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 4:02 AM
266 online now:
caffeine, ICANT, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (4 members, 262 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
  
RewPrev1
...
242526
27
2829Next
Author Topic:   Did Mod cause the collapse of evcforum?
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 391 of 424 (568398)
07-05-2010 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 375 by AZPaul3
07-05-2010 5:05 AM


Re: Let's Make A Deal
Make a deal with you, Crash.

I'll stop. You Stop. We both stop this nonsense. We both abandon this thread. Deal?

No deal. Why would I abandon the thread? I'm the one participating in the discussion.

Here's my counter-offer - you abandon the thread now, and I'll abandon the thread when the discussion is over. And once I do I'll never, ever bring it up again, even if anybody else wants to talk about it.

Deal?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by AZPaul3, posted 07-05-2010 5:05 AM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 401 by AZPaul3, posted 07-05-2010 11:08 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 392 of 424 (568401)
07-05-2010 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 389 by Modulous
07-05-2010 12:59 PM


Re: Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
And Dan was arguing against Percy. When I told him what that would imply (that I would have suspended him) he responded: 'see how easy that was?'. Hoist on his own petard, eh?

I'm sorry, I don't follow. That doesn't explain why Dan's motives are important as yours. Again, Dan was not a moderator, but you were.

Without waving in the general direction of the thread again - could you provide an example of the reticence of moderators to discuss application of moderator philosophy?

I'm trying to bend the arc of these exchanges towards brevity, so no, I'm not going to do that. Suffice to say, throughout the thread it was repeatedly stated that the issues under discussion would only be specific acts of moderation, not general complains about moderators.

I kept asking for evidence of infractions

It had been provided and ignored. There really wasn't any more that would have been needed to have been supplied, especially if you had been moderating according to Percy's enunciated "rubber dart" standard.

Simply the wide and popular impression that NJ was engaged in gay-baiting meant to piss Berberry and others off should have been sufficient, according to the standards of moderation Percy had enunciated. At any rate you picked a terrible time to stand on principle, as I said.

Whatever. You're never going to see reason on this, even though NJ himself showed up to confess to being a homophobic jerkoff back then, so let's drop it. Just know I can't accept your version of events as true, no more than had you asserted the sky was green.

Exactly! Dan had an out. I gave it to him explicitly.

This strikes me as an endemic problem in your posts that I think we've uncovered here - you read as sarcastic when you're apparently just being incredibly un-self-aware. Like your "retroactive suspension" of Rrhain and Dan, later in that thread - you seem to think you actually did something there, but let me assure you, everyone who read that interpreted it as sarcastic Moderation Theater.

It's something for you to watch for, I guess. Try to read your own posts with some degree of cynicism, because as a moderator cynicism will invariably be applied to your actions and justifications.

If that's something you can't bear, hey, you could always step down...

Good - I'm glad you have now dropped the charge that I was being 'hypersensitive'.

But I haven't. As I said, there's no inconsistency in my positions, here. One can, after all, interpret something as an insult even as they're not particularly insulted by it.

Inane, crash. I didn't seriously think he was telling me how to eat a banana.

Oh, so now we're back to where you did think Dan was calling you a "retarded monkey." I wish you'd make up your mind; I'm getting whiplash trying to follow your moving goalposts.

Because he could use it to vindicate his belief that the moderators were capriciously suspending people.

How would he use it to "vindicate" anything when the suspension made him unable to post? As I said, nobody wants to be suspended. If they did it wouldn't be effective to use it as punishment, now would it?

How could you have missed that he wasn't calling for NJ to be suspended?

Because that's not true? Because he actually did want you to unsuspend Berberry and take action against NJ? Because that's what he actually said?

I mean, Jesus. Did you understand what the issues in front of you were at all? Every time you come back with something like this, it seems like the answer must be "no".

During time of impasse, the moderators win - unfortunately.

Doubtless. There's nothing that can be done about that.

But moderators don't get to revise history and project their own intransigence on the participants. We were perfectly willing to discuss alternatives. None were ever offered beyond "fall in line or hit the road." "All of my position, and none of yours" is not a compromise. It's exactly the opposite of compromise.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by Modulous, posted 07-05-2010 12:59 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 393 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-05-2010 6:35 PM crashfrog has responded
 Message 395 by Modulous, posted 07-05-2010 6:52 PM crashfrog has responded

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


Message 393 of 424 (568412)
07-05-2010 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 392 by crashfrog
07-05-2010 4:35 PM


Re: Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
Simply the wide and popular impression that NJ was engaged in gay-baiting meant to piss Berberry and others off should have been sufficient, according to the standards of moderation Percy had enunciated. At any rate you picked a terrible time to stand on principle, as I said.

I didn't want to say anything so as to not inflame the situation, but Berberry was the one that followed me around. As for the others, regardless of whether or not my views were unpopular, anyone should be able to express their views.

Going back and reading the material, was I really such an hideously, awful guy or was it that you took strong exception to my views? Because from my vantage point, it appears that people wanted me to be suspended or banned on account of not liking my views as opposed to my actual behavior.

I think that distinction needs to be made clear.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by crashfrog, posted 07-05-2010 4:35 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 396 by crashfrog, posted 07-05-2010 6:53 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

    
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1406 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 394 of 424 (568414)
07-05-2010 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 390 by Asgara
07-05-2010 3:15 PM


Re: Deliberation
The topic you are referring to, Problems with evolution? Submit your questions. was moved, I believe in a rather tongue-in-cheek manner, to the "Free for All" forum.

I was willing to put my topic in any folder Percy wanted-including Free for all. And yet he STILL refused to promote a very relevant topic-and also refused to asnwer why he refused mine and accepted this one.

Can there be any more clear evidence than this, that in fact Percy clearly does try to suppress discussion on this website when it doesn't agree with his own worldview?

I would be happy to challenge Percy to debate his stance on another forum, which doesn't try to suppress academic discussions, but of course he won't because he prefers to hide behind this website where he is free to control all the rules and suppress things he doesn't want allowed to be talked about.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by Asgara, posted 07-05-2010 3:15 PM Asgara has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 399 by Asgara, posted 07-05-2010 8:40 PM Bolder-dash has responded

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


Message 395 of 424 (568415)
07-05-2010 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 392 by crashfrog
07-05-2010 4:35 PM


Crash writes:

Mod writes:

Crash writes:

Of course Dan didn't want you to suspend him. He wanted you to suspend NJ. That was the entire point, how could you have missed that?

How could you have missed that he wasn't calling for NJ to be suspended?

Because that's not true?...
I mean, Jesus. Did you understand what the issues in front of you were at all? Every time you come back with something like this, it seems like the answer must be "no".

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

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

From Message 80

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by crashfrog, posted 07-05-2010 4:35 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 397 by crashfrog, posted 07-05-2010 7:13 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 396 of 424 (568416)
07-05-2010 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 393 by Hyroglyphx
07-05-2010 6:35 PM


Re: Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
I didn't want to say anything so as to not inflame the situation, but Berberry was the one that followed me around.

GenDiscMod11 reads the exact opposite, actually. Berb's posts predate yours by a substantial number of posts. What, did he follow you from in front?

Going back and reading the material, was I really such an hideously, awful guy or was it that you took strong exception to my views?

Well, a bit of both. You were like someone who posted a thread wondering "Why are white people so much smarter, in general, than minorities?"

The first time, people might have taken some umbrage at that, but they would have patiently explained that, no, white people aren't smarter in general than minorities, that's a mistaken assumption on your part. You might very well explained how you wanted to have a debate or make a point about the causes of different levels of intelligence between individuals. Ok, we might have said, but pick different examples because the one you're using is offensive and false.

And then, you open another thread asking "But why are white people so much smarter than minorities?"

At that point, it starts to look a lot less like you're someone who stumbled into causing unintentional offense, and a lot more like you're a bigot flogging the racist idea that white people are smarter than minorities.

I'm sorry if you feel that's not correct, but people were asking you to stop and you didn't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-05-2010 6:35 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 398 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-05-2010 8:18 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 397 of 424 (568418)
07-05-2010 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 395 by Modulous
07-05-2010 6:52 PM


This leads me to assume no further constructive discussion is possible with you.

Then we're done. I'm sorry you couldn't have been made to see reason.

May as well close the thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 395 by Modulous, posted 07-05-2010 6:52 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

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


Message 398 of 424 (568426)
07-05-2010 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 396 by crashfrog
07-05-2010 6:53 PM


Re: Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
GenDiscMod11 reads the exact opposite, actually. Berb's posts predate yours by a substantial number of posts. What, did he follow you from in front?

GenDiscMod was where everyone ran to go tattle on me, so obviously people's complaints about me would predate my defending myself. I was referring to the threads that I was being tattled on for.

I'm sorry if you feel that's not correct, but people were asking you to stop and you didn't.

Should a creationist stop posting because it offends evolutionists? Regardless, I think this thread is fried. Stick a fork in it.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by crashfrog, posted 07-05-2010 6:53 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

    
Asgara
Member (Idle past 79 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 399 of 424 (568431)
07-05-2010 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 394 by Bolder-dash
07-05-2010 6:48 PM


Re: Deliberation
I can't think of a topic that has ever been suppressed here, and I've been here for many years. All you were asked to do was to narrow the focus of the discussion. You can't expect to start one thread that encompasses the ENTIRE site's focus.

This site is pretty unique in the web forum universe and even more so in the EvC debate universe. We do not suppress topics, (though oddly, Percy would like them to have SOMETHING to do with the purpose of this forum). We do not suppress viewpoints. We do not delete posts. Members do not get suspended for their viewpoints.

Follow the forum rules, stay on topic, provide evidence for your claims in the science forums.

So quit acting the martyr, narrow the focus of your post and you can discuss anything you like. Once one topic has run its course you can start another thread on the next area of your discussion.

This is off topic for THIS thread so I won't be responding here any more.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 394 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-05-2010 6:48 PM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 400 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-05-2010 9:47 PM Asgara has not yet responded

    
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1406 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 400 of 424 (568446)
07-05-2010 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 399 by Asgara
07-05-2010 8:40 PM


Re: Deliberation
You are claiming that no opinions are suppressed. Yet no one, Percy or yourself included can explain to me why an evolutionist was able to start a thread as vague as Problems with Evolution-submit your question, and yet I am not allowed to start a thread which discusses the pros and cons of the Darwinian debate evidence.

I don't think any honest intellectual can say that my topic is more vague than that one. And even if you did say it was vague, as I stated, I am willing to put in in a free for all forum.

You and the moderators are acting as if having a debate which touches on the entirety of the body of evidence for the theory will someone cause the whole site to come to a crashing halt. That is pure nonsense. What is the damage that would be done by asking others to help form the case for the theory?

No clearly no damage would be done, other than to weigh the validity of the theory. Instead what is going on, is Percy is using his control over the forum , to silence a rationed retort to the theory, by forcing dissenters into impossible to manage rules. Every time someone wishes to expound further on weaknesses to the Theory as a whole, Percy, or his attack dogs cut in and try to say that one criticism or another is off topic-thus derailing any attempts to paint a holistic argument.

Dissenters already have their hands tied on this forum in so many ways-such as having to respond to ten different evolutionists on every point-often ones who continually distract from simple logic without any assistant from the site moderators to force them to debate fairly-and this is simply another way that Percy controls all outcomes.

I ask again, why does a broad topic discussion harm the site-as long as people realize the subject is broad, and as long it is in the right forum? If he feels it is spinning out of unmanageable control later on, he could always cancel it later if he wanted anyway. So there really is no excuse-other than attempts at silencing dissent-a tactic that evolutionists have been working with for years and years.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 399 by Asgara, posted 07-05-2010 8:40 PM Asgara has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 402 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-05-2010 11:20 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 403 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-06-2010 2:36 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

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


Message 401 of 424 (568456)
07-05-2010 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 391 by crashfrog
07-05-2010 4:14 PM


Re: Let's Make A Deal
Here's my counter-offer - you abandon the thread now, and I'll abandon the thread when the discussion is over.

No deal.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 391 by crashfrog, posted 07-05-2010 4:14 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3858
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 402 of 424 (568457)
07-05-2010 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 400 by Bolder-dash
07-05-2010 9:47 PM


The "Problems with Evolution-submit your question" topic
Yet no one, Percy or yourself included can explain to me why an evolutionist was able to start a thread as vague as Problems with Evolution-submit your question, and yet I am not allowed to start a thread which discusses the pros and cons of the Darwinian debate evidence.

Problems with Evolution-submit your question

1) That topic should never have been promoted - Mistakes happen.

2) That topic became a joke at best and a big stinking pile of garbage at worst. It ultimately ended up in the "Free For All" forum, which is used for homing such topics rather than just closing them.

3) The topic originator only posted the one message. He never took any position in that message. But my impression was (including looking at his profile) that he was actually some variety of creationist. So, creationist or evolutionist - I really don't know.

Adminnemooseus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 400 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-05-2010 9:47 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

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


(1)
Message 403 of 424 (568559)
07-06-2010 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 400 by Bolder-dash
07-05-2010 9:47 PM


Re: Deliberation
You are claiming that no opinions are suppressed. Yet no one, Percy or yourself included can explain to me why an evolutionist was able to start a thread as vague as Problems with Evolution-submit your question, and yet I am not allowed to start a thread which discusses the pros and cons of the Darwinian debate evidence.

Bolder-Dash, I cannot talk about the specifics of your case because I am not familiar with it, but I can tell you from experience that there is not a conspiracy against creationists. Percy is very aware that this forum only work if evolutionists and creationists/ID'ists debate. That means, the site needs creationists just as much as it needs evolutionists. That really goes without saying. I shouldn't even have to say it, but just in case you forgot, there it is...

In fact, before the "meltdown" there were quite a few theist admins that he personally installed to keep the site as fair and balanced as possible. As it turned out, there seemed to be too much moderating. So now we are down to five.

What this site does not guarantee, nor should it, is that you won't get shit for your opinions. I've endured far more hardship than you could ever imagine and yet you don't see me crying in a corner, whining about how persecuted I am.

Granted, there are more atheists and far more evolutionists (both atheistic and theistic) on this site than there are creationists and ID'ists. That means that you are going to experience more grief than many people, but that comes with the territory. You either need to either embrace that fact or be crushed under the pressure.

Percy is using his control over the forum , to silence a rationed retort to the theory, by forcing dissenters into impossible to manage rules. Every time someone wishes to expound further on weaknesses to the Theory as a whole, Percy, or his attack dogs cut in and try to say that one criticism or another is off topic-thus derailing any attempts to paint a holistic argument.

Give me a break... I don't think you will find a more long-suffering soul than Percy. Percy is more in the business of giving you a platform in which to relay your fringe beliefs than he is in the business of silencing dissenters. More to the point, he doesn't have "attack dogs." No one here is beholden to him, nor is he beholden to us. I'm sure it's more satisfying for you to believe that there are smoke-filled rooms where they dream up nefarious plots for creationists while commiserating with evolutionists. As a former moderator (a theistic ID'ist moderator, at that) I can tell you first hand that no such conspiracy exists. Sorry to disappoint.

All that is required of you is to follow a handful of forum guidelines that are generally loosely adhered to. All the moderators like giving their members the benefit of the doubt unless there's an egregious offense that cannot be overlooked. That's it. So if one of your threads wasn't promoted, I'm confident there was good reason for it.

My suggestion to you is to debate your points, and they will be judged collectively by the members of this forum by their merits.

That is all.

Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
This message is a reply to:
 Message 400 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-05-2010 9:47 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

    
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 1921 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 404 of 424 (596563)
12-15-2010 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by Hyroglyphx
07-04-2010 9:31 AM


Re: Deliberation
Well, my reply would be "guilty". Sorry Mod, I typically enjoy and agree with most of your stuff. However, I too remember those days and I have to agree [for the most part] with Crash on this one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-04-2010 9:31 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

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


Message 405 of 424 (832339)
05-02-2018 3:57 PM


From ancient grudge break to new mutiny
It appears Rrhain is at it again (Message 31). Rather than completely derail another thread I'm bringing Rrhain's lengthy comments into this thread where they can be discussed as much as Rrhain would like to in the hopes that he will get it out of his system or better yet, find the resolution he seeks.

Rrhain has specifically said he will continue raising the issue in threads periodically and seems to have a problem with posting here so I hold that in order to contain this discussion to its appropriate place, we need raise this thread from its slumber.




I didn't ban you, Percy did.

Actually, it was Minnemooseus, so we're both wrong on that.

Ah, you meant the short 24 hour suspension. I thought you were referring to the more significant indefinite suspensions several months later, regarding the same subject matter. I tend to think of 'ban' and 'suspension' as different things.

The point is, you were part of that lovely brigade of clueless admins dropping the ban hammer (*cough*Dan Carroll*cough*). Something for which none of you have ever acknowledged let alone apologized for.

I suspended one person for 72 hours. I've acknowledged it, but I see no reason to apologize for it - with the exception of the acknowledgement that it would have been preferable to refer it to another Moderator given the circumstances.

I freely offer my apologies for suspending a forum member who was breaking a rule when that rule breaking was directed specifically at me. I don't think it's a huge deal, but in retrospect - every little would have helped. To the best of my recall, I haven't suspended any other member this way since.

As if that's all you did. Shall we quote crashfrog on the matter?

I don't really need opinion, I'd rather stick to the facts. Feel free to bring them to this discussion.

It never occurred to you to turn to Percy, Minnemooseus, or Phat and say, "No, this is wrong." And I am not the only one who noticed.

We tend to keep those kinds of discussion limited to Private Messages and the Admin Forum.

From re-reading the discussion there, AdminNem was asked to change his approach with his discussion with Berb. AdminPD was the person who raised the discussion in how we should approach the discussion since as sympathetic as she was to Berb's feelings on the matter she still felt the Administative action of staying basically hands off was right (she was the 'Admin on scene')

Percy discussed a revision of the rules, particularly rule 10 which he felt was a little too subjective and relied on judgement calls that may differ from moderator to participant - and other methods for handling the problem going forward.

Most of the discussion there surrounded proposed techniques for dealing with comments aimed at groups - with the aim towards permitting a wide range of ideas to be discussed. Thus arguing homosexuality is evil on religious grounds should be permitted, but stating homosexuality is disgusting and they should be killed probably should not.

Percy did comment to me regarding NJ's eventual suspension in that thread and my reaction to it, explaining why he felt the generally quite lengthy suspension was merited.

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.

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.

What part of "never acknowledged let alone apologized for" are you having trouble with? If you don't recognize the problems you had, you will have an exceedingly difficult time correcting them.

By all means point out the problems, I'm even less committed to the person I was ten years ago than I was when I started this thread.

It would seem that it's the exact same problem: The moderators don't pay attention to the thread and when things get out of hand, they punish the people who brought it to their attention rather than the ones that caused the problem in the first place.

It was our view that the people causing problems were the ones that got suspended.

You are specifically the problem, Modulous. You literally had someone sock puppeting on your board, spewing homophobia with aplomb, and your response was that "it didn't merit suspension." And you wonder why I'm not letting it go?

NJ wasn't sock-puppeting - his second account was created a couple of years after the incident in question.

And yes, I wonder why you are not letting it go.

You, specifically you, Modulous, said that Dan hadn't done anything wrong.

I, specifically, me, said that Dan had broken the rules in my opinion.

And you, specifically you, Modulous, banned him anyway.

For breaking the rules.

And you have never acknowledged this error nor apologized for it.

I don't think suspending someone for breaking the rules is by itself, something that a moderator should apologize for.

Not in the slightest. In fact, in your supposed "apology" tour, you specifically disrespected me. I'm a big boy. I don't actually care about your opinion of me.

Any rough from me was part of the tumble you instigated, sir. The disrespect you threw at me was orders of magnitude larger than me saying you were mistaken in a creative fashion.

But considering that you were trying to point out that people were being banned because of disrespect, because you, specifically you, Modulous, banned Dan Carroll for supposedly disrespecting you

It was disrespect according to Dan. I gave him an out, he closed it. The chance I gave him has been quote mined by you for years ever since.

What you "analyzed" and "apologized" for was "unnecessary posting."

And for moderating against someone who was directing their violation at me.

Not for any actions you took against the members of the board. Not for the consequences of those actions.

I certainly have apologised for the consequences of my actions. I am sorry for my part in contributing to the heat in my misguided quest to bring light.

your banning of Dan Carroll for coming to berberry's defense

Nah, we've been over this a million times. Dan said lots of things in berb's defence that didn't merit a suspension.

Minnemooseus' banning of me for coming to Dan Carroll's defense

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

quote:
Drop it now! Maybe I'll start suspending (24 hours?) anyone and everyone who won't.

On 21-July-2007 you started making large posts about the subject, and were subsequently suspended for 24 hours, as warned. Rule number 1: Please follow all moderator requests.

The discussion continued regardless. Percy requested the matter be dropped on 23-July-2007 Message 160 - you argued that your gripe was a separate issue but regardless that's what happened.

You aren't sorry for what you did. Just that you got caught doing it a lot.

I'm not sure doing something in front of everyone, knowing it was in front of everyone, because it was in front of everyone suggests I would be sorry for being caught doing it.

In fact, you dismissed the entire concept as unimportant

I said that whether people were right in their complaints was a moot point 3 years later down the line.

oes it matter?

Again, that was your entire response to that question.

Indeed - does it matter whether any moderator admitted than their actions were inciting the very crisis they claimed justified those actions three years, or indeed eleven years down the line?

you point out that the problem wasn't that your moderator actions were wrong but rather that you gave any comment about why you did them in the first place
the role of the moderators should have been to state their position - explain it and then terminate further discussion.

As you quote me, that is incorrect. The mistake was continuing to argue the point after giving comment - not the giving of the initial comments.

It's the kind of thing that erodes confidence in your ability to be objective. It certainly eroded mine, which is why at the time I described you as being one of the worst moderators I had ever seen at the forum. Taking moderator action because someone "disrespected you", but not against someone else who had disrespected Berberry, made it pretty clear that you weren't using your moderator power to enforce respect among debators, you were using it to enforce respect for yourself.

You completely ignored it.

Actually I addressed it.

quote:
Moderators should exercise caution under those circumstances. I would point out that I was cautious: I expressed I would not suspend Dan for calling me a retarded monkey that was so retarded he'd fail the retard test on the grounds that
a) he was going to drop the subject
b) it was only an implied insult.
And made it conditional that were he to continue he'd have adopt a civil tone or he would be suspended.

Sure - I could have gone through the process of asking another moderator to make the call, as I have done in the past. But there is a system in place to correct for that - other moderators who can countermand an unfair suspension.
....
I don't have a problem with "That looks bad.", or "That could be seen as abuse of privelages." And as a moderator, I understand the need to bend over backwards to avoid bias and maintain impartiality.
...

There it is again - a perfectly reasonable point that moderators shouldn't act on offences against them.


Discussions broke down shortly thereafter. However, allow me to offer my (reserved) apologies. I am sorry for personally suspending Dan rather than solicit the opinion of another moderator. That Dan broke the rule is unquestionable, and the policy at the time was to lean towards avoiding suspending people with whom you were having a discussion - with that thread - and overt rule breaking being exceptions to this policy.

However, my unilateral action certainly contributed to ill feelings and upset within the community and, regardless of what the policy was, I had a responsibility to anticipate this possibility given the specifics of the circumstance. To my knowledge it is not a mistake I have repeated and moderator policy has undergone changes since - in part because of the events discussed here.

Where in that entire thread did you "concede points where you thought I was right"?

Name one.

quote:
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.

Message 1

And where did you express any sorrow of any kind? Wait, you're probably thinking of that part above where you claim you have "expressed sorrow" (*snort!*) and ask crashfrog to "accept your apologies."

I thought the overall tone was indicative that I felt the whole affair was a sorrowful one, but if you want it to be explicit: The whole affair was sorrowful, and I feel regret and sorrow for the way events played out.

Except that crashfrog apologizes to you in kind and your response to him is to call it "self-serving." So while you may have decided to accept it from him, it isn't going to fly with me.

Crashfrog didn't apologize for his actions or contribution to the problem - he explicitly stated he was blameless. He actually apologized for failing to make himself understood. It does seem a little self-serving to me, akin- but different - to 'sorry you are so stupid as to not understand me'.

It's been going on for more than a decade. How many times do you need to be burned by it before you learn your lesson?

You're the only one who is still going on about it, Rrhain. You have been free to come to this thread and air your grievances and discuss it all you like in the last 8 of those years. Instead, you try to derail other threads and cause an emotional response in unrelated discussions.

As soon as you, Percy, Minnemooseus, and Phat acknowledge what you did, apologize for what you did, and show actual effort at correcting the problem, I'll stop bringing it up.

I'd rather you didn't hold other people's actions or inactions against me whenever we have a disagreement about unrelated topics on this site. if you want comment from me, you just have to come to this thread which was created specifically for you to do that very thing.

As I said - the rules, the moderation policy and culture has changed since then. Which is presumably why you need to hearken back to an incident from eleven years ago rather than anything more recent whenever you want to make this point.

For the record I didn't read the rest of your comments

Of course you didn't.

Yes, of course. They were off topic in Police Shootings and I was trying to motivate you to raise them here as I requested you do. Naturally you ignored me and carried on the off topic derailment.

No acknowledgement of your mistakes.
No apology for what you did.
No act of contrition.

I apologized for my part in the problem and have done so again here. I have acknowledged several mistakes here, for example in Message 17

quote:
My particular favourite "Fuck Mod, why did you do that?" was Message 125. Confrontational, snarky, passive aggressive - it has basically no redeeming features.

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.

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

In fact, you doubled down. The whole thread was nothing but a massive show of ego with you trying to claim you had the moral high ground.

I offered to do this privately to avoid such a charge. You attempted to reply but it got lost in the ether apparently. You didn't suggest in your reply here that you'd prefer to take it into PMs. My primary focus here initially was to address the numerous ways you were wrong because you decided to start throwing bullshit at me in an unrelated thread and I declined to raise to your trolling.

It evolved into a relatively civil discussion about the scenario, compared with its origin story. It remains a place for you to be wrong about those times, or discuss with me any legitimate gripes you may have from there - as a means to avoid new mutinies (thread derailments) breaking out over this ancient grudge.

You never apologized for actually doing the wrong thing at every turn.

Though I don't think I did the wrong thing at every turn. I would certainly handle things better these days.

You also, have never apologized for your contribution to the problem.

Note, you're not apologizing for banning Dan Carroll.

Dan should have been suspended, and I think 72 hours was a reasonable time frame. But I should have asked another moderator to make the call. Of course, whether that would have changed things is an open question. According to crashfrog he would have assumed the Admins were circling the wagons if the other moderator agreed a suspension was warranted.

You're not confronting the banning of berberry.

Not my action. Take it up with Percy. I think it was fine and I've explained why.

You're not confronting Minnemooseus for banning me.

I did at the time. I don't think it was a terrible act to be suspended for 24 hours. You did continue to post about the debacle after he asked for a stop, even if you want to argue the specific post you were suspended for didn't meet the standard.

You're apologizing for being "confrontational, snarky, passive agressive."

Yes. Is that problem somehow?

n_j (Hyroglyphx) was spewing homophobic bullshit all over the board and specifically targetting berberry and the response of the moderators of this board was to punish berberry and anybody who stood up for him.

I don't think NJs homophobia construed a problem in the context it was being discussed as I've said numerous times. I did a review of the posts at the time and showed that in most cases it was Berb that responded to NJ first - not NJ seeking Berb out to respond to so I rejected the targetting claim too.

Berb was suspended initially for breaking all civility - his final post, as I've said numerous times - in that thread that sparked the suspension was, in its entirety:

quote:
Fuck you

Which is the kind of thing that has resulted in suspension many times. He was indefinitely suspended 6 months later after the issue raised its head again and Berb said

quote:
But I don't think Percy ever contested the point that n's comparison was insulting. He just thought I was being thin-skinned, and illustrated his feelings by portraying me as an hysterical, menstruating woman.

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.

Hyroglyphx admitted to being n_j and he suffered no consequences while berberry is still banned indefinitely.

His account was merged with NJs. I think being associated with all that is reasonable punishment. The only people I'm aware of who have faced consequences for creating an alt-account are those that do so to circumvent suspensions.

So when you say, "I was a contributing factor," exactly what was your contribution, Modulous?

I continued to post beyond the point where it was necessary. This resulted in replies to my post that continuously contributed towards escalating the situation. Had I stopped earlier, having explained my position clearly, Dan would not have called me a retarded monkey. Had I called for another moderator to take action maybe, it would not have resulted in additional anger - though given the mood of the thread - I suspect if someone else had done it the anger would be the same though the target may have changed.

So that was my contribution - continuing to rise to the escalating anger at the moderator action/inaction. I should have at best - signed off the thread with a short, firm declaration of my position.

A lesson I think I took into account 6 months later when the issue came up again. That was on the back of you strongly insinuating that NJ was a paedophile if you recall. An incident that was a direct spark that lead to the Great Purge.

You still can't bring yourself to the idea that n_j (Hyroglyphx) did something wrong, can you? You said, "The Admin team seemed to be in consensus that whatever N_J was doing - it didn't merit suspension."

Correct. Members were given ample opportunity to present their evidence but it seems it was insufficient. I saw NJ arguing that homosexuality was a sin / immoral and presenting an argument to that effect. I thought his argument was flawed, and his conclusion wrong - including from a moral standpoint. But it didn't break the rules to argue that homosexuality was immoral so...

Well, what do you think, Modulous? What was your opinion? I presume there's a bit of a majority vote going on in the halls of moderation so that if most of the admins don't think there's a problem, then their opinion rules, but what was your opinion? Was n_j's (Hyroglypx's) treatment of berberry worthy of suspension?

No. That opinion was unanimous in the halls of moderation I believe. My opinion on that hasn't changed.

You keep harping on the fact that I only made one post in that thread. Well, did you notice that my post was #264 in that thread despite it having only been a few days between your post and mine?

Yep - you've made more posts about this topic in threads where it is off-topic than you have in here.

But you did. You all did. 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.

One wonders why I let it go. Of course, I can't seem to win with you. If I bring it up, you complain about me bringing it up. If I let it go, you complain that I didn't respond.

If you bring it up in threads where it is off-topic I will complain that there is a thread about it you could use. When you continue to post off-topic about this subject I'll point out that you have posted more off-topic comments in that thread than on-topic ones in this one.

The timing was all wrong. Even if we assume that there was some admonition to me, I was banned for a post that was made *before* the admonition. This isn't a question of "benefit of the doubt."

Maybe I'm mistaken, but it was two days after the request that Moose made the request.

And even more importantly, it assumes that Phat was correct...which is part of the problem: He wasn't. The base problem still remains unacknowledged:

Well I think we had certainly demonstrated long ago that you would not be satisfied by further discussion. So I think Phat, Moose and Percy were all correct when they attempted to terminate that line of discussion. But even if they were wrong - the moderators requests to terminate the discussion should be followed.

When berberry fought back, he was punished, not n_j (Hyroglyphx).

Nah, Berb was suspended for a short period for getting increasingly pissy when the Admin team disagreed with him about whether rule breaking was occurring from NJ.

When Dan Carroll came to berberry's defense, he was banned under some trumped up charge of "disrespect" (so why was n_j (Hyroglyphx) still around?)

Because hurling insults directed at members of the board, which Dan did, was against the rules. Arguing in favour of the immorality of homosexuality was not. Dan made a dozen posts defending berberry without getting suspended. Crashfrog made two dozen without getting suspended. Clearly defending berb was not what got a person suspended in that thread.

When I came to Dan Carroll's defense, I was banned under some trumped up charge of "violating administrator directives" (so why was n_j (Hyroglyphx) still around?)

You made nearly two dozen posts in that thread too. Your suspension was light, even if was in error.

When crashfrog came to my defense, you avoided any attempt to deal with the heart of the problem.

I disagree, but still he didn't get suspended did he?

So we're back to the original problem: You haven't acknowledged your wrongdoing, you haven't apologized, and nothing has changed. And to your comment to me in that thread, I will continue to question your intelligence and intellectual honesty until you do.

Have at it. But please do it in this thread where it is at least on topic.


Replies to this message:
 Message 406 by Rrhain, posted 05-04-2018 6:42 PM Modulous has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
242526
27
2829Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018