WellCookedFetus's Moderator Position

By that logic all votes should not stand. How many votes have passed or failed with a mere 50+ votes?

Are you suggesting that now the quorum be changed to a significantly larger number?

What number do you think? About half the total membership of sciforums? A quarter of the membership?

I understand your point and I understand that the reasons stated are not really relevant to moderator issues, but this coming together to stamp out the vote is rather disturbing. The people are voting and it seems there is fear in a handful of dust. And it seems the fear is for more than just Fetus.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Arditezza:

Since you've given no evidence, I can only treat this as assertion.

I do not "review" his moderation. I simply have never seen a member complain about his capabilities as moderator or say they have been treated with bias. Generally they will message another moderator, and no complaints have been brought.

Being a moderator does not mean you cannot act as a member. Any member can, and most do, act in the ways you've described 'Fetus as acting.

Further, it's not-uncommon for a moderator to admonish the members of a subforum not their own, or to remind members of the rules in that subforum. We may also note the presence of spam/trolling/whatever in another forum, to that moderator.
It's generally considered a courtesy, and not an attempt to "take over". We are not baboons.

Further, considering that you have constantly mentioned "power" throughout this charade, and that you, not Fetus, are the one trying to enforce your vision of the rules without being elected as a moderator, you should seriously consider whether these "power and control" obsessions are his or yours.

Pedantic, petty thing to exert power over anyway.

And will reiterate that. Your point is dead, it cannot be revived.

You may start a thread requesting that I be disbarred or banned. I am sure this would brighten your day. But here it is not relevent.

He does have people "watching him". You for one. Other moderators for another. If he were to abuse his duties, he would be noticed.

Good, then you will finally give us some reasons why wellcookedfetus should be removed as moderator.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Arditezza:

Isn't that a little bit ... ah ... inaccurate? I mean, even I cringed at the "enemy" bit, but as I recall, he was referring to Spurious extending his own dislike of WCF to support an unsubstantiated charge of inappropriate harassment of a Sciforums member. Should I deny him his opinion of someone else's grudge against him? I know what I think of people who carry grudges with me. Had I that sort of monkey on my back, I would not regard it kindly in the least.

Perhaps you could make a convincing case about that? I'm not impressed by the last mention of it (Zayev's example).

Provide a review.

All I'm asking, and all Xev seems to be asking, is that a substantial charge be introduced before we continue debating WCF's office.

See Xev's posts.

It has long been the standard at Sciforums to draw a line between conduct as a poster and a moderator. We've tested this rule over and over and over again.

Make that evidentiary case.

Make that evidentiary case.

I object to such empty venom as you're basing your case on.

I object to the proposition that a respectable request for action should be without substance.

I object to the proposition that the outcome of this specific vote has any utilitarian value.

I object to your general tone in that post, especially as it appears to be in lieu of a legitimate evidentiary case.

And I object to your outright false implication that anyone is trying to change the rules at anyone's whim.

Scurrilous or unfounded requests for action should not be given such respect. In the past, wasted SFOG proposals have been closed before their vote period expired. There would be nothing unusual about doing so in this case.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And this prosecution without a substantial charge is rather disturbing.

What the hell are you talking about?

Please do not waste either of our time introducing new material unless it's relevant.

I mean, really, have you forgotten what you wrote?

Invert Nexus: Regardless of sponsorship, it is obvious from the results of the poll that there is a large percentage of members who would like to see Fetus removed from his position. I find it odd the lack of posters on both sides of this argument.

Tiassa: Whether we compare the number against the whole of Sciforums' registry or merely those who post regularly enough to have seen this topic in the list on the front page, fifteen votes doesn't represent a large percentage of either.

Invert Nexus: By that logic all votes should not stand. How many votes have passed or failed with a mere 50+ votes?
​

I mean, talk about a non-sequitur .... "Large percentage, large percentage ... quorum"?

Really ... that's just ... crap.

If you had bothered to read the procedure and rules of SFOG, you would know that there is at present no rule against raising ban proposals for frivolous, scurrilous, or otherwise useless reasons.

More challenging, of course, would be to read the history of action requests in SFOG, which shows quite clearly the order of magnitude of perversity about this topic and its lack of substantial basis. Look, people think that hating one another and seeking specifically to demean large groups of people is okay. People think childishly insulting one another from time to time is okay. If people want action based on something so small as this topic has raised, it ain't gonna happen today. I'm a strict believer that ex post facto is a terrible way to apply rules. The only thing I would get from a vote in favor of action is the note that people are finally ready to have something done about the pettiness that has gripped this forum. Without a more substantial case against WCF's office, all this vote means is whether or not people are tired of the very methods, styles, and privileges they've been defending. Arbitrarily enforcing a rule based on such a shaky claim would not serve this community in the least.

Given the posting history of WCF's "victim", and considering the general tone around here insisted on by diverse posters, I just don't think a qualifying case for any sort of action has been made, and I don't think it can be built without something new, relevant, and well-founded being introduced to the debate.

 

Because you disagree with my assertions does not make me incorrect, and that you assert that is just simply crap.

I have given examples of him abusing a poster, which were ignored by you two.

Spuriousmonkey gave examples of him spamming a thread, which you ignored.

And it doesn't take a blind man to see all the times in this very forum and in this thread, WCF telling people to go visit other forums.

Just because you are moderators does not give you the power to close a thread in SFOG that you disagree with. Obviously, 15 other people don't feel the same way.


Also, this is not a court of law. It is a open government forum. Let the posters decide what to look at without rabidly trying to force me to defend every single point. I did, and just because you disagree doesn't mean others do. I'm tired of your trite and immature behaviour. It's like being back in third grade arguing with the school bullies about not taking our lunch money.


What are you so afraid of that you two would be so insistant on having it closed? If it's so frivolous and unsupported, why are there 15 votes? If you are so confident that it's stupid, why not let it run it's course as it should?

 

Many of us are vulgar to each other often, and we (all members in general) are rarely punished for it. At best are comments are deleted, the moderation having to do it repeatedly will warn of impending banishments, and then if it still does not stop punishment is delivered. I have yet to reach stage two.

Actually I told monkey (singler) to visit another thread because he fears I am scaring off all of the scientist. I would like to see where I told others to do it.

I would like to see these examples of spamming. Spamming is defined here as advertising for ones benefit, and I can’t imagine when I ever did that.

 

James R:

It is not a matter of censorship. It is a means of showing that admin will not be swayed by the spite of a few members.
I brought that up on condition that, by 11/9, nobody has given a reason for this baseless action. Thus the thread would be treated as any other valueless thread, and left to moderator discretion.
Note that stipulation.

Arditezza:

Do I have to point out the logical failings of this statement?
Your assertions are just that - assertions. They have no backing.

Which was addressed, and being properly addressed, no longer treated.

Show them.

Not a valid reason to remove him as a moderator.

No, that is the call of one of the uber-mods.

Because I'm fed up with power-hungry hausfraus like yourself bullying their way into positions of influence. Because I don't like the idea of leaving such spiteful tripe up. Because, most of all, I despise the way your type are trying to turn this forum into a Tipper Gore wet dream.

But I am not requesting that the thread be closed. Go back and read my post.

 

Actually, spamming is repeatedly posting in a thread when you really don't say anything new or add anything to the coversation or take it off topic. Which is exactly what you accused Spurious of.

Here are some examples of WCF telling people that if they don't like it, they can leave, or even pointing them to other forums;(Only going back a month. I'm too tired atm)

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=674045#post674045
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=672579#post672579

Oh, and another stunning example of WCF;s fine moderation and suggestion;

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=672108#post672108
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=667664#post667664
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=666361#post666361
(If you can cipher that post, he knows better than Porfiry and the rest of us how to run a forum)

More insulting of posters;

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=669216#post669216
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=653959#post653959

This is also interesting;

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=665390#post665390
(not to mention WCF repeatedly insults Invert by calling him illogical and saying that he can't have a logical argument)
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=665359#post665359
(same thread, different bullshit)
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=665294#post665294
(again, same thread... this time calling Xev rude)

 

Yes, it is somewhat. I have already stated that I don't think that Fetus should be removed from his position for the reasons stated, but as you say there are no rules against "frivolous, scurrilous, or otherwise useless reasons."

Maybe you should start a poll on whether such rules or points of procedure should be introduced?

I said that a large percentage of voters are voting for removing him from office. 44.12% at the moment.

Then you said that "fifteen votes doesn't represent a large percentage of either." Which seems to me to be saying that 44.12% is not good enough for you.

So, I asked you if you are saying that a quorum should be raised from 50 to some higher number? Or maybe there should be a method to ensure that certain valued posters have voted?

You are the one who said that 15 votes are not a large percentage. Not me. 30 votes would also not be a large percentage of total members even if it were 30 out of 55 which would be enough to ensure a passing vote. So, what are you trying to say exactly?

I mean really... that's just... crap.

I had at one time, that's how I know that a quorum is 50 votes. But, it was quite some time ago.

What do you mean by pettiness that has gripped the forum? The fact that posters were banned for such petty reasons recently?

I agree. I would prefer that something were done to address this. But, it seems that nothing will be.

But, there are no rules against spurious ban threads correct?



Look. I'm being sort of devil's advocate here. But even so, I'm not really arguing FOR Fetus's removal. But, if voter results are going to be just thrown out the window then SFOG might as well just be shut down.

Because no one is posting their reasons for why they are voting the way then we cannot say what criteria they are using. Are they judging Fetus as a poster or a mod? Are they voting to impeach as a sign of disapproval of the recent spate of bannings? Of the apparent nonchalance towards Fetus for practically the same offense that got another member banned?

It is true that warnings were issued before the bannings, but has Fetus been warned for his actions?

Are the rules now under a more lenient observance?

These are the questions that need to be addressed. These are the questions that are being ignored over and over again.

You also [post=672579]suggested it to me[/post]: "if your feed up with how things work here then just leave." But, I didn't mind, personally.

Heh. Just call me the new supermod.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I don't mean to. It's just that I was in the midst of the picture thread debacle with Fetus. Plus the fact that Fetus pissed me off in Gendanken's Banning thread where he stated that he believed sincerely in not insulting members and then he goes on to an insulting spree.

I originally voted yes as I stated early in this thread but later changed my mind because his actions have no relevance to his modship. And that's why I've been so active in this thread. Because I voted so soon and I have since regretted my vote. I actually thought the vote wouldn't be anywhere near as close as it is. I'm kinda trying to convince people to vote responsibly and to please post why they are voting as they are.

I am not advocating Fetus's removal. If any think I am then they are not reading my words.

I am advocating responsible use of government and moderator powers.

Absolutely. No arguments from me here.

 

This is the funniest thing you've ever said to me. And a complete misunderstanding of my intentions.

I am not a moderator, nor am I wanting to be. All I want, is a place where discussion could be had without all the trite bullshit that comes from posters AND moderators. I don't want more moderation, quite the contrary, I want less rules and less stupid moderators. I don't like all the new rules and the new crackdowns on good posters. I don't like the "overzealous cop" (his words not mine) leading a charge against specific posters that he doesn't like. I don't mind insults either, but if you (the moderators) can sling insults whenever you please, it should also be allowed that the posters can as well. I think Open Government sucks, because humans are stupid and can't make up their minds or even commit to trying. All votes here fail because of that, so the whole thing is a lesson in futility.

Why have a democracy when it's a dictatorship? Everyone knows it's a dictatorship and Porfiry will override or veto what he doesn't agree with, so the whole thing is a bit stupid. In my opinion, get rid of SFOG or stop bitching about all the friviolus threads. Every thread in here is frivious, or don't you see that?

But here's the thing. I'm not angry, or spiteful. If I met you or WCF on the street, I wouldn't hold anything here against you because I know about internet personna. I don't do this out of anger at all, I do it for fair and honest treatment of everyone. I do it because I believe you shouldn't fool people into thinking they have a voice here, when clearly they have none.

 

Arditezza,

Your examples are pretty pathetic.

First of all it was Spuriousmonkey and only him I told to try a science forum if he want more science, he the only on I suggested other forums for.

Second, Many of us moderators make suggestions to Porfiry, many of us try new things and retract are discussions.

Third, many of your examples of insulting are lame at best, being call illogical is not much a insult, all of the examples are thing we have let other members pass by with repeatedly.

 

Actually Arditezza, spamming is defined thus:

-New Hacker's Dictionary

Off-topic posts are not necessarily spam.

Then stop feeding the trite bullshit by constantly starting threads about posters.

Then why are almost half of your started-threads in Open Government or Site Feedback?

http://www.sciforums.com/search.php?searchid=187634

 

Anyone who moderates the political forum should be as light or heavy handed equally, in regard to how they enforce the forum rules on the posters.

Being strict against only those who hold an opinion that a moderator does not like, while conveniently overlooking the violations of the others is just plain wrong.

wellcookedfetus seems to be either unwilling or unable to be equally fair to all and is doing basically the same thing that the liberal media is doing.

God (and everybody else) knows that I am not perfect, but then again I am not a moderator (and don't want the job).

Surely, there should be someone at Sciforums who could fill the job without shutting down the views of one group of members, while allowing the other side to run rampant with their views and propaganda.

I really am sorry to write this wellcookedfetus. I hold no anger toward you personally, but you are being really unfair about your political moderation and I did vote that you should step down, sir.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

ps...If you do step down as moderator, then you would be free to express your views at the political forum, like everyone else.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I was not against your opinion howard, but your post was lacking in evidence, and it’s format was provoking at the very least. You should have notices goofyfish and I close many threads that start off as provocative as yours, the subject are greatly varying and are not limited to moderator political beliefs. I'm sorry if you presume I'm being unfair to you.

if you want examples of my "unfairness" please observe:
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40312
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40299

This Howard is more like it:
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40644

 

What's with the evidence, wellcookedfetus? Evidence to prove what? I was reporting the scandal and commenting. I then posted pics and commentary that I thought was funny.

The only way that I can prove that the documents are forged is to have a video of someone actually typing the forged documents out!

Besides, almost every news outlet on the planet earth is reporting the incident. If that is not enough proof, then what is?

As far as my thread being "provoking".........so what! What's wrong with it being provocative? I didn't attack any other member. Maybe some won't like it, but I don't like what 99% of what is being posted there now. I find it offensive and almost always completely wrong!

And again, wellcooked fetus, as I have already pointed out at the thread: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40643 & in the PM that I sent to you, the political forum is replete with statements made by other members that have no evidence attached to prove their statements. However, you are not stopping them from making accusations or demanding that they prove it.

You are saying that I should prove absolutely for a fact that the CBS documents are forged, but I'll bet the farm that the political forum is full of statements that claim that Bush went AWOL. Did you demand that these people prove or provide evidence that shows this? Hell no, you haven't!

The job of the moderator should be:
- to make sure that the members reframe from insults and attacks on each other, and
- to limit vulgarity and foul language, and that's all!

If there is anything that is really terrible posted, the moderator might first post a reply that addresses his/her concerns & politely ask the poster to tone it down a bit. Almost all of the first moderators at Sciforums would do that if they thought that a post was a little out of line. Porfiry himself has done just that many times, before taking stern measures.

You are censoring the political views of the members.

 

If I stopped everyone for rule 1C most of the post on that sub-forum would not exist. Your post not only violated 1C but also 4, the subject was presented in a provoking manner. As you mention my job is to prevent flaming and try to maintain some intellectual quality on those sub-forums, and your post was lacking in both those areas. I also provide an example of a post on the very same subject of much greater quality:
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40644

 

1) wellcookedfetus, what the hell does that rule mean? How can someone provide evidence of their opinion? Are you saying that my opinions are against the "rules?"

2) Why do I need to provide a valid argument to back up my opinion?

I assure you that the words & pics that I posted do reflect my opinion, since I am the one who wrote them. That should be more than enough proof.

My post was provoking only to those who are doing their best to make people believe absolutely the opposite. Again, you are not doing anything to prevent the other side from provoking me or others who believe as I do.

Wellcookedfetus, you have no idea of what constitutes intellectual quality & you certainly are not qualified to criticize my posts or any other post, for that matter. I am not "flaming" you wellcookedfetus, I am just stating the truth. If you must have evidence or a link to support this statement, then here it is: http://www.sciforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=90

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That should be more than enough evidence to "prove" it.