Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
That's why I said, "him doing that other than moderating."
Can you stop banning members I want to talk to?
- Thread starter TheVat
- Start date
- Status
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
That is an issue according to you, I have listed what he does according to my three years here.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
There are more moderators but they are either not here or post but don't moderate. That is not James issue.
Multiple moderators on other sites have different areas of expertise, James is physics/maths and Hercules life science. Hercules is not here to moderate James at least that is not how it works on all the other sites I'm on, one of which I'm a mod.
Physics forums do "time outs," my expression not theirs, for a contentious point from a poster.
It is called "thread locked for moderation," they have a place where they decide to end the thread or continue not but that's it.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Im not confusing anything.
I'm aware of the history.
I'd have thought the answer is to appoint more mods, not make excuses.
Given the apparent number of sockpuppets that James R removes, it seems simple enough for a moderator to have two accounts, and to include in the "rules" that they alone are allowed two.
Naming one "member" and the other "member_MOD" would seem simple enough.
It is a solution to many of the issues ("spats") that can be implemented now.
Literally.
Yet...
... tumbleweeds.
Please do not tell lies about other people.
You do not get to make up stories about their motivations and opinions.
You have issued other people infractions for just such behaviour.
Your willingness not to abide by the rulings for which you infract others speaks to the very issue I have raised here: no other moderators to which your posting behaviour can be reported to and curtailed, the cause of many of the “spats”.
Okay, so you don’t believe me.
Your belief or otherwise in the matter does not change reality.
Once again, though, you don’t get to make up stories about people’s motivations and opinions.
I would say that because I see it as an unjust decision, and it speaks to an issue that I see as the root cause of this thread.
The parties involved are coincidental.
So please stop lying about other people’s motivations.
So you keep erroneously asserting.
Please stop lying about other people’s motivations.
I could not care less.
Nor does reality.
It’s not a matter of whether the observation is personal or official.
To quote you recently: “If you really are as stupid as the character you're playing here…” then it is no wonder that you missed the point that, being a moderator, you are setting the example of what behaviour you expect of others.
As such, you are here implying that such personal observations are appropriate for a member.
How about the personal observation that someone is trolling, and asks that person to stop, before returning to the thread topic?
Would that be appropriate or inappropriate?
According to you, that personal observation would be inappropriate, and worthy of infracting someone.
Why the difference?
In one instance it is you making the personal observation about someone.
In the other it is someone else making a personal observation about your post.
Is this the difference?
Perhaps it is because you have assumed a certain motivation behind them making such an observation about you?
And you perhaps deem your ability to identify other people’s motivations infallible, while they must be wrong about yours?
Of course, the only way you could know that you’re not just lying about other people’s motivations would be if you were that other person.
Is Sarkus one of your sockpuppets, James R?
To what end?
If it is not relevant here, why raise such personal matters?
You have certainly questioned whether Seattle and Sarkus were the same person.
To the point that you subsequently had to admit: “To be clear, I don't now believe that you and Seattle are the same person.” - https://www.sciforums.com/threads/p...ose-ones-vested-interests.166008/post-3707642
Note the “I don’t now believe…” which meant that you did, at one point.
Therefore, history.
I vaguely recall you questioning in a similar manner whether Parmalee and someone else were the same, but if not then okay.
Increasing the low activity of individual members is not something James R can do much about, but the activity of the group appointed as "moderators" very much is.
James R can appoint and unappoint moderators.
If there are moderators listed that don't do anything, that aren't here, then surely they should be removed as moderators and new ones appointed.
If a Sales Rep in a business either doesn't work at all or works but doesn't make sales, they're removed and new ones brought in.
Does the CEO look at inactive sales reps and complain that he can't do anything about it?
This site has such low activity that you don't need subject matter moderators.
You only really need moderators that can police behaviour generally - including each others.
Other forums may have zero tolerance for crap behaviour, and moderators are well behaved, not themselves the source or fuel of contention.
I don't see how that will be of much benefit.
Moderators here can already close down threads as they see fit.
It's not going to address the source of the issue, which is moderators not being held to the same standard as those they moderate.
Okay.
But all your talk is about anything other than the issue you're ostensibly addressing.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Lies? You mean following the cause-effect that you admitted yourself:
Please do not tell lies about other people. You do not get to make up stories about people reading your own words.
TheVat
Valued Senior Member
First, thanks for the patient and thorough reply - good to have calm and civil chat. On the points system, I'm ok with whatever members want. I've never thought forum folk much care to keep personal tabs on whether they're "in line with the posting guidelines," but it's not a procedural hill I want to die on.
At the end of the day, I've always seen preserving the dignity of each member as the goal (yes, even when they seem to lapse in such preservation themselves), so I lean towards the full-arsed and simple warning, with minimal freight, e.g. you've crossed a line there, best stop. If they don't, temp ban. If you have a personal conflict with that member then, as others say, it would be good to be able to turn that over to another mod.
I much appreciate that you take time and care to address these issues. In recognizing my relatively limited time with SFC, I'll probably bow out of further discussion on this.
TheVat
Valued Senior Member
Whoa. Hadn't seen rest of thread. Ok, I have to say that imputing a member is a sock puppet of another member is a serious matter. Shouldn't that be something shared with members when there is definitive proof, followed by removal of the puppet account? This is what other forums do, routinely. Do Sarkus and Baldee share an IP address? If not, then this shouldn't be brought into any discussion.
Interesting, but not entirely surprising.
Imagine you were oblivious to an ice-cream van in the park, and I pointed it out to you, and under your own volition you went to buy an ice-cream.
So, had I not pointed it out, you would almost certainly not have gone to it.
I did point it out, you did go.
You were under no obligation to go.
As to what you then purchased at the ice-cream van, if anything at all, that, too, was on you.
Would you agree with all this?
Is there anything in this hypothetical situation that you are failing to comprehend?
Do you then agree with these statements?:
I may have been the cause of you visiting the ice-cream van - in that my telling you perhaps sparked a sudden desire for ice-cream that you weren't hitherto aware of.
I didn't tell you to visit it.
I didn't advise you what, if anything, to buy.
No trick questions.
Do you agree with those statements?
If not, which ones do you disagree with, and why?
Assuming you agree (I'd suggest there are far larger issues if you find you don't):
In the same way, Sarkus may have caused me to visit this site, piquing my curiosity to see what happened.
He didn't tell me what to look at.
He didn't tell me what to write.
He didn't tell me what to say.
Do you understand?
Therefore there is no cause and effect from what I said, to what was claimed as being apparent.
Hopefully you can follow that.
Let me know if you get stuck with anything.
Do we share the same IP address?
No.
Have we done in the past?
Yes.
I rented a room from Sarkus for a while.
Same house -> same wi-fi -> same IP address.
Neither of us even considered that it might be a problem.
For a while it wasn't.
The issue first arose here in 2019, and was resolved at that time, I had thought, to James R's satisfaction.
It became moot when I subsequently moved elsewhere.
Yet here we are.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Nope. Therefore it's one possibility that there is no cause-effect. It is also possible it is cause-effect.
All signs point to cause-effect - except your denial. Oh wait. You didn't deny it.
1. Your "may have" certainly did not go unnoticed. It stands out like a sore thumb as lawyer-speak: it's not a denial. You accuse James of lying about something you don't even deny yourself.
2. James said "Apparently." That denotes an observation. An observation by James of what he deems apparent cannot be categorized as a "lie". It was, for him, a plausible, provisional conclusion, based on the facts. But you deliberately escalated James' observation to "lie".
I'm not going to continue to entertain this because I don't think your motives are sincere. I think there'a lot of sour grapes here that ultimately only serves to bog the site down in churlish moaning.
There are better ways to improve the site than this. But you're not interested, are you? You admit you're lurking. You just show up when the bat signal goes up - like a paid protester at a rally. James sees a duck - one that confesses to swimming in a pond and eating soggy bread, and James observes it apparently looks like a duck. And you call him a liar. Bad faith trolling. You lose credibility.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
No issue in three years, even when I got warned and given ten infraction points, he was fair.
Bottom line is I do not think he needs moderating, I think he covers all bases on his own very well on the site.
Could he do with another mod to spread the load? I think it help and he has said as much himself.
I am not defending him, he can do that well enough as well, i am simply stating my experience.
Enough people criticise him on different threads all the time to make me think a post supporting him is warranted.
I do not have issues with Sarkus, Parmelee or you so I urge you not to take the, " a friend of my enemy is my enemy," approach.
I only have one person on ignore who is active and I don't want to add to that.
It was cause to me visiting the site.
That I confirmed, just as I explained in the example.
Had Sarkus not informed me, I probably would not have visited, but I can not state that with certainty.
Hence "probably".
Probable effect.
There is nothing beyond that.
What I write, what I post, the responses I make, are mine and noone elses.
I don't speak for anyone else.
Noone asked me to post.
Noone even asked me to visit the site.
His telling me that he was temporarily banned is therefore not causal after that point, i.e. to me choosing to write, or to what I choose to write.
Now, if you want to go down the trivial nonsense of there being a causal chain all the way back in time then, okay, the Big Bang caused me to write something.
As explained in the example I gave.
One could say that pointing to the ice-cream van may have caused you to go to it, but it can not be said with certainty because it can not be stated with certainty that you wouldn't have seen the van without that pointer.
So, yes, what Sarkus told me may have led to me being here, it may have been the cause, as there's no guarantee that I might not have visited anyway.
It's really no more difficult than that.
I did.
Because it is.
The lie is not the observation of me saying something, it is in the deliberate assumption that it is because Sarkus asked me to.
That does not follow from anything I have said.
Couching it with "apparently" doesn't mask that accusation, especially when uttered in such bad faith.
There are no sour grapes.
I have rarely been warned.
There is little here to have any sour grapes about, is there?
I just took the opportunity to highlight what I see as an obvious weakness in this site that can be resolved without too much effort.
To minimise the "spats".
If you want to raise them for discussion, do so.
My comments here stem from the specific issue raised in the OP, and what I saw as the root cause.
You have yet to say why you think what I propose is not a good idea, or not easy to implement.
Your only purpose for being here, it seems, is apparently to defend James R.
Did he ask you to?
Are you a sock-puppet of James R?
I am interested, if you want to raise them.
Most of the time.
Obviously not currently.
I show up when I have something I want to say.
The same as you, I guess?
No payment required.
I do it for free.
No, James R does not see a duck.
He assumes a priori a duck, and then fits everything to that conclusion.
As you are doing with your example, starting with the conclusion.
There is no trolling.
There is another recent thread discussing how that term is overused, btw.
There is also no bad faith.
Everything I have said here is pertinent to the topic of this thread, and I have explained my position fully each time, and addressed all questions (if I have missed any, I apologise, please point them out, and I'll address them).
It is anything but bad-faith.
My starting point is perhaps not a position you, or some others, agree with.
Okay.
That does not mean bad-faith.
You may not like or agree with what I say.
You may not like how I say it.
Neither of those necessarily mean bad-faith.
However you have yet to come up with anything that actually resembles a rebuttal to my suggestions.
Okay.
Then your experience is very different to mine, and some others.
Makes the world a fun place.
I can perhaps understand this if most of your time is spent in the science sections, in the less contentious issues.
However, if you don't think moderator behaviour needs to be moderated, it should therefore be an easy task for moderators to police each other's behaviour, right?
No effort on their part, but would give us someone at least to report a moderator's behaviour to.
For those of us who perceive poor behaviour in a moderator's post.
I don't do that.
Other than when being facetious, or making a point (see my post above.
)I treat everyone as I see them.
That speaks again to the suggestion of moderators having 2 accounts, so that we members can utilise that ignore function for moderator's "member" posting, while ensuring we can still see their "mod-hat" posts.
It seems such a simple solution, and very easy to implement, I'd have thought.
I would very much like to put a certain person on "ignore".
But current set-up does not allow it.
Shame that there seems so little desire, even perhaps to trial it, when the benefit could be so substantial.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Bad faith is accusing someone of lying when it wasn't a lie. What irks me is the self-righteous hypocrisy.
There is a place for constructive discussion, but this thread is not it. This thread is a de facto bitch-fest for anyone holding a grudge against James. Beyond offering my own experience as a balance, there's nothing for me here. Carry on.
Generally that happens behind the scenes. Mods often talk offline about standards, to get another read on an insult, to see if the rules need clarification etc
foghorn
Valued Senior Member
Not having a pop at any member or mod, but if the chief mod does the hiring and firing of mods, where does that leave those who have a gripe about the chief mod?
What about not reading JR’s posts at all, when he needs to mod you, you will see his warning appear above your post.
You can then take issue with him.
What about not reading JR’s posts at all, when he needs to mod you, you will see his warning appear above your post.
You can then take issue with him.
Last edited:
Baldeee:
Tell Sarkus that you won't run his errands here any more. Then you can be free!
The problem here is clearly me. Not the endless schoolyard battles you want to fight with and on behalf of your mate Sarkus.
I see that you're also trying to drag Tiassa and cluelusshusbund into your little crusade. Do you feel like you need more support?
Do I sense some projection, on your part? Do you feel insecure about your own intelligence or strength of character, perhaps? I mean, we can discuss these things if you do want to go down the road where we each offer a fuller armchair psychoanalysis. Wouldn't that be productive and helpful? I'm so glad you want to engage in good faith, as always.
Speaking of dishonest behaviour, do you think that anybody reading this really thinks that your aim here is to improve sciforums? Your focus is clearly on making personal attacks on me.
And this is you demonstrating how things should be done, with no ad hominems, no trolling and no dishonesty. Is it?
You know that you don't have to come here, don't you, Baldeee? You're not a prisoner.
Tell Sarkus that you won't run his errands here any more. Then you can be free!
It's a real pity that I'm so implacably opposed to change, isn't it, while you keep giving us all your positivity and your helpful suggestions, not to mention all the useful on-topic content that you post about science and the like (as opposed to negative meta-commentary about how bad the forum is and how bad the people who run it for you are).
The problem here is clearly me. Not the endless schoolyard battles you want to fight with and on behalf of your mate Sarkus.
It's fairly obvious to anybody who has observed your activity on this forum over the past couple of years, Baldeee, that you don't post in good faith. As for conspiracies, surely you're not going to pretend now that you and Sarkus aren't ganging up offline to work out what nasty things to post about me? That's hardly plausible, given the circumstances. Maybe you ought to come clean to your readers? What do you think?
I see that you're also trying to drag Tiassa and cluelusshusbund into your little crusade. Do you feel like you need more support?
Only, you didn't. I'm sure you will, now that Sarkus is back with us, though. You're not needed.
Heh. Who do you have in mind, Baldeee, who is a strong character who is more intelligent than I am? Yourself? Your mate Sarkus? cluelusshusbund? parmalee? Those are the names you mentioned most recently.
Do I sense some projection, on your part? Do you feel insecure about your own intelligence or strength of character, perhaps? I mean, we can discuss these things if you do want to go down the road where we each offer a fuller armchair psychoanalysis. Wouldn't that be productive and helpful? I'm so glad you want to engage in good faith, as always.
Record the hits. Ignore the misses. Figures.
It's not that. I just don't like dealing with people who insist on making dicks of themselves. You ought to pay more attention to the many times I have managed to weather being corrected just fine. But you don't want to do that, do you? The strawman version of me is a lot easy to knock down.
There was no need for you to offer anything. Please consider that next time you want to be a dick.
Last edited:
- Status