Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 91 (8839 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-26-2018 4:00 AM
272 online now:
caffeine, ICANT, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (4 members, 268 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Calvin
Post Volume:
Total: 832,481 Year: 7,304/29,783 Month: 1,528/1,708 Week: 419/474 Day: 8/68 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
29NextFF
Author Topic:   Did Mod cause the collapse of evcforum?
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7736
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 1 of 424 (566800)
06-27-2010 4:44 PM


In Gender and Humor, Rrhain claimed that "The board collapsed because your incompetence. You, specifically.", referring to me. I think he is wrong.

I would warn anyone that decides to read this thread - it's going to be a long and boring slog through 'he said, she said' nonsense. Rrhain was not happy that I disagreed with him about something related to a cry of homophobia and thus decided to bring up an argument we were having back in the summer of 2007. Essential background reading can be found at General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 11.0. There are some other threads related to it that may come up and this discussion is presumably going to include Rrhain - so be prepared for a billion words on the first page.

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

So how wrong is Rrhain? Let me count the ways.

In Message 198 he said:

Rrhain writes:

It isn't a game. He wants to be able to spout his homophobia without any consequences to his actions. And given your own personal history regarding the treatment of gay people on this board (*Dan Carroll*cough!*cough!*), you're not exactly helping.

You should probably notify Dan and his girlfriend that he is gay:

quote:
In real life, my girlfriend and I are going as Joey and Caitlin from Degrassi Junior High

from Message 44.

quote:
... the next time my girlfriend goes down on me...

Message 8

I suspect this is actually case #1 of Rrhain being wrong.

I should also add, that there are some gay people who are incredibally satisfied with my treatment of them

Moving on, in Message 224:

Rrhain writes:

You really think that was the problem? Your attention span really is that short, isn't it? N_j insulted gays and berberry called him out on it...and got banned for it.

No. Berberry claimed N_j should be chastised for what Berberry claimed was an insult to gays - and therefore to him specifically. The Admin team seemed to be in consensus that whatever N_J was doing - it didn't merit suspension. Berberry got very upset. Going so far as to make this post in a Moderation Procedures thread (Message 33:

quote:
Fuck you

Emphasis in original. That's the entirety of what he said in that post (excluding title and a quote).

And then, referring to me,

quote:
you insufferable nitwit!

It was for this loss of calm and taking it out on others that seems to have inspired Percy to suspend Berberry. Case #2.

Of course - because he is wrong, Rrhain will continue to repeat the falsehood that it was the criticism that got Berb suspended for calling NJ out rather than the manner in which he conducted himself. It doesn't matter that Berberry managed to make at least 11 posts on the subject previous to that without getting suspended.

Rrhain writes:

Dan Carroll pointed out that it was wrong to ban berberry...and got banned for it.

I didn't suspend Dan for pointing out it was wrong to ban berberry. Case #3, here is the reason I suspended Dan, lifted from Message 188:

quote:
It had absolutely nothing to do with Dan criticizing the moderators and everything to do with the manner of his criticism. This thread is not about calling the moderators names or disrespecting them. It is entirely possible to criticise actions or procedures without getting personal, being disrespectful or such. Doing so will likely get you suspended: and playing a martyr card about how the evil moderators are suppression constructive criticsm will be viewed with equal amusement whether it comes from creationist or evolutionist, theist or atheist.

I'm still amused whenever I see the claim made

Dan made like 14 posts before he got suspended - if I was going to suspend him for pointing out it was wrong to ban berberry why did I not do it immediately after Message 55? Why did I let him make a dozen posts criticising berberry's suspension?

Rrhain writes:

Let's not forget, you specifically said that Dan had not broken any rules

Mod writes:

You've not explicitly broken any rules Dan

An awesome quotemine. I think we'll call this Case #4. He is what I actually said in Message 86:

quote:
You've not explicitly broken any rules Dan, but my best judgement is that you just disrespected a member of this forum, namely myself. Right now since you have stated you are not going to continue with the discussion I am going to make a judgement call and not suspend you for 24 hours. If your tone continues on this forum, my best guess is that my judgement call will be to suspend you to cool down.

Which sheds a bit of a different light on it, since now it becomes a final warning of tone - and giving Dan the benefit of the doubt regarding disrespect. Dan had previously chided my inability to make judgement calls in Message 74:

quote:
The moderators don't call him on it, because that would require some sort of judgement call, and we all know how scary those can be.

Hence my reference to judgement calls in my warning. Here is his cogent contribution that resulted in his suspension, in Message 90:

quote:
Your judgement is balls-on accurate. See how easy that is?

Suspend if you please. My first response on this thread expected a suspension.


An admission to explicitly breaking the rules (ie admitting to disrespecting a member of the forum), continued with the same belligerent tone. So I gave him a short suspension for being off topic, not following moderator requests and disprespecting a member of the forum.

Rrhain writes:

...Even crashfrog pointed it out...And even he realized that you would probably ban him for pointing it out (Message 133)

Case #5. Message 133 was addressed to Percy, not me.

Many people were banned outright, not in protest, but because they dared to ask the moderators to explain themselves.

Case #6. Percy fired the moderators - and then suspended people that either requested it, or he judged were just going to carrry on discussing moderator action, which Percy said was no longer going to occur at EvC (or indeed, anyone that gave Percy the impression that they were divisive).

In another post, Message 232 in the Gender/Humour thread you say

Rrhain writes:

Remember, berberry was suspended not for something he did say but rather because Percy thought he might say something:

Percy writes:

I suspended him to prevent him from saying even more things he might later come to regret

Case #7. Percy said "saying even more things he might later come to regret", which implies he had been saying regretful things. Nevertheless - you can take up your angst with Percy with Percy.

When Dan Carroll pointed out that was bullshit, he got suspended, even though Percy admitted that he didn't do anything wrong:

You've not explicitly broken any rules Dan

Case #8 and Case #9. You've already admitted to wrongly attributing "I suspended him to prevent him from saying even more things he might later come to regret" to me instead of Percy and you have already accepted that you subsequently mistook Percy and I again here - in the gender and humour thread so I include it only for completeness.

And you were...how shall we say..."less than truthful" regarding that action, pretending that I had violated a command of Phat's, though he wasn't wearing his admin hat at the time...and despite the fact that it was Minnemooseus who did the suspending specifically for violating his edict in post 111.

This is not a case. Indeed - you have a valid point about your initial suspension for violating the guidelines. I agreed at the time that Moose was wrong to do it, but Phat had also called for a stop. But yes, he neglected to check a box to post as a Moderator. Phat did that fairly regularly (see Message 88 where he is speaking as a moderator using the Phat account) - but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and concede that suspension was unwarranted. As per your emphatic instructions however, (Message 172.

Rrhain writes:

You need to STOP.

I stopped. I posted A General Reply to explain Dan's suspension and then left it at that.

Then turn around and look at the corpses left in your wake: Schraf, berberry, Dan, Ringo, I can go on.

case #10. I didn't ban any of them. How are their 'corpses' my liability? They aren't. I suspended Dan for like 72 hours, that's it. Dan didn't get perma-banned until the New Year, after I was no longer a moderator, months after the thread in question and after he posted, Message 130. Again - it is Percy you should reserve your ire for, not me. But confusing me and Percy seems to be your forte, neh?

Your next post, Message 235, says:

Rrhain writes:

You suspended Dan Carroll for not breaking the rules.

I suspended him for breaking rules 1, 2, and 10. Case #11

Rrhain writes:

Mod writes:

Fortunately, I'm not as big a prick as you

Right...because I was the one banning people left and right for daring to contradict me.

Mod writes:

you are wrong about this.


You mean there were no mass bannings? Or that I was the one who did them? That you didn't rise to the defense of the moderators? Do I really need to post all of the comments made directly to you regarding your behaviour?

No, that's not what I mean. You were suggesting that I was the one responsible for the mass banning. Case #12 - I wasn't.

I'll make it a cool #13 with this one from Message 218

RRhain writes:

The board collapsed because your incompetence. You, specifically.

I'm not sure a discussion forum that has 50,000 posts per year is showing those symptoms of collapse. It was 3 years ago - we're still here, still discussing. With some new faces - new code being released from the owner. I'd say this was an uncollapsed board.

I don't mind taking a blame for the utter failure that is this board...but I think Percy would want to share some of the responsibility - don't confuse the two of us!


What will it take?

Rrhain writes:

What would it take for you to consider the possibility that you screwed up? And not just in a small way but rather at every single turn?

Someone suggesting that I screwed up at every single turn. I have therefore considered that possibility. I'll require evidence that every thing I did was a screw up before I would accept it as a true statement.

So - if you were to go through all my posts in General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 11.0 and demonstrate that at every single turn I screwed up, defining screwing up first of course, then I'd concede.

I have already conceded that I made mistakes in that post.

Rrhain writes:

But that said, what good would providing evidence do? You'll only ignore it.

If you really think that - there is no point discussing it with me and the only rational thing to do would be to stop trying.

I can be persuaded by evidence, I've done it before. I'm human, and maybe I'll see it better if someone were to civilly and calmly explain - without endlessly questioning my intelligence and my intellectual honesty - what errors I made and what impact those errors had. I don't have high hopes that you will be able to even attempt this method of discussion.


If Rrhain prefers this to be a Great Debate (And I can't see anyone else being interested in it anyway), I'll move it there myself...no need to stand on ceremony eh?


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Huntard, posted 06-27-2010 6:29 PM Modulous has responded
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 06-27-2010 6:44 PM Modulous has responded
 Message 10 by cavediver, posted 06-28-2010 4:21 AM Modulous has acknowledged this reply
 Message 16 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-28-2010 10:29 AM Modulous has responded
 Message 39 by Bolder-dash, posted 06-28-2010 11:30 PM Modulous has responded
 Message 126 by Straggler, posted 06-29-2010 7:51 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply
 Message 264 by Rrhain, posted 07-02-2010 4:14 AM Modulous has responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 71 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 2 of 424 (566805)
06-27-2010 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Modulous
06-27-2010 4:44 PM


My thoughts
If anyone cares, here are my thoughts after reading your post.

1) Who had the bright idea to let normal members discuss moderator actions? That can never lead to a good thing. People will get pissy over the slightest things.

2) It seems that Rrhain was wrong saying you banned all those people, but since I haven't read his side of the story, I'll reserve judgement for now. Not that my judgement will make the slightest amount of diference anyway.

3) Since the forum is still here, I'd say it hasn't collapsed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Modulous, posted 06-27-2010 4:44 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 06-27-2010 6:49 PM Huntard has responded
 Message 9 by Modulous, posted 06-28-2010 4:07 AM Huntard has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 424 (566806)
06-27-2010 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Modulous
06-27-2010 4:44 PM


Look, we covered this at the time and you weren't willing to listen then. Is anything different now, Mod?

It wasn't a "he said, she said" question. It was a question of the laity having genuine problems with your moderation and the moderation of a few others, and the moderators in turn perceiving absolutely no problem except the laity complaining.

Rrhain quoting my words from back then gave me occasion to re-read the thread, and I continue to be struck by how thoughtful, well-reasoned, well-supported, and polite the critics of the administration were, and how petulant, unfair, and capricious the moderator response was. And I continue to be struck by how prophetic I turned out to be when I asked:

crashfrog writes:


Is that what your actions are doing? Think it through. Do you think that you, Percy, and Moose can ever be cruel enough, capricious enough, and suspend enough people unfairly that people will stop complaining openly about you being cruel, capricious, and unfair?

In the history of despotism, has that ever worked? Think it through.

I had left some time after saying that, but apparently the Great Purge followed shortly thereafter. And the truth is, the answer was no - you couldn't be unfair enough, capricious enough, and cruel enough to get people to see your actions as anything but cruel, capricious, and unfair. Funny how that works.

We all remember what happened, Mod, despite your revisionist history. NJ chased Berberry around three different threads offering insulting comparisons of homosexuality to bestiality and rape, under the guise of making an argument about "moral relativism." Predictably Berberry got tired of how this was being ignored by moderators and blew his stack.

Berb was suspended for things he was apparently about to say; NJ was suspended briefly, after the fact, for some token offense (a suspension you yourself shortened.) Dan complained and was suspended. Rrhain complained about that suspension and was suspended. I showed you how your moderation was serving not to defuse the situation, but to inflame it, and you ignored me. You, Moose, Jar, and Percy acted like the problem was everything but the moderation, and that we just needed to get over it, and to help us get over it, you were going to hand out suspensions until we did. Which you did. Which didn't help.

So, yes, absolutely without a doubt you played a central role in the mass exodus of everybody interesting from EvC Forum. Rrhain is absolutely correct, as well he should be, since he was there. As was I.

If you can't see how you were central to the crisis that ultimately led to the Great Purge, then I don't know what to say. Everything that happened in the Purge occurred almost exactly as I predicted in that thread. Absolutely none of the issue raised with the moderation were responded to in any way, by any moderator in that thread, except "You're wrong, and maybe also suspended."

So, as you look back on your actions in that thread, Mod, ask yourself now what I asked you, then - did your actions have the desired result? Did being capricious and cruel get people to stop complaining about the cruelty? Did covering for the intemperate and wrong actions of other moderators convince them to stop being intemperate and wrong? Did suppressing debate about the moderator's role in inciting flamewars prevent the moderators from inciting flamewars?

Ultimately, Mod, did your actions result in an improvement, or decline, in the general quality of debate and participants? The answer is abundantly obvious to me, which is why I don't post here anymore. What do you think?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Modulous, posted 06-27-2010 4:44 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Modulous, posted 06-28-2010 4:01 AM crashfrog has responded
 Message 13 by AZPaul3, posted 06-28-2010 9:23 AM crashfrog has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 424 (566808)
06-27-2010 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Huntard
06-27-2010 6:29 PM


Re: My thoughts
Who had the bright idea to let normal members discuss moderator actions? That can never lead to a good thing. People will get pissy over the slightest things.

Head over and read that huge thread. The problem wasn't people getting pissy, it was moderators getting pissy at people objecting to their unfair, ignorant, and capricious actions.

It seems that Rrhain was wrong saying you banned all those people

Rrhain didn't say that he banned all those people. But Mod's centrality in the crisis that led to the Great Purge can't be denied; it's a matter of record in the General Discussion of Moderators thread.

Since the forum is still here, I'd say it hasn't collapsed.

You'd have to know what it was like before to say, I think. Trust me when I say, it's collapsed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Huntard, posted 06-27-2010 6:29 PM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Huntard, posted 06-28-2010 2:42 AM crashfrog has not yet responded
 Message 14 by Percy, posted 06-28-2010 9:29 AM crashfrog has responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 963 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


(2)
Message 5 of 424 (566809)
06-27-2010 7:11 PM


Isn't this thread serving solely to stir up the same sort of shitstorm that resulted in the Great Purge?

Does discussion of past moderation actions really serve to do anything other than stir up useless drama? I mean, I don't see any recent moderation activities that fill me with righteous fury.


Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Modulous, posted 06-28-2010 1:45 AM Rahvin has not yet responded
 Message 11 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-28-2010 8:20 AM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7736
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 6 of 424 (566824)
06-28-2010 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Rahvin
06-27-2010 7:11 PM


Isn't this thread serving solely to stir up the same sort of shitstorm that resulted in the Great Purge?

Yes, you'll have to ask Rrhain why he felt the need to dredge it up.

Does discussion of past moderation actions really serve to do anything other than stir up useless drama?

Nope. Rrhain is the King of useless drama.

I mean, I don't see any recent moderation activities that fill me with righteous fury.

Glad to hear it


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Rahvin, posted 06-27-2010 7:11 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 71 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 7 of 424 (566825)
06-28-2010 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by crashfrog
06-27-2010 6:49 PM


Re: My thoughts
crashfrog writes:

Head over and read that huge thread. The problem wasn't people getting pissy, it was moderators getting pissy at people objecting to their unfair, ignorant, and capricious actions.


I've read up until message 28 now. So far, all seems fine. I would have to read the thread Berberry is referring to to see if he is justified in his anger towards Nemesis Juggernaut. I can see how calling gays animals and rapists can be highly insulting to them. But since being "insulted" is a subjective thing, I'd have to see the way he worded it to judge that. For the record, no I don't think gays are like animals and rapists, and anyone who does think that is a bigoted fuck we can easily do without as a species.

Rrhain didn't say that he banned all those people. But Mod's centrality in the crisis that led to the Great Purge can't be denied; it's a matter of record in the General Discussion of Moderators thread.

I'll keep reading the thread and see if I run into anything later on.

You'd have to know what it was like before to say, I think. Trust me when I say, it's collapsed.

Fair enough.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 06-27-2010 6:49 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7736
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 8 of 424 (566826)
06-28-2010 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by crashfrog
06-27-2010 6:44 PM


Look, we covered this at the time and you weren't willing to listen then. Is anything different now, Mod?

It's three years later. Otherwise - only you can be the judge of that, I suppose.

It wasn't a "he said, she said" question

No it wasn't. It is now.

It was a question of the laity having genuine problems with your moderation and the moderation of a few others, and the moderators in turn perceiving absolutely no problem except the laity complaining.

That basically sums up the 'laities' position.

Rrhain quoting my words from back then gave me occasion to re-read the thread

Sorry you went through that again.

and I continue to be struck by how thoughtful, well-reasoned, well-supported, and polite the critics of the administration were, and how petulant, unfair, and capricious the moderator response was.

Fair enough.

. And the truth is, the answer was no - you couldn't be unfair enough, capricious enough, and cruel enough to get people to see your actions as anything but cruel, capricious, and unfair.

Is there anything that I did that was capricious, cruel or unfair?

We all remember what happened, Mod, despite your revisionist history.

Revisionist history? Is there something inaccurate in my corrections of Rrhain's version of events where I banned everybody for merely criticising moderator actions?

NJ chased Berberry around three different threads offering insulting comparisons of homosexuality to bestiality and rape, under the guise of making an argument about "moral relativism." Predictably Berberry got tired of how this was being ignored by moderators and blew his stack.

Yes, that was your view - I guess that is one thing that hasn't changed

Dan complained and was suspended

But not for complaining.

I showed you how your moderation was serving not to defuse the situation, but to inflame it, and you ignored me.

No, I paid attention.

Rrhain is absolutely correct, as well he should be, since he was there. As was I.

So was I - and I just documented where Rrhain was wrong. He has even accepted being wrong twice. So 'absolutely correct' is clearly false.

So, as you look back on your actions in that thread, Mod, ask yourself now what I asked you, then - did your actions have the desired result?

No. Did yours?

Did suppressing debate about the moderator's role in inciting flamewars prevent the moderators from inciting flamewars?

I suppressed debate? You made 22 posts, most of which were critical of the moderator's actions (or lack thereof). How did I suppress your debate?

Ultimately, Mod, did your actions result in an improvement, or decline, in the general quality of debate and participants?

A decline.

The answer is abundantly obvious to me, which is why I don't post here anymore. What do you think?

How about you - do you think you helped?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 06-27-2010 6:44 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 06-28-2010 3:32 PM Modulous has responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7736
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 9 of 424 (566827)
06-28-2010 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Huntard
06-27-2010 6:29 PM


Re: My thoughts
Who had the bright idea to let normal members discuss moderator actions? That can never lead to a good thing. People will get pissy over the slightest things.

Yeah - it actually worked for many years. Normally there would be a brief discussion. Moderators would reverse an action, or uphold it. If people were still upset about it, they would be told the decision has been made. If they continued to argue against the arbitrattion, lost discipline and strated hurling insults or getting generally pissy, they'd get suspended.

It seems that Rrhain was wrong saying you banned all those people, but since I haven't read his side of the story, I'll reserve judgement for now. Not that my judgement will make the slightest amount of diference anyway.

Fair enough, don't take my (or Rrhain's) word for it.

Since the forum is still here, I'd say it hasn't collapsed.

Yeah - sure we lost a few regular prolific posters - but forum drama happens all over the place, especially when the forum is small enough for relationships to develop.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Huntard, posted 06-27-2010 6:29 PM Huntard has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1420 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 10 of 424 (566830)
06-28-2010 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Modulous
06-27-2010 4:44 PM


Just for the record...
No time (when is there ever these days?) to get deeply involved at the moment, but just to say that I fully support Mod in his responses now and then. Maybe it is my emotionally-challenged autistic streak, but I see and saw it exactly as Mod sees it (or as well as I can ascertain from his words) I'll try to get round to explaining why later, but the gist is that if there is one place where bigotry should not be censored but exposed and ridiculed - repeatedly - for all to see, it is here at EvC.

In terms of the cull, I hated it and still hate its impact. Berb wasn't the most prolific poster (says I) but he made a real impact on me, and the loss of him and the others is still felt.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Modulous, posted 06-27-2010 4:44 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by crashfrog, posted 06-28-2010 3:38 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member (Idle past 267 days)
Posts: 5512
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 11 of 424 (566844)
06-28-2010 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Rahvin
06-27-2010 7:11 PM


Isn't this thread serving solely to stir up the same sort of shitstorm that resulted in the Great Purge?

Yeah, I'll second that. This Great Purge deal seems to have a very sordid past, filled with plenty of animosity. Perhaps it be wisest to let that one go.


"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." – Blaise Pascal
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Rahvin, posted 06-27-2010 7:11 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12552
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


(1)
Message 12 of 424 (566853)
06-28-2010 9:11 AM


Back to the Future
First let me say that I'm glad it was all Mod's fault. This is a great relief to me.

Second, as the return of Faith and Nwr indicate, anyone who wants to come back can come back, but most of the suspensions were by personal request in protest of my actions (which, again, were Mod's fault). Would it be right to turn off the suspensions when they haven't requested it? Maybe they still want to be suspended in protest.

Third, the strong sense of community that EvC Forum had developed and that we all miss may or may not return with the return of the missing members who are still interested. Hard to say. The approach to moderation is dramatically different now, and to the extent that having 20 moderators and constant discussion and bickering about moderator actions contributed to EvC Forum's sense of community we can't really know.

Fourth, and I may be wrong about this, but I think the now absent chat room and Jar's always friendly near omnipresence there was perhaps the most significant factor contributing to a sense of community. There's no chat room now. I'd love for there to be a chat room, but as I'm fond of saying, there's only one of me. We can't have a 3rd party chat room supplier because the board software is nearing the point where I will begin selling it, so the chat room capability has to be native.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3449
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 13 of 424 (566855)
06-28-2010 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by crashfrog
06-27-2010 6:44 PM


It's Not Easy Being Green
Hey, the frog is back! How you doing, Froggie?

Look, we covered this at the time and you weren't willing to listen then. Is anything different now, Mod?

You're not doing all that well, apparently.

And the truth is, the answer was no - you couldn't be unfair enough, capricious enough, and cruel enough to get people to see your actions as anything but cruel, capricious, and unfair.

Bullshit.

You got some kind of thorn stuck in your flipper, Frog?

I was also here before, during and after. There was nothing unfair, capricious or cruel about Percy's handling of that whole mess. And make no mistake, regardless of who the individual moderators were, and your hard-on for some of them, this is Percy's baby and he is the only one responsible.

Were there some things that could have been done better? Hell yes. We're dealing with humans here. We can all do things better in hindsight. At the time, however, the situation, which you yourself helped to exacerbate with your incessant whining, needed to be addressed and appropriately was.

Ultimately, Mod, did your actions result in an improvement, or decline, in the general quality of debate and participants? The answer is abundantly obvious to me, which is why I don't post here anymore.

Since the forum is still here, I'd say it hasn't collapsed.

You'd have to know what it was like before to say, I think. Trust me when I say, it's collapsed.

A large chunk of confirmation bias here, Frog. I can see you wish this were true to vindicate this poison attitude you seem to be carrying.

Again, I was here then as now. This site is as vibrant and interesting as it has ever been. A lot of the Old Guard are still here, along with a whole covey of New Bloods with fresh ideas and interesting styles. The creationists … well, all creationists are cut from the same holy cloth, still talking flud and 2nd Law of Thermal Documents, etc., so nothing there ever changes. But the topics are as diverse and the discussions as deep, often heated, and fun as always. That you are willfully blind to this and do not want to appreciate it is your own loss.

Your view of this whole thing is bogus. I guess it isn't easy being green.

Why are you here, Frog?

Have you come back to sling shit at Percy for some perceived injury to your ego? Is this some cathartic exercise for your wounded psyche? Have you changed from “Crash Frog” to “Troll Frog” or maybe “Trash Frog”? Does this whole thing still hurt your sensitive ego?

Suck it up, grow a pair, and get on with life, man. You're not 16 anymore.

If you want to come back and play with the rest of us in Percy's Sandbox then welcome back, Crash Frog. But if you're here to be Trash Frog, throw sand and crap at everyone then just pick up your bucket of bullshit and leave.

So the real question is this: Stay and play or trash and troll?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 06-27-2010 6:44 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-28-2010 9:31 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 06-28-2010 3:58 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17166
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 14 of 424 (566856)
06-28-2010 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by crashfrog
06-27-2010 6:49 PM


Re: My thoughts
Hi Crash,

Just a quick off-topic note to tell you to be careful out there. You evidently pissed off some hackers in a discussion about rape, and last week they successfully hacked into EvC Forum for your password. Hopefully you're not using the same password at wherever this discussion was.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 06-27-2010 6:49 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 06-28-2010 4:08 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Hyroglyphx
Member (Idle past 267 days)
Posts: 5512
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 15 of 424 (566857)
06-28-2010 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by AZPaul3
06-28-2010 9:23 AM


Re: It's Not Easy Being Green
Have you come back to sling shit at Percy for some perceived injury to your ego? Is this some cathartic exercise for your wounded psyche? Have you changed from “Crash Frog” to “Troll Frog” or maybe “Trash Frog”? Does this whole thing still hurt your sensitive ego?

Suck it up, grow a pair, and get on with life, man. You're not 16 anymore.

If you want to come back and play with the rest of us in Percy's Sandbox then welcome back, Crash Frog. But if you're here to be Trash Frog, throw sand and crap at everyone then just pick up your bucket of bullshit and leave.

Holy shit.... That's one hell of an excoriation. Really went for the jugular on that one.

Remind me to never cross you


"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." – Blaise Pascal
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by AZPaul3, posted 06-28-2010 9:23 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

    
1
23456
...
29NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018