Whither GeoffP?

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by quadraphonics, Mar 11, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Page 2 of 2
  1. Bells

    Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Not exactly. I said that it had nothing to directly do with the Kaffir bans that happened in the last few days, but involved similar incidents that arose prior to that - in that the issues arose from a particular point and James has acted on it now. Was more like a domino affect really..

    I will be honest, the timing should have been better. Michael, Geoff and others who participated in that thread should have been sanctioned then and there and that did not happen. Suffice to say that Tiassa's closing post in that thread was indicative to the feelings many of us felt at the time.


    From my perspective.. When the initial thread that has seen Michael and Geoff banned was ongoing, I had sought a review of the thread and due to what I will assume was time constraints, said review did not fully take place at that time. The issue simmered in the general forum for a couple of weeks until it again exploded, which was culminated in the Kaffir thread which saw 3 members banned. In the discussions that then took place, it was recognised that the 'kaffir insult' debacle was the last domino to fall from the source, which had yet to be reviewed. So it seems that thread was then reviewed and those who participated in it were thus sanctioned. I was not here when that happened, due to personal health issues.


    Was there a conflict of interest? Some may say there was and others will say no.


    I should have pushed harder at the time of the original issue, but due to my own real life issues, I was unable to. For that I apologise and take full responsibility for not forcing a review of it at that time. Yes, it should have happened then, but the review has happened now and the sactions issued. I cannot promise that it won't happen again. We are human and yes we do make mistakes and the mistake for this was the timing. It should and could have been different and as I have stated before, I take responsibility for not pushing harder for that review at the time.
     
    Bells, Mar 11, 2011
    #21

  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. quadraphonics

    quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    LOL irony fail.

    And here I thought you were going to ask for my input on some grand scheme or something...
     
    quadraphonics, Mar 12, 2011
    #22

  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. quadraphonics

    quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    Thanks for your input, Bells. Also, to this:

    I'd suggest that thread closures ought to carry an implication of finality. Not in the sense that the thread will remain closed (should mostly go without saying), but rather in that they should indicate that appropriate review has taken place and so represent some sort of final determination of what sanctions are being pursued in response. When Tiassa says "this one is done, and filed accordingly" it should mean exactly that, and not "the question of what sanctions will be pursued remains open indefinitely." If I were Tiassa, I'd be either irritated at the undermining of my authority or kicking myself for extending it too far in the first place.

    Not that I don't recognize the pressure to close problem threads before the time required to conduct a proper review has passed. But there should at least be some indication of whether further sanctions will be forthcoming, and such a decision should be reached promptly. I'd further suggest that in cases where such a decision is too difficult to reach quickly, this indicates that the case in question is borderline - and so a decent policy seems to be to issue warning to desist (as was done in the closure in question) and then ban (or not) on the basis of subsequent lack of compliance with that warning. That way it's a question of offenders keeping the issue open, rather than mods failing to reach resolution.

    To the extent that you have to go back in time by months, it raises the question of whether the bannee hasn't already gotten the message - presumably you'd have more recent grounds for action, if the problem is actually ongoing, no? So if you don't have more recent grounds for a ban, it would suggest that the member in question has heeded the earlier warning, in which case the earlier sanctions were already appropriate (at least, so far as addressing the actual behavior in question - I guess this became an issue of overall "fairness?"). Either way, long-delayed decisions seem to end up costing more (in terms of ambiguity presented to the membership, and undermining of mod authority) than they help. It's not clear to me that the "fairness cost" of people avoiding bans that can't be decided promptly (and which misbehavior they do not go on to repeat) is all that considerable, in the first place.

    Sorry if that comes off as overly hectoring - I get that you recognize the issue of timeliness and take responsibility for it. But there's some question in my mind about whether this is taken sufficiently seriously by moderation as a whole. I've long been distressed by the week-late application of sanctions around here, so a case where sanctions arrive months late is pretty troubling to me. There is a huge value in timely moderation - it has a considerable multiplier effect on both moderator effectiveness and credibility. And there is a correspondingly huge divisor effect in untimely moderation - it breeds the impression that the mods aren't paying much attention, don't have clear rules and standards, etc. And so there probably ought to be some "statute of limitations," wherein the failure of any mod to handle an issue in a timely manner (for whatever reason) necessarily makes that into a dead issue after some set time period.

    Again, when it comes to stuff like maintaining the credibility of empowered entities, the appearance of conflict of interest is about as important as its actual presence. That it remains an open question is a problem, even if there was no genuine conflict of interest at play. It's not enough to convince yourself that there's no conflict, or to argue such publicly - you have to avoid even the appearance of such. If you don't, you run the risk of some sizeable portion of the membership viewing your actions cynically, which is corrosive to the effectiveness and credibility of moderation. Moderation in the absence of clear credibility is counter-productive.
     
    quadraphonics, Mar 12, 2011
    #23

  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R

    James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    Bells' post is a fair summary of what happened here.

    Yes. I dropped the ball on this one. Those bans should have been handed out close to the time the offending posts were posted. I apologise that I didn't get to them sooner. I do not apologise for taking the action.

    No, there isn't, really, although threads that have been inactive for over a month rarely attract moderator attention.

    Another important point is that we do not generally apply new policies retrospectively to old posts. sciforums was different in the past to what it is now. Policies and procedures evolve over time. It would be unfair in the extreme to look back at ancient posts in the light of our current rule set, because the current set of standards we enforce now did not exist then.

    In the particular case in question, no new policies were being applied. Just enforcement of the usual rules.

    Explanations for thread closures appear in the relevant threads.

    You can throw off the yokes any time, Gustav. Don't let the door hit you on your way out.

    Two threads in effect ran on from each other, and had flow-on repercussions. It was unfair for moderators (esp. myself) to take action regarding later offences while ignoring earlier ones that had direct or indirect causal connections to the later ones. In this case, considerations of justice trumped those of timeliness.

    Bells was abreast of the early issues when they occurred. She requested action from administrators at that time. For various reasons the actions that were taken only partially addressed the problems that had arisen. Recently, it became clear to me that my earlier response had been inadequate, so I went back and reviewed the entire first thread - a process that took me about 2 hours. Most threads do not get this much attention, but it was important that this one was done properly. Better late than never.

    Maybe "bigotry" is the wrong word to use. A bigot is somebody intolerant of opinons that differ from his own. That doesn't quite capture the offence of, for example, claiming that all Muslim law is shit. Perhaps somebody can suggest a better term for somebody who expresses that kind of sentiment.

    Agreed. We don't technically have any rule that specifically mentions bigotry in the sense you are talking about here. Existing infraction categories that may cover the kind of thing we're worried about include "inappropriate language", "trolling", "personal insult" and "hate speech".

    Both "bigotry" and "bad-faith argumentation" can be subjective. This is one reason why we don't have them as explicit infraction categories. Other categories that we do have catch the kind of bad behaviour that we're concerned about, most of the time, I think.

    It is certainly about that. Personally, I don't want to be accused of anti-Muslim bias in my role as administrator here, any more than I want to be accused of anti-Christian bias or anti-atheist bias. sciforums doesn't have a moderator-sanctioned state religion. We aim for open and honest discussion of religious ideas, as well as questions such as the existence of God. What we do not tolerate is mindless flaming of religious ideas and people of particular religious persuasions. (Note the word "mindless" there. Thoughtful, reasoned, considered criticism is fine. Setting out only to offend is not.)

    As a general principle, this is what already happens. The current case under discussion is an aberration in that regard.

    No sizeable portion of the membership is complaining here. Mostly, it's just the people who were banned in this particular instance. Par for the course.

    Prior to the most recent bans, the moderators had a very similar discussion, which covered most, if not all, of the points you've made above, quadraphonics. That is, in large part, what led to these most recent bans. Complaints from the membership are one thing. Complaints involving heated disagreements among moderators are another. In this instance, both played a part.
     
    James R, Mar 12, 2011
    #24
  8. GeoffP

    GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    "Inexactitude". Mea culpa. Anyway, I think you'll find the gist of the post is that scifes' take on theology is wrong: it's an "if...then" response. The "shit" applies where the concepts are actually shitty. And it does fit into the category of "mindfully kicking a concept in". I don't object to the ban - I appeared out of line, fine - but the terms in which the ban was written are incorrect.

    This brings up another point: other religions - or one, anyway - get defamed in bold face on here fairly often. (And no, I'm not naming names, because the issue is done, so far as I'm concerned.) So why the hubbub now? Seems to be it's just down to whoever pulls the trigger/makes the call/drops the dime. Or maybe that's the limit of human justice in any setting: interest and opportunity.
     
    GeoffP, Mar 12, 2011
    #25
  9. Gustav

    Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575

    why not consider fallibility? why ignore the admission of such by both james and bells? i for one am lost in admiration. humble is always worthy of respect


    chuckle like the others. that is the expected response :shrug:
     
    Gustav, Mar 12, 2011
    #26
  10. Randwolf

    Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,201
    There is plenty of BS on both sides here. I was one of the "lucky" members to be graced with a warning two months after my post. I had no idea why, except I surmised the whole Geoff/EmptyFoC debacle was involved. I don't know how to address the underlying issue - the post that earned the warning was a bit over the top, but it was two frikkin' months ago! Something about the whole mess just doesn't set right with me... I harbor little resentment, but there is more going on here than meets the eye, especially to the newbies. OTOH, I'm sure it will sort itself out like always before...

    Additionally, I don't necessarily blame James for the result, I knew I was pushing it when I made the post. However, the words "political" and "retroactive" keep echoing in my head...

    More importantly, at what point is one "safe"? Tiassa had declared the thread in question "Done and over" (or something to that effect), yet the warning was forthcoming months later. In retrospect, it was pretty much deserved (I was quite pissed off at the time), but it would seem informal warnings / notifications all-round would have sufficed. I hate accumulating lines on that stupid "Infractions" page.

    Again, I don't have all the answers, but around here even the police roadblocks hunting drunk drivers are published a few days prior in the local paper.

    Couldn't we have a "site announcements" stickie or something? You know, along the lines of "Hear ye, hear ye... The emperor has declared a crackdown on blah-blah, so be extra careful what you say..." Is this unreasonable?
     
    Randwolf, Mar 12, 2011
    #27
  11. Gustav

    Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    ?

    scapegoating geoffp and micheal is just dumbfucksci reinforcing the bogus premise that the kafir bannings were justified.

    all factions got their pound of flesh
    since unbanning is not an option, dumbfucksci committed to additional bannings

    in this twilight zone, 2 wrongs do make a right

    meh
    whatever
    i dont entirely disapprove as i am wildly partisan and proud of it too
    frak geoffp and micheal
     
    Gustav, Mar 12, 2011
    #28
  12. Randwolf

    Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,201
    Gustav, you're waffling! Say it ain't so - another superhero bites the dust...

    I'll pick it up - I personally frikkin' entirely disapprove - at the root, we're back to that quintessential question - WTH are the rules here?
     
    Randwolf, Mar 12, 2011
    #29
  13. Gustav

    Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    just one
    hug a tree
    if you refuse
    take a hike
     
    Gustav, Mar 12, 2011
    #30
  14. Randwolf

    Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,201
    There we go - that's the Gustav we all know and detest...

    Glad the CPR worked!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Randwolf, Mar 12, 2011
    #31
  15. GeoffP

    GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Gustav, pick a target and stick with it.

    No, wait: I can't stay mad at you.

    No, wait: yes I can.

    Probably.

    /sneer
     
    GeoffP, Mar 13, 2011
    #32
  16. Captain Kremmen

    Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    Gottes Mühlen mahlen langsam, mahlen aber trefflich klein / Ob aus Langmut er sich säumet, bringt mit Schärf' er alles ein
     
    Captain Kremmen, Mar 13, 2011
    #33
  17. Gustav

    Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    we are all kafirs that follow convention in here, cap
    if current bans can only be justified by retroactive bans, the rational course of action is to have no bans at all.


    your account of events supersede mine because.............?
    what is your role here?
    an impartial and objective observer or a partisan player?

    if not for your bogus and opportunistic kafir bannings none of this would have happened



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    really james!


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    try tho
    think of the community you were elected to serve
    put our interest and wellbeing before yours
    stop exploiting geoff to bludgeon the rest of us
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2011
    Gustav, Mar 13, 2011
    #34
  18. Gustav

    Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    perhaps a joke to lighten mood and lift spirits??



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    EPIC FAIL!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ​
     
    Gustav, Mar 13, 2011
    #35
  19. wynn

    wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Revolution devours its children ...
     
    wynn, Mar 13, 2011
    #36
  20. GeoffP

    GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Gus, it's done. No worries. There's bigger issues.
     
    GeoffP, Mar 14, 2011
    #37
  21. Crunchy Cat

    Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    Good lord Gustav, this is sciforums... not whiney little bitch forums.
     
    Crunchy Cat, Mar 14, 2011
    #38
  22. James R

    James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    Anyway, GeoffP is back. This thread has served its purpose. Closed.
     
    James R, Mar 14, 2011
    #39
Page 2 of 2
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page