Suggestion: Update the Forum Rules to reflect modern standards

  • 51 Replies
  • 8117 Views
*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
For starters, this:

Quote
10. Disputing Moderation and Memberating
Do not attempt to dispute (or interfere with) moderation anywhere other than Suggestions & Concerns.

needs to be changed to:

Quote
Do not attempt to dispute (or interfere with, discuss, or allude to in any way, positively or otherwise) moderation anywhere other than Suggestions & Concerns.


And this:

Quote
Q: "I have been banned for no good reason. This is unjust!"

A: If you think you were mistreated by a moderator and want to complain, post your complaint in here or contact a mod via PM.

is quite misleading as well. It should read:

Quote
If you think you were mistreated by a moderator and want to complain, you shall not. Posting your complaint in here shall immediately result in a quadrupling of the decreed punishment, no questions asked.  Contacting a mod via PM will result in threats of further punishment, so don't do that either.

Thanks! :)
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

?

Around And About

  • 2615
  • Circular Logic Falls Flat
Re: Suggestion: Update the Forum Rules to reflect modern standards
« Reply #1 on: April 26, 2012, 07:09:37 PM »
zarg has come here to chew bubblegum and baw, and he's all outta bubblegum.

To elaborate, I don't think that this is a legitimate suggestion or concern, and zarg is simply complaining, ironically, given his own proposed amendments to the rules. How do you respond to this, zarg?
« Last Edit: April 26, 2012, 07:21:23 PM by Around And About »
I'm not black nor a thug, I'm more like god who will bring 7 plagues of flat earth upon your ass.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Suggestion: Update the Forum Rules to reflect modern standards
« Reply #2 on: April 26, 2012, 07:35:41 PM »
*sigh*

Are you suggesting we should let you derail threads because a mod gave you a warning and it hurt your feelings? If you have a concern, PM the mod in question or make a thread here. It's not that complicated. And what are you talking about here:

Quote
If you think you were mistreated by a moderator and want to complain, you shall not. Posting your complaint in here shall immediately result in a quadrupling of the decreed punishment, no questions asked.  Contacting a mod via PM will result in threats of further punishment, so don't do that either.

When has either of those things ever happened? I'm sorry, but you seem to just be bawwing and it's honestly quite irritating.

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: Suggestion: Update the Forum Rules to reflect modern standards
« Reply #3 on: April 26, 2012, 11:07:04 PM »
zarg is simply complaining, ironically, given his own proposed amendments to the rules.

Given the wording of the second amendment, it applies within the context of an original punishment. Before or after a punishment, appeals are allowed, it seems, but not during (which of course defeats the purpose of them, but hey, I don't make the rules).



Are you suggesting we should let you derail threads because a mod gave you a warning and it hurt your feelings?

No. Wherever did you get the idea that I was suggesting that?


If you have a concern, PM the mod in question or make a thread here.

Well, I did. The result was as described.


When has either of those things ever happened?

It's an accurate description of exactly what happened. And according to the responses I got from moderators, they believed it was precisely what should have happened. Oddly, though, it's quite skewed from the policy depicted in the rules, so it must have changed but someone forgot to update the rules. Hence the suggestion.

However, you seem surprised at this behavior. Do you mean to say it shouldn't be the case? Is it not true that ban appeals in S&C are disallowed and should result in an immediate quadrupling of the ban? That PMing concerns should be encouraged rather than brushed off and responded to with threats?

If so, there has been some serious miscommunication among the staff here.

Here is your reference: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=53413.0
Quote from: Lord Wilmore
Quote
The ban was specifically for "disputing moderation" which I made abundantly clear I was not doing.

Which you therefore must have been doing, Q.E.D.

As you can see, Lord Wilmore has devised a foolproof method for a moderator to essentially rationalize a ban on whomever he or she wishes:

Moderator: "Don't dispute moderators."
Victim: "But I'm not."
Moderator: "Aha! You disputed me!"

It reminds me of a Monty Python sketch.

So anyway, here's a summary:

  • I get banned for a week for a reason which I believe was ill-informed
  • As per the rules, I appeal in S&C, politely explaining why I believe the decision was based on mistaken assumptions
  • Discussion is cut off instantly, and the ban length is quadrupled without warning
  • I PM a moderator, again politely explaining the sequence of events
  • The moderator threatens more banning
  • I give up, and am MIA from the forums until today

The rationalization for avoiding the issue and extending bans was given as "ban evasion", which is absurd. As explained, the forum software apparently only allows full site bans where absolutely no functions are available -- yet the current Q and A in the rules clearly states that the proper response to a ban perceived as unjust is to A) post in S&C, or B) send a PM, neither of which is possible during a ban. Thus the sensible solution is a temporary account for just that purpose -- and as you can see, I honored my promise to not use the account outside of that purpose.

So it's one of two things: either the reactions of the moderators in question were overzealous, rude, and abusive -- or the rules are out of date and should be changed to describe this regime to avoid confusion in the future (the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive).
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: Suggestion: Update the Forum Rules to reflect modern standards
« Reply #4 on: April 27, 2012, 01:08:39 AM »
And now the site regulars are circling the wagons as expected.  You guys need to not take every criticism of the site (made by REers in particular) as an attack on the site and try, you know, actually listening.  Unless you're actually going to stick with the story that zarg was trying to evade a ban which is pretty obvious BS.
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Suggestion: Update the Forum Rules to reflect modern standards
« Reply #5 on: April 27, 2012, 03:47:20 AM »
I do agree with the ban evasion part. There's currently no system for disputing bans other than making an alt, and not even that when you get IP banned.

However, in the thread you were originally banned from, you were blatantly disputing moderation
 You really can't argue that.  You then derailed the thread by disputing the fact that you were disputing moderation. You were also somewhat vulgar, which in the upper fora is technically a banible  offense in itself. I disagree with the quadrupling of your ban unless you used the alt to post on an area other than S&C, but the han itself was justified.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Suggestion: Update the Forum Rules to reflect modern standards
« Reply #6 on: April 27, 2012, 05:01:07 AM »
Zarg is right, and there was a definite upswing in bad modding and comment intolerance at about the time Tausami was made a moderator.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Suggestion: Update the Forum Rules to reflect modern standards
« Reply #7 on: April 27, 2012, 05:16:42 AM »
Zarg is right, and there was a definite upswing in bad modding and comment intolerance at about the time Tausami was made a moderator.

I'd love to see the examples.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2012, 05:18:29 AM by Tausami »

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11842
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: Suggestion: Update the Forum Rules to reflect modern standards
« Reply #8 on: April 27, 2012, 05:36:44 AM »
A thousand posts and I have no idea who this gentleman is.  I shall give this thread the proper attention it deserves.  Have no fear zarg, your whining does not go unnoticed.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Suggestion: Update the Forum Rules to reflect modern standards
« Reply #9 on: April 27, 2012, 05:58:07 AM »
Zarg is right, and there was a definite upswing in bad modding and comment intolerance at about the time Tausami was made a moderator.

I'd love to see the examples.

Just read your post history then. Also witness me being bammed twice for the same post.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: Suggestion: Update the Forum Rules to reflect modern standards
« Reply #10 on: April 27, 2012, 06:06:50 PM »
However, in the thread you were originally banned from, you were blatantly disputing moderation
 You really can't argue that.  You then derailed the thread by disputing the fact that you were disputing moderation. You were also somewhat vulgar, which in the upper fora is technically a banible  offense in itself.

Sorry, but you're plainly grasping at straws here.

If you'd actually listen instead of being so reactionary you would understand that I was directly contributing the George Scott discussion at hand and that my point had absolutely nothing to do with moderation. Secondly, despite Wilmore's childish accusations, being engaged in a debate/dispute with someone who happens to be a moderator is not the same thing as disputing moderation. If you want to blame someone for "derailing" the thread (an offense that is often pedantically blown out of proportion on its own, by the way), that would have to be attributed to Lord Wilmore by his choice to stubbornly push the imaginary "dispute" of Roundy's action, instead of either responding to the actual, on-topic point I was making, or just keeping quiet if he had nothing to add.

Finally, the only "vulgarity" there is the word bullshit, which a quick search will tell anyone has been tolerated for years without any complaints let alone drastic week-long bans, upper forum or no. My posting style there was no different than anywhere else, and I had received no complaints or warnings before then.

Of course, this is all moot now, but the least you could do is acknowledge what was plainly an unprofessional abuse of responsibility that wouldn't be tolerated for a second on any other established forum I've been to, rather than clumsily looking for excuses to defend it.
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Suggestion: Update the Forum Rules to reflect modern standards
« Reply #11 on: April 27, 2012, 06:15:28 PM »
1) I said technically. Nobody is actually going to ban you for that.
2) Was this not the post that started it? Because if it was, you really have no argument.

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: Suggestion: Update the Forum Rules to reflect modern standards
« Reply #12 on: April 27, 2012, 06:19:01 PM »
How is there no argument?  He wasn't disputing moderation, merely stating that the beliefs of people clearly *do* matter in discussions, as evidenced by threads being moved.

Of course Wilmore got upset because he's incapable of admitting wrongitude.
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: Suggestion: Update the Forum Rules to reflect modern standards
« Reply #13 on: April 27, 2012, 06:24:43 PM »
2) Was this not the post that started it?

Yes. If you can't see how that was presented as a case in point to the discussion at hand, and not a dispute of the moderator action, you need to look again. Reading is fundamental, and all that. Do you really need me to walk you through it?
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Suggestion: Update the Forum Rules to reflect modern standards
« Reply #14 on: April 27, 2012, 06:33:14 PM »
I'm not going to get into an argument about what was going on in the good lord's head, but of the people who have posted in this thread the only one supporting Zarg has never in his entire posting history failed to support a fellow RE'er. I think that says something.

Anywho, Zarg was arguing against the warning of TK for the usual. That is the context of that post. TK was complaining about how he wasn't allowed to accuse people of trolling in the middle of threads. Wilmore tried yet another explanation in the hopes that it might get through to him. Zarg argued about this explanation. Since TK was himself disputing moderation and Zarg escalated it, he is guilty of disputing moderation. TK may not have been punished for the crime, but if a cop pulls you over and your defense is that you weren't the only person speeding, you're going to get a ticket.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Suggestion: Update the Forum Rules to reflect modern standards
« Reply #15 on: April 27, 2012, 06:34:02 PM »
How is there no argument?  He wasn't disputing moderation, merely stating that the beliefs of people clearly *do* matter in discussions, as evidenced by threads being moved.

Of course Wilmore got upset because he's incapable of admitting wrongitude.

I'd be rather interested in that, yes. Perhaps you can spot the flaw in your own logic, since I obviously can't point it out to you

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Suggestion: Update the Forum Rules to reflect modern standards
« Reply #16 on: April 27, 2012, 06:39:58 PM »
I'm not going to get into an argument about what was going on in the good lord's head, but of the people who have posted in this thread the only one supporting Zarg has never in his entire posting history failed to support a fellow RE'er. I think that says something.


Are you talking about me? Note the big row between me and Clocktower over whether massless particles have mass. That's not me supporting a fellow FE'er, is it? Note me accusing Clocktower of making a semantic argument acouple of days ago. Ditto.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: Suggestion: Update the Forum Rules to reflect modern standards
« Reply #17 on: April 27, 2012, 06:42:57 PM »
I'd be rather interested in that, yes. Perhaps you can spot the flaw in your own logic, since I obviously can't point it out to you

No, please point it out because zarg made it quite clear he had no problem with threads being moved for this reason, and the topic that was being discussed was the George Scott Fallacy.  Unless arguing with moderators about anything is disputing moderation in your mind.
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Suggestion: Update the Forum Rules to reflect modern standards
« Reply #18 on: April 27, 2012, 06:44:58 PM »
TK was complaining about how he wasn't allowed to accuse people of trolling in the middle of threads.

No, I was complaining about it being categorised as dismissing an argument by accusing people of trolling. Wilmore claims it's impossible to accuse someone of lying about their beliefs without dismissing those beliefs. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the pious Father Spodo Komodo accusing fellow priest Father Tight Head Lips of not really believing in God. Does that mean Fr Komodo is dismissing God as wrong? Of course not. But in Wilmore's warped logic, that's what it means.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: Suggestion: Update the Forum Rules to reflect modern standards
« Reply #19 on: April 27, 2012, 06:52:27 PM »
but of the people who have posted in this thread the only one supporting Zarg

There is not only one.


has never in his entire posting history failed to support a fellow RE'er. I think that says something.

No, it doesn't say anything. Please refrain from such personal attacks.


Anywho, Zarg was arguing against the warning of TK for the usual. That is the context of that post. TK was complaining about how he wasn't allowed to accuse people of trolling in the middle of threads. Wilmore tried yet another explanation in the hopes that it might get through to him. Zarg argued about this explanation. Since TK was himself disputing moderation and Zarg escalated it, he is guilty of disputing moderation. TK may not have been punished for the crime, but if a cop pulls you over and your defense is that you weren't the only person speeding, you're going to get a ticket.

This is the most convoluted rationalization I've read. Regardless of how the discussion began, it existed, and I was contributing to it, just as everyone else was, including Lord Wilmore. I didn't even have any awareness of it being based on some vendetta or other between Wilmore and TK. That fact, true or not, was irrelevant to the discussion itself, which has come up other times having no relation whatsoever to moderation.

If we are to accept your interpretation of events, it looks even worse: You paint a scenario where we have Wilmore happily carrying on a rule-breaking endeavor with a host of other participants, and then at some point randomly decides to single out one person (me) and flies off the handle tossing out bans. Is that really how you want to categorize things?

Here's a much simpler explanation: Wilmore is a human. He has character defects like everyone else. Stubbornness and holding grudges are among them, which combined to interfere with his responsibilities.
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Suggestion: Update the Forum Rules to reflect modern standards
« Reply #20 on: April 27, 2012, 07:06:21 PM »
Alternatively, he didn't warn TK because he was tired of doing so, and was hoping that he might actually get through to him. Then that conversation died, the thread was starting to get back on topic, and you rederailed it by continuing it. He warned you, so you proceeded to freak out and force him to ban you. Now you're back and are continuing to over-react.

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35368
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Suggestion: Update the Forum Rules to reflect modern standards
« Reply #21 on: April 27, 2012, 07:06:51 PM »
Honestly, I agree with zarg.  Whether his original point was valid or not, he was challenging Wilmore's claim that the personal beliefs of the poster are irrelevant to the validity of a thread, not criticizing any rules or mod actions.  I can see how his post could be interpreted as disputing moderation, but the thread was about the George Scott fallacy.  It fit in context.

And while he did technically violate the rule in the following posts, he was only trying to clarify his position as being on-topic.  I don't see how he could have done that without addressing Wilmore's misinterpretation of his point.

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: Suggestion: Update the Forum Rules to reflect modern standards
« Reply #22 on: April 27, 2012, 07:32:10 PM »
Alternatively, he didn't warn TK because he was tired of doing so, and was hoping that he might actually get through to him. Then that conversation died, the thread was starting to get back on topic, and you rederailed it by continuing it. He warned you, so you proceeded to freak out and force him to ban you. Now you're back and are continuing to over-react.

Your interpretation is blatant favoritism.  My "freaking out" was an explanation in the clearest terms I could manage of what I really meant -- a misinterpretation which was the basis of the warning. The only thing you could reasonably fault me for was posting my clarification in that thread while I could have made a new thread here instead, but then again, Wilmore was in the midst of setting the example by breaking his own rules in that area.
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

Re: Suggestion: Update the Forum Rules to reflect modern standards
« Reply #23 on: April 27, 2012, 09:07:56 PM »
Alternatively, he didn't warn TK because he was tired of doing so, and was hoping that he might actually get through to him. Then that conversation died, the thread was starting to get back on topic, and you rederailed it by continuing it. He warned you, so you proceeded to freak out and force him to ban you. Now you're back and are continuing to over-react.

Your interpretation is blatant favoritism.  My "freaking out" was an explanation in the clearest terms I could manage of what I really meant -- a misinterpretation which was the basis of the warning. The only thing you could reasonably fault me for was posting my clarification in that thread while I could have made a new thread here instead, but then again, Wilmore was in the midst of setting the example by breaking his own rules in that area.
I agree with zarg. Tom Bishop is permitted to call us retarded children without in-thread warnings. He regularly memberates without consequence. When will FES learn to stop this blatant favoritism?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Suggestion: Update the Forum Rules to reflect modern standards
« Reply #24 on: April 28, 2012, 10:19:57 AM »
Alternatively, he didn't warn TK because he was tired of doing so, and was hoping that he might actually get through to him. Then that conversation died, the thread was starting to get back on topic, and you rederailed it by continuing it. He warned you, so you proceeded to freak out and force him to ban you. Now you're back and are continuing to over-react.

Your interpretation is blatant favoritism.  My "freaking out" was an explanation in the clearest terms I could manage of what I really meant -- a misinterpretation which was the basis of the warning. The only thing you could reasonably fault me for was posting my clarification in that thread while I could have made a new thread here instead, but then again, Wilmore was in the midst of setting the example by breaking his own rules in that area.
I agree with zarg. Tom Bishop is permitted to call us retarded children without in-thread warnings. He regularly memberates without consequence. When will FES learn to stop this blatant favoritism?

They won't stop. When pressure has been brought to bear for equal treatment in the past, they eventually start to snarl that this is their forum about flat earth and if we don't like it we should piss off. They just withdraw into their little clique until we get exasperated.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12106
Re: Suggestion: Update the Forum Rules to reflect modern standards
« Reply #25 on: April 29, 2012, 08:45:13 AM »
A few points:


1) In this forum, there is currently no means of disputing bans once issued. John was looking into an email address for disputing bans, but so far it has not been instituted. Creating alts is against the rules, and your ban was extended for doing so.


2) Whatever you though of the two warnings I gave you, the place to discuss them was S&C. Despite the fact that I warned you twice, you continued to dispute said warnings. Hence you were banned.


3) I'm always prepared to review my decisions and judgements, and to acknowledge when I am wrong. However, the fact is that many members here (such as yourself) will argue for page after page after page about even the most obvious rule violations. I don't have a problem with that, as long as you do it in here, and not in the rest of the board.


Think about it. We've created an entire board in which you are free to dispute warnings, rules, enforcement or whatever. It's at the top of the forum index, and it's mentioned throughout the site and board-specific rules. There is simply no excuse for starting arguments about moderation outside S&C.


4) Finally, here is the post for which you were initially warned:


You fail to see the bigger picture. To someone who thinks they need to "convince" FE'ers that their "beliefs" are wrong, it's extremely relevant. I don't think I have ever committed the George Scott fallacy if that is what you're implying.


Actually it is totally irrelevant. The topic under discussion is always the topic under discussion, not whether we believe in what we say about the topic under discussion.

Proof that this is bullshit:  Nonsensical arguments like this one are moved to Complete Nonsense on the basis that the poster does not believe in it, while the very same argument remains in Flat Earth General when posted by an alleged believer.


Not only was this totally irrelevant to what we were discussing, but it was also clearly a complaint about moderation (namely the alleged inconsistency of said moderation). So I stand behind the warnings, and the subsequent ban for disputing those warnings.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: Suggestion: Update the Forum Rules to reflect modern standards
« Reply #26 on: April 29, 2012, 10:05:50 AM »
Creating alts is against the rules, and your ban was extended for doing so.

We all know this is your reasoning. I mentioned it in my original post:

the current Q and A in the rules clearly states that the proper response to a ban perceived as unjust is to A) post in S&C, or B) send a PM, neither of which is possible during a ban. Thus the sensible solution is a temporary account for just that purpose -- and as you can see, I honored my promise to not use the account outside of that purpose.

Your ban was blatantly an active obstruction of the rules you purport to uphold. It was completely without reasonable cause, utterly rash and indiscriminate. You selectively chose which rules to enforce, opting to follow the "ban alts" rule with no regard to the circumstances, ignoring the other rules. The reason moderation is a role of particular users, rather than an automated computer script, is because it's your job to weigh the proper response to individual instances. In this case, there is no defense for your actions other than blind legalism, which is unacceptable behavior for any decision-maker.


Whatever you though of the two warnings I gave you, the place to discuss them was S&C. Despite the fact that I warned you twice, you continued to dispute said warnings. Hence you were banned.

First of all, as noted earlier in this thread, you were setting the example -- are you exempt from your own rules? If you did not wish to discuss moderation in that thread, why did you continue to do so? Why were your "warnings" (only one of them was explicitly a warning, please don't embellish) not sent to me through PM? Why did you not move the posts here? Posting something in the wrong section is no excuse to ban someone from the entire site for a week. That's ludicrous. Remember that you as a moderator have other tools available to you other than wholesale banning and locking. You easily could have split the thread at the point where you thought I was disputing and moved it to S&C as a new thread, I would have automatically posted my clarification there, you wouldn't need to moan about illicit disputing, and the affair would have passed amicably and without note. Instead you decided to flaunt your moderatorship and unnecessarily damage your reputation before me and multiple witnesses. You caused a scene over a simple misunderstanding. My only dispute with you prior to the ban was the fact that you misinterpreted my original post as a dispute when it was not.


I'm always prepared to review my decisions and judgements,

Obviously, not always. Unless you consider a snide remark, immediate lock, and outrageous overreaction of a ban extension to qualify as "review". Or do you mean that you're prepared to review only after bans have already passed? Does a court meet after a sentence is served, or before?


and to acknowledge when I am wrong.

Are you doing so?


There is simply no excuse for starting arguments about moderation outside S&C.

I did no such thing. You did, with your knee-jerk reaction to an on-topic post, and your continued stubborn refusal to amend said initial reaction after your error was pointed out.


4) Finally, here is the post for which you were initially warned:

You fail to see the bigger picture. To someone who thinks they need to "convince" FE'ers that their "beliefs" are wrong, it's extremely relevant. I don't think I have ever committed the George Scott fallacy if that is what you're implying.


Actually it is totally irrelevant. The topic under discussion is always the topic under discussion, not whether we believe in what we say about the topic under discussion.

Proof that this is bullshit:  Nonsensical arguments like this one are moved to Complete Nonsense on the basis that the poster does not believe in it, while the very same argument remains in Flat Earth General when posted by an alleged believer.


Not only was this totally irrelevant to what we were discussing, but it was also clearly a complaint about moderation (namely the alleged inconsistency of said moderation). So I stand behind the warnings, and the subsequent ban for disputing those warnings.

Yes, it was relevant to what we were discussing, and no, it was not a complaint about moderation. You and Tausami are the only people who still seem to be having trouble comprehending what my point was. It's really not that complicated:
  • I disagree with the assertion that "The topic under discussion is always the topic under discussion, not whether we believe in what we say about the topic under discussion."
  • I agree with the moderation decision of categorizing threads based on the sincerity of their authors. The first link was a joke, so it fits in a joke forum. The second was intended for actual debate, so it fits in a debate forum.
  • I was pointing out the fact that moderators here do follow this convention, as support for my disagreement with the assertion in the first point.
  • This was posted as a direct reply to the relevant quote containing the assertion I disagreed with.
It was not a complaint, and the I felt the "inconsistency" in moderation was appropriate, not an issue. My comment was on-topic.

If you're going to insist that you are justified because I was still "discussing moderation", regardless of the fact that it wasn't a negative point of contention nor an attempt to influence it, I refer you to the first point in my original post of this thread:

Quote
Do not attempt to dispute (or interfere with, discuss, or allude to in any way, positively or otherwise) moderation anywhere other than Suggestions & Concerns.

The real rules say nothing of the sort. I was not disputing, nor was I interfering. I was merely using moderation as an example to support my point which was relevant to the discussion at hand. This unfortunately led to a miscommunication, and so I immediately clarified my meaning when I realized you had misunderstood. But once you had made up your mind, the facts no longer mattered to you.
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: Suggestion: Update the Forum Rules to reflect modern standards
« Reply #27 on: April 29, 2012, 10:12:46 AM »
Not only was this totally irrelevant to what we were discussing, but it was also clearly a complaint about moderation (namely the alleged inconsistency of said moderation). So I stand behind the warnings, and the subsequent ban for disputing those warnings.

You still don't get it?  Zarg wasn't complaining about those threads being moved, he was using them as examples of when the sincerity of posters does matter.  I'm amazed that someone who busts out rif.org links all the time hasn't picked up on this yet.
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12106
Re: Suggestion: Update the Forum Rules to reflect modern standards
« Reply #28 on: April 29, 2012, 10:41:54 AM »
Creating alts is against the rules, and your ban was extended for doing so.

We all know this is your reasoning. I mentioned it in my original post:

the current Q and A in the rules clearly states that the proper response to a ban perceived as unjust is to A) post in S&C, or B) send a PM, neither of which is possible during a ban. Thus the sensible solution is a temporary account for just that purpose -- and as you can see, I honored my promise to not use the account outside of that purpose.

Your ban was blatantly an active obstruction of the rules you purport to uphold. It was completely without reasonable cause, utterly rash and indiscriminate. You selectively chose which rules to enforce, opting to follow the "ban alts" rule with no regard to the circumstances, ignoring the other rules. The reason moderation is a role of particular users, rather than an automated computer script, is because it's your job to weigh the proper response to individual instances. In this case, there is no defense for your actions other than blind legalism, which is unacceptable behavior for any decision-maker.


Uh, no. Creating alts to dispute bans is not acceptable, even if there is no other facility in place. Sorry.


It's not blind legalism, because if we let everyone we ban create an alt to dispute it, they would still be posting here, arguing with mods (which is what they really enjoy doing), and would not be banned at all. By the time that thread died, a week would have past and you'd be unbanned.


Stop avoiding responsibility. You should have heeded my warnings and disputed them in S&C. Having been banned, you should have waited a week and done the time (for an offence you clearly committed).


First of all, as noted earlier in this thread, you were setting the example -- are you exempt from your own rules? If you did not wish to discuss moderation in that thread, why did you continue to do so? Why were your "warnings" (only one of them was explicitly a warning, please don't embellish) not sent to me through PM? Why did you not move the posts here? Posting something in the wrong section is no excuse to ban someone from the entire site for a week. That's ludicrous. Remember that you as a moderator have other tools available to you other than wholesale banning and locking. You easily could have split the thread at the point where you thought I was disputing and moved it to S&C as a new thread, I would have automatically posted my clarification there, you wouldn't need to moan about illicit disputing, and the affair would have passed amicably and without note. Instead you decided to flaunt your moderatorship and unnecessarily damage your reputation before me and multiple witnesses. You caused a scene over a simple misunderstanding. My only dispute with you prior to the ban was the fact that you misinterpreted my original post as a dispute when it was not.


And you could have heeded either warning in accordance with the rules. You broke the rules, not me. I warned you twice (more times than I have to), and I gave you a shorter ban than I could have. It is up to you to obey the rules, not me to avoid banning you if at all possible.


Obviously, not always. Unless you consider a snide remark, immediate lock, and outrageous overreaction of a ban extension to qualify as "review". Or do you mean that you're prepared to review only after bans have already passed? Does a court meet after a sentence is served, or before?


This forum is not a democracy, and this board is not a court of law. We don't owe you an audience, or permission to post here, or permission to dispute bans whilst banned. It's something I'd like to see put in place, but alts are not the way to do it, and in any case whilst you are here it's your responsibility to obey our rules. If you don't like them, leave.


Are you doing so?


I do not believe that I am.


I did no such thing. You did, with your knee-jerk reaction to an on-topic post, and your continued stubborn refusal to amend said initial reaction after your error was pointed out.


What did not removing Tom Bishop's post have to do with the George Scott Fallacy? What did Roundy moving your topic have to do with it? I maintain it was clearly a criticism regarding inconsistent moderation which you alleged had something to do with belief. Either that, or you totally misunderstood what I was saying. I was not talking about where or why topics are moved to different boards, but when arguments regarding belief are appropriate. Your example had nothing to do with that.


Yes, it was relevant to what we were discussing, and no, it was not a complaint about moderation. You and Tausami are the only people who still seem to be having trouble comprehending what my point was. It's really not that complicated:
  • I disagree with the assertion that "The topic under discussion is always the topic under discussion, not whether we believe in what we say about the topic under discussion."
  • I agree with the moderation decision of categorizing threads based on the sincerity of their authors. The first link was a joke, so it fits in a joke forum. The second was intended for actual debate, so it fits in a debate forum.
  • I was pointing out the fact that moderators here do follow this convention, as support for my disagreement with the assertion in the first point.
  • This was posted as a direct reply to the relevant quote containing the assertion I disagreed with.
It was not a complaint, and the I felt the "inconsistency" in moderation was appropriate, not an issue. My comment was on-topic.


All I can say is that I honestly think you shifted position after my warning. I've seen you do it on many occasions, so I have faith in my own judgement on this occasion. That being said, if the above is genuinely the case, then I apologise.


However, disputing moderation is still against the rules, so even if your first post was not disputing moderation, the subsequent two posts (in which you disputed my warning) certainly were. If you felt I warned you unfairly, you should have created a topic here and we could have discussed it.


This is something you just don't seem to get, and something I pointed out in the thread at the time. Even if you didn't agree with my original warning, that was not the place to discuss it. Plenty of members come up here to discuss unfair warnings in here, and they are given a hearing. They don't derail the thread by arguing about it.


If you're going to insist that you are justified because I was still "discussing moderation", regardless of the fact that it wasn't a negative point of contention nor an attempt to influence it, I refer you to the first point in my original post of this thread:

Quote
Do not attempt to dispute (or interfere with, discuss, or allude to in any way, positively or otherwise) moderation anywhere other than Suggestions & Concerns.

The real rules say nothing of the sort. I was not disputing, nor was I interfering. I was merely using moderation as an example to support my point which was relevant to the discussion at hand. This unfortunately led to a miscommunication, and so I immediately clarified my meaning when I realized you had misunderstood. But once you had made up your mind, the facts no longer mattered to you.


Once again, you were not banned for the original post. A warning was issued, and that was the end of it as far as I was concerned. You then argued about that warning, at which point I warned you again. Then, once more, you disputed my warning you. At that point you were banned.


You disputed moderation twice after the first warning. Whether or not you were disputing moderation in the original post, you certainly were in the subsequent two.


You still don't get it?  Zarg wasn't complaining about those threads being moved, he was using them as examples of when the sincerity of posters does matter.  I'm amazed that someone who busts out rif.org links all the time hasn't picked up on this yet.


But we weren't talking about when the sincerity of posters matters in terms of moving threads etc. We were talking about when it's an appropriate subject for discussion in a thread that is clearly not about their sincerity. If he wasn't disputing moderation, then he was making a totally irrelevant point (in which case it's perhaps understandable that I didn't understand the point he was making).


And I still think he was disputing moderation, and simply shifted positions mid argument so that he could have a nice long dispute about my warning. Either way, it was something he should have done in here, and not in the thread in question.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

?

Cat Earth Theory

  • 1614
  • I practise the Zetetic Method!
Re: Suggestion: Update the Forum Rules to reflect modern standards
« Reply #29 on: April 29, 2012, 10:45:42 AM »
But we weren't talking about when the sincerity of posters matters in terms of moving threads etc. We were talking about when it's an appropriate subject for discussion in a thread that is clearly not about their sincerity. If he wasn't disputing moderation, then he was making a totally irrelevant point (in which case it's perhaps understandable that I didn't understand the point he was making).


And I still think he was disputing moderation, and simply shifted positions mid argument so that he could have a nice long dispute about my warning. Either way, it was something he should have done in here, and not in the thread in question.

Not irrelevant, it seems as if you're being willfully obtuse about the larger point he was making so you don't have to admit you were wrong about deciding he was disputing moderation with that post.
If you focus on the cloud, and conceive of it just as you would a dream you are trying to interpret, with practice its meanings and memories will be revealed to you.