Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by GeoffP, Aug 19, 2011.
Wait. What? Bells, come on.. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
So you don't get it, I see.
The pamphlet in question was addressed to criminals. Specifically, it was addressed to criminals who had smashed and looted in the London riots. But any looter and smasher and shoplifter could come here any time and read this "advice".
Whether any London rioter ever comes here is completely irrelevant to the general policy that we don't need to host this stuff.
Also, the question of whether the material itself is illegal is irrelevant. I'd say that it probably isn't illegal in itself.
If this is not clear by now, I don't think I can help you any further. See how many news organisations you can find who chose to publish this pamphlet. Let me know how that goes. What I think you'll find is that reputable news organisations, by and large, made the same judgment call that I did.
Not yet. I asked about your plans.
Haven't we been through this? He was banned for posting inappropriate material. On his return from that ban he posted the exact same material again. It's a no-brainer.
Yes. I thought it was important that people understood what had happened and why, and for Gustav to have a chance to speak for himself.
No. I rebanned him for reposting the same material that got him banned the first time.
We've been through this. If he had wanted an explanation, he could have asked for one, either by PM or in public. There was no need to repost the offending material on the public forums.
All this has been responded to earlier in this thread. You have introduced one new lie, though, about my supposed claim that you "started a thread to have my ... resignation". I never made any such claim. If you think I did, you can document where I wrote that, with appropriate links.
The matter was original scattered across a few places in the Moderator forum. Moreover, there were and are several public threads on the subject.
This is baseless character assassination which I completely repudiate.
Please document any place on this forum where I have every supported sexism and/or misogynistic attitudes. Make sure you provide links to my posts.
Or else you can withdraw your nasty and libellous accusation.
There's that lie of yours again. I never claimed you started a thread to resign. You resigned in the middle of a thread after another moderator disagreed with you. I have never made any other claim. And you know it.
That may have been the last straw for you, but that's certainly what triggered your resignation. There's really no doubt about that.
What I wrote is a full and true account.
I posted, in the private Moderator forum, that I was short on time. Then I went away to live my life. On my return you had announced "to the world", in the public forums (by starting a thread specifically for that purpose) that you had resigned.
I understand that you have confused your resignation in the Moderators forum with your annoucement of that resignation to the "world" (i.e. the sciforums public).
I'll of course accept your apology for your mistaken allegation that I lied about what happened here, too.
This is the third repeat of the same claims in a single post, Bells. You're fixated and you're obviously not listening.
Go back and read my previous replies. I'm sick of repeating myself.
You're not insane.
The multiple claims that I am a dishonest liar I can take. I'm familiar with that ploy from Tiassa, who seems to have taught you well.
What I am really hurt by are your completely baseless accusations of sexism and misogyny on my part, because you know that's not me.
So, when I say you've flipped out, it's because I see somebody who I always regarded as a friend now posting cutting attacks that she knows are lies.
It seems you really are determined to burn your bridges as you leave. It's a real shame.
It can be very difficult on a text-based forum to interpret "hmmm...". You have made it clear that it means "no comment" for you. I'm content with that, but it certainly wasn't clear before.
Some things, by the way, are better commented on if you're going to reply at all. Because "no comment" can mean "I agree but I'm not telling you that" or "I disagree but I'm not telling you that". That leaves people to guess at your true opinions.
Go back and read my multiple explanations posted to this thread about why the Moderators forum is private. If you have further questions about why I will not copy threads from there to here, ask away.
Didn't GeoffP start this thread, addressing the moderators, administration and the world in general?
You should try being in my position. I have a whole forum rather than just one subforum. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think that I have called on posters to be banned for insulting me once or twice in the past couple of years. I have taken no part in such decisions. Your characterisation of other moderators as my "goons" is unfair and uncharitable, as well as being untrue.
For the record: I have never received any information about spurious's forum from GeoffP.
GeoffP, most of the time, is level-headed. I find that him to be honest and straightforward. He says what he thinks and he means what he says. He doesn't tell lies.
No such abuse has ever been documented, by you or anybody else, as far as I can recall.
If you wish to make accusations, be explicit. Post your links and evidence of GeoffP's supposed abuses.
I sincerely hope that all goes well for you on the medical front, and in life in general.
Thankyou again for your valuable service as a moderator here.
I hope you'll come back.
Guess you did. But tell me, moving the discussion into a public forum -- did it make any difference?
About how much time do you think one needs to grasp who's using a suburban language around here? One example -- need I say more?
Nice. I can see the presumption of innocence is really high up in the list of your guiding principles. And you're a lawyer, right?
Anyway, who's my puppet-master then? I'm kind of curious myself.
Is that something most of the moderators would say?
Look, I'm not a heavy user of SciFi so I don't really understand how the moderators are "answering to the public." If a decision made by James is bugging someone how is it that you have to answer for it? Simply point the irritated party to take it directly with James and leave it to that. Why do you have to deal with it?
But yeah, if you are yourself uncomfortable with James' decisions I can see why you have a bone to pick with him. And as long as you're referring only to publicly available information I guess you could use a public forum as well. (Especially if you already used other venues without result.) But when I see you invoking past disputes and accusations that I, as a simple SciFi user, have no way of checking out then WTF am I supposed to do? Believe you? Believe him? Ask other moderators to weight in? Really, it's your inside war, so why don't you keep it there?
(Insert Title Here)
So I should repeat myself, then?
I mean, sure, if you need me to. James ignored the point, but it's some number of pages ago, by now, so if you need me to repeat myself—that your inquiry can be reasonably informed—I can certainly do so.
No need to repeat yourself -- a link to your previous post(s) will suffice. Thanks!
Actually James was better when goofy and even porfiry were there to limit him. As I recall he was there during the time when anarchy reigned supreme here after Porfiry went AWOL but I don't know what it was he did that you think deserves commendation. He generally left everyone to themselves and only came around to ban people for "antisemitism" or "racism" or some such.
I don't consider lying and refusing to justify actions based on personal vendetta as loyalty. If you want proof I can provide proof of his lying - he did it when he banned me for one month after spectacularly failing to get me banned in a thread hopefully called Ban Sam Permanently? where he pretended in the open forums that 2/3 of the mods had voted to ban me and it was only because he did not get a majority vote that he could not ban me. The truth is that his was the only vote for Yes out of 10 votes. Meanwhile because I was safely banned for 30 days he pretended that he had already discussed with me that if he failed to ban me permanently he would ban me for a month for refusing to apologise to him - there was no such discussion and I am willing to post his PM if need be. In the PM he clearly says that if I do not apologise he will start a thread in the mod forum to ban me permanently. That is all.
IOW, he LIED and banned me for a month simply because he was frustrated at being unable to ban me permanently. Thats not the only two instances where he has lied. And he repeatedly ignores questions or tells you to "see there" when asked for evidence to back up his reasoning but has threatened me in the past for telling him to "see there" when the evidence is clearly laid out in the same thread
So yes, I have no confidence in James' integrity as an administrator. That is also why I do not respond to the threats he makes by PM where he sometimes answers posts he has deleted in the main forum. If he wants to debate any issue, he can do so openly, where all members can read his answers and reach their own conclusions.
I never lied about that.
If you're going to accuse somebody of telling lies, surely the first thing to do is to make sure you're not lying yourself.
There was no pretence.
I don't think I notified you in advance that I would ban you for 30 days, so that much is probably correct.
I hereby give you permission to post one PM from me that directly addresses this issue, if you have such a thing. I require that you post the ENTIRE PM and not selected extracts.
Otherwise, you do not have my permission to post my PMs to you in the public forums. You may wish to review the forum rules on this matter before making any hasty and unwise decisions.
That sounds like a fair report of what I wrote. Nothing being pretended there.
I never lied about banning SAM for a month.
Well, boo hoo for you.
I hearby give permission for SAM to repost these PMed threats from me, if they exist, in this thread. I require that the ENTIRE PM be reproduced, and not edited extracts.
If SAM cannot provide evidence to back up this series of accusations about my supposedly lies, I request that she withdraw the accusations and apologise in the current thread.
At this point, I will ask you to "see there" where the whole issue was debated between yourself and Tiassa in the open forums.
But you claimed you did, which is a lie
Here we go:
Matters between members and admin, especially when they relate to the integrity of the admin should not be taboo on the open forums.
Latest example: you responded to a post I had made in the open forums, after deleting the post from the thread. And yeah, as usual, threatened to ban me. Again
How about you apologise for all the lies so far?
This appears to be point 6 in a post that presumably included points 1 through 5 as well. Moreover, I assume that point 6 refers to a previous post on the forum. It does not refer to a personal message, which was the basis of your claim that I lied.
Without the source, there's no way for anybody to verify whether you're the dirty liar here or I am, so I guess we leave this here.
Where's the lie? I did exactly what I said I'd do in that PM.
Then you should lobby for a change in site policy and deal with matter once you get a policy change.
This PM was as response to a PM that you sent to me, as is obvious from the embedded quotes of the PM you originally sent. So, your claim that I send you unsolicited messages about deleted posts in the public forums sometimes is certainly not supported by this example.
As a matter of fact, as a courtesy to you I have on rare occasions sent you unsolicited private messages to inform you of matters which I think you may be interested in or which directly concern you. You have never asked me not to send you private messages. If that is your wish, I will of course respect that and will undertake never to contact you again by PM except in the case of infractions, warnings or any other official matter concerned with moderation in my official capacity. Just say the word.
There have been no lies so far.
Ah a fresh lie/
Please post this PM I sent you which contains those embedded quotes. I insist you do so or apologise for lying about me
I claim those quotes are from a thread - where you deleted my post and then answered the same post in PM, unsolicited. Perhaps one of the mods could check my post history for soft deleted posts - if you have not permanently deleted it.
Notice I don't bother with the rest of the messages because you have very clear reading and comprehension issues where it comes to my posts. I leave it to someone else to explain to you where you went wrong.
You are correct
Well, you know how it goes.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
• • •
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Two views: Showing the deletion note, above, and the soft-deleted post open to view; note the trash can affirming post deletion.
I started that thread and saw SAM's original post...was just curious as to Macgillivray really was...
I thought: Well, whoever he was, he wasn't very disruptive, wonder why he got banned in the first place?
Ah ... well enough ....
See the first section of #140 above.
I apologise for my mistake. I assumed that the PM you cited must have been quoting a previous PM from you. In fact, it turns out that I was quoting a post by you from a thread that I closed, which you have helpfully linked. Moreover Tiassa has helpfully posted the entire thing, even with the deleted post. Thanks, Tiassa!
So, you're right - this is one of those unsolicited PMs. When was the last one before that? What's the average gap between them? Let's not give the readers the false impression that I'm stalking you or something. And, please read my repeated message to you at the top of this post. You didn't respond to that, so I will now ask you directly:
Do you or do you not wish to receive PMs from me in the future, other than in my official capacity?
So, we've cleared all that up then. Good.
It was spuriousmonkey.
I note for the record that Tiassa has misused his moderator powers to override my deletion of the post reproduced above. The content that was deleted 1 week ago by myself is no longer sensitive, for obvious reasons. This is, however, another abuse of trust.
It would seem to me that the abuse of power is coming from JamesR, who will take moderation actions at his own whim and then forbid discussion of the matter under the excuse that if it was deleted before, it should not be posted again.
I am glad that real world justice systems are (most of the time) not ran under the same standards sciforumspolizei applies.
unfortunately, that's how I'm seeing it as well
Regarding the deletion of SAM's post:
I deleted the post in question because I wanted to avoid (if possible) the inevitable shitstorm that I was expecting from the spuriousmonkey fan club if they found out I had banned another of his sock puppets. SAM clearly was in on the deception, and her post would have announced the identity of Mr MacGillivray to the rest of the forum, including those who didn't know previously.
As it turned out, deleting that post did not help matters, but it was worth a try. Note my comment on the deletion at the time: "No need to spread the word". That is, no need to annouce to the world that spuriousmonkey was back here and had been banned again.
This moderation action was not taken on a whim. Like all my moderation actions, it was carefully considered.
Regarding Gustav's post:
I have already covered that matter in exquisite detail previously in this thread. It it is a no-brainer that material deleted by a moderator should not be reposted. It has been our consistent policy over many years that any poster who reposts material that a moderator has deleted gets banned. If you don't believe me, ask Tiassa or Bells or any other moderator, or any longstanding member of the forum who has seen this happen in the past. The rationale should be quite obvious to anybody who actually thinks about it for half a second.
a spuriousmonkey conspiracy? I just don't understand the big deal. He says mean things about sciforum in his house. So what?
Separate names with a comma.