Mod Bias - the sequel - with scam proof poll

wise? the flip side of this coin is an expectation that complaints be generated in a vacuum. or in feel good moments. perhaps even circle jerks. hmm, what of drug induced euphoria?

ja. all eminently suitable occasions for expressing discontent.

is this you, lg? no wonder i did not give you the time of day. fucking incompetent savage. wanna defend yourself?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

post modernism

how very fucking interesting. a trump card of sorts. perhaps i shall investigate....

She looks ahead, she paints her toe nails red,
Shes wet and wild, a typical 90s child,

She makes every move they make,
She takes everything they take,
She must be a thelma or louise,
She must be a post-modern sleaze

Unscrew the wine, shell throw a party line,
Stories extreme, shes such a drama queen,
Cries through the night, she choked on marlboro lites,
Pure charm and grace, she hates her pretty face,

She makes every move they make,
She takes everything they take,
She must be a thelma or louise,
She must be a post-modern sleaze

Straw spun from gold, she craves a tortured soul,
All doom and gloom, she plays an open wound,

She takes every scene they steal,
She takes every pain they feel,
She must be a thelma or louise,
She must be a post-modern sleaze​

pardon...stream of consciousness. will apply the scientific method in a jiffy

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

is the avatar an indication of brain states? the graphics establish instability so...... poor LG

just delete and converse. i will not mention it

 

I thought one as lateral thinking as yourself could analyze the tropes of posts 125 and 126 to draw startling conclusions (based on irrelevant postmodernist mumbo-jumbo of all things) about the current state of affairs - I mean at least post 126 - it's there in black and white for crissakes!!!

 

ahh
slogans and soundbites via blurry graphics are offered to someone that deconstructs and examines the conceptualizations underlying the usage of single words

you think this is fucking amateur night? its new years day and i am rejuvenated
address #121. i want you to establish worth by denouncing james's illogic

 

now this is a standard troll. vert does the same. you insist on your version of events. hold it out in fanaticism and god's given truth. a rejection of this reasoning is then written off as mere pathology.

the semantics are associated with authority. one is assumed to be familiar with the cause. another troll.

mind you, it is just your standard conversational terrorism. no real biggie
carry on

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

i see

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

now
LG and James R have both posted practically identical polls

i now ask of Tiassa and Skinwalker...are your respective criticisms of LG's poll applicable to the one that James R created?

answers and reasoning requested in a clear and concise manner
also...why here and not there?

 

Notes Around

The other day, LG, I sent a member on a one-day trip for repeatedly wishing that certain members be murdered. When he got back, he publicly acknowledged his banning, and stated that it must have been because he was making too much sense. And then he went back to wishing people would be murdered.

Life goes on. He'll be back sometime tomorrow, I think.

In the meantime, his egocentric representation of his banning does nothing to win him any sympathy with the moderators. In fact, he spent some with that, pissed it away for some imaginary trinket or bauble.

And that appears to be what happened in the "relapse" example.

I've hacked the end of this post away because I realize that I simply don't understand your point this time. Meanwhile, it will suffice to say, simply, that the example you provided was that of a moderator going out of his way to accommodate a member of this community. And that's far more than we should expect of SkinWalker. I mean, if we give your complaints about him any credibility. Compared to reality, though, your complaint seems to suggest that SkinWalker should simply dispense with policy dialogue and instead hammer away with a clenched iron fist.

• • •​

But I offered two reasons ....

Er ... anyway, part of what you've quoted involves the phrase "these complaints". As in, "That the majority of those complaints are irrational and dysfunctional is a matter for its own discussion." I would invite you to consider the anecdote at the beginning of my response to LG above ("The other day ....").

The practical consideration: Imagine that a moderator has 100 complaints against him. We investigate and discover that only three describe any real circumstance that we can find. Investigating those three, we find that the complaints arise from specific misunderstandings; perhaps we can patch up relations between folks. But what are we to do with the other 97 complaints that are not valid? The least I can say is that those complaining members would lose a bit of the sympathy we would otherwise extend to them.

And I go through this regularly in both roles, mod and poster. The other day a poster kept baiting a question about misogyny, and when I looked into it, there was no misogyny to be found. When I presented that point, first changed the subject, and then finally said I should forget about that point entirely. Naturally, however, being wrong was not a reason for him to lighten up in his general tantrum, but rather a rally cry to become even more severe. After a while, I'm not sure what that member expects, but he does this frequently, so of course his assessments of circumstance are suspect these days at the outset.

Life goes on.

Which, incidentally, is part of the problem with the poll. Discuss the opening of the poll results with James or Plazma. In the meantime, I stand by my assessment. When the complaints coming in make sense, they are given proper and proportional consideration. But that is, of course, unsatisfactory to those who just want to shout and fume and simmer and develop an identity politic as a fabled and imaginary hero for the oppressed.

Quit with the histrionics, Gustav. If you think it's somehow unfair to wonder that someone's complaint specifically (and coincidentally, I suppose?) overlooks the two most obvious affecting factors ... fine.

Your sense of irony is a big part of what makes you so damn lovable, Gustav. Carry on, indeed. ('Cause nothin' really matters?)

Nope.

(1) Multiple votes (James' poll) allows more equitable expression of dissatisfaction by members.
(2) Open poll results allows interested parties to consider the validity of complaints.​

There is, of course, a valid concern about privacy, but all things considered, we should not expect a vote in a poll to sour our attitudes toward any one member when the content of their posts generally makes the point so much more clearly.

 

/eek

i love you tiassa
couldnt care less about what you said
ja, i am that needy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

so what of a poster who doesn't talk of murdering others?

I mean lets just keep things hypothetical - what if (and its a big if I realize) a poster is actually getting unduly harassed by a mod or if a mod does have a tendency to flaunt mod guidelines to suit their agenda/values?

Why is the expression of one's self in the site feedback/open gov't forums an automatic indication of "guilty"?

Why does my opening a poll asking for indications of who has a bias problem amongst the mods clearly show that it was a ruse out to get Skinwalker?

Why are your attempted answers of these questions not classical examples of type I errors?

Its quite simply
Feedback plays a part in any civilized discourse.
True or False?

I generally don't regard a person as magnanimous when they desist from continuing with atrocious behavior

You've lost me
I don't know whether your confusion in understanding my previous post makes me unable to follow what you are saying in this one

 

go get em, tiger
i am done here

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

A general question of credibility

That case would need to be addressed.

Oh, wait. Correction:

That case would need to be addressed responsibly.

Many people feel they are being harassed. Every day. Here at Sciforums. Elsewhere on the net. In real life.

An example from real life.

One of the IT guys when I worked for an insurance company approached some of his friends one day and asked them about a "hypothetical" (wink-wink) incident in which one of his coworkers (technically a superior) may or may not have "hypothetically" (wink-wink) said something that could be construed as sexual harassment in the form of a proposition. Well, somehow or another, the "hypothetical" story was passed on by a third-party, and arrived at HR in the form of a complaint that said, "X is sexually harassing Y, and Y is too afraid of him to say anything about it."

What happened next, of course, was ugly. All Y ever wanted to know was whether any of his friends heard the sense of double-entendre he thought he perceived. At no point did he ever intend to set off an investigation that would lead to X being fired. At no point did X ever understand that Y never filed a complaint. And then, because of the nasty terms of his departure, X started naming names in a different issue, and several people were called before HR to respond to questions about whether or not there was a narcotics-distribution ring operating in the office.

My answer to Y, incidentally, was that yes, I could perceive the double-entendre, but, not being there at the time, could not say how much credibility to invest in it. Left to Y's own decision, the matter would have been dropped; "I'm probably just being paranoid and hearing things that aren't there," he told me. By the end of the day, however, that didn't matter.

The relevant point here is that action was taken in the company's interest that did not reflect the issue at hand. No proper summary of the situation would inform that X harassed Y and Y was too afraid to say anything on the record.

Now, it's not like people's livelihoods are at stake here. But we're not anxious to go taking action here and there against people based on insubstantial complaints.

If a complaint reasonably asserts that a moderator is acting inappropriately, and if that assertion is found true, some sort of corrective action would be prescribed by our administration.

Why would you ask that question? Actually, this is one of those things where you're doing yourself some minor harm. Perhaps the question sounds legitimate to you, but to me it's not a matter of expressing oneself, but rather how one expresses their feelings, thoughts, suspicions, accusations, &c.

Interesting question. I'm going to go with SkinWalker's assessment in #15, and what I perceive as a lack of any reasonable counterargument.

I've been in rough arguments with you before, LG. And there are certain aspects of your behavior that simply hurt your standing in other peoples' eyes. For example, the time you reposted a passage from Dobson in EM&J. Your subsequent tantrum is inexplicable unless we start with a basic presumption of partisanship. And then your behavior seems pretty typical. Apparently, the idea that people should have some context about what they are reading offended you. Or, perhaps, I simply shouldn't have included my own commentary while giving that information. Of course it speaks poorly of someone if that person is shown to frequently misinform people; but it's a hard stretch to go from Dr. Dobson's lack of credibility to "mean and obvious nastiness about anything Christian". But, apparently, giving people bibliographic and contextual information regarding an otherwise-anonymous writing is, as you put it, "off-topic".

Because we have other indicators to support the suggestion, including the irrationality of so many of the complaints related to the religion forum. Compared to the alternative—accepting that assertions made problematic by a lack of evidence to support them are, in fact, accurate despite the evidence that so strongly suggests otherwise—I'm entirely comfortable with my assessment.

I'm going to simply presume that there's some history here that your inquiry implicitly presumes I'm aware of, and that, in reality, I presently have no clue about.

Unless, of course I'm supposed to follow the link back to #1692260/117 and not seek contextual clarification. If I'm supposed to be outraged at SkinWalker's response to your inquiry about his mother, well, you'll be disappointed by that outcome.

Look, LG ... apparently you need it spelled out for you.

The basic problem you're encountering right now is simple: You are not credible.

I'm sorry, but that's what it comes down to. Frankly, the would only issue I would raise with SkinWalker's assessment to note that you demonstrate an unwillingness in certain situations to have a rational discussion. Your attempts at other times to engage in rational discussion are stained in part by certain of your outbursts, but mostly by your odd summaries that depend on extremely narrow and alternative definitions of words and ideas. You seem aware of the basic components of a rational discussion, but are also either unwilling or unable to grasp perhaps the most important: rational accuracy.

Looking through that part of the discussion, I'm also having trouble figuring out what the hell it is you were trying to communicate to SnakeLord when you wrote, "my mistake .... I thought you asked this question". That whole exchange, as I track further back, only reinforces the notion that you're not actually having a rational discussion.

How much time and psychological presumption should I invest into interpreting your role in that exchange? At some point, I'm going to call it a day, and I've yet to see where the trend is going to break.

And this is the problem, LG. You may be a nice, reasonably intelligent chap. But aside from your ability to form essential sentences, we're not seeing a whole lot of that fellow. What we're seeing, instead, is a frustrated individual on a personal mission in which zealotry has won the better part of your outlook and conduct.

And, well, yeah, that does raise some credibility issues.

So here we all are, picking through the mess, and all for you. Yes, you are hurting your cause, no matter what that cause actually is. It seems quite obvious that one part of it is religious, and from that certain personal goals arise, but no characterization of that mission I could give would be "nice". The best I could offer at present is that there is a certain sadness about seeing you, or anyone else, in such a state.

 

Tiassa

seems you have a latent talent for autobiography

I did mention that the "if" in the hypothetical was big didn't I?

and I guess we can find indications of reasonable parameters in the forum guidelines, right?

because it is practically impossible to get a straight answer from you or skinwalker (without a ten page spiel about how all complaints are obviously on par with posters making death threats or real life experiences of deceit) about the legitimacy or even the validity of feedback.

ditto above

“

how you went from the issue above to the issue below certainly indicates a diversion of the topic at hand

I could respond to this, but since the hatchets been buried and it doesn't seem relevant to the issue at hand, I'll let sleeping dogs lie ....

such as?

saying that there are many complaints from the religion forum that are irrational therefore all complaints from the religion forum are irrational is a type I error

what is the evidence?
Its not clear how the dobson thread with you vindicates skinwalker's very non-mod-like behavior, either on this thread or this one

trolling does tend to result in flaming don't you think?
certainly explains why trolling is mentioned in the forum guidelines.
(and even then, if you look at the postings you will see that I re-edited it way before skinwalker submitted his reply - apparently my decency to re-edit an inappropriate post also indicates a criminal act :shrug

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

because I flamed skinwalker for his trolling?

while certainly a broad and wordy analysis, all you have referenced is one thing :
a flame I posted in response to skinwalker's trolling - and even then I posted a re-edited version before he posted his reply

thats just the nature of discussing things with snakelord
usually the pattern is that we start off on a focused topic but then he splatters the scene with an array of loaded questions
(for eg's of his loaded q's, see his "one for the theists" and "one more for the theists" OP's)

well coming up as the all out champion in two polls, coupled with highly introspective statements like

Moreover, I'm still moderating the Religion subforum in the same manner I have since the day I started.

does raise a few q's.
not the least being

Feedback plays a part in any civilized discourse.
True or False?

(its a simple question - still waiting for an answer ...)

once again, I think you have to cite something more than a flame in response to a troll to put forward your case

if you call the above a detailed investigation to indicate a conclusion that lies outside of type I errors, I suggest that you also have a few issues to go through

I take it you missed the irony of this previous post

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

anyway here's another one for you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It's interesting that trolls will always refer to fair criticism of their arguments as "trolling." Ironic, actually. LG, you are a troll. You always have been.

You troll a science board with your anti-science rhetoric in hopes that someone will challenge your bait. Then you unleash a string of post-modernist mumbo-jumbo ranging from "correct epistemology" to "normative and prescriptive" scriptures. When someone actually attempts to engage in a discussion with you, you question their qualifications.

I did *just* that to you and I demonstrated why you aren't qualified to either evaluate religious discussions or judge those that do: you're a believer, deluded by a conclusion to which you will accept no evidence to the contrary. The non-believer, on the other hand, is not afflicted with such conclusions and has the open mind to accept evidence to reach new conclusions or revise opinions as necessary.

That's the argument I made and you call it trolling. I did precisely what you've done many, many times to others in the Religion forum: I questioned your qualifications. Once I concluded that you weren't qualified, I then reminded you each time you attempted to discuss the issue that you aren't qualified to evaluate or discuss religious topics.

You aren't.

Nor are you qualified to evaluate me as a moderator since you lack honor and integrity. You would have us all believe that your intentions were other than complaining about the Big, Bad Atheist mod that dares question or criticize you. You deny above that this thread was intended as a "ruse out to get Skinwalker," yet that is clearly untrue. And what's offensive is that you expect everyone to buy into that. You rarely post in the Site Feedback Forum. Indeed, the only times you have is when you were frustrated with me.

That makes you a liar, LG. Moments after you became frustrated (to the point that you made post after post containing ad hominem remarks, one of which so egregious you went back and edited it -creating a tacit admission of guilt) at my criticism of your lack of qualifications, you start a thread in the Site Feedback Forum. It doesn't require much to figure out your intent.

So, not only are you dishonest, an intellectual coward, but you're a liar.

Thus, you are not only not qualified to evaluate religious topics as a believer, but you're also not qualified to evaluate the ability of a moderator in this board.

You're welcome to leave any feedback you wish, but that's not your goal here. You seek to troll. You seek to incite existing animosities that are already present for personal gain. That makes you a greedy troll. If you had an ounce of intellectual courage, you would have evaluated my argument criticizing your qualifications and realized that maybe it makes you look like a total ass every time you argue that same point. Perhaps a bit of introspection and humility might have led you to not seek the last word in the thread (which I humbly gave you in the end) and to think twice about using the "you're not qualified argument" in the future.

Quit trolling in the Religion forum.

 

Cool painting! Can you please give me the title and author?