits without considering the individuals. NJ replies with his own list ( incest, polygamy, prostitution, pedophilia, zoophilia, regulating drugs, regulating cigarettes and alcohol) and asks if the same principle applies. That sometimes an individual's desires has to take second place behind the good of society. Message 10Granny then said same-sex marriage has been legalized elsewhere without any inkling of anyone fighting for other taboos such as paedophilia in those countries. NJ responded that he believed that paedophilia is on the rise and that he regarded paedophilia as more abhorrent than homosexuality Message 13Your response to this was Message 127

quote:

---

Why is it you keep telling us about your fantasies of sex with children?....Why is it that the thought of having sex with someone of your own sex immediately makes you think of having sex with a child, NJ? Are you trying to tell us something?

---

Which was quite the derailment attempt. NJ didn't respond. Message 28 covers quite a few topics in his reply to Schraf. He argues homosexuality perverts God's natural order, that if homosexuality is an innate sexual trait and we should therefore tolerate it - what about other sexual practices such as paedophilia or rape - if they were innate dispositions should we tolerate them? That Christian's that single out homosexuality as a special kind of sin are wrong, that homosexuality is widely believed by cultures to be an problematic etc.In Message 30 he responds to subbie's point that this should be focussed on the law by saying that the law is the law there's not much else to say but to discuss why it is the law and why it should remain so. Message 45 he reiterates that the law is that homosexuals can't marry Message 47 Thomas Jefferson believed men should be free and equal but owned slaves. Message 53 not much here, a comment about Oscar Wilde presumably referencing a relationship with a younger person given the source is NAMBLA and a point that homosexuality was once illegal but it no longer is so arguing that child abuse is illegal now doesn't settle the matter. This would result in a minor derailment later on. Message 61 Homosexual marriage is not legal/illegal. It should be a matter for the states Message 73 the 14th Ammendment is very broad, NJ disagrees with DOMA. The only parity between homosexuality, rape and paedophilia is that they are sexual sins. He asks 'what basis is homosexuality a fundamental right, and yet, prohibit the others? On what basis? On what authority? Why is one intrinsically good, where the others are intrinsically bad? 'You reply to this by arguing if they are different, why bring them up if not equivocate then you say

quote:

---

what is it about thinking of sex with someone of your own sex makes you think of raping your infant son? Are you trying to tell us something?

---

Message 128 which is clearly antagonistic and likely to swing the debate wildly away from the topic. A clear derailment right there. NJ doesn't respond.This is what sparked the Great Purge, remember. Message 80 the law of several states proves how lawmakers view homosexuality Message 59 molbiogirl posts about paedophilia and nothing else -- a bit of a derailment. Message 85 NJ retorts on the same topic - continuing the derailment Message 119 is about the law Message 130 is about the Constitution, that ultimately it has a moral foundation and asking how the Constitution permits gay marriage Message 136 more about the intersection of morality and law, with the question "If homosexual marriage is a basic right, what arbitrates that? What basis do you have to allow this, but not to allow something like incest?" Message 139 continuing the morality/law discussion. The fact that we're talking about rights, NJ argues, pretty seals the deal that ethics is involved here. Homosexuals have (rightly) got equal protection, says NJ. Message 142 rights are intrinsically moral issues, but if you insist says NJ give me the legal, rather than moral basis for permitting one sexual sin rather than others Message 143 where is the line of demarcation when it comes to rights to marry? What is the legal objection to me marrying my sister? Message 145 States vs Federal stuff Message 150 But why is consent the big qualifier here? Message 150 Marriage is between a man and a woman. It means you can't marry fruit.You reply in Message 152

quote:

---

Unless and until you can explain why heterosexuality doesn't lead to you raping your infant son, then mixed-sex marriage remains equivalent to same-sex marriage.

---

quote:

---

Why does having sex with someone of your own sex make you think of raping your infant son while blowing the cat and then scooping out the leavings and pouring them into the intake manifold?

---

quote:

---

you keep on telling us about your fantasies of raping your infant son every time the question comes up.

---

Hidden in there are some reasonable points, but you are clearly spoiling for a fight here. Your comments seem designed to evoke a bad reaction - goading you might say. Message 155 NJ does respond to you. He asks again what makes gay marriage a right Message 157 NJ responds to a post of mine which put the discussion of consent into contract law terms. And then he stops discussion.Well I don't see NJ derailing the thread particularly there. I see your combative self. Your posts making it to the Moderation procedures thread that between you and Berberry particularly results in Percy beginning the Great Purge. Well you've failed to persuade me that NJ did anything wrong so I guess we'll remain at an impasse. He held pretty typical views from Christians who are against homosexual marriage - liberal by most of their standards. I certainly think it is valuable that those views be aired and discussed, dissected and show to be wrong. Much better than they go unchallenged - after all, the opinion of the country to gay marriage was shifting - and that was at least in part because the arguments were being shown to be problematic, prejudicial and so on. NJ put forward the best arguments I've seen in favour of that position. They were wrong, but they were much more reasonable, analytical and challenging than 99% of people trying to make similar points.The law takes a while to catch up most of the time, but a few years latear we formally won the argument and it was legalized - which is awesome.But those times leading up to that were tough times - lots of emotionally charged discussions all around the world and particularly in the USA. I don't give us all the credit, but I think we may have been influential in changing NJ's mind and it certainly gave me good practice when having similar debates in other venues where I hope I was also able to change a few minds. I wonder if suspending him for putting forward his views may have served to harden his, and any spectator's hearts? Cause people to wonder if our arguments had weight behind them if we had to silence them. I'm not saying that would be reasonable, but we're not talking about entirely reasonable people here.Nevertheless I think the debate was good to have, but it seems berberry had been worn down in the fight for rights and was sick of hearing people like NJ air their views. That's reasonable - there was a lot of awfulness out there at the time and today. Some people, such as yourself saw to take an aggressive stance against those views - which I can respect. However, when that spilled over into squabbling and personal attacks something had to be done.I don't agree with Percy's reaction entirely - but I can sympathize with him. He too was growing tired of a fight. The constant fight to keep the debates civil.Well, if you want to carry out, be my guest. Your last post is not as verbose as one might normally expect so I suspect you are losing the motivation. So if your steam has been vented and this is the end, I guess I'll see you in this thread in a few more years. Or more likely I'll be asking a moderator to reign in your offtopic derailment! Until then...

Modulous responds to me:

quote:

---

Well if he did attack a particular board member and he wasn't suspended for it, then I would certainly apologize for that oversight! I didn't however, see this attack, and when I asked, the only responses I got where of NJ NOT attacking a particular board member.

---

And that's why this will never heal, Modulous.A homophobic bigot spewed his bullshit all over the board, attacking a member of the board.And you sided with the bigot.I suggest you need to work on the tone a little with a view to reaching a mutual understanding. You are free to ignore this, of course, but do you think this retconning of reality is actually going to help here? It seems to me, if you are truly the rational one you claim to be, that the repeated explication of your failures by multiple people on the board would only serve to increase your shame.Instead, you get defensive.Let's take a look at your defense:

quote:

---

NJ responds with the following points

​

Marriage is defined as a man and a woman
Freedom is regulated by laws and a justice system
Legalizing gay marriage would be a slippery slope to allowing further sins
More people are saying they are bisexual - this seems to be socially driven as it is mostly young people
On the one hand maybe we should not prohibit gay marriage, but on the other - relaxing our stance may lead to further taboos being questioned, and legitimized such as paedophilia

---

(emphasis added)Boom. Right there. RIGHT THERE. That's the derailment. The suspension happens immediately, n_j is told in no uncertain terms that this homophobia will not be tolerated, and he is warned that if he tries to equate being gay to pedophilia ever again, he will be banned post haste with no further discussion. The post in question is deleted to prevent people from trying to continue the smear, and the board is reminded that homophobia will not be tolerated.But that didn't happen.Instead, you get pissed at *me* for turning his smear on gay people around on him: He's the one who brought up pedophilia. Nobody else was thinking of sex with children. And yet, he did. As history has shown in his other posts on the topic, every time he thinks about sex with another man, he immediately thinks about raping his infant son. Nobody else seems to be able to come up with any connection between being gay and rape, incest, or pedophilia, certainly not in any way such that being gay would lead to it while being straight would not, but he keeps making this connection.Because it's homophobia, pure and simple. There is no "discussion" to be had. The very point of equating gays to pedophiles is to smear gays and prevent any discussion about the rights of gay people.As I said back then: If my statements about n_j are beyond the pale, then n_j's statements are as well. They go together. They cannot be separated. To be offended by my statements necessarily requires offense at his.But, you sided with the bigot. Instead of nipping the problem in the bud, you punished the one who pointed it out and kept the bigot.Because hey! Lookie here:

quote:

---

what about other sexual practices such as paedophilia or rape

---

Boom. Right there. RIGHT THERE. Strike two. n_j is now gone. He's not only compared being gay to pedophilia, he's added rape into the mix. It's homophobia, pure and simple. There is no "discussion" to be had. The very point of equating gays to rapists is to smear gays and prevent any discussion about the rights of gay people.But, you sided with the bigot. Instead of nipping the problem in the bud, you punished the one who pointed it out and kept the bigot.

quote:

---

not much here, a comment about Oscar Wilde presumably referencing a relationship with a younger person given the source is NAMBLA

---

Boom. Right there. RIGHT THERE. Strike three. NAMBLA is tantamount to blood libel. n_j should have been removed at least one post ago. He's now saying there is an organized cabal of gays seeking to rape children. It's homophobia, pure and simple. There is no "discussion" to be had. The very point of equating gays to rape gangs is to smear gays and prevent any discussion about the rights of gay people.But, you sided with the bigot. Instead of nipping the problem in the bud, you punished the one who pointed it out and kept the bigot.

quote:

---

molbiogirl posts about paedophilia and nothing else -- a bit of a derailment.

---

I'd say something about the mental capacities of certain simians, but you'd ban me for it. Are you really saying that someone correcting the homophobic smear about gays and pedophilia by pointing out that the overwhelming majority of pedophiles are straight is a "derailment"? Why on earth are we even talking about pedophilia in the first place? Who is the one who brought up pedophilia? Are you honestly claiming that molbiogirl was the one derailing the thread by pointing out that n_j's comparison of gays to pedophiles was bullshit? The correct information is "derailment" but the smearing is not?As I stated numerous times, Modulous: If you cannot explain why heterosexuality doesn't lead to raping your infant daughter while homosexuality leads to raping your infant son, then you aren't bringing up pedophilia as a legitimate question. It's specifically to smear gays. Because that's the answer to n_j's JAQ-off: We can keep our taboos regarding age, relationship, and consent with regard to same-sex relations the same way we keep them with regard to mixed-sex relations.So once again, you're punishing the person pointing out the homophobic bigot and siding with the bigot. Right here, right now, you're siding with the homophobic bigot.Instead, you should be desperately trying to correct your post and say that you understand that n_j shouldn't have been allowed to get this far, that you're ashamed you didn't understand molbiogirl's post, and start trying to explain how you're going to never let this happen again.

quote:

---

Hidden in there are some reasonable points, but you are clearly spoiling for a fight here. Your comments seem designed to evoke a bad reaction - goading you might say.

---

Right, because there is a "reasonable point" in comparing gays to pedophiles, murderers, rapists, and drug addicts. Because he wasn't trolling. Are you kidding? His comments were specifically designed to "evoke a bad reaction - goading, you might say."And you sided with him. A homophobic bigot spews his bullshit all over the board.And you sided with the bigot.

quote:

---

Well I don't see NJ derailing the thread particularly there.

---

And that's why you fail. The moment he brought up pedophilia, he derailed the thread. He should have been suspended immediately for at least a week with a statement that this sort of homophobic libel will not be tolerated and the moment he tried it again, permanent expulsion.

quote:

---

I see your combative self.

---

And you should have been right there with me. For you to side with the bigot only shows your own opinion on the matter.

quote:

---

Your posts making it to the Moderation procedures thread that between you and Berberry particularly results in Percy beginning the Great Purge.

---

Because a homophobic bigot spewed his bullshit over the board.And you all sided with the bigot.The victim was banned and the bigot was allowed to stay.And you have the gall to claim that you were stripped of your admin rights because of your actions? No, you were stripped because Percy threw a fit. Rather than turning to the moderators and saying, "This homophobic bullshit needs to stripped from the board. If you cannot bring yourself to stop it, you will no longer be an admin on the board."Instead, a few months later, he put you back into power.And here you are, still unable to comprehend that you made the wrong decision at every turn.A homophobic bigot spewed his bullshit over the board.And you sided with the bigot.

quote:

---

He too was growing tired of a fight. The constant fight to keep the debates civil.

---

And despite repeated requests by the board for you to dump the bigot, you decided to ban the victims.It was trivially simple: The moment n_j brought up pedophilia, suspension with a warning that if he did it again, he'd be permanently banned.But instead, you decided to keep the bigot and ban the victim.

quote:

---

Your last post is not as verbose as one might normally expect so I suspect you are losing the motivation.

---

Nope. It's more that I understand that this boils down to a single issue:A homophobic bigot spewed his bullshit over the board.And you sided with the bigot.You're *STILL* siding with the bigot.Everything else is ancillary. Unless and until you can understand that bringing up murder, pedophilia, incest, drug abuse, etc. in a discussion about sexual orientation is in and of itself bigotry and derailment of the discussion, that there can be no discussion in that context, that it is only brought up specifically and purposefully to smear gays, put them on the defensive, force gay people to try and justify their basic humanity and very existence, you will continue to fail.A homophobic bigot spewed his bullshit over the board.And you sided with the bigot.You're *STILL* siding with the bigot.

quote:

---

So if your steam has been vented and this is the end, I guess I'll see you in this thread in a few more years.

---

Nope.Every time you show you are incompetent, I will continue to bring this up. The only way to make this stop is for you to engage in contrition:1) Acknowledge your error. n_j was the problem and you failed to respond but instead attacked the victim.2) Apologize for your error: Nobody else is responsible for your failure to respond. No amount of people making comparisons to the mental capacity of simians, no amount of people being suspended for directives that hadn't been made yet (in your haste to document things, you neglected to point out when I was banned), no amount of your wounded pride and ego is responsible for your actions. Instead, it was (at the very least) your incompetence and possibly worse.3) Act to prevent it from happening in the future. A clear policy that should anybody make any sort of comparison in the future, said person will be suspended and further attempts will result in expulsion.It really is that simple.

Upon reading the specific thread mentioned and also reviewing your basic argument, I agree that NJ was WRONG and should have been suspended. Moderators are not legal judges, but should be respectful of the basic rights of individual members and should not tolerate racism or sexism. Your passion and persistence in bringing this to our attention is duly noted, and I for one will be more aware of bigoted talk in order to nip it in the bud. If you see any future conflicts and feel that they are being ignored, please feel free to bring it up. If Modulus agrees with my statement, we can close this thread as the issue has been hopefully fully addressed.

Well if he did attack a particular board member and he wasn't suspended for it, then I would certainly apologize for that oversight! I didn't however, see this attack, and when I asked, the only responses I got where of NJ NOT attacking a particular board member. I see you didn't provide any new evidence of him attacking a particular board member so since you repeated yourself I guess I'd do likewise. Repetition isn't persuasive. Well as I said - being aggressively confrontational with someone may result in a person defending themselves against the charges being levelled at them. It's your tactic, not mine.What you posted wasn't my defence. It was me explaining why I didn't think NJ was guilty of derailing a thread with reference to specifics. I don't see it. NJ didn't equate being gay to paedophilia. I criticized you for making it personal. When did he think about raping his infant son? That seems to have been an invention of yours. Accusing a board member, and a victim of childhood sexual abuse of fantasizing about engaging in familial childhood sexual abuse themselves is crass, it doesn't engage any of the points being made and it only serves to add heat to the discussion rather than light. They are all things NJ considered to be sexual sins. With the exception of homosexuality they are all sexual acts we all agreed are either illegal or immoral. Well, possibly incest too in some cases. Not against the Forum rules. As Percy notes:

quote:

---

Purposefully inflammatory and derogatory speech is a violation of rule 10. But saying something like, "Gays should not be allowed in the military," is a position that can be rationally and dispassionately discussed, in the same way that "Women should not be allowed on the battlefield," is a position that can be rationally and dispassionately discussed. Those who find upsetting the mere expression of such opinions, and much, much worse ones, might want to be more circumspect about which threads they participate in.

---

I didn't find NJ making inflammatory or derogatory speech. He was making an argument that 'Gays should not be allowed to marry', however wrong that argument was.in Message 18
and also

quote:

---

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. Your view of NJ's behavior is a judgment call.

​

Further, political correctness seems a philosophy best viewed askance. I'd prefer that EvC Forum not serve as a haven for those who are easily offended on some topic or another. The censoring of minority or offensive views is anathema to open discussion.

---

in Message 70. I agree with the policy, but that's what it was. You are, in effect, shooting me - the messenger of this policy. You are free to dislike it, argue it should change, but while I may have influence in them - Percy is the the final decision maker in that regard. NJ didn't equate them. Indeed he said he felt paedophilia was a worse offense than homosexuality. And it didn't prevent discussion. Seems to me that suspending people that think homosexuals should not have the right to marry would do more to prevent discussion. You made it personal. You specifically said NJ was fantasizing about raping his infant son. That's the difference. NJ did not even say that homosexuals fantasize about raping little boys. So no, they are not one and the same.Yours was a personal and inflammatory attack against a member of the board. NJ's arguments surrounding morality and the law were not. Pointing out that NAMBLA exists is not against the forum rules. I agree. It's just NJ didn't do that. In a thread about homosexuality and the law, it was the early stages of a possible derailment. As I said, the seed was sown earlier and I blamed NJ for that. It didn't however, result in a full derailment. Because marrying children, like marrying homosexuals, was not permitted by the law. NJ agreed with both but could see others arguing in favour of the one and was querying the legal and moral grounds for drawing the line. And what do you think that my own opinion is on the matter? Are you going to follow berberry's lead and suggest I am self-hating now?My opinion has been explicitly stated: I'd prefer these matters be openly discussed than silenced. I made no such claim. I said

quote:

---

I was fired during the Great Purge. In fact - my being fired was the first volley of shots during that time

---

Which is true. The only person I suspended was for Dan, who was not calling for NJ to be banned/dumped. Who was more of a 'victim' of NJs offences in your opinion - me or Dan? What would make someone a victim of NJ's alleged rule breaches?I was talking about Percy, who was the only one with power to issue bans at the time we were discussing. Somehow you turned that to me being the one that made the decisions. You really need to get that Percy and I are different people. It seems the merry go round will continue in that case. I'm not stranger to homophobia, having literally felt its fist on a number of occasions. I've tackled some of the worst examples of homophobic tactics in my time - such as when I wrote a short essay on Paul Cameron at Everything2 - a sort of precursor to wikipedia - back in 2002.Of the many people with homophobic views I have discussed this matter with over the last 20 years NJ was the most reasonable, dispassionate and intelligent - faint praise perhaps. It seems to me that if we are to engage with people who have homophobic views on this forum, there are few people who it would be more preferable to engage with. I've been in arguments where the homophobe equates homosexuality with paedophilia and NJ was not saying anything like what those people were. Since there are years between you bringing this up, I will take this as a compliment. In any case, attempt to derail a thread with it again and I will defer the matter to the moderation team. Nope, don't think NJ was a problem. He caused occasional problems but he readily accepted his rebukes when they happened. Homophobia is a problem, but it should be tackled from the moral high ground. Accusing him of fantasizing about raping his infant son loses the moral high ground. Silencing him through suspension loses the high ground. It would be taken as evidence that even making the points in a reasonable and dispassionate way results in 'the left' losing their minds and being unable to meet the challenge in kind - instead having to insult or silence their detractors.

Modulous writes:

​

quote:

---

Nope, don't think NJ was a problem.

---

​

And that's why this will never heal. A bigot spewed his hateful bullshit all over the board and "I don't see it" is your response. Multiple people point this out to you and "NJ didn't equate them" is your response. The board collapses as a result and you and Percy whine about "political correctness."

​

You sided with the bigot, Modulous, and if that means you feel attacked, that you are being accused of being "self-hating"...

​

Well...

​

If the shoe fits. It would explain a lot.

​

And you wonder why Dan Carroll speculated about your mental capacity?

​

And you wonder why berberry told the admins to fuck off?

​

Until you acknowledge your error, apologize for it, and take action to ensure this never happens again, this will never be over.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

Well I'm trying to discuss this openly and honestly with you with the goal of reaching an understanding. It seems clear this is not your approach. Your approach seems to be to try and use bluster and threats of an ongoing campaign of disrupting civil discussion with an eleven year old forum drama to bully your way into achieving submission. It didn't work eleven years ago. It didn't work eight years ago. It's a wonder you think it'll be effective today. Yup, I didn't see hateful comments. I've a lot of first had experience at being the subject of hateful comments. I have explained ad nauseum why I didn't think the comments were hateful, why I believe they were within the forum rules. I understand that people feel differently and why, but my feelings haven't changed on this matter regardless. Questioning my intelligence or integrity certainly won't change my mind.If you don't want to try and reach a mutual understanding then I would suggest you just acknowledge it as one of those times you disagreed with moderator action and move on. You are welcome to hold onto the anger for another ten years but it seems worthless to me. Multiple people also pointed out that NJ didn't break the forum rules. Multiple people saying something doesn't make it true, does it? Some people asserted their belief that NJ was equating them. I don't share that belief. Those people failed to persuade me. I'm not going to take actions I don't believe are correct regardless of who is clamouring for what. That's simply untrue. The shoe doesn't fit at all. Not really. He thought what his point of view was self-evident and decided the only way to rationalize people disagreeing with himwas to question their intelligence. Like you have done. It's not something to wonder about at all, it's rather banal. But calling someone a retarded monkey is still against the forum rules and Dan could have got his points across without doing it. The only wonder is that you are still bringing it up. Not really no. Berberry was frustrated and had reached a point in his life where he wasn't able to deal with that kind of thing. I have acknowledged several errors and apologized for them, I took the (symbolic) action of unsuspending Dan and Berberry. We have changed moderator policies (see for example Message 9 where Percy suspended Fosdick...the three votes in favour of permanent suspension were Percy, Moose and me). Other examples of suspensions related to homophobia include another Fosdick, Message 15 and other people such as Message 187, Message 31)But clearly you won't be satisfied with the concessions you have - only achieving your will in its entirety would be sufficient. It seems unlikely, as I've said - but if you want to continue trying I'm not going to stop you.

Modulous writes:

quote:

---

Well I'm trying to discuss this openly and honestly with you with the goal of reaching an understanding.

---

No, you're not. You're trying to justify your disgusting actions. Multiple people came to you regarding this, and you dismissed them and sided with the bigot.And you still can't see it. You bring up examples of other people who were banned for exactly the same thing (Baldrick Cunningplan's comparison of gay people to pedophiles, for example, or for saying that if it isn't wrong to discriminate against gays, then how can it be wrong "to elect the Grand Dragon of the KKK for president" (stifling comment about how we pretty much just did)) and yet cannot understand how n_j did the exact same thing and you're OK with it.Need more proof? This little exchange: And yet, you actually referenced Percy whining about "political correctness" in the very post I was responding to, and then quoted him literally whining about "political correctness," or did you forget? But oh, let's look at his complete statement, shall we? Message 18: As if equating gays to pedophiles, murderers, rapists, drug addicts, etc. "is a position that can be rationally and dispassionately discussed, in the same way that 'Women should not be allowed on the battlefield,' is a position that can be rationally and dispassionately discussed."After all, when discussing women in the battlefield, everybody seems to compare them to men and not to pedophiles, murderers, rapists, drug addicts, etc. So why is it suddenly "rational and dispassionate," when discussing the rights of gay people, to compare them to pedophiles, murderers, rapists, drug addicts, etc. rather than to, you know, straight people? That is, after all, the heart of the homophobia: Gay people aren't comparable to straight people. Gay people don't equate to straight people.Here's a hint, "Equating X to Y" is not a claim that someone said, "X is Y." It's that in looking at a particular issue where the trait under examination is X, the comparative examination is being made not to other expressions of X but rather to the completely irrelevant Y. The only reason to make this comparison is to poison the well. There is no "discussion" to be had in that environment. Do not play dumb and pretend that you don't understand this.The fact of the matter, Modulous, is that Percy whined about "political correctness." And as we have seen all too often over the years, the moment a person brings up "PC," they either just made or are about to make an outrageously bigoted statement and are trying to poison the well in advance from any blowback. Percy showed his true colors there.And your defense of him is showing yours.So no, you're not trying to "discuss this openly and honestly." You're trying to justify why you sided with the bigot.And you still can't see it.

quote:

---

Yup, I didn't see hateful comments.

---

And that is why this will never heal. Equating gays to pedophiles, murderers, rapists, drug addicts, etc. is by definition "hateful."And you still can't see it.And thus, this will never heal.

quote:

---

I've a lot of first had experience at being the subject of hateful comments.

---

Which makes your actions all the more reprehensible. You should know better. And here you are, *still* siding with the bigot. Oh, that shoe fits perfectly, doesn't it?And that is why this will never heal.

I understand that you dislike the fact that I didn't suspend someone, but I'm not sure this is an effective way to enhance healing - your stated motivation.Nevertheless, I certainly can't avoid explaining why I didn't suspend someone while you are challenging me on that very fact. At least I can't if you want me to address the concerns you are raising in an open and honest fashion.If you want to operate under the assumption I'm being dishonest there's really no possibility of us healing. You certainly have no grounds to believe I am being dishonest. It seems to me if you want to consider I'm operating in a field of dishonesty you try to advance the arguments to try to expose the dishonesty OR you simply cease discussing it (since what would be the point?) Repeating things doesn't seem to be working, regardless of the degree of hostility you use.On the other hand, you might consider the position 'Mod and I see things differently here and it doesn't look like we'll see eye to eye on this matter so, having made my views known it is time to move on'. Well we can discuss the specifics of those cases in more detail if you'd like - explore if there are any differences between them and NJ in my view. But it sounds like you are conceding that moderator policy did indeed change after the events in question, in the direction you wished it to, and that we have taken steps to try avoiding a similar situation from occurring again.It would make the discussion more conducive to advancing if you could be explicit where we agree rather than focussing solely on our points of disagreement. Not typical in a debate perhaps, but if our purpose here is to move towards healing I think it'd go a long way. Show me you are as committed to the process as you want me to be. From my perspective it feels you aren't interested in healing, only in poking wounds and trying be vindicated. Show me I'm wrong, please. The reason it is untrue is twofold.1) The alleged 'collapse' occurred six month after Percy made his comments about political correctness. Your sentence structure implies a different order.
2) Percy may have 'whined' about Political Correctness, but I didn't. I've asked you before to try to avoid conflating the two of us. I agree. But you already know this, because I've said it to you before. I just don't think NJ equated those things. I think it's reasonable to point out that Conservative Christians - a group whose participation is encouraged at this board - believe both homosexual sex and child abuse are sexual sins. I think it's acceptable in a discussion about homosexuality for a Conservative Christian to give their opinion on this.Would you agree with this?After all - what's the point of debating Conservative Christians on matters surrounding homosexuality if we don't allow them to express their position? As long as their position addresses the matter in discussion in some fashion it seems unreasonable to silence them on this. Indeed. Conservative Christians don't think heterosexual sex is a sexual sin...or at least in so far as it is one - it is mitigable through marriage, an avenue not afforded in their theological view, to homosexual relationships. Well when I see the verb 'to equate' I see it as meaning'to regard, treat, or represent as equivalent: 'NJ was not doing this. His only point was that homosexual acts and paedophilic acts are both sexual sins. That's the only similarity they share. He explicitly stated that he regarded paedophilia as worse. So he certainly wasn't saying they are equal in their sinfulness. I understand well enough. It's not a question of understanding your point on this - it's that I disagree that it was the case in the situation in question. There was plenty of room for discussion - NJ didn't say for example 'Berberry engages in sinful acts, therefore his arguments are false' - which would be poisoning the well in a direct fashion, one which would indeed eradicate the very point of discussion.The main thrust of his discussions went along the lines of, "My moral stance is that God's word is absolute. I believe God's word says that homosexuality and child abuse are sexual sins which is why I cannot support homosexual marriage or the marrying of children. On what grounds do you say that homosexuality is an acceptable sexual practice that deserves legitimizing through marriage and paedophilia is unacceptable? It seems to me that your basis is entirely arbitrary'. Percy and I disagree or at least disagreed regarding political correctness. Take up any gripe you have with Percy, with Percy - not me. I didn't defend him. I agree with his sentiment that

quote:

---

The censoring of minority or offensive views is anathema to open discussion.

---

I've done my utmost to avoid defending anyone else other than where it intersects with my own actions while also trying to address as many of your concerns as possible. The one intent may have come into conflict with another from time to time - but I have certainly told you to take your problems with Percy up with Percy.More to the point, I was showing that my not suspending NJ after his expression of 'offensive views' was certainly within the realms of the intents of the owner of the site wanted things to operate. IF you don't like that, you are free to say so, but you can't say I wasn't doing my 'job' properly. NJ may have been saying things that were offensive to some people, but it wasn't a suspendable offense to do that no matter how much you argue it was. We'd come closer to healing if you accept publicly that I agree with you that equating gays to paedophiles is hateful but that I don't believe that is what NJ was doing. It will also help the healing process if you stopped that too.I am not a person who hates themselves for their sexuality. However, I have experienced extremely serious, life-threatening, mental health crises during which emotions such as self-loathing do indeed surface, along with its bedfellow suicidal ideation which is often followed by....well I'm sure I don't need to join the dots further. I ask you politely to not insinuate in that direction again as it does pose a minor, but not ignorable, risk of triggering those kinds of emotions. My coping mechanisms are likely capable of handling it, but I know from experience that repetition even of the most unfounded or unreasonable statements - can have a power that can overcome coping mechanisms. So however unlikely that might be, I'd rather not take that risk and I simply politely ask, nay implore, you to cease that line of attack.Suffice to say, when I am in crisis I don't come here. I wasn't in crisis during the incident in question and the charge is utterly false. I am proudly and happily queer.I hope exposing this vulnerability to you will perhaps have the additional advantage of persuading you my commitment to engaging in an honest and frank discussion. I trust that you will not be so crass as to deploy this knowledge as a weapon in your quest to humble me. If you do, our discourse will be immediately terminated for my own health and I will be asking for moderator intervention.To the point in the quote - I think it is better to have bigoted opinions exposed and refuted. I won't suspend someone on the grounds I find their view abhorrent, distasteful or offensive. I believe the fight against homophobia requires uncomfortable and unpleasant discussions. This is a place where those kinds of discussions should be allowed to happen, the flaws exposed, destroyed.I understand, as you hopefully see from my comments above, that this kind of discussion - one which approaches a persons very sense of identity - can result in strong emotional reactions. I sympathize with those that have those reactions completely.From what I can tell there are only two ways to proceed in light of these facts1) We declare that discussions surrounding identity issues are not permitted at all. Race, religion, culture, sexuality. Or we selectively pick certain identity issues to avoid2) We encourage members who do find themselves unable to discuss those topics in a dispassionate manner (an understandable situation, which carries no shame) avoid participating in those discussions.Neither is a 'perfect world' which would see us without people with homophobic or bigoted views existing at all, and thus render the kinds of debate on those subjects we have here moot - but I see no alternatives. The notion that I use my moderator powers to impose my views or to silence or penalize those whose views I find abhorrent, offensive or distasteful is in its own way something I find abhorrent.If you cannot understand my perspective by now, you really are doomed to retain your anger on this matter. It serves no purpose to repeat yourself, there is no utility in disrupting and derailing future threads to make your opinions on this matter known. Here they are, in public. If I have not satisfied you, if I have not apologized for the things you think I should - do you estimate I will if you continue repeating your charges in a variety of hostile or confrontational ways?You can continue feeling I am a bad person. Cruel, capricious, a nasty little bigot enabler. But let's not exacerbate the poison's sting by continuously having it circulate, by injecting venom upon venom. We don't have to agree, but at least we can co-exist in some kind of state of mutual understanding.Please, let us put this affair behind us, eh?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Modulous again shows his colors.Indeed, I am operating under the assumption that you do not wish to discuss this honestly for your every action shows this to be true. Rather than recognize the reprehensible actions, you complain over "sentence structure," as if the revelation that Percy and you think this is merely an issue of "political correctness" is somehow mitigating (in his case) and something of relevance to the issue at hand (in yours).You are doing everything possible to deflect from the core issue:A bigot spewed his bullshit across the board.And you sided with the bigot.Until you recognize this reality, this will never heal.

quote:

---

I think it's reasonable to point out that Conservative Christians - a group whose participation is encouraged at this board - believe both homosexual sex and child abuse are sexual sins.

---

Jaywalking and murder are both crimes. To think that one leads to the other, which n_j directly stated, is not "reasonable." If somebody wishes to discuss how they think being gay is a sin, they can compare it to being straight. To throw in pedophilia, murder, rape, drug abuse, etc. as n_j did serves only one purpose: To poison the well. There is no way to have "rational discussion" in such a context. n_j didn't merely state, "they are both sins." He directly asked how we can still condemn pedophilia, murder, rape, drug abuse, etc. if we allow gay people the right to get married.And you still can't see it. In fact, you'll distort the facts (dare I say it? "Lie") in order to pretend that something else happened. Anything and everything to confuse the issue in order to support the bigot and deflect from your own actions.And you wonder why the operating assumption is that you do not wish to discuss this honestly? You harp about "where we agree," but here's the thing:We don't agree.Everything you did, everything you have done, is wrong.Every single thing. From the moment you entered this issue more than a decade ago, you have done the wrong thing. There is not a single thing you have done correctly. Even your unbanning of berberry and Dan Carroll was done sanctimoniously and only after you were cajoled into it (yes, I know you did it before I explicitly stated it, but let us not play dumb.) You didn't do it because you thought they were kicked out unfairly, unjustly, and incorrectly. You did because you still think you were right and fantasize that you are being magnanimous.Everything you did was wrong, Modulous. Everything you are doing now is wrong.You continue to support the bigot.This affair will never be behind us so long as you continue to do so.

Ah well. So what's the point, then? I've tried to reach out to you. But it seems the honest truth won't be interpreted as such by you. I didn't complain over sentence structure. I pointed out that the way you structured your sentence implies something which is untrue. Because you challenged me regarding the untruth of it.I don't think this is an issue of 'political correctness'. Those are Percy's words alone. Not mine. That conflation also leads to untrue beliefs on your part. You can't seem to separate us and I'm not sure anything I can say can change this - so I can merely point out the error knowing it won't make a difference to you. NJ expressed his opinion that social acceptance of one sexual sin will lead to the social acceptance of others. It's wrong, but it's certainly reasonable for me to point out that this is not atypical Conservative Christian thought.You agree with that right?I asked you if you could agree to certain things in my last post, things I thought would be uncontroversial. It seems you are not capable of stating your agreement with anything I say. Again, this is not how two people come together in order to foster healing. I can presume only that you don't care about healing or are incompetent at obtaining it. Of course he didn't merely state 'they are both sexual sins'. That was however, the only way he drew a similarity between the sexual sins he was discussing. That's what I was saying with that. You continue to communicate to me that you aren't willing to try to understand what I'm saying to you.And yes, he argued that our moral framework cannot consistently work to accept homosexuality and condemn paedophilia. He was saying that our moral framework should treat them equally, but we don't, which shows how we aren't committed to that moral framework at all, that our views are inconsistent. What facts did I distort? What am I doing to confuse the issue exactly? So did we suspend Fosdick and Baldrick as a means to prevent this kind of thing happening again or not? I thought you agreed we had done that, without explicitly agreeing. Was I wrong in that assessment? I thought you had attempted to skewer me using this fact which I had taken to mean you agreed with it. Did moderator policy change in a direction you think is favourable with regards to this, or not?Do we agree that Conservative Christians are regularly homophobic?Do we agree that we debate Conservative Christians at this site?Do we agree that we sometimes discuss the morality of homosexuality, homosexual marriage and the law at this site?If we don't agree on these things, or if you cannot bring yourself to admit that we agree - this discussion is beyond hopeless! It's going to be difficult to reach any agreement with someone who is so absolute as this.I understand you think it was wrong to not suspend NJ, but given this 'error' was it wrong for me to explain why I did not feel he should be suspended? Should I have remained silent?Was I wrong when I did not suspend Dan in Message 59? Should I have suspended him at that time?Was I wrong to engage with Dan to discuss how potentially offensive ideas could be worked into an argument that would be acceptable according to the Forum Rules? Was I wrong to ask him to furnish me with links to posts by NJ to examine them further? Message 64?Was continuing to ask Dan for specific posts he found problematic so they can be reviewed wrong? Message 68?Was I wrong to call NJ a homophobe? Message 71?Was I wrong to not suspend Dan in Message 86? Was I wrong in merely issuing a warning?Was I wrong to ask Crash for his opinion about what should have been done? Message 140?Was I wrong to ask for supporting evidence of Crash in Message 142?Was I wrong to issue a warning to cavediver for being a dick about you? Message 150?Was I wrong to admonish NJ's actions in Message 220?Was I wrong to advise you that it would do us no good to go over this again in Message 106?Was I wrong to try to prevent total topic derailment in the Gender And Humour thread when you tried to resurrect this argument and I gave a short answer and suggested we start a new thread or take it into PMs? Message 222?Was I wrong to try to prevent topic derailment in the Police Shooting thread when you decided to resurrect the argument again? Message 35?Was I wrong to acknowledge I contributed to the mess that lead to the crisis?Was I wrong to apologize for sometimes being snarky?Was I wrong to apologize for personally suspending Dan rather than have another moderator review the situation?Here are two acts of mine that you have hammered on as me being wrong:1) I didn't suspend NJ and you think I should have
2) I suspended Dan for 72 hours and you don't think I should have.That's really it. You disagree with my reasons for those actions so I suppose we could add3) My explanations for those two actions. I unsuspended Dan and Berberry while responding to your comments. Here is the 'sanctimonious' way I did it

quote:

---

quote:

---

berberry is still banned. Dan Carroll, too.

---

Dan was also suspended indefinitely 6 months later by Percy for showing signs of being a 'divisive presence'. But I'll undo that suspension now too - though again I suspect he won't care.

---

I'm not sure how that's me 'making a show of being morally superior', but ok. Here is berberry:

quote:

---

In any event. I believe anyone who has asked from that time has been reinstated, and I doubt berberry is remotely interested in returning. But I have unsuspended him anyway.

---

Not sure what you find problematic there - how is it sanctimonious? I did it to show you I am serious about trying to address your concerns. I didn't suspend them indefinitely and I don't think suspending them indefinitely was the correct course of action. I don't agree that the Great Purge was the right course of action in general. I understand Percy's actions, and I don't think he's terrible for doing it - though I think it was the wrong decision.I have never reversed an indefinite suspension that Percy has issued. He owns the site so I think its reasonable to defer to his decisions on this matter. It's expected you'd find some way of interpreting me taking an unprecedented step for me, intended as a symbol of my sincerity and pervert it into some insincere act intended to lord it over you or something. By definition it seems, no matter what I do, you will find some way of interpreting it to be the wrong thing.What, then, is the point of this discussion? Have you not grown bored of finding ways to say I was wrong? Or just repeating the same ways of of saying I was wrong? If you want something out of this conversation, it should be abundantly clear that your confrontational manner is not working. Why do you persist in your folly? I'm a bit of a William Blake fan, so I'm happy to persist in the hopes his infernal proverb 'If the fool would persist in his folly he would become wise.' may turn out to be true - and after all one should 'Listen to the fools reproach! it is a kingly title!', so can you please try and learn from your error sooner rather than later? Try a different approach. It certainly can't fail worse than your present one. I continue to think this forum should be a place where we can confront arguments based on bigotry with argument to show that bigotry is wrong. I continue to think using Admin powers to silence those arguments just because some people find them offensive is wrong.I disapprove of what NJ says, but I will defend his right to say it. As long as statements operate within the rules and guidelines set down by Percy (with consultation with other board members), I won't suspend someone regardless of how much I disapprove of their opinions.If you think that is supporting a bigot - so be it. Let us hunker down for infinite amounts of useless back-and-forths on the subject if this truly won't be behind us until I have a change of heart about that matter. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.