I'm tired of answering for you
James R said:
As a moderator, you would be much better raising this in the Moderators forum. (Happy, Varda?) As you have chosen, inappropriately, to raise it here, I will reply.
Well, since the rest of us have to take heat in public, from the community, for
you, I think it's both fair and appropriate that the public might witness this disagreement.
Hell, it wasn't too long ago that a member accused me of banning people for being Republicans. You know, because of their political views, in an attempt to suppress them. I actually found that laughable, considering how few people I suspend.
However, the accusation
does remind me of a some incidents we've seen.
Like the time someone banned a member on the basis of an opponent's complaint; the authority in question had to sacrifice the English language in order to construe the appearance of a threat. Having received a certain amount of heat, the authority rescinded the three-day ban, and then, shortly after, contrived a stupid scheme to ban the member for thirty days.
Or the time someone banned a member on the bigoted complaint that a
Muslim used a word that wouldn't be offensive if the member wasn't a Muslim.
Ringing a bell, James?
None of us are perfect. This is reality.
But it is not an excuse.
There are a lot of conflicts moderators could resolve with members if they didn't have the additional weight of guilt by association; we are all tarnished by your idiotic interpretations of posts and rules, and your exploitation of your authority for personal ends. We
all have to answer for you.
And, frankly, I'm fucking sick of it.
I previously banned Gustav for posting inappropriate material on sciforums. Having returned from his ban, he then posts exactly the same material again.
It's a convenient excuse for avoiding his inquiry. You know, he inquired as to what the problem was. He may not have agreed with my answer, but at least I answered him.
Would it not be completely inconsistent and arbitrary to ban him the first time and not to ban him the second time for the same (repeated) offence?
The first ban was just a pathetic excuse for you to take it out on a member you don't like. When Her Majesty sees fit to charge the original distributors of that flyer with subversion, collusion, or whatever other crime her prosecutors might decide, the question of the flyer's illegality becomes much more important.
Moreover, he has actually added to his offence by breaking another rule - overriding a moderator edit of his post (in this case deletion of the original material) by reposting the material.
By inquiring about what was wrong with it?
It has long been our policy, as you well know, that overriding a moderator action (by reposting or re-editing to restore deleted material, reposting a closed thread topic, etc.) is worthy of a ban.
I believe that is a deliberate and grotesque distortion of the policy. Had he simply reposted it for the sake of reposting it, then yes, you would have a point. But the precedent you have set with this means that an inquiry as to what the original problem was can be circumvented, since the material apparently cannot be reviewed at Sciforums after a moderator has deleted it according to his interpretation subject to a predisposition against the member.
Now, maybe you'd like to explain why you think these principles do not apply to Gustav, or not in this particular case.
Because he wanted to know what, specifically, was wrong with it.
I, at least, gave him
an answer. But that's only as I see it. We have no real clue what your answer is, because you are either incapable or unwilling to answer the question.
It occurs to me that your beef is not actually with this second ban, but with my original ban of Gustav. In other words, I suspect that you think I unfairly banned him in the first place, and by banning him again I am merely compounding a previous injustice. If that is the case, then I refer you to discussions in the Moderators forum, where the moderator group discussed the original ban. You were there for that, weren't you? Maybe you didn't agree with me at the time. As I recall, the majority of moderators who contributed to that discussion thought that the ban was reasonable.
Oh, I actually agree with Chimpkin's assessment. You will also notice, however, that I let you have your way with that first suspension, and I have even explained to Gustav why that is. I've known since your little tantrum last year that there isn't really any point to arguing with you. You know, when you made your accusation, and then ignored the detailed assertions of fact—refusing to counterpoint them—and simply reiterating your inaccurate accusation. Remember how, once upon a time, we considered that intellectually dishonest?
It's quite clear that the only reason you care what anyone thinks of your moderation is a matter of self love. You
can't possibly be wrong, can you, James? I've recognized that about your attitude since at least September, 2009, when you accused a member of anti-American bigotry; when it was pointed out to you that the member wasn't saying anything that couldn't be found in the American political discourse, you ducked that point by accusing bias.
You can't possibly be wrong, James. And the rest of us have to answer for it.
Oh, and if your recollection of the majority of moderators contributing to that discussion is correct, would you be so kind as to point me to it? There is no entry in the suspension log; indeed, the only mention of it I've found is one moderator questioning the suspension in the internal memoranda. You did not see fit to respond to that memo, at least in view of any of the rest of us. Neither do I see that support for your action in the thread where the violation occurred.
I mean, perhaps if that majority constitutes one out of one moderator who happened to comment in a post somewhere, I've simply missed it. But where else should I be looking? I even checked the warnings log. Where is this discussion that I apparently missed?
So, if I am "tight-assed" about this, I'm apparently not the only moderator with that disability.
Well, I will consider that point if you would so kindly point me to whatever discussion you were referring to. Really, I must be absolutely blind, since I don't see it in the expected places.
If I wanted to get rid of Gustav, I would be quite justified under the rules in banning him permanently. I have not done so.
I'm not sure you would be. Your perception and interpretation are questionable, to say the least.
In this case, I draw your attention once again to the fact that this current ban is for a repeat of exactly the same thing that got him banned last time.
And I reiterate the convenience of that excuse to dodge his inquiry.
If the first ban was appropriate, there can really be no argument about this one.
The first suspension was an overreaction, and that's stating it kindly. It might be more accurate to suggest that it was a
calculated overreaction.
You're vicious when someone gets under your skin. We've seen it before. When you suspended S.A.M. for thirty days because you didn't like her opinion; when you lied about me; when you suspended EFoC on behalf of a bigoted standard of offense. You're looking for
any excuse to get rid of Gustav.
If we treat all of our members this way, we won't have any left.
If the first ban was wrong, then perhaps you should have argued as much more forcefully when the moderators discussed the matter.
Point me to the discussion, please.
Either way, you should have done so in the Moderators forum and no in the public forums. The only reason I can see for doing it here is that you're hoping to rally some kind of anti-James R cheer squad.
No, James. I'm fucking sick and tired of having to answer for you.
Your accusations that I lied to cover my arse are unsupported, unwelcome, completely inappropriate and irrelevant besides.
We will deal with that in the back room, since that is where the record is.
Meanwhile, it is time for you to resign. Period. I will hold you to account for the above statement.
Yes, you have a bug up your arse that you've had for about a year now (has it been that long?). You don't like me. So what? Ancient history. Move on. And, in particular, don't air your dirty laundry in the public forums.
And you've been off the rails for
years.
Refer above for rational considerations. You might like to consider them at some point.
Your idea of rational consideration leaves much to be desired.
