General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 11.0

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.

Adminnemooseus responds to me:

quote:

---

Bottom line - You were warned.

---

Indeed.But here's the thing: I didn't violate the warning. Post 116 was not, as you claim, about "THIS WHOLE NJ/BERBERRY THING."Ergo, you screwed up.You owe me an apology. The fact that you can't even consider the possibility shows that you have lost your perspective and you need to step down. You have vaguely admitted that you made a mistake: And yet you still end with an, "But I'm not going to say I'm sorry," attitude: Now, 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.

Adminnemooseus responds to me:

quote:

---

From message 116:

​

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:

---

And how is that about "THIS WHOLE NJ/BERBERRY THING"? This is a comment about Percy and Percy's actions. That it was brought up by the gripe between n_j and berberry is merely incidental. It had nothing to do with n_j or berberry being right but rather that Percy called berberry "she" and then treated "her" as an hysteric, thus showing that [I][B]PERCY[/i][/b] was engaging in sexism and homophobia.Or are you implying that Percy is actually one of n_j and/or berberry? Again, this has nothing to do with "THIS WHOLE NJ/BERBERRY THING." It has to do with [I][B]PERCY[/i][/b] and his claim that those who are taking him to task are behaving in an "impulsive" manner. That the reason he is being taken to task has to do with a gripe betwen n_j and berberry is merely incidental. It is irrelevant why Percy was psychoanalyzing people over the internet. The fact remains that he was. Again, this has nothing to do with "THIS WHOLE NJ/BERBERRY THING." It has to with AdminModulous' reaction to Dan Carroll. That the reason AdminModulous is being taken to task because of a gripe between n_j and berberry is merely incidental. It doesn't matter why AdminModulous banned somebody for suggesting a way for the administrators to handle people who are getting out of line. The fact remains that AdminModulous did.

quote:

---

All of your message ties into the "THIS WHOLE NJ/BERBERRY THING."

---

Incorrect.None of them did.You do know what the term "incidental" means, yes? It is indicative of an item that leads to a larger topic that is not about that item in the first place. Literarily, it is the "macguffin" (do you know that term?) or "meet-cute" (do you know that one?) that serves as the reason why everything else is happening but is completely irrelevant to what follows.This thread isn't about the gripe between n_j and berberry. At least, not any more.It is about the administrators being unable to perform their jobs and living up to their own rules. The gripe between n_j and berberry was merely "incidental" to that discussion. As you can tell by the mere fact that this thread even exists in the first place, there is a need to discuss the behaviour of the administrators. It doesn't matter what incident brings it up. What is important is that it was brought up.Or are you saying that we commoners are not allowed to question the actions of the administrators?

quote:

---

If "THIS WHOLE NJ/BERBERRY THING." hadn't happened, there would not have been that message 116.

---

Irrelevant. That the admins...and in this particular instance, you...hold these values that lead you to circle the wagons whenever an admin screws up, then this discussion would have taken place eventually. It really doesn't matter why we're discussing the inability of the moderators to respond to criticism with any semblance of dignity or respect. The fact remains that the moderators are incapable of doing so.What are you going to do about it? Ban me for showing you to have made nothing but wrong decision after wrong decision in this matter? Are you capable of listening to criticism and admit you made a mistake without lashing out at the one giving it to you?Note, I am not daring you to ban me. I am simply predicting that if you respond to this post the same way you responded to the other one, you will. And just as before, it won't have anything to do with "THIS WHOLE NJ/BERBERRY THING."It will simply be because somebody dared to criticize you and point out in detail where you went wrong at every single turn.

quote:

---

Now how about dropping the matter?

---

I'll be happy to.Can you?Here's a hint: If you don't want me to respond to you, don't respond to me.

---

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:

---

People complain that moderation isn't fair.

---

But nobody here is saying that. All the people who have been suspended agree that moderation is needed.What we're complaining about is that the ones charged with carrying out that task don't know what they're doing.

quote:

---

it is about allowing debate to continue

---

But that's precisely crash's point: [I][B]WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS NOT ALLOWING DEBATE TO CONTINUE![/i][/b]The problem is not us, AdminModulous.It's you. You're the one who keeps trying to defend the indefensible.Take a look at what has happened here. Do you really think that debate is continuing? If you are truly concerned with allowing debate to continue, why don't you consider that [I][B]YOUR ACTIONS[/i][/b] are the ones that are causing the trouble and changing your actions?

quote:

---

On the back of this criticism: it will be my practice in the future, where reasonable, to suspend people's privelages for varying lengths from the 'Suggestions and Questions' forum only - if they are no longer contributing anything to the discussion of moderation procedures but instead are using it to lash out or repetitively bitch and whine about it all.

---

Then I suggest you suspend yourself.You are the one causing the trouble. Debate is stifled because you can't take criticism and rather than simply [I][B]STOPPING[/i][/b], you keep trying to defend the indefensible.You are the one that needs the timeout.Make it voluntary if you have to. Simply don't respond to anything on this thread and see if anybody continues it. If it truly is an issue of us "lashing out" or "repetitively bitching and whining," then we'll keep it up even in your absence.But if suddenly it goes quiet, then perhaps you might learn that the problem was you and that you need to re-examine your own behaviour.This is a very simple question. I am asking it in all sincerity. If you find that you absolutely cannot help but respond to this post, I request that you ignore everything else and simply answer this:Do you really think that debate is continuing?Yes or no. That's all I want to know.

---

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.