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. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 17, 2014
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Hmm...

    We'll see.

    This ban is currently being reviewed by the moderator group.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2014
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    When will the final decision be made and published?
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    Sciforums Towers 2017. A meeting of all the members.

    JamesR:
    Well that's it. Just me, you and Bells left.

    Tiassa:
    No. Just me and you. I banned Bells this morning. She was trolling me.

    JamesR:
    I wonder if...........................

    Tiassa:
    Troll! Heh Heh. Now, all I've got left to do is ban myself.
     
  8. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Please. No teasing.
     
  9. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,355
    Anyone taking a sweepstake on the time and date it gets overturned?
    If so, put me down for Tuesday 18 April, 3pm EST.
     
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    The final decision as to whether lightgigantic's permanent ban will stand or whether it will be reduced will be published here on either 21 February (if I manage to get around to it on that day) or else on 22 February.

    Whatever the decision on permanent ban, a ban of 1 week is justified so nothing is lost. Time already served will be taken into account if the permanent ban is reduced and lightgigantic allowed back.

    If the permanent ban stands, it will be because lightgigantic has a history of troll-like behaviour, as defined in the site rules, with the last straw being his sexual harassment of another member.

    This decision is being discussed and made by the entire moderator group. If all moderators do not agree on the appropriate length of ban, it will be decided according to majority vote among the moderator group.
     
  11. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Mod Hat — In the interests of truth

    Mod Hat — In the interests of truth

    In the interest of truth, we should probably note that this is a formality, and that the administration made its decision without having reviewed the facts, and is now trying to justify that decision without ever acknowledging the facts.

    That is to say, members should not bother waiting in suspense; the outcome was declared by the administration without review of the facts; this fake review is apparently the product of a personal dispute between the administration and a member of the staff. The administration opened a vote to overturn its moderator without review of the facts, and is attempting to push that vote through without ever reviewing the facts.

    The bottom line is that members will be most interested in the new policy outlook after this is over. Any pretense to civility is about to come undone.

    That is to say, keeping the members updated is one thing. Willful misrepresentation through omission is another.
     
  12. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Ooh. Doom again. But we had that for breakfast.
     
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    The Obvious Point

    Well ... learn to cook.
     
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    In the interest of truth, let me point out a few things:

    1. As I said above, this matter will be decided by VOTE of the entire moderator group. One person, one vote. It is not a decision that I am making unilaterally. I have undertaken to abide by the majority decision.
    2. No "outcome" has or will be declared until after the voting has finished.
    3. It is false to say that the facts have not been reviewed. There have been at least 4 separate threads in the Moderators' subforum discussing this matter in depth, with all interested parties participating. The original thread remains open in the public forum and some discussion has taken place there too.
    4. The administration (in this case, me) has indeed reviewed the facts. I have expressed my opinion carefully and clearly, both in public and in the Moderators forum.
    5. I get ONE vote as part of the Moderator group.
    6. I have allowed ample time for all the moderators to discuss this matter and to vote as they see fit. Each moderator gets ONE vote.

    I find Tiassa's post to be quite bizarre. Enough said.
     
  15. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Mod Hat — Notes on the problem

    Mod Hat — Notes on the problem

    Given that you made your decision before reviewing the facts, and called the vote with outstanding questions regarding that review of the facts, what makes it not a completely bogus exercise in futility?

    We already know the outcome, James.

    This is particularly worrisome dishonesty on your part, James.

    Are you now actively claiming that you reviewed the facts before you declared your position?

    I would contest that, given that you declared your opinion, admitted you had not reviewed the facts, and have refused to answer the questions put to you. You know, the ones contrasting general principle with particular facts?

    Which speaks nothing to the illegitimacy and dishonesty of your behavior.

    Of course you do. But that's hardly unexpected, given your rejection of reality. Tell us, James, what is that scientific method, again? Is it that you assert a hypothesis, and then try to bend the data to create a supporting conclusion? Because that's what you've been doing.

    It would be best for all of us if you would not come out and deliberately misrepresent this situation in front of the general membership.
     
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Fire up the popcorn popper! This will be a good one.
     
  17. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Mod Hat — We try

    Mod Hat — We try

    Well, you know ... we try.

    To the other, or, perhaps, to the one, or maybe, in truth ... er ... right.

    At any rate, at moments like these it is unfortunately all too rare to take a moment and sigh contentedly while recalling all those paranoiacs who rant that we're all in cahoots with one another.

    Then again, schadenfreude is even more ephemeral than an orgasm, so ... yeah.

    Either way, it's a sticky mess.

    Still, though ... if we're going to have this one out where the public can watch, we might as well put on the show.
     
  18. Trapped Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,058
    You give too much away. You are saying the site then... accepts troll behaviour, since, you seem to be saying the site knows about troll behaviour.... and does... nothing about it?

    Until of course... they get permabanned. Then the troll behaviour is used as a gun. lol
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Erm... yeah.

    You don't get to see the real fireworks in the Moderators' forum, though.

    I don't mind the general membership being aware that moderators don't always think as a group mind. Ideally, I'd like a tad more decorum that I'm seeing here from the moderators, but you can't have everything I guess.

    Apparently that's what has happened here. I'm against it, but I think I'll probably be outvoted on this. C'est la vie.
     
  20. Trapped Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,058
    Democracy is only good when the best interests for something are taken into account. Maybe someone's foot needs to be down?
     
  21. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Mod Hat — Waiting for the worms

    Mod Hat — Waiting for the worms

    Well, you know, we'd all like a little more decorum now and then.

    Actually, the functional problem with the proposition of LG's ban holding for his behavior of trolling, as it is presented in this thread, is that you have once again tipped your hand.

    The problem, so that it is clearly defined for the membership, since we're playing this out in public, is that you made your decision before you reviewed the facts, have refused to answer questions about those facts, and have now written off the central issue entirely.

    It's one thing to make an assertion of fact, James; you've pretended some confidence in your assessment. But it's quite another to support that assertion, and throughout you have not only failed to do so, but effectively refused.
     
  22. Motor Daddy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,425
    I agree. Tell them other clowns to pound salt, James!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    A wink to the clowns that own that title.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Tiassa:

    I get ONE vote. So even if you are right and I made my own mind up long ago, I'm only one person among ... how many is it? And your vote negates mine anyway.

    You ought to be working to convince the others.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page