James R's Independent Review Process

there is no specific instance. the fact that we do not go on banning sprees on old content has always been a matter of convention based on commonsense and an idea that it would be very crass to do so

since james is allowing the infraction to stand on a year old post, you can safely assume that infractionable posts no longer have the protection of antiquity or some semblance of a statute of limitations

all content ever posted in sci is fair game
james encourages the trolling of our forum by opening up a new front in the incessant attempts to provide the most hostile environment possible for this community

technically, yes
nor is there any mechanism by which one can force a member not to report old posts. we, with the sole exception of james, just hope for decency and commonsense on the part of both member and mod.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have addressed this in the forum rules update thread:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2831829&postcount=170

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What about what preceded that?

Seems pretty clear to me.

And this:

It's suggestive.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

what preceded that was an opinion that was at the same time held to be improbable by way of the qualifier. why does that not work for you. does unlikely signify impossible to you?

is it possible that you might do the same since your silence defaults to a position of agreement with the infraction? i say yes

what do you say?

and?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

please reverse my infraction

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

this bogus crap will be used against me in the future. its how you roll, james.
my infraction record is full of petty and vindictive bullshit and this is just the latest one

you should be ashamed

stop lying
you violently threatened me....

naturally
it is the "mighty gustav"

 

the scenario.......

james r: "gustav, i have already warned you once about foul language and it appears you have not heeded it. i have no choice but to ban you for a week"​

no one will be cognizant of the fact that the warning was for a year old post. they will naturally assume that it is a recent offense and agree with the new penalty.

this is how james constantly ensures that i have to endure the most hostile of environment. i must have some infractions on my record at all times so i remain in a bannable state

until this latest one, all infractions had expired with no points on my record. i was clean and i was making an effort to keep it that way.

then james sucker punched me and all was for no avail

and that is my lot in life. covering in fear in sfog vainly fighting for justice

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

indeed. i reported the post and expect james to take action...

yeah, i am a cave dwelling gook and you indians are the pinnacle of civilization

 

Your a Cave Dwelling Gook ? Me too . Hey alright . The dwelling part is the most fun, Cave Ah O.K. Gook Look

 

it is pointless to "reform" if you drag shit out from the past.
nothing i do in the here and now will render me immune from having the vicissitudes of the past coming back to bite me in the ass.

it is what you assure us can happen. it is what actually happened to me.

i received an infraction for a year old post

 

here you go

that offends me and i reported it a few hours ago. i suppose that was what i should have done in the first place instead of the nasty response

please apply the site rules to that offensive post. indicate what actions you propose to take

 

The pretty rich considering the context (which is you issuing warnings over year-old posts). I'd say that he has at least a year to complain about it, before you'll have standing to complain that it's an old issue.

Since you are premising your position on your being a fair and even-handed applier of rules, perhaps you could let us know what actions you took in regard to the hate speech which prompted the (totally appropriate and defensible) reaction from Gustav? Has indiancurry2010 been warned, or received any infraction points, or are you happy to be complicit in his racial bigotry?

Why should a member's reaction to a mod action have any particular bearing on the correctness of that action? That doesn't seem like a principled approach - either the action was defensible or it wasn't, regardless of how its object took it. If the implication is that you might well have taken a different course if Gustav had been more deferential towards your authority, then that looks a lot like petty authoritarianism, and not so much like impartial application of clear rules.

Again, that's pretty damned facepalm considering that you're addressing a year-old post.

You said previously that you'd probably have declined to take action if you'd bothered to note the timestamp on the post in question - and yet here you are, speaking about the issue in the present tense.

 

indeed
it all makes sense however when viewed in light of my prescient post #187 in which i outline a scenario.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

"Though", "even though" and "although" are synonyms of "despite", aren't they?

I would most likely have reversed the infraction, but I'm me and not James.
Your post was a breach of forum rules no matter how you look at it.

And? So you were suggesting there that James was data mining.

 

I think the absence of such a time limit gives moderators too much power.

 

don't be silly
you came to me....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

....with that

an "insulted other members" infraction was issued on 10-4-11 and expires on 02-01-12 for a year old post.

it also was alluded if one was aware of a technicality the infraction would probably have not occurred. yet due to a bogus escalation of commitment to that erroneous action, one is insisting on maintaining the infraction for a whole 5 months

i will have that hanging over my head till february. the year old post will be taken into account if and when a new infraction is considered.

this is your notion of fair play and justice. an admission of error was made yet no attempts to either rectify or apologize is being made.

you further compound this error by infracting another old post and this time, the poster in question has been inactive for a while and is probably never coming back.

it is like a circus
a comedy of errors

saving face is your priority
doing the right thing is not

its not too late tho
reverse the infraction
it is both logical and consistent
no one here is going to crow about it
instead you will be commended

 

This means that the logic of Sciforums moderation is the same as the law has it for grave crimes.
Just as there is no statute of limitation for murder, so there is no statute of limitation for taking offense at a forum post!
Every potentially offensive post is tantamount to murder.

 

yes
that could have been an alternative course of action that would have probably resolved the issue, but you erred with the "3 day ban" rhetoric. that was an unwarranted escalation for an inconsequential infraction.

please take note of that for future reference.

investigate, gather all pertinent facts
a simple pm querying me would have sufficed
what i got was an infraction already issued accompanied by a threat to escalate to a ban if requested info was not provided

it was just as well that references to the hindi expletives are still to be found on the internet or i would be begging sam for a translation or cold calling patels in the phonebook for one in order to comply with your demands and avoid a ban