lightgigantic's ban: Sexual Harassment, Trolling, Lying

Discussion in 'About the Members' started by wynn, Feb 12, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
    Then maybe have LG come back and do a formal debate?

    Hey, I'm bored OK. That and probably posting too much.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Mod Hat — Response

    Mod Hat — Response

    I can assure you the question has come up in the moderators' discussion, and part of the answer is that we must apparently disregard history in order to accommodate the point. Now, that's not aimed at you; it's just that some on staff are suddenly "forgetting" the things we've discussed in the past.

    However, in considering that question, I have put the following proposition to my colleagues; that there is no answer is hardly suggestive, as this detailed version only went up earlier today:

    You might note that, when I carried the thread into the redux, I also copied over one of LG's posts. By your approach, that post should have been flagged as off topic, or, such as it is, not carried over.

    By your approach, Wynn would have been flagged from her entry to the redux thread for posting off topic:

    "By its nature, pregnancy is a phenomenon that is a matter of life and death, literally.

    "It seems that people on both extremes of the debate are forgetting this, and try to simplify it into something it isn't:
    "One side conceptualizes it as slightly more than a matter of cosmetics;
    the other side conceptualizes it as a matter of a peaceful, safe life with no hardship.

    "So the former think of the unborn as 'tissue,' 'non-person', from conception to birth.
    "The latter think of the unborn as an innocent person just minding their peaceful, harmless business in a world of peace, safety, ease and prosperity."

    I mean, come on, really? Technically, it's "off topic". But really? Okay. That post should have been yellow-flagged.

    Setting aside whatever we might project of Wynn's response to that (which would likely lead to more flags and possibly a suspension for off topic posting), we can certainly move along.

    Even though I can't flag Trippy, should I have suppressed his post for being off-topic? In truth, that was one of the better exchanges in the discussion, but, technically, it was off topic, and why wasn't anyone being moderated for that?

    Wynn would have picked up another yellow flag nine days after the first of her "off topic" posts I noted.

    And again, a few hours later.

    And again five days later. At this point, suspension is a viable consideration. (Again, we can make what we want out of what might have happened according to her response to the disciplinary action.)

    And again a few hours later, except for the fact that she might have been suspended before she had the chance to invoke robots.

    And again. (It should be noted that at some point I would have to cite Billvon for feeding the troll.)

    And so on.

    To be fair, Wynn did actually manage a couple of nearly-ueful posts; I say nearly because the whole point was rubber-glue. And then she went on to validate my point, anywy.

    I could have flagged LG upon his return, for continuing to try to change the thread subject.

    And Wynn is still not attending the thread topic.

    Why weren't they moderated? Okay, if that's how you want it, look at how it's going to go. That is to say, at what point in that flag spree would things start to look at least a little ridiculous?

    I can't flag Enmos for off topic posting, but should I have suppressed is post for being off topic?

    Wynn and Billvon. (You do realize that at this point in the thread, it's still 2012?)

    No, really, at what point would this all seem insane?

    (Should I have flagged Billvon for trolling? "I am afraid you will have to explain it, since you are the only one who is claiming that." Sure, his point is perfectly clear to any literate person who reads it, but as you've asserted in LG's defense, we have to presume the members are incapable of figuring this out for themselves.)

    And at this point, Billvon would be facing potential suspension for off topic trolling.

    Iceaura, off topic posting.

    LG, off topic posting; potential suspension at this point. Or definitely facing potential suspension for off topic posting in light of his subsequent remarks.

    Think about that. Before the fourth page is finished, Wynn would be suspended, Billvon suspended, LG facing suspension, and Iceaura treading on the thinnest of ice, which would break at his next post.

    There is, of course, a way around this, which is to not be so pedantically restrictive of what the thread topic actually is.

    But by the time fourteen months had passed, it was clear where this was going. The question was a woman's human rights under LACP. The response is to talk about anything else.

    At some point, the cumulative weight of one's behavior tips the scales against the presumption of innocence. Anyone who cares to slog through late 2013 and into 2014 will find patience wearing thin.

    Could I have told you this determined avoidance would happen? Probably, although its ferocious dysfunction is surprising even to me; I honestly thought there was more to the political argument from that side, but they've pretty much shown the problem with that presumption.

    Things didn't really improve after a moderator advocated for the protection of bigotry, and that certainly has its own role in the larger mess, but it's not yet a consideration in the process.

    LG again.

    And, for the record, even though it's off topic, I'm not going to cite Wynn for offering technical advice regarding site function to another user. Still, though, a flag for off topic posting, and Wynn would probably be on a second suspension. Which, of course, would have precluded her next post, meaning that it wouldn't have been flagged as off topic for the fact of not existing; otherwise, yeah, yet another flag for off topic posting.

    Again, in case it's not clear to anyone, this situation would be ridiculous to the point of being untenable.

    Especially since Iceaura is up for another suspension.

    And we come again to the question of whether I should suppress Trippy; his post is certainly relevant to the off topic subject.

    Why weren't these posts moderated? Hello?

    Wynn, off topic; LG, off topic; another for LG. Wynn, Billvon, Iceaura, another suppression of Trippy; Wynn, LG.

    That brings us to the end of page four.

    I'll stop for the moment, because I would hope the point is apparent.

    Why weren't they moderated earlier? Well, there you go. That's the problem in a nutshell.

    By this point, four of the primary participants in the thread (LG, Wynn, Iceaura, and Billvon) will all have been suspended once, and I don't think I am so far off if I suggest Trippy and Enmos, at least, would have wondered what the hell I was up to.

    (I would note that in the last paragraph of the preceding section, I should have said, "will all have been suspended [at least] once". Still, though, I'm not certain that really changes the underlying point.)

    But, yes, part of the answer to that question has me wondering how things would have gone if, a month into the discussion, three anti-abortion voices were suspended for off-topic posting, one pro-choice voice suspended for accommodating them, and two moderators suppressed by having "off topic" posts deleted.

    Four pages. Less than a month. I would propose that such action would not be conducive to fostering any sort of useful discussion at Sciforums.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    No one is saying that was not the case.



    Umm.. that's not what happened, but okay..

    In this case, "Woman up!" was apparently akin to giving men a blowjob. You know those cartoons and jokes about a woman's right place? The hillbilly 'shut yer mouth and put it where it belongs' type of comments.
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2014
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Trooper Secular Sanity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,784
    In this case, "Woman up!" was akin to telling a bitch (non-pejorative) to stop being a little bitch.
     
  8. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    Nobody told me they were available.
     
  9. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152

    Can anybody answer you or is it by invitation only? The few time I've noticed you poking a stick at somebody it was a crank. Mods should go for that since it saves them some trouble. The rests of your posts look like asides, kind of oblique, always terse, and it seems like nobody responds. Anyway, rest assured your wry humor gives readers a chortle or two even if, like me, they're not sure whether you're really inviting actual dialogue or not.
     
  10. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    I had actually missed this..

    Wow.. really?

    /Disgusted..
     
  11. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
    I'll think about that before answering.

    I usually don't ask a lot of questions from a self reproach saying I should already know something and open a text book.


    Oh, and that PM was from James and me telling Futilitist mean things years ago.
     
  12. Trooper Secular Sanity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,784
    Well, that warrants being labeled as sexual harassment. The blowjob comment, not so much.

    Weak stomach or a bad gag reflex?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. Trapped Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,058



    And if it was a younger in his prime Brad Pitt, would you have still felt the same way

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Trapped Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,058
    Being serious now... I have a serious question.



    .... before this incident, where there any existing rules about sexual conduct at the site?
     
  15. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Can you name a single instance where an ordinary poster reported a moderator, and actions were taken against the moderator?

    To the best of my knowledge, such things never happen here.


    Moderators at this forum simply function as absolute cognitive and moral authorities, and any kind of disagreement with them or getting disapproved by them is deemed to be evidence of mental and moral deficiency and punished as such.





    Well, after all this, one thing is certain: Sciforums is _not_ a discussion forum.

    It's a forum for airing a very specific range of views that are approved by the forum leadership.

    This in and of itself is not a problem. It does become questionable though when that very specific range of views is being advertised and held as the pinnacle of human civilization.

    The moderators of Sciforums as the authoritative leaders of mankind?? Really???
     
  16. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Come now, Wynn...
     
  17. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Well, this thread certainly reminds me why I have very rarely visited the forum in the last couple of years. Here are some thoughts:

    1. A forum run by demonstrably dysfunctional moderators is going to have problems.

    2. If dirty linen is to be exposed in public it should be made clear that is part of the laundry process.

    3. Rules, such as they are, have always been applied in a haphazard, random, or biased manner.

    4. In my experience complaints against moderators are never treated seriously. Occasional inconsistencies are to be expected. Routine disregard for non mod-team reports should not be, yet it appears to be.

    5. Sexual harassment in the workplace, in social settings, in, well, the real world is to be decried. But a comment on an internet forum? Get real. If it is directed against a young person, or one who has suffered such trauma in their lives, OK prompt action is appropriate. Bells, you're a big girl. Turn the other frigging cheek. Use an equivalent to "If I valued your opinion I'd be offended." And that's the point: we don't need to get upset, offended, or hurt by things said to us. We can choose to react, or not. The mature person will make the right choice.
     
  18. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    Mother Theresa asks.............................

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Why is everyone getting upset over the word "Blow-job"?
     
  19. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    I would like to add my voice in support of LG. I think that it was unfortunate that LG was permabanned and would like to see that ban overturned.

    Oftentimes they are trying to be two inconsistent things at once.

    In some posts they try to be the grown-up in the room, telling the battling kids to quiet down and behave. But other times, often in the very same threads, they are battlers themselves, throwing out insults, caricaturizing opponents' ideas, and generally being as ignorant and abusive as those they criticize.

    Emotional and intellectual maturity isn't something that can be turned on and off like a light-switch. And it's unrealistic to expect the rest of Sciforums' participlants, who may be aroused and angry themselves, to keep the abrupt changes in direction straight. To the rest of us it can look like bias and abuse of power.

    That certainly seems to be the case in the political fora. Politics on Sciforums is basically thread after thread after thread, often started by Tiassa, in which political conservatives and American Republicans in particular are ridiculed and caricaturized. That's certainly trollish and even a little bizarre in my opinion. And sadly, the 'Ethics and Justice' forum in the 'Philosophy' section is kind of a political annex. I generally avoid posting on these more politicized fora. If that's how Sciforums' management wants things run, that's up to them. It isn't something that I enjoy.

    I've generally spent most of my time on the 'General Philosophy' and 'Religion' fora, both because the subjects interest me, and because until recently I've felt that even though atheists kind of predominate on Sciforums, moderators didn't have their thumb on the scale. People could basically say what they want and make the best arguments that they could make, without having to constantly wonder whether their views will please or displease the management.

    I don't like the feeling of treading on thin-ice, especially if the rules, such as they are, are seemingly arbitrary, applied in very different ways depending on the views that one expresses.

    This place does seem like the Church of Scientism sometimes. And it obviously takes a very self-righteous and judgemental left-political line. My general impression of Sciforums, psychologically speaking, has been kind of borderline fundamentalist, with the same kind of defensive us-vs-them mentality and a similar concern with ridding the world of evil.

    Of course, having said that, I wasn't aware until today (when I finally read this thread) how much disagreement and even acrimony exists among the moderators. I'd always pictured them as kind of a monolithic cabal, marching in lock-step like a Mayday parade in Pyongyang.
     
  20. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    This is often true.

    Also often so.

    And that's so also. I don't agree with right-wing views - political conservatism is a parasite, IMHO - but at the same time discussion is warranted and needed. There is absolutely a 'treading-on-thin-ice' philosophy to some of the discussion; I don't believe that it's really a question of outrageous behaviour in many cases, but of overt discussion termination. One should be free to advance arguments, even weak ones, without being blasted for it, so long as no evil is really intended. But a shake-up is definitely needed. It would help membership and protect fair play. I think it has been opined by one of the moderators at one point that SF wasn't really a free site, and that they had no penultimate obligation to impartiality. Heinous to my mind, but not unexpected.

    Not at all. There is a certain suspiciously blinkered reactionary core, but there are also many good mods as well and currently several are at quiet odds. In my disputes, I (try to) avoid blasting the mods ensemble, although I do express some outrage about the system itself. This point is related to the following: as for this being a 'church of Scientism' - well, glance at the title of the forum itself. The object of Sciforums is rational discussion. That doesn't mean any particular debater needs to belittle his opponents, but there is a kind of poor tolerance of the non-empirical. My position is that while ideas are ripe for slaughter, personal attacks are unnecessary, damaging and immature. (Generally. I mean, you will find a few bad apples on here, and some of them require pruning.) This goes for discussions about science, religion, UFOs, literature and all the rest. Some of that desire to rid the world of evil is sociological frustration at the existence of other views. I can relate to that, sure: there is actual, genuine evil in the world.

    Perhaps what I'm saying is that it's a mixed bag.
     
  21. Trapped Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,058
    It's almost impossible to argue this statement.
     
  22. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,902
    Oh yeah. I haven't had any real contact with most of them and when I have, it's often been positive and I've found myself liking several of them. I think that pretty much all of them do try to do their jobs well. But as I suggested, there might be an occasional tendency for moderators to let their own passionately-held beliefs bias how they do their duties.

    I agree, perhaps more now than previously. It might be perverse of me to say it, but this little crisis reassures me, in a way. It's revealed to me that there might be more diversity of opinion within the moderating corps than I'd previously imagined. Perhaps they are less monolithic than I've pictured them as being. That's probably a good thing for the rest of us, especially on those occasions when we dare to disagree with a moderator about something that the moderator cares deeply about.
     
  23. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,324
    Kind of like that ominously powerful family living on the hilltop estate, that seems to have everything together on the surface. And then one day Salvatore goes fishing on the lake with his younger brother's hired help.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page