Backgrounds in moderation

[scheherazade]

Pffftt.

Egos. Dime a dozen.

Considers the potential of buying large buckets in volume for resale for cleaning up melt-down messes in virtual reality.

Where does one find the UPC or OPM for virtual buckets? Who supplies them? How best to arrange transport and delivery? What size the target market, and most importantly, what price to sell at?

What's the projected margin on the potential of this 'product'?

 

[chimpkin]

Considers the potential of buying large buckets in volume for resale for cleaning up melt-down messes in virtual reality.

 

[GeoffP]

Thankyou ma'am may I have another!

You'll have to forgive me, but I'm still trying to figure out what exactly you want or expect from me.

Not a thing, actually.

So what issue are you commenting on, exactly? My argument with James? The issues the "free members" of this forum have with the way this forum is administered and moderated? Or 'something something'?

It's as if you're coming after me for not having spoken to you and for telling you that it is the members who make this forum what it is...

Not at all. I'm not coming after you for anything, or no more than anyone who's posted here. I've said and I reiterate: the mods make the forum as much as anyone. This "oh it's all those intransigent posters' fault" line is bull - IMHO.

Because they are directly involved in the discussion we are discussing.

Interesting. How are they directly involved? What requires them - any of them - to write in on this issue? If I get in on the discussion - not to praise Caesar but not exactly to bury him either - how is that different? Is it because I disagree with you? Go through the list of posters in this thread. Explain their direct involvement. Are we even really discussing this?

Look Geoff, I don't currently have an issue with you. You seem to have a very big one with you.

Yes, I've always had a problem with myself. No, the gripe following here is about the kinds of things that those who post expect, and how the standards seem to vary. The joke now is blaming James for all this when it was common to a lot of mods. You're making him into the monster under every thread's bed. That's bullshit. Like James or don't like him, but fair's fucking fair.

I don't know. You told me "So: you get the forum you impose. "...

So what forum did I impose on you?

Well, now that you've narrowed it down: when you get into drudging, and name-calling, and encourage others to do the same, you impose your biases on the forums via your status. I mean, if a poster libels the living fuck out of you, there's a handy "Report" button right there, and basically I use it if the accusation is bullshit; hey, sorry, but enough already. But when a mod does it, what's the recourse? There's no effective recourse. And so you get the forum that you impose on others. Sure, the posters also influence the direction of the discussion from the bottom-up, but a lot of it is top-down and there's no avoiding that fact. Go read my post above again. It's eloquent on this subject. Mods have been banned? Not too recently.

You seem to want me to lay out an action for you to take here: there isn't one, or not anymore. Most of the polarization of the forum could have been avoided long, long ago. The camps have been called. No one is going to budge, barring some kind of major shake-up. To reiterate: I am neither demanding action from you, or pointing a finger and yelling "ha-ha". I'm just reminding you that the direction has not merely been from the posters; much of it comes from the mods also, and sometimes it has been excruciatingly negative. Most of them have been steadfastly neutral, but some have not and it shows. I doubt there's anything to be done on that score now. The damage is done. Maybe time will heal it. Hell, probably, even.

Is this your way of telling me that I'm getting what I asked for? From whom? James? You?

From whom? No idea how you mean this: but yup, the polarization of the forums is something you asked for. Not directly, but with the vituperation. It went on and on and on. It wasn't just you, but you were in on it. So you - and others - have got the forum you asked for: assholes on either side of a fifty-foot wall. Prescient.

Your Lord of the Rings comparison aside, you are not exactly innocent. Look at this thread as a prime example. You are trying to bait me into abusing you, accused me of abusing you in this thread when I had not done so, acting as if I'm hounding you for disagreeing with me about the members making this forum and directing where we go, when I had not.

That last sentence is madness from the get-go: you have this weird thing about thinking that other people are trying to get you to cop abuse. I'm not even sure what this is: sadism? It's like you're asking for other people to ask for it, which sounds kind of masochist, but I guess at the heart it's still about what you want to do to others. I have no idea what the motivation really is.

Anyway: the last sentence of yours above is BS. I'm not trying to bait you. I'm asserting - not without reason - that some mods have contributed significantly to the split in the forum. You're asking me if I'm demanding the rubber handcuffs or the fucking baton. No. This isn't the bejesus what it's about, Admiral. I'm not saying that you're hounding me for disagreeing about blah blah: I'm just fucking telling you that I don't agree with your assessment. Lose the...persecution complex? I have no idea what the hell it is. Theoretical sadism? How am I "trying to get you to abuse me" by disagreeing with you? If I disagree, I'm baiting you?

In short, you are saying 'I know you're not a bad person Bells, but... something something'..

Do you actually understand why I resigned? I don't think you do. In fact, it is clear you do not.

Bells...I don't know why you resigned, and I'm not pursuing it. That's your business and I'm sure you had appropriate ethical reasons. But you're also taking James to task for the kind of high-handedness you helped inspire. Hey, guess what: there's lots more of it. And it'll probably go on. I do think you're a nice person, Bells, but you can't say you weren't in on this, and it can't be dumped on the filthy proles. I think you have many fine characters, and certainly it isn't in any way all up to you, but here we disagree about the proportions of origin and culpability. That's it.

Geoff

 

[Bells]

Not a thing, actually.

So these posts from you are..?

To tell me you disagree with me?

As I said to you before.. okay. You disagree.

And?

Not at all. I'm not coming after you for anything, or no more than anyone who's posted here. I've said and I reiterate: the mods make the forum as much as anyone. This "oh it's all those intransigent posters' fault" line is bull - IMHO.

The mods are also members.. yes..

And where did I say it was the whole "oh it's all those intransigent posters' fault" type of "bull"? Can you show it to me please?

Link?

Interesting. How are they directly involved? What requires them - any of them - to write in on this issue? If I get in on the discussion - not to praise Caesar but not exactly to bury him either - how is that different? Is it because I disagree with you? Go through the list of posters in this thread. Explain their direct involvement. Are we even really discussing this?

Do you know what we are currently discussing before you re-entered the thread?

Yes, I've always had a problem with myself. No, the gripe following here is about the kinds of things that those who post expect, and how the standards seem to vary. The joke now is blaming James for all this when it was common to a lot of mods. You're making him into the monster under every thread's bed. That's bullshit. Like James or don't like him, but fair's fucking fair.

Was a typo.

And I assure you, no one here is treating this as a joke. I certainly am not.

Now, can you tell me which other mod ban willy nilly without documentation and refuse to explain why?

I am sure he will personally thank you for your support. But thus far, we have all been held accountable for our actions, through either being banned, given infringement or threatened with both. I'll put it this way Geoff, in all our wars of the past, if I was like James and was thus not held accountable, you would not be posting here at all. Do you understand the difference now?

Well, now that you've narrowed it down: when you get into drudging, and name-calling, and encourage others to do the same, you impose your biases on the forums via your status. I mean, if a poster libels the living fuck out of you, there's a handy "Report" button right there, and basically I use it if the accusation is bullshit; hey, sorry, but enough already. But when a mod does it, what's the recourse? There's no effective recourse. And so you get the forum that you impose on others. Sure, the posters also influence the direction of the discussion from the bottom-up, but a lot of it is top-down and there's no avoiding that fact. Go read my post above again. It's eloquent on this subject. Mods have been banned? Not too recently.

We will of course overlook the fact that you started this thread and pointed me out of the crowd, the 'lawyer', and questioning my qualifications.. We will also ignore your name calling, your crying to James for every little thing when you are hardly innocent in the goading, name calling and abusing yourself.. When you PM me and then abuse me in public and via PM after I tell you via PM that I had been away due to the cancer treatment I was having at the time and abusing me for a double standard for not posting.. when I hadn't even been there in the first place.. because apparently responding to you was more important than my chemo.. no, those PM's weren't goading, were they?

I see you also completely missed the fact that I had repeated, over and over again that when I post outside of Human Science, I am posting as a member, so I never once absolved myself of any responsibility for the direction this forum has taken. But hey, no, that doesn't matter does it?

Maybe I should ask James what my recourse is against you Geoff.

You seem to want me to lay out an action for you to take here: there isn't one, or not anymore. Most of the polarization of the forum could have been avoided long, long ago. The camps have been called. No one is going to budge, barring some kind of major shake-up. To reiterate: I am neither demanding action from you, or pointing a finger and yelling "ha-ha". I'm just reminding you that the direction has not merely been from the posters; much of it comes from the mods also, and sometimes it has been excruciatingly negative. Most of them have been steadfastly neutral, but some have not and it shows. I doubt there's anything to be done on that score now. The damage is done. Maybe time will heal it. Hell, probably, even.

So what are you doing here then? What are you doing here with me?

You are aware, aren't you, that I never once moderated you. I don't think I have ever issued you an infraction. Certainly for anything you and I have brawled over. Not once.

From whom? No idea how you mean this: but yup, the polarization of the forums is something you asked for. Not directly, but with the vituperation. It went on and on and on. It wasn't just you, but you were in on it. So you - and others - have got the forum you asked for: assholes on either side of a fifty-foot wall. Prescient.

Right..

Okay. If that is your opinion that I was 'in on it'.. as though we planned this from the start.. 10 years ago...:shrug:

So here we are, with the forum we apparently asked for with, in your opinion, arseholes on either side, with you on the wall in your shiny armour! Praise jeebus our saviour..

That last sentence is madness from the get-go: you have this weird thing about thinking that other people are trying to get you to cop abuse. I'm not even sure what this is: sadism? It's like you're asking for other people to ask for it, which sounds kind of masochist, but I guess at the heart it's still about what you want to do to others. I have no idea what the motivation really is.

Not at all. I'm simply trying to figure out what your issue is and what your problem is with me in particular.

Anyway: the last sentence of yours above is BS. I'm not trying to bait you. I'm asserting - not without reason - that some mods have contributed significantly to the split in the forum. You're asking me if I'm demanding the rubber handcuffs or the fucking baton. No. This isn't the bejesus what it's about, Admiral. I'm not saying that you're hounding me for disagreeing about blah blah: I'm just fucking telling you that I don't agree with your assessment. Lose the...persecution complex? I have no idea what the hell it is. Theoretical sadism? How am I "trying to get you to abuse me" by disagreeing with you? If I disagree, I'm baiting you?

So you are not trying to bait me, by telling me that 'some mods' have contributed to the split in the forum (I don't think you actually realise what caused the split) and then swearing at me?

You're not trying to bait me. You're "just fucking telling" me that you disagree with me?

Okay.

Bells...I don't know why you resigned, and I'm not pursuing it. That's your business and I'm sure you had appropriate ethical reasons. But you're also taking James to task for the kind of high-handedness you helped inspire. Hey, guess what: there's lots more of it. And it'll probably go on. I do think you're a nice person, Bells, but you can't say you weren't in on this, and it can't be dumped on the filthy proles. I think you have many fine characters, and certainly it isn't in any way all up to you, but here we disagree about the proportions of origin and culpability. That's it.

Then show me who I banned incorrectly and show me where I abused my mod powers and then refused to explain or even apologise. Show me where I inspire such actions. Find me a link. Or go away.

I don't think you quite understand anything that's going on at the moment. You seem to be torn between defending James and abusing moderators for 'something something'.

You think 'I have many fine characters' but you are accusing me of conspiracy and abuse of my moderator powers.. No, not baiting at all.

Geoff, you disagree with me, again.. fine.:shrug: You "fucking" told me already.

 

[Aladdin]

It's up to you really. And by you I mean all of you. If you want me back I will consider coming back.

Nope. Stay the fuck away wherever you are -- and if you could take Gustav and quadrablabla with you so much the better.

---

@Bells & Tiassa: I can't get it why you didn't dealt with James R. in the Mod's forum. He just doesn't come across as a person who would have ignored you there and only answer you here because this is a public forum.

 

[Bells]

You don't think we've tried?

 

[S.A.M.]

Is Alladin a sock puppet? Or just someone with an instant grasp of long running matters?

 

[Bells]

I'd say sockpuppet for sure.

On a totally different matter.. holy crap I'd forgotten how small our PM box is as member.. Mass deletion and it was still full..

 

[James R]

trololololooo

lmao.

 

[S.A.M.]

I'd say sockpuppet for sure.

On a totally different matter.. holy crap I'd forgotten how small our PM box is as member.. Mass deletion and it was still full..

Yup I took the easy way out. Download all private messages as text followed by empty folder [you have to do this twice - inbox and sent]

 

[James R]

spuriousmonkey:

General announcement from spuriousmonkey:

I, spuriousmonkey, hereby sincerely apologize to all of sciforums for posting porn or links to porn. That was puerile.

I also apologize for requesting a self ban.

Thanks for the apology. I still haven't heard from you by PM. Also, unfortunately, an apology is useless unless it is heartfelt.

I am willing to open up a dialogue based on conflict management considering hurt feelings of specific individuals when they require so for their further emotional well being.

This comes across as disingenuous.

What are you planning to do regarding the continuing slander of sciforums and its moderators on your own forum?

When are you going to stop engaging in that yourself?

How many people do you think you're actually fooling here?

Pss. I cannot consider any list of demands made by members or moderators or administrators of this forum since they would conflict with the list of demands made by the site owner.

Fine. No need to do so.

You may have missed my posts regarding yourself in this thread. If so, go back and read them.

Psss. My own forum i independent of this forum, and what is said and done there has nothing to do with this site. It is unreasonable to assume or demand that the rules of sciforums are valid across the entire internet and into our private lives as well.

Half right. The lies about your forum's content won't really fly, I'm afraid. Go to just about any thread there and people can see you and your mates continually referring to what goes on here. You all seem quite fixated. Crunchy Cat's posts above in the current thread are right on the money.

So, once again, who do you think you're fooling?

Would I like to return to an oppressive site where I would have to carefully walk the tightrope of censorship? No.

No need to worry then.

Would I like to return to a forum that thrives on intellect, humour, wit and creativity. Yes.

Well, you have your own forum for that, don't you?

Nickelodeon is always a great wit and intellect, for example. I'm sure you agree.

It's up to you really. And by you I mean all of you. If you want me back I will consider coming back.

Thanks for the offer, but we're really doing just fine without you.

-----

Also, James, please do not act on what I quoted from **************. I now believe I was wrong, everything points to it.

There's nothing to "act on".

----

It just so happens that now, spuriousmonkey is being considered by JamesR to be liable for the content in his website posted by third parties (dicks like me), a blatant violation of the safe harbor provision of the CDA (or whatever similar law exists in the country where his website is hosted).

spuriousmonkey has complete control over what material remains on his website. He is well aware of all the insults levelled at this forum. He obviously condones and approves of them.

Spuriousmonkey can't be held responsible for the shit I write. He also can't be forced to take the shit I write down. He may or may not agree with the shit I write, but that is irrelevant.

Right on both counts. He is not responsible for the shit you write, and he can't be forced to take it down.

But to pretend he wants to make amends here while continuing to host "shit" is two-faced and dishonest, as ever with him.

Witness his false "apology" above. I bet right now you're all having a big laugh about that over on his forum.

 

[James R]

Bells:

So you have proof that the people who were at the time rampaging through the streets were also reading sciforums at the same time and getting advice from Gustav? Talk about multi-tasking!

It doesn't matter if nobody who was looting in the London riots ever comes here. The principle is that we have no need to host advice to criminals. Get it?

Sam's lead? How exactly?

What is Sam's lead, exactly? And how can you claim to be fair and competent when you can come out and accuse people of following "sam's lead", whatever that is?

Put the puzzle together yourself. It's not hard. SAM was a member, then she was a moderator, then she wasn't. Now she is a disgruntled ex-moderator. etc. etc. You can fill in gaps, I'm sure.

So now you "skimmed it"..

I haven't read those posts. I'm not sure where they are.​

Very different to your earlier claim of not having read them and not even knowing where they are. Which is it?

At any time you could have provided a link to say which posts you were talking about on any given occasion. Somehow, I'm supposed to read your mind and intuit what you're referring to. Once you referred to a specific thread, I had more of an idea what your were talking about.

Once again, you're trying to give readers the impression that I wrote about your "feminine touch". I never did. That wasn't me. And I resent your attempt to drag my name into that kind of bullshit.

I never said you did say it James.

I was taking a leaf out of your book and having some fun..

You know.. running with it..

So your idea of fun now is to paint me as a misogynistic sexist.

Wow, Bells. You've really flipped out.

Now you are saying that you skimmed the posts you saw, including my "melodramatic resignation" post - was in the thread you started to discuss the issue of the leaflet..

Now, you are giving the impression that I started a thread and had a melodramatic kind of fit and reesigned..

I didn't mean to give any such impression. I started a thread to discuss the topic of material posted by Gustav. You posted in that thread on how you disagreed with my position on that. Another moderator wrote to disagree with you, and you blew your lid at that point and resigned.

You claimed you had not read the posts in your thread (that you started by moving posts around dealing with the issue), and you claimed you apparently did not know where said posts were. You apparently responded and commented on what had been said in said posts (the very posts you had apparently not read and did not know where they were).. Now you are saying you skimmed it..

I moved posts discussing Gustav's ban from the "temporary ban" forum to a separate thread for discussion. I skimmed them, like I said. As for responding and commenting, I've covered that in my last reply to you. Didn't you read it?

Also James. I posted my resignation BEFORE you posted that 'hold your horses' post, saying that we shouldn't be resigning, etc. Not after.

I never said anything different.

Can I give you some advice? Get your story straight before you try and establish a timeline.

Who cares about your timeline? What audience are you playing to here? Do you really think that trying to trip me up on what went down in a forum that general members can't see is going to impress anybody?

And so does everybody else. It's on the ban list, which is publically viewable by every member!

Nothing is hidden about bans.

Hmmm..

Previously, we established, when you commented on my private life, that "Hmmmm...." is code for "I'm not going to talk about that", and that it was not an innuendo that (a) I have no private life or (b) that my attending to your concerns and complaints is more important than attending to things like my family.

So, I'm going to assume that your "Hmmm..." here similarly means "I'm not going to take about what information is available about bans" (for whatever reason), and that it is not innuendo for "You're lying, James. There's a lot of stuff hidden about bans, but I won't tell the general membership about that. I'll just let them think you're being underhanded."

So, let us move on.

You brought it up. I responded with "hmmm" because I was not going to say a single actual word about your personal life. You queried why I said "hmmm" and I told you that it was a "hmmm" which was 'I'm not saying a word about your personal life on this forum'.. when you asked..

I'm recording this as evidence of the reasonableness of my interpretation above.

In this instance, to the rioters involved in the recent London riots. It said so explicitly at the top of the pamphlet he posted. It was addressed directly to those people who had committed crimes.

You mean the rioters who had stopped rioting and were busily accessing sciforums?

Yes.

 

[Bells]

It doesn't matter if nobody who was looting in the London riots ever comes here. The principle is that we have no need to host advice to criminals. Get it?

The criminals it would have been shown to would be the London rioters. The very people you are now saying did not matter if they saw it on this site..

In short James, as I told you many times now, you have no proof that he was directing it at criminals. He posted something pertaining to the subject matter in the thread. You obviously disagree.

Put the puzzle together yourself. It's not hard. SAM was a member, then she was a moderator, then she wasn't. Now she is a disgruntled ex-moderator. etc. etc. You can fill in gaps, I'm sure.

Are you accusing me of being a disgruntled ex-moderator?

What I am asking is that you be held accountable for your decisions.

When you banned him a second time, you did not think to consider that it may have been a bad call. You just banned. You only lifted the ban when your back was to the wall and you were looking like a bully. You offered no explanation for the incorrect ban and you did not even see fit to apologise to him for having banned him for asking you to explain is ban.. in the open Government forum.. In short, you are banning people for asking you to explain how you treat them.

But apparently my expectation that you actually speak to the "mob" and explain your actions makes me a "disgruntled ex-moderator"..

At any time you could have provided a link to say which posts you were talking about on any given occasion. Somehow, I'm supposed to read your mind and intuit what you're referring to. Once you referred to a specific thread, I had more of an idea what your were talking about.

Your lack of honesty and your attempts to dodge have been noted. This is not the first time. First it was the moderator support you had in the forums which was not there.. like you had failed to document the first ban. Then it was not seeing it and not even knowing where the posts were. Then it was saying that I had started a thread to have my supposed drama-queen resignation, which I had not done. And then you claim you had apparently skimmed the thread.. I could go on..

So which is it?

You knew exactly which thread I was talking about since it was the only thread in there that was dealing directly with the issue.. the thread YOU started and had told everyone you'd started and where we were discussing the issue.

So yeah, can the BS.

So your idea of fun now is to paint me as a misogynistic sexist.

Wow, Bells. You've really flipped out.

Well you support sexism and misogynistic attitudes in the back room. If the shoe fits James.

I didn't mean to give any such impression. I started a thread to discuss the topic of material posted by Gustav. You posted in that thread on how you disagreed with my position on that. Another moderator wrote to disagree with you, and you blew your lid at that point and resigned.

And here you are earlier claiming you hadn't read it, didn't know where it all was, then said I'd started a thread to resign in a melodramatic fashion...

But nice making it look like I resigned because someone disagreed with me. Oh yes, Bells, the drama-queen who flipped out, etc. This is very typical of you James.

I moved posts discussing Gustav's ban from the "temporary ban" forum to a separate thread for discussion. I skimmed them, like I said. As for responding and commenting, I've covered that in my last reply to you. Didn't you read it?

I'm sorry. I am trying to decide which version you have said thus far is to be believed James.

I never said anything different.

Really?

You really sure about that?

"I was short on time. I posted a "hold your horses and let's not be too hasty here" post. Next time I logged in, you had announced your resignation to the world."​

Again, I had posted my resignation before you posted your "hold your horses" post.

So you were saying?

Who cares about your timeline? What audience are you playing to here? Do you really think that trying to trip me up on what went down in a forum that general members can't see is going to impress anybody?

Trying to trip you up?

You are the one claiming you hadn't read it when we both know you had and the moderators can check and see that you had read it, since you then posted after I resigned about 'holding one's horses' about resignations, demands for resignations, accusations and what not. You claimed you hadn't read the posts and didn't know where they were when you responded in the thread. Then you come out and claim you had skimmed it before responding.

I understand that to get the upperhand you have this inherent need to portray me as being somewhat insane or as having 'flipped out'. But don't lie.

You are displaying the very attitude that we are talking about with you and you are still refusing to be held accountable for your actions.

Previously, we established, when you commented on my private life, that "Hmmmm...." is code for "I'm not going to talk about that", and that it was not an innuendo that (a) I have no private life or (b) that my attending to your concerns and complaints is more important than attending to things like my family.

So, I'm going to assume that your "Hmmm..." here similarly means "I'm not going to take about what information is available about bans" (for whatever reason), and that it is not innuendo for "You're lying, James. There's a lot of stuff hidden about bans, but I won't tell the general membership about that. I'll just let them think you're being underhanded."

So, let us move on.

What?

I say that when I have no comment James.

Did you get all that from a "hmmm"? God help it if you ever listen to CTD.
You'll end up beside yourself with the innuendo that you think is all about you.

I'm recording this as evidence of the reasonableness of my interpretation above.

Don't worry. I have my own records as well James.

How about this.. How about to display your reasonableness of your interpretation, you post that thread here? You know, to clear everything up and to show just how reasonable you are. Unedited.

Yes

It doesn't matter if nobody who was looting in the London riots ever comes here.​

 

[Tiassa]

The obvious point

@Bells & Tiassa: I can't get it why you didn't dealt with James R. in the Mod's forum. He just doesn't come across as a person who would have ignored you there and only answer you here because this is a public forum.

Apathy is often the best result you can hope for with him. At least this time, when he lies, it's not hidden away.

And, besides, if you've actually been paying attention, since we have to answer to the public, we might as well make our point in public. You know, as was mentioned at the outset.

 

[GeoffP]

Tighten your abs in 30 min/day with "Ab Use"!

So these posts from you are..?

To tell me you disagree with me?

By Jove, I think she's got it

(And, before you say it, that isn't a reference to the clap. Still, I foresee pointless apologies in my future. The crystal never lies.)

The mods are also members.. yes..

And where did I say it was the whole "oh it's all those intransigent posters' fault" type of "bull"? Can you show it to me please?

Does "you get the forum you ask for" ring a Bells?

Do you know what we are currently discussing before you re-entered the thread?

I have no idea where that question came from, or if it will re-enter our atmosphere.

Was a typo.

And I assure you, no one here is treating this as a joke. I certainly am not.

Now, can you tell me which other mod ban willy nilly without documentation and refuse to explain why?

I am sure he will personally thank you for your support. But thus far, we have all been held accountable for our actions, through either being banned, given infringement or threatened with both. I'll put it this way Geoff, in all our wars of the past, if I was like James and was thus not held accountable, you would not be posting here at all. Do you understand the difference now?

Oh, utterly. I understand is that you'd take out your personal differences in a personal way, rather than concentrating on the discussion. I understand that your personal take on every issue clouds your mind like the Phantom working his way through the New York Times crossword. Look, you've as much as admitted to it now: left to your own devices, you'd take a punitive, unfair tack in arguments. That's exactly what I'm talking about. It'd be bloody hard to deny it now. And as for the mods other than you whom I've had absurd contact with, they know who they are; drunken, hyperreactive or otherwise. This is a problem here. We, the humble posters, know it. It's not everyone, and it isn't all the time. But it happens and it's not infrequent. Look at the discussions among the mods themselves. Fuck only knows what happens on the mod forum, but I'm guessing at some major shit. Is this how things should be discussed? It's a series of argument terminators.

Is your name Giambattista?

We will of course overlook the fact that you started this thread and pointed me out of the crowd, the 'lawyer', and questioning my qualifications.. We will also ignore your name calling, your crying to James for every little thing when you are hardly innocent in the goading, name calling and abusing yourself.. When you PM me and then abuse me in public and via PM after I tell you via PM that I had been away due to the cancer treatment I was having at the time and abusing me for a double standard for not posting.. when I hadn't even been there in the first place.. because apparently responding to you was more important than my chemo.. no, those PM's weren't goading, were they?

No, they weren't. But you see them, inevitably, as goading. Nor did I abuse you at any point. I did ask you to stop slandering the living shit out of me, and I guess in some quarters that constitutes abuse. Mea culpa. And nor did I ask you step down, though you did anyway. I merely asked "shouldn't we have scientists running those sub-fora? Would it help our membership in any way?" Then you cited your looming anthro degree, and I promptly said thet were good enow fer me then and apologized. Thinkee for a second here.

I see you also completely missed the fact that I had repeated, over and over again that when I post outside of Human Science, I am posting as a member, so I never once absolved myself of any responsibility for the direction this forum has taken. But hey, no, that doesn't matter does it?

"You get the forum you ask for" doesn't strike me as very general, Bells.

Maybe I should ask James what my recourse is against you Geoff.

Better yet, ask Stryder. Ask Plazma. Goofyfish. I'd be interested to see what their take on this is. Well, I know Stryder's, and I agreed with it. I'm not griefing you. I was proposing an idea. The 'reshuffling' I was thinking of - which we never got round to - included the idea of at least two new forums dealing specifically with law. While Tiassa disagrees with me - oh, fairly strongly - on some things, he does appear to have an exceptional understanding of constitutional and federal law. Should not there be such sub-fora? If there were, who might we not attract to the forums, boosting our membership?

Wait...we would attract lawyers, then, by definition.

I immediately retract that idea.

So what are you doing here then? What are you doing here with me?

Talking?

You are aware, aren't you, that I never once moderated you. I don't think I have ever issued you an infraction. Certainly for anything you and I have brawled over. Not once.

But not, apparently, for lack of intent:

I'll put it this way Geoff, in all our wars of the past, if I was like James and was thus not held accountable, you would not be posting here at all. Do you understand the difference now?

:shrug:

Okay. If that is your opinion that I was 'in on it'.. as though we planned this from the start.. 10 years ago...

??? Who the hell said planned? What plan? What the hell are you talking about?

So here we are, with the forum we apparently asked for with, in your opinion, arseholes on either side, with you on the wall in your shiny armour! Praise jeebus our saviour..

Please, please: I'm merely doing what I can. No need for such exuberance, goodwoman Bells.

Not at all. I'm simply trying to figure out what your issue is and what your problem is with me in particular.

I reiterate: there ain't.

So you are not trying to bait me, by telling me that 'some mods' have contributed to the split in the forum (I don't think you actually realise what caused the split) and then swearing at me?

You're not trying to bait me. You're "just fucking telling" me that you disagree with me?

Okay.

Okay.

Then show me who I banned incorrectly and show me where I abused my mod powers and then refused to explain or even apologise. Show me where I inspire such actions. Find me a link. Or go away.

Well, you love labels and libel. No matter how the shitpile stinks, I can still expect it to be hurled at me. The whole EFC thing was one example; there were others. You guys have contributed to this breach, and don't give me this "I post as another member outside of Human Science" bollocks. If you libel me, and I report it, exactly zip happens, so far as I can tell. Same for others. Untouchable, even when you behave as one of the other members. Don't you have to abide by the same rules as we? If not, guess what: that's top-down regulation of structure and even opinion.

I don't think you quite understand anything that's going on at the moment. You seem to be torn between defending James and abusing moderators for 'something something'.

So now, if I raise an issue about some of the mods, that's 'abuse'. If I dispute with you, I am 'asking for abuse'. If I ask you to lay off the personal stuff, that's abuse too. Everything is abuse. And we get the forum we ask for. Right. No, actually, that makes perfect sense. Call it abuse, and write it off. 'You're a sadist! You're a masochist! You're a...sado/masochist!' Next I'll be a thread necrophiliac, or have a curious take on animal genetics...if you know what I mean (nudge nudge). So just put a label on the discussion and shelf it.

You think 'I have many fine characters' but you are accusing me of conspiracy and abuse of my moderator powers.. No, not baiting at all.

Oh, lord. Enooough, Bells. Why are you being so hypersensitive? You do have many fine characters. Sometimes, several of these personalities will emerge in the same thread. That was just a joke. You do have many fine qualities, but you've also contributed to this polarization, IMHO.

Geoff, you disagree with me, again.. fine. You "fucking" told me already.

Okay then. All's well that ends oddly. Sorry about the foul language. (I don't think it counts as swearing "at" you unless I put your name after the f-bomb, actually. Or maybe I'm wrong.)

Geoff

 

[Bells]

Apathy is often the best result you can hope for with him. At least this time, when he lies, it's not hidden away.

And, besides, if you've actually been paying attention, since we have to answer to the public, we might as well make our point in public. You know, as was mentioned at the outset.

What's the point really?

At the very least, it's given Geoff open slather and season to dig his boot in. At least someone is having some fun.

But really, what's the point?

You notice that Geoff does not address any other moderator, just me. He does not address the administration with his concern. No.. apparently it is not just me, but he addresses me only, just the same. From the start of this thread, to the end.. He distinctly forgets when he abused me for daring to put my treatment before his petty vendetta and actually not responding. No, it's just me. He forgets his pettiness, his own abuse. Denies it even. I never denied my posts against him... And even as he holds himself up high, he abuses me again, ah, bless the freedom of admin protection, eh Geoff? Then insults my profession and again insults my qualifications... He gets what he probably wanted from the start and it's still not enough.

Coupled with James' constant lying.

This place is toxic.

I already advised Sam and Marquis. I won't be coming back, probably for a long time, if ever. So this is the end. My last post.. Until I return or not. I got a call yesterday afternoon from my doctor. The break from that was good while it lasted.. Round 4 begins.

I guess I am tired of fighting.. It's been a while, hasn't it? I have more important things to fight for now.

Butting heads for what feels like it's daily. Watching the lies, the cover-up's the refusals to accept responsibility and accountability. The goons in the backroom who literally ban instantly as soon as James asks for a review, and ban without said review.. And then James says "well it wasn't me that banned you".. This is the crap that's been going on for how long now? And it's been getting worse and worse.

The pandering to members like Geoff.. Notice how James tolerates Geoff so much? I'd always wondered how James was getting so much information from spurious' forum.. Perhaps, perhaps not.. Who knows really. I mean here is Geoff, accusing the system of being corrupt, and James says nothing to him. Absolutely nothing to him. And Geoff does not address anything to James either. As I said, toxic and corrupt. I've reached the point where I am beyond caring.

So yeah.. I'm done.


So to Tiassa, Trippy, String, Madanthonywayne, Billy, DH, Kmguru, Glaucon, Enmos, Hype, Stryder, Tristan and finally Plazma. I thank you. It was at the very least and most, a pleasure working with you all. You are the good moderators of this place. You are fair. We may not have agreed on everything, but you are fair and you made it fun. So thank you.

To particular members. Thank you. It has been a fun nearly 11 years now. And I will miss you. More than I can actually put into words.

Finally.. To the one person who is taking this opportunity to try and get back at me for sport...

Geoff..

Goodbye.

 

[GeoffP]

As you will

What's the point really?

At the very least, it's given Geoff open slather and season to dig his boot in. At least someone is having some fun.

But really, what's the point?

You notice that Geoff does not address any other moderator, just me. He does not address the administration with his concern. No.. apparently it is not just me, but he addresses me only, just the same. From the start of this thread, to the end.. He distinctly forgets when he abused me for daring to put my treatment before his petty vendetta and actually not responding. No, it's just me.

Actually I think I said the same to Tiassa. I say it again now: you, too, sir. And others.

He forgets his pettiness, his own abuse. Denies it even. I never denied my posts against him...

Just their libel. My posts against him...

And even as he holds himself up high, he abuses me again, ah, bless the freedom of admin protection, eh Geoff? Then insults my profession and again insults my qualifications... He gets what he probably wanted from the start and it's still not enough.

Bells...this is paranoia. I'm sorry. I wish you the best.

Finally.. To the one person who is taking this opportunity to try and get back at me for sport...

Geoff..

Goodbye.

Goodbye. Sorry you took it that way.

 

[Varda]

I'm leaving too.
Bye.

Spoiler

I'm gonna go get some coffee, anybody want anything?

 

[Enmos]

There's nothing to "act on".

Thanks James. My apologies to you too.
I'll stay out of this from now on.

I'm leaving too.
Bye.

Can I have a pretzel?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Ok, well. That there is animosity between the two crowds is no secret to anyone.

Was that not known before?

I've seen this kind of exodus of a few members of a board to go make their own forum at least 3 times in the last decade. It's not an unusual thing.

I've seen it too. There might even be a little drama for a week after. I agree that is normal, monkey forums doesn't share that normality.

I don't think that because the forum was created because people fought and left, that means that the other forum's sole purpose is to bash this one.
There is a lot of discussion going on there that has nothing to do with sf.

Maybe you weren't lying. Maybe you were just exagerating. Maybe I shouldn't have taken you to be talking literally. Is that the case?

There are constant posts making fun of canadians, finnish, australians... There are constant posts making fun of engineers and scientists. There is widespread leg pulling between the members. There is too much going on to call any single thing "the purpose of the forum"

Let's analyze this by example:

* Has everyone on monkey forums trashed the Finnish? No.
* Have the Finnish been defaced by members of monkey forums? No.
* Are the Finnish used as the primary source of membership by monkey forums? No
* Have the Finnish been given a special and official "enemy" art-of-war name? No
* Have the Finnish been consistently and persistently trashed since the site's inception to this very date? No.

The answer is the same for any of the items you listed... except sciforums.

You seem to have put your focus while browsing their site in a single trend, and ignored everything else. I'd call that prejudicial.

I would call it pointing out the site's defining trend.

It's not deception.

Hiding the truth IS deception.

The forum has been open for anyone to view for 4 years until recently. Likewise, my opinions and those of petty much everyone that posts there are public. (in fact, I still haven't heard an explanation of what the "two-faced" allegations were referring to).
It just so happens that now, spuriousmonkey is being considered by JamesR to be liable for the content in his website posted by third parties (dicks like me), a blatant violation of the safe harbor provision of the CDA (or whatever similar law exists in the country where his website is hosted). Let me get that for you:

Spuriousmonkey can't be held responsible for the shit I write. He also can't be forced to take the shit I write down. He may or may not agree with the shit I write, but that is irrelevant.

Thus, and this is my interpretation of the events, I believe that he decided to make things private in order to avoid being asked to start moderating his website in accordance with this one.

None of this matters. If monkey boy wants back onto this site then lets see him turn his site into something that has no relation to this one. No special art-of-war names, no special trolling efforts, no parasitic recruiting,... nothing. When someone mentions sciforums and everyone says "sci-what?", that is the point where monkey forums has achieved a new purpose and become its own site. If at that point monkey boy still wants back onto this site then I'll gladly change my recommendation. But honestly, that type of change is a slow process and I would not expect to see if for at least 5-7 years.