Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 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 121 of 424 (567148)
06-29-2010 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Straggler
06-29-2010 6:56 PM


Re: Grammatical Perspective
It reallydoes not come across like that in the quote you cite.
Of course not, Straggler. NJ's not trying to say "you stupid faggots!" like a 14-year-old 4chan member. Remember? He's a cop. All along he's trying to get us to flip the fuck out.
So, of course he doesn't come right out and say it. He calls me and Dan and Taz gays in a paragraph that's written to look like it's all about how tolerant and loving he is.
See how tolerant he is? Why, he loves all homosexuals, like Berberry and Dan and Crashfrog!
Do you just not understand how trolling works, Straggler? Do you understand that if I were to say something like
hypothetical writes:
I'm really proud of my work with the mentally disabled, and I feel that I've really been able to make a difference in the lives of people like Straggler and Huntard.
that what sounds like something innocuous is really a not-so-thinly-veiled attempt to call you and Huntard "retarded"?
It's not about "grammatical inexactitude." I wasn't "grammatically inexact." I was quite purposeful about how I wrote that sentence, quite careful about the implications it contains, and so was Nem. The whole point is to write it so that people who aren't so bright, or aren't paying very close attention, won't see beyond the surface meaning and won't register it as an insult.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Straggler, posted 06-29-2010 6:56 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Straggler, posted 06-29-2010 7:12 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 143 by Vacate, posted 06-30-2010 1:35 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 147 by Huntard, posted 06-30-2010 1:59 AM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 122 of 424 (567149)
06-29-2010 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by crashfrog
06-29-2010 7:03 PM


Re: Grammatical Perspective
Crash writes:
Calling people gay who aren't gay - but defend gay rights - is a textbook-standard way to troll defenders of gay rights. It happened dozens of times here at EvC alone, by plenty of people besides NJ.
Straggler writes:
Are there any more explicit examples of NJ engaging in this behaviour or is that example of grammatical inexactitude your sole basis for accusing him of this?
I'll take that as a "no" then?
Remember? He's a cop. All along he's trying to get us to flip the fuck out.
You sound paranoid and your "evidence" smacks of highly subjective paranoid extrapolation and interpretation.
The whole point is to write it so that people who aren't so bright, or aren't paying very close attention, won't see beyond the surface meaning and won't register it as an insult.
Of course maybe all those, including myself, who disagree with you are just inattentive imbeciles. This is a possibility.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 7:03 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 7:19 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 123 of 424 (567150)
06-29-2010 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Straggler
06-29-2010 7:12 PM


Re: Grammatical Perspective
I'll take that as a "no" then?
Are there other examples? Surely. You need only click NJ's name - I gave a link to it a few posts ago - and you'll have access to his complete posting history.
In particular what I've already posted, linked to, and defended should be more than adequate. If you want more you're on your own. I'm not here to do all your homework and frankly, whether or not you think NJ was engaged in a months-long campaign of gay-baiting is immaterial to me; it's a matter of the record that he was.
You sound paranoid and your "evidence" smacks of highly subjective paranoid extrapolation and interpretation.
I don't see the paranoia. I'm not worried that NJ is going to troll me now, he's banned here.
Paranoia is when you think people are out to get you. I don't think NJ is. I don't think he was anything but an occasionally clever bigot, and he's since retreated to some other shithole on the web to ply his trollcraft.
Of course maybe all those, including myself, who disagree with you are just inattentive imbeciles. This is a possibility.
Or, you're ignorant. Don't forget that possibility too! I mean, did you go through NJ's entire posting history and read it?
No? Then it's actually a highly likely possibility that NJ said a lot of things you don't know about, now isn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Straggler, posted 06-29-2010 7:12 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Straggler, posted 06-29-2010 7:32 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 128 by bluegenes, posted 06-29-2010 8:15 PM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 124 of 424 (567151)
06-29-2010 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by crashfrog
06-29-2010 7:19 PM


Re: Grammatical Perspective
I'll take that as a "no" then?
Are there other examples?
You tell me. You said that was his cunningly homophobic tactic. Based solely on a single highly detailed grammatical technicality. Apparently.
Or, you're ignorant. Don't forget that possibility too! I mean, did you go through NJ's entire posting history and read it?
No? Then it's actually a highly likely possibility that NJ said a lot of things you don't know about, now isn't it?
If, as you are now suggesting, it is a requirement that one is familiar with NJ's entire posting history in order to appreciate the true extent of his bigotry and "gay baiting" ways you can hardly condemn those moderators who have not read his every post in exquisite contextual detail in succumbing to his wily ways and coming to the same conclusions that I and other ignoramuses have here. Can you?
I don't think he was anything but an occasionally clever bigot..
Apparently so fucking clever that he has us all fooled except for those like you who have read his every post and who can see through his cunningly manipulative police trained methods.
The rest of us are only human Crash. And that includes Mod.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 7:19 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 8:03 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 125 of 424 (567153)
06-29-2010 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by crashfrog
06-29-2010 5:49 PM


Then I guess I don't know what you were saying. Usually when people say "third party", they mean "completely unrelated party."
I suppose it might be usual to use it that way - I'm just used to using it in the technical sense. Generally speaking a transaction has two participants. But sometimes there is a third party that is involved - to assist or to detract from the transaction.
In insurance the policyholder is the first party, the insurance company is the second party and any party that you are involved in an accident with is called a third party. When dealing with Microsoft they might call you the first party, themselves the second party and they might refer to PC World as a third-party vendor.
All it really means is the third person or group under consideration in an interaction of some kind.
It was pretty obvious, Mod. Ringo was doing it too. The "dirty apes" thing?
With Dan it was the goat fucking stuff. We dealt with that - concluding that if worded properly it would be suitable for discussion at EvC without risk of suspension since it was not an argument directed at a member of EvC. If Dan decided that his experiment must succeed and took to directly insulting a member of the board - then he managed to demonstrate that a) directly insulting a member of the board can get you suspended b) doing so to a moderator increases your chances c) doing so in a discussion on moderation procedures may increase your chances, d) ignoring warnings that a suspension is likely to follow will likely follow in suspension and e) challenging moderators for not taking action against rule breakers and then breaking the rules is plain stupid - unless you want to get suspended and become a martyr.
His experiment failed.
But he was glorious as a martyr - so that's got to count for something.
The retarded monkey reference was simply him saying, in typically great Dan style 'If you don't see that NJ was just being obnoxiously offensive, then you are stupid.', then when he figured I didn't see that - he concluded that I was stupid. And then, after a warning, confirmed he meant it disrespectfully.
It was, in fact, exactly the same - which is how I know Dan actually doesn't believe that Christians rape goats.
Dan emphatically did not get suspended for his Christians Rape Goats point. It was a perfectly valid way to make his complaint about administrator behaviour clear. When he raised that point, I said that. We discussed it for a while trying to make it more comparable to NJ's position - and Dan concluded that what came out of that was a somewhat reasonable argument but that NJ wasn't making such a subtle point.
Why did I not suspend for making the Christians Rape Goats argument when he made it? Why did I wait for him to say I was a retarded monkey with an upcoming retardedness test that I was so retarded I'd fail?
And against Rrhain. And against Berberry
I didn't see any examples of that, I guess. You'll have to tell me what you think you're talking about.
I rebuked cavediver for Message 144.
And NJ I reduced Percy's 1 week suspension for the puerile Austin Powers nonsense to 1 day and gave NJ an additional day for the 'infamous rape comment' Message 220 and Message 154.
What I meant to say was what I said, Mod, but thanks for proving yourself so willing to argue with strawmen.
Sorry crash - but you made to points that seemed to contradict one another. On the one hand you said you used the words I wrote to determine things, then when I said that the words I wrote were in explicit contradiction to what you said you resorted to saying it wasn't the words I wrote but the fact that I was lying or circling the wagons that was of import.
So which is it - my words or your conclusion I was not being straightforward with my words? Is there some way to marry the two concepts that I'm not seeing?
quote:
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.
My own words repeatedly said the opposite, but don't let that stop you being wrong about that.
quote:
Yes, 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."

Seems to me it wasn't by my own words at all.
If NJ's conduct was perfectly allowable under the rules, why did it trigger such hurt feelings?
Erm. Under the rules of the constitution of the United States you can say "Fags like to eat poo, are more likely to molest children and die 30 years earlier". But it's likely to trigger hurt feelings. It hurt my feelings when someone did say something akin to that. It enraged me, in fact. Still - I think I managed to express my dissent without getting too personal: Paul Cameron
The rules aren't there to prevent hurt feelings. It would be impossible to moderate on those grounds.
Do you think that Berberry, Dan, Taz, Rrhain, Ringo, Paulk, Arach, Chiroptera, Omnivorous, Dr. A, and myself all coordinated behind the scenes to get insulted by one completely innocuous line of argumentation chosen completely at random?
No. I think you did something perfectly human. When you saw a homophobe say homosexual sex and bestiality in the same sentence you inferred it was like those other times when homophobes have said some incredibly nasty, disgusting, vile, hate-filled (gah don't get me started!) shit. Either saying that gays are dogs OR that homosexual sex was as disgusting and clearly immoral has having sex with a dog.
And trust me, I've met people that did that (only it was sheep, not dogs). To my face. With pool cues. I was wearing a light coloured Wonder Woman crop top with a sheer fishent top over it (showing off my amethyst belly button piercing beautifully) with my hair in bunches - somebody had the audacity to suggest I deserved to have an encounter with homophobic dicks because of the way I was dressed with makeup on and stuff. I know the feeling of rage at hearing such things.
And I think you perceived that was what Nemesis was really driving towards.
How can you possibly explain that? Doesn't the fact that NJ's comments ultimately degraded the board and triggered a crisis of moderation and suppression prove you were wrong about them being a legitimate feature of debate?
There were plenty of things that triggered the crisis of moderation. One of them was the fact that the board wasn't centred around sexuality and morality and those topics tended to be ones associated with very strong emotional feelings that were difficult to moderate. It didn't help that Rrhain trampled in and made it into an issue after he got warned to stay on topic - and he kicked up a stink in the Moderation thread so very provocatively trying to relight the argument he was certain he was right about.
To name a few factors that went into it. I don't see how it necessarily proves me wrong on the legitimacy of the points being raised. Yes - I may be wrong on that issue, I've been wrong plenty of times.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 5:49 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 8:31 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 126 of 424 (567156)
06-29-2010 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Modulous
06-27-2010 4:44 PM


Did Mod cause the collapse of evcforum?
There hasn't been a "collapse".
And the sugnificant "blip" that did occur was the result of a number of factors and a number of people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Modulous, posted 06-27-2010 4:44 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 127 of 424 (567157)
06-29-2010 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Straggler
06-29-2010 7:32 PM


Re: Grammatical Perspective
Based solely on a single highly detailed grammatical technicality.
No, Straggler, based on a months-long pattern of subtly-inflammatory rhetoric against homosexuality and homosexual individuals, as identified previously by a dozen people.
Like I said, whether you agree is of no concern to me, but please don't misrepresent me. For one thing, it's against the forum guidelines. Or, it used to be, anyway. Don't know as they're much followed these days.
Can you?
Yeah, I can, actually. It's a moderator's responsibility to be aware of what's being said on the forum and to take action when it violates the forum guidelines.
If a moderator says "what, are we supposed to read every thread?" I say "Yes! Or, at the very least - you have to read the threads you want to moderate." You can't just come in at the last second, when things have boiled over due to your inaction, and expect to get an honest read on the situation.
Or like I said three years ago:
quote:
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.
Do you disagree? Do you think moderation as I described it then was good for the board? Leave aside for the moment whether you agree with me that it was happening. Is it a good thing, or a bad thing, when moderators act as I described?
Apparently so fucking clever that he has us all fooled except for those like you who have read his every post
Well, yeah, Straggler. If you weren't reading all his posts, did you think you got an accurate picture of the context of his posts? If there's a bunch of posts you've never read, isn't it pretty likely that you didn't see a very representative sample of them? If there's a bunch of his behavior you never paid attention to you, how seriously should I take you when you try to say "well I for one never saw him act like that." Well, you wouldn't, would you?
Like I said, it was hardly just me. Literally a dozen people - most of whom couldn't stand each other and disagreed about everything else - popped up and said "yeah, NJ is engaged in gay-baiting."
Did you think Rrhain and I arranged behind the scenes to pretend to be offended by completely innocuous statements from NJ? Why on Earth would we do that? Jesus, Rrhain and I absolutely hate each other. We've never, ever gotten along. Not ever. We can't agree on anything.
For God's sake even Holmes saw what NJ was doing. Do you think I was in a conspiracy with Rrhain and Holmes? Don't you remember how much I hated that fucker? How dishonest I thought he was?
If NJ acting like a total tool was the one thing Holmes, Rrhain, and I could reach agreement on, don't you think there's something there you're just not seeing? Something there that would be in NJ's posts if you had ever bothered to read them? I can keep pulling NJ's statements out of their context to highlight them, and you can keep trying to explain each new statement as an isolated instance of clumsy ambiguity and my own uncharitable interpretation, but you can do that with anything. You could disprove evolution that way if you wanted (and believe me, I've had creationists try.)
It's the weight of evidence by which statements are proven or disproven. It's not by one element of evidence after another, in isolation. If you really give a shit, and you're not arguing just to argue, why don't you head in and examine the weight of evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Straggler, posted 06-29-2010 7:32 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Straggler, posted 06-29-2010 8:48 PM crashfrog has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2478 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 128 of 424 (567158)
06-29-2010 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by crashfrog
06-29-2010 7:19 PM


crashfrog writes:
No? Then it's actually a highly likely possibility that NJ said a lot of things you don't know about, now isn't it?
Like that he thought that homosexuality shouldn't be illegal, for example? He certainly wouldn't say that about rape.
Hi crashfrog, and welcome back.
NJ's obsession was that moral relativists had no objective base for deciding anything about right and wrong. He was consistent about this, and argued that they had no basis for describing killing as wrong on a thread about moral relativity.
That certainly didn't mean that his "objective" moral code told him that killing was no worse than shoplifting.
On homosexuality, his claim is that relativists have no criteria for distinguishing between homosexuality and rape, not that he, the absolutist doesn't.
His arguments were often clumsy, but that's the central theme.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 7:19 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 8:36 PM bluegenes has replied

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


Message 129 of 424 (567162)
06-29-2010 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Modulous
06-29-2010 7:38 PM


I'm just used to using it in the technical sense. Generally speaking a transaction has two participants. But sometimes there is a third party that is involved - to assist or to detract from the transaction.
Well, then I think you've answered your own question about why Dan decided to try his "experiment" on you.
We dealt with that - concluding that if worded properly it would be suitable for discussion at EvC without risk of suspension since it was not an argument directed at a member of EvC.
Right, and then Dan proved with examples that NJ wasn't wording it that way. He was wording it in the way that would appear to be an argument directed at a member, or multiple members, of EvC.
Remember? He accused you of talking about a "fictional" NJ? Who was much more reasonable than the actual one?
His experiment failed.
Spectacularly.
I rebuked cavediver for Message 144.
Fair enough, I'd forgotten.
Under the rules of the constitution of the United States you can say "Fags like to eat poo, are more likely to molest children and die 30 years earlier".
Yes, but that's because the US Constitution doesn't say "Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics." At Evc Forum, the rules do say that. It's understood that the rules exist to maintain decorum, make sure topics stay more or less focused on a central point, and that debators don't have the excuse to ignore each other's points in favor of each other's ad hominems.
Now, I know about the fallacy of affirming the consequent. I know that "If A, then B" and "~A" doesn't imply "~B". But switch over to Baysean logic for a sec, and realize that if the rules exist to prevent complete collapse of legitimate dialogue on the board, and then a kind of speech ultimately causes the complete collapse of legitimate dialogue on the board - as NJ's conduct ultimately did - it stands to reason that there's a pretty good chance that the speech in question was probably against the rules. If not, a rule should be made against it.
When you saw a homophobe say homosexual sex and bestiality in the same sentence you inferred it was like those other times when homophobes have said some incredibly nasty, disgusting, vile, hate-filled (gah don't get me started!) shit.
But again, you're acting like NJ was on the hook for a single instance of speech.
That's not what happened at all. If it had just been once, there would have been no need for moderation. We're adults, we can handle it when someone makes an unintentionally insulting comparison. And it was so handled.
But NJ didn't respond by changing his language and avoiding potentially easy-to-misunderstand comparisons. He doubled-down on them, acted like the only unreasonable people were the ones who were getting offended, and started chasing Berberry around different threads to tell him that gays were just like horse-fuckers and rapists and only someone who was "deluded" (his word) could be offended by that. And then, perhaps because NJ was also a moderator, you, Percy, and Moose popped up to support him in that judgement.
Oh, and then he called me gay. Fun times!
Look, let me take a different tack. Remember long ago when Percy said:
quote:
There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.
Regardless of whether or not you saw NJ engage in offensive gay-baiting, can it really be denied that he was driving around in a car covered in little darts? Just based on the widespread outcry, we would have to conclude that NJ was positively bristling with darts. Like a bright orange hedgehog!
I appreciate that you took a principled stand not to punish someone you felt wasn't guilty of anything. (Boy, where were you all those times I was suspended...) But Percy's old comedian routine seems to indicate that's not actually the standard by which moderation should take place.
Can you really assert that NJ was making an effort to "not look like one of the idiots"? Can you really assert that trying to untangle the Gordian Knot was the appropriate response?
Simply on the basis of the "suction dart" standard, articulated by Percy as the central basis for moderation, shouldn't you have taken the action against NJ that might ultimately have saved the forum?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Modulous, posted 06-29-2010 7:38 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Modulous, posted 06-29-2010 9:29 PM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 130 of 424 (567163)
06-29-2010 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by bluegenes
06-29-2010 8:15 PM


On homosexuality, his claim is that relativists have no criteria for distinguishing between homosexuality and rape, not that he, the absolutist doesn't.
I know what his argument was; the point was, he chose examples that were needlessly offensive, and when he was politely told that, he doubled-down on them and pretended that anybody who was taking offense was a deluded queer.
Like I said:
quote:
Suffice to say, while that may have been the argument you intended to make, you did so in an offensive manner, and you really should have known better (since you've done it before to the exact same reaction.) At the very least, using trigger language like you did makes people respond to your language instead of your argument, so you should reconsider making such comparisons simply from a practical standpoint of not giving your opponents an excuse to avoid your points.
If I say something like "a nigger leaves a train station going south at 50 mph, and a spic leaves another station 50 miles south, going north at 30 mph, how fast are they going when they drive-by each other?" it doesn't really matter that I'm trying to make a point about algebra, not about race. I've been deliberately offensive and opponents, obviously, are going to ignore my much less interesting point and react to my bigotry. Why should I expect them to do any different?
I invite you to use other comparisons in the future, if only out of self-interest.
I thought that was pretty reasonable at the time, and I still do. If NJ had really been interested in making and participating in arguments about moral relativism, he would have modified his language to remove the offense, which was acting as a significant obstacle to debate. Just out of self-interest.
Instead he doubled-down on that language. Because he wasn't interested in moral debate, he was interested in trolling homosexuals and their allies, like myself, Taz, and Dan.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by bluegenes, posted 06-29-2010 8:15 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by bluegenes, posted 06-29-2010 11:02 PM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 131 of 424 (567165)
06-29-2010 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by crashfrog
06-29-2010 8:03 PM


Re: Grammatical Perspective
If your problem here is that moderators didn't take into account months (if not years) of subtle non-specific-contextual-based non-rule breaking by NJ in addition to the wishes of a bunch of people who apparently disagree on many EvC related issues but who collectively decided that on a social issue on which they have a lot in common that NJ deserved to be suspended for his long term contextual non-rule breaking - Well I remain unconvinced of the validity of your argument. It sounds like argumentum popularium with presure-group-mentality-pseudo-moral knobs on.
Do you disagree? Do you think moderation as I described it then was good for the board?
Has not Mod already conceded that moderation mistakes were made? If moderation mistakes were made does that somehow make your position and interpretation of this entire fiasco correct?
It's the weight of evidence by which statements are proven or disproven. It's not by one element of evidence after another, in isolation. If you really give a shit, and you're not arguing just to argue, why don't you head in and examine the weight of evidence?
I was a relative newbie here when this particular shit storm kicked off and I had no inclination to take part at the time. But I debated a lot with NJ on the issue of moral relativism. And the picture you are painting of him is not what I expereinced. Nor is it backed up by your quoted examples (as many here have stated and as is exemplified by your inability to backup assertions made in recent posts). Nor do I think it is an accurate portrayal of his position as I retrospectively read his posts now in the context of this thread.
The idea that your position on this is somehow more objective than mine, or that those who support your position are more objectively accurate than those who have concluded the opposite, is frankly unfounded.
You need to understand why some people disagree with you on this without assuming they are ignorant, imbecilic, delusional or incapable of English comprehension as a starting premise on your part.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 8:03 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 8:57 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 132 of 424 (567167)
06-29-2010 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Straggler
06-29-2010 8:48 PM


Re: Grammatical Perspective
If your problem here is that moderators didn't take into account months (if not years) of subtle non-specific-contextual-based non-rule breaking by NJ in addition to the wishes of a bunch of people who apparently disagree on many EvC related issues but who collectively decided that on a social issue on which they have a lot in common that NJ deserved to be suspended for his long term contextual non-rule breaking
That's not my problem, no.
It sounds like argumentum popularium with presure-group-mentality-pseudo-moral knobs on.
But remember - "argumentum ad populum" forms the basis of Percy's intended philosophy of moderation:
quote:
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.
There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.
Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots.
In this case, it appears that despite the fact that NJ was at the center of a substantial degree of controversy - his car was literally bristling with sucky darts - it appears that they determined he was not "one of the idiots" because NJ told them he was not, and NJ was a moderator.
They closed ranks around one of their own.
If moderation mistakes were made does that somehow make your position and interpretation of this entire fiasco correct?
Given that my position now, as well as then, was simply "moderator mistakes are being made", I would say that it does, yes.
. And the picture you are painting of him is not what I expereinced.
I knew him better than you, which I've proved.
(as many here have stated and as is exemplified by your inability to backup assertions made in recent posts
Oh, right, that part where you stated that my interpretation of NJ's statements was correct according to grammar and logic, if that's the way you want to go, but nonetheless I'm wrong even though I read way more of his posts than you did, just because you say so.
Wow, compelling.
You need to understand why some people disagree with you on this without assuming they are ignorant, imbecilic, delusional or incapable of English comprehension as a starting premise on your part.
Either that's true of them or it's true of me. I'm pretty sure I proved it's true of you, when you admitted that you weren't willing to read all of NJ's posts.
I've read more of his posts than you have, which is why I have the more accurate picture of his activity than you do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Straggler, posted 06-29-2010 8:48 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Straggler, posted 06-30-2010 9:04 AM crashfrog has not replied

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


Message 133 of 424 (567172)
06-29-2010 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by crashfrog
06-29-2010 8:31 PM


Right, and then Dan proved with examples that NJ wasn't wording it that way.
Which examples that Dan came up with prove that NJ wasn't wording it that way?
Now, I know about the fallacy of affirming the consequent. I know that "If A, then B" and "~A" doesn't imply "~B". But switch over to Baysean logic for a sec, and realize that if the rules exist to prevent complete collapse of legitimate dialogue on the board, and then a kind of speech ultimately causes the complete collapse of legitimate dialogue on the board - as NJ's conduct ultimately did - it stands to reason that there's a pretty good chance that the speech in question was probably against the rules. If not, a rule should be made against it.
If NJs conduct ultimately caused the collapse then my role must be rather minimal. The only thing I could do to prevent NJ talking to subbie about morality six months down the line would have been to permanently suspend him. When Rrhain came into the moderation thread to kick up another stink the moderators were in a stick situation. Suspend Rrhain for being inflammatory and we risk further undermining the confidence in the Admin team as people start thinking we suspended him for reasons other than the ones we said we did as with Dan. So Percy decided a decisive action was needed, one way or another. And the rest, is history.
But yes - if NJs behaviour was the single proximate cause of a collapse in dialogue then whatever it was we identify as the core behaviour should be forbidden for the sake of maintaining said dialogue.
I just don't think NJ's behaviour was the single proximate cause.
But again, you're acting like NJ was on the hook for a single instance of speech.
Again? I kept asking for more supporting quotes in that thread because what had been presented hadn't persuaded me.
I thought the best argument was the address rebuttals and avoid repetition one and was hoping this campaign of deliberate anti-gay baiting that is claimed would be simple enough to demonstrate.
Regardless of whether or not you saw NJ engage in offensive gay-baiting, can it really be denied that he was driving around in a car covered in little darts? Just based on the widespread outcry, we would have to conclude that NJ was positively bristling with darts. Like a bright orange hedgehog!
Agreed.
I appreciate that you took a principled stand not to punish someone you felt wasn't guilty of anything. (Boy, where were you all those times I was suspended...) But Percy's old comedian routine seems to indicate that's not actually the standard by which moderation should take place.
Message 97 through to Message 140 But that was before I got drunk on power I guess
But anyway - I appreciate that you appreciate what I was trying to do. Even if you think that in trying to do the right thing I ended up doing the wrong thing.
Simply on the basis of the "suction dart" standard, articulated by Percy as the central basis for moderation, shouldn't you have taken the action against NJ that might ultimately have saved the forum?
I don't think 'number of complaints' should necessarily be reason to suspend someone - but it is definitely enough to warrant examining the situation in more detail. If people get 'prickly', 'personal', or 'argumentative', as Percy suggested in that dart analogy post - it does not make investigating or discussing the matter easier and can lead to unwanted consequences.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 8:31 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 10:07 PM Modulous has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 134 of 424 (567173)
06-29-2010 9:41 PM


While I was gone to work, you guys added 5 more pages to this thread. Have fun arguing about a dead subject. I knew I shouldn't have gotten involve.

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


Message 135 of 424 (567174)
06-29-2010 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Modulous
06-29-2010 9:29 PM


If NJs conduct ultimately caused the collapse then my role must be rather minimal.
Sure. I'd agree with that. I would say that your role in the collapse was limited to the chance you had to censure NJ's conduct and take steps to prevent it from happening again.
In other words - you were the horseshoe nail, and for want of you taking the most minor, most trivial of actions, the board collapsed. (At least temporarily. May it rise again!)
I don't see any inconsistency, either internally or with my larger theme throughout this thread, in asserting that your role was both minor and central.
I thought the best argument was the address rebuttals and avoid repetition one and was hoping this campaign of deliberate anti-gay baiting that is claimed would be simple enough to demonstrate.
Well, but that was the problem. NJ was good enough at it that there would never be a single, clear example to demonstrate. That was his whole schitck - flirt around the edges of calling Berberry and homosexuals in general no better than horsefucking rapists, but never actually come out and say it - let the implication emerge from repetition and context.
It was, actually, some masterful trolling, which is how he got away with it as long as he did. Recall Taz:
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.
There was never going to be a clear, unambiguous single example of NJ's campaign of bigotry. That was why it was so pernicious. We could never show you really compelling examples because NJ was so careful not to provide any. You had to read his posts - all his posts - in context to pull it out.
Message 97 through to Message 140 But that was before I got drunk on power I guess
Ah! Well, you've caught me out there, for sure. No doubt. Well done, to find that example. Interesting read, too.
Well, for sure, let me walk back some of my criticism of you. It's not fair of me to attempt to characterize your moderation from nothing more than a single thread.
If people get 'prickly', 'personal', or 'argumentative', as Percy suggested in that dart analogy post - it does not make investigating or discussing the matter easier and can lead to unwanted consequences.
Right. What I thought was weird about that is that I perceived almost all the prickliness coming from the moderators. People were raising very cogent and penetrating points, I thought, and what we were getting back from the moderators was "you idiots are whiny crybabies", "fucking let fucking it fucking go", promises of instant suspensions delivered retroactively - combined with Percy's admonitions for us to engage in "constructive dialogue."
Did the lay participants start getting snippy? You bet your ass we did, because almost immediately in that thread our calm, constructive suggestions were dismissed as whining. But it's a matter of record that the only obstacle to actual constructive dialogue in that thread was that the moderator team was determined to prevent it from occurring. It was very surreal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Modulous, posted 06-29-2010 9:29 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Modulous, posted 06-30-2010 7:43 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024