Plazma: The James Issue

Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by Gustav, Jan 5, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    a pm sent to you on 09-27-09....


    ...was promised an eyeball.

    you wanna come out and have a Q&A with the community with regards to this? your silence defaults to a position where you condone everything james has done so far in his capacity as an administrator

    i guess you could start off by issuing a statement

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 7, 2010
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    If you're attacking James, my second boyfriend-ish person (you know how we gays are with revolving beds and all), then I'm on board. If you're attacking some other James, I'd have to sleep with him first before committing to such an endeavor.

    ~String
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    I am not part of the gay contingent, but I have found James to be a fair and honorable man.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    i attack no one
    i want plazma to vindicate james's position with regards to sam down to the last minute detail thru reason and logic

    and joe, i too have been happy with james at the helm........until now.
    but never mind all that...


    /awaiting the eastern european consortium
     
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Gustav:

    You think Plazma is unaware of what's going on? Really you've very naive.

    There's an ongoing thread in the Moderators forum about the whole SAM business.

    Your crybaby defence of SAM is touching and I'm sure she'll congratulate you when she gets back. But you won't change anything.

    Why don't you just mind your own business? Besides, I thought you said you were leaving.
     
  9. Plazma Inferno! Ding Ding Ding Ding Administrator

    Messages:
    4,610
    That wasn't crusade or vengeance of any kind. SAM is great poster, but she was also real troublemaker lately.
    Decision to ban SAM wasn't just James' call and it doesn't make him bad admin at all.
    Furthermore, if he didn't ban her, I would do that myself.
     
  10. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    learn how to read and quit making unnecessary assumptions....


    which means he is aware and approves

    so?


    ahh yes
    valiant, gallant, white knight. i know the trollish rhetoric used to ridicule

    everything that goes down here is everybody's business. its a community and while it maybe advantageous to you have us fractured and bickering, i rather remain focused and attentive

    i mean, look how you allow string to spam sf to ridicule my effort at a dialogue. very mature and enlightened, ja? you do this forum an utter disservice, james

    indeed
    and?


    so?
    at least an effort was made

    /smirk

    so ahh
    james and string
    carry on trolling and spamming
    it is remarkable to see mods trashing sci like this
     
  11. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575

    on what grounds? how is she being a troublemaker? could you cite specific instances and share your reasoning with me?

    do you find these unreasonable questions and requests??
     
  12. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    Dissenting opinion

    Sorry, boss, but I have to disagree based on two primary elements:

    (1) I feel we are invoking a unique standard for S.A.M. that we do not apply to other members.

    (2) I'm still wondering how it is that James screwed up his justification for his original action against S.A.M.​

    The former can be argued either way, but I just don't see us boiling down to three-letter words for other members.

    The latter is a genuine puzzle to me because it is important. If he screwed up that perception so badly, what else about this situation has he gotten wrong?

    As a practical matter, I think we're going to run into serious functional trouble trying to apply this new standard fairly, and, to be honest, I suspect that it will soon be dropped because it is impractical and unfair—unless, of course, we're applying it to S.A.M.
     
  13. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575

    i want the word and context in which it occurs posted here for my perusal or just link to what i presume is one of sam's posts??

    /very curious
     
  14. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    from here


    /yawn

    your only argument is bestowed by administrative rights on this board
    beyond that it appears you are just an empty shell
     
  15. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    Conjunction junction, what's your function?

    The word was "for", used as a conjunction. The sentence in question came as a correction to someone else's misguided notion:

    This earned all sorts of complaints from FellowTraveler, including two bitch threads in, of all places, EM&J.

    This is also where the lie comes in. FT was eventually suspended for three days for overriding a moderator action in reposting his complaint thread in EM&J. This reason was listed in no less than three places, including the publicly-accessible Ban List.

    James countered by suspending S.A.M. for three days, just to be fair. He justified this action by twice misrepresenting my reasons for suspending FT. And in one of those posts, he even chastised me for failing to do my job. I should have suspended S.A.M. For a statement that I didn't find offensive. That occurred outside of my jurisdiction (e.g., in World Events). Thus, the reasoning was that if I suspended FT for what he said, I should have also suspended S.A.M. Except that I didn't suspend FT for what he wrote in WE.

    James also noted that the situation was hard to miss, as I had posted about it in three threads. Perhaps he merely counted, and didn't read them.

    In the resulting fight, James was determined to prove that S.A.M. had threatened FellowTraveler with that line. And this is where the word "for" comes into it.

    I invented a counterpoint analogy in order to make my argument clear:

    Imagine a gun-control debate. Imagine that white, Christian, American gun owner who says, "I would shoot you in the head if I came home and found you raping my daughter."​

    James' response was that this wasn't a proper example, as it contained a condition on the threat, whereas S.A.M.'s statement didn't. I figured I was missing something, but James' accommodation of that inquiry was nowhere near the realm of my confusion about his argument; he thought I was confused by the word "this", rephrased his response, and asserted that S.A.M. had made a "direct, unconditional" threat. So I had to explain to him that the part of the statement he was not acknowledging, "... for throwing white phosphorus on my families", was, in fact, the condition he was lacking.

    That sort of confusion just befuddles me. What, do Australians not use the word "for" as a conjunction? I'm still puzzled. How is that a difficult or problematic use of the word "for"? I would still wonder how he couldn't see it, except the most obvious answer is that he didn't want to see it.

    Now, whether we attribute this to some sinister plot, or casual and accidental thoughtlessness, the fact remains that it was a strange, even severe presupposition about S.A.M. Yes, I assert that nearly anyone else would have gotten a certain benefit of doubt; that is, that second half of the sentence would not have been so easily missed.

    And, as I've mentioned this part as well, it is worth noting that one of my colleagues checked in with the opinion that S.A.M. could have been more clear by using the word "would" instead of "will".

    At which point, we come back round to the obvious questions:

    • Who else do we examine with such scrutiny?
    • Who else have we examined with such scrutiny?
    • Who else will we examine with such scrutiny?​

    As I said, we're arguing over conjunctions:

    Main Entry: [sup]2[/sup]for
    Function: conjunction
    Date: 12th century
    : for the reason that : on this ground : because


    (Merriam-Webster)

    It's a three-letter word. It's not difficult. It's an essential part of communicating in English. Even rehashing it, I'm imbued with a peculiar, numbing disbelief.

    I wonder what members will say when we apply such exacting scrutiny to them. And, of course, I wonder if we actually will apply such exacting scrutiny to others. And, to that last, I sincerely doubt we will; it's a lot of work.

    And there you have the argument over three-letter words in a nutshell.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    "for". Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. January 5, 2010. Merriam-Webster.com. January 5, 2009. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/for
     
  16. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,201
    Maybe some of the members that have been here longer than I can help out...

    Is this "battle" unprecedented? Or merely another in the chain of SF evolution?

    When I first joined a little over a year ago (after lurking for about 6 months), things were pretty much a "free for all". Granted, this may have been an unusual time in the history of SF, I have no way of knowing. Then I noticed the atmosphere begin to change, almost like a calm before the storm. Some of the more prolific and provocative posters began to leave - by their own choice or due to banishment.

    Recently, we had the "new" SF rules posted, ostensibly to improve the "quality" of SF and return us to the Golden Age from whence we came. (Which, of course, I have no memory of)

    Is the SAM issue part of this? Are we all to be subjected to the same sort of scrutiny, where every word is to be examined and dissected? Examined in the light of context, or lack thereof?

    I guess it boils down to:
    Where do the "powers that be" want this site to be in six months or a year? Is it to be a place of dry, academic debate only? Are we completely foregoing the free-wheeling, sometimes circus like atmosphere that was so much fun, at least from my POV?

    I come here to have fun and perhaps learn something along the way... What would the "ideal" member's motives be for participating in this community? How is this ideal expected to be achieved? These are the type of thoughts that trouble me of late.

    Quite frankly, I am afraid of the "slippery slope" - where does it end? I spend a great deal more time reading than posting, often without even bothering to login. That's because it is / was fun. Will it continue so?

    I don't agree with 95% of what SAM has to say, but I support her right to say it 100%. I managed to get banned by Tiassa within my first month, and now find myself thoroughly ensconced on his side.

    Situations change. I have learned many interesting things from JamesR, but I find his use of power to be somewhat disconcerting. If someone insults me, do I have the right to demand an apology by high noon tomorrow? No? Than how can someone who is participating in a thread as a poster, not a mod, wield such force?

    Or maybe, like most governments, this is similar to so many other situations: "That's just the way it is!" Leaving all of us to "deal with it or take a hike". Is that really what management wants? I freely admit that I really haven't a clue... :shrug:
     
  17. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    wow
    tiassa
    we now have to implore folks to read the whole sentence to fully understand the proposition?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    we have bells arguing that it is easy to be confused if one does not read a sentence in its entirety?

    jesus christ
    is this kindergarten?

    why on earth would anyone think this is an honest mistake? why would anyone even assume incompetence?

    i mean.....


    /chuckle
     
  18. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575

    i'll get to that
    since sci is all about rigorous intellect, we shall start off by questioning the actual premise.........was there an insult?
     
  19. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    Almost, but not quite

    No, no, no. We must implore folks to acknowledge the whole sentence. Theoretically, one must read a sentence in order to know which part to ignore.

    No, it's Sciforums. There's a reason I welcome new members to our "humble bedlam". Humility is always questionable around here, but bedlam is pretty much the way of things. The lunatics might run the asylum, but in theory we ought to be the least crazy of the bunch.

    Yet even compared to the mundane insanity that goes on around here, I think this particular chapter is exceptionally bonkers.

    Because it has to do with S.A.M. I really, really, really don't think that we would have had this problem if it was someone else.
     
  20. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,201
    Get a grip Gustav, I am expressing concern about a forum that I have come to enjoy very much. Whether there actually was an insult is not really of any interest to me. I am more concerned about the reaction to a perceived insult.

    Let us suppose that I or any other peon was insulted, in fact or by implication. Does that give me the right to banish someone for 3 days, 30 days or permanently? No? Then why does it differ for a mod or admin? Whether we're talking about James in particular is irrelevant. Once again, we have the natural conflict of interest that arises when those in power also post like us "regler folk".

    In theory, I am supporting your position, as I understand it. However, you can be somewhat inscrutable at times...

    Now, let's get to it...

    /spits
     
  21. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    here is an illustration why i have no confidence in james to carry out his duties in a fair manner

    this very thread has been subjected to a series of actions that can be only characterized as a blatant abuse of power by james

    its original form is the present one.
    in one of the threads that satirizes this, he remarks .....


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    never mind that you actually determined it to be worthy of what i hold to be a semblance of a meaningful response. james intended to cess it

    he later changed his mind and this thread ended up merged with others here

    i protested. as did a few others.......


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    he later magnanimously offers to restore back to the present form...


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    am i again to take it that you sanction this sort of conduct? is it not obvious that james took action against me with a clear conflict of interest? is the issue i present not about him? why was this thread, which still remains in sf, subjected to such frivolous and disingenuous acts of moderation?

    james lacks even the decency to offer up an apology. he ends up with a post that indicates his utter disdain for civilized conduct....


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    indeed
    it is all a joke to him. sci is his playground and he alone determines what is worthy of serious consideration
     
  23. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    here is the person you profess to have confidence in, plazma,

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    one who needlessly presumes the worst and will never give sam the benefit of the doubt. one could easily infer that james has an agenda to ban her at any cost.

    he takes arbitrary action, encounters protest and then backtracks. what if people do not protest? pay attention? won't all these injustices then stand unnoticed? if not for tiassa making a stand, sam would have been unfairly banned. james is at best, utterly incompetent. he does you and lifeform inc, a disservice by his actions. too bad you do not see it........yet

    on a side note, why was the "no confidence motion" even posted in the cesspool? it is more appropriate in sfog. i suppose the move is a further indication of james's twisted way of thinking
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page