General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 11.0

And who's doing the complaining? I'll be honest with you. If the problem really is as big as you are making this out to be, I can't see it. HahaKissing moderator asses is the last thing on my mind. I've pissed off enough moderators here to really care. As a matter of fact, I've been described by jar as "having diarrhea through the mouth." I'd recommend you against watching soccer or any other sport event. The refs at times don't seem fair, but the fact remains that they keep the game going with as much fairness as possible. Again, there's a difference (socially at least) between saying "I need to go to the bathroom" as oppose to "I need to take a shit". In much the same way, n_j is hiding behind the social convention of indirect insult. Is this childish? Sure. Does he have any legitimate claim that his comparisons were innocent? Well... a little bit. I'll tell you what. You get n_j to admit that he was baiting us instead of innocently comparing gay people to animal and we'll go from there. Percy once said that it helps to think of the forum rules as more like traffic laws... just go read it, don't feel like repeating it.The point is Dan was bogging this thread down with silly comments. Do these silly comments have some cosmic point to them? I'm sure they do. That doesn't mean they aren't a waste of cyberspace. Again, this ain't a democracy. He had a point to make. He made it, and he was acknowledged. After that point, he just repeated the same damn thing over and over. If anything, that is little better than n_j's baiting tactic. I don't think it matters anymore who's right in this matter. Again, he had a statement to make. He made the statement and was acknowledged. In addition, he was also requested to stop repeating himself. I don't know how many ways the mods can say "ok, we heard you the first time!" Which is exactly what I am trying to avoid. It doesn't really matter now if your objections are right or not. They are noted. End of story.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

I'm not a moderator, and I'm certainly not the one being too obtuse to see that a gratuitous and unnecessary comparison between adult homosexuals and rapists is, by definition, offensive the first time and a forum-violating provocation every subsequent time.When so many people are telling you're wrong, Mod, isn't it just slightly possible that you are? Berb saw it, Dan saw it, Rrhain saw it, I see it. Are you honestly saying that you don't? Or are you just being deliberately obtuse to avoid admitting error?Either way I don't see how you can be qualified to moderate this forum. Er, what? If Nj was ever suspended for his conduct, it somehow passed beneath the notice of every single person here. If you issued some kind of punishment it's not immediately clear what is was.Thus, it was insufficient. The only things I've seen you do in this thread are1) Defend NJ's comparison as appropriate, if false, and;
2) Reduce the length of the suspension he received on another matter.His Austin Powers thing, while off-topic, was intended to be humerous and I really didn't see the merit of a suspension. I assumed that Percy was just using that as a face-saving excuse to address his earlier conduct; the one that got us where we are now.Again, you apparently didn't see that. A further instance of obtuseness that, again, leads me to have no confidence in your ability to moderate this forum. You have to do your part about that, though. When moderators are afraid to act lest they lose face, frustration is going to be something you're liable to see a lot more of. I don't recall any particular action that Randman ever took as moderator, except to be banned in a few days. Faith's administration, while she was here, was superb - even-handed and fair. It was clear she took great pains to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.So, yes, when I say that you and Moose are two of the least suitable moderators here, that is indeed meant as a harsh criticism. You're joined by Jar, who at least has the redeeming quality of not being a moderator any more. Yes. Because you were wrong, abundantly so. That you continue to be completely disinterested in coming to terms with that is what makes you so unsuitable for moderator responsibilities. It's not a matter of helping us "understand" your actions - we do understand them. Better than you, because we understand that they were the wrong actions to take.

If they were noted, moderator behavior would change.That it has not is proof that the objections have not been noted; thus, they must apparently be repeated.That's the principle at work, here. Every moderator action in the same incorrect vein results in more complaining - because there's even more to legitimately complain about. If they want to stop the complaining they need to stop taking the actions that cause the complaining.Again, this is not a difficult concept.

I have already answered this question several times. Please refer to the earlier posts. I honestly don't see it. If I did, I would have acted. You may visit the Suspensions thread were this information can be found. I'll even link to it: Message 220Apologies for the communication problem. That is my fault. I reduced nem's suspension to 1 day for Austin Powers and gave him a further day for the inflammatory offtopic remark regarding rape. I agree. That is why I had to act and not remain silent. I got involved where I could have just not bothered. I knew that by stating that I would not suspend nemesis I would be criticized but did not allow the fear of losing credibility in other's eyes prevent me from doing my job. I have taken your comments on board. The case has been put forward as to why nemesis should be suspended. I have explained why I don't think certain comments merit it. You disagree and call for my removal as a moderator since I am wrong and unsuitable to the task.Thank you for your time in expressing interest in keeping EvC running smoothly. If you have any further specific criticisms about any specific action taken by any specific moderator then I welcome your input as long as I remain a moderator (and probably afterwards).

Percy, clearly, gave him 7 days for the rape remarks. (I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming that he doesn't, actually, think saying "Fuck You" to someone and quoting a line from a movie are offenses of the same degree.) You reduced that to one? You didn't act, though. You just talked.That you explained why you chose not to act doesn't ameliorate your inaction. Oh, my how very courageous of you to take precisely no action at all and then try to convince us how lucky we all are that you did so. Every day that you and Moose continue to exercise moderator power is a day that no one can be confident in the moderator proceedings here.

Since there are some members here that do have confidence in the Admins, I don't think you can honestly say "no one can be confident in the moderator proceedings here."The Admins are doing a great job.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I don't see how Mooses's perception can be faulted.Let's not get so caught up in whitewashing the burn marks that we forget what caused the fire.Edited by Ringo, : Speling.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I think we're a little beyond what caused the fire. If I were Percy, I'd worry about a coup d'état right now.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

We shouldn't be. We've torn down the curtains that caught fire and we've thrown them away - but we haven't done anything about the bad wiring that caused the fire. It will cause more fires unless it's fixed. Firing the Fire Department doesn't solve the problem either.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I'd like to thank everyone for their efforts at talking this through to a mutual understanding, but I think it's time to call a halt to this topic. Everyone who would like to may post their closing thoughts on the Berberry issue in a single message, no more.I encourage members to ensure that these messages conform to the Forum Guidelines. It would be really nice not to see words and phrases like "willfully ignorant", "disingenuous" and "lack of perspicacity" in these summaries, not to mention "stupid" and "obtuse". The definition of people possessing these qualities is not anyone who disagrees with you, and applying them to people you're in discussion with is inconsistent with the Forum Guidelines.Providing this thread for interacting with moderators is something we fully intend to continue, but it is possible for members to lose their permissions in this forum, the [forum=-19] forum, of which this thread is a part. This could happen to those who too often or too determinedly make a habit of ignoring the Forum Guidelines in this thread.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I encourage moderators to ensure that their actions enforce the Forum guidelines, not their own ideas about what people should and shouldn't say.Percy I find it disin.... you know ... that you continue to construe this "issue" as a problem confined entirely to the non-moderating membership.

I'm taking Percy at his word, and have the advantage of the PAF for clarification. There he said: I thought NJ's recent post combined with one of his earlier posts {referring to: Thanks for the offer, but I'm married.} were pretty strong evidence that he's taunting Berberry, hence the strong one week suspension.I reduced the taunting to one. Feel free to believe otherwise, of course. Do you think this in any way moves the discussion forwards, or were you just intending to get some kind of rise out of me?

---

Just seen Percy's post. After I imagine 10k words on the topic I have no more words to add. On the whole I'd like to say that we should try for constructive criticism of the moderator team rather than just saying they did something wrong or name calling.For those who have put significant effort into the discussion and moved it forwards - I thank you. Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

Is that just a rhetorical question in order to impugn my motives, or did you really want to know? I thought we were supposed to drop the whole thing.

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.

Rrhain: Berberry was suspended after, and not before being disrespectful. I rather suspect the things he might regret were along these lines - though Percy can correct me at any time.Dan was not suspended for being an ass. Nor was he suspended for questioning moderator's actions, as you pointed out I said (and I said in the thread I suspended). He was suspended for the reason's I put forward in the post where I suspended him, feel free to read it.You were suspended after Phat advised the whole forum to stop discussing the issue - and then you did. If you follow crash and I's discussion on the matter you will see my comments on that wherein I admonish Moose, pardon you and re-suspend you.Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.