Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 11.0
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 106 of 304 (410993)
07-18-2007 12:21 PM


Mimicry --- Please Promote
I know we have a thread on mimicry, but it has MartinV all over it.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 107 of 304 (411140)
07-19-2007 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by AdminModulous
07-17-2007 2:16 AM


Re: Moderator Requests
AdminModulous responds to me:
quote:
It's an equally valid question - though there are few threads around here concerned with the morality of heterosexual sex. I'm perfectly happy to entertain the question and I don't think it implies that heterosexuals are animals.
You're missing the point and being quite disingenuous in the process:
First, the missing the point aspect: Since we don't think that heterosexuality leads to bestiality, pedophilia, or rape (after all, we encourage heterosexuality but discourage bestiality, pedophilia, and rape), then what on earth makes anybody think that homosexuality could possibly lead to them any more than heterosexuality does? The two go together. If heterosexuality doesn't lead to them, then homosexuality necessarily doesn't either. If homosexuality does, and if we must actively discourage homosexuality on that basis, then heterosexuality necessarily does as well and we must actively discourage heterosexuality on that basis, too.
The only other option is to assert that there is something that gay people do that straight people don't do, but there is no such thing. In fact, given the sheer number of heterosexuals out there, straight people engage in the activities condemned in gays much more often. So if it doesn't make straight people have sex with animals, children, or against someone's will, then it cannot make gay people do any of those things, either.
Second, the disingenuous part: Nobody ever questions heterosexuality as leading to bestiality, pedophilia, or rape. You know this. Please show me where anybody has ever studied heterosexuality as causative factor of such. If you can't find any, let us not pretend that it is "an equally valid question."
After all, sex is not species. Changing the sex of the participants does not alter the species of those involved. Sex is not age. Changing the sex of the participants does not alter the ages of those involved. Sex is not consent. Changing the sex of the participants does not alter the consent of those involved.
quote:
Indeed - the morality of oral sex was once questioned and we could even ask the question of oral sex.
Again, you are being disingenuous at best. The question of the morality of oral sex was to compare it to genital sex. Those two are different acts. However, there is nothing that a same-sex couple does to each other than mixed-sex couples don't also do. In fact, because there are more straight people in the world than gay people, it is much more likely that "the thing that makes Jesus puke" (bonus points for catching the reference) is being done by a straight person than a gay person.
Changing the sex of the participants from gay to straight doesn't change the act. Therefore, since it isn't problematic when straight people do it, then it cannot be problematic when gay people do it.
quote:
Which is backwards. Nobody is discussing the morality of bestiality.
Yes, they are. They are making the implicit statement that bestiality is morally wrong. By bringing up bestiality in a discussion about the morality of same-sex sexual activity, one necessarily equates the two. Why would it be brought up if not to equate them?
Again, the question that should immediately be asked is why the person is jumping to bestiality, pedophilia, and/or rape when discussing same-sex sexuality when such comparisons would never be made when discussing mixed-sex sexuality? There are no sexual acts that gay people engage in that straight people don't. So if we don't think heterosexuality leads to bestiality, pedophilia, and/or rape, then why on earth would homosexuality lead to it?
quote:
The question was what reasoning prevents us from considering it moral whereas we can consider homosexual sex not immoral.
And my point is that it is illogical to do so and anybody who does do so is necessarily a homophobic bigot. We never consider that heterosexuality would lead to such and since there is nothing gay people do that straight people don't, it necessarily is the case that homosexuality doesn't lead to such, either. The two go together.
quote:
The question wasn't about gay people but about homosexual sex and its morality.
Once again, you are being disingenuous. We aren't talking about the neutral "men who have sex with men" statement of the CDC and NIH when trying to define sexual activity between people of the same sex without reference to sexual orientation since there are many instances where people who aren't gay will engage in same-sex sexual activity. We are talking about the sexual activities that people engage in when a full suite of options are available.
Thus, if you regularly, deliberately, and eagerly engage in sex with someone of the same sex, then you aren't straight. It doesn't matter that you don't "identify" with gay people...you're not straight. Thus, "homosexual sex" is necessarily about gay people because they're the ones engaging in it.
That said, you're avoiding the issue: Homosexual sex is no different from heterosexual sex. There is nothing that gay people do that straight people don't. Therefore, the question of the morality of "homosexual sex" can only be argued on a few levels. One is that all sexual activity that isn't penis-vagina is immoral (and the people who advocate such are exceedingly rare in reality). The other is that there is something about the sex of the parties involved that is of importance such that engaging in a specific act with a member of the opposite sex causes a different reaction than if the exact same act is engaged in with a member of the same sex.
You will note that neither one can look to bestiality, pedophilia, or rape as a justification.
quote:
However - the question is does discussing the morality of bestiality mean that we are comparing gays with animals.
As a simple question of the morality of bestiality without regard to the sex of the participants or the sexual orientation of the human involved? Of course not.
But as soon as you introduce gay people...and only gay people...into the discussion, then you are necessarily comparing gays with animals and thus reveal yourself to be a homophobic bigot. The moment a discussion about the morality of gay people wanders off into questions that don't involve the sex of the participants but rather introduce orthogonal traits such as species, age, or consent, then the one doing so reveals himself as a homophobic bigot.
quote:
we are comparing two sexual activities
No, we aren't. If we were, then we wouldn't involve ourselves with the sex or the sexual orientation of the participants. The fact that someone wishes to introduce homosexuality into the discussion indicates that he is a homophobic bigot.
quote:
to understand how us non-homophobic people decide that homosexual sex is not immoral but bestiality is.
But we already know why: There is absolutely no connection between sexual orientation and such things as bestiality, pedophilia, or rape. To even consider them is illogical. To insist that they have some sort of connection is to reveal oneself as a homophobic bigot.
Since there is nothing that gay people do that straight people don't, how can one possibly get to bestiality, pedophilia, or rape when considering same-sex sexuality but never do so when considering mixed-sex sexuality?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by AdminModulous, posted 07-17-2007 2:16 AM AdminModulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by AdminModulous, posted 07-19-2007 2:16 AM Rrhain has replied

AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 108 of 304 (411146)
07-19-2007 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Rrhain
07-19-2007 1:48 AM


Re: Moderator Requests
First, the missing the point aspect: Since we don't think that heterosexuality leads to bestiality, pedophilia, or rape (after all, we encourage heterosexuality but discourage bestiality, pedophilia, and rape), then what on earth makes anybody think that homosexuality could possibly lead to them any more than heterosexuality does? The two go together. If heterosexuality doesn't lead to them, then homosexuality necessarily doesn't either. If homosexuality does, and if we must actively discourage homosexuality on that basis, then heterosexuality necessarily does as well and we must actively discourage heterosexuality on that basis, too.
If you find anyone that suggests that homosexuality leads to bestiality let me know - I could do with a laugh. I think Paul Cameron probably said something like that but he's not a member here so I can't moderate him. I'd appreciate a link to someone stating that there is a causal relationship between the two.
You go to some length to advance that theme, so I can't respond to any of it until I know what comments specifically you are talking about.
But as soon as you introduce gay people...and only gay people...into the discussion, then you are necessarily comparing gays with animals and thus reveal yourself to be a homophobic bigot.
This is the central problem I'm having. Here is nemesis's viewpoint:
1. Heterosexual sex is ordained by God and is generally moral.
2. Homosexual sex is forbidden by God and is completely immoral.
3. Sex with other species is forbidden by God and is completely immoral
Here is what he thinks his opponents is:
1. Hetero sex is moral
2. Homosexual sex is moral
3. Bestiality is immoral.
Nemesis was asking for justification for drawing the line somewhere between two and three, using the moral system of moral relativity.
This has been hashed out to complete death now - if you feel I have missed something in my rather long and numerous posts about it, that is one thing, but I feel I have covered your second main point extensively already and I have not seen an example of your first.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Rrhain, posted 07-19-2007 1:48 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Rrhain, posted 07-19-2007 2:47 AM AdminModulous has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 109 of 304 (411148)
07-19-2007 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Admin
07-17-2007 12:55 PM


Re: Un. Fucking. Believable.
Admin writes:
quote:
Berberry's in protective suspension to prevent her from further saying things she may later come to regret during a period where being upset has affected her judgment.
Can I just say that this is one of the most sexist, condescending statements I've heard in a while?
I realize that this may get me banned, but I think you need to stop, Percy, before you stick the other foot in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Admin, posted 07-17-2007 12:55 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Admin, posted 07-19-2007 1:47 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 110 of 304 (411149)
07-19-2007 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by AdminModulous
07-19-2007 2:16 AM


Re: Moderator Requests
AdminModulous responds to me:
quote:
If you find anyone that suggests that homosexuality leads to bestiality let me know
That would be somebody who brings up bestiality in a discussion of the morality of homosexuality. After all, the claim is that the acceptance of one requires the acceptance of the other. Thus, it "leads to."
quote:
This is the central problem I'm having. Here is nemesis's viewpoint:
1. Heterosexual sex is ordained by God and is generally moral.
2. Homosexual sex is forbidden by God and is completely immoral.
3. Sex with other species is forbidden by God and is completely immoral
That may be, but the justification for 2 has no connection to 3. After all, eating shellfish and wearing clothes made of two fibers are also forbidden by god and completely immoral, but we never seem to hear about those when discussing the morality of homosexuality.
quote:
Nemesis was asking for justification for drawing the line somewhere between two and three, using the moral system of moral relativity.
But the problem is that the question in and of itself is nonsensical. There is no connection between sex between peoples of varying sex and sex between individuals of different species. After all, changing the sex of the participants does not change the sex of the participants. They are orthogonal traits.
Therefore, the only reason to bring it up is to indicate that there is a connection between the two, that they are not orthogonal.
quote:
but I feel I have covered your second main point extensively already and I have not seen an example of your first.
The point is that legitimizing the introduction of bestiality or pedophilia or rape into a discussion of homosexuality is necessarily an act of homophobia, in and of itself. We would never do so when discussing heterosexuality. It only comes up when discussing sex between people of the same sex.
That's very telling.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by AdminModulous, posted 07-19-2007 2:16 AM AdminModulous has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 111 of 304 (411150)
07-19-2007 2:55 AM


Once and for all, let's wrap up this homophobe substring
It's been beaten to death and has taken up far to much space in the "General Discussion..." topics.
Is seems to me that Nemesis_juggernaut has proven himself to be a homophobic twit, or something like that. Others seem to want to just keep on blathering on about it.
Drop it now! Maybe I'll start suspending (24 hours?) anyone and everyone who won't.
Or at least rationally discuss it at the Immorality of Homosexuality topic.
Adminnemooseus

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 112 of 304 (411213)
07-19-2007 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Rrhain
07-19-2007 2:23 AM


Re: Un. Fucking. Believable.
Rrhain writes:
quote:
Berberry's in protective suspension to prevent her from further saying things she may later come to regret during a period where being upset has affected her judgment.
Can I just say that this is one of the most sexist, condescending statements I've heard in a while?
I don't think the action could accurately be referred to as sexist since when I suspended Berberry I thought she was a he. If you read upthread you'll see all my references to her are as a him. It was only after the suspension that someone made clear that she's a she.
Three consecutive times Berberry turned against and began abusing moderators who were trying to help. We were all very sympathetic, but to let her continue in that vein would be bias. It also wouldn't be fair to her to allow her to continue to say things she'd probably later regret because of the likelihood that they were an expression of anger and frustration and not reflective of the way she really felt toward the people it was directed at.
I realize that this may get me banned, but I think you need to stop, Percy, before you stick the other foot in.
I don't what it is about this issue that is causing so many to decide to to take determined and rather impulsive stances, but I'll repeat what I said earlier. If you're posting to this thread only to register your dissatisfaction with moderation on this matter, a single post will do.
And if you'd like to engage in a dialog with moderators to gain insight into the rationale behind any actions, and to help moderators explore other possible avenues, then that's great.
But if the only outcome acceptable to you is a concession by moderators that you re right and they're wrong while declaiming the actions you disapproved of and while working against any constructive exploration of issues, then you're running seriously afoul of the Forum Guidelines and you have to stop.
Also realize that this isn't a proxy thread for rehasing the issues of some other discussion.
I hope Adminnemooseus reopens this thread soon. Once it is open again, please lets place discussion here on a constructive footing.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Rrhain, posted 07-19-2007 2:23 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by AdminAsgara, posted 07-19-2007 1:56 PM Admin has replied
 Message 116 by Rrhain, posted 07-21-2007 5:15 AM Admin has replied
 Message 197 by berberry, posted 07-24-2007 6:31 PM Admin has not replied

AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 113 of 304 (411214)
07-19-2007 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Admin
07-19-2007 1:47 PM


Berberry is a he. Berberry is a male. Berberry is a man.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Admin, posted 07-19-2007 1:47 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Admin, posted 07-19-2007 8:11 PM AdminAsgara has not replied
 Message 117 by nator, posted 07-21-2007 8:27 AM AdminAsgara has not replied
 Message 119 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-21-2007 12:18 PM AdminAsgara has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 114 of 304 (411266)
07-19-2007 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by AdminAsgara
07-19-2007 1:56 PM


Asgara writes:
Berberry is a he. Berberry is a male. Berberry is a man.
Oh!
Sorry, Berberry. We haven't interacted much, and when someone in the thread referred to you as "she" I just assumed I had made an error.
I don't know why this thread is still closed. Closing the moderation discussion thread for short periods I can see, though it wouldn't be something I'd recommend, but I definitely feel uncomfortable having it closed for extended periods. Opening this up again.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by AdminAsgara, posted 07-19-2007 1:56 PM AdminAsgara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-19-2007 11:05 PM Admin has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 115 of 304 (411301)
07-19-2007 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Admin
07-19-2007 8:11 PM


Was intended as a short closure, but I had ISP problems
Admin writes:
I don't know why this thread is still closed. Closing the moderation discussion thread for short periods I can see, though it wouldn't be something I'd recommend, but I definitely feel uncomfortable having it closed for extended periods. Opening this up again.
I had intended it to only be closed for an hour or so. Then, last night, I could no longer access or anywhere else. About 6 to 8 hours later, from a different location with a different ISP, I still couldn't access anything.
Apparently there was some fairly wide spread problem happening in this area.
NOW, SHOULDN'T THIS WHOLE NJ/BERBERRY THING BE LAID TO REST, ONCE AND FOR ALL? That is why I gave the topic the "short closure". So everyone would see and heed my message 111.
Or at least take it to nemesis_juggernaut's new Vent your frustration here topic, which was needed a long time ago.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Admin, posted 07-19-2007 8:11 PM Admin has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 116 of 304 (411517)
07-21-2007 5:15 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Admin
07-19-2007 1:47 PM


Re: Un. Fucking. Believable.
Admin responds to me:
quote:
I don't think the action could accurately be referred to as sexist since when I suspended Berberry I thought she was a he.
And he is. For you to call him "she" and then say that somehow you are doing this "for her own good" (that somehow you know what berberry will regret) is an example of both sexism and homophobia. I made a suggestion to you previously, Percy. Let me try to convince you of it:
You need to stop. Close your mouth before you lose both feet in it. If you feel you must respond, the words you are looking for are:
Oops. My error. I am sorry for making such a huge mistake. I don't know what came over me. I will do my best not to do it again.
quote:
I don't what it is about this issue that is causing so many to decide to to take determined and rather impulsive stances
See, there you go again. "Impulsive"? What on earth makes you think that berberry or Dan or I are behaving in an "impulsive" manner? Step back, take a deep breath, and consider the possibility that perhaps we understand our motivations better than you do. That we understand the thought processes that led to our comments better than you do.
And while you are it, consider the possibility that you are part of the problem. Now, it's your sandbox. You get to make the rules. If you don't like others pointing out where you are engaging in sexist, homophobic, condescending actions under the guise of trying to be "above it all," then you are perfectly free to do away with us.
We can lead you to water, but we can't make you drink.
quote:
But if the only outcome acceptable to you is a concession by moderators that you re right and they're wrong while declaiming the actions you disapproved of and while working against any constructive exploration of issues
(*chuckle*)
You still don't get it, do you? We have been working toward a constructive exploration of the issues.
You, however, have refused to consider it. Again, it's your sandbox and you get to make the rules. I understand why you're being so resistant: Nobody likes being wrong; especially on his own turf and being shown so by people he doesn't respect.
It's like we're back in grammar school. A kid is being picked on and he complains to the teacher. The teacher does nothing and the kid continues to be picked on. When the kid finally decides that enough is enough and retaliates, the teacher comes down on the kid instead of the bully, and sends the kid to the principal.
The principal, refusing to listen to the kid, tries to play some psychology on the kid and asks, "What would you have me do?" The only reason the principal asks this is because the principal has no respect for the kid, thinks the kid is simply being hysterical, and thinks that the kid won't have an answer to this.
The kid, however, comes up with the correct answer: "Punish the bully. Detention at least, possible suspension, and I wouldn't be averse to explusion."
The principal, taken aback, sputters, "Well, I can't do that...."
The kid, undaunted, presses on, "Yes, you can. You're the principal. That's your job, to watch over the students and make sure that the bullies don't make things miserable for the other kids. Why are you hesitating?"
And, of course, the principal's heels get firmly dug in.
And that is exactly what has happened here. Everybody can clearly see that n_j directly and specifically insults gays. Dan Carroll pipes up with a perfectly reasonable response (have the admins tell n_j to stop being an ass)....
...and he gets banned for it.
Are you willing to live up to your claims of what you want here? It is not just a question that we're right and you're wrong. It's that we're right, you're wrong, and the only way to work toward a constructive exploration of the issues is for you to accept that fact and engage in the solutions given by us since your attitude has been shown to be a complete and utter failure on all levels. Everything you have done has been wrong. Let me risk playing the principal here:
How do we convince you of that? What does it take for you to consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, you've been taking every wrong turn along the way?
Let's add another meta-level to the stack:
Is it possible for you to be wrong at all levels? That your reaction to the discussion is incorrect and that your reaction to those pointing it out is also incorrect?
Again, I fully realize that it's your board and thus, in some sense, the answer to that question is no. You're the one who gets to make the rules and that everything you do here is correct by fiat.
But let's consider the possibility that you wish to live by the statements you have made; that you wish to have "constructive exploration of issues."
What happens when you are the one that is blocking that constructive exploration?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Admin, posted 07-19-2007 1:47 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Admin, posted 07-21-2007 10:05 AM Rrhain has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 117 of 304 (411533)
07-21-2007 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by AdminAsgara
07-19-2007 1:56 PM


quote:
Berberry is a he. Berberry is a male. Berberry is a man.
Yeah, that's what I always thought.
I was confoosed there for a minute.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by AdminAsgara, posted 07-19-2007 1:56 PM AdminAsgara has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 118 of 304 (411552)
07-21-2007 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Rrhain
07-21-2007 5:15 AM


Re: Un. Fucking. Believable.
Rrhain writes:
See, there you go again. "Impulsive"? What on earth makes you think that berberry or Dan or I are behaving in an "impulsive" manner?
Because as a group you seem so determined to register your dissatisfaction with board moderation through guideline violations, sometimes even accompanied by an acknowledgement of the violation and explicit recognition of the risk of suspension. This seems more impulsive than calm and rational. Perhaps impulsive wasn't the best choice of words, but I don't think you'd like any of the alternatives, such as ill-considered, inflammatory, oppositional or antagonistic.
Any suspensions were for guideline violations, sometimes ones the suspended party acknowledged making while making them, not for disagreeing with moderators.
We only ask that members follow the Forum Guidelines while participating in discussion in this thread. It does no good if the thread for discussing moderator procedures gets mired in angry expressions and becomes a showcase for guideline violations.
Judging from the comments of moderators both here and in the Admin forum, there's a strong consensus that this is a hot-button issue from which, given the strong feelings of some parties, only thunder rather than light is likely to emerge. It's been requested several times by moderators that the topic be allowed to drop, at least here in this thread. Perhaps those so inclined would like to start a thread in the Coffee House to discuss this.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Rrhain, posted 07-21-2007 5:15 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Rrhain, posted 07-22-2007 10:51 AM Admin has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 304 (411580)
07-21-2007 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by AdminAsgara
07-19-2007 1:56 PM


Berberry is a he. Berberry is a male. Berberry is a man.
That's a man baby, yeah!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by AdminAsgara, posted 07-19-2007 1:56 PM AdminAsgara has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 120 of 304 (411752)
07-22-2007 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Admin
07-21-2007 10:05 AM


Re: Un. Fucking. Believable.
Admin responds to me:
quote:
Because as a group you seem so determined to register your dissatisfaction with board moderation through guideline violations, sometimes even accompanied by an acknowledgement of the violation and explicit recognition of the risk of suspension.
Incorrect. My prediction that I was going to get banned had nothing to do with a board violation. Instead, it had everything to do with me noting that the admins were going to get prissy over the fact that somebody dared to contradict them.
And that's EXACTLY what happened. Adminnemooseus seems to think that I was talking about the gripe between n_j and berberry. I wasn't. That was only incidental. Instead, I was talking about the way the admins have responded to it. And then, I added onto it the response by the admins to the criticism of the admins by the laity.
Take a look at what you've done, Percy. A picks on B. B complains to the teacher and gets banned for it. C complains to the principal about B's suspension and gets banned for it. D complains to the superintendent about what has happened to B and C and gets banned for it.
Dan Carroll, berberry, and myself are all owed apologies. The admins came down on us not because of any violation but because the admins can't seem to accept any criticism and lashed out.
quote:
Any suspensions were for guideline violations, sometimes ones the suspended party acknowledged making while making them, not for disagreeing with moderators.
Then what was mine for? The little hover over simply said, "won't fucking let fucking it fucking go." What sort of violation is that?
What sort of corrective action are you going to take?
quote:
Judging from the comments of moderators both here and in the Admin forum, there's a strong consensus that this is a hot-button issue from which, given the strong feelings of some parties, only thunder rather than light is likely to emerge.
Indeed...so why aren't you doing something about it? Why is it you come down on the people pointing it out rather than on the one bringing it up? You are the problem, Percy. You're supposed to be watching out for those who troll.
quote:
It's been requested several times by moderators that the topic be allowed to drop, at least here in this thread.
But that's just it, Percy. I'm not talking about that topic. I'm talking about how you respond to people who bring the topic up.
A picks on B. B complains. B gets suspended. C complains about B's treatment, C gets suspended. D complains about what happened to B and C, D gets suspended.
Doesn't that seem a bit backwards to you?
Reminder: This has nothing to do with the specifics of how A picked on B.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Admin, posted 07-21-2007 10:05 AM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Taz, posted 07-22-2007 3:16 PM Rrhain has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024