Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8870 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-17-2018 12:18 PM
257 online now:
Aussie, PaulK, ramoss, RAZD, ringo, Stile, Tangle (7 members, 250 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 840,381 Year: 15,204/29,783 Month: 1,148/1,502 Week: 146/492 Day: 20/40 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2425262728
29
Author Topic:   Did Mod cause the collapse of evcforum?
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 421 of 424 (832805)
05-10-2018 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 420 by Modulous
05-10-2018 9:51 PM


Re: Dip him in the river who loves water
Modulous responds to me:

quote:
Ah well. So what's the point, then?

Hope springs eternal. Perhaps one day the honest truth will be seen by you. Phat finally figured it out. Perhaps you will, too.

Of course, it doesn't help when you directly contradict yourself:

quote:
I didn't complain over sentence structure. I pointed out that the way you structured your sentence implies something which is untrue.

You do understand that the second sentence directly contradicts the first, yes?

No, of course you don't. Once again, you've been shown up and rather than simply admitting you fucked up, you dig in your heels, spout falsehoods, and try to deflect from the core issue.

A homophobic bigot spewed his bullshit over the board.

And you sided with the bigot.

You're *still* siding with the bigot.

It seems you are not capable of stating any error you made regarding this core issue. Thus, this will never heal. I can only presume that you don't care about healing and are incompetent at obtaining it.

And you wonder why berberry told you to fuck off? You wonder why Dan Carroll compared your mental faculties to that of a deficient simian? You wonder why crashfrog said:

Nobody's waiting here for you to come up with the perfect bullshit justification for bad actions. We're waiting for you to stop taking actions that are bad.

It's really extraordinarily simple, Mod.

You're trying to justify your bad actions with bullshit, Mod. It's never going to work. That you continue to try shows that you don't care at all about fixing this but only about saving face.

You literally cannot see the problem. How you, specifically, contributed to the problem.

The only way this ends is for you to stop trying to justify your bad actions and admit that you fucked up.

At every turn.

Dan should not have been suspended at all, so you don't get any cookies for not doing it at some other point.

He shouldn't have been warned, so you don't get any cookies for not suspending him. You should have snapped out of it and realized just how wrong you had been behaving.

n_j should have been dumped, so you don't get any cookies for identifying his homophobia but not doing anything about it.

You were wrong to pretend that you had no idea what to do and had to ask crashfrog for ideas. You had been told what would have been helpful by at least three other people.

You were wrong to feign ignorance with crash regarding what was happening. You had been shown by at least three other people.

You flat out lied about your reasoning for unbanning berberry and Dan Carroll.

Here's what you said here:

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.

Once again, I'm reminded of someone's comments about the mental capacities of certain simians because it seems you can't remember that we can see what you wrote in Message 258 of Suspensions and Bannings Part III

I think 10 years (Message 130, and Message 130) is sufficient.

Since you're so big on "reasonableness," would it be "reasonable" for berberry and Dan to respond to that message with "Fuck you"? No admission that they shouldn't have been suspended in the first place. Instead, you still think you were right and fantasizing that you're being magnanimous. You wonder why you're being called out as sanctimonious?

Even your claim that you "acknowledge you contributed to the mess" is wrong because you didn't acknowledge your actual actions that contributed to the mess. You're not upset that you are the cause of the mess but rather that you spent too much time trying to craft the perfect bullshit justification for it. And *still* you can't understand that your justifications are bullshit and that you will never be able to justify it no matter how much bullshit you craft.

"The mess" is that you sided with the bigot.

Everything you did was wrong, Modulous.

Everything. Even when the results of your actions are OK (few and far between), the motivations and reasons for why you are doing them are wrong which means we cannot trust that the problem has been resolved and that you won't continue to do the wrong thing in the future.

A homophobic bigot spewed his bullshit all over the board.

And you sided with the bigot.

You're *still* siding with the bigot.


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 420 by Modulous, posted 05-10-2018 9:51 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 422 by Modulous, posted 05-11-2018 1:09 PM Rrhain has responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 25 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 422 of 424 (832816)
05-11-2018 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 421 by Rrhain
05-10-2018 11:09 PM


fRe: Dip him in the river who loves water
Hope springs eternal. Perhaps one day the honest truth will be seen by you. Phat finally figured it out. Perhaps you will, too.

Good luck with that.

I didn't complain over sentence structure. I pointed out that the way you structured your sentence implies something which is untrue.

You do understand that the second sentence directly contradicts the first, yes?

Have you ever come across the Principle of Charity? It involves 'interpreting a speaker's statements in the most rational way possible' {wiki}. The reason to do this is that by not doing it, you risk arguing against the wrong things, pointing out non-existing flaws wasting everybody's time.

The subject of the complaint was the untruth, not the sentence structure. The sentence structure was one of the reasons the statement came out as untrue. I wasn't complaining about sentence structure, I was complaining about the falsehood. If you had tried to understand the second sentence in light of the first, you might have got there yourself - but you seem intent on finding reasons to disagree, rebut and argue rather than trying to reach any form of any agreement, regardless of how slight.

A homophobic bigot spewed his bullshit over the board.

And you sided with the bigot.

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.

It seems you are not capable of stating any error you made regarding this core issue.

Perhaps you should be focussing on trying to persuade me an error was made rather than repeating yourself. Repetition is not persuasive.

And you wonder why berberry told you to fuck off?

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.

You wonder why Dan Carroll compared your mental faculties to that of a deficient simian?

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.

You wonder why crashfrog said:

Nobody's waiting here for you to come up with the perfect bullshit justification for bad actions. We're waiting for you to stop taking actions that are bad.

It's really extraordinarily simple, Mod.

Not really, it was pretty self explanatory. As I responded at the time:

That's fine, it really is. I cannot say that I always take good actions - the debate did get rather heated with people saying rather unfriendly things so I can openly admit that I might not have acted in the perfect manner. At first I did not believe action was necessary. I thought action was only necessary when the debate about the debate was getting too heated and people started calling the admin team childish names.

You're trying to justify your bad actions with bullshit, Mod. It's never going to work. That you continue to try shows that you don't care at all about fixing this but only about saving face.

Then I'll stop.

You literally cannot see the problem. How you, specifically, contributed to the problem.

Then it falls to you, the only person around here who gives a shit, to help me see the light. Repeated assertions, however, won't achieve that.

The only way this ends is for you to stop trying to justify your bad actions and admit that you fucked up.

The first step then would be to persuade me that I fucked up.

Dan should not have been suspended at all, so you don't get any cookies for not doing it at some other point.

Not asking for cookies. I'm asking if I was wrong to not suspend him at that point in the discussion. It's telling that you found a way to avoid answering it.

You flat out lied about your reasoning for unbanning berberry and Dan Carroll.

No I didn't.

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.

Once again, I'm reminded of someone's comments about the mental capacities of certain simians because it seems you can't remember that we can see what you wrote in Message 258 of Suspensions and Bannings Part III

I think 10 years (Message 130, and Message 130) is sufficient.

So where's the lie?

No admission that they shouldn't have been suspended in the first place.

That's not really the thread for that discussion - it is generally just announcements regarding suspensions. Percy is the one that suspended them indefinitely. I stated that I thought it was wrong in my previous post.

Instead, you still think you were right and fantasizing that you're being magnanimous. You wonder why you're being called out as sanctimonious?

I think I am right that Dan warranted a 72 hour suspension. I think you are right that he didn't warrant an indefinite one. I fail to see the sanctimony in how I unsuspended Dan and Berberry.

I can see the sanctimony in parading around saying 'You were wrong. We were right. Your actions were wrong. It's obvious you were wrong, you are still wrong. You sided with evil. You were wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. I was, and I remain, right'. There does seem to be a strain around here of someone 'making a show of being morally superior to other people.'

On the other hand, I might be wrong. By all means supply your evidence and your reasoning and I will examine it. I've certainly admitted to a few wrong steps already, places I made moral errors. Have you done likewise?

Even your claim that you "acknowledge you contributed to the mess" is wrong because you didn't acknowledge your actual actions that contributed to the mess.

I acknowledge that some of my actions contributed to the mess.

Do you think my posting to, in Crash's words seek the 'perfect bullshit justification for bad actions.' contributed to the mess? I do.

Do you think my suspending Dan rather than asking for another moderator to review the incident were, in Crash's words was an action 'that appear{s} corrupt' and that 'it's the appearance of corruption that corrodes confidence in authority' and that therefore this contributed to the mess? I do.

I understand you think there are offences yet atoned for, but do we agree with these elements? I understand you think a partial, fractional, acknowledgement is insufficient - but do you concur that I did acknowledge some things that I did that did contribute to the mess?

Or are you so determined to see wrong, to not be seen to be in agreement with me, that you cannot even do this?

And *still* you can't understand that your justifications are bullshit and that you will never be able to justify it no matter how much bullshit you craft.

Apparently so. Still, I'm not going to suspend someone if I don't think they merit suspension. I'm not going to say I should have suspended someone when I don't they warranted a suspension. I understand you aren't interested in my explanations for why I don't think it merited suspension and so I'll endeavour to stop provisioning you with those explanations. The ball is now in your court to take what you know of my position and find a way to persuade me of my error.

Even when the results of your actions are OK (few and far between), the motivations and reasons for why you are doing them are wrong which means we cannot trust that the problem has been resolved and that you won't continue to do the wrong thing in the future.

Speak for yourself. There is no 'we' at this point. But fair enough. If twelve years of service has resulted in only 1 week of errors surrounding one incident then I'd say that's not too bad. I have never claimed perfection, and it would be unreasonable of you to demand it. If that one week has destroyed your trust in someone more than the other other 635 weeks have built it I'm sorry about that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 421 by Rrhain, posted 05-10-2018 11:09 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 423 by Rrhain, posted 05-11-2018 2:56 PM Modulous has responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 423 of 424 (832818)
05-11-2018 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 422 by Modulous
05-11-2018 1:09 PM


Re: fRe: Dip him in the river who loves water
Modulous writes:

quote:
Repetition is not persuasive.

Apparently, neither is the truth. You lie about things and when confronted with your own statements showing the lie, you pull a Trump and claim it wasn't what you said, that somehow you were misinterpreted, whining about the "principle of charity."

What a perfect smoky eye you have, Modulous.

All I have are the facts. I have no magic wand. I cannot make you see how awful you behaved and are still behaving. Only you can do that and the only method I have is to continually confront you with your actions in the hope that you'll finally get it.

Just like with any bigot.

Nobody's waiting here for you to come up with the perfect bullshit justification for bad actions. We're waiting for you to stop taking actions that are bad.

It's very telling that you cannot see the point of this discussion. "But I didn't ban Dan Carroll at that point! That's a good thing we can agree on, right"? No, because what you should have done was say to him, "You're right, Dan. The suspension of berberry was wrong. Percy was wrong to do it. n_j should be reprimanded. I am going to correct the issue regarding berberry and see if I can help persuade Percy that he made the wrong decision."

Instead, you want to focus specifically on the out-of-context action that Dan wasn't suspended at a certain point in time.

It's very telling that you seem to think it can be divorced from the context in which it happened and that somehow makes what you did "reasonable."

Every time you post, you have a chance to do that. You have a chance to say that you were wrong, that berberry, Dan, crash, and I (and others) were right, that even though you don't understand exactly what it was that you did wrong, you can see by the effects that it was a major cockup on your part, that you have some work to do regarding how to handle bigots when they start dumping turds in the punchbowl, and that you can only hope we can forgive you for your clearly inappropriate actions.

But you don't. At every turn, you make the wrong decision and try to come up with a new bullshit justification. The latest is trying to say that because you didn't just ban us all immediately, that somehow shows you did something right.

Are you so determined to be right, to cling to "blame on all sides," that you cannot do this?

And that's why this will never heal.

quote:
If twelve years of service has resulted in only 1 week of errors surrounding one incident then I'd say that's not too bad.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I bet you really believe that, don't you?

You're a craptacular moderator, Mod. Between you and Moose, I don't know which is worse.


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by Modulous, posted 05-11-2018 1:09 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 424 by Modulous, posted 05-11-2018 4:18 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member (Idle past 25 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 424 of 424 (832821)
05-11-2018 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 423 by Rrhain
05-11-2018 2:56 PM


Re: fRe: Dip him in the river who loves water
Apparently, neither is the truth. You lie about things and when confronted with your own statements showing the lie, you pull a Trump and claim it wasn't what you said, that somehow you were misinterpreted, whining about the "principle of charity."

Oh I was lying now? I thought the original charge was that I wrote a sentence that contradicted the first and that my response was that you had erred in your eagerness to find fault.

All I have are the facts. I have no magic wand. I cannot make you see how awful you behaved and are still behaving. Only you can do that and the only method I have is to continually confront you with your actions in the hope that you'll finally get it.

If I were in your shoes I'd be providing examples of the awfulness along with explanations as to why it was awful - I'd take into account your responses as I try to reformulate my answers in an attempt to persuade you. But feel free to continue repeating assertions and being confrontational. It's not worked so far but I'm sure just a few more repetitions will yield different results.

It's very telling that you cannot see the point of this discussion. "But I didn't ban Dan Carroll at that point! That's a good thing we can agree on, right"? No, because what you should have done was say to him, "You're right, Dan. The suspension of berberry was wrong. Percy was wrong to do it. n_j should be reprimanded. I am going to correct the issue regarding berberry and see if I can help persuade Percy that he made the wrong decision."

That's why I prefaced my question with

quote:
I understand you think it was wrong to not suspend NJ, but given this 'error'

You really can't bring yourself to agree that NOT suspending Dan at that point was right. It's quite artful of you really. You can't even say that given that I didn't see anything problematic, that asking people to provision me with examples to review was in fact, not wrong. Amazing.

Instead, you want to focus specifically on the out-of-context action that Dan wasn't suspended at a certain point in time.

I was exploring the claim that everything I did was wrong. I don't think that's true. I think, at core, I did only 3 things wrong in your view. 1 - Not suspend NJ, 2 - suspend Dan later, and 3 - try to explain my actions.

What you did here was add a fourth - I didn't protest berb's suspension. But you still can't even agree that the trivial things I did right were right.

It's very telling that you seem to think it can be divorced from the context in which it happened and that somehow makes what you did "reasonable."

I'm simply asking if it was wrong to not suspend Dan at that point. The answer is simple 'No". Since you refuse to answer - you haven't seen what my conclusion to that is and thus you cannot say that my point is that it makes what I did 'reasonable'. For the record, that wouldn't be my conclusion. My only conclusion would be that your statement claiming that 'everything you did was wrong' was too broad. Uselessly so. It gives me no expectation that you are handling this discussion in a fair minded fashion. Why would expect positive results when you are doing everything you can to come across as unfair?

Every time you post, you have a chance to do that. You have a chance to say that you were wrong, that berberry, Dan, crash, and I (and others) were right, that even though you don't understand exactly what it was that you did wrong, you can see by the effects that it was a major cockup on your part, that you have some work to do regarding how to handle bigots when they start dumping turds in the punchbowl, and that you can only hope we can forgive you for your clearly inappropriate actions.

I certainly agree I made mistakes, handled the situation in a far from perfect fashion and there's always work to do towards improving moderation methods. As I have already said, and as you refuse to acknowledge even partially addresses the situation.

Dan's methods for drawing attention to his perception of a problem was, but his reaction to disagreement with his position by insulting people was not the right behaviour.

Berb was understandably upset, but resorting to calling people names was not the correct path to take.

Your behaviour was acceptable for the most part, other than your trademark inability to drop the subject when progress doesn't seem to be likely and gradually building heat rather than generating light. But your actions 6 months later were certainly problematic with your comments about NJ's infant son. Even berb thought that was a bit too much! And you have argued they were equivalent to what NJ was doing, in which case even you think they are problematic. Two wrongs etc.

Crash's behaviour was basically fine. But like the rest of you, I didn't agree with the points he was making.

Asserting you and they were right, and people that disagreed were wrong is certainly not going to change my mind. Regardless of how often you repeat it. Sorry about that, but that's just the way I am.

But you don't. At every turn, you make the wrong decision and try to come up with a new bullshit justification. The latest is trying to say that because you didn't just ban us all immediately, that somehow shows you did something right.

You are claiming everything I did was wrong. It is perfectly natural for me to raise counterexamples. Asking for evidence, asking for clarifications, not suspending people for criticizing moderators....they don't seem to things that I did that were wrong. You are really struggling with acknowledging this. It won't destroy your entire basis of your dispute, but it will show you are being fair-minded. Give it a whirl.

Are you so determined to be right, to cling to "blame on all sides," that you cannot do this?

I have already admitted various things I did were wrong. Can you admit that some of things I did were right? You can't can you? And that's why healing cannot happen.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I bet you really believe that, don't you?

You're a craptacular moderator, Mod. Between you and Moose, I don't know which is worse.

I see. Do you have examples beyond this particular scenario?

Here are some of my suspensions
Thread 2. I made 25 posts there, and they're all short - anything objectionable?

Thread 3 - only 29 posts there so again should be easy to check through.

You could go through my Admin messages here but that's 900 messages and not all of them are accessible to you so that's more of a challenge.

Though that said, if I'm as craptacular as you suggest I expect finding a few examples of terrible behaviour should be simple enough.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 423 by Rrhain, posted 05-11-2018 2:56 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
2425262728
29
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018