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

Yes, James moved them in Post 4.

I tried to move them back in Post 14.

But then Tiassa moved them again in Post 16.

Quad called it correctly though, I didn't have a chance of having anything "done about it".

I knew I was sticking my chin out what with over 7,000 posts and considering all the people (and moderators) I've had significant disagreements with on this board, I wrote:
So I'm asking that Billy (or any moderator) produce ONE place where I lied or shut up about it.

But I also felt pretty confident because my personal rule is to never knowingly lie.

But we all make mistakes, and though that's clearly not the same thing as lying, I knew I would probably be challenged on the mistakes I have made.

Now that's all this has become.

The moderators are following in exactly the path that Quad called and making it a flame war against someone who brings up an issue about the moderation.

In essence, "Resistance is Futile"

One important purpose of having moderators is to settle disputes like the ones that break out in this forum and for a healthy forum I invite strong impartial moderation.

Indeed in the one that we've been discussing in detail here, where James came down on me for a poorly written post, it did end the squabbling and I had to explain to him as the moderator what I meant by my somewhat ambiguous and/or poorly worded posts.

That's what SHOULD happen (of course it should happen without the personal insults and threats of being banned which is what I was complaining to James about (for which he NOW says he didn't actually mean.))

The problem is simply that no one moderates Billy T no matter how out of control he gets.

Of course in this thread you can see the same thing with Tiassa.

He's allowed to post what is clearly misinformation on the US being a net exporter of OIL, ( http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2910972&postcount=11 ) and even after I explain to him that he is wrong with links to the actual EIA data, show him that the articles he links to don't actually say what he thinks they do, he can still use this obvious misinformation as the basis for this personal attack on me:

Which he does in this thread to another member and uses his abysmal lack of knowledge about much larger volume of our oil imports compared to our production of oil as the basis for his assertion and of course he does not include a link to where I showed he was wrong, and yet not one moderator calls him on it.

Not one bothers to set the record straight or tell Tiassa that he can't continue to claim that the US is a net exporter of OIL.

And when that kind of moderator behavior is allowed to stand, then it is getting harder and harder to call this a science based forum.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This and That

In other words, you lied.

• • •​

I'm aware that it probably slipped by you, and thus you weren't trying to pull a fast one, but as we see above, your statement was incorrect at the time that you posted it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

james hes a fucking moderator.. if you cant see the difference you shouldnt be a mod either. im sorry james but that is pathetic This is the school the moderators are the teachers everyone else is students a student calles a teacher a fraud. teacher should be grown up enough to blow it off not call the student a fraud too "well he did it do" if so that teacher should lose there job and go back to being a student agian

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No Tiassa, I didn't lie.

It's entirely reasonable for me to conclude that when James starts off his post to me, by flaunting Forum Rules (thus showing he can do so because he is in fact the head Moderator) as in Behaviour that may get you banned: Personal attacks on another member, including name-calling. with clear violations of that rule: "What's wrong with you?" and ends it with "are you on something?", he isn't, as you claim, talking to me as a member, any more than a policeman is talking to you as a fellow citizen when he asks for your License and Registration.

He doesn't have to preface it with "By the way, I'm the moderator" to get that point across.

That's just SILLY.

As to an actual BLATANT lie that you've told in this thread:

Because you've been shown clearly, with links and such, that you are WRONG.

The US in 2011 was NOT a net exporter of OIL.

And yet you ignore the fact that YOU made the mistake ( http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2910972&postcount=11 ) and tell another poster that I was dishonest by redefining the term OIL, when in fact it is YOU who clearly doesn't know the difference between OIL and Distillate Products, Oil Products or Refined Products.

 

Ultimately a Disappointing Answer, I Recognize

The thing is that it's not nearly so easy to give you that assurance:

"I just wanted your assurance that you and the other mods will be applying what you said above to anyone else who may be demonstrating propensity for doing exactly what you say we can do without."​

Staff have been discussing—arguing, thumping one another over, &c.—that issue for a while.

One of the reasons the community is frustrated with the staff is that some people wonder why certain offenses draw moderators' wrath while others don't. And there is some reason for the question.

The reality is that we have twenty-two specifically assigned moderators. These assignments are to specific subfora; generally speaking, for instance, Trippy (Chemistry, Earth Science, GS&T) won't be enforcing rules in World Events or Politics (Hypewaders, Madanthonywayne, Superstring01)—he might, but only according to dire need.

Additionally, there are three of the moderation staff who also have specific authority and permissions to operate in any subforum at any time: James R (Admin), Stryder (Supermod), and myself (Supermod).

Now, then:

... the fundamental components are the need for dispute and competition instead of contribution and cooperation, a propensity for recalibrating the lexicon to suit your need, and an ever-shifting argumentative basis that has you constantly explaining what you really meant as compared to what you said in the first place​

There are twenty-two people each making their own assessments according to their own perspectives. This will create some variability in outcomes. Additionally, three are roving, inserting their own assessments into the jurisdictions of the other nineteen. This introduces another layer of variability in outcomes.

Historically, it is demonstrable that the staff disagrees about action and threshold: When do we involve ourselves, how, and what severity will result? As you note, mods are human.

Here is an interesting difference one can observe: After a couple years of the staff tangling, sometimes publicly and spectacularly, about such issues, one clear difference of opinion between certain staff members orbits the question of the appearance of self-interest in moderation. Quite simply, there are to the one occasions on which a moderator might feel obliged to take action against a member he or she feels some personal resentment toward, while, to the other, there are occasions on which a moderator might be construed by some as looking for a reason to go after a member he or she feels some personal resentment toward.

One approach to the question is to simply move forward and do one's best.

Another is to seek advice from others before acting against a member one is known to publicly dispute with.

Still yet another is to avoid moderating that member altogether, which is occasionally a conundrum of circumstance and need.

That all three approaches might be in effect at once in the hands of different moderators will add yet another layer of variability to outcomes.

The problem with granting the assurance you seek, I would hope, emerges clearly by this point.

Which begs certain questions. Well, what do we do, then? Or, What, then, do the criteria equal?

We might use Adoucette as an example.

The first on staff to notice an increase in complaints about him were those who were already disposed unfavorably toward the character he plays. Understand, please, that we know personally very few of our neighbors; some people we might view unfavorably could well be perfectly charming and intelligent folks in real life, but the parts they play here are a little less so.

Adoucette's propensity to seize small details in order to distract a general discussion into specific rivalries has been evident for a while. But, to the one, the first to take note were those he irritated, and these happen to be of a mind that simply moving forward against a member one dislikes and doing one's best is a problematic approach, so these early signs were left alone in official circles. To the other, he posts more often than not in jurisdictions not specifically assigned to those moderators, and one variability we see in how the staff deals with him is that the moderators where he posts more often tend to take a more laissez faire attitude toward people's conduct.

As he's irritated more and more of the staff, circumstances are changing. Adoucette's infraction record isn't particularly notorious, which tells me that the staff has been giving him wide clearance, allowing him to have his say.

But, still, despite more of the staff noticing, nobody's really made the point to him. I think of other members who have earned disapproval among the staff, and the way we were supposed to regard them under the rules, and it seems to me that Adoucette is actually getting off a bit easy. Well, generally speaking.

With this thread, he's asked us to notice, and since he wants to have this discussion, we might as well.

So: What do we do, then? Hard to say.

But: What do the criteria equal? Generally speaking, the outcome is reduced sympathy toward complaints.

And yes, that last is fairly consistent in the context that the criteria are, functionally at least, applied by every moderator; I'm not describing a checklist, but, rather, a human thought process. The variability that contrasts so sharply with that context of consistency is that not every moderator is going to apply the criteria according to the same template or scale. Which, in the end, is why I cannot offer the specific assurance you seek. The human divisor inherently complicates the equation during the transition from abstract principle to applied practice.

 

Sorry, Tiassa. I cannot see in what way Adoucette has lied. I don't even see what the lie is that you think he made. It's not that this is a grey area situation, I simply don't see what it is that adoucette has allegedly said that is untrue and I can't even dream up an interpretation of his words that could be remotely construed as a lie. Perhaps you could spell it out for me.

Why would I be trying to pull a fast one? I rather resent the suggestion that such an action might have been on my mind. I've entered this thread - as I said at the outset - as a disinterested party. i.e having no particular feeling coming into it, but looking at the facts as they are presented.

So, no. Based on the evidence and argument presented to date no one has demonstrated to me that adoucette has lied. I am perfectly willing to accept he has lied if someone will show me an instance. Perhaps the one you claim to be a lie is such a case, but you'll have to explain that to me in detail, as requested. I also wouldn't be surprised if he had lied in some other thread that no one has picked up on yet, and I shouldn't be surprised if he hadn't. I don't know him well enough to know how intrinsically honest or dishonest he is. All I can do is judge him on the evidence presented here and so far it is unconvincing as to claims of lying.

 

Really?

If you are willing to assert that, "Based on the evidence and argument presented to date no one has demonstrated to [you] that adoucette has lied," then I would appreciate if you would at least address the detail already on record at the time you made the statement, especially when you're then willing ask me to explain it to you in detail.

I mean, come on, man. Really?

 

I don't, other than to use you as a useful sounding board to expose to impressionable young readers that you have no concept of "Paradigm," and that, yes, other ones do and can indeed exist.

Likewise, you pose as a useful example of what a human being looks like when they become educated in their craft and what is "known" or what knowledge there is, but not in the study of being curious in the seeking of how knowledge is created. Having little or no clue about Epistemology makes you an interesting foil in any conversation. It's fun sometimes. Most times, it's just tiresome. :bugeye:

Thanks for putting what I had to say in a more sober context. I can be bit melodramatic sometimes.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Good lord, what a preposterously long-winded way of admitting that none of you have any skills at organization or management, nor the backbone to take responsibility for anything.

Which would be exactly why jokes of moderators like BillyT are kept around - and don't even get any scrutiny even when entire SFOG threads are directed at them, with no fewer than three members independently seconding the complaints. Instead we get a flame-war directed at the complainant, JamesR's standard ego masturbation/baiting game, and your usual limp-wristed beanplating of secret mod politics that nobody gives a fuck about. Members don't want to be impressed with how complex it is to deal with all your considerations and processes - they just expect the powers that be to display the requisite responsibility and maturity and, basically, handle shit in an effective way. Instead we get all these pathetic excuses dressed up as deep considerations.

You've just made it very, very clear that this site has no rules. What it has is politics, and secret cabal politics at that. It comes down to the personalities of a few power players, and nothing more.

Responses to complaints in SFOG should not depend on your personal sympathy towards the complainant. You are perfectly capable of assessing the complaint itself in an objective fashion. You should have done so and then simply moved on, if you expect anyone to take you seriously as an authority here. The fact that you have spent so much time and energy avoiding even attempting to do so - and initiated a flamewar with the complainant instead - pretty much speaks for itself.

Good lord, save the overblown expositions on what the inside of your ass looks like for your dissertation or something. You occupy an executive station, and analysis paralysis is not a useful trait for that.

 

Tiassa,

Discussing details of conversations that you claim to have had and of which I was not a participant, simply to cast me in a bad light is a most dispicable behavior.

Particularly for a moderator.

Or have you totally forgotten the rules?

You just violated all of the above, as moderator discussion about a person would be considered PRIVATE.

Or consider how would you feel if I posted something like this:

Based on the many PMs I've received, Tiassa's propensity to lie and embellish in order to tarnish the reputation of other members has been evident for a while.

With the only support for same being the alleged PMs I'd received?

I mean, come on, Tiassa. Really?

If you or any of the other moderators have an ISSUE with me, there is the PM system and the warning system, but posting your one-sided version of conversations to which I'm not a party to, is simply BS.

 

You see? Look at this? He uses statistics to make the appearance of telling the truth. When in fact, the statistics do not support his claim. The fact of the matter is, the amount of foreclosures, the amount of empty homes for sale or rent is still WAY above what it should normally be for an economy growing with the population. Why? Because there is a massive increase in the cost of energy and resources for producing more housing, and a restriction on credit by the ruling and financial elites. When housing prices are devalued, and there is a glut in the market, the important statistic are not vacancies, but housing starts.

For our purposes, we'll use his source, in his paradigm, in his world.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So sure, maybe it isn't lying, but it is damn frustrating. I read the thread where the disagreement in question came up. I agreed with Billy. Micheal's conclusion was 100% correct. The debate was about that, the conclusion. Arthur is hung up on the whole of the post. Billy thought he made some interpretive errors, but that is neither here nor there. In the end, adoucette was lying, Michael never claimed "mental superiority." That was just inflammatory and an ad hominem attack. But really, who cares. I say, let by gones be by gones. But it's Arthur who is getting his panties in a bunch.

 

Yeah, the self-serving, selective designations of when someone is "acting as" a moderator, and when they are not, are a long-running embarassment around here. Mods are mods and, while it is useful to distinguish between their personal opinions and things they say as representatives of site policy, it is fundamentally impossible for any of them to shed their basic authority without fully resigning their stations. JamesR threatening to ban someone is just that, and his attempt to play it off as some kind of condescending "joke" that the target of his threats is too stupid to "get" (while congratulating himself on his self-deprecation, no less) is a spectacularly ugly, idiotic display.

 

I think he's just made it very clear that there are no actual rules, just pretexts for moderators to invoke when they throw their weight around.

I dunno, the whole display here seems to have been pretty effective at derailing this thread and so shielding BillyT from any scrutiny whatsoever (let alone, actual correction).

It also serves as an object lesson in how those problems arose, and persist, and why there's no point in objecting to them - there are much larger, systemic problems underlying them.

 

Why yes they do.

The statistics addressed the specific issue that was being discussed: the surplus of vacant homes.

From the Thread ( http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2915002 )

Fraggle makes this comment

To which Quad replies:

To which Michael asks of Quad:

Which is where the post I made came in.

And the statistics I posted from the US Census bureau were exactly dealing with the issue we were discussing, the number of Vacant homes.

And the numbers I gave on new households, and housing starts and household formation is all accurate (and the housing start info is confirmed by your graph, which ALSO shows that what you consider a key indicator is improving at about a 7% per year rate from when it bottomed back in 2009)

And the latest housing start info is even better, which is exactly what I alluded to with my comment if the economy continues to improve as it has been doing recently.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...-s-fell-in-february-from-three-year-high.html

Except that WASN'T the topic under discussion.
To complain that we weren't discussing what YOU think is most important metric about the economy doesn't mean that what I was posting is wrong or that in any way was I lying with statistics in that thread.

To be clear, you agree with this conclusion?

That, as Billy T says, that is 100% accurate?

I'm curious, how do we determine the level of accuracy of an opinion like that?

Has a test somewhere been run that shows that "the Cattle that make up the society. The(y) have almost no idea about anything that's going on around them."

And what percent of Cattle have to have no idea, for the opinion to be 100% accurate?

And how do we relate what's wrong with Western Enonomies to the amount of TV that the cattle watch?

That's it?

Sorry, but no, I don't think that very Sophmoric analysis of the main problems faced by Western Economies is simply that "the Cattle that make up the society. The have almost no idea about anything that's going on around them. They watch the idiot box, nod, and eat their grass." is 100% accurate at all.

But you are welcome to your opinion, as is Michael and Billy T.

But that's ALL that is, your opinion.

Of course he did with that quote.
And if you also agree with that, then YES, you are also claiming mental superiority because you are saying that YOU are not one of the Cattle, watching the idiot box, nodding and eating their grass.

Because YOU are claiming that while YOU can see what's going on, the dumb "cattle that make up the society" can not.

 

Hi Tiassa. Thanks for your reply. Much appreciated!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

My only response is this:

As adoucette has pointed out, this site is either a science site or it is not. Period. Neither the scientific method nor the scientific information should allow the whims and foibles of those entrusted with mod responsibilities to skew either the conversation or the facts. Period. If we once allow such cinsiderations as 'style' and 'personality' and mod 'preferences for or against irrelevant bitching by anyone with a grudge against someone, then the site's 'reporting system' will be ripe for playing and manipulating with the intention of fooling the mods into taking prejudice/action against someone who is obviously the target of those who will use the reporting system as a 'tactic' which they hope will pay off if the mods are so easily swayed by mere 'complaint' STATISTICS about someone withot proper due diligence as to those statistics' basis/justification in fact before they act against someone just because others complain. Someone here tried to damn adoucette as dishonest/liar just because HE presented STATISTCS and observed that old saw about "lies, damn lies and statistics". Well, the same old saw can be even MORE applicable when looking at 'complaint statistics', especially if those statistics accrued from BIASED/ANTAGONISTIC posters who may NOT actually be in the right when making such complaints. So, please don't refer to 'statistics' in order to justify moderator attitudes/actions against the target of those statistics. Do due diligence before intervening. And make it quite clear on what basis and in what capacity you are intervening. Simple. It will avoid much of the angst which you sem to be suffering because your mods are 'up in the air' about what exactly they should be applying as policy.


If this site is not to go the same way as physforum (where the morally and scientifically corrupt mod/dictator DELETES posts in defense of the victim of unscientific/unfair abuse of power; and where the sociopaths who have egged him on in his shameful behaviour request that the mod/tyrant delete their OWN responses/perfidy against the victim so that the record of their shame and complicity may thus be 'expunged' under the pretext of 'housekeeping'!), then please please learn from such mod-corruption and elitist tyranny against the powerless (powerless except for free speech....something which is no longer allowed by the physforum tyrant calling himself a scientist and supposed mod of a science site) and don't let it happen HERE at sciforums just because we are not honest enough to face and deal with the ever-present dangers of anti-science CENSORSHIP and VICTIMIZATION by anyone tempted to let their mod/admin power to rule their science/moral compass and responsibilities.

It is better that such resign their responsibiities and bow out into general member status than to effectively oversee a decline into anti-science censorship and petty personal domain politics and vendettas.

It happened at physforum. Believe it! It can happen anywhere if we are not vigilant against those very same human foibles and tendencies which you have so amply exampled/voiced exist here 'in the background' to which not all members are privy when such things are being discussed in-house amongst the mods/admins.

This thread should be a cautionary tale for any would-be science site. Either we are a science site or we're not a science site. No human rationalizations can be acceptable as a 'middle ground'.....else we are not doing science but politics and personal interactions.


Anyhow, I suspect that most of what can be said has been said by a sufficient number of posters here. There should be sufficient information/rsponses etc on this aspect for the admin/mods to do more soulsearching discussions as to where they want this site to 'end up'....as a science site or as another physforum' tyranny which censors in lieu of encourages science/posters new ideas/discussion?

Thanks again for your well meant trouble and responses here, Tiassa; but I would appreciate it if you would not call adoucette a liar just because he misinterpreted what the admin James R was on about when he intervened in the first place. That is not lying, it is understandable misunderstanding based on the admin/mod status of James R and his initial comments being quite naturally interpreted as threat to ban given the circumstances (since explained by James R, but frankly still not excused in fact).

Good luck, Tiassa and other admin/mods.....it's a great site and could be even grater after this (it is to be hoped) 'cathartic' episode!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No hard feelings from me; and I trust no-one will bear any grudges from any 'side' to any other 'side' once this episode has run its course and we have all learned from it in our own way!


What doesn't disintegrate us will make us stronger as a site and as a science/polite community, hey!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

No, he's not, I'm not, and neither is anyone else who holds that point of view. It is your libelous characterization of persons as "mentally superior" that consist of the lie, because you simply disagree with those who take that point of view. That makes you the liar.

No one ever has "claimed" they can see and understand everything of what is going on while others cannot. You are free to try to understand, though I am beginning to believe that though I may not have mental superiority, clearly you have a mental inferiority complex.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Nor do I or any others that I know claim to understand all of the issues or facts in a way that others cannot. Did Michael? Did Billy? Did I? I don't remember them or I claiming to. Nor do I remember anyone else on the entire forum ever representing to make such a ludicrous claim. But with your wildly flawed school yard logic . . . You have made the "all knowing" claim that certain members have thus somehow presented themselves as having "mental superiority." Thus, clearly, you are a liar. Or just have a really flawed methodology in your reasoning. . . . :shrug:

 

The problem was the interpretation to which James R's intervention/comments were open by someone who is NOT a mod/admin and read such comments as made by James R (since clarified, but still did not remove the point that the initial intervention WAS understandably open to misinterpretation as threat and prejudice from a position of power not shared by the recipient of James R's remarks).

That it WAS an interpretation of threat to ban is obvious and understandable under the information available at the time to the recipient. James R has explained and clarified, which is good, but that does not make adoucette in the wrong, but merely explains what James R 'meant' even as adoucette 'read' as 'threat' etc.

Ther is a subtle point here: irrespective of the intention, the interpretation was made under the circumstnces at the time. Since clarified, and hence should be left to drop. However, the thread has moved on to the general subject of what policy is/should apply IN FUTURE given that the 'human dimension' is still alive and affecting possible future mod/admin decisions/interventions.

That is the 'state of play' now. The misunderstanding between adoucette and James R has been sorted out. The general situation as to what can be done to prevent people from spuriously accusing others of 'lying' and of using the 'complaints/report' system as a 'weapon' rather than a legitimate venue for redress, is still 'up in the air' as long as the admin/mods have no firm and common policy as to what/how to intervene without bringing in their own human foibles/prejudices/misinformation etc etc and so making things worse than they need be for all concerned.

That's all, mate! The rest is up to the admin/mods to sort out amongst themselves as to what policies best befit a science site and not a mere personal/politics discussion/battleground site which it will become if we still allow the admitted human foibles etc to play too much of a part in the governance of this excellent site.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Let's move on positively while the admin/mods sort themselves out with the benefit of this thread's inputs to constructive discourse. Cheers, Bells, everyone!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

PS: To whom it may concern: How about we stop all this 'he lied', 'no he lied' tit-for-tat and just leave the admin/mods to consider the overall policy/situation and arrive at a more robust/consistent approach that will be less vulnerable to accidental/intentional manipulation and human failings? Can't hurt for a science site, hey! Good luck to the admin/mods!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

+1
[10 chars]