Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   General discussion of moderation procedures - Part οκτώ
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 77 of 302 (360153)
10-31-2006 2:22 PM


problem report
I'm generally not interested in "tattling" on someone, but there is an issue I am not sure how to handle.
After the last blowup I have not replied to crash and explained exactly how I would keep my distance. He stated that he had no interest in debating me again anyway, so I figured that would be the end of the problem.
However, he replied to a post of mine in the "Soc Issues in Cr/Ev Forum", with this postwhich brings up an unrelated topic as if it had relevance to the OP and then misrep'd my position in order to insult me... stating within his post not to answer. So essentially two insults and a goodbye.
I responded with a noninsulting post, which explained my position and asked that he not write just to insult me again.
His following replies... 89, 107, and finally 122... continue to level insults which have no relation to anything occuring within that thread, and appear mainly to be rehashing old issues he has had.
Unfortunately he also includes half arguments which I do feel compelled to respond to, to make sure my position on other issues were not misunderstood based on his claims.
At each turn I asked that if he was interested in those other topics (specific issues which were OT) to take discussion to the relevant threads that were already open for them. I even said that I would alert mods if he continued to insult me. He refused to stop this activity.
Given that not responding to his posts (ie ignore him) has not stopped him from replying with insults (essentially slander). That attempting to stay calm and focused, and redirect OT conversation to appropriate threads, results in more insults and OT discussion... I would like to know what I am supposed to do about him.
Edited by holmes, : url fix

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by AdminJar, posted 10-31-2006 2:26 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 80 by crashfrog, posted 10-31-2006 2:40 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 82 by AdminNWR, posted 10-31-2006 2:51 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 90 by nator, posted 10-31-2006 10:13 PM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 79 of 302 (360162)
10-31-2006 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by AdminJar
10-31-2006 2:26 PM


Re: problem report
Ignore him.
I did. That is the problem. If I ignore him he doesn't just go away. I get insults just the same.
Unless you are suggesting that I put up with random insults and slander by him from time to time? That doesn't exactly seem fair.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by AdminJar, posted 10-31-2006 2:26 PM AdminJar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-31-2006 2:40 PM Silent H has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 86 of 302 (360202)
10-31-2006 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by AdminNWR
10-31-2006 2:51 PM


Re: problem report
I'm going to make this comment and then let it go. It is meant as constructive criticism and not an insult.
It honestly does not appear you or Jar bothered to read the links, and are making assumptions regarding what happened based on previous encounters.
In suggesting that I responded with half arguments and that I said something that could be perceived as insulting (which in all honestly I'd like for you to point out to me)... you miss the fact that it was wholly OT and I suggested where proper dialogue could be continued if he wanted to address those issues. If his intent was serious, especially if he felt he had to respond to what I said, why didn't he carry it there? There does not seem to be a logical reason to continue responding in that thread, except to avoid proper debate and just keep insulting me.
In your response you just said we have a problem disengaging. While that is certainly true in the past (yes I understand that includes me), that does not represent this issue at all. I took previous criticisms quite seriously when handling this issue. I wanted that last go around to be the last.
This specific event lasted what? Four posts from me? With the first being a civil clarification and request for him not to simply throw insults at me. After 3 more civil requests to move debate to appropriate threads and stop insulting me, I stopped replying.
I DID disengage. Ultimately I will continue to ignore him... as I had been doing earlier, and which I just began doing again.
I simply came here to report activity that did not seem appropriate in a nonCoffehouse thread, as well as ask if there were any alternatives to "ignore him" since that did not seem to work, and it is annoying to have someone popping up simply to insult me. Apparently the answer is no.
Even if this was to be the answer, I believe this could have been handled better on your end. I was not unreasonable in my posts to crash, attempting to handle the issue with brevity, nor was I here.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by AdminNWR, posted 10-31-2006 2:51 PM AdminNWR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by iano, posted 10-31-2006 7:43 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 89 by crashfrog, posted 10-31-2006 7:55 PM Silent H has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 91 of 302 (360335)
11-01-2006 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by nator
10-31-2006 10:13 PM


Re: problem report (end report)
You giving in to your compulsion is not crash's problem, nor his fault.
I didn't say that it was. Let me clarify this point to you. Note: admins I am not asking for any further resolution on this issue nor am I trying to continue to debate the case. I am simply explaining to her what I was saying... NOT that it must be reconsidered.
Earlier I had stated explicitly how I would handle any future comments I found worth responding to in crash's posts, without dragging him into a situation where he felt he had to defend them. This was because he felt I always misrepresented his position.
From then on I would not reply to him directly and I would not address any comments as if they were coming from him. Essentially any such posts would be my replying to a position which could be from anyone (or no one, perhaps my own invention). I posted this solution to admins and crash and received no suggestion this would be inadequate.
As you can see above, crash says that his reply to me (which was the first case of anyone replying directly to anyone) was because I did exactly what I said I was going to do. Thus your criticism appears to apply to him, not me.
My complaint about his behavior, which came after I stopped replying to him, was in two parts. The first was that his initial post (ironically not to the post he claims generated his response) was just an insult, followed by more posts which amounted to platforms for simply hurling more insults.
The quote you gave above was my stating why I felt I needed to respond to any of his replies at all. He made direct statements regarding OT issues, which were made to appear relevant and I wanted to make my position clear for others. To him, with every post, I pointed to where relevant debate on those OT topics could be directed, if those were subjects he actually wanted to address.
Thus it was not my complaint that he was "forcing" me to do anything. The second part of my complaint was that he was engaging in OT discussion, even when pointed to appropriate threads for such discussion.
Hence, insults and OT debate were the issue.
This is what was presented for admin judgement (and no one else's). Additionally, for my own part I was wondering (from admins and not the public) if there were any other options than "ignore him" since that does not stop his replies.
If you want to take up the subject of how to handle such behavior, you can email me. Please do not continue to discuss this particular issue (and that goes for anyone who feels they have comments regarding crash or me). This issue is over for me.
Since I brought it up, if it is over for me, it should be over for everyone else.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by nator, posted 10-31-2006 10:13 PM nator has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 135 of 302 (361940)
11-05-2006 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by berberry
11-05-2006 4:05 PM


Re: responding to holmes
In the other thread I responded that you didn't have to respond, but too late! Shoot.
Since you did, I'll explain my statement.
Assuming the right to marry a consenting human adult is not the same as assuming the right to marry something or someone that can't give consent.
Yes it would be the same when viewed by a relativist, or from a relativist perspective.
The appeal to "consent", or even believing that children or animals can't give consent, is based on cultural assumptions/criteria. They aren't universally valid or recognized. In some nations it is quite possible and legal.
I'm not arguing that you should view it this way, just that that's the endpoint of relativism, which is the exact thing that NJ is arguing against. He wants to say there is a difference, perhaps even a vast difference between gays getting married and marring an animal.
I think that's why you may be wayyyy off, or at least premature, in slamming NJ on this. While I doubt he wants gay marriage I have no way of knowing what his stance is on kids or animals getting married as compared to gays.
And any way you slice it, saying that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry cuz we wouldn't allow people to marry animals is a comparison of gays to animals. No two ways about it.
This is a separate issue but let me address this as well. A person could say this with no concept that they are comparing a gay person to an animal. All they have to be seeing is a similar problem with the marriage, that it would be illegitimate or immoral, and the reasons could be vastly different.
Frankly if NJ finds marrying children immoral it has to be for something completely different than for why he would find gay marriage illegal or immoral, as there is no age proscription on marriage in the Bible. Thus there is no direct comparison (assuming he is using the bible as his source).

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by berberry, posted 11-05-2006 4:05 PM berberry has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 150 of 302 (362113)
11-06-2006 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Chiroptera
11-06-2006 7:45 AM


Re: Faith's suspension
I came here for another reason, but just saw this notice. Is she really permanently suspended? And does suspension mean there is a way back, or is the proper term permanently removed?
But will take this opportunity to register my displeasure at her permanent suspension... If you read this, Faith, I'm sorry to see you go.
I agree with the same sentiment. Though I suppose I could see permanent removal from science categories, I'm not sure why she'd be removed all over the place.
Personally I've butted my head against her wall many times. But I never found her to be an offensive personality, even if (to my mind) a bit willfully ignorant. My solution was simply not to discuss certain things with her after a while of trying.
Given the clarity of her writing, and I believe honest personal conviction (whether I agreed or not), I will be sorry to see her go.

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Chiroptera, posted 11-06-2006 7:45 AM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by berberry, posted 11-06-2006 9:43 AM Silent H has not replied
 Message 164 by arachnophilia, posted 11-06-2006 8:52 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 172 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-07-2006 12:50 PM Silent H has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 151 of 302 (362115)
11-06-2006 8:52 AM


AdminPD in Coffee House Haggard Thread
Most people (including me) come here to complain about something, so let me take this moment to say something positive.
I think PD did a good job in the Haggard thread in the Coffee House. There was a side topic which opened up and began eating up space. I was one of the people who ended up with warnings and messages labelled Off Topic.
Her decision was correct, and handling just. I think it could serve as a model for future handling of such side issues. First offtopic labels, followed in short order by warnings of closing thread and/or suspensions.
My only suggestion would be to be lenient on anyone who might post before having seen the OT messages. I will often start a reply and go to do other things then finish it later. Even if it is just a matter of minutes I sometimes find my post (when finally submitted) crosses a warning, or another person's post.
Anyway, good job PD... even if I took a hit.

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by berberry, posted 11-06-2006 9:26 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 158 by AdminPD, posted 11-06-2006 11:35 AM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 154 of 302 (362124)
11-06-2006 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by berberry
11-06-2006 9:26 AM


Re: AdminPD in Coffee House Haggard Thread
Heheheh... I don't want to start getting warnings here. I maintain that whether you believe NJ meant an insult or not, PD handled the situation of an OT issue in a fair way.
I did not reiterate any argument here (unless you are refering to that post from yesterday?). Whether PD accepted NJ's statement as true or as an apology is besides the point to what I was commending her for.
Remember I disagree with you on that point, I was warned just the same, and I think she was just for doing so (smacking me). So its not her position on what NJ said that I was defending.
Unless you are saying she should have made him apologize the way you want? I dunno, but that would seem to be a practical impossibility. And in any case she'd be right in asking it be moved to here to be discussed instead of in thread.
I think that if you hadn't jumped in it would have all been over after a few posts. I only wanted to make the point that such arguments are unacceptable to decent, thinking people, and in so doing to separate those decent, thinking people from, well, others.
Please don't try to point the finger at me. Others have gone on to make the same comment as you and what was going to happen if NJ didn't apologize as you guys wanted?
Yeah, by definition, it went longer because I also posted, but that's how it goes for everyone. I could also argue if you realized I was making the correct interpretation this would have ended sooner.
And now I am a bit insulted, I am a decent thinking person and I was able to accept what he said. I might also point out that if I accept your criteria shouldn't I (or others) feel insulted for your not standing up for polygamists and children? After all you are being pretty selective to claim NJ was picking on gays, as it clearly involved much more. Are polygamists and children dogs, or is it just that gays should not be compared in that manner?
Heheheh... okay I'm not so insulted, really. I just think you are making a mistake with what he said, even if you might be right that deep inside he feels such a thing (I dunno). Also you are being a bit overdramatic in denuciating him. Decent, thoughtful people might not care what NJ thinks or says.
Back to what I was trying to say... don't you agree with how the OT banter was handled by PD? Wouldn't you agree that even if you were totally right and PD agreed NJ was insulting you, she was correct in trying to shift it here?

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by berberry, posted 11-06-2006 9:26 AM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by berberry, posted 11-06-2006 10:20 AM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 157 of 302 (362135)
11-06-2006 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by berberry
11-06-2006 10:20 AM


Re: AdminPD in Coffee House Haggard Thread
That's cool. I do think good admin procedures (specific ones) could use some boosting.
Let me also take this moment to assure you of one thing, to end this on a happier note (between us two). If I thought NJ had made such a comparison I would definitely (personally) consider it an insult, as it would certainly have been meant as such. And given all the other things I am fighting him on would have gladly added that to the list. Since you take it as such a comparison I do understand why you find it insulting.
IF such a thing were said (about anyone), I'd likely have argued such a statement would... at the very least... draw a clear distinction between the author's ilk and dogs, the latter being the more astute/intelligent of the species in question.

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by berberry, posted 11-06-2006 10:20 AM berberry has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 160 of 302 (362144)
11-06-2006 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by AdminPD
11-06-2006 11:35 AM


Re: AdminPD in Coffee House Haggard Thread
Just to let you know I wasn't trying to suggest that you hadn't been lenient for such mistakes. The fact is I did make such a mistake and you handled it well.
I was simply making that suggestion for future admins adopting such methods.
I try to look at the post again and make sure nothing has changed before I post.
I should likely pick up that same habit. Previewing my posts might also save me time on edits as well.

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by AdminPD, posted 11-06-2006 11:35 AM AdminPD has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 178 of 302 (362562)
11-08-2006 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Buzsaw
11-07-2006 7:00 PM


Re: Iano
I find you as much a brick wall as Faith, but wasn't too happy to see you booted either. It is interesting to see your "rebirth" as it were. Is Faith out more permanently than you were? I guess I still don't understand why removal from mod, or restriction from science threads, was not enough.
I found Iano somewhat less hardheaded (though maybe that was from lack of direct confrontation on specific issues), and never offensive. I'll miss him too. Perhaps he'll reconsider.

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Buzsaw, posted 11-07-2006 7:00 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 182 of 302 (363027)
11-10-2006 5:44 AM


OT posts made invisible
I just want to put a word in that I do like the idea of making run on OT posts invisible. AdminMod used this in the Coffee House and that's a nice way of "weeding" a thread.
Earlier I think someone had mentioned the possibility of collapsing OT posts (by vote or something) so that only the relevant posts appear with a personal option to see all of them.
That might also be a nice option.

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Taz, posted 11-10-2006 12:42 PM Silent H has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 206 of 302 (365565)
11-23-2006 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Percy
11-22-2006 8:32 PM


sweet irony
When I made a request like NWR just did, I got criticized by him. His admonition to just get over it is not good enough for himself apparently.
Insight and understanding develops out of discussion, so I see this as healthy. It should help us all reach a better understanding of what constitutes constructive discussion.
I essentially made quite a similar argument to you a while ago, as well as nwr. You both dismissed it out of hand.
Perhaps a little less hubris and a little more sympathy/empathy in dealing with others (when problems in discussion arise) might be a suggestion for the both of you.
Heheheh... you were both "wrong". Technically nwr opened the point for debate by posting his opinion, and he then reopened it after you (percy) had agreed to close it. You made a side comment to cavediver but it wasn't sufficient reason for him to reopen it with the rather large protest post he made in response to your one line.
But you definitely engaged in name-calling as well as treating him poorly. Unfortunately it is the kind of treatment which creos get around here which gives me the creeps. For all the talk of being scientific high minded, there is a dogmatic defence of it which is really uncalled for and unhelpful. Not to mention somewhat erroneous.
As much as I might disagree with nwr's position (apparently both metaphysically and epistemologically) he didn't deserve the name calling and twisting of his position.
Anyway, I'm putting in my two cents to note that ironically you both just fell into the same pair of shoes I have worn, the toes of which you both stepped on. Hope they are as uncomfortable for you as they were for me, and out of this more empathy for others is squeezed. No need to reply.
Edited by holmes, : tense
Edited by holmes, : not have

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Percy, posted 11-22-2006 8:32 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Buzsaw, posted 11-23-2006 8:45 AM Silent H has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 212 of 302 (365608)
11-23-2006 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Percy
11-23-2006 12:23 PM


on hypocrisy
My only point is that in the interests of fairness I don't think it right to keep repeating things along the lines of "demeaning and offensive comments" without providing some substantiation.
Yeah, that sucks doesn't it? Why in this instance are you unable to take your own advice and just drop it? After all someone saying something that is false about you with no evidence should not be capable of provoking a response from you, correct?

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Percy, posted 11-23-2006 12:23 PM Percy has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 217 of 302 (365690)
11-24-2006 5:27 AM


continuing problems (now the POTM)...
Well this sure is interesting. I remember when all I did was ask if a person meant to nominate another post, because the description in the POTM did not match the linked post, and I was slammed.
Frankly I don't care if someone disagrees with a nomination, but it does seem likely that any post which is nominated may have some detractors and so will run into the issue of lengthy debate in that thread. Probably not a good idea to start that precedent.
If someone disagrees with a nomination, I'd suggest sucking it up and realizing people might have a different opinion than onesself. For example Buz nominated a post in the showcase thread that I was not exactly thrilled with. BIG DEAL. It is a sign for those that might be interested to go and have a look, because SOMEONE found it interesting. You don't have to. It is not an official EvC stamp of approval.
And if you strongly disagree with a POTM then go to that thread and reply to it, or open a new one and reply to it. Arguing with a poster who nominates something is not likely to change their opinion on the topic, or the post, only about how rude you might be.
Gasby this is straight to you... if you disagree with my post then open a new thread on the topic. Don't wait for the thread to reopen as the conversation is admittedly OT. Frankly I am hesitant to continue posting on that topic given the lack of maturity some people here seem to have on that subject. If it can be held in check, no flinging around insults or insinuations, then I'd be more than happy to post there.
AbE:
To admins... I am getting tired of this issue with the other poster. It is one thing to not like me or not want to post to me, or to start small arguments with me here and there. It is another thing altogether to harass other people that happen to like what I wrote. In this case personal insults were made against myself AND Tudwell. He didn't just question my post, he questioned the reading ability of the nominator? In the POTM thread?
Edited by holmes, : to admins

holmes
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024