[alpha-rulez] Moderators are not being disciplined enough and are very naughty

[spuriousmonkey]

I'll accept your retraction and apology now.

1. Nobody threatened you.

The great communicator James R still has problems with simple things such as reasoning. You may argue that the following sentence contains no threat.

I'll accept your retraction and apology

It merely suggest that one is willing to accept an apology.

However, adding a deadline does change the nature of the sentence completely.
I'll accept your retraction and apology now.
This sentence sets a deadline for an action, the action being a retraction and an apolgy, and moreover, the deadline is set at an impossible time frame. Now. Not this week, this month, in the future, no, now.

This constitutes a thread because these kind of sentences imply 'or else'. This is general knowledge taught in most educational systems of the western world. I assume the same is the case in Australia. Hence the threat is indeed implicit and no denial counterargues reality. Please. Do try and be scientific. One liners are not regarded in the scientific world as carefully mounted arguments.

2. Clean your own house first; then you might be in a better position to demand that others lift their game.

This is indeed a very interesting statement. The moderators promise to conform to the rules when spuriousmonkey, a random member, conforms to the rules.

One could compare this statement to the following analogy: The government of a nation will stop murdering its citizens if the citizens stop murdering other citizens.

I do hope that by now you do realize how illogical your assertion is. My behaviour does not grant a moderator to misbehave. As is clearly stated in the new policy moderatos should lead by example.

3. I am not (Q). Nor is Plazma Inferno! Enough said.

Oh, you are not (Q). Nor is Plazma Inferno! (Q). What an astute observation. I think that indeed the majority is aware that neither you not Plazma is (Q). The unruly mob is not braindead. They are indeed capable of distinguishing between individual posters. I do hope you actually have an argument besides this platitude.

Let me further my case in this respect. No, you are not (Q). Neither is Plazma. I do recall that neither you nor Plazma demanded that (Q) apologize when (Q) was calling me a fucking asshole and worse. Could this be a sign of the general problem that we are discussing here? That the administration does not seem to respond to complaints of abuse, insults, and harassment of moderators?
Indeed, it is very much the same problem, and hence I was fully in my right to raise this point in this discussion. The administration didn't clean up its team then and it sure doesn't seem to have any intention of doing so now. Despite that the rhetoric claims otherwise. That moderator behaviour is subject to standards, standards that are in fact higher than that of the member because they are to promote the right environment.

Your oneliner dismissal attempt here merely furthers my case. In no way did you ever take any of the complaints seriously. In no way do you take the critique leveled here seriously, and in no way do you take anything seriously unless you feel personally threatened.

4. If you're having a bad time at work, that's no reason to come to sciforums and take out your frustrations on people here.

I see that you are indeed making a mockery of this thread. I'm having a bad time at work? Does this constitute your argument? I have presented facts and a well supported logical complaint and all you can do is put the blame on something you have no knowledge off? This is indeed childish behaviour. I am trying to have a serious discussion here and all you can do is mock and sulk.

Am I taking my frustrations out on the people here? May I simply point you to the very first post. I am very specific in my complaints. I am not taking my frustration out on the people of sciforums, nor am I taking my frustration out on (Q), avatar and James R. I am accusing three people specifically of corruption and hypocrisy. And moreover I claim that the administration isn't even attempting to deal with complaints seriously. I seriously cannot see how anyone in his right mind can construe this as taken frustration out on the people of sciforums.

Have I attacked athelwulf? A person who I very much dislike? An obvious target. No.

No, I specifically addressed my complaint to three moderators. Nobody would even dare to mention James R in a complaint because of some mysticism that surrounds you, claiming that you are a good mod.

And I pierce that fairy tail with hard facts. There are only two reasons to do this. Either I am completely insane or I have a legitimate complaint. Clearly I am not insane.

5. I love science. Science rocks. And I'll thank you not to presume to tell me how I feel.

I'm sure you think you love science. And at the same time you are incapable of responding to my complaints with sound logical reasoning, instead falling back on strawman tactics, threats and oneliners.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

What's your real problem?

Please try to mount a proper argument instead of making a personal attack.

 

[Stryder]

Stryder is the quiet easy going mod sitting on his ass calmly waiting to hit the Send-to-Cesspool or Lock buttons at the appropriate moment by condoning the shabby treatment of the vertical thinkers over the lateral thinkers to do the dispatching for him after allowing the degradation of a topic become irremediable: I should really call him Stryder the Spider.

Now why don't you just tell everyone my elaborate diabolical scheme?

Actually my moderation is a mixture of things, like some I have a life outside of the forums that I once in a while have to deal with. When I get back to whats been going on in my absence. Well lets just say Order has been befouled by the rancid smell of atrophy, Chaos reigns where once something "order like" once existed.

You can attempt to weed a garden, but why put all that time and effort into weeding just to save a few spindly plants when you can just plow the whole patch and seed from scratch? Admittedly, it needs the love, care and attention for those seeds to grow otherwise you just end up with it all becoming choked by weeds again causing you to constantly plow ad infinitum.

 

[James R]

spuriousmonkey:

Are we having fun yet in this game of wits? Please let me know when the fun starts.

The most telling point in your response, of course, is that instead of showing regret for your childish behaviour you have decided to remain on the offensive (offensive - get the double entendre?).

Anway, let's see:

1. The words "I'll accept your apology now" meant "I'll accept you're apology now that my post has made things clearer for you."

I'll try not to make the mistake of crediting you with the ability to read between the lines in future. Instead, I'll be more careful to spell things out for you.

2. I said nothing about conforming to rules only after you conform to rules. You whinged about "petty threats". I hoped to suggest that you might refrain from "petty insults", in turn. Obviously, you missed that point, too. Besides, no threat was made, as I explained.

3. When you and (Q) had your falling out on the moderators' forum, you were on an equal footing. I did not think you would want big brother to step in to fight your battle for you. Clearly, I was wrong about that. What you actually want is special treatment, there and everywhere else on sciforums. You want one rule for you, one for everybody else, it seems. It's fine for you to speak your mind, throw insults around, but when it comes back at you it's a whole different story. Then you become petulant and sulky, and cry about how life is so unfair to you.

I think you need to start taking some responsibility for yourself.

By the way, you never asked for my opinion on who was right or wrong in your dispute with (Q), or what I thought about it. If you'd really wanted it, you could have asked.

For the record, since you need these things spelled out, I do not support moderators insulting other members with impunity.

4. Your complaint about the business of science suggests to me that you have some issues with your employment. As I see it, instead of facing up to those in an appropriate forum, you unload on science in general here, and project whatever frustrations you have onto the easiest available target. I think you'd do better to address the issues directly rather than hiding from them here. But that's just my unsolicited advice, so feel free to ignore it.

5. If you wish to accuse me of "corruption and hypocrisy", please try to provide at least some modicum of an argument other than your own say-so.

6. You claim that "some mysticism" surrounds me that I am "a good mod". Could it be, just possibly, that you're in a minority of posters who disagrees with that assessment? Could you be wrong about me? Perhaps it's not mysticism so much as a deserved reputation. Consider.

7. The options (a) you are completely insane and (b) you have a legitimate complaint, constitute a false dichotomy. One or both or neither could be true. With your avowed love of logic, I would have expected you to avoid these kinds of simple logical fallacies.

Are we done yet?

 

[spuriousmonkey]

spuriousmonkey:

Are we having fun yet in this game of wits? Please let me know when the fun starts.

I don't think it is possible to have fun with you. And I object again to label a serious problem as a fun exchange of wits.

The most telling point in your response, of course, is that instead of showing regret for your childish behaviour you have decided to remain on the offensive (offensive - get the double entendre?).

Honestly, why do you keep insisting on insulting members. Once again you accuse me of childish behaviour while I did nothing but construct a serious thread. At the same time you have done nothing bu insulting and trolling. That is childish behaviour. Your post is reported once again for flaming and insulting. You continue to display despicable behaviour in every post. You should really be ashamed of yourself.

1. The words "I'll accept your apology now" meant "I'll accept you're apology now that my post has made things clearer for you."

I'm sorry, but I am not a mind reader. Posting a one-liner with no argument is not making things clear. What is clear is that you are vindictive and respond to legitimate claims with threats as I have shown.

I'll try not to make the mistake of crediting you with the ability to read between the lines in future. Instead, I'll be more careful to spell things out for you.

My god. Are you actually going so far into this thread with a serious response? You admit that you have been trolling so far. Is that the example that mods are supposed to set?

2. I said nothing about conforming to rules only after you conform to rules. You whinged about "petty threats". I hoped to suggest that you might refrain from "petty insults", in turn. Obviously, you missed that point, too. Besides, no threat was made, as I explained.

No, you have explained nothing. In fact, you just repeat the threat You made your point clear, which you didn't, and now you expect an apology. The threat still stands. You are not open of receiving an apology. You want one. Now. That's a threat. Please re-read my previous post. You seem to think that repeating the same sentence equals an argument.

3. When you and (Q) had your falling out on the moderators' forum, you were on an equal footing. I did not think you would want big brother to step in to fight your battle for you.

I didn't have a falling out with (Q). (Q) went on a hissy fit and started insulting other moderators. I never insulted him. I demanded an apology instead. perfectly legitimate behaviour. Oh you don't want big brother to step in and help me. Oh that is quite clear. That's my complaint. It is very enlightening that you finally seem to get a grip on reality.

Does this mean now that if a member starts insulting another member you won't be the big brother either because you think they don't want you to step in? You thought ToR didn't want you to step in when a mod insults her? You don't think I wanted you to step in when (Q) insulted me as a member recently. Is that why I send the report. Because I didn't want you to step in?

yes, wham! We have a confession by the great James R. He is a corrupt moderator who just confessed that he will avert his eyes to abuse of members and moderators if he feels like it. When he thinks the other party doesn't want him to intervene despite evidence to the contrary.

Well, is there any need to further discuss your case? I don't think so. You have been proven to be guilty due to confession.

I expect some sort of an apology, and I further put forward the motion that James R will be put on probation or some other kind of disciplinary action is taken.

 

[Ripley]

Now why don't you just tell everyone my elaborate diabolical scheme?

I needn't—you just did. Well, in a manner of speaking. See, Spyder, this is not the Pseudoscience forum, so no need to evoke suspicions of paranoia or woo-woo-ism—and any such insinuation that my sanity is in question puts you into a particularly intimidating frame of mind. Precisely the sort thing I've been talking about.

And the rest just trails along; that you will allow others intimidate or ridicule or incite malicious intent towards posters of a paranormal or abstract or enigmatic topic so that to close or move an interesting albeit outlandish topic will conveniently accommodate your prejudices render your job facile.

Actually my moderation is a mixture of things, like some I have a life outside of the forums that I once in a while have to deal with.

I'm really not interested how you juggle your life outside this forum. Here, only one thing counts: the quality of moderatorship. Overlooking the odd occasion of slack moderating is fine with me unless it becomes boringly conspicuous. You know, I'm really beginning to be amazed at at how people with an iota of newly-found authority and responsibility will be keen to don the robes of leadership but will inevitably betray their incompetence by way of their lack of understanding for human nature. I've seen this happen time and time again in all walks of society. And if you can't see for yourself what is happening under your own supervision as moderator, then perhaps you just don't care. I mean, for once, just once, I would like to see the spoilers of threads in Pseudoscience be dealt with accordingly.

When I get back to whats been going on in my absence. Well lets just say Order has been befouled by the rancid smell of atrophy, Chaos reigns where once something "order like" once existed.

Pseudoscience never got a fair cut deal and you well know it. So if, as you claim, a fringe topic starts out well, you should already have the foresightedness of an irresistible urge that several members here will have to kick said topic out of court. This should be nothing new to you nor to anybody else. I mean, it's quite an insult to me to have spent time and energy and thought in drafting out a reply during my own spare time and then have someone like Read-Only read only, only to fling, off topic, a derogatory remark! How the hell am I suppose to respond to that? And then they just don't stop! Hustlers.

You can attempt to weed a garden, but why put all that time and effort into weeding just to save a few spindly plants when you can just plow the whole patch and seed from scratch?

Why? What's the point of seeding at all if you already know for certain of a failed crop? Topics of obscure conversation, esoteric exchanges of ideas and twilight zones don't belong to you in the Pseudoscience forum. It is to the members who participate off the wall that you show utter contempt for by passively siding with the "savant" trolls.

Here's a suggestion. Abolish Pseudoscience all together. I mean—what's the point?

 

[The Devil Inside]

i find it telling that instead of addressing the monkey's point that the moderators have been working on a double standard, all they can do is tell him how bad his shit stinks.

i say remove all of the moderators, and have general elections by members with over 500 posts.

 

[leopold]

i find it telling that instead of addressing the monkey's point that the moderators have been working on a double standard, all they can do is tell him how bad his shit stinks.

and what points are those? let's see:
the mods act irresponsibly.
a poster says so in so many words.
poster gets infracted for it.

been there, done that. now what? go on a "poor little me getting attacked by the mods" campaign?

i say remove all of the moderators, and have general elections by members with over 500 posts.

great, just great.
put the election process in the hands of the nutsacks.

no, what needs to be done is for plazma to put in place a method for dealing with errant mod behavior.

 

[The Devil Inside]

no, what needs to be done is for plazma to put in place a method for dealing with errant mod behavior.

if it hasnt happened yet, i dont see it happening now.

 

[leopold]

if it hasnt happened yet, i dont see it happening now.

as crazy as it sounds maybe the thought never occurred to him.
maybe he knows it needs to be done but he doesn't know how to do it.
or maybe he wants to do something and knows what to do but isn't doing it until all the stink blows over.

 

[Ripley]

It's simple then:

moderators will moderate only behind the scenes using the necessary tuck, pinch, and squeeze deemed appropriate for any thread needing it. Otherwise, leave threads alone to participating members.

This would signify for moderators no personal interjections or exchanges that may influence direction, attitude, or bias among members and threads.

Members who wish to moderate will have to renounce all active participation as ordinary citizens—somewhat like they do in the church, I guess. Ha.

Hence, only the dedicated and serious need apply for the job.

 

[The Devil Inside]

as crazy as it sounds maybe the thought never occurred to him.
maybe he knows it needs to be done but he doesn't know how to do it.
or maybe he wants to do something and knows what to do but isn't doing it until all the stink blows over.

i think we need some sort of "peer review" for moderators...a feature that lets members with over 500 posts sort of "moderate the moderators" through a voting system.

 

[leopold]

i think we need some sort of "peer review" for moderators...a feature that lets members with over 500 posts sort of "moderate the moderators" through a voting system.

that, or, plazma could find one mod and lower the boom on him/her.
that might be enough to keep the rest of the mods inline.

the problem i have with "poster peer review" is who do you trust.
i certainly will not trust anyone that says "trust me".
there is also the "herd mentality" and sock puppets to deal with.

the system we have now might be the best.
a mod screws up, the poster involved posts the story in a thread to be reviewed.
if the poster has a legit complaint then the mod gets a permanent infraction in a certain category. when enough infractions accrue the bye-bye mod.
in this type of system i beleive the poster making the claim must bear the burden if they are wrong, possibly a 3 or 7 day ban. this will insure the rule "only the serious need apply".

 

[Ripley]

the system we have now might be the best.
a mod screws up, the poster involved posts the story in a thread to be reviewed.
if the poster has a legit complaint then the mod gets a permanent infraction in a certain category. when enough infractions accrue the bye-bye mod.
in this type of system i beleive the poster making the claim must bear the burden if they are wrong, possibly a 3 or 7 day ban. this will insure the rule "only the serious need apply".

Too bureaucratic.

Surely, people don't come here only to find themselves embroiled in or having to advocate or oppose legislation, or be obliged to attest for their innocence, or frame a case against another. These things can stretch beyond a reasonable cosy evening by the computer.

I mean, give me a break; 'formality' isn't exactly a watchword for Sciforums.

Besides, many won't bother, and those who might, will only parrot the same argument over and over again, turning the whole process into a ridiculous genre.

Or farce.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

It's simple then:

moderators will moderate only behind the scenes using the necessary tuck, pinch, and squeeze deemed appropriate for any thread needing it. Otherwise, leave threads alone to participating members.

This would signify for moderators no personal interjections or exchanges that may influence direction, attitude, or bias among members and threads.

Members who wish to moderate will have to renounce all active participation as ordinary citizens—somewhat like they do in the church, I guess. Ha.

Hence, only the dedicated and serious need apply for the job.

*************
M*W: That's how the mods behaved before. I don't know what happened to them. Apparently they got together on their 'secret forum' and planned to overthrow Sciforums. This used to be a fun place -- an intellectual haven, but it has become a police state. Maybe its time to end their terrorist revolution with new mods all around.

 

[James R]

spuriousmonkey:

Honestly, why do you keep insisting on insulting members. Once again you accuse me of childish behaviour while I did nothing but construct a serious thread. At the same time you have done nothing bu insulting and trolling. That is childish behaviour. Your post is reported once again for flaming and insulting. You continue to display despicable behaviour in every post. You should really be ashamed of yourself.

Your hypocrisy is laughable.

I'm sorry, but I am not a mind reader.

I believe I addressed you comprehension problem in my previous post.

I didn't have a falling out with (Q). (Q) went on a hissy fit and started insulting other moderators. I never insulted him. I demanded an apology instead. perfectly legitimate behaviour. Oh you don't want big brother to step in and help me. Oh that is quite clear. That's my complaint. It is very enlightening that you finally seem to get a grip on reality.

Does this mean now that if a member starts insulting another member you won't be the big brother either because you think they don't want you to step in? You thought ToR didn't want you to step in when a mod insults her? You don't think I wanted you to step in when (Q) insulted me as a member recently. Is that why I send the report. Because I didn't want you to step in?

yes, wham! We have a confession by the great James R. He is a corrupt moderator who just confessed that he will avert his eyes to abuse of members and moderators if he feels like it. When he thinks the other party doesn't want him to intervene despite evidence to the contrary.

Nice little rant there. What is more telling than what you responded to, and what you responded with, is what you chose not to respond to. Namely, this:

What you actually want is special treatment, there and everywhere else on sciforums. You want one rule for you, one for everybody else, it seems. It's fine for you to speak your mind, throw insults around, but when it comes back at you it's a whole different story. Then you become petulant and sulky, and cry about how life is so unfair to you.

I think you need to start taking some responsibility for yourself.

By the way, you never asked for my opinion on who was right or wrong in your dispute with (Q), or what I thought about it. If you'd really wanted it, you could have asked.

Enough said.

 

[James R]

The Devil Inside:

i find it telling that instead of addressing the monkey's point that the moderators have been working on a double standard, all they can do is tell him how bad his shit stinks.

Do you think spuriousmonkey's little temper tantrum is justified, then?

Really, if you have something substantive to say, please say it, rather than just leading the cheer squad for your mate. I'm sure spurious appreciates your moral support, but you're not adding anything useful to the discussion.


Medicine*Woman:

I don't know what happened to [the moderators]. Apparently they got together on their 'secret forum' and planned to overthrow Sciforums. This used to be a fun place -- an intellectual haven, but it has become a police state. Maybe its time to end their terrorist revolution with new mods all around.

Oh, give it a break. When was the last time any of your posts was moderated in any way? How many infraction points have you ever received? When was the last time you were banned?

Police state my arse.

 

[Stryder]

I'm really beginning to be amazed at at how people with an iota of newly-found authority and responsibility will be keen to don the robes of leadership but will inevitably betray their incompetence by way of their lack of understanding for human nature.

I've been a moderator a while, there is no newly found. The only thing that is new is the posters either being new to the forums or trying to pull some new spin on the gluttons among us.

I mean, for once, just once, I would like to see the spoilers of threads in Pseudoscience be dealt with accordingly.

There are many spoilers, some will be posters that will greet new threads with hostility towards the poster, I do realize this however I had stated it before if a person find those types of people offensive to use the Ignore list. It was stated in the guidelines that I posted some time ago [05-21-04], along with other gems like if a poster has a problem to PM rather than open threads about the problem since it's not needed.

Further to that the other type of spoiler is those that come back under a different pseudonym either because they are upset at injustices they think I've done to them or that the other spoilers have done to them.

They create bogus posts which aren't worth keeping around in pseudoscience since they belong the cesspool and encourage other posters to post vibrantly for their idiotic posts.

There are then those that post topics that can't deal with any criticism, who become volatile and abusive in regards to people responding. They then have equally abusive retorts occur then claim the victim, they are as much at fault as those that troll. Of course only the moderators see this, but thats because when we spot it going on we have to check how the rest of your posts are to get a better understanding of the type of persona we are dealing with.

[Basically if you cause trouble or bitch you get Profile]

If you want pseudoscience to be cleared up, then obviously I'm going to have to start moving threads to cesspool more and pretty much temp banning people since the infraction system is a joke to most of them. However it's an extremely radical method to deal with just a minority of people requests for change.

Pseudoscience never got a fair cut deal and you well know it. So if, as you claim, a fringe topic starts out well, you should already have the foresightedness of an irresistible urge that several members here will have to kick said topic out of court. This should be nothing new to you nor to anybody else. I mean, it's quite an insult to me to have spent time and energy and thought in drafting out a reply during my own spare time and then have someone like Read-Only read only, only to fling, off topic, a derogatory remark! How the hell am I suppose to respond to that? And then they just don't stop! Hustlers.

Use the Ignore function (details of how are in the posted rules within that forum, a lot of other sciforums members are proud users of the list and probably don't know how they lived without it.)

If you have to listen, don't bite to comments made. There are a number of people hear at this forum that take the assertion that "Free Speech" means they can pretty much say whatever they want without recourse. If the moderators were to deal with every single comment they wrote, I'm sure they would be quoting how their liberties have been violated.

In essence one of my long standing arguements for not editing posts/threads was because this forums Archives, a persons pseudonym leaves a long history and depending on their character and indulgences could reflect to people that they want respect from. This basically means that a boss, co-worker, your mother or father, brother or sister or someone that you feel is really important to you could one day read all the information you have posted over the years. Posting flames, being rude or participating in any number of illegal activity which you admit on here at sciforums means you are allowing those people to see you for what you are.

This is also why a number of posters were Banned since they started trying to delete posts.

Imagine Sciforums like a Graffiti wall that doesn't get painted over, the writing is on the wall and it will stay that way and we try our best to protect that. (Unless the writing is of course too much for various groups of people to stomach. (i.e. religion, ethnicity, equal rights etc.)

Why? What's the point of seeding at all if you already know for certain of a failed crop? Topics of obscure conversation, esoteric exchanges of ideas and twilight zones don't belong to you in the Pseudoscience forum. It is to the members who participate off the wall that you show utter contempt for by passively siding with the "savant" trolls.

I never said "posts belong to me", however I have to identify real posts from prank posts posted by members with secondary troll accounts. This means I have to deal with them in regards to that, sometimes I might be wrong but most of the time I'm write.

Here's a suggestion. Abolish Pseudoscience all together. I mean—what's the point?

Why bother suggesting that. If you can't handle the forum, the moderators or myself in general you are welcome to hang out elsewhere on the internet, no need to close a forum just because you can't appreciate it.

On another topic point, what have you done for sciforums Chewing Gum? I mean you had to come back under a different pseudonym leaving your old history hidden to the sciforums members, otherwise this rather one-sided show you pull would be rather interesting using your prior posts as reference.

 

[The Devil Inside]

The Devil Inside:

Do you think spuriousmonkey's little temper tantrum is justified, then?

Really, if you have something substantive to say, please say it, rather than just leading the cheer squad for your mate. I'm sure spurious appreciates your moral support, but you're not adding anything useful to the discussion.

i did say something of substance, and you didnt address the point i made. if you were to read between the lines, you would see that i was pointing out that not even the supermoderator is capable of sticking to "alpha rules" on a thread when it threatens his agenda.

 

[The Devil Inside]

the problem i have with "poster peer review" is who do you trust.
i certainly will not trust anyone that says "trust me".
there is also the "herd mentality" and sock puppets to deal with.

sockpuppet problem is solved by setting a simple limit on posts (waaay more than twenty).
i say 500 posts is a good indication of site dedication.