thread closures

[Bells]

Ah geez, I don't know.. Perhaps because I apologised and stopped and didn't keep defending it or repeating it?

LG never once apologised to me for what he said to me, instead, he doubled down and became more offensive. I apologised and did not repeat or bring it up again.

And if you think it was condoned, think again. My comments were wholly offensive and out of line. Hence why I apologised to him. Huge difference is that I apologised for what I said to him and did it in public and it was sincere.

The abject irony, of course, is that in his misrepresenting what was actually said, he deliberately leaves out the part where I apologised and did not repeat the offensive comments. LG on the other hand kept bringing it up and I did not raise to the bait. Why? Because it was bad enough the first time. But that did not stop him misrepresenting it for weeks on end while completely disregarding the fact that I had apologised to him and had stopped but he would not stop. Perhaps that had something to do with it? What do you think CK?

You want my head on a stick?

You have it.

As for Balerion, he had better provide evidence that this whole utter mess was somehow contrived or that there was collusion. I'll give you all a hint. There never was. My comments about this matter were all on public record in the moderator's forum. There was no collusion. Several moderators were taking part in the discussion in the back room. And if Balerion thinks that I'm going to sit here like a good little girl to let him lecture me or tell me whether I was sexually harassed or not, too bad. Not going to happen. I am hardly going to let a guy who was not even here and who has openly made comments about me that were so offensive on another forum (yes Balerion, where do you think the Frostbite title comes from? What you said was so offensive and bad, that a forum that allows anything and everything had to delete it) - really, for him to lecture anyone about what constitutes sexual harassment is laughable.

The irony is that none of you were there. None of you took part in that discussion. My reporting sexual harassment was a private matter to the staff. None of you get to lecture me about 'pfft, that's not sexual harassment'. Why? Because none of you were part of that discussion. You are merely people who come by the issue days later and decide 'wait, no, must protest and make things up in the process to justify the protest and anger'. Which is essentially what is going on here. Let me be clear about something here.. The vote that saw LG's ban remain permanent was not collusion or an attempt at a cover up, it was merely a poll which allowed all the staff to offer their opinion.

As I said, you want my head on a stick, you have it. But I will smack you all with the damn stick (and just to be clear, that was in a manner of speaking - not a threat - because I just know some of you will declare "it's a threat!") if you are going to start waving it around and lying and misrepresenting something that you are all only interested in because certain moderators are involved.

 

[Tiassa]

The Obvious Points

The Obvious Points

It was just getting interesting.

In a proverbial context, perhaps. Still, though, that's insufficient justification to allow some of the protestants to continue embarrassing themselves.

Indeed, part of this question arose during the fierce brawl carried out in two publicly-accessible threads. Recall that the Administration pretended puzzlement at the fact that the personhood thread wasn't moderated with flags and suspensions before. The logic with not hammering the people so dedicated to pulling a second-try thread off topic—namely the appearance of suppression in unbalanced disciplinary action, the fact that we've long let people dig in and have at one another as long as they don't cross certain lines, the notion that not every last offense at Sciforums will be caught, and the fact that we specifically give more leeway to characters we personally disdain—used to be obvious, but those points are now under review.

In light of this, something like, say, Balerion's continued tinfoil assesrtions that don't even match the record he has available to him, while perhaps providing some proverbially interesting conversation, would eventually have to be flagged as trolling/meaningless post content, goading, or flaming. Don't get me wrong; in the past we might simply let him go on and embarrass himself. However, right now, allowing him—or anyone else—to go on like that, for whatever reason, is a policy under direct scrutiny for specific Administrative disapproval.

I don't think flagging Balerion, or anyone else for tinfoil in that thread, would serve any useful purpose. The logical course is the one my colleague has followed; closing that thread makes sense.

Why did LG's behaviour result in a ban whereas Bell's behaviour was condoned?

Well, that depends on how you look at it. In terms of "sexual harassment, trolling, and lying", the compounded offense was especially problematic.

To the other, if we reserve the question to mansplanation of sexual harrassment, I can see why it might be confusing.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

@Bells
What do I think? Regarding yourself.
Thanks for asking me that question.
I don't have an immediate reply.
I'll have to consider, and come back to you on it.

 

[Enmos]

My comments about this matter were all on public record in the moderator's forum.

Uh.. not to be a dick, but how is that public?

 

[Trooper]

Was the decision based on the comment itself, LG’s history, or both?

You, too, have an accessible history, Bells. You've poked at physical appearances before, and on several occasions, you've painted various people as perverts and pedophiles. Did you apologize for that?

Don’t do what you hate, Bells. It’s as simple as that.

You twist and then you twirl. It isn't pretty.

 

[wynn]

Bells behavior was addressed already; much like in a business, what happens in HR behind closed doors should stay there. Again, LG's ban wasn't just the blowjob incident, but a precedence of behavioral problems that had long gone unaddressed coupled with a stubborn desire to not drop a poor topic after being told to do so.

What gets to me the most is the whole aggressive and passive-aggressive way in which all this is being addressed.

Instead of the moderators, and some posters, assertively and non-violently stating their views and their desires, they instead project and objectify.

LG is being treated as if he is what the moderators claim that he is.

Rather than addressing his behavior and people making clear how in particular they see it, we get this highschool-level style of projection and objectification.


Hasn't anyone of the moderator staff ever taken any training in conflict resolution, assertiveness and non-violent communication?

coupled with a stubborn desire to not drop a poor topic after being told to do so.

How dare he, huh?

I would ask that everyone step off their soap boxes and wait to see how the rules and moderator standards are revised; we ARE working on it, but it is something that hasn't really been changed in several years and there is a LOT that has to be considered to make sure we don't implement something that would result in sweeping bans/infractions. It's a matter of not being too lenient, not being too strict.

As long as you insist on political correctness as you have so far, the problems will continue, until you ban all the posters who dare to disagree with the moderators or until those posters are otherwise made to leave.

Then you'll be left with a nice politically correct swamp of yes-men and yes-women.

But then again, maybe that's what you want anyway.

 

[Kittamaru]

No, we are not shooting for political correctness, and I sincerely apologize (and am in fact, abashed and ashamed) that that is the intention I gave off - the whole idea of being politically correct is something that leaves a foul taste in my mouth. Yes, there is a time when tempers flare and thick-skins are needed. Yes, insults WILL happen, potentially from both sides of the fence, and should be taken in stride.

What we are trying to do is determine what that fine line is, where you draw it, and what you do when it gets crossed, and then standardize it - right now, a lot is left to moderator discretion and it has caused some all too obvious discourse and sometimes downright chaos. The ability to standardize a response and make it so things are handled appropriately is what we are aiming for.

 

[wynn]

What we are trying to do is determine what that fine line is, where you draw it, and what you do when it gets crossed, and then standardize it - right now, a lot is left to moderator discretion and it has caused some all too obvious discourse and sometimes downright chaos. The ability to standardize a response and make it so things are handled appropriately is what we are aiming for.

Sure, that's what you're aiming for. But is such standardization even just theoretically possible for a broad-range forum like this? I don't think so.

As long as there is any moderation, this also means limitation of acceptable views and persecution and expulsion of all that don't agree with the moderation.

For any kind of meaningful standardization, moderators would have to be morally and cognitively superior to the posters they moderate.

As things stand, moderators are formally in the position of such superiority. Realistically, they are not such authorities.

 

[Kittamaru]

Sure, that's what you're aiming for. But is such standardization even just theoretically possible for a broad-range forum like this? I don't think so.

As long as there is any moderation, this also means limitation of acceptable views and persecution and expulsion of all that don't agree with the moderation.

For any kind of meaningful standardization, moderators would have to be morally and cognitively superior to the posters they moderate.

As things stand, moderators are formally in the position of such superiority. Realistically, they are not such authorities.

That's why we have each other. Moderators, Super Mods, and Admins are intended to help police and guide one another. Do you think Syne and Myself, being two of the newest moderators, haven't been getting advice, guidance, and even reprimand for our actions? Of course we have; we have also been allowed to plead our case and when our case is just given the benefit of having our decisions stand.

 

[NMSquirrel]

its a difficult thing to be a moderator AND a contributer/user..

I like the idea of mods checking with other mods just to be sure one is not too close to the issue, is a good thing.

a standard? yes,
clearly defined rules? well, there are those that can use the rules to create chaos and dissention.

btw.. this thread was only about leaving an explanation for thread closures.. not to discuss conflicts between mods and users.

so because of:
Off topic content
Conflict rehash

THREAD CLOSED.


>yeah right..as if..<

 

[Kittamaru]

Off topic yes (though a related topic), but still showing the ability to accomplish something

 

[Balerion]

As for Balerion, he had better provide evidence that this whole utter mess was somehow contrived or that there was collusion.

Or what?

I'll give you all a hint. There never was. My comments about this matter were all on public record in the moderator's forum.

Hate to break it to you, Bells, but us ghetto folk don't have access to the Emerald City that is your secret treehouse.

There was no collusion.

Your word is no good here. You've already proven yourself to be unreliable, as your relationship with the truth seems to be, well...estranged. Unfortunately, a crystalline example of your penchant for dishonesty appears below.

And if Balerion thinks that I'm going to sit here like a good little girl to let him lecture me or tell me whether I was sexually harassed or not, too bad. Not going to happen. I am hardly going to let a guy who was not even here and who has openly made comments about me that were so offensive on another forum (yes Balerion, where do you think the Frostbite title comes from? What you said was so offensive and bad, that a forum that allows anything and everything had to delete it) - really, for him to lecture anyone about what constitutes sexual harassment is laughable.

The insinuation here being, obviously, that I sexually harassed her in another forum. This is what Bells is attempting to make you believe. Of course, it isn't true. If you really want to know what I said about her, PM me and I'll tell you. Keep in mind, of course, that I was venting about a person who had likened me to a mass-murderer of children, a statement she never apologized for, and even attempted to rationalize (James attempted this as well, which should give you some insight into why I guffaw whenever any of these people cry foul over an insulting comment or attempt to take the moral highground on forum etiquette--and why you should all guffaw, too) before taking her current position, which is to simply pretend she never said it. Not to mention calling me a racist, bigot, misogynist, and every other typical blanket insult you can expect from the mods here.

The irony is that none of you were there. None of you took part in that discussion. My reporting sexual harassment was a private matter to the staff. None of you get to lecture me about 'pfft, that's not sexual harassment'. Why? Because none of you were part of that discussion.

You've yet to explain why you get to be judge and jury, and why no one else's opinion is valid. Nor have you made a case for why "being there" is of any importance. This is a matter of public record, not a verbal conversation being recounted later from memory. We can see the words and their context. Why does none of that matter? What makes you the one who gets to say it was or wasn't sexual harassment?

Your feelings aren't important, Bells. Feeling sexually harassed doesn't mean you were. (And, to be clear, we both know you don't actually believe you were. You wouldn't need to lie about the details if you truly felt righteous) "Because I say so" still isn't a valid substitute for a reasoned argument. You don't get to say "He sexually harassed me!" and then assault anyone who questions the validity of that claim. Well, obviously you do, but you shouldn't.

You are merely people who come by the issue days later and decide 'wait, no, must protest and make things up in the process to justify the protest and anger'. Which is essentially what is going on here.

More misrepresentation. No one is making anything up.

Let me be clear about something here.. The vote that saw LG's ban remain permanent was not collusion or an attempt at a cover up, it was merely a poll which allowed all the staff to offer their opinion.

No one suggested it was. My suggestion at collusion was that, in the heat of battle, you and Tiassa decided to find a way to get rid of a problem poster. I don't have evidence to support it besides the circumstantial, but it doesn't matter if I'm wrong about this, because I'm right about the only matter of importance--none of the comments made by LG amounted to sexual harassment. The entirety of the discussion is there for us to read; we don't have to make assumptions, we merely have to read. And reading reveals that you were wrong. I happen to think you know you're wrong, and the evidence to support that theory is is in each of your dishonest, ranting posts, both in the thread in question and in all related threads subsequent to that. You're playing the victim when you were the aggressor.

As I said, you want my head on a stick, you have it.

How so? You've lost no powers, suffered no bans, and even achieved the result you originally sought--LG's ban is listed as being for sexual harassment, and is permanent. In what way is your head on a stick? I grant that a rather unflattering side of you has been presented to a larger number of forumgoers than may have previously been aware of your true nature, but that's hardly a defeat when all you're really interested in is the bottom line. You won.

But I will smack you all with the damn stick (and just to be clear, that was in a manner of speaking - not a threat - because I just know some of you will declare "it's a threat!") if you are going to start waving it around and lying and misrepresenting something that you are all only interested in because certain moderators are involved.

It's certainly an unprovoked threat of moderation. No one here has told an untruth besides you. You're the liar, and you're trying to hide it behind threats of heavier moderation.

 

[Balerion]

Bells behavior was addressed already; much like in a business, what happens in HR behind closed doors should stay there.

Except this forum setting isn't analogous to a business setting, so the HR comparison doesn't fly. A forum moderators' primary job is to police the forums, and as such it is imperative that they have the confidence of the community. Bells has quite obviously lost the confidence of many of the members of this community. Her poor behavior has been brought to light numerous times by numerous members of the forum, and not once has the administration attempted to regain that confidence. I believe the time for reckoning has come. Many here agree, and many more in the past certainly have.

We have the right to know how her misbehavior was addressed.

Again, LG's ban wasn't just the blowjob incident, but a precedence of behavioral problems that had long gone unaddressed coupled with a stubborn desire to not drop a poor topic after being told to do so.

I don't see "Failing to drop a poor topic" listed anywhere in the site rules...

The real problem here isn't that LG was banned at all--he's half the reason I brought up finding a new moderator for the Religion forum in the first place--but the circumstances surrounding that ban.

I would ask that everyone step off their soap boxes and wait to see how the rules and moderator standards are revised; we ARE working on it, but it is something that hasn't really been changed in several years and there is a LOT that has to be considered to make sure we don't implement something that would result in sweeping bans/infractions. It's a matter of not being too lenient, not being too strict.

And I would remind you that you've done nothing to earn our trust, so your reassurances--coupled with your insistence on finding different ways to tell us to shut up--aren't worth shit.

If that's too vague, try this: Save it.

 

[wynn]

That's why we have each other. Moderators, Super Mods, and Admins are intended to help police and guide one another. Do you think Syne and Myself, being two of the newest moderators, haven't been getting advice, guidance, and even reprimand for our actions? Of course we have; we have also been allowed to plead our case and when our case is just given the benefit of having our decisions stand.

As long as you guys are not actually moral and cognitive authorities, whatever internal workings you have amongst yourselves are irrelevant.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

its a difficult thing to be a moderator AND a contributer/user...........

btw.. this thread was only about leaving an explanation for thread closures.. not to discuss conflicts between mods and users.

Two good points.

1. It is specially difficult when the moderator gets so caught up in the argument
that they forget their position as moderator and need moderating themselves.
Some moderators have a natural authority springing from their knowledge of the subject
Physics and Maths, Chemistry, and Linguistics have moderators like this.
(I've probably left some out.)
It gets harder when the discussion is ethics, religion, and politics.
In those cases, the moderator needs to stand aside from the argument and look solely at whether posters are infringing site rules.
That's almost impossible if you have strong opinions on the subjects yourself.


2.This section could be split.
Closing the thread is not a good idea.
The subject of thread closures is ongoing.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

@ Bells
I didn't answer you immediately, because the first thought that sprung into my head needed thinking about.
After consideration, I still have the same thought.
That thought was that you should consider resigning as moderator, and just post your views.
It would give you the option of using the ignore button, which is a great way of avoiding conflict,
especially when people are "getting in your face".
You can't be happy with some of the bitter arguments you have got into recently.
I know you have other problems, real ones,and this continual online fighting can't help with that either.
I would say quit, make a list of your "enemies", and put them all on ignore for a while.

 

[Kittamaru]

As long as you guys are not actually moral and cognitive authorities, whatever internal workings you have amongst yourselves are irrelevant.

So, dear wynn, what or whom would you consider a "moral and cognitive authority"? It sounds like you are saying that nobody should have authority over anyone else for any reason... which, again sounds a lot like anarchism to me.

If you so desperately want a place where you can scoot around willy nilly posting whatever you want with total disregard for anything other than what you yourself want/think/feel/desire... then I'm afraid this just isn't the community for you.

 

[wynn]

So, dear wynn, what or whom would you consider a "moral and cognitive authority"? It sounds like you are saying that nobody should have authority over anyone else for any reason... which, again sounds a lot like anarchism to me.

If you so desperately want a place where you can scoot around willy nilly posting whatever you want with total disregard for anything other than what you yourself want/think/feel/desire... then I'm afraid this just isn't the community for you.

Real authority is not something gained by bullying and blackmailing people.

 

[Bells]

@ Bells
I didn't answer you immediately, because the first thought that sprung into my head needed thinking about.
After consideration, I still have the same thought.
That thought was that you should consider resigning as moderator, and just post your views.

Or I can continue to post my views and ignore those you believe are on my "list".

It would give you the option of using the ignore button, which is a great way of avoiding conflict,

What makes you believe that I am not doing that now?

especially when people are "getting in your face".

In theory, this is impossible on an internet forum. Although if I see a face coming out of my Acer monitor, Acer will be getting a very angry email.

You can't be happy with some of the bitter arguments you have got into recently.

How would anyone be happy about that? Granted, there may be some people who go out of their way to create conflict by coming up with fantastic scenarios imagining 'what if's' and then applying them to a real life setting and virtually saying 'see! this is what you are doing!', but that's in their mind and frankly, does not concern me. I will attempt to provide the correct information and if they choose to disregard it because they prefer to remain in fantasy land, then that is their choice. Their mind was made up anyway and nothing I can say or do will change that.

Am I happy with what happened? Of course not. But it did. I can certainly torture myself and resign to fit into the scenarios others believe exist. Or I can simply ignore those scenarios and simply move on. I choose to move on and get on with it.

I know you have other problems, real ones,and this continual online fighting can't help with that either.

This may come off as being rude, but please understand I don't intend it to be rude or insulting. What you may believe is going on in my life is not really your concern. I appreciate that you are showing said concern, but it isn't an issue, nor is it an issue I wish to discuss with you.

I would say quit, make a list of your "enemies", and put them all on ignore for a while.

Thank you for the suggestion, but I'm fine where I am thanks.

 

[(Q)]

As the creator of the thread, I can say that it was in part to understand Syne's view, as it was him who labelled a thread as "religion bashing" despite it being about ridiculing supposed typical atheist arguments.
But there was also the more general question that was posed.

And yet the thread has been closed without any attempt to get it back on topic, with no warnings, and with no consideration of whether anyone else had thought that it had "served its purpose".

:wallbang:

I was away for a few days and came back to find that Syne had given me an infraction and a ban for a few days. Talk about abusing power. He was probably wringing his hands in delight the whole time. I suppose he'll look for any excuse to ban atheists here. LOL.