Removal of Tiassa as moderator

Hello stranger. Getting bored over the Christmas break?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Intellectual curiosity, James R. You made it public, so you seem to want us to see it as important, and to take an interest. I'm taking an interest.

I'm not taking sides, so I'm not injecting myself anywhere other than where you want us to go: taking an interest in what you presumably think is an important matter. I would like to understand why you claim he has accused you of the things you claim he has. I mean, you've acted as plaintiff, judge, jury, and executioner, and played it out in front of the audience as you wanted. And now you find it surprising that people (okay, maybe just me) are finding the case interesting?

It's really not.

Then spell out your case, James R.
As it is, I do not seem to be factually incorrect. Let's see what I said: "Post #57 is a post by you that links back to a previous thread, post #3 of which is you summarising the accusations you think he has already made." Are these things not factually correct?
Then I said "There is nothing in post #1 or #2 of that thread that accuses you of those 3 things...". Well, he did reference (post #1 of that thread) your "defense of white supremacism", which is not the same as advocating for it (reminding me of that famous quote "I disapprove of what you say - but will defend your right to say it" - Evelyn Beatrice Hall). I will assume that you recognise the difference.
There is then reference to how you address racism in this site but, again, that is somewhat different than saying that you "advocate for" it.
And then there's a whole swathe about the standard you tried to set with regard conflict of, or vested, interest in a subject.
So, where in this post of Tiassa's are the accusations, exactly, given that you said I was factually incorrect that there weren't any? I mean, I assume actual facts are important to you, right? Or is this some version of Trump's "alternate facts" that we need to be mindful of?

He doubled down? Okay, then please highlight to us all where he has accused you of the things you think he has accused you of? It shouldn't be difficult, should it, given he not only accused you initially but then doubled down on them?
Again, I'm asking out of intellectual curiosity. And since you have accused, found guilty, and executed, I'd like to be satisfied that it is based on more than just emotion, or on a misunderstanding, on your part, that the person is actually, you know, guilty.

I certainly haven't read everything that has transpired between you. But I'm guessing that you have, so you should have all the details, right, so you should be able to point them out to us.

It doesn't need to be the "originals". You have said that he has "doubled-down" so even just those would be a starting point.

I have been checking for myself. And I have asked him. And still I can not find where he has actually accused you of those things. He has certainly questioned your consistency, your approach to moderation, but, nope, I still can't find those accusations. Hence I'm hoping that you, the one who has claimed he has accused you, and whom you (despite obvious conflict of interest) have found guilty and executed for it, will be able to point us in the right direction.
Intellectual curiosity, you see.

No, I'm not saying he has or hasn't. I haven't found anything that suggests that he has, but then absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, etc. Which I'm sure you are just as mindful of. And I'm interested because, well, you've made it such a public matter, you seem to want us to care about it, and it is honestly now intellectually interesting to me. And what is this site for if not the intellectually curious, right?

My guess will be that, instead of actually doing the decent thing and showing us where you think you have been accused of those things, supporting your own accusations with facts, you'll close this thread and so avoid all those questions that you'd otherwise have difficulty answering.
But we'll see.

 

James, it's interesting that you keep asking "why are you so interested in this" whenever anyone engages with you. It's like you are surprised that this isn't a private conversation or that you are surprised that there is any pushback to your post.

You find it odd that Sarkus is "upset" about something from 7 months ago but you are up upset with Tiassa from years ago.

You can't let some name calling go but you do the same name calling. You and Tiassa have accused me of white supremacism but your answer to that, as the judge and jury, would be to say "well, because it's true in your case". It's not true in my case and I'm sure it isn't true in your case either but since the only standard for you is your own opinion, then Tiassa's opinion is just as valid in that regard.

 

While Tiassa's "accusations" were in the public forum, it was you who dragged everyone's attention to them. Repeatedly.

I did. Couldn't find anything. Maybe you can help narrow down the search, or, you know, actually point out the accusations?

I am consistent, James R. Or are you thinking me saying "It's really not" was in reference to it being interesting, rather than to what you wrote (i.e. you thinking it being a puzzle - which it isn't). So, where is the contradiction, or are you happy to throw around false accusations as well?

You've made your case for stripping him of moderator duties, sure, but they include the supposed accusations he made. I'm asking you to please provide evidence that he has made these accusations. You simply asserting them is not sufficient in that regard, I'm sure you appreciate.

Clearly.

That would be for Tiassa to explain, if he didn't make those accusations. I'm just asking you to support your accusation that he did. I mean, maybe we can all accuse people and, well, if they don't deny them within, what, 6 months, then we just accept they're true?

"Spruik" is not a word I am familiar with, beyond meaning simply to make a public speech about. If it means "advocating" then sure, okay. That's one. Thank you. How hard was that, really?

That's rather disingenuous, James R. First you state that I "obviously didn't read" something, and then claim that I "don't seem to get" what you think I haven't read. Which is it? And there was you asking me to be consistent.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So, that's two.
Where's the third, that you advocate for sex crimes? In that post I did note that you responded to Tiassa's "it is unclear what part of Sarkus' posts would be so particular as your standard demands for advocacy of sex crime" with "I have never advocated for sex crimes." but then Tiassa's comment never accused you of doing so, rather just comparing the standard one has set for something to previously be considered as advocacy of sex crimes with the standard you set in the dispute with me about advocating for crypto. No actual accusation as far as I can see.

The meaning is clear, now that you have highlighted where he has accused you. Thanks for doing so, well, on 2 of the 3. If you could do the 3rd as well, that would be great.

It really isn't, but thanks for guessing. Want to have another go? Hint: I've already stated it.

Where do I "keep telling" people that facts are not important? Is that yet another false accusation you're throwing around? Please support it, or apologise.

Again, please state where I have said that facts are not important? I look forward to you pointing out the repeated occurrences.

I am. And you have finally highlighted 2 instances. Thank you. It really wasn't all that hard, was it?

It's a start

No, I do understand, if those accusations are false. I've simply been trying to establish, in the first instance, whether those accusations have even been made.

It was via PM which I will keep between the Tiassa and myself. The clue is in the P of the PM, James R.

I wasn't, no. But you have indicated accusations covering 2 of the 3 you think he has made.

I haven't examined his explanations in detail, much of which may even be in the private section of the moderator forum.

All untrue, I'm afraid. I am interested, hence my line of inquiry. You have now been gracious enough to point out specific examples of accusations of 2 of the 3. I am interested sufficiently from an intellectual point of view to continue to examine the "evidence", so to speak, to establish the rest. I'll be sure to come back should I have any further queries later on, though.

Throwing threads at people when they asked you for the specific accusations wasn't helpful on your part. You have, finally, had the wherewithall to provide specific examples of 2 of the 3. I look forward to examples of the 3rd.

I don't accept the premise that I should be concerned, no. Sometimes I am, sometimes I am not. In this instance, in the spat between you and Tiassa, I am not concerned in the slightest, irrespective of accuracy or otherwise of the accusations. You're a big boy, James R. You wield the power around here. You're not defenseless. You tell me why I should be concerned, please.

Thank you for the pointless straw man. Do you feel better after taking swings at fictitious positions you set up for yourself?

 

This is kind of weird.

I'm imagining us sitting at a conference table with James R and Tiassa at the head of the table. As talks proceed, every few minutes, Tiassa leans over and jabs James in the kidney with a pencil (for whatever reason). James clearly ignores this the first half dozen times it happens.

Eventually, it is obvious to all that Tiassa will not stop, and James turns to the rest of the table and says "Tiassa is continually stabbing me in the kidney with a pencil. This makes it very difficult to continue. It is apparent we will have to address this before we can continue. And I guess Tiassa insists we do so right here at the table in front of everyone."

And then Sarkus pipes up, saying "James, you keep bringing up this issue of Tiassa stabbing you in the kidney with a pencil. We all see him doing this, but you keep bringing it up. Repeatedly. "

"Also, could you, James, explain to us why Tiassa keeps jabbing you in the kidney with a pencil? (I certainly wouldn't dream of asking the guy doing the jabbing to explain himself.)"

 

Oh god. Tiassa implied I was an anti Semite then questioned my "Reliability," as a poster? Scientist? Tech? Human?

It is fine. Perhaps I can convince him otherwise?

I think we can move on. Just my take.

 

I'm picturing a junior high school where one person has been appointed as the hall monitor and keeps "reporting" everyone for every little infraction. Eventually this hall monitor gets his butt kicked enough times (or grows up) that he quits engaging in this behavior, fits in, and learns to get along with the rest of the class.

 

Not really. They're grown adults, metaphorically speaking within the assigned characters of this forum at least, with the capability of dealing with and resolving the issue in private. But maybe that's just what I'm used to.

I see it more like the CEO having issues with the CFO, and deliberately choosing to wait until he can voice his concerns in public to everyone so as to maximise the effect of his call-out. Most people, myself included, ultimately couldn't give a shit about the issues they have between themselves, some of which seems to have been voiced in their private sanctum, but every so often spills out. The jabbing, gentle or otherwise, has been going on for a number of years, and not just one way. It's part of the furniture by now. We're all used to it. Not just from the CEO or CFO but from everyone else to everyone else. It's part of the fabric of this "company", due in part to the way the CEO has opted to run this place. Furthermore, the CEO is not immune to the criticisms he has made of the CFO. That much is supported by fact.
So, yeah, seeing the CEO suddenly turn round and make the spat between them public - i.e. stand up in a meeting and make the accusations... yeah, that's different. And what's actually different? Other than it being the CEO who is on the receiving end this time, rather than giving it out? You tell me.

Further, I am not asking James R to explain why Tiassa is jabbing him in the kidneys. That is for Tiassa to explain and justify, which I am thinking that he thinks he has done many times over. James R has to at least explain why he has stopped the meeting this time and accused Tiassa so publicly of poking him in the kidneys when it could, and should, have been dealt with between the two of them in private, given that he (James R) had the power to do what he wanted as accuser, judge, jury, and executioner. And, for those not aware of the continual jabbing, the accusations of such need justifying. I, for one, saw no kidney-jabbing that was not part and parcel of what goes on at sciforums, from the CEO down. Maybe I fell asleep during the boring meetings. Maybe I really just couldn't give a shit about it. Whatever. He, James R, made the whole spat between them as public and as disruptive as it has been. The difference: the obvious one being that he was the subject of the accusations. You tell me what other differences there have been between now and the past 10+ years here.

Me, as an observer, who couldn't do diddly-squat about the issues between them even if I had wanted to (you can't ignore a moderator!), didn't therefore give a shit about their spat, even as soon as I was made aware of it. At all. I deal with people as I see them, not as others do. If I'm not being accused then their spat, their accusations, are as irrelevant to me as any other personal issue any other member may have with any other member. Me, as such an observer, would have preferred they kept it behind closed doors, and resolved it behind closed doors, whatever the outcome. Honestly, I couldn't have given a shit about it. Have I made that obvious by now? I'm fairly sure that most other members (at least those who aren't directly involved) also couldn't give a shit about their spat. They could all give a shit about what people accuse them of, of couse, but that's different. But spats between other members? No. This site really isn't that important to people. Well, not to most of us, I'm sure. If Bells accused Seattle, or Seattle accused DaveC, or DaveC accused Wegs, or Wegs accused Write4U etc... I honestly really could not give a shit, especially when the justification has been running over 10+ years. Nor could anyone else not directly accusing or accused. This is the way of things. Tell me I'm wrong, that anyone here really gives a shit about this issue. Sure, I've made it a focus of intellectual examination, but that was after not giving a shit, and, frankly, James R telling me that I should be giving a shit. Which I still don't. So I want to at least understand from an intellectual point whether the accusations have been made, and if so are supported etc.

In summary, the CEO, to continue the analogy, made such a meal out of it in this instance, highlighted it to everyone they possibly could, analogous to leaking it to the papers that the CFO had stabbed them in the kidneys such that any other reader would accept it as a fait accomplis, that it piqued my intellectual interest to see what the spat was all about and whether the supposed accusations held any water. Hence the inquiries to date.
Consider me a journalist after-the-fact looking for the detail.

So, no, not weird at all.
Just a matter of perspective.

 

Unfortunately the hall monitor in your imagination is someone who can't help but do what he reports everyone else for. Even as someone who tries to "fit in" he continues to fail to do as he preaches, and gets upset when criticised for doing so.
But, yeah, in as much as someone from my land can picture such a stereotypical US high-school, it seems, well, retro.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Born in 1970 (assumed from your moniker)? That would be sufficient to question your "reliability", wouldn't it? I mean, how many times do you have to get up in the night!

We can, at least emotionally. Personally I am genuinely interested in disecting the case-study. But I appreciate that's not to everyone's taste. And it may be expecting too much from those who feel they've been hurt by the experience to offer a fair and impartial view of things. But I've never been one for subtlety.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No, I just have experience here. I've never said anything that would imply white supremacism and yet I've been accused of it. Maybe that was primarily by Tiassa, I can't remember but I do believe you played the racist card and in most cases that requires a lot of assumptions, which is a subjective thing.

I might play around a bit with (they baby mama language) so to go from that to "racist" or "white supremist" requires reading a lot into what I said. Claiming moral relativism on my part is just misdirection.

I have also responded to a thread that you started, in the past, with my opinion and you pulled the "why are you so focused on this" kind of reply. You imply that if someone responds to your question in a way that you disagree with that they must be "so focused" rather than just that they are answering a question that you asked. It's a method of deflection on your part as is looking for some ulterior reason for their reply instead of just addressing it at face value.

 

Perhaps we could split the James/Sarkus argument into its own thread? Getting hard to trace the drama through the various subthreads here.

 

Maybe everyone should call a truce as a NY’s resolution since we’re ever so close to 2024?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!