I've had it with the B&E Moderator calling me a liar

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by adoucette, Mar 18, 2012.

  1. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    This and That

    The Esotericist

    That is an interesting analysis. I should note that I don't think people digging facts is quite as dramatic a contrast as you draw, but the point is taken.

    I had not considered it in terms of government/corporate mouthpiecing, although I see a bit of where you're coming from on that.

    One of the things that stands out to me is that whatever fact he asserts, there is only one possible interpretation of its significance, and that's whatever he happens to say.

    Like my disagreement with him about oil exports. It's not that I don't see his point, but it's also a hard proposition that his definition should trump the editors of a hydrocarbon trade magazine, financial news sites, and the general discourse. Trying to win an argument by redefining its terms is not universally advisable. That's also why he's hung up on the idea of a mathematical error acknowledged and explained, while refusing to acknowledge that a mathematical difference does not require division. If you go back to that discussion, it's hard to figure the significance of Arthur's formula because he won't stand on that significance.

    What is really weird is that I've seen this sort of behavior before, from members we don't hear from much of late, though they are not permanently banned, and perfectly welcome to try their hack routines all over again.

    One who stands out in my memory—and who we have not heard from since last summer—is an American political conservative with a history of sketchy sources and spurious arguments. If WND, or a right-wing blogger says something, it must necessarily be true. One of the most defining characteristics, though, was his penchant for recycling those propaganda points without really understanding them. Like Supreme Court decisions. Pressed for his explanation of why a particular decision means what he says it does, he would, at best, simply quote right-wing bloggers, even if that explanation had no demonstrable connection to reality. It was kind of like watching a child trying to be deliberately obscure in order to sound more intelligent, but in reality having no idea what he was talking about.

    In the end, though, one could generally only find merit in his larger arguments by accepting that all his definitions were authoritative, and that there was no other way of looking at it than nodding and saying, "Yes, you're absolutely right. You know more than any specialized "expert". Law professors, judges, scientists, industrial and commercial sectors, and so on.

    And, in truth, as I'm sure you're aware, that sort of thing is also part of why I criticize Ron Paul's supporters. Some of their definitions just don't work, and the only reason they continue as such is that they insist. And much like my critique of our neighbor here, I think some libertarians and other general societal dissidents tend to approach issues more from a desire to pick a fight and win than actually make any substantive progress in the discussion.

    Still, though, the facts about how this staff treats these people completely undermines Adoucette's posturing. The member I recalled often received specific protection and advantage as a tacit matter of staff policy. Arthur's infraction record seems to show some pretty specific causes. The larger question of his general conduct wasn't exactly off the radar, but more toward the inchoate when this thread came up. It's almost like he wants us to take notice and convene for judgment.

    • • •​

    Adoucette

    Well, you see, not everyone sees it as a ban threat; additionally, there is the point that you seem to think people shouldn't treat your mistakes as you treat those of others.

    Take the math error. My failure to account for the off-ticket vote is actually irrelevant to your screwed up math. And the thing is that while you insisted on your funky math, your reason for raising the point evolved as the discussion progressed and the uselessness of that math emerged.

    Yet the generally irrelevant failure to account for 3.6% or so of the votes is what you harp on. Correcting that omission left the larger point intact.

    Big deal ... well, to you at least.

    So you "wrote a poorly worded post" and generally failed to make sense in trying to explain what you really meant.

    Big deal. So what? Right? Life goes on.

    But why you should bawl about people being mean to you because you "wrote a poorly worded post"? Logically speaking, that's a mystery. In the human context, not so much. We get it. We do. We're just not buying it.

    You fixate on other people's minor errors, even after they are acknowledged and accounted for.

    Why should anyone give you a pass for your minor errors?

    See, you can play the literalist all you want, but if you do, that is how people will take you. You can also play the, "I know what you mean," line to your heart's content. But it seems rather contradictory to demand the liberty of poor wording for yourself while obsessing over other people's errors.

    You don't need to be a member of the "Moderator 'in crowd'". For most regular members, paying attention is the most that is required. Some of them even stumble into the middle of staff fights by accident.

    It's true that James doesn't use his mod ink as consistently as others, but it isn't particularly difficult to tell when, in black ink, he starts to play moderator. Of course, that is subject to interpretation.

    However—

    that seems a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

    Or, shall we go to the replay?

    James R calls you out, without saying a word about rank, regarding the rhetorical mess you created with your "poorly worded" posts.

    Adoucette responds, claiming 43% is overwhelming, and addressing other issues; no discussion of James R's rank.

    James R responds to 43% argument, addresses other issues; no discussion of rank.

    Adoucette responds with a strange explanation that only deepens the rhetorical tangle you've spun around a couple of statistics, and then attempts to shame James:

    James R responds to various issues, including your introduction of his rank to the discussion:

    In other words, instead of putting on his Mod Hat he chose to address you as a member, and here you are invoking his rank in a desperate grasp for leverage.​

    Give us a break. I think all of the staff has been through the, "How dare a moderator!" bit. Indeed, it wasn't too long ago that someone proposed that moderators should never express their opinions in political discussions, or something like that.

    Oh, right. And then there's your claim that James "brought up his rank when he threatened to ban me".

    So tell us, Arthur: Given what the actual record says, would you be so kind as to explain whether your incorrect claim a "mistake", or did you just try to lie to us?

    You might note I've been disregarding you more of late. But you might also want to remember that it does not serve this community well for me to be using my ignore list.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Arioch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,274
    Wait, Adoucette's asking to be put on a moderator's ignore list? I didn't even know that the moderators used their ignore lists. It would seem to be rather counterproductive to me.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    It is a threat when the person has the UNILATERAL power to do so and no it doesn't make me feel important.


    Kind of self serving don't you think?

    So who's making you deal with me?

    Except I showed where you got it wrong.

    No I complained about a moderator INSULTING me, and later threatening to ban me over something silly.

    Or do you think that's the appropriate way to deal with someone who simply made a poorly written post?

    Asking if they are IMPAIRED or ON SOMETHING?

    Really, that's part of normal polite forum discourse to you?

    Really, well known tendency?

    LOL

    No, I don't use personal definitions, and you can't point to a case where I have done so either.

    Clearly you have issues.

    Yeah, nice standard, and one could do that if one doesn't post that much, but a forum is where we have conversations and moderators, not editors.
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2012
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    You're kidding, right?

    When James shows up and his post to you starts off with:

    He doesn't have to preface it with, "In case you forgot, I'm the Moderator"

    He's already made it clear he is there in an official capacity.

    And indeed I wasn't mistaken about that because he later said that he he was there as a moderator at that first post, so no Tiassa, when a moderator starts out his unsolicited reply to one of your posts with "What's wrong with you?" and finishes it by asking if you're Impaired or maybe "ON SOMETHING", he was not addressing me as a member.

    Sure you can disregard me, but then who would stop you from posting BS about us being a net exporter of oil?
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2012
  8. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Damn Tiassa, do you STILL think you are right about the US being a NET Oil Exporter??????

    REALLY?

    You've GOT to be kidding me.

    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2910972&postcount=11

    And NO, my definition of OIL did not trump the Editors, they just NEVER said what YOU claimed.

    Tiassa's Claim:

    (bolding mine)


    To which I pointed out:


    For which you provided these sources to back your claim along with some snarky comments:

    But unfortunately for Tiassa, NONE OF THEM CONTAIN THAT LINE YOU POSTED.

    Let's see what they ACTUALLY said:

    The first headline is the most ambiguous, but then it's oriented to the trade and doesn't expect that people will misunderstand what the actual figures mean and that they know the difference between OIL and DISTILLATES.

    US sees lower 2011 oil use, becomes net exporter

    But the article had the details about what we had become a net exporter of, and they didn't say it was oil.

    Indeed they gave our Oil Demand:

    US oil demand was 18.835 million bpd

    And

    US oil output climbed to 5.877 million bpd

    The difference, between demand and output, is what we imported Tiassa.

    FAR more than the volume of our distillate exports.

    The next HEADLINE was:

    U.S. Was Net Oil-Product Exporter for First Time Since 1949

    And inside the actual article they had the details about these Oil-Products:

    The U.S. exported more gasoline, diesel and other fuels than it imported in 2011 for the first time since 1949, the Energy Department said.

    NOT OIL.

    Oil-Products, specifically: gasoline, diesel and other fuels

    Of course the fact that we are exporting a net amount of these refined products (since we don't import that many to begin with) does NOT make us a net exporter of OIL.

    The article also gave the magnitude of those exports of refined fuels:

    Or a net export of a bit over 320,000 barrels per day.

    The same article covered the statistics on OIL.

    So we imported over 8,400,000 barrels per day of oil and fuel and we exported about 320,000 barrels per day of fuel.

    So Tiassa, are you incapable of doing this bit of simple math as well?

    Most of the rest of us can, and thus know that we are not a net exporter of OIL.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-29/u-s-was-net-oil-product-exporter-in-2011.html

    What were the other headlines you ask?

    U.S. Nears Milestone: Net Fuel Exporter

    But that is not the same as a net exporter of OIL Tiassa, that's just a small amount compared to our oil imports.

    or

    Oil boomlet sweeps U.S. as exports and production rise

    But what does the actual article say:

    Again, just talking about exports of jet fuel, heating oil and gasoline

    So NO Tiassa, they don't agree with you, and they have the same definition of OIL as I do.

    The US is NOT a net exporter of oil.

    We recently became a net exporter of refined fuel.

    Which I tried to tell you.

    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2911296&postcount=14

    As to this piece of BS:

    Tiassa, it is YOU who are trying to win an argument by redefining terms in trade magazines, financial news sites and the general discourse as there is NO knowledgable source who agrees with you that the US is a NET exporter of OIL.

    Indeed, were we to have actually become a net exporter of OIL, during the Obama Administration you would be hearing about it every hour of every day until Nov 2nd.

    Because it would in fact be a HUGE story.

    But alas, we are very much a net importer of oil, and our 5.6 million barrels per day we produce ourselves doesn't meet even half our needs.
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2012
  9. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800

    Hello again, Tiassa.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Will you assure me and the forum at large that what I asked above will apply across the borad irrespective of position/status/personality etc? Thanks.


    By the way, I feel that a balance should be struck here because I see people 'piling on' and taking 'sides' with the mods in what could be construed as perhaps 'currying favour' in hopes of 'future benefit/leniency etc' from said mods) and/or just taking the opportunity for 'payback' riding on the mods' backs and hoping they will be seen as 'constructive' instead of just 'bitchy' etc etc. because they are on the 'side' of the mods. You get the drift, I trust, of how I am beginning to view this mod-vs-member saga?

    Anyhow, to the balance: I myself have had occassion to discourse with adoucette elsewhere. I have at times agreed with his stance/posts, and sometimes disagreed. It depends on the 'take' from the 'stats' presented and the 'interpretation/extrapolation one makes depending on modeling/trending etc etc of the overall information/observations involved.

    At NO stage have I seen adoucette 'lie'. Period. He has always discussed factually with me and more often than not presented 'hard data' (always FULLY REFERENCED as to source and even 'page') which no-one else was able to bring to the discussion. Whether I agreed or not in the end, I have never known him to knowingly lie or try to misconstrue the actual data on either side of our/others discussions which I have been privy to.

    Misunderstandings happen all to often ON BOTH SIDES (even a 'mod' can get the wrong end of the stick' and make uninformed 'mod' decisions as a consequence. It's a fact of life and nothing except the most careful caution on the part of a mod will prevent such mod-related stouches such as these.

    About the 'ascendant position' a mod is effectively possessed of, it is heavily encumbant on ANY mod or group os mods to be scrupulously transparent and be SEEN to be strictly UNbiased and vigilant of LACKS in their OWN behaviour/attitudes which may be misinterpreted by those who are NOT 'equals' to the mod, and hence may interpret mod comments/forays DIFFERENTLY than intended by the mod. Which seems to be the case in this instance.

    Moreover, I see where James R has attempted to clarify his 'foray' which started all this off, and saw where he explained that his posting 'style' sometimes is more trageted at 'getting people to think' and not being so clear/transparent in the post itself. Well, it may be fine and dandy fr a 'mod' to have the luxury of being 'excusd' such 'thought provoking' posts, but when I MYSELF clearly have started a thread with the EXPLICIT PURPOSE of 'getting people to think', the trolls seem to take that 'style' as some kind of 'green light from the mods' to abuse, insult, troll, spoil and otherwise make VEXACIOUS posts to clutter up and distract from the OP and generally create a 'poisonous atmosphere' which effectively prejudices whatever attempts are made to bring the discussion back on a constructive and co-operative tack (something which you, Tiassa, sem to encourage, but something which some trolls whom you/mods have allowed to offend against such high ideals as you have espoused and left the victim out to dry while their perfectly legitimate threads/efforts are intimidated by the very same behaviour of which you have accused adoucette.

    Let's get real, ok?.....Mods ARE human, they have the human foibles and propensity to arrogant 'entitlement mentality' which then makes them ripe for the next step: Abuse of power when in SAFELY ENTRENCHED ascendant positions against EFFECTIVELY powerless individuals who are behind the eight ball even when they DO speak up.

    If you think that mods are immune to such temptations to power abuse born of ascendant power over their 'domain', I could point to many a time when a mod at physforum (a member/mod here also?) actually BOASTED about is total power and willful and blatant CAPRICIOUSNESS opportunities to 'have his will' against anyone without proper recourse/defense opprtunities afforded the chosen victim of that abuse of power. This particular mod found it DELICIOUSLY FUNNY and most GRATIFYING that he was the 'boss' and if one didn't like his decisions that was too bad because effectively "this isn't a democracy"! He boatsed about his 'tin pot' DICTATORSHIP status and gloated about his victims having no recourse because he was the dictator there. Not internet mod-dom's greatest hour, wouldn't you agree?


    Anyhow, I just wanted assurance that this site is not going to go the same way. I also wished to balance the book here so that this exchange between adoucette and others was not all one-way against him just because certain people do not like his 'style'. I have never found his style dishonest, only factual to the point of obssessing over detail and perhaps not in tune with the overall thrust. But that is not a crime against any rules I can think of. I have always respected and enjoyed his inputs in my and others threads. But then again, I have no prejudices or personal animosity to bring to the party like some I could name elsewhere.

    That's it. I await your assurance on the point I posted on to you earlier, Tiassa. Thanks. :

    .
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2012
  10. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    HI RC, good to see you up and around.
     
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    I hope not. It's excellent entertainment.
     
  12. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800
    Hi There, adoucette!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Still alive and kicking. Good to see you too. Sorry I haven't had the time to speak to you before now, but, as I am constantly making excuses for, my time is hardly my own these days. I kid you not! Just to put that into reality perspective, I had to rush my above post and log out in a hurry because my aboriginal friends came round with an emergency situation needing my immediate attention/assistance. I am back for about 15 minutes and then have to go out again. So I am taking this small window of opportunity to come back and correct as many of the many typos which no doubt crept into my last post because of my rushing near the end of it.

    My eyes aren't all too good at the moment either, so I probably will again miss some egregious typos (I hope they won't offend anyone or send them of the deep end and create a sh!tstorm of pettiness etc.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Anyhow, I trust you are well as can be considering. Yes? Cheers and see ya round, mate!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    .
     
  13. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Great, get a good seat, I'll be here all week....
     
  14. Arioch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,274
    @adoucette --

    Can you try to keep your shows to around a half an hour or so. Any more of your posts than that and my head starts to get woozy, all the facepalming I guess.
     
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Are you still going on this, adoucette?

    I thought you said you were moving on.
     
  16. keith1 Guest

    Interesting. One sees shades here of the "Stanford Prison Experiment"?
    It begins quite innocently, all in fun, and interest by all....then, after time:

    1). Monitors of various intellect levels, fixed knowledge base areas of interest and expertise, enjoy elite server control buttons/capabilities, crowd control, policeman fantasies, altruistic, motherly servitude, etc.,behavioral tendencies exercised...and satiated.

    2). Long-time visitors with high intelligence, studied in many subject matters, well-read...are entertained with conversation, free use of services, protected from spammers, illiterates, and other undesirable content...treated like valuable customer readership commodities, spoiled with servants with moderation duties, volunteers tending their comfort, maintaining their pleasurable experience.

    Naturally, these two practiced (trained-in, experienced at what they do) factions become increasingly divisive and irritation episodes develop.

    Both factions (instinctively?...unconsciously?...seeking higher levels of excitation/conversational release, etc.?...), test the delicate boundaries
    of acceptable decorum and rational social sensibilities.

    Monitors know that the visitor's don't want the migratory drudgery of "working up" another similar venue environment elsewhere. They know the visitors are established and in a comfort zone. The monitors feel the drudgery of maintaining the machinery, the mundane mechanical chores of the forum...a fine, almost imperceptible level of psychological abuser emerges from both factions.

    This is not necessarily true of all participants, nor is it to be taken by this author, as an all-together mentally unhealthy occurrence. Some of it seems not conscious in intention, or motive. Just of natural human social/behavioral directions.

    I bring it up only to voice, what I'm sure, many also here are observing. All can process it in their own way, and proceed accordingly.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 24, 2012
  17. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    I am still waiting for a moderator or any member to cite a single instance in which adoucette lied. He's challenged several persons to do this and no one has yet succeeded. I'm just a simple lad, but that failure suggests something to me.
     
  18. Arioch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,274
    I don't care if he actually lied or not, I never claimed he did. What I care about is the fact that he quotemined to support a false claim, and that is a very dishonest thing to do.
     
  19. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    When I came in here I was sure I saw some goalposts. Someone seems to have moved them.

    As to quotemining, my observation is that this is practiced to a degree by everyone, including authors of peer reviewed papers. It occurs on a sliding scale. At one end of the scale no sane person would have a problem with 'appropriate editing of relevant material', while at the other end of the scale only the most cynical could defend its use.

    If I am correctly recalling the item that caused you concern, then it seemed to me - a disinterested observer - that your attempt to show that a comment of adoucette's was taken out of context was well countered by his demonstration that you had also failed to show an even wider context.

    If I am confusing you with another member and another exchange please point me to the relevant series of posts and I shall revisit them.

    However, since this thread was initially about adoucettes alleged lying, then I would like to see that issue demonstrated or refuted first. Then, by all means move on to consider other practices which, if proved, would be unacceptable.
     
  20. Arioch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,274
    @Opiolite --

    Really? Because I don't remember placing any. If other people did then that's on them, not me. I never once claimed that he lied, just that he had been dishonest, which he has been in this very thread.

    You recall incorrectly. I not only mentioned the quote James used in his post but I included a link to it, something Adoucette never did(he never even mentioned that there was a wider context). Not only that but the complaint James quoted wasn't really that relevant.

    So, as you can see, not exactly the same thing as I didn't withhold any context, it was all there in the link.

    No, you're confusing your post for a legitimate criticism of my posts.

    Not my claim, not my problem.
     
  21. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    I am disappointed that you you choose to transfer your distaste for adoucette to me, as exmplefied by a somewhat hostile response to my mild observations.

    The title of this thread, the topic of this thread, as set out in the OP was the alleged lying on the part of adoucette. Nothing else. You declare that you are not interested in this - perhaps you should be, since it is the topic of the thread. I fully concede that threads evolve, but to wantonly declare as you have done that you don't really care what the thread topic is about seems an odd position to take.

    There is an exchange - which I have not yet checked - in which a member critiques adoucette for quoting out of context. Adoucette refutes this with a demonstration. You say this was not you. Fine, I indicated that I may have confused you with another member whose did do that and was so critiqued.

    So, having acknowledged uncertainty from the outset it is rather bloody minded of you to say I'm confusing my post for a legitimate criticism of your posts. I'm legitimately criticising someone's posts, but apparently not yours. OK?

    Oh, and I normally don't worry about someone getting my name wrong, but when a post comes accompanied by such hostility I will pick you up on it. Between the way you spell my name and the way I spell my name there is one H of a difference.
     
  22. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    I have.

    I'm not the one bringing it up James.
    But I will respond to it when others do.

    In fact I stuck this in one of the responses just to avoid this:

    (Note to James, I accept your recent statements on this, and I'm not bringing this up again, just responding to Arioch about how I read it when it was written)
     
  23. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Oh Bull.

    Tiassa brought up the issue in post 16:

    No reference to a thread was given though.

    What was my response?
    So Tiassa included this snippet from the thread in post 22:

    But though he posted just a snippet, he did include a link, but just to that single post.

    Was Tiassa also being DISHONEST?

    I mean that is just as much out of context is it not?

    No, it's not dishonest because Tiassa gave the link to that specific post and if you follow that link, there is another link to the whole thread for anyone wants to see that comment in context.

    And so I responded to Tiassa’s specific charge, by showing the specific threat:

    Since my reply was to Tiassa, who had brought up the issue and he had already linked to the thread in question it clearly was not dishonest to not include another link to the same thread.

    If Tiassa (or anyone) had an issue with the context of James reply not proving my point, they could bring it up.

    As you tried to do.

    Of course, as a disinterested observer noted CORRECTLY:
    So no Arioch, I was not being dishonest in my reply to Tiassa.
     

Share This Page