Backgrounds in moderation

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by GeoffP, Aug 19, 2011.

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

    Messages:
    12,575

    excellent

    edit: ha! i remember you now spurious, as muddled and indecisive as ever

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2011
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Varda The Bug Lady Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,184
    I must take a nap. Please don't break the internet while I am gone.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575

    ah yes
    the vindictive hatred and psychotic delusions


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    ah yes
    reality
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. elitist Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5
    I can distinctly remember Gustav defending the moderators instead of me, while i was on my crusade for justice many years ago.

    But I might misremember that also.
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2011
  8. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    i might have been defending the forums rather than the mods?

    spurious
    i am awesome yes?
     
  9. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575

    this bit of hypocrisy deserves its own thread
     
  10. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Well, Gustav, I guess I should apologize. So hereby I want to apologize to you for suggesting that you may have had wrong intentions by asking to reinstate Spuriousmonkey.
    I don't know, I saw two statements that didn't fit and just went with it.
    I do have to point out that I never concluded anything, however I did create doubt.

    Also, James, please do not act on what I quoted from **************. I now believe I was wrong, everything points to it.
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2011
  11. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,416
    Bells said:

    Though she is no longer a mod I for one would be happy to let Bells tie me up and beat me with a rubber hose.

    Sadly, I cannot get to Australia.:bawl:
     
  12. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    Oh? Shall we take a trip down memory lane where monkey boy went nuts, created a forum, poached members from sciforums, and encouraged them to troll, deface, and spam sciforums? All the history is still there.

    Oh but wait, maybe you mean that monkey forums forged a new identity of "survival of the fittest" forums? How did that work out? Still have a great selection of active and engaging sub-forums? What, you don't? So what's left? Oh wait I know, the same exact bullshit that was on monkey forums when it started.

    And speaking of history, after I pointed out the recent intent-to-troll sciforums activity on monkey forums, anonymous viewing of certain areas of the forum was magically locked down.

    I can only speculate that you don't know what a lie actually is. I'll clarify it for you. A lie is when you intentionally issue a statement of truth that doesn't match actual reality. For example, stating that you miss your friends and then stating that you have no friends (references available upon request).

    So, I encourage you to take your accusation and shove it up your dirty pie hole.
     
  13. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    He did more than that. He encouraged a lot of destructive behavior against sciforums.

    I can remember reading many threads on the monkey forum over the years about ways to enjoy being destructive on sciforums. Monkey boy was neither a source of discouragement or neutrality in many of them.

    From what I have seen, the embers of hate and douchbaggery against sciforums (aka: Buh Blammy) are still quite hot on monkey forums. If the moderaters want to reinstate him as a member then I will support that decision; however, I do not recommend it.
     
  14. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    But what we do have is two and conflicting accounts of what happened, which means that one of them is neccessarily a lie.
     
  15. Varda The Bug Lady Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,184
    I'm pretty sure the forum already existed before he went nuts. I think it was created as a place to hang out when sciforums wasn't available, or something like that. The history is there as you say. Prove me wrong.

    There aren't enough people to keep several forums active. They were recently condensed so that the active topics are easier to find. Everything that was there before is still there, except now in fewer bins.

    Then of course, if you go there specifically looking for basing and flaming of sf, it's very easy to find. However, it's ridiculous to say that it's the sole purpose of the forum though. That is lie.

    Well it seems very delicate eyes were glancing upon those areas and becoming irreparably hurt. Isn't it better if we spare these delicate eyes?

    Also, repeating an advise I gave to JamesR, if you don't like what is being said about you/your favorite website, instead of trying to shut them up, why not try to be less hateable?

    For example, saying that there is a "sole purpose" on a website that has multiple purposes.

    For example, taking people's quotes out of context to support your fantasy.

    miss my friends = friends, as in online acquaintances
    have no friends = friends, as in people in real life that you have to humor in order to sustain an image of having a social life
    (I think that's pretty clear from where the quotes are getting pulled from)

    Anyway...

    I like my pies accusation-free. And with a little whipped cream.
     
  16. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    I love the immediate sense of contempt for my honesty: why are you in here? No, really. Because, of course, any answer I give must be dishonest.

    How to answer? Because I'm a free member of SF and, as such, am permitted to legitimately comment on an issue if it will help public discourse? Because this is a discussion site and one, well, discusses on it? Because I have an interest in the public record? Have I misunderstood the point of this place? Or is it my place in this point that you disagree with?

    Come to think of it...why is Enmos inserting himself? Varda? Gustav? Spurious, himself? Surely this doesn't concern any of them, either? And so on.

    I disagree, as I will elucidate (somewhat) below.

    Well, everyone else seems to have got it.

    Excellent. If I had nothing to do with it, then well and good; colour me very relieved. Just refrain from calling me out for it, and we're good. Say no more!

    You asked only in this first post, so far. It's not really "again" unless I fail to address the question. I haven't had time to respond in the space that it takes to press a key.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I responded most adroitly above. I recommend its perusal very strongly.

    How does one impose a forum?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Nooooo....

    Except a series of long PMs last month, which is not months.

    Yes yes: but it isn't exactly so, is it? SF receives direction from above and below. Pardon the appeal to popularity, but...everyone knows this. We disagree with the above positions of you, and of Tiassa, and of James. Sorry.

    The bizarre 'victim' comment aside - how, exactly? what is your fixation with victimhood? - I'm permitted to comment. And I feel that it's well worth it.

    What do I want from you? What do I want from you? "No, seriously, what?"

    Well, it's complicated. I've been observing this meme among certain of the moderators - you're getting what you aaaasked for; you're going to regreeeeet insisting on equality, Geeeeooooffff, dooooom, Geeeeofff and so forth.

    Now, it should be obvious that the OP is not about what's being discussed now: a simple question about direction, without an answer being supplied, and certainly without demands, and actually well answered and discussed in the first few pages. But what's happened since...well, it's classic SF, but to such a degree that it supersedes almost any flame-out I can think of, with the exception of a few, long, drawn-out holocausti. One of the new gripes is about James' request to keep it off the boards, and PM him about the issues. All right, fair enough. Maybe it should be open, maybe it shouldn't. But at least one mod posting about this is the very same one that shut down my own comments on another thread, which were quite similar: a simple question about procedure or presentation. Nothing hideous. But, selfsame mod doesn't recognize this. Or doesn't care.

    So what I was on about just now then was simple recognition of the fact that personal issues inject themselves into most aspects of the forum. This thread is one example. There are others. Since you ask, and since you seem to demand some more deep, more spine-shatteringly soulful answer, that would be a good one: the personal issues among and from some of the mods are a problem. (Not always, of course, but sometimes.) Within the last while, it has resulted in a polarity: do you think it's the posters taking on the mods with such distain? Well, all right, some do, sure; this thread being one such. But it's an aberration. As quadra put it, when a mod steps into a thread, they do so with all the weight of their modiness - sometimes but not always coupled with moodiness - behind them. And the insults and flagrant violations fly. Except this time the flamewar was power behind it. Want to libel? Well, no trouble: you cannot be assailed. Say what you like, true or otherwise? Fine. And sure, you can report above, as I have done - mea culpa bastardii. But in fact, the outcome of that is...nothing at all. It continues, unabated. Will the admins really take punitive action to the extent that one might against a poster? Of course not. What admin will ban a mod for the behaviour that a mod will ban a poster for? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes, really?

    And, maybe who can blame them? Should they shuffle the staff every two weeks? Or do we ask too much? I think you feel the latter, at least, and maybe you're right. Or should the staff not put themselves in a position to be shuffled every two weeks? Quadra mentions new blood. Maybe, if no other system can end this polarization, that might not be so bad. Last resort, mind; but pertinent. The tree of liberty should be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. (Not that we have any real tyrants, or patriots.) Well, I wasn't even going so far in the OP but, meh.

    Now, maybe all insults and all infractions should simply stop: sure. That's hopeful but not reasonable. And so, there's no sense of equanimity: the age-old story of EFC rears it's head, even: thems posters gets the thread they wantses, Geeooffff. Well, I disagree, and so do lots of others. We also get the forum imposed upon us: baiting and name-calling and presumption and condescension, and from a common font so self-righteous that it would make a Pharisee do a double-take. I know you're not a bad person, Bells; still, the discussions on here are getting out of hand. No person is truly innocent, of course, but it is my feeling that it often isn't the posters letting fly with the invective. Is it those without power who cross that boundary first? That would be relatively rare. (I strike gustav off as an outlier here, because...well. He is.)

    I think you're thinking of the much-absent hypewaders, that time last year. I'm really more a teetotaler. Nonetheless, I raise a glass in honour of your question.

    I guess I did have more to say after all. Thanks for helping me with it.

    Best,

    Geoff
     
  17. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    In your PM Inbox. I didn't want to post it here because it contains Monkey Boy's detailed personal contact info.

    I know you are a big fan of context, so what is the one trend that has existed and still exists on monkey forms since its inception? Basing and flaming SF. It's not even a rare because like you said, it's easy to find. You can assign a label of hundreds of purposes to a forum but the persistent trend of what people engage in becomes the purpose of the forum. The trend is very well established and like it or not that is the forum's sole purpose.

    I am surprised, for someone who advocates letting people know exactly where you stand I never would have guessed that you were such a strong supporter of deception. The answer to your question of course is no.

    Right back at ya'.
     
  18. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    23,389
    You'll have to forgive me, but I'm still trying to figure out what exactly you want or expect from me.

    You seem to have this bee in your backside about 'something something' I may have done or not done so you're here to let me know about it. Okay..

    So what issue are you commenting on, exactly? My argument with James? The issues the "free members" of this forum have with the way this forum is administered and moderated? Or 'something something'?

    It's as if you're coming after me for not having spoken to you and for telling you that it is the members who make this forum what it is...

    Because they are directly involved in the discussion we are discussing. I'm still trying to figure out what you want to discuss or what beef you have with me personally. Hell, we spent a few pages at the start of this thread trying to figure out what exactly you want. And here we are again..

    Then you disagree.

    Okay..

    Well good for them.

    So you're coming after me now because of....?

    Ermm okay..

    I never called you out on "it", whatever that "it" may be. I was discussing my resignation with James. Not with you. My issues with management has nothing to do with you.

    No, I believe I asked you that earlier on in the thread as well. And was told that the thread was really an interrogation of sorts..

    Look Geoff, I don't currently have an issue with you. You seem to have a very big one with you. Until the start of this thread, I had pretty much ignored you on this forum for quite a while. Maybe that's the problem, I don't know. I only responded to you in this thread because you pointed the finger at me directly when you were asked what you were on about by the others (moderators, members and admin) at the start of this thread.

    I say again because I honestly do not know what the hell you're on about with me now or what you want from me in particular.

    Lets see, first you accused me of not being qualified enough, then you accused me of 'something something', then you accused me of being wrong because I dared say that it is the members who make this forum what it is and direct what this forum becomes.. Now...?

    I don't know. You told me "So: you get the forum you impose. "...

    So what forum did I impose on you?

    Could have fooled me.

    I meant in the public forums. You had asked how I was going and I responded to you via PM's, due to the private nature of what I had to say.

    Okay then. You disagree.

    And?

    Is there something I'm supposed to do now?

    So you accused me of doing a 'nasty' to you for stating my opinion, which you disagree with because, when I had responded to you politely. You then tried to say 'something something' about 'something something' about me, which I'm still not quite understanding... You seemed to be carrying on as if I was angry at you for my resignation, when you really had nothing to do with it.. You're commenting because you disagree with the assessment that it's the members who make this forum what it is..

    You are allowed your opinion Geoff.

    Well worth what exactly?

    In short, what's your issue with me exactly?

    Ermm at no time did I ever say to you that you are going to 'regreeeet insisting on equality', or 'doooom', or whatnot.

    Is this your way of telling me that I'm getting what I asked for? From whom? James? You?

    It must be complicated, because you are making absolutely no sense..

    Who and what the hell are you talking about?!

    Gawd..

    What the bejesus dude? I have zero idea what you are talking about. Do you have a link?

    Ermm didn't I say earlier on in this thread that everyone has their own bias but the important thing was not to act on said bias and moderate out of that bias? Which is what I am arguing about with James.

    And in case you weren't aware, mods have been banned before.

    And libel? What?

    Okay...

    I said that the voting system did not work last time. In fact, the last time it was tried on this forum it nearly resulted in the forum no longer existing. It was a complete and utter disaster. That was how moderators used to be elected in the past Geoff. And some of the mods put in place were dubious to say the least and their moderation drove away many people.. or those they didn't ban for anything and everything, sometimes even just for fun.

    I am not saying that the "tree of liberty" should not be refreshed with "new blood". Quite the contrary. Or have you missed the point of my argument with James?

    Yes? No?

    Your Lord of the Rings comparison aside, you are not exactly innocent. Look at this thread as a prime example. You are trying to bait me into abusing you, accused me of abusing you in this thread when I had not done so, acting as if I'm hounding you for disagreeing with me about the members making this forum and directing where we go, when I had not.

    In short, you are saying 'I know you're not a bad person Bells, but... something something'..

    Do you actually understand why I resigned? I don't think you do. In fact, it is clear you do not.

    How can I put this.. If you have an issue with the discussions in this place, or how said discussion happens, and if you are unhappy, take it up with management. James advised us he is very open to questions and is apparently not remote or forbidding.
     
  19. Varda The Bug Lady Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,184
    Ok, well. That there is animosity between the two crowds is no secret to anyone. I've seen this kind of exodus of a few members of a board to go make their own forum at least 3 times in the last decade. It's not an unusual thing.

    I don't think that because the forum was created because people fought and left, that means that the other forum's sole purpose is to bash this one.
    There is a lot of discussion going on there that has nothing to do with sf.

    Maybe you weren't lying. Maybe you were just exagerating. Maybe I shouldn't have taken you to be talking literally. Is that the case?

    There are constant posts making fun of canadians, finnish, australians... There are constant posts making fun of engineers and scientists. There is widespread leg pulling between the members. There is too much going on to call any single thing "the purpose of the forum"
    You seem to have put your focus while browsing their site in a single trend, and ignored everything else. I'd call that prejudicial.

    It's not deception. The forum has been open for anyone to view for 4 years until recently. Likewise, my opinions and those of petty much everyone that posts there are public. (in fact, I still haven't heard an explanation of what the "two-faced" allegations were referring to).
    It just so happens that now, spuriousmonkey is being considered by JamesR to be liable for the content in his website posted by third parties (dicks like me), a blatant violation of the safe harbor provision of the CDA (or whatever similar law exists in the country where his website is hosted). Let me get that for you:
    Spuriousmonkey can't be held responsible for the shit I write. He also can't be forced to take the shit I write down. He may or may not agree with the shit I write, but that is irrelevant.

    Thus, and this is my interpretation of the events, I believe that he decided to make things private in order to avoid being asked to start moderating his website in accordance with this one.
     
  20. Me-Ki-Gal Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,634
    Your the Mcmuffin guy that likes a thin pick right ? I better check that

    Mr. Mac Gilligan. O.K. . slow you know Me not him
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2011
  21. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,416
    It seems more of a place for a few people to make fun of everything.
    Because of the low traffic it's not a poop-slinging madhouse like FARK, in which everything is also made fun of....
    It's....laid-back.
    Liking it for different reasons than I like here.
    Speaking of other places...
    I was just looking at another science website this afternoon and thinking, wow, the sociology and psychology subfora are sooo slow, wonder if I started making a bunch of really good posts I could wake it up a bit...

    Besides that...not everything's about here and all our egos.
    If you want my ego I do carry a spare, though...He's a funny guy.
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2011
  22. Me-Ki-Gal Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,634
    your suppose to sell egos and then call it self help. You are driving the cost of egos down . Do we need to apply a like Milk price fixing on you . God I can feel my ego cheapening all ready . I"m Melting Ahhhh I'm melting SSSSizzle drip

    I looked at monkey mans site a little . Wow parallel universes do exist . There not quite the same thou . They got tanks !!

    You all know I love this bar .
     
  23. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,416
    OH JEEBUS!

    *Scoops Mikey up in large bucket*
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page