General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 11.0

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.

AdminModulous responds to crashfrog:

quote:

---

Phat made his declaration in Stop (Message 97).

---

Ahem. Phat made that comment as Phat, not as an admin. If he wanted it to be an administrator directive, then he should have said so as an administrator.But you're being disingenuous. Phat didn't suspend me. Minnemooseus did. And he did so not because I commenting about the gripe between n_j and berberry. He did it because I was questioning the suspension of berberry.And on top of that, he did it for a post that was made [I][B]BEFORE HE MADE HIS DIRECTIVE[/I][/B].My post was #110. Adminimooseus' post was #111.And thus, it is clear that he suspended me not for violating any forum guidelines but specifically because he was mad.

quote:

---

And if you put forward your best reasoning for it, and the moderators don't do it, what do you do then?

---

That's what we're asking! Is there any way for us to complain to the admins about their behaviour without getting suspended for it? It seems that the admins are more concerned about protecting their own and being seen as "right" than they are about living up to their own rules.

quote:

---

The moderators have to do a job, and that job isn't just beard stroking.

---

So what is supposed to happen when the constituents point out that the moderators are merely engaging in beard stroking?It seems that if you dare to do so, you get suspended.

quote:

---

I have found myself at odds with Percy over how long to suspend nem and for why which is a public example.

---

Then do something about it. After all, it seems that an admin can override the length of suspensions put in place by another admin.If you really think that Percy is falling down on the job, why don't you do something about it? You were promoted to admin supposedly for your ability to maintain an objective view. Why don't you use that to point out to Percy that he's screwing up?But instead, you are doing exactly what you said you wouldn't dream of doing: Defending someone because he is a moderator.

quote:

---

The issue becomes - what is the right thing to do?

---

Considering that your current actions are not solving the problem but are only making it worse, shouldn't it be apparent that you should [I][B]STOP[/I][/B] what you're doing and try something else?

quote:

---

I am happy to hear constructive criticism

---

You were given constructive criticism by Dan Carroll.You suspended him for it.

quote:

---

I don't think we should suspend people in a cruel fashion.

---

And yet, [I][B]YOU[/i][/b], specifically and personally, did so.What are you going to do about it? You violated guideline #10 about treating all the members here with respect.What are you going to do about it?

---

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 crashfrog:

quote:

---

I posted the posts, in chronological order that contradicts this claim.

---

But that isn't what I was suspended for.No administrative request had been made at that time. Phat made the request, not AdminPhat.The last post I made on the forbidden subject was #110. Adminnemooseus made his request in post #111. Therefore, I can't be faulted for violating his request because I hadn't made it yet.And post #116 wasn't about anything he requested not be discussed in #111. And if I recall the timing correctly, I was suspended literally seconds after #116 was posted, so it can't be because of post #116.Ergo, I violated no moderator request.You need to [I][B]STOP[/i][/b]. Your actions are not having the effect you want. The only way to fix this is to change your actions. You need to start listening to what others are saying and consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, you're wrong.

quote:

---

I did not feel any need to suspend nemesis for the reasons given to me.

---

Then perhaps you should consider that those reasons were sufficient.Or as another possibility, you could take the advice Dan Carroll gave you and you suspended him for:Simply warn n_j that he's heading down the primrose path.Are you saying that you are incapable of giving a warning?

quote:

---

I am trying to resolve this issue with you now.

---

Yes, but you're trying to resolve it by cowering us into submission rather than considering that what you need to do is issue an apology to Dan Carroll for your egregious behaviour.Remember what crashfrog asked you? Stop thinking about what you can say to crash. Start thinking about what you can do to Dan.

quote:

---

I hereby retrospectively pardon Rrhain admonish Moose and suspend Rrhain retrospectively for continuing to discuss the bestiality issue after the request was made for the participants to stop. Is that better?

---

No, because no such request was made. No administrator asked for the topic to be dropped at the time I had made my posts. Instead, the request came AFTER I made my post. Adminnemooseus suspended me for violating an admin request that hadn't been made yet.As a start, what you need to do is apologize to Dan Carroll.

quote:

---

When did it become clear his comments were intended to bait Berb?

---

From the very beginning. Are you really that naive?

---

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, and not before being disrespectful.

---

Perhaps, but that isn't WHY he was suspended. Instead, he was suspended for things he hadn't said yet. Look at all of the statements made by Percy for justifying his actions. Does the word "prevent" mean anything to you? What about "later"? He was suspended for things he hadn't done yet.It was only after Percy got grief for his actions that he backpedaled and tried to retroactively justify his actions...just as you're trying to do with regard to me, showing that you still haven't figured out what the problem is.It's you.You need to [I][B]STOP[/i][/b].

quote:

---

He was suspended for the reason's I put forward in the post where I suspended him, feel free to read it.

---

But he hadn't done anything you claimed he did.

quote:

---

You were suspended after Phat advised the whole forum to stop discussing the issue

---

But Phat wasn't playing admin when he said that. And Phat didn't suspend me, Adminnemooseus did. And Adminnemooseus didn't suspend me for violating Phat's command but his. And I hadn't posted anything that violated Adminnemooseus' request since he made his request AFTER my post.Ergo, your justification is false.

quote:

---

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.

---

And thus, you show that you're still part of the problem. You're more concerned with being right than doing right.You need to [I][B]STOP[/i][/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.

Well, since Admin is asking for this to be dropped, so be it. But since he has said that we can make one last post, here it is:

quote:

---

I'd like to thank everyone for their efforts at talking this through to a mutual understanding

---

Huh? What mutual understanding? You're still engaging in the behaviour that is causing the problem. Since you're still doing it and we're still complaining about it, no understanding has been reached. The only reason the complaining is going to stop is because you're demanding it and you're the owner.

quote:

---

This could happen to those who too often or too determinedly make a habit of ignoring the Forum Guidelines in this thread.

---

And what is the solution when it is the [I][b]ADMINISTRATORS[/i][/b] who are violating the guidelines?You have been asked this question in various ways multiple times, Percy. You have yet to even acknowledge it let alone try to answer it.Are you saying you are incapable of being wrong? What would it take for you to be convinced that you were wrong? And if that happened, what would you do about it? Especially to make sure that it doesn't happen again?Three people have been suspended in this thread and I'm predicting that I'm about to be suspended for posting to a line of discussion you wanted closed even though I didn't see your request until AFTER I made my posts.I very much agree this line of discussion is dead.And nothing will change.

---

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.

All of us who can see, quite correctly IMO, how wrong NJ has been during this whole affair seem to have forgotten the fact that Christian members get away with far more than non-christian members at this forum.If NJ was an athiest his ass would have been kicked out very early on in the discussion.For whatever reason, and I have my own opinions about this, Percy seems to allow one set of rules for Christians and one set of rules for rest of us.But, let it go, it is just another example of prejudice against non-christians at this forum.It is nasty, but it isn't the end of the world.Brian.

I actually don't have a big problem with that. They need the help, honestly. The forum exists, in part, to talk about their views. If this were a forum for talking about racism, we'd similarly have to make allowances for racists to say racist stuff, if only to have something to talk about.What I have a problem with - what, indeed, everyone should have a problem with - is a set of unwritten rules that privilege moderators. Rules like:1) Moderators can not be criticized.
2) You must do whatever moderators tell you, even if they're wrong.
3) You can be suspended for not doing what a moderator wants even if they haven't told you what they want.
4) You can't make too many good arguments in a thread against someone who's also a moderator, or else they can suspend you.
5) Moderators don't have to read threads or follow discussions before they come to snap judgements over who is in the wrong and who is not.
6) Moderators can ignore civil requests and admonish the frustrated for not being civil.That stuff is bullshit. It's endemic to power. Moderators should be making every effort to avoid those "hidden" guidelines - not, as they appear to be, cleaving to them religiously.I'd like to reiterate something Rrhain asked. What is the procedure for problem moderators?

Hi Crash,The moderator team does not see anything constructive emerging from this discussion. If you'd like to continue discussion along these lines please open a new thread.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I just noticed Rrhain's message #173 with the comment

quote:

---

Well, since Admin is asking for this to be dropped, so be it. But since he has said that we can make one last post, here it is:

---

Press on the peek button to see what I wrote before. Otherwise, consider this a non-message. It really depends on what kind of bullying we are talking about. Calling someone "shorty", while childish and mean spirited in nature, is one of those types of bullying that school administrators can't really do much about. How do I know this? Because I used to be a bully myself. Trust me, us bullies, or former bullies, know how to test the water to see where the limits are. Yes, sometimes teachers do try to get involve when a kid is called "shorty", but it never works. The bullies WILL find some other way to pick him the "shorty". On what grounds? That the bully called someone else "shorty"?Look, I'm not saying nem's method of passing his insults to gay people in a form of "opinion" is A-OK. I'm saying that this is a police officer we are talking about. He knows how to indirectly push people's buttons. The thing that, I guess, is so frustrating about it is he never crossed the line to make it bleedingly obvious that he was comparing gay people to animal and rapists. I'm not saying that at all. I am saying that nem's insults are very cleverly veiled that if you really try to read it another way (and assume that nem_jug is totally innocent), then those statements can be seen as innocent remarks.As I was telling crashfrog. There is a difference between saying "I need to go to the bathroom" and "I need to take a shit". Nem_jug, on the other hand, had said "I hear nature is calling me". The suspensions weren't about n_j remarks, not directly anyway. I can't speak for the admins on this. All I can say is they are doing the best they can for the good of this forum. That's not what I said. I said you can't win every fight, and not every fight is fair.Look, with regard to n_j, I'm just going to wait for him to die of old age. With regard to the admin actions, I say we let it go, whether they are right or wrong.A while back, I was in chat and was jokingly talking to someone about how I thought democracy doesn't work. Jar told me I had diarrhea from the mouth. Ok, I thought, that was more insulting than I expected. Later on, I talked to Jon about how I freely admit that I didn't know the answer to certain issues and that I didn't think anyone else knows the answer either, especially with regard to the existence of god. In other words, I was saying that "I don't know, and you don't know either, so STFU". Of course, that last part was more of a joke. Jon told me that my old philosophy professor had done a good job at shutting me up because I now feel that there are certain issues that I think I am not entitled to have an opinion on... like whether women have the right to be bitchy during that time of the month or not. I told Jon that jar would disagree about me not sharing my opinion, and that was a direct reference to the diarrhea comment. That got me kicked out of chat.On my end, I feel that I've been unfairly treated. But life goes on! You don't have to win every fight, and not every fight is fair.But in regard to getting better or not, I know for a fact that the resignation of adminmoose and/or adminmod won't do a thing to make the situation better. If anything, we'd be losing 2 very resourceful admins to this forum.Edited by Tazmanian Devil, : No reason given.

---

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 wonder if you've considered whether or not the participant team agrees. Isn't that the problem in a nutshell?I don't feel the need to open a new thread, and I probably shouldn't have said what I did. But if the moderators still don't understand at this point, they surely never will. I wonder what it is about being a moderator - or, perhaps, the people you choose for that duty - that makes them so blind to what is so obvious to so mny of us.

I suspended you for message 116 (posted 5:15 am U.S. eastern time, 7-21-07), as documented in message 216 (posted 6:06 am U.S. eastern time, 7-21-07) of the "Suspensions and Bannings Part II" topic.This message 116 follows my message 115, which was posted 30 hours earlier. Yes, I now see that your message 116 was in reply to Admin's message 112. And yes, I see that there may be some significant conflict between my and Admin's messages. Right or wrong, for better or worse, when your message 116 showed up I pulled the hair trigger on the ol' suspension gun.Bottom line - You were warned.AdminnemooseusEdited by Minnemooseus, : Change ID from Minnemooseus to Adminnemooseus. Why do I log in as Minnemooseus?Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Remember to actually make the change, and not just write a reason for edit message.

At Biological Evolution AdminNosy introduced a new thread about directed evolution "Idealistic morphology" I proposed.Professor John Davison, author of Prescribed evolutionary hypothesis, would be happy to participate in discussion about planned evolution at EvC.Is it possible to readmit him?Thank you.