porfiry:
This forum is here to allow members to make proposals that, if sufficiently supported, will be enacted. Proposals can be made as regards the creation/deletion/modification of forums, appointment/removal of moderators, and the banning/punishment of users.

bring spookz back.
vote.
nuff said.

wow goofy, it really is true.
Y'all do stick together. What, is it in the moderator manual or something?

Just bring him back.

Spookz is a good guy.

Xev is over protected.

I'm sure Porfiry is just testing his new ban button, since the software update. Otherwise, he would have found a good reason to ban Spookz.

Like Spookz would have said:
VOTE YES!

damn you xev.
I won't let you get away with it this time.

:mad:

Why was he banned?

edit - oh, hmm, read around a bit and it seems that he just argued and complained too much? :confused:

I think that all mods should abstain from this poll.

Did it have anything to do with his arguments with Wanderer?

Why was he banned?

Here's (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32256&page=3) the offical ruling on the matter by Porfiry.

Spookz knew a lot.

spookz had been throwing abuse and insults at the moderators and myself for months. Enough was enough. We're not doing this because we enjoy being insulted.

please , don´t ban spookz permanently .....

I think that all mods should abstain from this poll.


nono , this seems to be really fair ( if porfs vote isn´t just a farce )

Why would mods be required to abstain when they're the ones that were suffering the majority of the abuse?

Hell fucking yes.....

Why would mods be required to abstain when they're the ones that were suffering the majority of the abuse?

because of:

1) the nature of the argument which lead to the banning ie: spookz vs mod
2) their position as mods.

1 and 2 render the mods from voting with objectivity.
Anyhow, I have no real objection.

spookz had been throwing abuse and insults at the moderators and myself for months. Enough was enough. We're not doing this because we enjoy being insulted.

that maybe so, but I always saw his insults as strictly tongue in cheek, rather like the cheekiness of the loveable rouge.
Look what he brought to this place, a sense of fun, cheekiness, a sense of danger which was at times the perfect antidote to when things got a bit stale around here.
You mods are going to have a hell of a borring time without him, and although you won't openly admit it, you'll miss him.

Look what he brought to this place, a sense of fun, cheekiness, a sense of danger which was at times the perfect antidote to when things got a bit stale around here.
It was about as fun, cheeky and gave as much of a sense of danger as public urination.

How can Counsler and Xev be allowed to partake in any voting that applies to a banning of Spookz? That is so insane, I will pretend their involvement in any decision was nil.

Are the mods getting more than one vote?

It was about as fun, cheeky and gave as much of a sense of danger as public urination.

I thought the Irish were supposed to have a sense of humour!!

How can Counsler and Xev be allowed to partake in any voting that applies to a banning of Spookz? That is so insane, I will pretend their involvement in any decision was nil.We now have the entire forum deciding if he should stay away or come back... including people that always agreed with him. That is no more insane then allowing people who usually disagreed with him.

I thought the Irish were supposed to have a sense of humour!!
We do. Spookz just wasn't funny.

I abstain from the vote not because I am a moderator, but because in lieu of any consistent process, I defer to Porfiry in such matters.

That said . . . what tears me is the fact that Sciforums, in general, tolerated Spookz for 6,400 posts. Being sympathetic toward the guy, I can only say I hope in the future that we won't have to put up with 6,400 posts before it becomes intolerable.

One thing that both Nico and Spookz had in common--and, incidentally, one of the earliest blow-ups over a moderator that I can recall, which resulted in a member asking Porfiry to cancel his monthly subscription and vowing to not debate at Sciforums again also bears this mark--is that they both had issues with moderators.

Perhaps S/FOG will give members a forum for the future, so that such confrontations can be defused.

For the record, Spookz was always decent to me as a moderator. I think the strongest thing he ever said to me on the subject of moderation was, "Go ahead and moderate it, then."

And of those who might think, inasmuch as we are examining Spookz, that he had legitimate issues with Xev, it is worth mentioning that, after a constant river of drivel that Sciforums' mods were sick of before I ever took up a position, we might expect some people to be impatient with complaints about moderators. So even if we argue that complaints about Xev are accurate, we must acknowledge that our administrator and moderators are tired of putting up with people's crap all the time.

I had a moment the other night in which I thought too hard about Net Nanny and other such software that I've never used. I can't quite pin the issue correctly, but if you're in your school years, or if you're parents of school-age kids ... imagine that one day my daughter turns in a paper and after checking the grammar and source-citation, the teacher remarks, "It's a very unique thesis. How did you come up with it?" So Emma turns to the computer to show the teacher this long-running discussion she's had only to find that the school's filters block the site because it's thick with all manner of R-rated banter .... (I was actually high and thinking about Pollux's "Fascist Club" topic at the time.)

Just a thought that struck me the other day. I still don't know what to do with it.

I relate that to the idea that if we threw away all the garbage and tried to measure the primary intellectual contributions of Sciforums, there might be 10,000 posts out of the current 473,000 or so that would remain.

I'm not sure this is what our fearless leader had in mind when he started this place. I'd actually be willing to bet a beer or two that it wasn't.

So people ought to bear that in mind. By the time it gets to the point that people are calling for bannings based on slight deviations from the norm, your moderators and administrator are, most likely, merely tolerating the norm.

Our greatest contribution, as a posting body, to future knowledge has thus far been a sterling testament to the cacophony of webworld to be dissected by some future social science who is simultaneously bored to suicide and desperate for a thesis.

We can certainly aim higher.

How can Counsler and Xev be allowed to partake in any voting that applies to a banning of Spookz? That is so insane, I will pretend their involvement in any decision was nil.

If me and Xev aren't allowed to vote, then you shouldn't be able to vote either. You were involved in that thread as well.

spookz had been throwing abuse and insults at the moderators and myself for months. Enough was enough. We're not doing this because we enjoy being insulted.

His last few posts were not insulting you but mocking the way your name was dragged in.

Mostly his comments on your service are misread instead of ones asking for more freedom rather than 'handouts' (spooky language).

It is well known that you run this forums much to your disadvantage (fund, time etc). Still you run this forums, fighting to keep it of some worth for all the pains you take. My due appreciation for that.

But should a member always post with a nagging in the mind that he/she would be axed next when he/she disagrees & fights it out with moderators.?

i hardly found spookz ever been in a tug of abusive-war with mods like Cris, James, Tiassa or You. Generally, spooky language had been abusive but funny rather than insulting when compared to his detractors. But often his posts were worthy enough to change opinions.


Please be lenient once more & give him another chance.

Please be lenient once more & give him another chance.

He was banned once before, and now again. How many chances is a member supose to get?

I know that he was banned once and brought back. Thats why i requested to be lenient once more, requested to Porfiry not to you.

I didn't answer your request, I asked a question.

----deleted----

Spurious, you keep saying that everytime I post. I seek no conflict. I merely state the obvious.

I didn't answer your request, I asked a question.

I merely state the obvious.
Is it a question or obvious statement.? I see a self-conflict too.

Everneo, those were two different posts and two different conversations. I gave you a statement and asked you a question:

He was banned once before, and now again. How many chances is a member supose to get?

Looks like a question mark to me. So it must be a question mark.

*EDIT* On further review of this post, and my previous post to Everneo, it appears to me that I may come accross sounding like a jerk. I assure you that I'm not trying to appear as mean, I really am saying this in the friendliest of ways.

If you are sure its a question then, well, Porfiry has the veto power. This is, ofcourse, obvious. I think you cannot question him how many times he would bring back a banned member.

It was not a question to Porfiry either. It was a question to you.

How many times do you think banned members should be let back in?

That's all I wanted to know. No smart ass comments intended, or any ill intent. I just wanted to know how many times you think members should be let back in... That's all.

I am not discussing "How many times members should be let back in".

I putforth a request to Profiry to reconsider the ban for certain reasons. I really find no reason as to why should i answer your question or why are you asking me questions instead of telling what you think.

I just wanted your opinion on the matter. If you want mine, okay: Never. Banned members should never be able to come back.

Okay, Everneo, we both obviously are missing something here. I asked you a question, you don't have to answer it. You then said that you weren't requesting to me, you were requesting to Dave. When in fact I was not answering for Dave, I was just asking a question. That's all.

Why should the two involved mods not be allowed to vote?

First of all, the "Official Rules" of this sub-forum state that no measure would be considered without at least 100 votes (the two of them only account for a maximum of 2% of that).
Second, if someone were not "involved" in one way or another, they would have no cause to vote. It seems to me that only involved people would bother voting in a poll such as this.

We now have the entire forum deciding if he should stay away or come back... including people that always agreed with him. That is no more insane then allowing people who usually disagreed with him.

I am speaking not of the decision to bring him back, but rather the decision to ban him. His was a complaint in direct response to reprehensible behaviour by Xev, actions she even lied about. Thus, her credibility in any decision to ban Spookz must be questioned.

Counsler has crearly shown an inability to be objective when concerning Xev, that is unbecoming of a moderator. And thus, has quite frankly lost all respect from me, and shall never get a response from be either.

Ironically I received a PM from spookz a day before he was banned, it was the only PM I ever received from him (which may surprise a few people).
I won't go into specific details, but suffice to say the basic tone of the PM was advising me to cool it here and there, and how to handle certain situations better.
The PM showed spookz had two things: a great understanding of the intricate political issues regarding sciforums, but secondly, and more importantly it showed that he indeed did have a great respect and (for want of a better word) love of the "community" as he called it.
Spookz could have easily posted the pm and scored brownie points, but he did the decent thing and spoke to me privately.
People talk about his cussing and insults etc, well I have a couple of points to say about that. If he indeed has had a few choice words to say to mods in the past then good is what I say. Good!! bravo!! what are you mods? A bunch of yellow livered inferiortiy complexed pussies?!! What ,you can't take a little heat every now and again? I'm sure if spookz had grievances then they were justified to a point, he was deffinately not one to hassle mods just for the sake of it.

Personally I think the ban was unfair. The same rules should to apply to everyone in the same manner, regardless of whether you're a mod or just a mere member. Some mods have been as guilty as the members of flaming, abuse and obscenities. If you punish one, then you should punish all in the same way, regardless of whether they're a mod or member. If you stuff up then you should face the consequence of your actions. If a mod participates in another forum aside from the one they moderate they are but a mere participant, therefore they should come under the same rules that apply to the rest of the members. Turning a blind eye to unfair practices only breeds further contempt. We members are expected to behave, so isn't it only fair that the mods also fall under that same expectation? We're all guilty of flaming and carrying on and I think the banning vote and warnings and sanctions are a great idea. But it would only really work if they applied to everyone in the same way.

Porf we all really like this place and it's proven in the fact that we continually post here. All we're asking is the rules to apply to everyone in the same way. We are all aware that the decision is ultimately yours to make as you were the one to create all this and now get to see it in its madness. But the fact of the matter is that we are all part of that madness.

And the same should apply to the notion of voting. To be fair, all should have the right to vote, be they moderators or members. After all, the moderators also take part in the discussions which occur in this forum, so in that they should be allowed to vote just as much as we members are allowed to vote.

There I've had my say. While it's all probably bull, that is my opinion.

If you are sure its a question then, well, Porfiry has the veto power. This is, ofcourse, obvious. I think you cannot question him how many times he would bring back a banned member.

ev, you have to beat coffee with a rubber hose pipe, that's the only thing he responds to! :D

but seriously:
I don't think Dave will bring back spookz, undermining leadership power and all that (I think it's in chapter 4 of the "despots's manual" or something).
However, that does raise one question. Was this poll a waste of time? I mean suppose the yes' have a majority would you re consider it Dave??

bells:

If a mod participates in another forum aside from the one they moderate they are but a mere participant, therefore they should come under the same rules that apply to the rest of the members. Turning a blind eye to unfair practices only breeds further contempt.

heh heh you sly dog you.
You have a glittering career as a diplomat in the UN ahead of you....

;) ;)

"While it's all probably bull, that is my opinion."
I think you undermine your cause with this statement. What you had to say was not bull. Every so called abuse by Spookz has been shown by Xev and she is a mod! I've seen her go on rampages to simply annoy and spew racial bigotry. I've seen her without cause, call certain members effeminate or dickless. And she is a mod! She then deletes posts, lies that the deletions were a mistake, takes that assertion away when Porfiry bans Spookz, and gets off without any disciplinary action. How the fuck then is any institution of a set of behaviours supposed to work when those responsible for ensuring ahderance cannot even follow said rules? It is illogical, and hypocritical, and it shall fail.

First of all, the "Official Rules" of this sub-forum state that no measure would be considered without at least 100 votes (the two of them only account for a maximum of 2% of that).

Irrelevent in any case. Porfiry has already stated that spookz is banned.
No matter how many votes this poll reaches.


Fountainhed, you're an vicious fool and a liar. I never said the deletion was a mistake - I said it was ill-considered, as I should have given you enough rope to hang yourself - and that I accidentally deleted one that I had meant to leave behind.

I think that the '100' votes is more or less a guideline for porfiry. He didn't wait after all for 100 votes before he merged computerscience and nerd culture.

In any case, isn't this how it is supposed to work with the open government.

We are allowed to make a suggestion that Spookz is unbanned, which Porfiry can take into consideration (and even veto if he so desires).

First, this isn't "democracy". It's nothing close. The moderators and myself still hold absolute control, and I can (and surely will) veto proposals that I strongly dislike. I will also continue to do things without ever asking anyone's opinion or approval.

xev, 2 questions:

In light of the reasons for spookz banning by Dave:

1) Do you think that Dave should take some action against you for the issues raised by me in the "formal complaint" thread in SF?
2) What should be the nature of such action?

You're honesty and objectivity would be grately apreciated.

PS: I don't want to link that thread in the current climate, incase Dave bans me for Spamming. :rolleyes:

" I don't want to link that thread in the current climate, incase Dave bans me for Spamming. "

Watch that scarcasm mate, you might get banned for complaining.

Oops.

"Fountainhed, you're an vicious fool and a liar. I never said the deletion was a mistake - I said it was ill-considered, as I should have given you enough rope to hang yourself - and that I accidentally deleted one that I had meant to leave behind."

Porfiry, everything remains. I didn't delete anything that was on-topic or relevent- er - I did by mistake but it was restored. n any case, if you care I can easily show this.
However, the spookz/fountainhed duo has been disrupting pretty much every semi-useful discussion in most forums and I've had enough. I've already heard enough people complaining that discussion is near-impossible with the constant one-liners
by Xev, 01-19-04, 03:16 PM . Edited: Last edited by Xev : 01-19-04 at 03:24 PM.

Irrelevent in any case. Porfiry has already stated that spookz is banned.
No matter how many votes this poll reaches.


so why does porfiry participate in the poll ? is it really just a farce ?

fountainhed:
Yes, I noted that I accidentally deleted something that was on topic and relevent but restored it.
That's a far cry from saying that I mistakenly deleted the thread.

Watch your step now on, as it seems clear that your antics are not being tolerated as they once were. It's awfully nice to see you making more of an effort to conform to site decorum - you've already toned down the sheer ugliness of your language - a prudent move.

Wraith:
I have no idea what you're referring to. Get a life.

fountainhed:
Yes, I noted that I accidentally deleted something that was on topic and relevent but restored it.
That's a far cry from saying that I mistakenly deleted the thread.

Watch your step now on, as it seems clear that your antics are not being tolerated as they once were. It's awfully nice to see you making more of an effort to conform to site decorum - you've already toned down the sheer ugliness of your language - a prudent move.

Wraith:
I have no idea what you're referring to. Get a life.


As a moderator you should also be wise not to antagonize people unnecessarily. You claim to be intelligent and therefore I assume you are aware that remarks like this can antagonize people. This could therefore be seen as a purposeful act of eliciting an attack making your own position stronger and the opponents weaker.

But of course, you could just be stupid and not realize this.

Yes, I noted that I accidentally deleted something that was on topic and relevent but restored it.
That's a far cry from saying that I mistakenly deleted the thread.
What the hell are you on? There was nothing deleted that was restored by you! I had to repost my first response in its entirety.

Watch your step now on, as it seems clear that your antics are not being tolerated as they once were.
Watch my step, my antics? Goddamn it Porfiry, why do you fill the clown with more confidence to make such moronic assertions? Since Spookz got banned, I recall reading a post whereby you told boombox to put his head where his balls belonged. Porf undermines his own authority.

It's awfully nice to see you making more of an effort to conform to site decorum - you've already toned down the sheer ugliness of your language - a prudent move.
Woman, I made a decision prior to Spookz being banned to not fuck around with people, yes. It was a conscious decision based on the fact that my goals were accomplished. Those I wanted to have a better understanding of, the pretensious pricks, you included, had become far too transparent and predictable. I got bored. Besides, it undermined my ability to engage in serious discussions. Point being, there was no forum decorum. You as a mod clearly displays this absence.

What would be a prudent move would be for Porf to realize your inability to be a mod.

xev:

Wraith:
I have no idea what you're referring to. Get a life.

yes I'm well aware you have no idea, hence me giving you all the clues in the sentence:

...my thread "formal complaint" in SF.....

SF being site feedback.
Now see if you can figure it out.
I'd apreciate an answer please.

....to the questions I posed...just incase you're feeling a little confused.

I'm curious, do other mods get criticised in the same way Xev is in this thread??

You as a mod clearly displays this absence.

I think it's hard to argue with this statement. This is clearly true.

Firefly, of course we do. If I didn't have the experience my parents put me through, then this would be a truly horrible position. All those beatings, locked closets, and yelling have prepared me to a be mod.

This would be fair:

- bring back Spookz.
- have clear guidelines about what is possible in posts and what not.
- bring back Spookz.
- delete on-the-man remarks in posts.
- apply same rules to mods, such as Xev.
- bring back Spookz.

I can't believe that Porfiry doesn't see what is wrong with your attitude, Xev. Look at James R, admire his integrity. Admire how he respects people and defeats the idiots with logic and reason. See how he never used the word "cocksucker". Understand why that is. Learn from him.

spookz:

dude, if you're reading this (which I'm pretty sure you are) just rejoin under a diff name...job done, ;) end of story.

be sure to PM me and let me know though....

If spookz came back, under a different name, and didn't ever insult me again; then I would have no problem with him being here.

leave that to me eh coffee?? ;)

so it's okay for Xev to insult you, but if spookz does it it's not cool eh?

I think coffee has BDSM fantasies about him and xev where she's the domanatrix and he's the gimp. ;)

Xev never insults me, and when she does it's out of pure fun (She always tells me, "hey, I'm just joking"). Spookz however, if it was for fun, then I still took offense to it because he never anounced it as "having fun". I took his insults for real, especially the ones in this thread.

I think coffee has BDSM fantasies about him and xev where she's the domanatrix and he's the gimp.

I got locked in the box for a week one time. :(

coffee you miserable dipshit, go play on the freeway or something.


now was that fun or serious??

:D

Spookz however, if it was for fun, then I still took offense to it because he never anounced it as "having fun". I took his insults for real, especially the ones in this thread.

....sounds like someones having a crisis of conscience............

Xev never insults me, and when she does it's out of pure fun (She always tells me, "hey, I'm just joking").

Xev RARELY announces she is joking and has frequently insulted what seems like everyone on this board. I have seen her directly insult you a number of times with no announcement that she is kidding. I noted that you graciously assumed she was kidding, yet you spare spookz the same grace eh? spookz has a valid case for sexual discrimination from the mods! oh no! hehe.

coffee, i like you, but please recognize you're playing favorites, that is fine as a dude, and I suppose fine as a mod, as there is no requirement for "fair" as far as I remember, but don't pretend you're being fair when you're not. optimally, i would think a mod wouldn't play favorites.

Wes, just because she doesn't announce it on this forum, doesn't mean that she doesn't announce it via some other medium. And I ain't playin favorites. I took Xev's side because the evidence was against spookz, the same spookz who started to insult me. I believe the words "Inbred" and "retard", come to mind.

Wraith, the smiley would imply that it was fun. Spookz never uses smilies, at least not in this thread.

I'm curious, do other mods get criticised in the same way Xev is in this thread??
No, other mods have respect and integrity for members and do not incite members into outbursts of less than mature content.

We're not doing this because we enjoy being insulted.
Then, please enlighten the members of this forum, and tell us exactly why you, not the moderators, you in particular, are, as you state "doing this". Why spend your time, effort, and money on a venture that obviously costs more to maintain than you take in via subscriptions and donations?


So even if we argue that complaints about Xev are accurate, we must acknowledge that our administrator and moderators are tired of putting up with people's crap all the time.
The job of a moderator is to deal with the spam, crackpots, and other miscellaneous garbage that invariably inhabits every forum on the net. Simply put, moderators are the custodial workers of Sciforums, a necessary element that keeps this forum enjoyable for the many at the expense of the few. However, attempting to rationalize Xev's behavior by saying that "[she was] tired of putting up with people's crap" is nothing more than a flimsy justification for unacceptable behavior.

If a moderator is tired of "putting up with people's crap" then they should resign their post, and let someone who is more qualified take their position. Trying to justify this type of behavior is something I thought that you, of all people, would not attempt. Apparently I misjudged you.


I'm not sure this is what our fearless leader had in mind when he started this place. I'd actually be willing to bet a beer or two that it wasn't.
I'd be willing to bet that it was. Almost no one goes into such a venture without thinking about what can go wrong.

Our greatest contribution, as a posting body, to future knowledge has thus far been a sterling testament to the cacophony of webworld to be dissected by some future social science who is simultaneously bored to suicide and desperate for a thesis.
As I have stated before (in another thread), if one seeks contributions, then they should look elsewhere. http://arxiv.org is a good place to start. Sciforums is not.

Frankly, even when a question is answered in the Physics and Math forum, it is not a contribution to future knowledge, simply one person helping another by sharing information, that, to put it in the vernacular, is "old hat".

We can certainly aim higher.
No one says people do not, but this forum is simply not the place for it. Frankly, there are only a few people here (Less than 20, by my estimate.) who are willing to share their Collegiate and Post-Collegiate level knowledge at all. This is not to insinuate that others do not posses such knowledge, simply that they have no interest in sharing it.

Furthermore, one can not reasonably expect contributions to "future knowledge" when most here are still learning current knowledge. The only reasonable expectation from the members of this, or any other "general" forum is reciprocity. To expect otherwise is simply wishful thinking.
No, other mods have respect and integrity for members and do not incite members into outbursts of less than mature content.
Or engage in such outbursts themselves.

Then, please enlighten the members of this forum, and tell us exactly why you, not the moderators,you in particular, are you state "doing this". Why spend your time, effort, and money on a venture that obviously costs more to maintain than you take in via subscriptions and donations?

Insanity, stupidity, or both. I probably cared about something once, but I forgot to write it down.

dapthar:

is to deal with the spam, crackpots, and other miscellaneous garbage

that's mister wraith to you sir!!!

I was not referring to you, Mr. Wraith. (I know it was a joke. I have a sense of humor. Really.)

However, attempting to rationalize Xev's behavior by saying that " [she was] tired of putting up with people's crap " is nothing more than a flimsy justification for unacceptable behavior.I'm just curious if it occurred to you what would happen to Sciforums if the moderators actually enforced the rules users agreed to when signing up for a user ID?

Just think about the list of who would not be here anymore.

That's why there's the revised Site Rules (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=20345). And even these generously-crafted concessions to the general insistence by our most prolific posters to disregard the actual Terms of Agreement they agreed to are ineffective insofar as people still complain when moderators moderate.

Given what people get away with as posters--myself included prominently at the front of that line--I was seriously disappointed at last year's spat of temper tantrums about Goofyfish. Furthermore, the recent complaints about Xev's behavior are old hash. She has long-established the right to carry on as a poster with the same liberties anyone else enjoys around here, and while she has in the past set the standards for low posting, there are a few here rushing to vie for the crown. Rex Nemorensis it ain't, but it seems some people actually enjoy the effort of setting low standards.

This is not a democracy; that much is clear. But nobody can sit there with a straight face and try to say that I haven't behaved over the years as if it was at least a democracy. Rules? Hell, they demonstrably take a back seat when my feathers are ruffled. How have I pulled this off? A few points to consider:

• Take a look at posters like 15ofthe19 and Stokes Pennwalt; both of these guys have offended me severely in the past, and to judge by the latter, I've done something to offend him. But in between our terrible arguments we get along reasonably enough. Compare this to Spookz, whose posts I enjoyed more than most around here if I had to guess. In the end, he was too consistently ... in contravention of Porfiry's interests. Or Nico; I've said elsewhere that his actual error was to not reset his scorn meter often enough.

• When I have an issue with the administration or moderation, I stopped to think about how to address it. I didn't call a moderator foul names or accuse her of unfairness when she censored words out of my posts. I asked two questions: "Why now?" (because someone had complained directly, and since it was in violation of the TOA, the moderator was obliged to act) and "Why is 'fuck' profane?" (never got what I consider a real answer, but a few obvious suggestions.)

• I don't actually live for the combat. Sometimes it's nice to have an abstract emotional rush, but if the members around here want to put forth some respectable effort, I'd be delighted. I mean, look at what happened when someone criticized Dennis Miller? Suddenly one of the most acerbic comedians in the business has a bunch of thin-skinned folks flock to his defense. It was one of the funniest things I'd ever seen: no, don't question of the nation's foremost comedic spitewad; it's just not nice. Cracks and shards, Dapthar, if people had just stopped and thought for two seconds before shooting off, a really ugly episode could have been avoided. But no, people prefer the combat, it seems. I don't live for the combat. I'm actually amazed at some of the things I've upset people with before. So I just don't worry about their feelings a whole lot once we get to the nasty part.

And to me one does not have to be a genius to figure out these three simple points:

(1) Reset the scorn meter regularly--don't carry the grudges any deeper than absolutely necessary.
(2) Don't bash the moderators. Can the faux-dignity. Just ask. And state reasonably what the issue is. Complaining about fascism or such, as many people do, is useless--I don't think the TOA leaves any room for doubt, but since it does, we might look to the aforementioned revised Site Rules (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=20345). Don't complain about fascism; it's agreed to by the user and well-established in the standing rules. Complaining about fascism is like listening to someone leaping up and down in a puddle complaining about getting wet.
(3) Don't make the shite aspect of Sciforums relations be the whole of what you do. One of the things that seems to have hurt Spookz in the end was a perceived lack of separation between the intellectual, the passionate, and the caustic. One could never see the intellect without getting splattered by the acid. One could never look directly at the passions without having their eyes burned out. I'm not in a good position to defend Spookz, at this point, though, because one of the things I love about the guy is the method of his flaunting the site rules. In the end, he may have just gotten too ambitious.

But think about the fact that lots of people think I'm either crazy or stupid.

Well enough. Because I can figure out how to generally avoid the bad side of this site's administration and moderators.

So if I'm crazy or stupid ... what does that say about others?If a moderator is tired of " putting up with people's crap " then they should resign their post, and let someone who is more qualified take their position.That's tantamount to accommodating terrorism.

There arises a question of what crap a moderator should have to take. I have an easy forum to deal with, and people generally work and play nicely when I specifically ask them to. I get along very well if I don't have to insert myself into people's affairs.

But reading people's complaints over time--especially the growing murmur over the last year--frankly, our moderators shouldn't have to put up with that kind of crap. Large numbers of people get banned from other boards for lesser offenses against site rules than we let go by every day.

Think about the "who cares" factor that can get annoying after a while as you read through people's posts. Who cares? Heard it all before. Cheap rhetoric. Ad nauseam. When that factor leaps out of a tantrum against some moderation that is sanctioned by the site rules, it really will work against a poster.

Create a declaration of your expectations. Organize the concept into a functional idea. Present it in the S/FOG forum. All of this guerilla complaining that is the advent of the S/FOG endeavor is useless. But I'm very curious what people expect of this website, its administration, and the designated moderation. I haven't given Dave a cent over the years; I expect nothing that isn't promised, advertised, or declared to be, and get considerably more in return. So yes, I am actually curious what other members--paid or not--expect of this site.Trying to justify this type of behavior is something I thought that you, of all people, would not attempt. What? I'm an agent of an essential martial law. I agreed to do this. If Porfiry was acting in contravention of what he advertised or promised, I would find a way to question it, or else not have thrown my name into the ring to be a moderator in the first place. The abstract issues of this discussion do not exist in a vacuum; reality intrudes.Apparently I misjudged you.Two pieces of advice:

- Don't judge me. I don't say this out of any sense of indignant rage; rather, I recognize your right in the Universe to draw whatever conclusions you will. But, from one human being to another--it's not that "you don't know me," Dapthar, but that at some point your criteria for judgment hit a wall, and obviously the dimensions of that sphere of vision are inadequate. Remember that there is no objective center to morality or propriety; reality is merely a human convention--having named the condition, we have no greater influence over it than we did before.

- In consideration of the point above, set broader criteria for examination with less of a stake at the end of the line.I'd be willing to bet that it was. Almost no one goes into such a venture without thinking about what can go wrong.Always hope for the worst ... so, is that something you believe about people in general, or does it just suit the argument to imagine Porfiry like that?

Every time I get in a car, Dapthar, there is a chance that something could happen that kills me. Every time I get in the godforsaken shower, there's a chance that something could happen that kills me.

Now ... should I hope for death every time I take a shower or get in a car?

Just because Porfiry was most likely aware that the web is littered with refuse and rabble from the outset--he did have to deal with both the norm and extreme of the ufology crowd before this (I remember Aufora)--doesn't mean that's what he was aiming for.

I can't imagine him hoping to die every time he takes a shower.No one says people do not, but this forum is simply not the place for it.Only because the people who make it so choose that it should be so. That includes you, me, and everybody else who posts here. I could duck liars, cheats, swindlers, Christians, and Republicans entirely, but I'm not about to leave the field to the haters and egomaniacal mental masturbators.

In fact, some people I could left the field in order to accommodate:

• Tony1 - Catholic-hating firebrand evangelical with no actual point of his own
• KalvinB - Who could not answer a question honestly to save his life, and who, by the time the ugliness was over, had a one-word vocabulary
• Lawdog - Who advocated that The Church (e.g. Catholic) should exterminate all opposition
• Adam - An architect of a Sciforums combat technique that only costs you your personal integrity to execute
• Xev - To whom compassion is cruelty
• Gendanken - What need I say here?
• Wesmorris - I generally like the guy, but when we don't get along, the whole site seems to shake and rumble a bit

This is a short list of people I've buried at various points in Sciforums history under what I considered a well-deserved avalanche of khaavrenite fury.

My fights with them have attracted all sorts of bad attention over time.

I could have quit the field, left Sciforums to never return.

And once again the field would be given--at least for my part--to dishonesty.

It's astounding; some people found T1 to be witty, even when he was in full retreat. Some people considered KB a useful voice for Christianity. Adam won support and established an argumentative method at Sciforums that has been a favored method since; the method is tantamount to reckless provocateurism. Xev, quite obviously, has support in this community; Gendanken quite obviously has support in this community; Wesmorris is a generally-respected poster. We cannot by any means leave out my years of walloping people.

People choose the atmosphere you describe.

If Goofyfish, for instance, were to crack down and enforce the site rules and TOA as much to the letter as possible, WE&P would grind to a halt. The simple fact that one person is almost entirely incapable of stemming the flow of vitriol and useless crap in that forum is a strong indicator of what people choose. While I have a generally easy forum to moderate, a strict application means I would have to take action against a poster's insistent use of the word "gay". And when it comes down to that, I prefer to let him have his bigoted expression and let that idiocy stand to represent him.

Frankly, when it comes to moderators putting up with crap, how nitpickety would you like us to be? You think you misjudged me? Wait until I go forth with orders for strict enforcement of the rules. Compared to the situation you lament today, the alternative is outright tyranny.

I find the current brouhaha about moderation to be overblown. If we actually stuck to the rules entirely, very few people who post here would bother.

In the meantime, if people think the TOA and Site Rules need re-examination, they ought to start a topic.

But as it is, if the moderators decide to delete every post that doesn't begin and end with praises to Porfiry's sex appeal and intellect, we have the authority to do so.

I'm unsure what to say about future knowledge, though; you're even more pessimistic than I am.

tiassa, I love you and all, but godamn!!!
It's 2 in the morn, I'm on my 3rd glass of JD, and that post still seems as long as it was after the 1st!!.

Do you have titanium fingers or what??

OK...another glass before I wade in again...... ;)

No, not titanium. Although I do clip the dead calluses off my fingertips daily.

Man, I get two answers on opposite ends of the spectrum for my question (do mods get criticised in the same way as Xev), anyone care to add their opinion?

tiassa, that all seems at a tangent though. The issue doesn't seem to be 'could it be worse', rather that spookz shouldn't be banned for doing what Xev does too.

The issue doesn't seem to be 'could it be worse', rather that spookz shouldn't be banned for doing what Xev does too.As I've said before, I like Spookz. However, in light of Porfiry's position--However, this one thread is merely the latest incident. Your 6400+ posts do not compel me to be any more lenient. ("Xev vetting posts .... (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32256&page=3&pp=20)")--I'm hard-pressed to argue directly.

Mercy for Spookz? Sure. Except, as Counsler Coffee points out in this topic:He was banned once before, and now again. How many chances is a member supose to get?Again, I like Spookz. I thought he was useful in his own way, but I'm also aware that this is an obscure appreciation on my part. Mercy? Yeah, but I'm running into the wall Counsler presents.

If Spookz wishes to discuss it with Porfiry and somehow compel our leader to invite his return, well ... I suppose that's out of your hands or mine.

LOL @ Tiassa. :D

I think he wins by philibuster. If he shortens his version of argument by 75% I would consider reading it.

wouldn't a temporary banning be sufficient to get the message across? i think so. i vote to lift the ban after a time.

I thought he was useful in his own way, but I'm also aware that this is an obscure appreciation on my part.

heh
so are microwaves and toasters, ja? :D

as to the ban the tard refers to

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=22556&page=3&pp=20

who gets banned for a few hrs?. i wake up the next day and login. logic dictates it never happened

me, discuss shit? way too much pride and it is not misplaced either.
all the best fella :)

Porfiry,

see what happened.! this guy could not wait for few hours away from your brain-child let alone few days - till the poll ends.

please bring him in as good-ole spooky; and be a generous daddy in sync with your forgotten but not-to-be-abondoned cause.!

bobj :

welcome back and be a good boy. :D

Some will say that the opinions of a newguy like me hold f**k all stead in the context of things, but BECAUSE I'm a new guy I think that makes them relevent in their own way.

So I say this.

PLEASE DONT STERILIZE SCI-FORUMS! It is the colour of this place that makes me hang around. Intelligent people being able to express themselves each in their own way. I liked spookz's sense of humour and I feel this place is less without him and as long as Xev sets a good example WITHIN her own sub-forum and doesn't moderate based on personal agendas I would say the same about her. Isn't that what it comes down too, whether the majority feel an individual contributed to their enjoyment of the site, or detracted from it? Of course I dont know all the details, haven't been here long enough to familiarize myself with this forums social intricacies, so I guess I'm not really in a position to judge for myself whether the ban was justified or not. So all I'll say is this.

Stick around Bob, you'll be back up to 6000 in no time!

heh
so are microwaves and toasters, ja? :D

I agree... bring back the "ja"! I personally miss the "ja" said in that particularly sarcastic tone of writing. And I like the name Bob :p... hehehe


:eek:

Well, I really have no intention of allowing spookz back, so I might as well end this thread.