Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did Mod cause the collapse of evcforum?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 91 of 424 (567096)
06-29-2010 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by New Cat's Eye
06-29-2010 3:43 PM


In order for the arguments to hold any water, you have to be objecting to more than the position.
Again, exactly backwards. Arguments hold water only when they're directed at the position, not the person. Argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy, CS.
Otherwise, you can't say what he was really doing as opposed to simply what the words he submitted were.
Er, but what he really did was submit words. It's the words he submitted that are the problem. Again - Berb never objected to what NJ was thinking, he objected to what NJ was saying. And we know what he was saying because that's what he typed into the message box and then clicked "Submit Reply."
It doesn't have to be.
You're right. And reasonable people who feel offense, like Berberry, politely inform the other that, probably without intending it, they've been insulting.
Like Berberry did. NJ responded by doubling down on the offending behavior. For weeks.
But too, people are not supposed to be responding to the language instead of the argument.
True, but it's simply a matter of practicality that people who want their arguments understood should avoid inflammatory and offensive speech. Even if that's not the intent! Indeed, that used to be a forum guideline. (Doesn't seem to be, these days.)
Ultimately, both speakers and audience have to work together to ensure clarity. When a reader finds that unintentional offense is obstructing their ability to understand an argument, they should politely say so. Writers who find that they've been unintentionally offensive should use alternate language so that their meaning is not obscured. That's how adults communicate when they're not trying to insult and offend each other.
NJ, instead, doubled-down on the offensive language and refused to engage with people who were grappling with the underlying argument. That made his intent pretty clear - he wasn't interested in the moral philosophy, he was interested in insulting homosexuals.
The analogy would be better if you weren't even touching them at all and they still said it hurt them.
Ok, now I don't understand. Are you saying that NJ didn't actually write anything at all? That someone else was posting those comments under his name?
I took it as assumed that when post appeared under NJ's name, those were the posts where he had entered words into the text box and hit "Submit Reply." Are you saying there's some reason to believe that's not the case?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-29-2010 3:43 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-29-2010 4:11 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 92 of 424 (567098)
06-29-2010 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by New Cat's Eye
06-29-2010 3:54 PM


Re: Offensive = suspension
Ok, but then Dan corrects Percy:
quote:
The thread is about homosexuality. The response (originally someone else's, but NJ picked it up and ran with it) was that since bestiality is not okay, obviously neither is homosexuality...In both cases, he's ignoring the sticking point, that consent is the difference between these acts. Whether he phrases it as a slippery slope or as moral relativism, he's making the same argument and ignoring the same rebuttal. Both arguments hinge around a lack of any context with which to morally seperate homosexuality from other sexual acts, and the response in each case is the same.
Changing the dressing slightly doesn't mean he's not harping on the same point.
And then Percy (as Admin) says he doesn't agree, and by then Dan has been suspended so he can't reply. Of course by this time it's obvious that the moderators have decided to close ranks and present a unified front, so absolutely none of them can admit that NJ has been presenting an equivocation of homosexuality and bestiality and rape as though its a technical argument about moral philosophy and then refusing to actually engage in a discussion about moral philosophy.
Months later, Percy seems willing to recognize that MJ has been involved in a months-long campaign of gay-baiting, but he describes it as "unconscious", as though NJ's is getting up in his sleep to unwittingly equivocate loving gay couples with rapists and horse-fuckers. (Ambien's a hell of a drug, I guess!)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-29-2010 3:54 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-29-2010 4:15 PM crashfrog has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 424 (567099)
06-29-2010 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by crashfrog
06-29-2010 3:59 PM


In order for the arguments to hold any water, you have to be objecting to more than the position.

Again, exactly backwards. Arguments hold water --> only --> when they're directed at the position, not the person. --> Argumentum ad hominem --> is a logical fallacy, CS.
That's what I'm saying. That the arguments against NJ have to be objecting to more than the poition to hold any water, and then they're already wrong to begin with.
Er, but what he --> really did --> was submit words. It's the words he submitted that are the problem. Again - Berb never objected to what NJ was thinking, he objected to what NJ was --> saying. --> And we know what he was saying because that's what he typed into the message box and then clicked "Submit Reply."
Yes, the words are there... but what did he mean by them is where the problem enters.
NJ responded by doubling down on the offending behavior. For weeks.
I don't think so. And this is your judgement on what he meant, not just what the words he typed were.
NJ, instead, --> doubled-down --> on the offensive language and refused to engage with people who were grappling with the underlying argument. That made his intent pretty clear - he wasn't interested in the moral philosophy, he was interested in insulting homosexuals.
But you don't know that, nor can you. You're judging his intent and arguing the person instead of the position. You should stop doing that.
The analogy would be better if you weren't even touching them at all and they still said it hurt them.
Ok, now I don't understand. Are you saying that NJ didn't actually write anything --> at all? -->
No, that the text he submitted shouldn't have been insulting in the first place becuase you have to argue the person instead of the position to find that insult.
That someone else was posting those comments under his name?
I took it as assumed that when post appeared under NJ's name, those were the posts where he had entered words into the text box and hit "Submit Reply." Are you saying there's some reason to believe that's not the case?
It seems more likely that Rrhain is posting under your name, as you're sounding just like him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 3:59 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 4:21 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 194 by dronestar, posted 06-30-2010 1:11 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 424 (567100)
06-29-2010 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by crashfrog
06-29-2010 4:05 PM


Re: Offensive = suspension
And then Percy (as Admin) says he doesn't agree
Exactly.
Months later, Percy seems willing to recognize that MJ has been involved in a months-long campaign of gay-baiting, but he describes it as "unconscious", as though NJ's is getting up --> in his sleep --> to unwittingly equivocate loving gay couples with rapists and horse-fuckers.
No, as though it wasn't his intent to equivocate those things. So therefore his postition was not the one people were ascribing to him, that they arrived at by misjudging his intent from arguing the person, which they should not have been doing in the first place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 4:05 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 4:24 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 95 of 424 (567101)
06-29-2010 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by New Cat's Eye
06-29-2010 4:11 PM


That the arguments against NJ have to be objecting to more than the poition to hold any water, and then they're already wrong to begin with.
No, exactly backwards. Again - nobody was objecting to NJ personally, to his beliefs, to his thoughts, or to anything like that.
They were objecting to the words he was entering into the text box and submitting.
You're getting this consistently backwards. Nobody had any objection to NJ's thoughts, because how could they know what they were? The objection was always to what NJ was doing, which was doubling down on language he had been informed was hurtful.
And this is your judgement on what he meant, not just what the words he typed were.
No, it's not. It's a judgement on what he did.
No, that the text he submitted shouldn't have been insulting in the first place becuase you have to argue the person instead of the position to find that insult.
No, you don't. You just have to read it and take it personally. Of course, it's relatively easy for people who aren't gay to shrug off offensive slurs against gays, but who cares? That's not the applicable standard. You don't get to call black people "n*ggers" because you think it's a funny word that makes you laugh when people say it to you.
If you're not the one being insulted, you don't get to determine what gets to count as insult. And, again, it doesn't matter. NJ might certainly have done it by mistake - the first time. Adults who are trying to prevent their language from being an obstacle to debate modify their language when they've been unintentionally insulting.
That's not what NJ did. He repeated his language. He got even more direct. He began following Berb around to completely unrelated threads to call him a rapist horse-fucker. There was no legitimate reason for moderators to allow that to occur. I mean it's not like we have free speech here. And if NJ wanted to have an argument about moral relativism there were a dozen open threads he could have done that in, some of which he himself started and abandoned. That made his intent abundantly clear - but again, his intent didn't matter. Berberry wasn't insulted by his intent or his thoughts - he was insulted by what he said. Your standard where you have to read someone's mind before you can read their words is an absurdity, and it's certainly not the standard you would apply to someone who was engaged in a campaign to insult you. (And don't think we can't find some threads where you object to being insulted.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-29-2010 4:11 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by cavediver, posted 06-29-2010 4:58 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 96 of 424 (567102)
06-29-2010 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by New Cat's Eye
06-29-2010 4:15 PM


Re: Offensive = suspension
No, as though it wasn't his intent to equivocate those things.
His intent doesn't matter. Percy made it abundantly clear that enforcement of the Forum Guidelines isn't based on intent, but on action. I quoted the message, remember?
So therefore his postition was not the one people were ascribing to him, that they arrived at by misjudging his intent from arguing the person
You keep making that statement but it doesn't make any sense. Again, nobody objected to the fact that NJ had bad thoughts about homosexuals, only that he repeatedly took the position that they were the same as rapists and horse-fuckers.
It was the position, not the person, that was being argued. It's not "argumentum ad hominem" to be the victim of a personal attack, CS. Jesus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-29-2010 4:15 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-29-2010 4:36 PM crashfrog has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 424 (567103)
06-29-2010 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by crashfrog
06-29-2010 4:24 PM


Re: Offensive = suspension
Combining the reply..
From Message 95:
No, exactly backwards. Again - nobody was objecting to NJ personally, to his beliefs, to his thoughts, or to anything like that.
They were objecting to the words he was entering into the text box and submitting.
Nope. To get to this:
He began following Berb around to completely unrelated threads to call him a rapist horse-fucker.
You have to be objecting to more than the text that NJ submitted, because he never said that.
That made his intent abundantly clear - but again, his intent didn't matter. Berberry wasn't insulted by his intent or his thoughts - he was insulted by what he --> said --> .
No, to what he thought he was saying, judging from his intent and arguing the person instead of the position.
NJ never said the Ber was a rapist horse-fucker.
From Message 96:
You keep making that statement but it doesn't make any sense. Again, nobody objected to the fact that NJ had bad --> thoughts --> about homosexuals, only that he repeatedly took the --> position --> that they were the same as rapists and horse-fuckers.
But that wasn't his position. That's the position you all thought he was taking because you were judgin his intent and arguing the person instead of the position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 4:24 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 4:49 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 98 of 424 (567105)
06-29-2010 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by crashfrog
06-29-2010 3:41 PM


And if NJ had ever given any indication that he actually wanted to talk about them, those valid questions might have begun an interesting debate.
I think he did. In the thread I linked to.
But what did NJ actually do? He "raised those questions" in unrelated threads. He opened new threads to "raise those questions" and then never, ever responded to them in any way but to repeat them and re-assert that homosexual conduct was the moral equivalent of rape and bestiality.
Yes he harrassed certain members on this topic - But the question is why?. I still think that your description remains a skewed version of events. I think he thought he had moral relatavists on the run and as his main long-term topic of interest he pursued it relentlessly. He did this with those who he felt were unable to refute his arguments. And he did it with those who responded emotionally. I don't dispute that there was a degree of antagonism in his methods but the questions were valid and NJ expressed reasonably coherently why he found the answers provided unsatisfacory IMHO. Simply stating that consent is obviously the key criteria to a biblical literalist and then expecting him to just accept that as inarguable is both naive and not even argumantelly sound.
Ironically it seems to be Mod who made the best defence of the consent positon. One that NJ was unable ultimately to counter in the thread I linked to.
But NJ's presumed intent in all this is all very subjective. I fail to see how you can say that you and others are obviously correct regarding NJ's intentions whilst others are obviously wrong? You can (and have ) questioned Mod's judgement in all of this and he has readily admitted mistakes. But he is not alone in seeing NJ's overall conduct and intent as something other than that which you insist is obvious to all.
Mod may be guilty of misjudgements. As arguably are many involved in the whole debacle including yourself and others advocating similar points of view.
But you seem determined to quesion Mod's genuineness and sincerity in a way that I think seems unjustified to many here including myself.
If he'd just done it once, and then Berb had thrown a fit about it, your justification and the moderator actions of the time would have been reasonable.
If NJ's sole intention were to antagonise and "gay bait" you might be right. I don't see that as his sole, or even primary, intention.
Reasonable people, at that point, have to conclude that this is no longer an inept attempt at moral philosophy but an offensive vendetta.
Many people whom I consider reasonable disagree with you.
If he'd just done it once, it wouldn't have resulted in anything at all. NJ did it for months after he'd been informed it was insulting.
If you or I were told that our theist bashing "died in the wool" (as you were recently described to me) atheism was insulting to theistic members here would you change yor arguments?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 3:41 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 5:05 PM Straggler has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 99 of 424 (567107)
06-29-2010 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by New Cat's Eye
06-29-2010 4:36 PM


Re: Offensive = suspension
You have to be objecting to more than the text that NJ submitted, because he never said that.
I never said it was an exact quote. And "more than the text" doesn't mean the person, it could mean the subtext.
Subtext isn't "the person". And, again, objecting to a personal attack isn't arguing the person. They're made their position a personal attack, so when you object, you're arguing the position. They argued the person, by attacking you.
That's the position you all thought he was taking because you were judgin his intent and arguing the person instead of the position.
But you're wrong. That's the position we thought he was taking because that's the position he took. If he had been taking a position about moral philosophy, he would have participated in the discussion about moral philosophy.
But he didn't. QED.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-29-2010 4:36 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-29-2010 5:11 PM crashfrog has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 100 of 424 (567110)
06-29-2010 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by crashfrog
06-29-2010 4:21 PM


He began following Berb around to completely unrelated threads to call him a rapist horse-fucker.
Where did this happen? Once I see it, I will happily concede that NJ was wholly out of order and deserving of the sanctions suggested. I haven't seen it - which is why I hold my current views - but I am not suggesting it does not exist.
As a start, it does *not* happen in either of Dan's examples to which you have refered:
Crash writes:
Dan gave links to examples in that very thread which Modulous ignored.
In the first thread mentioned, Berb does not participate. And in the second, his only contributions are to respond to NJ.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 4:21 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 5:26 PM cavediver has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 101 of 424 (567112)
06-29-2010 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Straggler
06-29-2010 4:47 PM


Yes he harrassed certain members on this topic - But the question is why?
Because he was a homophobic asshole. But who gives a shit, why? Nobody objected to his thoughts, his morals, his religion. The only objection was to his arguments.
I think he thought he had moral relatavists on the run and as his main long-term topic of interest he pursued it relentlessly.
But he didn't pursue the moral relativists. You think my version of events is skewed because you're making up events that never happened to support yours. When the moral relativists turned up to engage his arguments and defend moral relativism, he abandoned the discussion entirely. He opened up literally dozens of threads about moral relativism that he abandoned on the first page because he wasn't interested in responding to actual argument. He just wanted to bash gays and then run and hide.
The only person he actually pursued was Berberry, and he didn't pursue him making moral relativist arguments, he pursued Berberry by re-iterating that morally he was no different than a rapist horse-fucker, and "gosh why are you getting so offended when I call you a horse-fucker, horsefucker? It's just an argument about moral relativism, honest!"
Simply stating that consent is obviously the key criteria to a biblical literalist and then expecting him to just accept that as inarguable is both naive and not even argumantelly sound.
Nobody did that, Straggler. NJ asked what the difference between a homosexual and a rapist was supposed to be, and he was told "consent." He never asked why that difference mattered; he never asked anything! Once he was told he basically abandoned the thread, and then a few weeks later he'd post another as though the first had never happened.
Having a discussion about whether consent is actually an important moral principle could be interesting. But NJ never once was actually interested in that discussion. He was interested in slandering homosexuals, especially the ones who would respond vocally, like Berb. Asking Berb to respond to a weeks-long campaign of personal attacks and hounding by doing and saying nothing was too much then, and it's too much, now. And anybody who sided with NJ instead of with Berb has ample reason to be ashamed of themselves.
I fail to see how you can say that you and others are obviously correct regarding NJ's intentions whilst others are obviously wrong?
Because I have two eyeballs, a functioning brain, and I can read and interpret statements in plain English. That's how I can arrive at the conclusion that I'm correct and others are wrong - because I'm right, and they're wrong. How else would I get there?
But you seem determined to quesion Mod's genuineness and sincerity in a way that I think seems unjustified to many here including myself.
Mod's wrong. Full stop; he was wrong then, and you and he are wrong now. Mod occasionally asked me to speculate on how he could be wrong, and I obliged him.
Honestly, I don't care whether he's dishonest or not, or whether he's insincere or not, or whether he has some kind of organic mental disorder or intellectual disability. I don't know, I don't care, and it frankly doesn't matter. But he's wrong. Clearly, objectively, wrong. He was wrong then, and subsequent events proved it beyond any doubt. If NJ's conduct had simply been Guidelines-appropriate discourse that had been misinterpreted, if it had just been a matter of making an argument that was being misunderstood, it never would have resulted in crisis.
But it did. NJ's campaign of unalloyed insulting nonsense, when allowed to run rampant and unchecked by moderator sanction, ultimately destroyed the board. It's never been the same.
I mean, Jesus Christ I've only said it a dozen times already. If what NJ was saying had really been so harmless, letting him say it as much as he wanted wouldn't have resulted in crisis. But that's exactly what happened.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Straggler, posted 06-29-2010 4:47 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Straggler, posted 06-29-2010 5:51 PM crashfrog has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 424 (567113)
06-29-2010 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by crashfrog
06-29-2010 4:49 PM


Re: Offensive = suspension
I never said it was an exact quote. And "more than the text" doesn't mean the person, it could mean the --> subtext. -->
And you have to look past the submitted text to get to the subtext... This is where you'd insert your judgement of the person if you were unable to simply argue the position.
Subtext isn't "the person". And, again, objecting to a personal attack isn't arguing the person. They're made their --> position --> a personal attack, so when you object, you're arguing the position. --> They --> argued the person, by attacking you.
You can't get from 'the text that NJ submitted' to 'a personal attack' without bringing in more than his position, you have to consider his intent and person, and even the history, as you've asked me to.
But you're wrong. That's the position we thought he was taking because that's the position he took.
As if your interpretation is the only one possible The position you thought he was taking is not the one he actually was. And you arrived at that position by taking into account more that the text he submitted.
If he had been taking a position about moral philosophy, he would have participated in the discussion about moral philosophy.
He did... for weeks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 4:49 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 5:32 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 103 of 424 (567117)
06-29-2010 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by cavediver
06-29-2010 4:58 PM


Where did this happen?
Cave, he follows Berb into GenDiscMod11, all the time saying "what? What's the deal? All I'm saying is, there's no moral difference between gays and rapists. You must be under some kind of delusion to think I'm talking about you."
NJ writes:
I don't make comparisons between homosexuals and animals. What I do is show why if you should morally support one, why don't you morally support the other by the same premise?
NJ writes:
I have reviewed my posts to see where your continued misconstrual of my words comes from. I can't see it. So I suspect the real issue is that you are either delusional or that what I'm saying is sinking in. I think the latter explanation will suffice.
Oh, right. "Berb, the only reason you're offended by me calling you a rapist horse-fucker is because you suspect I'm right."
That's supposed to be moral philosophy? That's the conduct you're defending, Cavediver? We knew what was going on then and it's still obvious. Go and read Nemesis Juggernaut's posts in that thread. Smarmy, taunting bigotry.
To his credit, Berb tries to disengage:
berb writes:
I think maybe Percy has a point, even though I resent the implication from him and all the other heterosexual admins that I'm "thin-skinned" or politically correct. I guess when it gets down to it, most heterosexual men will come down on an outsider before they come down on one of their own. But if Ringo's hypothetical had been the actuality, no one would be having this conversation. So, given the fact that those admins don't get the insult, and they think I'm thin-skinned, I think the only thing for me to do is move along. I really have gotten tired of most of the xians on here; I guess my patience for them is what has worn thin. Certainly, as at work and with friends and most family, I don't have to put up with those bigoted morons anymore, so why should I? They never change. It's not worth it.
If you'd like to continue to communicate with me, my email address is in my profile. And say good-bye to Brad McFall for me. He was always very kind and I really like him
You take care!
But NJ can't resist one last parting shot:
NJ writes:
As heartrending a testimony like that is, it doesn't undercut the fact that I've tried to civil discourses with many people who don't agree with me. I've managed to do that with many people. And while many, if not most, do not agree with my position, they seem to able to at least respect me enough to keep it civil.
Playing the victim.
And that's when Berb blows his stack. NJ doesn't give any indication that this isn't exactly what he was shooting for the whole time:
NJ writes:
Thanks for the offer, but I'm married.
Of course, there's the hilarious part where NJ tells me I'm gay:
The problem, as I see it, is that its all or none for people like Crash, Taz, Berberry, or Dan. For some reason, they are incapable of distinguishing that, while I believe that homosexuality is a sin, they assume that I must somehow hate them for it.
I mean, Berb's been banned, so he's got to identify the next target, right?
I think Taz was pretty clear about what was going on here when he said:
quote:
Remember that nem jug is a police officer of some sort. He's experienced with these sort of things. He knows how to press our buttons and make it appear that we are at fault. He has done a very good job at hiding his insults in a form of opinion.
NJ was really good - better than I've been giving him credit for - at concealing his subtext, but if you have any experience at all with the kind of person who believes they can bait you into an emotional overreaction it's not at all hard to see behind his "who, me?" feigned innocence. It was believable the first time that NJ used the comparison and was rebutted. When he kept on doing it, and kept abandoning threads about the moral relativism he supposedly wanted to discuss, what was actually going on became abundantly obvious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by cavediver, posted 06-29-2010 4:58 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Huntard, posted 06-29-2010 5:44 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 112 by nwr, posted 06-29-2010 6:13 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 114 by cavediver, posted 06-29-2010 6:29 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 104 of 424 (567118)
06-29-2010 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by crashfrog
06-29-2010 3:10 PM


It's you being honest, for once, which I appreciate.
I'm not sure that giving a tautologous statement justifies your appreciation. When moderators are wrong, they are wrong. Hardly requires honesty to state that, does it?
So, take it a step further. Is it good for the board when moderators persist in folly?
No.
You weren't a third party.
1st Party: NJ
2nd Party: Berberry
3rd Party: Mod
That's all I was saying.
So Dan set up an experiment to see if you would recognize the same kind of disrespect when leveled at you.
If that is what he was doing - and I don't remember anyone claiming that he did - he failed. It wasn't of the same 'kind' at all. One was something that could offend members of a group 'homosexuals or those that engage in homosexual sex or marriage'. One was directed at a member of this board.
Which you did! You even recognized that's what he was doing, asked him to confirm, and he did. You passed the test and displayed that you could accurately apprehend disrespect. It's just that you only cared about it when it was directed at you.
And against Rrhain. And against Berberry. I could find more - but since you ignore those, I fail to see the point.
es, but I thought I was clear - you were either lying or engaged in false consciousness out of a desire to uphold "the thin blue line." (You never actually told me, and I'm curious - do they say that in the UK? Do your police have "the thin blue line" over there?)
Yes - we have the thin blue line here. The phrase isn't common - though it was raised in our collective consciousness by an awful sit-com of the same name written by Ben Elton and starring Rowan Atkinson
Anyway it seems that when you said
quote:
So by your own words I'm forced to conclude that you recognized NJ's words as being disrespectful to Berb, but opted not to take action.
what you mean to say was
quote:
So by assuming you are lying or circling the wagons I'm forced to conclude that you recognized NJ's words as being disrespectful to Berb, but opted not to take action.
I can only judge you by your actions, Mod.
Then do so. I suspended someone for breaking the rules. I spent too much time needlessly repeating my explanation for so doing and for not suspending someone else.
If that's what I was doing, no, that would not have been the best reaction. But there was nothing about my posts that should have been perceived as "shit-throwing", and if hysterical moderators are in the throes of a delusion where they perceive restrained, constructive dialogue as a torrent of shit, I'm not sure what course of action to take except try to be more reasonable, more restrained, more constructive, and keep talking until they calm down.
I suggest shrugging your shoulders and letting it go - but whatever floats your boat I suppose.
Was I wrong? I don't see how I can be.
I couldn't give a fuck, to be honest. I learned my lessons and moved on. If you didn't learn anything from it - and it simply confirmed all the things you believed already then there you go.
You have been wrong in this thread though. Your possible 'wrongness' at the time is not something I care to go over.
Letting NJ run rampant ultimately resulted in The Great Purge.
If we had permanently suspended NJ - someone else would have made the same argument sooner or later. And berberry and Rrhain would have gone apeshit about it. Worse than that - Nemesis presented a fairly dispassionate argument in Gay marriage and the law (though he did get a warning for being somewhat inflammatory) and it was Rrhain that responded with massively inflammatory content that outstripped NJ's by several orders of magnitude Message 127. Then Rrhain complained for being warned about his behaviour in the moderator thread.
quote:
When so many people are telling you're wrong, Mod, isn't it just slightly possible that you are?
From Message 152. Well - Rrhain was told that he was wrong to do what he did by fairly large number of people, so let's say it's slightly possible that Rrhain was being wrong that time. That Rrhain might possibly have been morally culpable in inflaming the situation to such an extent that Percy decided no more gay issues? Message 131. It had been chatted about in the Private Admin Forum - and a few people suggested we stopped discussing the topic altogether:- Percy was generally against the idea at first and wanted to solicit the opinions of all the other moderators on it. Whose behaviour do you think inspired Percy to take the action he did? Was it Rrhain's outrageous behaviour perhaps? I don't know to be honest, maybe if Percy reads this he'll illuminate us/remind me - but again I hardly feel I was the proximate cause - at best/worst I was a contributing factor.
He suspended jar for what some thought was a mystery (Percy I believe revealed that although he and jar were old allies and he was fond of jar - he felt jar had become so jaded by the debate he had degraded into posting snarky one liners). Then brenna was suspended, apparently after posting concern for Percy's stress levels/health or something. These two led, essentially, to the rest falling on their swords.
Letting NJ run rampant ultimately resulted in The Great Purge. Percy says exactly that in the Purge thread.
Do you have a link to that? I thought it had been thrown into the memory hole. I can only find Changes at EvC Forum now in which he says
quote:
A brief conversation with Nosy followed by some reflection leads me to conclude that the problems had almost nothing to do with the moderator team, who performed admirably with great sacrifice under often difficult and ambiguous circumstances, but more with the lack of leadership, which makes the fault mine.
and
quote:
If there were mistakes it was in believing that the site could be run democratically, not in the sense of voting but in the sense of trying to allow everyone a voice.
If that's the case, then I really do apologize. I thought the way to convince you to do the right thing was to convince you to do the right thing. If I'd known you were just about to figure it out, but then decided not to out of spite, I would have told everybody to shut the fuck up.
It was your belief that wagon circling was going on and that therefore continued criticism, even valid and dispassionate criticism could be viewed as shit throwing. I just wondered why, if you believed that, you continued? I was granting your argument to ask why you acted the way you did, not conceding it was accurate.
Mod, I know why - I still know why - I posted every single message in that thread. Because I was engaged in deliberate, constructive dialogue. When you say "who knows?" what else am I supposed to derive from that but an admission than you weren't attempting to do the same?
Sorry - I was thinking you meant something deeper than that. I thought you were asking 'Why did you think continuing to engage in civil and polite discussion about the subject would improve things, after it had failed to do so after so much time?' And that's a complex issue. Naively thinking I might be able at least get people to understand what I was saying, optimistically believing it could be cleared up, attempts to defend slights against my character, etc etc All could be motivations. I would be lying if I thought I could say for certain the complex milieu of motivations and rationales I might have had at the time. For all I know, 'I was hungry, and my kettle had broken' might have been a key factor. First rule of psychology: The reasons you tell yourself for your actions are rarely the reasons you actually did something.
If you wanted to simply know why, despite Percy saying we should stop I still posted Message 162 then I simply ask you to read Message 162 where I explicitly explained why I did that (I hadn't seen Percy's post yet). As for why I posted Message 165, I got trolled by Rrhain, quotemining me and all that crap. I should have ignored it.
I realized that at the time, and subsequently did not respond to Rrhain's Message 170, Message 171 or Message 172.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 3:10 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 5:49 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 105 of 424 (567120)
06-29-2010 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by crashfrog
06-29-2010 2:56 PM


He simply offered helpful advice on how to peel a banana.
Pff, it was no help at all. I was told I had to peel it before eating it - but I had no idea how one could go about doing that. Eventually I poked out my own eye and ate that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 2:56 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024