Removal of Tiassa as moderator

It's actually worse than that. I was not born in 1970 (66) and the Pinball is nothing to do with Pinball OR Pinball Wizard!

On a more serious note, I am reading your exchanges and everyone has the right to contribute and dig around. I just do not want anyone walking away from this thread with a bad taste in their mouth. We just get Tiassa James re-run down the line.
After 6 months on the site I regard it like this.
I do science/tech at work and then i want to relax in the pub and talk about it all. That is here.
Some guys are nerds like me, some are more knowledgeable, I want to interact and learn from them.
Some have no real skills but are interested, I want to interact and teach them (without losing my shit if possible!)
Some are bat shit, avoid eye contact.
Some get leery after a few, see how that goes they could be good guys.
Feuds and seed for feuds do not tend to end well on sites.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Apologies internet had a palpitation so it posted twice. Can a mod delete one please?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Again, not really. I wasn't interested. Noone was particularly interested. Now I am, from an intellectual point of view. Is that still a puzzle for you?

Hmmm. A deliberate false dichotomy so as to cast aspersions. So rare of you.

I'm carrying no grudge about anything, James R. You seem to want me to, though, as you seem to think it gives you an excuse to avoid the issues it raises when used as a factual example. You have a habit of doing that. I do wish you'd stop.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Well, after filtering through your insults, misrepresentations, and bluster, it seems you still can't grasp the situation, so let me break it down for you:

Your spat with Tiassa - I couldn't have cared less about it. You're a big boy, with all the power at this website. It was in your gift to resolve it, yet you chose not to. Were the accusations serious? Sure. Were you hurt? Clearly. Should others give a fuck about it? Not if they don't want to. And most don't/didn't. Yet you wanted us to. You wanted us to give you validation. You wanted us to pat you on the head and go "Aw, diddums. Did nasty hate-filled little man say nasty hate-filled things about you? There, there. Dry your tears. It'll all be okay." I'm sorry if some of us didn't fall for it, or simply don't care enough about you, or others here, or this website in general, to satisfy your cry for attention in this regard. Some of us choose to save our concerns for real-world problems. Your spat with Tiassa just isn't one of them.

However, now I find it interesting, from an intellectual point of view, examining the evidence etc. But, hey, that's just me.

It's not rocket science.
Are you up to speed yet?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

OK, so your criticism isn't exclusively aimed at James then. You acknowledge that Tiassa has some responsibility for resolving the dispute in private.

Cuz it kind of reads like you are talking specifically to James. Is it at all possible that the reason you are directing your criticism to James, and not to Tiassa, is because you recognize, like the rest of us, that trying to get anywhere with Tiassa is a thoroughly Sysyphean task?

 

I'm not sure I understand. Is someone making you read all this and all that which preceded it?

If not, aren't you being kinda hypocritical by not only reading, but posting? It seems to me, you are doing just what you want, so these huge posts about what you don't want are actually testament to the fact that you really do care and want to be part of it all.

OK, so you say you weren't interested , but that you are now. You don't really need to take 12 paragraphs to rationalize to us that you have become interested. It sort of reads like you're hedging your bets, staying at the fringe where you can duck out whenever, saying "Like I said, I don't care." Cmon, in for a penny, in for a pound.

 

Toward the goal of showing that this is larger issue than simply James' beef with Tiassa, I too have experienced similar kinds of accusations from Tiassa. Not 'white supremacist'-grade, but I have found his posts to me to go out of their way in labeling and pathologizing every perceived transgression as the worst possible. Ideally, it seems, to trigger angry responses.

That's trolling, and it's definitely problematic in an erstwhile moderator, whose very job it is to discourage such odious and destructive behavior.

And when he was a mod, I did not have the option to ignore.

So yes this thread serves to shed light on a systemic problem that has been affecting site membership on a scale at a minimum of one larger than just James.

Let's not lose sight of that in our glee to roast James.

(OK, I was wrong about stepping back.)

 

You are accusing Sarkus of not being hard enough regarding Tiassa just as you continue to give James a free pass. Ironic, to say the least. I agree that Tiassa is the more unhinged but Sarkus's comments aren't without merit and you seem to have a blind spot regarding anything James related.

 

How? Sarkus wants to know why Tiassa is jabbing James in the kidney. Why doesn't he ask the guy doing the poking why he is doing it?

I'd say Sarkus is demonstrating who he thinks is the one that can be rationally engaged with and who he thinks cannot. Feel free to disabuse me of this notion.

I don't see the irony. I agree with James, because I have experienced a similar thing, and I think Tiassa's trolling is bad for the site. There's no way James can come out of this without getting poo on him. I think he's doing a thankless but vital task.

Then we're in agreement.

James waited six months for a change in Tiassa. That's not my idea of unhinged. Generally, I find James patient to a fault.

Note that James opened this very thread in the interest of letting everyone vent their feelings, knowing full well he would catch the brunt of it. Unhinged, you say?

I don't see Tiassa starting any open discussion.

What makes you think I have a blind spot? I simply agree with his actions - and I have the courage of my convictions.

It's easy to sit in the audience and throw poop at the guy who's holding the stopped buck. Maybe even cowardly. Those who were silent when this was smoldering and James was turning the other cheek should maybe consider that the time to speak up has passed and maybe keep silent so as not to appear hypocritical. It's a thought.

 

I don't think Sarkus wants to know why Tiassa is jabbing James in the kidney. I think he wanted a simple posted instance of where Tiassa was jabbing James in the kidney. In other words, what is the specific charge?

We know that both James and Tiassa (much more so Tiassa) have been passive aggressive in this exchange for years. James now is upset about a specific accusation from Tiassa but he hasn't been very direct in showing exactly where and what Tiassa said. It seems to require reading pages of dialog and then interpreting it in a specific way in order to be offended.

He could come out of it without this thread other than to announce that Tiassa is no longer a moderator. This is something that should have occurred years ago, IMO.

I don't think this has anything to do with "courage". Let's not be dramatic. You agree with James in most every case, some others don't. That's OK but it doesn't make James right and Tiassa wrong. Surprisingly (to me) there are some (very few) who have said they enjoy reading Tiassa's posts. I'm not one of them but it is what it is. James isn't without his faults. He is rigid in thought, frequently arrogant and rude in a way that, IMO, a moderator shouldn't be. I didn't say he was unhinged. I said that about Tiassa and you managed to read it as a slight to James because I said "Tiassa is the more unhinged".

Again, it's not "cowardly" for others to do what you and James are also doing, which is to comment about another person. Enough with the drama.

James opened the thread, let it run too long and so at this point it is all about throwing poo at Tiassa. I don't think anyone really needs your "thought" on whether anyone here can speak up or not. There's not many here and everyone has spoken up.

Most everyone has commented over the years every time Tiassa began some passive aggressive complaint about James from years before the post. Are you selectively forgetting that when you had your "thought" that maybe "we" should now be quiet?

Who has "reported" more people on this site than anyone? You. I hope I'm not being "cowardly" in posting this. Maybe I'm being "courageous"? Maybe the "rigid" stick together?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Seriously, Tiassa doesn't belong as a moderator but he has never belonged as a moderator. He gets angry, isn't moderate in the least, and is barely able to communicate.

So, he is "worse" than James. However James isn't the ideal moderator. There is some potential there but he is at odds with everyone but you and slings mud at the poster in most every response. He isn't trying to fit in, get along, be friendly, or have a two-way discussion with anyone. It's a lecture, a "I'm right" one-way post and it usually ends with some misdirection such as "why do you care, why are you here, haven't you learned anything, maybe you should go and reflect on this" or it's just outright name calling. You know, like you just did with Sarkus telling him he doesn't have to read this thread. Neither do you and I or anyone else.

He would make a much better member than moderator because his "flaws" wouldn't have any effect on the communication. We would probably have a Bitcoin thread with discussion in it even though it offends his sensibilities. Where he just a member, he would just have to live with that instead of dominating and controlling every discussion.

He could call me a name and I could return the favor without being banned by another moderator. Socialization of the group almost always eliminates any bullying behavior because it then becauses a fair two-way street and bullies don't do well with that.

Tiassa "deserves" to be a member but I'm not sure how much he would contribute because he doesn't really know how to communicate. He either gets angry or he posts his long screed but there is little record of him having a reasonable two way discussion with anyone.

James can do that but he generally doesn't. He just pokes whoever he engages with "if you could read, you must be a troll, have you read a book, etc". It's not moderate or behavior that you would expect from a moderator. It doesn't inspire respect.

If you need the threat of a ban to run a discussion site (other than the nightly bots) then you don't have much of a discussion site.

It's beyond ironic for James to be this upset at being called (I guess) a racist when he was done the same many times over and with little thought or data, just because he can.

He even considers it "off topic" for me to bring it up here. It's entirely the topic.

 

Of course.

Cuz James R is talking specifically to me

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Tiassa isn't, at least not here. As far as resolving goes, that's more on James R than anyone, given the power he wields.

No. Nor have I found that to be the case.

No one is making me read it, no.

No. I care/d about the disruption their spat caused. That's different than caring about them or the detail of their spat. I'm now interested in the detail of the matter, from an intellectual point of view, the investigation being its own reward etc. Not everyone's cup o' tea, I'm sure.

I certainly always try to do what I want. Do not we all? As it is, I am interested in the detail now. I thought that much was clear?

Being interested in one aspect does not mean that one is interested in all aspects. Caring about the disruption caused doesn't mean one cares for the detail of the spat etc. As for taking 12 paragraphs, I am merely responding to what people post toward me. If it takes 12 paragraphs to respond, so be it. I do tend to respond paragraph by paragraph, or even point by point, which can often lengthen responses. If I had more time, or was that bothered about it, I'd possibly change my style. But for now it is what it is.

Seattle is correct, at least in as much as what I was asking James R for. I have started, and will continue, at my own leisure, to investigate the why, which has included asking Tiassa directly. For my own intellectual curiosity.

I fear that's just seeing what you want to see, alas. I have found both capable of being engaged with rationally. But given that my level of interaction with James R far exceeds that with Tiassa, it is not surprising that I am more familiar with James R's dishonesty and other such traits unhelpful to rational discourse. Further, Tiassa has not engaged me in this thread on the matter, and you are only privy to what is public.

I have not had the pleasure of such from Tiassa. From James R, though, yes I have (although other than the facts of the occurrences, they are water under the bridge as far as I am concerned). So is the issue wider than just Tiassa's accusations of James R, or the spat between them in general? Yes. And now the big question - and I honestly don't mean this flippantly: so what? Is anything going to be done about that wider issue? And will those that can do anything about it even accept the reality of that wider issue, or just myopically cherrypick without any of the self-reflection so desperately needed?
Who knows. My betting, though, would be firmly on "no".

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The deed was done. He's been fired.

 

I made this comment in the following thread about just one of many 'jabs'.

 

Then you don't really grasp the wider issue. I get that this is intended to be the "pile on Tiassa" thread, so that James R can bask in the validation he clearly craves, but thinking that firing Tiassa somehow resolves it is, unfortunately, being rather myopic. Sure, combating a perceived symptom may make one feel healthier. But it's just masking things. And that, too, speaks to the wider issue.
But, hey, this is the "pile on Tiassa" thread, so, sure, whatever.

 

False. I first mentioned the wider issue, so I determine what is meant by it.

"Toward the goal of showing that this is larger issue than simply James' beef with Tiassa, I too have experienced similar kinds of accusations from Tiassa."
(To-wit: the bigger issue is still Tiassa)


You may have misread what I meant and may have your own idea of a bigger issue and that's fine but that's on you, not on me.

Like I said, it easy to sit in an armchair and fling poo at the ones doing the thankless tasks. Let's look at this poo.

You complain this is a pile-on Tiassa thread, yet it's as much a pile-on James thread, isn't it? You've made sure of that, as has anyone who wanted to. Which is perfectly fine. James made sure to provide a place for it.

But you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You benefit from James' deliberate action even while accusing him of bad motives for it. That seems hypocritical.

So which is it? A pile-on Tiassa thread? Or an open forum to pile on for whomever wants to voice their grievances? I'd appreciate an answer to that. And maybe an acknowledgement of who arranged it that way.

 

I like Tiassa, he posted on heavy collisions at CERN.
We could go back to those days.

 

Should not be a mentor tho. Tiassa. IMO

 

For a newbie, you're rather quite insistent.

For one with no apparent care for facts, you're rather quite judgmental.

So, why do you want my attention so badly?

(Don't bother pretending otherwise: First you complain↑; now you say↑ you like me and could go back to those days. At some point, it sounds like you're just saying whatever you think will make some kind of point, regardless of how it relates to anything else you said. It's a pretty low standard compared to your self-righteous posture.)

 

You did. As you quoted:
"Toward the goal of showing that this is larger issue than simply James' beef with Tiassa, I too have experienced similar kinds of accusations from Tiassa." (bold mine).

Your goal was to show that it is larger than just "James v Tiassa". The example you showed still involved Tiassa, but that does not mean that the larger issues is all about Tiassa. If I have a goal of showing that there is a wider range of cars than simply blue Vauxhalls, and show a red Vauxhall as evidence, does that mean that my goal is to show that all cars are still only Vauxhalls? What about a blue Honda? Or a black Suburu?
No, you may have intended it to mean that it should also include "Anyone else v Tiassa" (i.e. Tiassa being the common denominator) but, unfortunately, that is not what you wrote. Sorry.

As I stated previously, as evidence toward the goal of the larger issue, I have been falsely accused by James R. Where does that fit into your "Tiassa" notion? The issue is wider than James R v Tiassa. But please don't blinker yourself to think that it is just about Tiassa. Or even just about either one of them, for that matter.

No, I read what you wrote perfectly well, as I have demonstrated above. If what you meant was not what you wrote, or was ambiguous, then that's on you, not me.

It's also easy to fling poo at ones flinging poo. Especially if that is how the site seems to have been set up to run. Unless you think that moderators or admin are somehow above having poo flinged at them???

No, it's not hypocritical at all. Benefiting from someone's action does not absolve that someone from any and all intentions behind that action. Do you honestly think it does?

If it wasn't arranged that way, another thread would undoubtedly have been started about it. But, yeah, sure, thanks James R.
Is that better? Does that somehow mitigate what has been said?

 

I'm a complicated person what can say?

Despite the theme of the thread, I think it is always best to take the positives from people where you can.

 

Some people haven't had a positive day in their life.