General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 11.0

AdminPaul writes:

quote:

---

Taking a dispassionate view of this it clearly assumes that homosexual relations are close enough to bestiality that the reasons for forbidding one clearly apply to the other.

---

It comes down to this: Why would anybody examining same-sex sexual interactions immediately start thinking of sexual activity between species when they wouldn't make such a connection when examining mixed-sex sexual interactions?After all, gay people don't have sex any differently than straight people. There isn't anything that gay people do that straight people don't do.Therefore, if sex between people of the same sex is the identical to sex between people of the opposite sex, what on earth leads a person to start thinking about interspecies sex or rape?And no, it is not thin-skinned to conclude that anybody who would compare same-sex sexual activity to bestiality, pedophilia, or rape is a homophobic bigot. And if we wouldn't tolerate someone making such a comparison regarding race or sex or religion, then it is clear that it is just as intolerable with regard to sexual orientation.And anybody who doesn't get that is part of the problem.

---

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.

AdminModulous writes:

quote:

---

It is a valid question regarding the morality of homosexual sex and sex with another species

---

Not if you would never make such a question regarding the morality of heterosexual sex and sex with another species. In fact, given the fact that there is nothing that gay people do that straight people don't do, it is clearly inappropriate to focus on same-sex sexual interactions when discussing the morality of interspecies sexual interactions.

quote:

---

The answer is straight forward: informed consent separates the two acts. Rape is immoral and animal abuse is immoral, since other species cannot give informed consent any sexual activity is animal abuse or cross species rape.

---

And what does homosexuality have to do with those things that heterosexuality doesn't? Why would it occur to anybody to jump to bestiality or rape when examining same-sex sexual activity but never bring up mixed-sex sexual activity? The mere fact that the comparison is specifically to gay people is indicative of homophobia.

---

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.

PaulK responds to me:

quote:

---

Already answered:

---

Oh, I know that they're trying to say that there is something wrong with being gay, but that's the entire point: Such an attitude is inherently bigoted. The act of trying to compare gay people and specifically gay people to something commonly considered "nasty and perverted" when such a comparison would never be made with regard to straight people is inherently bigoted as there is nothing that gay people do that straight people don't do.Thus, if it would never be considered plausible with respect to straights, it cannot be considered plausible with respect to gays.

quote:

---

But I'd judge it more likely to be intentional.

---

I very much agree. After all, why bring it up if you aren't trying to equate the two?

---

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

He clearly has lost his perspective. I was banned for no board violation but simply because he had a fit of pique.At the very least, he needs to have his privileges suspended for a time until he learns not to take his personal umbrage out on others.

---

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.

jar, sweetie, honey, baby, pussycat, there's more to it than just that. Take a look at what has happened here.Three people have been suspended for pointing out to the admins that they aren't doing their job. Not for any actual violations of the guidelines...just for saying that the admins have dropped the ball.Doesn't that strike you as a bit...well...wrong?

---

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.

AdminModulous responds to me:

quote:

---

berberry was suspended after he started calling an admin childish names (rule 10).

---

Incorrect. Here is Percy's exact reason for suspending berberry: And later: And later: And if you hover over the wrong way icon: It had nothing to do with what berberry did but rather because Percy seems to think that he needs to condescend to the constituency. It wasn't for things he did say but rather for things he hadn't said yet but Percy, who seems to have the gift of omniscience and/or prognostication, knew he was going to say.

quote:

---

Dan Carrol was suspended for being disrepectful to the moderators (rule 10 but 1 and 2 were also cited)

---

Incorrect. As Percy said: Now, I don't think Dan was. I am simply pointing out that the claim for why Dan was suspended is invalid.All the more ironic because in your response to the very post to which Dan Carroll predicted his suspension, you said: Courage of your convictions, friend.And even more ironically, Dan responds to you where you say: And you suspend him for it. You were reaching.

quote:

---

You were suspended for failure to follow moderator requests (rule 1).

---

Incorrect. Find me a single place in this thread where an administrator said it was verboten to discuss the administrators' actions.Are you, by chance, referring to Message 111 of this thread where Adminnemooseus says: And if that isn't enough, let's look at the post header: You will note that I wasn't referring to that. Instead, I was referring to the way the administrators here have taken a gripe, and it is irrelevant what the gripe is, and have come down on the person pointing out the problem, not the person who is causing it.And in the post immediately following Adminnemooseus's, we find Percy saying, directly: So please tell me...where did any administrator say that we're not supposed to discuss criticism of the admins? Especially in a thread titled, "General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures."

quote:

---

Any other queries?

---

Yes.Have you even been paying attention?

---

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.

Admin writes:

quote:

---

Sympathetic to Berberry, but noting the inability of AdminPD, AdminModulous or myself to say anything that didn't cause Berberry greater and greater upset

---

No, there was a perfectly reasonable thing for you to say. Dan Carroll told you what it was.And he got banned for it.

quote:

---

I suspended him to keep him from saying even more things that he might later regret.

---

In other words, you didn't ban him for anything he actually did. You banned him for things you think he was going to do in the future.Did we wander into a remake of Minority Report?If you were so worried about what he was going to do, why didn't you follow the advice you were given? Specifically, you needed to stop focusing your wrath on berberry and start paying attention to the one who caused the problem in the first place: Nemesis_juggernaut.I point out that he was suspended for precisely the things that berberry was complaining to you about.And he then uses his admin privileges to complain about his banning.Do you seriously not see the disconnect here? You have as an admin someone who needed to be suspended for violation of the forum guidelines. What does that tell you about the state of things?I asked you this directly before and you have yet to respond. It is not rhetorical. I really want to know the answer:What would it take for you to consider the possibility that you screwed up? And not just in a small way but rather at every single turn?

quote:

---

EvC Forum exists in order to provide a venue for constructive discussion

---

And what is the solution for when the problem preventing constructive discussion IS THE MODERATORS? How is it nurturing "constructive discussion" when the people who are pointing out that the conversation is disintegrating are the ones who get banned?

quote:

---

Those who are upset to the point where they're not able to conform their behavior to the Forum Guidelines, which we rely on to keep discussion constructive, should not be participating here until they can.

---

But what do we do when it is the administrators who are causing the problem? What do we do when the admins are the ones violating rule 10, "Always treat other members with respect"? Three people were suspended without cause. Is that not an example of not "treating other members with respect"?Who watches the watchers?

quote:

---

taking a constructive approach in the face of dissenting opinions is not [easy to do.]

---

And suspending people not for any violation of the rules but rather simply because they dared to question the actions of the moderators is "taking a constructive approach"?

quote:

---

Nonetheless that's what's expected here.

---

So how is it we bring the moderators in line with their own rules?

---

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.

Tazmanian Devil responds to me:

quote:

---

There is little more school administrators can do when a kid is being called "shorty" than let the kids sort it out among themselves.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you? Here I thought you were being sarcastic in your description of the justifications for why the admins were coming down on the people pointing out the problem rather than the one causing the problem.Instead, it turns out you're serious.Taz, there is plenty more that the admins can do when bullying happens:They can punish the bully.I'm not saying you have to throw the book at him at the first sign of trouble. But it is the most inappropriate response to smack the person pointing out that bullying is taking place. Isn't that part of the job of being a moderator? To stop bullying?The only thing you teach when you smack down the person pointing out a problem is that [I][B]PROBLEMS ARE ACCEPTABLE[/i][/b], that attempting to make things better is a punishable offense, and that the goal is to make everybody ignore the fact that somebody is shitting in punch bowl...and here, please drink from it.Are you saying it's impossible for you to say, "Stop that. We're watching you. Don't do it again"?

quote:

---

But that doesn't mean that the admins can interrupt the entire forum procedure to handle this childish attack.

---

Sure, it does. Why on earth wouldn't it? Is there something preventing the admins from typing? Putting out a warning? We already saw it when Adminnemooseus said that anybody who posted about n_j would be suspended......and then banned someone who wasn't talking about n_j.And on top of that, banned him for a post that was made BEFORE HE ISSUED HIS WARNING. That's another little thing that hasn't been mentioned until now.My post was #110.Adminnemooseus' post was #111.Let's assume that I was engaging in the forbidden topic (which I wasn't.) He banned me for violating an order he hadn't even made yet.

quote:

---

In short, Rrhain, you're a more valuable member to us having posting privileges than someone that is banned for life.

---

Then stop killing the messenger. Start focusing your wrath on the people who are causing the problem:The admins.

quote:

---

You don't have to win every fight, and not every fight is fair.

---

So? By this logic, nothing will ever get better.

---

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.

Tazmanian Devil responds to crashfrog:

quote:

---

this ain't a democracy

---

I never said it was. In fact, I directly and specifically stated to Percy, "This is your sandbox, you get to make the rules." I directly stated that, essentially, it is impossible for him to be wrong since, as the one who gets to make the rules, anything he says goes.I merely asked if he were capable of recognizing that his actions are destroying the very thing he says he wants.He is free to do whatever he wants, but he should not kid himself that he's living up to his own standards.

quote:

---

Please honor this request and let this issue go.

---

Why? You're not an admin. You are free to ignore this entire thread if it causes you distress.Me, I'm going to keep working to make this a better place. If the people who are charged with making it better decide that the board members are not allowed to criticize the admins, then things will remain as they are.But don't you think you should know that when you decide that the admins have gone overboard? Don't you think it's important for you to know that the admins won't listen to you and will suspend you for daring to contradict them? Not because of anything you did but because of something you hadn't done yet (berberry)? Not because of any forum violation but because you simply complained about the unfair suspension of another (Dan Carroll)? Not because you disregarded an admin directive but simply because the admin was in a snit and decided to ban you for not violating a directive he hadn't even made yet (me)?You are free to do whatever you wish, but wouldn't you like to know what's going to happen to you if you decide to remain?

---

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.

Tazmanian Devil writes:

quote:

---

In the great scheme of things, these people were unfairly suspended. But in not-so great scheme of things, all three were suspended fairly and with different reasons than the issue that sparked this whole mess.

---

You do realize that you can't have it both ways, right? Either it was fair or it wasn't.

quote:

---

Berberry got suspended for directly insulting another member.

---

No, he didn't. He got suspended for things he hadn't even said yet. Percy directly said so: And later: And later: And if you hover over the wrong way icon: You will notice that nothing Percy said referred to anything berberry had actually said. It was all "preventative," something you said was impossible for the admins to do.It was only after people came down on Admin for his ridiculousness that he backpedaled and tried to say it was for things he had said previously.This is only compounding the problem. Not only is Percy banning people unfairly, he's making shit up about why he banned them so as to not have to deal with the fact that he's violating his own guidelines:Always treat other members with respect.

quote:

---

Let me ask you this. Why do you suppose it's polite and encouraged for us to say "I need to go to the bathroom" rather than say "I need to go take a shit"? Both sentences essentially say the same thing, but socially speaking one is less in-your-face than the other.

---

Red herring. This has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Dan Carroll was suspended not for violating the rules but for pointing out that the suspension of berberry was inappropriate and that the admins should rather be focusing their attentions on n_j (who, you will note, had to be suspended for the exact thing berberry was complaining about).I was banned not for any violation of any forum violation but for pointing out that the suspensions of berberry and Dan were inappropriate.

quote:

---

With Rrhain's case, you could say that he got suspended for disrupting the inner workings and patriotic attitude of this forum.

---

And you think that's an appropriate reason to suspend someone?

quote:

---

The admins are doing what they think is best to keep this forum's inner workings running as smoothly as possible, and if it means letting a few heads roll...

---

But this is precisely what crashfrog is pointing out: [I][B]IT ISN'T WORKING![/i][/b]I swear, we're dealing with George Bush.Personally, I dislike the way the word "irony" has been contorted to mean "self-aware," but this is a classic example of irony:The very thing that the admins are doing to try and keep things running smoothly is what is gumming up the works. The only way for them to get things back on track is to [I][B]STOP[/i][/b] and try something else.Like, oh, what Dan Carroll suggested:"n_j, stop being an ass."Oh! But that would be "preventative" and the admins are metaphysically incapable of doing anything like that!Unless your name is "berberry."

---

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.