Did Mod cause the collapse of evcforum?

Ok, but see - that feels like you think we're dumb.Yes, we understood that Dan telling you how to peel a banana was the excuse by which you banned him. Again, the reason you appeared to ban him is because he was correct in his criticism, and moderators appeared to have decided - I say "appeared" when, in fact, many of the moderators explicitly said it in that thread - that allowing too much trenchant criticism corroded the authority moderators depended on to do their jobs.After all, never in the annals of EvC had telling someone how to eat a banana risen to the level of meriting a suspension. Berberry was repeatedly accused of "oversensitivity" but nobody seems to have a comment on Modulous's oversensitivity. And what is it but oversensitivity to react so strongly to being told how to eat a banana? Or even to being called a "retarded monkey", which on the Triumph-Black Scale of Comedic Insult is about 1.21 mili-Mahers?I'm reminded of the recent activity surrounding Barry Cooper, the activist who videotapes and exposes police corruption, particularly surrounding marijuana and drug use, in a popular series of YouTube videos. Frequently he's set up "drug paraphernalia drops" containing sums of cash, then videotaped responding officers pocketing the cash, then depositing the rest into evidence. Since evidence deposits are logged, Barry can compare what made it into the "official" evidence against what he videotaped being put into the drop.In another instance, to expose the abuse of "confidental informant" rules by police who would actually fabricate CI testimony - which they know could never be exposed due to confidentiality protections - in order to justify search warrants, Barry created a videotaped "grow house", complete with the sorts of grow lights and irrigation systems marijuana growers typically used. Except all the plants were little pine trees, and every room in the house was wired for video.Barry had someone deliver an "anonymous tip" that the house was being used as a grow house. Now, an anonymous phone tip isn't enough evidence to secure a search warrant. And since it wasn't actually a grow house, there could be no further evidence that could justify a warrant.But, sure enough, a police Swat team eventually stormed the house, with a search warrant complete with fabricated CI testimony. Testimony that the CI had been in the house, saw pot growing there, bought pot from the house - all things that were impossible because no pot was actually growing at the house.Now, with these actions Barry Cooper sure made an impression on Texas police. And what was the result? He's been arrested, today, on charges stemming from "making a false report to police officers." The warrant was served by the Texas Rangers.That's right - the Texas Rangers, as in "Walker, Texas Ranger", as in the branch of Texas law enforcement traditionally tasked with hunting dangerous fugitives, breaking drug rings, and catching serial killers. Why did the Texas Rangers suddenly see fit to enter the business of serving warrants on minor crimes?Well, they're not. They're suddenly in the business of serving minor warrants on Barry Cooper, because authority closes ranks to protect their own.I'm sorry, Mod, if you chafe under the constant assumption of bad faith in your administrative duties. But that's what comes with authority. The constant assumption of bad faith is the only reasonable stance in regards to authority, because regardless of the level of power - forum administrator to elite law enforcement - all of the incentives run precisely the opposite of acting in good faith.To any moderator - if you can't handle the constant assumption of bad faith, if you're not prepared to consider your own actions in the light of an interpretation of bad faith and adjust them accordingly - and never be rewarded or even recognized for doing so - then I don't think you can call yourself qualified to moderate, or to hold any position of authority. It's the nature of the beast that people are going to see you suspend someone for telling you how to eat a banana and wonder "hrm, what's really going on, here?"And it's completely correct for them to do so. Being in authority doesn't mean you get more benefit of the doubt, it means you deserve less. Sorry, but it has to work that way.

Right, exactly. He wanted to be offensive. He wanted to say that gay sex was the moral equivalent of rape.And that's the conduct that should have been censured, under the Forum Guidelines.

Do we stop at 300 these days, still?

Probably there's not. But I think what you're getting hung up on is this: laws don't exist because of their moral justifications.Laws exist because legislators passed them, and they persist until legislators decide to repeal them. Legislators may make some kind of moral justification for those laws, or they may not - but the laws that exist, exist because legislators decided it should be so.A moral principle doesn't automatically become a law as soon as we recognize it. A law doesn't cease to exist automatically when we perceive that its moral basis has evaporated. The law isn't the reflection of our morality on our government; it's a reflection of the will and effort of legislators.The reason incestuous marriage is illegal is because at one point legislators decided it should be so, and as yet legislators have not spent the effort to change their minds. It's likely that they won't; politically they would have nothing to gain and much to lose. The daughter-fucking lobby is neither enormous nor well-funded.

I don't have to provide evidence to support a belief. The point is, it's the appearance of corruption that corrodes confidence in authority, not the actual existence of it.You can't just take actions that appear corrupt, and then expect us all to ignore them when you insist that no, you had only the purest motives at heart. That's what the corrupt say, too.If it feels like you can't win - yes, you're right! That's been my point the whole time. That's the terrible burden of authority - we can't just take your word for your pure motives. Everything you do, as a figure of authority, has to be interpreted from an automatic suspicion of bad faith.If you can't handle that, a position of authority is probably not for you. Of course, but my bias is the most reasonable one. Being biased against authority is the only reasonable stance in regards to authority. The presumption of good faith gives authority too much leeway to exploit it, and the incentives for someone in authority always - always - run in that direction.Authority must be constantly under suspicion because the incentives for authority always run towards the abuse of their power and the exploitation of those they're meant to regulate. But again - similar to how moderators shouldn't moderate threads they participate in, moderators should exercise extreme reticence to take action when they're the target of a rules infraction. A policeman shouldn't investigate his own home invasion. Dan's behavior may have merited suspension under a strict reading of the rules - although you were certainly being hypersensitive - but you shouldn't have been the one to deliver it.To every extent it has the appearance of acting in bad faith. Well, here you are, to say that you acted in good faith.Not good enough. Everyone who acts in bad faith says they act in good faith. Moderator actions need to be above reproach if people are to have confidence in moderation. Your actions sapped moderator confidence, I think we've both agreed on that. I never said that you did. Indeed I'm fairly certain that his words didn't upset you.What they did, to all intents and appearances, was give you the excuse you were looking for to stifle dissent. Hey, maybe that wasn't your intent. Who cares? That's what it looked like to me and to Rrhain and to a dozen others, and that's the appearance that it's your job to avoid. You failed. It doesn't matter what your intent was. Well, but technically speaking, he didn't call you a "retarded monkey." I mean, he never even said that banana-eating was the retarded monkey test. He told you how to eat a banana, and you made an inference. You asked if he was being "disrespectful" - unspecified, how - and he confirmed.Making inferences was why Berberry was accused of being "oversensitive", in that thread and this one, so it seems fair to level the same accusation at you. I don't see how this triggers anything. You don't specify the individual targets of each of these examples of abuse; were they directed to moderators? Then you're not fit to moderate, I'm sorry to say. Authority is a responsibility as well as a privilege, and it's not one that should be allowed to be bestowed on those who will ignore reasonable criticism. It's not one that we can afford to bestow on people who think that skepticism towards their actions and motives is an unfair presumption of bad faith, when in fact the presumption of bad faith is the only reasonable stance to take towards authority.You should step down from your moderator post immediately, as you've made it clear in this thread you're no more fit to moderate now than you were, then.

Er, I think you've maybe misunderstood me, because this emotional (and apparently drunk) reaction seems dramatically out of proportion to the restrained and deliberate post to which you were replying.I'm not involved in any kind of three-year vendetta. Like I've repeatedly said I'd given this matter approximately zero thought between when it occurred and now, when Rrhain brought it up and Mod opened the thread. Indeed I'd completely forgotten all about it.I mean, I was never under any kind of suspension, Cave. Had I been seething with hatred, eager to rake Mod over the coals for perceived slights, wouldn't I, you know, have done so at some point? At any point in the last three years? That's the question AZPaul could never answer, and I doubt you'll be able to, either.This has nothing to do with my personal feelings towards Mod, which let me assure you are the height of respect, admiration, and gratitude for participating in this discussion with me for as long as he has. I have every reason to believe that Mod is a great guy.Unfortunately he's just not cut out to be a moderator, in my opinion. That's not something I consider a personal fault, any more than I would fault Mod for not being able to perform bariatric surgery or compose concertos for the monovalve b'rugalsec. It's really not meant to be a personal attack nor the result of any sort of vendetta, and there's no basis for construing it that way.And, jeez, it's not like I have any say as to who should be a moderator around here.

Who cares what his motives were, Mod? He wasn't a moderator. You are.That's what I'm trying to get across. You have a different responsibility than Dan or the rest of us do, because you're the authority and we're not. Well, it's certainly the criticism I leveled. Remember when I said:

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.

---

The criticism was always about how moderators were behaving, but that was the single issue that moderators in that thread were singularly unwilling to discuss. He was only being uncivil to you, though, which should have been a basis for you to recuse yourself from taking moderator action. If someone else had suspended Dan it would have gone a little further towards confidence in the moderators, but ultimately if you had just done your job in regards to NJ, Dan (and Berb) would never have gotten uncivil in the first place. You gave me pretty direct examples of people being called "idiots" and other names, being directly sworn at, and the like. You didn't give me any example of the kind of very indirect inference involved in perceiving the insult in being given advice on how to eat bananas.Look, I get what it meant. I'm not an idiot. But the operating standard at EvC was largely one of plausible deniability and indirectness. Calling someone a "liar" is out. Calling their post a "lie" is in, or was in at the time, even though someone who lies is by definition a liar. And, of course, different moderators had different philosophies about to what extent insulting inference was or wasn't allowed.I get that. Nonetheless, to be insulted by the prospect of being told how to eat a banana certainly rises to a level of sensitivity. And it's the place of moderators to be less sensitive to disrespect, not more so. Otherwise they make it look like the only disrespect they care about is the disrespect directed at themselves, the way you made it look. Er, ok, that is without question being oversensitive. I'm sorry but it absolutely is. You had a case for suspending Dan when you were allowing people to think you thought he called you a "retarded monkey." Now that you're denying that, you have absolutely no case whatsoever, regardless of what he subsequently said to you.He was confessing to calling you a "retarded monkey." If you don't actually think that's what he did, then you had an obligation to disregard his "confession." I'm sorry but you've just destroyed your own case for his suspension. Being told how to eat a banana doesn't rise to the level of violating the forum guidelines under any circumstances. But you didn't suspend him for ignoring moderator requests. You suspended him because, in your judgement, that's what he wanted you to do.I tried to explain to you, that's not what he was saying - that people don't say "Oh, I know you'll suspend me for this" because they want to be suspended, they say it because they're observing a situation of fairly predictable injustice. They're not asking for a suspension, they're predicting that one will be unfairly delivered despite them not actually having broken any of the rules. They're predicting that they won't get a fair shake, and in Dan's case, he was correct.At any rate, asking to be suspended isn't against the forum guidelines, so it can't be a basis for punishment. But, of course, that's the point - whatever criticism you would like to ignore, you can simply assert is "unreasonable."None of this behavior is a new way for authority to act, Mod. But again - you're acting like there was literally nothing else anyone could do but suspend Dan, and then suspend Rrhain from complaining about it, and then ultimately demand that criticism of those actions come to an end or else more suspensions would follow.But that's not true. Rrhain told the moderator team that it wasn't true then, I told you it wasn't true then, and I'm telling you now it wasn't true.All you had to do was the right thing, and neither Berberry's, nor Dan's, nor Rrhain's behavior ever would have become an issue. Instead you and the moderator team viewed the issue as one where the participants refused to see reason and had to be crammed back down into the hole with brute force.Don't play it like Dan gave the moderator team no choice. You always had the choice to do the right thing, we even told you what it was.

I don't know what "OTT" stands for, but, yes, restrained. Again - it's not a personal vendetta against Mod, it's not a three year grudge, it's not about any of that. It's not emotional in any way, unlike your replies to me.It's just my judgement that he isn't qualified to moderate. I'm frequently wrong, and when I am, I admit it. There's literally nobody at EvC who has admitted being wrong as often as I have. Really, you can look it up.I don't admit to being wrong just because people say I'm wrong, but then, neither do you. But I have no trouble admitting my own errors, I've made countless posts where I've had to do just that. Some in this thread, even. Mod was actually right about some things and I was wrong, and where that's been the case I've been very forthright about saying so. Absolutely incorrect. I was right then, and subsequent events proved it. I'm sorry that you're unable to see it, but subsequent events are a matter of record and there's just no disputing that a crisis in moderator confidence occurred precisely as I had predicted at the time.

No, not according to Percy:

quote:

---

Do you follow the NFL at all? If so, you might know that the NFL rules are formulated so that referees never have to make judgment calls. A player either violated a rule or he didn't, but his intent is never an issue. Hence, a "roughing the quarterback" call does not depend upon whether it was intentional or not, only on whether it happened or not. Similarly, a face mask violation is strictly a function of whether the face mask was touched (minor penalty, 5 yards and a 1st down) or grasped (major penalty, 15 yards and a 1st down). Intention to rough the quarterback or grab the face mask is never a factor in making the call.

​

As the Forum Guidelines have evolved over the years we've tried to keep this in mind. As much as possible we want to avoid making forum guideline enforcement a judgment call.

---

The intent of participants is not supposed to be a factor in their moderation, although I suppose we can expect a certain degree of allowance for mistakes.And, remember - the erosion of confidence in Dan's motives is nowhere near as damaging to the board as an erosion in confidence in the moderators' motives. Dan Carroll's motives simply don't matter, Mod; only yours do. I'm well aware. After all, I had learned from Dan's mistake, and so I didn't give you an excuse. I think that was implicit in the criticisms I was making. If that didn't come through then I apologize. But there was a singular reticence for moderators to discuss application of moderator philosophy, which limited my ability to put forth general precepts of moderator philosophy. Anyway, who am I to decide - Percy makes the rules, not me. Oh, I doubt it would have increased my confidence in the moderators. You wouldn't have increased my confidence in the moderators if you had done everything I had said.When someone fucks up, there's no way for that to resolve in such a way that your confidence in them can really increase. If the moderator team had made more of an effort to correct their ample mistakes, that would have eroded confidence less, but once they'd fucked up in the first place, increasing confidence wasn't possible in that situation.But preventing further erosion is important, too. Remember, it's about participants' confidence in the moderation. More is better. Sure, but you were wrong. I mean I don't know what else you would need at this point - even NJ showed up here to tell you he was gay-baiting, just like Moose and Percy suspected he was. You're objectively in error that there was no infraction - gay-baiting is a "needling", "goading" tactic that is "disrespectful" and therefore against the forum guidelines.The cop who looks around and strangely never seems to see any crimes isn't "doing his job." Sure, by indirect inference. That happens all the time and only rarely rises to a level that demands censure. Indeed, a certain amount of it is necessary to keep the debate going! Well, look, I wrote the post, Mod, and let me tell you - yes, that's exactly what I was calling him. That was the point! I was trying to skirt the forum guidelines by indirectly calling EJ arrogant, baboon-faced, and the rest. (Yes, some humorous hyperbole was intended.)That's the whole point of the indirect insult - to make someone feel like they've been insulted, while at the same time leave yourself an "out" where you can claim you've simply been misinterpreted. Sigh... again, nobody thought you were.This will go a little quicker if you can keep up, I guess. But he didn't, not if you seriously thought he was actually telling you how to eat a banana. That's not against the forum guidelines. Saying "yes, I'm breaking the forum guidelines" isn't against the guidelines either.Interpreting banana instructions as "disrespect" is oversensitivity, Mod. It's just being prickly. Moderators need to not be prickly. They need to not be oversensitive. They especially need to not be oversensitive while they're accusing others of being oversensitive.There's no contradiction here. Not actually being insulted makes responding as though Dan insulted you less defensible, not more. But that's just stupid. Why would anybody want to be suspended? If they want it, how would it be an effective punishment? If Dan wanted it, why did he complain about it?Of course Dan didn't want to be suspended. Nobody does. If they wanted to stop posting they just wouldn't post anymore. If people wanted to be suspended you could just make a "suspend yourself" button and save yourself a lot of work.Of course Dan didn't want you to suspend him. He wanted you to suspend NJ. That was the entire point, how could you have missed that? Well, that would be a tragedy, now wouldn't it? If moderators were restrained and conservative in the exercise of their power? If they were hesitant and self-reflective before they acted?Yeah, I can see what a nightmare that would be. How can I know it's not? And when it's that important, why shouldn't I exercise extreme suspicion of moderator actions?Because it hurts their feelings? Too fuckin' bad. More is at stake than that. Or, alternatively, you could stop seeing constructive criticism as "flames." You could stop constructing the problem as "how many people do we have to suspend before people stop complaining about the suspensions?" Even after all this time I can't believe you still think it was the participants who were the problem. Sure, one of them was - NJ! That was the whole point. And thus we were at an impasse. The participant team, though, was willing to discuss and weigh alternatives, compromises.What compromise did the moderator team ever offer? When Percy said that Dan and Berberry weren't "willing to consider alternatives", what specific alternative was he referring to? None of us ever said that "only one outcome was acceptable." All we ever said was that there was one outcome that was not acceptable, but for some reason, that's the exact outcome moderators insisted was the correct and only option.Why was that? No, they would have changed. They would have been eroded less.

Clearly, that's not the case. I'm not pushing any vendetta. Mod opened the thread, remember?What's the deal with your vendetta, Paul? Why is discussion of this topic so offensive to you?Why not just ignore it?

Er, wait, that's not the question under discussion at all. "Brutality"? Please.

Who is "Carrying this on"? Rrhain brought it up. Mod opened the thread.These are all facts that are instantly accessible. It's not necessary to lie about me in order to defend Mod. It's also not especially effective.No vendetta. Mod opened the thread to discuss this very issue and I obliged. When the thread is closed so will be my opinion on the matter. You'll never hear about it from me again.But while the topic is open, and Mod would like to continue, why try to suppress the debate? Why lie about my behavior and motives?Why is it so important to Theodoric and AZPAul that we not talk about this, I wonder?

Yes, you're absolutely right. I don't decide who can and can't be a moderator. I never claimed otherwise and I don't expect any action at all to be taken just because I feel like Modulous can't be a moderator. No, I don't, but I think you and AZPAul need to have a good, long look at why the two of you are so compelled to insult me right to my face while I'm obliging Modulous's wish to discuss these events. How could it look like that? Rrhain brought it up. Modulous opened the thread.I was never suspended. If I was seething with hatred about this issue, why didn't I ever bring it up? Why didn't I open thread after thread railing against Modulous and demanding he step down?The only two times I've ever talked about this are the thread where it originally occurred, and this thread about those events. How is that a "grudge"? Indeed, I'd forgotten about the issue completely until Rrhain brought it up. I've long known I can't control what perception people have of me. Some people, like you, see the orange Road-Frog and just take all leave of their senses. For instance, how else to explain this exchange: Once you're determined to interpret my tone in the worst possible light, nothing I say will ever change your mind, because you'll continue to interpret it with that tone in mind. But it's clear to any objective reader that the only two people in this thread with an emotional grudge are you and AZPaul, against me.

I am, and have been, "over it." It's never occupied even a fraction of my mind except last week when Rrhain brought it up and Mod opened the thread.Since then I've been obliging Mod's wish to discuss these events. That was and continues to be my sole motivation in participating in this thread. Yes, clearly Mod and I have a difference of opinions. Why am I the only one who has to justify his participation in this thread?

That's a great question - for Modulous, who was the one who opened the thread.You'll have to ask him what he expected to accomplish with this discussion. His goals and motivations are not accessible to me.