Why Hypewaders Suspended Quadraphonics

I deleted it, because I thought it unworthy of further public display here. I was catching up on the thread as an interested member, when the post hit me in the face in such a literal way that it hurt. The flaming that persisted as I intervened in a rather novice-moderator way didn't ease my mind.

Sometimes, I think, it doesn't matter what the intent or context when somebody says something really stupid. Sure, there have been similar things uttered and inferred around here. I'm sure that quadraphonics had no idea that this pushover noobie moderator would react as I did. But my reaction was probably less negative than passers-by in cyberland who might otherwise be attracted to interact in our "intelligent community". I get angry about the phenomenon of hurtful words on several different levels, for several reasons: Somebody shoots their mouth off, and things get out of hand; and inflammatory feedback-loop ensues, and then an important dialogue flies apart. Everybody winds up looking stupid, even the "cops" (especially inexperienced ones like me) who intervene to prevent escalation.

I'm reluctant to give you the satisfaction of posting again what first set me off GeoffP, but here it is (if you want to perceive it more as I did, then take it out of sarcastic context, as I did, and I believe others might have):

I now understand the rhetorical device the quadraphonics was employing. It's a dangerous technique that can backfire. When it backfires, like all dangerous techniques, I hope that these things always hurt the person(s) using dangerous devices the most. Of course I can say the same thing about moderator powers, and believe me I think on that a lot.

Agreed. I was in a mood where I was unhappy that quadraphonics' little verbal IEDs were left along the roadside. You handled it fine when he addressed you as "bitch"; you did not reciprocate, retaliate, or escalate. In such cases, I still plan to continue to editing out words I find offensive. If I happen upon a post that shames me as a member of this forum, I'm going to (soft) delete it, if it's in my power. I realize that this is a subjective business, and I realize that my own perceptions are variable. I don't want for SciForums to be a sterile place where we can't throw in a four-letter word now and then. I don't even want it to be a place where we can't momentarily lose our cool. But I spot anybody going on a rampage on my watch (acknowledging that it's not so heroic, but still necessary in cyberland) I will take them out or go down trying.

Anyone who has read my posts knows that I hold strong opinions. The debate over Israel/Palestine is important and emotional for me. I want to see that debate get further and deeper at SciForums, because for a public forum I think we have shown the potential to get down to it better than anywhere else. At the administrative level of our community, I know that there is sometimes frustration that the Palestine/Israel debate is pervasive and gobbles up much threadspace in seemingly pointless back-and-forth. I want to prove them wrong. I want to show anyone who happens in here that this story and this debate go to the very heart of the hard science of human coexistence. I believe this is as important as any other human research, and I believe we can advance it right here. But we're going have to be careful not to let those who would provoke us deliberately or accidentally to descend into the too-common superficial ranting that passes for and chokes out progress in politics.

I don't know, or claim to know with any steady certainty how to rise above it. But please excuse me when I try with all my heart to do so, because I don't mean to hurt anybody. It sounded so silly after US riots, when the press overquoted Rodney King saying "Can't we all just get along?"

Well, it was silly, because we all were missing the vital point:

We have to get along.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I see. Well, It's my contention that he was provoked to this road, and I note that you note his rhetorical device, anyway. Having said that, the outcome here is not dissimilar to what happened to Sam that time before I intervened.

I couldn't get to either of your links, but that is of no matter, seemingly.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

yes
it is when one uses another's words against them
a rhetorical device aimed at exposing hypocrisy and the utter hollowness of one's argument

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

for the historical record.....

who?
what
ahhh!

/snicker

 

brilliant!
thank you

 

It's a dangerous game around here now, Gustav. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, and not the dullest either. The best and most introspective advice I can offer is let's fight the good fight, but not be misunderstood. Years ago, when I was more often corrected by moderators (and that was back when more nonsense was tolerated) I remember posting references to an old Animals song: Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood. I've been learning it's mostly a personal responsibility.

I think they do matter quite a bit, although I still don't know how to cause such links to work. I pulled the urls from the named persons' recent post history. In some other thread reflecting on moderation in and of our membership, I tried to emphasize the importance of reviewing our own post histories now and then, with a critical eye in terms of the forum rules and whether we are fitting in, in a place where the objective is to rise noticeably above the usual message-board rabbles in terms of worthwhile dialogue by cultivating a higher than normal respect the scientific method and each other.

To get at what I was trying to offer with one mouse-click, regularly click on your linked username, (or on that of someone who's getting under your skin) and navigate to their recent posts. (username link) -> (profile, right side) -> (show all statistics) ->(find all posts by ____). If anyone can figure out how to automate such links, I would use that sort of shortcut to address anyone when I'm "on their case"- especially when that someone is myself.

I think a review of all recent posts is a useful regular reality-check, an overview of where we and others appear to be coming from around here. By doing this more often, I expect to run into less trouble as a content contributor, and as a volunteer policeman. Anyone who does this with sober reference and critical comparison to the Forum Rules is bullet-proof (that is to say virtually unbannable) here.

 

Look, snicker all you want (I really don't mind it) but I will sanction incendiary posts. If you want to make such posts, be very careful that they won't be taken the wrong way. I will not get into some deep analysis of posts that can be interpreted as hate speech by a casual visitor here; I will punish talking trash. I value your presence here more than I think you know, but I'll show you snickering to the door like any lesser customer, if you disrupt the class or the Principle to the point where our discussions become offensive, dysfunctional, or get cut off for stupid reasons.

It is possible to mock hypocrisy in politics (and yes it's all local right down to forum administration) in a way that does not compromise one's own position. This is a public space imperfectly policed by well-intentioned peers. I'm not on a power trip, and neither are the rest of the volunteers keeping the peace. On a high and mighty power trip, this whole place could be wiped out for spite with a few keystrokes. If any of us post recklessly (and being sloppy with incendiary talk is in my opinion patently reckless) it's disruptive; it reflects poorly on a community that many of us are invested in, and in our own individual ways. Any moderator who takes the task seriously will intervene to stop behaviors that too often wreck good threads and sometimes even friendships here. I wish I could always catch these things early enough to avoid either, and even if I fail that's what I'm going to keep trying to do until my enlistment is up, or becomes a losing game.

 

Er...who's doing that again?

 

He doubled down, and exacerbated.

He was simply wrong about Billy, and off line about SAM. His posts were not parodies - they were the thing itself, with the common motive and everything.

You feeling neglected? Keep up defending this asshole behavior, and this forum will reflect your muck standards in no time, to your eventual benefit along with everyone else - I imagine quadrophonics would regret that, but he would find himself as little able to get a do-over as the rest of us.

He was embodying something, and it's a mental problem you and the rest of your kind here have "illustrated" sufficiently for life. Compare Billy's posts with that flipping incredible response - and that wasn't even from one of the standard trolls. What the hell is wrong with you people?

Yes it can. It was entirely out of line, disproportionate to the point of bafflement, and "provoked" mostly by its own misrepresentations and misapprehensions. By itself.

Billy? You have noticed who Quadro went off on, and which posts ?

Actually, I haven't seen anything from SAM of that flame style either. From your buddies here, yeah, and from some of the religious wingnuts (and the Buffalo/Countzero faction of course, impunity defined), but not from its so frequent target.

You guys have a problem, and its name isn't SAM.

In the thread at issue: you, electric, spidergoat, and a couple of others. As SAM has observed, with complete accuracy.

 

That is total crap, I'm afraid. Sorry. :shrug: I'll tell you what, though: you point out to me where I'm defending Israeli inhumanitarianism specifically, and I'll be happy to agree with you, clarify or apologize. Until then, it's just more libel.

 

See, you don't even notice when you change the subject, swap out the marked card like that.

It's the damndest thing - the outside observer begins to imagine some species of zombie creation or hypnosis or something.

 

i assume something more than a simple snicker in sfog prompted this lecture so......
quote my posts in we&p that are disruptive according to your standards. i expect more than a few

i wish to learn

/tap/tap/tap

i'll tell you what is dangerous....exaggerating another's position to the point of disingenuity and utter falsehood (quad)..... cheerleading those bogus analogies as a valid extrapolation of another's stance (geoff and lucy)

 

Listen you condescending little FUCK, it is obviously you who are feeling neglected and are wide of the point, unless of course you actually think that Quad really believes the following:

"Arab News is a corrupt tool of Western Imperialism (obviously, this story is conclusive evidence that they are a wing of the CIA: why else would they have access to such sources?). They only publicize such stories to placate the anger of the righteous Arab masses at the Zionist Oppressor."

I would have showed more of his artistry but of course ole yellow has deleted all the evidence as if it actually makes the thread look any better.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If you cannot see it his open mockery then you are simply a dunce.

You want to talk about 'muck standards'? What about this:

Originally posted by Tiassa

So ... you're bored, your car is broken so you can't go anywhere, you've played too many video games lately so that just isn't appealing, and you're waiting to find out if a pot deal is going to go through tonight or tomorrow, wondering whether or not to start catching up on all the TV you've missed this week or wait and see if you can get high first.

Sucks, I tells ya.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=98350

And you have the NERVE to talk about this place as if it were a fucking holy shrine! You are not only a hypocrite your also a stupid fucking tool! How about that!

Quad shouldn't regret ANYTHING, not a damn thing. All I can ask is 'what the hell is wrong with you people? But I already know. But yeah its Quad who has a 'mental problem'

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

He's one of the most intelligent posters in this place and I don't even agree with him a lot of the time.

Did Sam also suffer from mental issues when she wrote this about how americans felt over the deaths on 9/11?

"Americans weeping about the twin towers is to me similar to OJ Simpson weeping about incarceration. They easily brush off millions killed by them as foreign policy, collateral damages, birth pangs, terrorists and what not."

"Its like an amoral serial killer who has cut off the breasts of thousands of women with steel wires, while pushing broken glass bottles into their vaginas and arseholes, complaining about a stubbed toe."

Is that the standard we are aiming for here at sciforums? If so then I can't wait for another thread on the deaths of muslims in Afghanistan, just so I can denigrate the people and their nation. It would be a gas to see how your soft petals would react to comment like that over muslim deaths.

Bunch of wankers!

By the way where is Tiassa? Shouldn't he be here defending Quad and saying it was all just 'performance art' as he did with Sam?

Ha!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Like I said 'wankers'

 

@Iceaura

I just received an 'infraction' for insulting your ass. I am not sorry. I will not apologize. I would rather get banned for good than stoop to that. Evidently its okay for you to use condescension, its even ok to speak ill of the dead. But fuck all if one uses some minor slur no matter how true or appropriate then we are treated like children.

I'm not a child.

James sweets you are free to ban me if you like. I won't hold it against you.

This place has become a full on joke.

 

@Bells

Stop sending me PM's. You want to give me an infraction that's fine but leave me alone and yes I did tell you to fuck off.

 

No Bells I'm not drunk I just don't give a shit

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So please stop prattling on with this nonsense. I wasn't 'out of line', I was spot on.

And I don't give a shit who gave me the infraction.

 

nope
still aint convinced