What do you imagine I have to be vindictive about?

Ah, yes, I remember now that you weren't the one that actually pulled the plug on IAC. My memory was also a little off when I thought spurious criticized the decision to ban IAC. I think his criticism, after re-reading to refresh my memory, was of assumed discrepancies in moderation practices. A cut & paste:

spuriousmonkey,

I am not so sure about Dr Lou though. Dr Lou was most definitely not politically correct, but I didn't form a personel judgement as to how deep his racism actually went. I didn't read all of his posts because lots were in threads I don't frequent too often. James R, did you receive several 'report posts' because of Dr Lou's views and style? Maybe if you did, you might ask spurious what his actions would be under similar circumstances.
Or did you rely on your own judgement to determine if his posts were 'racist' or just very politically incorrect? I am only asking because I honestly don't know.

I don't remember it being said to you recently James R, but I do appreciate the work you put into sciforums also. I'm sure a lot of members feel the same way, but the squeaky wheels make the most noise. I imagine at times you throw your hands up at all the problems that come your way, with a 'good grief' or something like that. No one can come up with solutions to pacify the political differences in the world today. Those problems, and many other types also, are transferred to sciforums through its diverse membership. I don't envy your job in the least. I personally wouldn't have it!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

troll

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm not politically correct. I have been accused many times of being a racist.

When I was a mod I received mostly reports on a guy named spuriousmonkey. I undertook no action towards this vile creature of the night.

Does it matter if there appears to be a racist content to some small minded people? How come obvious racism is allowed at the same time? Doesn't really make sense does it?

Let me make a general statement now directed towards everybody. I have so assumed this was an intelligent community and people are capable of some level of intellectual/scientific thought. Hence I didn't spell it out although I did extensively point out the obvious.

Where do we start in this process of critique?

With the observation that there is a problem. And here lies the trouble. Nobody has defined the problem. Nobody has identified the trouble. Nobody knows if there is a problem. For most members there isn't. I am quite sure of this because they came to sciforums under the current conditions. This brings us back to basic questioning and observation. And one could start by asking a very simple question first:Is there a problem? Then we can proceed to, what is the problem, and what causes the problem.

You do expect an intelligent community to be able to recognize such basic steps.

In light of the diversity of the forum population I am sure that there is no single problem. Different interest groups have different problems which may conflict with each other. Currently I have a problem with the management and others do to. It's an old problem. I have been checking the past a bit. For some reason most who enter the mod team lose a certain mindset that is associated with being a member. One could translate that into the cliche: "power corrupts". James R's shit really stinks. He pretends it doesn't. I see no self critique or rational self relflection. One might call that unintellectual or hippocritical.

As a side thought I would like to state that the influence of any member of a non-governing population is limited. Most of my influence comes from popular support which allows me from saying and doing things that would get other people instantly banned. I "squeek" because I like to cross the line as far as I can. However, someone without any real power is unable to change anything in a system. And that is a simple fact. People like Ghandi were able to change the system because they attacked the weakness of a government with popular support leading to dramatic internal changes within the system of power.
How much I like to pretend to pull strings (and I do pull small strings) the influence of pulling strings is limited to the weight that they carry. They are quite thin.

When I was editor-in-chief of a journal it was rather easy to develop a publication. My word was final. However, it was also I who did all the work of developing, the motivating, the hunting for contributions. If I had left it all to the community nothing would have happened. Which actually did happen after I handed over control to someone else. They noticed how much work it is to motivate people to contribute and they gave up.

Hence, you can't blame the community. It is retarded to do so and shows inexperience with developing a community. Communities are not self-organizing systems, unless you are aiming for a random direction.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

since when is the observation of fact an insult? are you starting one of your Political correctness crusades to get another member banned?

 

Hey spurious, eat another bowl of stupid for breakfast?

 

Fuck you cunt.

Clearly the moderator team consist of agitators.

 

Went back for a second helping?

 

Do you consider it a merit of a moderator to enter a thread insulting a member? I would think that moderators have an example to set. Especially in light of a new policy that apparently has been discussed ad nauseum in the secret moderator forum.

YOu are repulsive.

 

spuriousmonkey,

I'm just a dumb ole country boy. Perhaps you could help me out, spurious.

???? Are you suggesting moderators should wait until they have a certain number of posts in a thread before insulting members, kind of an annoyance thing? Is the example that the rest of us peons should follow also based on the number of posts they have in the thread before insulting the annoyer? Or are the restrictions just on gratuitous insults like samcdkey posts?

 

You consider it a merit to be stupid. This was not a direct result of examples set by mods. You completed that entirely on your own despite what examples are set.

And you are stupid.

Having fun yet?

 

Grow up, both of you.

 

what no banning?

I recall Baron being banned for referring to Bells this way.

 

Nick got an infaction for calling me fossil breath, not sure 'stupid' is allowed.

 

Hyprocrisy is alive and well on sciforums.

 

This thread is fun.

Super-nerd versus super-moderator.

Who will decide the fate of the average and the masses of adolescent minds?

 

Strangely enough I am suggesting that moderators set and should set the standard. Can you as an adminstrator honestly be disappointed in the members if your moderators behave like (Q) for instance?

I radically changed my behaviour when I was mod. And when I stopped being a mod I went back into full attack mode; make it personal again.

Hence my position on this is that sciforums should be led by example. And if this example happens to be below par then don't expect exemplar behaviour.

I certainly lost all motivation to work on sciforums when (Q) was allowed to be a complete dick in the moderator forum, and I certainly don't feel any desire to work on sciforums when several moderators are allowed to fuck around.

Clean up your own house first. Then bitch about the members.

I'm not a nerd, I am a dork.

 

I stand corrected.

 

We all make mistakes.

 

Take that back, sir Dork!!!

Vengeance is unbecoming!

The white lab-coat threw me off and the absence of glasses confused me.