Backgrounds in moderation

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by GeoffP, Aug 19, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    No it means that they are not discussing their private conversations with you
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    No, it's means one of them is lying.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,105
    Spurious created his forum because at the time he felt that some of the types of post that moderators came down on heavy here should have somewhere to occur. So while he wasn't inciting a riot, he was against certain forms of moderator mentality and censorship.

    It wasn't to plot attacks against Sciforums, however it obviously became a haven for any sciforums exiles and some of them have the resentment against the sciforums.

    It's there resentment that has fuelled all of this, Spurious of course isn't going to tell them what to do, after all it's gathered that they are all potentially rational human beings, so if there is a problem with their behaviour it should be addressed to them (not spurious or his forum, after all I'm pretty sure he likely runs a disclaimer about poster content being discretionary and the view of the poster isn't necessarily held by the forum or it's owner.)
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Many such discussions end with no action being taken. For more on the mod forum and why it is private, see my previous posts to this thread.

    All the lies, of course, happen on one side only. Anything that Tiassa posts in his public reports on the goings-on in the mod forum are automatically true. Same goes for Bells, now that she has resigned. Before, well...

    SAM, you're just going to have to accept that you won't ever really be privy to moderator discussions. Tough luck.

    How many, SAM?

    1. Rumours of SAM's demise from sciforums are wildly exaggerated. She is, in fact, alive and posting here.
    2. Gustav's banning was notified in the thread where it occurred, in two separate places. It also appeared on the Ban List.
    3. Permabans of sock puppets of permanently banned users are not routinely recorded in the mod forum. They never have been. There's no pressing reason to keep track of them. Who needs to know that Reiku's 25th sock puppet has just been banned?
    4. I ban socks as I discover them. No stalking is involved, as amply evidenced by the 14 months it took me to notice spurious's MacGillivray sock. (How would such stalking be done, anyway?)
    5. The permabanning of spuriousmonkey was a no-brainer. He wanted to be banned. He requested a ban. He posted pornography deliberately in order to be permanently banned. What do you expect? A debate among the moderators about whether to keep the guy who is spamming the forum with porn?
     
  8. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    No it doesn't - You don't have access to all the information.

    Can we have a link to the post where he posted this porn link? I remember another member posting porn [who btw is still here, not at all banned] not spurious but of course, your memory is legendary

    Can you tell us why Plazma wrote that spurious requested a ban rather than spamming the forum with porn as the reason for spurious' ban?
     
  9. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    I don't need to have access to all the information to know that one of them was lying.

    It's not difficult, SAM. One of them lied.
     
  10. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    No not at all. Spurious has been back many many times. Since it is as a sockpuppet he wouldn't advertise it on an open forum. You're being exceedingly foolish. FYI, he was here even in this thread as He Who Must Not Be Named. Check the mod forum to see if James has posted his ban there.
     
  11. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    So fucking what if he had sockpuppets? He said he didn't ask to be reinstated and gustav said he did.
     
  12. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Why would he discuss that on an open forum? You are being foolish!
     
  13. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,105
    To my knowledge it was Nick that defaced the whole of the wikipedia and changed any images he'd put there to porn, not Spurious. Nick decided to be an arsonist, I just wonder which Mall or shops he lootedwould of looted during the riots.

    I can just imagine him there donned in a mask, gloves, steel toe-capped boots, brandishing a rucksack and hossing corpulent molotov's at the Rozzers.

    (Other than that he's likely a great guy you can introduce to your nan and expect him to be invited back for tea on Tuesday's)
     
  14. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Beats me. Ask him.
     
  15. Varda The Bug Lady Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,184
    Phrases commonly followed by an assumption.

    So how could you know, right? Yyou are left to assume things.
     
  16. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    I only know that something ain't right. Perhaps it was Spurious that lied, that looks more and more likely now that you and SAM are saying that he came to you as well. Why would spurious lie about this on his own forum?
     
  17. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Probably, it could even be the same 12 or 14 year old who posted porn here and is still a member although he has been inactive since he moved house. I really don't know - I used to merely lookup IP addresses of people that James banned as sockpuppets out of curiousity and after some time I realised that he was checking IP addresses for spurious and banning the users if he "found" them. This was inspite of the fact that most of the socks were well behaved [unlike Satyr who kept posting the same stuff that irritates James - he was the other one whose IP address was very popular with James] - After I was kicked off the mod forum, I don't know how many socks he banned but by then spurious and I were speaking again and so I knew when he banned his socks because I knew they were spurious, again, not because of anything the socks had done, but apparently because James was comparing his IP with those of members. [There is an option where you can find other members with same IP]

    I just thought it was kinda creepy
     
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Bells:

    It wasn't a PM. It was a report, filed by hitting the "report" button on Gustav's post. As such, it was sent to all administrators and supermoderators, as well as to the moderator of the subforum in which it was posted.

    The person who reported the post helpfully drew our attention, as a moderator group, to a problematic post. I have not identified the person in question. I have reproduced the report because I was accused of targetting Gustav on my own initiative when in fact I was responding to a report.

    I did not seek the person's explicit permission to reproduce his or her comment from the report. I note, also that the vast majority of the entire report was generated automatically by the forum software when the person hit the "report" button. I have not reproduced that part of the report.

    If I receive any complaint from the person who filed the report, I will of course take steps to remedy the situation to the best of my ability.


    SAM:

    No. His porn posts were deleted.

    IF you want to view porn, try a different forum, SAM.

    Lucky another member.

    Er.... because spurious requested a ban?
     
  19. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    It's not creepy. It's what you do when you suspect a sock.
     
  20. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    So he was banned because

    1. he requested a ban [according to the ban list]

    OR

    2. he was spamming the forum with porn [with only your word for this reason and no supporting evidence that it ever occured]

    Soft deleted posts can be seen by other mods. How about you tell us which thread it is in and we can ask some other mod to verify the presence of this porn link?
     
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    How many socks has he had? You seem very knowledgable about this.

    Why does it matter to you whether this or any other ban was posted in the Mod forum? All bans appear on the ban list, and that's publically viewable, along with who did the banning, and the reason for the ban.

    Yes. spurious also spammed the forum with porn immediately prior to being banned (and after threatening to do so unless he was banned). That's still on the public record.

    How exactly does that work? I type in a bunch of IP addresses that spurious used to use on the off-chance that he's back as a sock? How often do I do this? Every time I'm on the forum? Every day? Every hour or two? If so, why did he evade my notice for 14 months? Either I'm lousy at this IP-checking stuff or something is dodgy about this story of yours.

    Besides, how could you possibly know when I was or wasn't checking IP addresses?

    But don't let me ruin your fantasy. If you don't know something, just make stuff up.

    I think you're kinda creepy.
     
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Replace "OR" by "AND" and you have it. There. How hard was that to comprehend?

    He only posted the porn to make sure he got what he wanted.

    It's all on the record. Stop wasting everybody's time, SAM.

    Nobody cares about porn that was posted 4 years ago except you, SAM, for reasons that are unfathomable.

    Here's an idea: why don't you ask your great friend spuriousmonkey if you want his porn links?

    Quit bugging me and go play somewhere else, SAM.
     
  23. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    No not really, it took me some time to realise that many of your "sockpuppet of banned user" bans were spurious. It was curious to me because he had requested the ban and unlike other users who request bans he was not allowed to post under an alter id.


    Then why have the ban list in the mod forum? Why post selectively in it?


    Where?


    I don't. Learn to read. I only realised after some time that you were banning sock puppets of spurious. Since at the time we were not speaking [we=spurious and I], the only reason I knew they were sock puppets of spurious is because I ran the "other users with same IP" in order to check whose sock the banned user was. When they kept coming up spurious or satyr, thats when I knew you were farming the links to catch him. Unless you have some other supernatural means of locating the socks.

    You don't want to go there James. You're the one having imaginary discussions in the mod forum



    I bet you do.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Except you James - you are the one who brought it up. But refuse to provide any evidence of said assertion. How very not ususual!

     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page