|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: General discussion of moderation procedures: The Sequel | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
So, I am once again permitted to post. But, I'm not sure this is worth while as it appears to me nothing has been cleared up.
I still don't know what it is you want.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Thats rather odd, seeing as I raised a thred specifically for you to address certain slanders by Jar, and you opined that in your "assesment" they were valid. Referring me to the forum guidelines, old and new, is no help. I want more specifics. I don;t accept the initial suspension was at all valid, and clamming up about the topic doesn't seem conducive to a healthy atmosphere. What is it that you want?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Indeed. It gave me a good belly-laugh.
quote: Percy, the "shoot first ask questions later" approach seldom produces a respectful or receptive response. Respect is a thing to be earned, not to be cheapened by being given away for nothing. Absent a power relationship with which it can be compelled, respect is based on mutuality. And that appears to be rather missing, given your allegations of "looking for arguments" and having a chip on my shoulder. But that is rather consistent with basing your view on what amounts to hearsay, unsruprisingly. Thats why I came here to ask you what you want. If respect and receptivity are what you want, rather than a pretext, as it appears, don't you think you should make some efforts in that direction yourself? I'll not bother posting anywhere else until I see your response, whether that be the courtesy of an actual reply or a summary suspension. This message has been edited by contracycle, 05-26-2005 04:11 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Are we ready to talk like adults yet?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: If so much "flexibility" is required that I am expected to ignore flagrant violations of the board rules by the moderators themselves, or have threads shut down, then there is no point at all. Because under those conditions, constructive discussion of anything is impossible. You have indeed gone out of your way to allow me to participate here, but it remains to be determined whether I wish to participate. Frankly there are better things to do do with my time than hanging around somewhere that I am likely to be abused as an "agitator" and this cheap ad hominem used to dismiss my position, or when accusations of "pushing buttons" are used likewise. Acknowledging the existance of actual differences of opinion is the first step in any meaningful discussion of anything. Equally, there is not much point in initiating or entering any discussion if, as in the case of the thread with Arachnophilia, calling for the support of a position results in the thread being closed. Thats directly contrary to the stated principles of the board, yet neither explanation nor apology has been forthcoming. It is reasonable to ask for flexibility, it is not reasonable to ask for outright submission to a set of standards to which others will not be held. What possible incentive could I have for doing so? The very unwillingness of the moderators to enter into discussion of these issues implies that the same double standard will be applied in the future. Percy asks to see a sincere desire on my part to fit in here, but there can be no such sincere desire on my part until I have some reason to believe that the moderators have a sincere desire to uphold their stated principles.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Thats nice. But your actual response in practice has been as follows: refusing to discuss the situation, imposing temporary suspensions, and threatening permanent suspensions, all to avoid admitting a mistake that YOU made. That is not the behaviour of a responsible moderating team who are actually attempting to do a good job - that is coverup, evasion, and the abuse of power to conceal fault. Of course you cannot fix the past, but you also cannot simultaneously claim sympathy for your potential to make mistakes and also claim the total inviolability and infallibility of your decisions. Furthermore, if you do admit the posibility of mistakes, then the adult thing to do is to apologise, not to stand on your authority and insist you can do no wrong. Therefore, when you say: "If you (Contracycle) are "a good boy", and your debate adversaries are not "good boys", then they and not you will be the ones getting the suspensions.", there is in fact no reason whatsoever to think that this will be the case based on past experience. After all, if the moderators are happy to have among their number some who use openly abusive language like "agitator" in order to avoid having to deal with a point, then clearly whether or not I am a "good boy" matters not at all in the face of such prejudice. Why are we having this conversation, after all? Because I challenged a moderators decision to close a thread... a thread in which the party guilty of persistently failing to support their argument received no sanction whatsoever. Therefore I ask you again: are you willing to undetake to start implementing your stated principles? It is a yes or no question, really, please provide an appropriate answer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: The adult response to making mistakes is to say "sorry", not to say "this decision is infallible and any challenge to it will be taken as further evidence of your delinquency". And it is that adult behaviour that has been conspicuous by its absence. And you keep talking about "putting it behind us and moving on", but you always want it to NOT be put behind us, and still treat me as a supplicant. If you want to put it behind you and move on, you cannot pick and choose on the items.
quote: No, I am referring to Jar, who attempted to excuse my argument by a spurious appeal to my alleged psychology. I therefore raised a thread to complain of this abuse, and that resulted in the objection first being rejected by Percy, and then my being suspended. Quite clearly, no abuse perpetrated by moderators will incur any action; and complaints against a moderator result in the suspension of the plaintiff. That is abuse of power, plain and simple.
quote: The problem is, as we see in Arachnophilia's post below yours, he is still misrepresenting the topic. The claim he made and which I challenged was "the consensus of academic opinion is that Soddom was destroyed for a failure of hospitality". I pointed out that I found this implausible, and that I could find no trace of any such academic consensus - the only place such claims can be found is precisely in this very argument. Therefore, I wanted external verifcation of this alleged consensus of acdemic opinion - after all, if it is as broad a consensus as Arachnophilia claims, that should not be too hard. No evidence has been forthcoming whatsoever. Instead Arachnophilia attempted to drag the argument onto other topics, as he continues to do here. And further, we see the habitual resort to personal abuse as when he says "He simply wants to agitate and "win" his arguments." Faced by the fact his argument is dishonest and evasive, he makes an appeal, once more, to my alleged mentality. Thats wholly unacceptable. If the moderators were fulfilling the role they claim to fill, and for which they demand respect, then Arachnophilia should have been compelled to demonstrate the existance of this alleged academic consensus or withdraw his argument. And all the closure of the thread served to do was protect him from this embarrasment.
quote: The problem is that I have always accepted it - the problem is that the MODERATORS do not accept they are fallible. When they make mistakes, they do not apologise or correct but merely apply more force until the problem goes away. Thus, from my perspective, the bottom line can only be: are you willing to undetake to start implementing your stated principles? It is a yes or no question, really, please provide an appropriate answer. Will you be needing another week to consider one? That can easily be arranged. This message has been edited by contracycle, 06-09-2005 04:04 AM This message has been edited by contracycle, 06-09-2005 04:04 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
This conversation becomes increasingly baroque.
Lets look at the sequence of events again. The thread is closed becuase I ask for supporting evidence that I feel has not been provided - a heinous crime. Then, I am suspended for requesting the thread be re-opened so that my questions can be answered, which is also a heinous crime. Now the proposal is that a new thread be created to discuss the very same topic... does it not occur to anyone that this whole situation would have been avoided if the moderators had NOT closed the thread, and NOT suspended me for requesting it be reopened? The proposal is now to do the very thing I was suspended for asking be done! The whole debacle could have been avoided if the moderators had in fact acted according to their stated principles that claims must be supported. Archnophilia:
quote: Yes, and it IS obvious as it is in this post: when asked to demonstrate a consensus of academic opinion, all you can come up with is a group of Jewish scholars. That does not cut it, especially when their analysis contradicts my archeological reading. I can show that a fair amount of kink existed in this region, including "priests who turned men into women with their sharp obsidian blades". For therse reasons, as well as the weaknesses of the alleged myths you raised, I consider that the opinion of your Jewish scholoars is not definitive, and is not nearly as reliable or evidence based as archeological research. Your position that this matter is "obvious" becuase there is a "consensus" is wholly undemonstrated and remains undemonstrated; it does not mesh with the general archeological picture of the region or period, it is as simple as that. Claims must be supported. Case closed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
Well?
{ You've been heard and and considered and answered. If you are unsatisfied, please just go away. If you want to work with the environment provided for people here, then please just put this behind you and move on. This is not a request. Thanks -- AdminSylas } This message has been edited by AdminSylas, 06-17-2005 04:44 AM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024