General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution

After this post of mine, AdminAsgara created a post using large red Caps declaring that the POTM thread was not a debate thread. The problem is that there wasn't even a debate going on.I realized it looked like it could LOOK like I was debating, so I specifically added language explaining what I was doing. When Ned answered, I only replied to explain why the nature of his rec had confused as to if he had correctly linked to the correct post.Its not like that has not happened before. I thought I was being helpful, both times. I certainly didn't leave anything that could be debated, nor indicated that I felt I wanted to say anything more.Thus asgara's post addressed something that was not happening and if anything added to the length of OT discussion.The question I am raising is if it isn't possible that admin's are getting a bit jumpy these days? I understand if there is a blatant problem, or something is running on a bit, but it does seem like there is a bit more activity from admins recently, and not completely necessary.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I wasn't meaning to question in the sense of "challenging" his choice, but rather questioning if he linked to the one he had intended. His description of the post did not fit what I went to and read. Thus a very real question was raised in my mind, as others have in the past if for example they are told they are going to a specific numbered post or author and they end up somewhere else when following the link.In my first post I ended with an apology if that was not the case. Ned explained that it was correct and why he described it the way he did. I ended by explaining why... coming from a different assumption... that had confused me. This seems highly relevant, and I'm not sure where else such info could be relayed.But I want to get this straight.In the past people have errantly linked to or cited directly a post different than what they had meant to. It was brought to their attention, or the issue was raised, by someone posting in response to the nomination in the POTM thread. That allowed for correction.That is now considered "discussion" and off limits? That seems a bit bizarre to me. Where should such notices go... or is no one supposed to point out that an error may have been made (or is that now going to only be allowed to admins)?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I just opened a thread and had it closed by Jar, who said this... 1) The thread was created because a poster is bringing up issues in threads where they are totally off topic, and I did not want to burden a thread with off topic discussion he was creating. Using bookmarks to the original posts and then posting them as links would only extend OT debate within the thread (unless you are suggesting bare links with no explanation?), and encourage the poster to reply in that thread.2) The issues themselves were OT to the original thread they were in. The second point of my new thread was to condense and move three scattered OT debates in one thread over to a single thread where they could be addressed in the future and not plug up the original thread they existed in.3) There are plenty of one post threads because of lack of interest. If the poster is going to reply it would be better to be within that singular thread right? All closing it does is scatter the same arguments into possibly two other OT topic threads until one of you guys tell us to create a new thread because we are OT... right?I thought I did everyone a favor by preemptively creating a thread to contain several arguments which would have been OT if I decided to answer them where they get brought up. Closed, that is exactly what you will get.On the flipside, what happens if you reopen it? At worst it does not get used, except by me as a ref to point others too (which is arguably much easier for others than travelling to several different links). At best, debate occurs there.I see no good reason for this judgement at all.This message has been edited by holmes, 01-04-2006 01:54 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I am now beginning to feel pretty uncomfortable at EvC. I want to get this straight...1) On top of blatantly misrepresenting data, a poster also plagiarized which is a violation of guidelines and gets no warning whatsoever. (In fact YOU supposedly read my post and then said nothing).2) Then in another thread, he begins to misrepresent my positions and actions repeatedly within another thread... which is an attack on me... and he gets no warning whatsoever.3) Then I open up a thread which gathers all the points he had been refering to and put them in a single thread (concisely) so if he wants to bring it up again I can point to that thread and he can move debate to that... I am treated as if I am attacking HIM? This is NOT about having the last word. I already gave a final statement of my position. In fact this isn't even about POSITIONS. With the exception of mentioning at the very end that a position he took on one subject was undercut, I do not argue a position on those subjects.He accused me of wrongdoing within that other thread. I am simply pulling quotes from the argument to show that what he was accusing me of doing was not true.Only on the last point do I also note that a position happens to be wrong because it is ironically what he used to accuse me of something wrong.Yes, if he wants to continue debate on one of those debate positions he can then do so there, rather than starting it up elsewhere. But if you read what I wrote in the new thread I start each point explaining what he has accused me of doing and that what follows is to show that I did not do what he accused me of doing.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Fair enough, but when I get censured based on assumptions of what is going on and it has not been read, that seems a bit odd. The title is inconsequential and I would be willing to change it. "Rrhain outstanding issues" is neutral and describes that the thread involves outstanding issues which involve rrhain. "(misrepresentation)" was actually just a riff on what was happening. He was accusing me of misrepresenting things, and so this was a thread looking at the misreps he had accused me of and showing that they were in fact misreps he had been making.If the title is the problem, let me change it or do it yourselves... I don't mind at all. It is not just documenting my grievances. It shows that his charges were not true. If someone said (in the middle of an argument with you on Evolution) that "In another thread you said you were for killing babies", would it really be wrong to set out a clear response showing that you had not done so?That is all I did. All three points show what he accused me of saying, or doing, and I set out to show that was not true.I'm a bit perplexed how he could show I did otherwise but if he wanted to respond in kind (I assume you mean within the thread) what would be the problem?If there is some problem with the possibility of his responding... such that I cannot do the kind of thing I just did... what I am essentially being told is that I have to put up with someone slandering me. This is where I don't get where I'm the problem. I wasn't continuing the debate, (though if he wanted to on any of those points he could if he wanted and then it would not be OT). He had been misrepresenting my statements and actions and I collected what was necessary to show this was not true.As far as stopping discussion when things stop being of interest to the public, how am I supposed to know when that is? And how do we know whether this particular thread would be of interest to people or not? Wouldn't we know by leaving it open and seeing what reaction is? Or maybe asking people?And indeed if following public interest only is really a functioning rationale, shouldn't we be discouraging people "bumping" threads?This message has been edited by holmes, 01-04-2006 07:31 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

That thread does not merely contain links and past content. The fact that you have referred to it twice now as my "personal filing cabinet" suggests that you have not actually read it, or are failing to comprehend what is going on.I am going to try this one more time. I would like to know that my request is not just getting the brush off, which is exactly what I am feeling right now. So please just relax for a second and read through everything I am about to say carefully, then explain whatever judgement you have.EXPLANATION...
Several debates occured throughout a sex thread. They were pretty much OT for the thread and are not easy to follow as posted (due to being scattered). As far as I am concerned those specific debates have ended and my position came out supported, but restating my feeling that I "won" is not why the new thread exists.During the course of those debates I accused and fully substantiated that Rrhain had plagiarized and misrepresented data (ironically for which no admin censured him). This was not simple name-calling, it was a factual discussion with evidence.Apparently Rrhain has decided to "turn the tables" and accuse me of wrongdoing, specifically that I misrepresent data/terms and engage in quotemining. He does so by referring back to three issues (debates) within that sex thread. He has even invented an insulting phrase ("Holmes-speak") to toss at me in reference to one of those "techniques" he accuses me of engaging in. Unlike my accusation of plagiarism to him, his accusations are not substantiated. In fact they did not occur.No censure of this activity was forthcoming from admins. This left me with the option of letting him continue to insult me and stay silent, thus perhaps lending credence to his accusations. Or I could respond to the allegations he made using evidence.There is no question that a response in the thread where the accusations were made, would be off topic. They'd even be off topic in the sex thread.Thus I started the new thread to handle debate on his accusations of my misconduct. In the thread where he made the allegation, or when he falsely accuses me again (in whatever thread) I can direct him to the new thread, where my response is to his accusation is waiting to be debated.In addition, if he ever wants to continue to debate the positions from which his accusations arose we could continue such debate there as well (rather than in the original sex thread where they were sort of OT anyway).I thought this was a win win solution all around, and I am not seeing a downside to its existence. It isolates two separate debates into one thread, rather than allowing them to exist in other threads where they'd be off topic.QUESTIONS...
What is the worst that could happen if it is open? And what is the worst that could happen with it closed? It seems to me to be the lesser of two evils and I do not see the issue going away unless Rrhain is stopped from making such accusations, or admins decide he can make them but I can never respond.If I cannot have that thread (my reasoning is not sound), then I would like a clear resolution of what I am supposed to do when confronted by several accusations (he is using an ad nauseum aproach) of wrongdoing by another poster... and we can start with this case in specific where the accusations are OT.It does not make for a pleasant environment to have a poster slandering me, and not have a means to defend myself against the accusations.PS- If the title is causing some problem, as nwr suggests, then I am willing to change it. How about "Holmes-speak?". That would not sound negative toward the other poster and cover the content of the thread.This message has been edited by holmes, 01-05-2006 05:32 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Are you honestly telling me you know when things are of interest to "the public" or not? I honestly never know what is of interest to anyone else, even when I have no emotional involvement in a topic. Perhaps that is a lack of "public empathy" on my part?If so, I apologize. All I know is what I like and what I am interested in, and hope for the best.In any case I do need a resolution, and it might be handy for you guys to get together and figure a general rule to handle such a case. If one poster accuses another of doing something unethical or otherwise against the rules, what is that second poster supposed to do? Especially if the accusations are false and can be shown to be false, but would be OT within the thread where the accusation has been made?I might add still further if it is not a singular accusation, but a string of them in an ad nauseum approach, where the only adequate response would have to be lengthy?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I feel I am not getting real answers here.A person violated forum guidelines. He then went on to essentially call me a liar. I did not ask for admins to jump in, but it has been done before for others. Ironically, he had been sanctioned for calling people liar before, apparently having personalized it by using the euphemism "Holmes-speak" makes it appropriate behavior?What I am suggesting is that it is not clear why it posed a problem for moderators as it could have been done without "taking sides". It had nothing to do with who was right in the argument but rather what is not allowed as conduct.When admins did nothing, I wasn't going to cry about it, but rather found a solution I thought would be best to both address his accusations and minimize OT discussion... only to find that I got sanctioned.Having asked why I was sanctioned, I have not been told why my solution would not work, only that (apparently) I share some blame for what was done by the other poster, and am potentially causing problems via this method (though what these problems are I still do not know).Having asked the more practical question of what I can do about the accusations, I have gotten an explanation of how hard it is to be a moderator and maybe what might happen in the future... as well as a slightly ironic remark about how my conduct should have been addressed sooner**.Really, I need an answer. What am I supposed to do in the meantime when someone accuses me of doing something wrong, or in some way misrepresents my position? Jar's current recommendation is that I cut and paste links within OT threads to redirect further OT debate in the original thread. I don't see how that is any better than my solution and he appears unwilling to explain himself. You have given me no recommendation at all.I honestly don't want to keep arguing the "case", but I do want to find a practical solution.**Note on ironic remark** You personally replied to my post which showed he had plagiarized, not to recognize what had occured, but to "side" with Rrhain's position on another issue by stating that Wiki's definition was inaccurate. IIRC it was in a reply to that post of yours that he began his accusations against me. I am a bit curious why you did nothing given that you were directly connected to BOTH activities. For a guy who claims not to take sides you have only been consistently critical of me, and given passive assent to him.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Someone here asked me to be a moderator more than once, so I'm aware of the nature of the job and what it pays and that they can be imperfect.I don't understand what you mean by let it go and they don't see it my way. If you mean about reopening the thread I get by now that nothing I say is (or ever was) going to be listened to on that subject.I am asking for an answer of what I should do in the future. If I can't do what I did, what am I supposed to do instead?At this point I have been given one suggestion to post links in an OT thread, and another that maybe sometime in the future I can take part in a "resolution thread" (ironically enough what I essentially had created, only without moderation).Since you are owner can you tell me?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Thanks. At least now I feel that someone has read and understood what I was saying. Even if admins did not agree with the method I chose, and so closed the thread, I could have been treated with more respect... and there still needed to be a solution.I knew this impacted more than me, and simply shutting down the thread and ignoring my questions was not going to make it go away. Almost 100% agreement. My first reaction to seeing the closure was why it had been closed before the main person who should reply was even given a chance to. Heck I hadn't even gotten around to posting a link to Rrhain as a pointer to that thread.I assume he will want to respond, and where will that be now? Of course the powers that be may very well chuck the thread before Rrhain can see it... but that would still leave me with my outstanding question: How do I respond to OT accusations in a thread? I wish I had thought of that. But then again it had ended on such a happy note. I'm not sure I'd want to spoil that, and even if it turned out for the best I'm not sure if I'd be as happy if it ended with Rrhain getting a "smiley" based off his avatar. The thought is chilling. Yours is very cool.Let me state I am still trying to take your advice from festivus and I hope it is showing at least a little. Several times already I finished with a long response, looked at it, and then rewrote in a condensed version.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I want to clarify something, it is not that I want a resolution on whether I won an argument regarding a position with Rrhain. As frustrating as an oustanding argument is (where people don't seem to recognize the reality of one's position), the point of my thread was dealing with false accusations that I was engaging in unethical behavior.The post could also be used to continue debate on the positions, there is no doubt about that. But the primary purpose allowed me to address the charges of unethical behavior by presenting evidence regarding the charges. By the nature of the charges I could not help but pull quotes from debate.I feel several people including admins, saw only the quotes from debate and drew a false conclusion of my purpose.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

They were complaining about YOUR behavior. And they are right. While you are a decent enough poster I have pretty much never liked you as an admin. It seems to me that you have not handled the power you received wisely. Not that you couldn't just that you haven't.I never liked the way I've seen you treat others in that mode. You are prone to condescenscion and insult as your original post which spurred this subthread is a good example. You use your power to shield your own misbehavior. Look at this: Who are you? These look like words from a tinhorn tyrant.And worse, you use your position to shield your decisions from mere question. We on low are to accept your decisions as bread crumbs from on high. IF you deign to respond it is as if you have been somehow disturbed, and need not explain yourself so we can understand what rule system we are supposed to be following.Like I said I have pretty much never liked your admin behavior, and up till now that has been towards others. Having tasted it firsthand this time, I am more angry than ever. I know I didn't treat you with disrespect. But you gave my honest questions nothing but insult, condescension and the brush off. In addition you have created (or fostered) a problem and have yet to hand me a solution.Yeah, you don't get paid for being a moderator. We don't get paid for putting in our time posting either. Lack of payment is no excuse for impractical or rude behavior on either side. I don't think you should quit or be knocked out of being an admin, but you do need to take a look in the mirror (or hear the cries of the people below). You can be a much better admin.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Take this as neutral sounding. People seem to keep assuming I am emotionally overheated. This started with me doing something I thought was practical and neutral (and Ironically if I had just accepted being an admin when asked, perfectly legit). I'm still just seeking a solution. What personal grievance? I was not saying I don't like the way he talks, or he bugs me, or something like that. When a person posts arguments against your position generally people respond with counter evidence. When people post ACCUSATIONS about behavior others have most certainly responded to defend themselves.What I did was not something new. People have even collected groups of OT discussion from one thread and moved it somewhere else, including based on a single poster. I believe Buz has received his share of such threads.I didn't ask anyone to do or resolve anything FOR me. All I did was create an area so that when a specific charge (well set of charges) were brought up by a poster in a wholly OT thread, I could point him there to debate them, or others can go to see if the charges have merit. I have no idea how someone could "judge for themselves" whether Rrhain is right or wrong about his accusations, which relate to posts scattered throughout another thread. How could they? Let me ask... you didn't read the thread did you? What "score" did I try and settle with that thread? I stated in the intro what it was for. I admit it was to give me some personal relief. That way I did not have to worry about defending myself against his accusations in an OT thread. I could point to that thread and he could come and defend his accusations or not. How did it solve the issue of resolving disputes? I have already said that I can accept the closure of the thread, but then what is the solution to the problem? Honestly, I thought I was doing quite well in not responding in kind. I kept condensing posts to the prevalent points and using evidence. With the exception of some pointed commentary AFTER he began making up things to "charge" me with, I would really like to know what I did to make it unseemly. Just point to a post. I won't even debate whether you are right or not. I will look at my post and think about how I can lift my game above "unseemly".But I will end on a practical question regarding that claim. Isn't the best solution for "bickering Hendersons" to have them "get a room"? When I see others engaged in what I consider personal scrapping, I am more annoyed that it is taking up space in a thread I am trying to read. If it is in a thread labelled correctly, I can avoid it and never be offended at all. If the subjects pop up in some other thread the posts can be shifted to that thread, or the posters directed back to it.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

No one has to address anything else said previously. This is just a suggestion.1) For people that are simply yelling at each other, obviously it can be ended by admins giving a cooling off time, or telling people to return to civil on topic discussion.2) For people that have persistent debates on an issue (a topic), but do not want or for some reason cannot commit to a great debate, why not open a forum area for that? Each thread could be labelled simply with names and topic. It could be known as a relatively nonmoderated area, and anyone uninterested can avoid them. When posts from those posters begin to hit that subject they can be redirected there or just have there posts moved there.3) For people that have accusations of misconduct, this could be handled more directly. Obviously only those accusations that involve forum guidelines should be considered, but once made admins can look at the evidence provided and judge if it has merit or not. If it does then the "offender" should get a warning of some kind. If not, then admins can say there is not enough evidence that there was misbehavior and that the issue is closed.This last one is probably the most problematic to handle. I don't like, and I don't think it should be encouraged, that people tattle on others to admins. So I wouldn't be for a thread where people can go whine to the powers that be. But if admins come across accusations they could be investigated and dealt with.If there is going to be a forum at all, perhaps it could be for people that have been accused of something. They can create a thread to state they have been accused of some behavior and present the evidence on their own side. The accused person can direct the accuser to place any further accusations into that thread and not drag the topic further off course. Admins (when they have time) can come in and review the evidence and make a judgement.After a judgement has been made further debate/accusation can be censured (provided there is no new evidence), as well as accusations outside the created thread before a judgement has been made.When I say censure it doesn't have to be banning or suspension, though repeated behavior may make that necessary. Maybe repeat offenders can be "marked" with a tag of some kind warning that certain statements by the poster should not be taken seriously and need not be responded to (maybe pointing to the thread where the judgement had been made).Anything sound useful?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

As can be seen in this thread, that is not the commonly desired solution, and so an impractical suggestion. Its sort of like saying the answer to STDs is abstinence.And this ignores the crux of the problem. It takes TWO to let go of a problem, when the problem is someone making up stuff and repeating it. That makes most people uncomfortable, and want to respond in some way.I was dealing with someone that would NOT "let it go". The poster was confronting me in a totally different thread with accusations of wrongdoing in another thread. I created a tool where I could "let it go" even if he did not. He brings something up, and I just say "go here".There is so much irony in all of this its amazing, but here is one more. All I did was make up that simple fix. More people have spent time and energy telling me I should "let it go" and criticizing me, and so generating negative energy, than likely would have if it was just allowed to stay open.And this raises a question, why didn't you just "let it go" and let the admins deal with the issue? This had nothing to do with you at all. My mistake, I was assuming that if I am part of an exchange that is unseemly it meant that I myself was acting in an unseemly way. Okey doke.(AbE: I should point out that Jar's closing of the thread was not stated as the prupose you gave and attributed to Percy. If you read Jar's statement it was that he thought I could have continued using some other method.As a note to all, I am letting THIS go. My questions have been raised, and I have given suggestions. Not a whole lot else can be said from my angle. I'm going to be busy over the weekend so likely won't be back till Monday anyway.)This message has been edited by holmes, 01-06-2006 10:23 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)