Backgrounds in moderation

Bells:

So you don't get it, I see.

The pamphlet in question was addressed to criminals. Specifically, it was addressed to criminals who had smashed and looted in the London riots. But any looter and smasher and shoplifter could come here any time and read this "advice".

Whether any London rioter ever comes here is completely irrelevant to the general policy that we don't need to host this stuff.

Also, the question of whether the material itself is illegal is irrelevant. I'd say that it probably isn't illegal in itself.

If this is not clear by now, I don't think I can help you any further. See how many news organisations you can find who chose to publish this pamphlet. Let me know how that goes. What I think you'll find is that reputable news organisations, by and large, made the same judgment call that I did.

Not yet. I asked about your plans.

Haven't we been through this? He was banned for posting inappropriate material. On his return from that ban he posted the exact same material again. It's a no-brainer.

Yes. I thought it was important that people understood what had happened and why, and for Gustav to have a chance to speak for himself.

No. I rebanned him for reposting the same material that got him banned the first time.

We've been through this. If he had wanted an explanation, he could have asked for one, either by PM or in public. There was no need to repost the offending material on the public forums.

All this has been responded to earlier in this thread. You have introduced one new lie, though, about my supposed claim that you "started a thread to have my ... resignation". I never made any such claim. If you think I did, you can document where I wrote that, with appropriate links.

The matter was original scattered across a few places in the Moderator forum. Moreover, there were and are several public threads on the subject.

This is baseless character assassination which I completely repudiate.

Please document any place on this forum where I have every supported sexism and/or misogynistic attitudes. Make sure you provide links to my posts.

Or else you can withdraw your nasty and libellous accusation.

There's that lie of yours again. I never claimed you started a thread to resign. You resigned in the middle of a thread after another moderator disagreed with you. I have never made any other claim. And you know it.

That may have been the last straw for you, but that's certainly what triggered your resignation. There's really no doubt about that.

What I wrote is a full and true account.

I posted, in the private Moderator forum, that I was short on time. Then I went away to live my life. On my return you had announced "to the world", in the public forums (by starting a thread specifically for that purpose) that you had resigned.

I understand that you have confused your resignation in the Moderators forum with your annoucement of that resignation to the "world" (i.e. the sciforums public).

I'll of course accept your apology for your mistaken allegation that I lied about what happened here, too.

This is the third repeat of the same claims in a single post, Bells. You're fixated and you're obviously not listening.

Go back and read my previous replies. I'm sick of repeating myself.

You're not insane.

The multiple claims that I am a dishonest liar I can take. I'm familiar with that ploy from Tiassa, who seems to have taught you well.

What I am really hurt by are your completely baseless accusations of sexism and misogyny on my part, because you know that's not me.

So, when I say you've flipped out, it's because I see somebody who I always regarded as a friend now posting cutting attacks that she knows are lies.

It seems you really are determined to burn your bridges as you leave. It's a real shame.

It can be very difficult on a text-based forum to interpret "hmmm...". You have made it clear that it means "no comment" for you. I'm content with that, but it certainly wasn't clear before.

Some things, by the way, are better commented on if you're going to reply at all. Because "no comment" can mean "I agree but I'm not telling you that" or "I disagree but I'm not telling you that". That leaves people to guess at your true opinions.

Go back and read my multiple explanations posted to this thread about why the Moderators forum is private. If you have further questions about why I will not copy threads from there to here, ask away.

Didn't GeoffP start this thread, addressing the moderators, administration and the world in general?

You should try being in my position. I have a whole forum rather than just one subforum.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I think that I have called on posters to be banned for insulting me once or twice in the past couple of years. I have taken no part in such decisions. Your characterisation of other moderators as my "goons" is unfair and uncharitable, as well as being untrue.

For the record: I have never received any information about spurious's forum from GeoffP.

GeoffP, most of the time, is level-headed. I find that him to be honest and straightforward. He says what he thinks and he means what he says. He doesn't tell lies.

No such abuse has ever been documented, by you or anybody else, as far as I can recall.

If you wish to make accusations, be explicit. Post your links and evidence of GeoffP's supposed abuses.

Bye, Bells.

I sincerely hope that all goes well for you on the medical front, and in life in general.

Thankyou again for your valuable service as a moderator here.

I hope you'll come back.

 

I never lied about that.

If you're going to accuse somebody of telling lies, surely the first thing to do is to make sure you're not lying yourself.

There was no pretence.

I don't think I notified you in advance that I would ban you for 30 days, so that much is probably correct.

I hereby give you permission to post one PM from me that directly addresses this issue, if you have such a thing. I require that you post the ENTIRE PM and not selected extracts.

Otherwise, you do not have my permission to post my PMs to you in the public forums. You may wish to review the forum rules on this matter before making any hasty and unwise decisions.

That sounds like a fair report of what I wrote. Nothing being pretended there.

I never lied about banning SAM for a month.

Well, boo hoo for you.

I hearby give permission for SAM to repost these PMed threats from me, if they exist, in this thread. I require that the ENTIRE PM be reproduced, and not edited extracts.

Correct.

----

If SAM cannot provide evidence to back up this series of accusations about my supposedly lies, I request that she withdraw the accusations and apologise in the current thread.

 

SAM:

This appears to be point 6 in a post that presumably included points 1 through 5 as well. Moreover, I assume that point 6 refers to a previous post on the forum. It does not refer to a personal message, which was the basis of your claim that I lied.

Without the source, there's no way for anybody to verify whether you're the dirty liar here or I am, so I guess we leave this here.

Where's the lie? I did exactly what I said I'd do in that PM.

Then you should lobby for a change in site policy and deal with matter once you get a policy change.

This PM was as response to a PM that you sent to me, as is obvious from the embedded quotes of the PM you originally sent. So, your claim that I send you unsolicited messages about deleted posts in the public forums sometimes is certainly not supported by this example.

As a matter of fact, as a courtesy to you I have on rare occasions sent you unsolicited private messages to inform you of matters which I think you may be interested in or which directly concern you. You have never asked me not to send you private messages. If that is your wish, I will of course respect that and will undertake never to contact you again by PM except in the case of infractions, warnings or any other official matter concerned with moderation in my official capacity. Just say the word.

There have been no lies so far.

 

SAM:

I apologise for my mistake. I assumed that the PM you cited must have been quoting a previous PM from you. In fact, it turns out that I was quoting a post by you from a thread that I closed, which you have helpfully linked. Moreover Tiassa has helpfully posted the entire thing, even with the deleted post. Thanks, Tiassa!

So, you're right - this is one of those unsolicited PMs. When was the last one before that? What's the average gap between them? Let's not give the readers the false impression that I'm stalking you or something. And, please read my repeated message to you at the top of this post. You didn't respond to that, so I will now ask you directly:

Do you or do you not wish to receive PMs from me in the future, other than in my official capacity?

So, we've cleared all that up then. Good.

 

It was spuriousmonkey.

 

I note for the record that Tiassa has misused his moderator powers to override my deletion of the post reproduced above. The content that was deleted 1 week ago by myself is no longer sensitive, for obvious reasons. This is, however, another abuse of trust.

 

Regarding the deletion of SAM's post:

I deleted the post in question because I wanted to avoid (if possible) the inevitable shitstorm that I was expecting from the spuriousmonkey fan club if they found out I had banned another of his sock puppets. SAM clearly was in on the deception, and her post would have announced the identity of Mr MacGillivray to the rest of the forum, including those who didn't know previously.

As it turned out, deleting that post did not help matters, but it was worth a try. Note my comment on the deletion at the time: "No need to spread the word". That is, no need to annouce to the world that spuriousmonkey was back here and had been banned again.

This moderation action was not taken on a whim. Like all my moderation actions, it was carefully considered.

Regarding Gustav's post:

I have already covered that matter in exquisite detail previously in this thread. It it is a no-brainer that material deleted by a moderator should not be reposted. It has been our consistent policy over many years that any poster who reposts material that a moderator has deleted gets banned. If you don't believe me, ask Tiassa or Bells or any other moderator, or any longstanding member of the forum who has seen this happen in the past. The rationale should be quite obvious to anybody who actually thinks about it for half a second.