Can you stop banning members I want to talk to?

[James R]

Please do not tell lies about other people.

Oh, I see. Now it's one rule for me and a different rule for you, is it?

You do not get to make up stories about their motivations and opinions.

Actually, I do get to do that. Just as you have got to make up your stories about me and my motivations and opinions. You haven't been warned or banned for those, have you?

What do you want to do? Stop people from speculating about other people's motivations? How do you propose that's going to work? And do you really want moderators to be policing that on this forum?

To be clear: we do have a rule that says "Don't tell deliberate, knowing lies", and that includes telling deliberate lies about other people. It's not an easy rule to enforce, because it demands a high standard of evidence. To warn somebody for deliberately and knowingly lying about a thing, I have to see evidence that (1) information about the truth of the thing has been posted to the forum, (2) that they are aware of the relevant information, that (3) they didn't make an honest mistake about the information, (3) that they actually misrepresented the information in their posts, for instance by posting the opposite of what they knew to be the case, and (4) that misrepresentation was intentional, on a balance of probabilities.

Matters of opinion - including opinions about people - can rarely be policed in this way. It is possible for you to hold the opinion that I'm evil incarnate while somebody else simultaneously holds the opinion that I'm a really cool guy. You're not lying if you say you think I'm evil incarnate. There is, in this example, probably a real state of affairs that could be found, so somebody's opinion might be right and the other's wrong, but this is certainly not the sort of thing I want to be held responsible for policing.

In this kind of example, by the way, the safest thing is to be charitable. If you feel like you need to express an opinion about me (or anybody else), you're on much safer ground saying that I'm a really cool guy than if you go for a personal insult, because we have a separate rule about personal insults that aims at keeping discussions cordial. And if you can't find anything nice to say about somebody, the best thing might be to stay silent. That's probably something your mother taught you. If she didn't, she should have.

The parties involved are coincidental.
So please stop lying about other people’s motivations.

I don't believe for one moment that it was a coincidence that you blew into the forum again while Sarkus was serving out his one day (or was it three days?) temporary ban.

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?

That's unproblematic. I note, also, that no warning was issued for Sarkus doing that.

It might be better to hit the "report" button and let a moderator deal with instances of trolling, though it's not necessarily wrong to call it out when it happens. Maybe do both. But watch out that you don't cross a line into personal insults. If you're going to accuse somebody of trolling, you ought to have evidence that backs up your claim.

And you perhaps deem your ability to identify other people’s motivations infallible, while they must be wrong about yours?

I don't believe I'm infallible, Baldeee. No need to worry about that.

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.

I disagree. Motivations are often evidenced by actions.

Is Sarkus one of your sockpuppets, James R?

Nice try at turning things around, there, but I don't know how well that is working for you.

Are you one of Sarkus's sock puppets?

To what end?
If it is not relevant here, why raise such personal matters?

Maybe you missed the point of my post, there.

You have certainly questioned whether Seattle and Sarkus were the same person.

Well, let's see. I managed to find one post from 2022, which is quite a while back now, where I wrote, in reply to a question Seattle about my thinking that he and Sarkus were the same person, "At one time in the past, I thought you might be."

This seems to refer back to an even earlier time. So, you're talking about events that happened about 4 years ago or earlier, here.

As far as I'm aware, I never questioned Sarkus or Seattle about whether they were the same person, in my official capacity as a moderator.

You are aware, aren't you, Baldeee, that sciforums sees more than a few people coming through who set up multiple accounts? It is part of my job to police our "no sock puppets" rule, so I do pay attention to matters that draw my attention to the possibility that somebody might be breaching our terms of service.

It almost seems to me like you're trying to divert attention away from the possibility that you and Sarkus are one and the same person. Why is that, Baldeee?

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.”

I had to admit that, did I? Well, that would be consistent with "He can't stand to be corrected". Somebody must have forced me to admit I was wrong. It's impossible I could have changed my mind in the light of additional evidence. It's also impossible that I would admit to changing my mind, willingly.

Right?

 

[James R]

TheVat:

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.

In the early days of sciforums, that was actually the system in place. If I remember correctly, the general feeling from our members was that this was too harsh on people and possibly too arbitrary and susceptible to the whims of individual moderators. So we changed it. Again, if I recall correctly, it was put to a general vote before we implemented the current system.

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.

Absolutely a good policy, and this is how things have worked in the past, when we had more active moderators.

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.

I don't expect anybody else to know the 20+ year history of this forum. These kinds of discussions about policies and moderation tend to recur fairly regularly, and that's just fine.

Also, like I said, very few things are indelibly set in stone here. If there's a general opinion that we ought to change something, that's exactly what the Open Government subforum was created to facilitate.

 

[James R]

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.

Yes, it is.

Shouldn't that be something shared with members when there is definitive proof, followed by removal of the puppet account?

Generally speaking, that's exactly what happens. I agree that this is the appropriate course of action, except in exceptional circumstances.

Do Sarkus and Baldee share an IP address?

Far be it from me to say whether they share an IP address.

I suggest you pose your question to them. If they do, indeed, share an IP address, it might be a good idea to come clean to the rest of our members and explain why, I think.

Don't you?

P.S. I see that Baldeee has posted on this matter in post #72, above. In light of the information he provided there, you are now in approximately the same knowledge position I am in. Like me, you will have to make up your own mind about how plausible you find Baldeee's explanation.

It's worth pointing out that neither Baldeee nor Sarkus have been banned for sock puppetry at this point. So, you can draw a conclusion from that about where my current opinion lands on the matter. But if it turns out I'm wrong, Baldeee will rapidly receive direct confirmation that I can stand to be wrong about something.

 

[Pinball1970]

in the less contentious issues.

I post a little there. I am certainly right/conservative compared to the likes of VAT, EXCHEM, James, Canadian Dave and probably most of the others. That means I will clash with them on a few issues.
Clash and move on.

 

[Baldeee]

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.

It is a fact that people at this site perceive you to be a dishonest poster.
That is the background to many of the "spats".
All I have otherwise done here is offer solutions, and responded to questions/comments.
All you can see is personal attacks.

And this is you demonstrating how things should be done, with no ad hominems, no trolling and no dishonesty. Is it?

There is no ad hominem fallacy when the ad hominem describes the root cause being discussed.
There is no dishonesty: I am not hiding anything.
There is no trolling.

You know that you don't have to come here, don't you, Baldeee? You're not a prisoner.

I know that, James R.
Whereas yoy are a prisoner to not improving matters at this site?
Whether I lurk or not, whether I post or not, improvements are offered.

Tell Sarkus that you won't run his errands here any more. Then you can be free!

I can not tell him I will stop doing something I have never started.

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).

This is the Site Feedback section, is it not?
Your ad hominem fallacy is noted.

The problem here is clearly me. Not the endless schoolyard battles you want to fight with and on behalf of your mate Sarkus.

I don't fight anything on his behalf specifically.
I merely offer my site feedback, and solutions that would help resolve matters, for the overall benefit of the site.
If you weren't so focussed on trying to attack me, and any relationship I might have or have had with Sarkus, you might see that.

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.

I do post in good faith.
You just don't agree with my observations.
I hide nothing.

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'll come clean: there is no conspiracy.
Not between me and Sarkus.
Not between me and Parmalee.
Not between me and Tiassa.
Or Cluelusshusband.
Or Seattle.
Or anyone else you might think poorly of.

I note your efforts to paint that picture, though.
And you question my bad faith?

I see that you're also trying to drag Tiassa and cluelusshusbund into your little crusade. Do you feel like you need more support?

You have previously suggested others of forming a gang against you.
It is nothing new for you.
It seemed apt to offer a reminder of that.

Only, you didn't. I'm sure you will, now that Sarkus is back with us, though. You're not needed.

Not yet.
Not when people are still responding to my posts and when I feel like responding.
How about you?

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.

I certainly include Sarkus, Parmalee, and Tiassa with regard the ability to follow conversations better, and to comprehend what people have written and the implications.

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.

No projection.
No need.

Record the hits. Ignore the misses. Figures.

If you can point to even a handful of times you have apologised to the likes of Parmalee, Tiassa, Sarkus, Seattle, myself...?

It's not that. I just don't like dealing with people who insist on making dicks of themselves.

Nor do I, James R.
Hence the offered solution of moderators having 2 accounts, so that your main posting account can be "ignored".

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.

Please feel free to highlight some examples.

There was no need for you to offer anything. Please consider that next time you want to be a dick.

I was asked what I saw as the "common factor in these incidents of grudges and axe-grindings".
It would not be enough to simply say that it is you, as that doesn't get to the heart of it.
I was asked that question, so I replied.

 

[Baldeee]

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.

Some of us read posts if we can see them.
If we couldn't see them (e.g. the "ignore" function) then that would help resolve the matter.
Hence the solution of splitting the mod-account from the member-account, so that we have the option to "ignore" the moderator when they're posting as a normal member.
We can do it for every other member.
A number here have already stated they use such a function.
Seems such a quick and simple solution.

 

[Baldeee]

I don't believe for one moment that it was a coincidence that you blew into the forum again while Sarkus was serving out his one day (or was it three days?) temporary ban.

I've already said that it was not coincidence.
He mentioned to me that he had received a temporary ban.
That was all.
That gave me additional impetus than I might have already had to choose to visit the site when I did.
I have explained all this before.
So, coincidence?
No.

That's unproblematic. I note, also, that no warning was issued for Sarkus doing that.

It might be better to hit the "report" button and let a moderator deal with instances of trolling, though it's not necessarily wrong to call it out when it happens. Maybe do both. But watch out that you don't cross a line into personal insults. If you're going to accuse somebody of trolling, you ought to have evidence that backs up your claim.

When you are the one the person is raising a report about, what point is there?
That's not a rhetorical question.
If you would prefer that people raise reports asking you not to insult them, not to troll, rather than raise it in the thread, how will other posters know that the matter has been addressed, given that no warning will have been issued, for example?

I disagree. Motivations are often evidenced by actions.

Rarely can you "know" without being that person.
You can think you have a reasonable idea, but you can not "know".
A philosophical matter.

Nice try at turning things around, there, but I don't know how well that is working for you.

If what I say here leads to practical changes for the betterment of the site, all well and good.

Are you one of Sarkus's sock puppets?

No.
Are you?

Maybe you missed the point of my post, there.

Please explain the relevance if you think it so.

Well, let's see. I managed to find one post from 2022, which is quite a while back now, where I wrote, in reply to a question Seattle about my thinking that he and Sarkus were the same person, "At one time in the past, I thought you might be."

This seems to refer back to an even earlier time. So, you're talking about events that happened about 4 years ago or earlier, here.

You are referring to even earlier times, in fact, to when I was renting a room from Sarkus.
That was about 6 to 7 years ago.

As far as I'm aware, I never questioned Sarkus or Seattle about whether they were the same person, in my official capacity as a moderator.

Okay.
If you say so.

You are aware, aren't you, Baldeee, that sciforums sees more than a few people coming through who set up multiple accounts? It is part of my job to police our "no sock puppets" rule, so I do pay attention to matters that draw my attention to the possibility that somebody might be breaching our terms of service.

I am aware it is part of a moderator's role to enforce the rules, and as such a "no sock puppet" rule would fall under that.

It almost seems to me like you're trying to divert attention away from the possibility that you and Sarkus are one and the same person. Why is that, Baldeee?

You are the one continually trying to strongly insinuate that we are.
What do you expect me to do in the face of that when I have no means of disproving it?
Tell me.

I had to admit that, did I? Well, that would be consistent with "He can't stand to be corrected". Somebody must have forced me to admit I was wrong. It's impossible I could have changed my mind in the light of additional evidence. It's also impossible that I would admit to changing my mind, willingly.

It is not inconsistent with "can't stand to be corrected", either.
One can still do what one "can't stand" to do, you agree?



All of this is, however, beside the point.
It is not about me.
It is not even about you.
It is about solutions to some of the problems this site has, that I saw as giving rise to the situation in the OP.
I think an easy solution is to split your account (and that of any additional moderators).
It would not technically be sock-puppetry as it is not done to misrepresent.
Merely to split.
Simple.
Quick.

Whether you want to continue to think I am a sock-puppet of Sarkus, or he of me, that is for you.
You have dragged this thread to be all about that.
Why?
Does it change what I have said regarding the above?
No.

 

[James R]

Baldeee:

There are now two separate threads in which you are whining about what a terrible moderator I am and such.

Pardon me if I don't address your latest rant line by line. Most of it is a repeat of matters I've addressed earlier.

It is a fact that people at this site perceive you to be a dishonest poster.

Ah. People. Right.

You mean, people who I have moderated? People who have got themselves banned, temporarily, from the forum? Those are the people who typically call me dishonest and biased and stuff. People with chips on their shoulders. People who bear grudges. People who dislike that they aren't allowed free rein to troll the forum. etc.

Meanwhile, you've been pretending to be an unbiased commentator when, all the while, you've been chatting with your mate Sarkus behind the scenes.

There is no dishonesty: I am not hiding anything.

Your secret is out, now. But you've been hiding for years, haven't you?

I don't fight anything on his behalf specifically.

Just generally, then? And what's with your vigorous, specific, defence of Sarkus in the other thread that's running about this - the one about the definition of trolling?

How can you say you're not fighting anything specifically on Sarkus's behalf, when every second post of yours references the specifics of what Sarkus wrote and the specifics of how I replied to what he wrote?

I merely offer my site feedback, and solutions that would help resolve matters, for the overall benefit of the site.

Sure. You obviously have what's best for the site in front of mind at all times. It's because you're so loyal to the site.

If you weren't so focussed on trying to attack me, and any relationship I might have or have had with Sarkus, you might see that.

Oh yes. I can see that your focus on attacking me is irrelevant to your relationship with Sarkus. Your focus is on the good of the site, always.

How do you think you're going, trying to convince the other readers of this to see things your way, at this point, Baldeee? (If there are any readers left who wouldn't rather shoot themselves than read more about this little battle of yours.)

I mean, from my admittedly biased point of view, it looks much more like you're prosecuting a grudge on behalf of your mate and, at this point, also on your own behalf. I think any concern you have for "the site" comes a very distant second to that, if it is actually something you're at all concerned about.

I do post in good faith.

Your readers will judge that for themselves, in light of the available evidence, as always.

You just don't agree with my observations.

I think you're a dishonest man who bears a personal grudge, at this point.

I hide nothing.

That's not very convincing, is it, given that it took you 7 years to come clean to the members of this forum about your close relationship with Sarkus?

I'll come clean: there is no conspiracy.
Not between me and Sarkus.
Not between me and Parmalee.
Not between me and Tiassa.
Or Cluelusshusband.
Or Seattle.
Or anyone else you might think poorly of.

I note your efforts to paint that picture, though.

And you question my bad faith?

You wouldn't lie if you weren't posting in bad faith. Ironic that you chose to lie and then protest that you are posting in good faith.

As you know, Baldeee, I have never alleged that there is any kind of organised conspiracy involving yourself and parmalee, or yourself and Tiassa, or yourself and cluelusshusbund, or yourself and Seattle. Nor have I alleged an organised conspiracy in which parmalee, Tiassa, clueluss and/or Seattle are all chatting to one another behind the scenes, making plans against me.

As for you and Sarkus, any idiot should be able to see that the two of you have been conspiring behind the scenes. Now it is out in the open that the two of your are friends in real life, that you apparently shared a house at one point in time, and that you are in regular communication outside this forum. You also admitted that when Sarkus told you he had been temporarily banned, that inspired you to come here to fight against evil James R on his behalf.

But here you are, now, saying there's no conspiracy. You're trying to throw other members under the bus in a futile attempt to distract from the actual conspiracy (as it were) that you and Sarkus have together.

Methinks you protest too much. The other members here will make up their own minds, of course.

You have previously suggested others of forming a gang against you.

Not in any organised sense. I have, quite reasonably, accused some others of jumping in to join personal attacks on me when they see that I am under attack from another member. It doesn't matter too much to them who starts it. There's a sense of safety in numbers, so it's a case of opportunistically piling on, not planning things in advance in some dark room somewhere.

Your situation with Sarkus is different, because the two of you actually are having discussions and making plans behind the scenes - off the forum.

Now, don't get me wrong. All of that is just fine, and also not something I can or would want to try to control. Have at it, if you want to bitch about me on some other forum or in your loungeroom over a few beers. If I'm renting space in your head when you're not on the forum, so be it.

But don't come here and pretend that you're not conspiring, when you are. That's just not very believable any more, Baldeee.

Try to practice what you preach. Try honesty.

I certainly include Sarkus, Parmalee, and Tiassa with regard the ability to follow conversations better, and to comprehend what people have written and the implications.

Hmm... What do all these individuals you admire so have in common, I wonder, other than superior capacities to follow conversations and to comprehend what people have written and the implications?

And why were those particular names the first to spring to mind for you?

Just coincidence, I'm sure.

If you can point to even a handful of times you have apologised to the likes of Parmalee, Tiassa, Sarkus, Seattle, myself...?

I apologise to you now for declining your kind offer to send me on a busy-work errand to dig up the past at your request.

You could try a search for posts including the word "sorry", posted by me, if you're really interested. I don't think you really are.

Please feel free to highlight some examples.

Again, I will decline. You just want to me to do some busy-work for you. Go do it yourself, if you're really interested.

Are you one of Sarkus's sock puppets?

No.
Are you?

Don't be a troll. I quote your response here, for the record.

You are the one continually trying to strongly insinuate that we are.
What do you expect me to do in the face of that when I have no means of disproving it?
Tell me.

Don't be silly.

Of course you have the means of disproving that you and Sarkus are one and the same person, if it really matters to you. I'm sure it does not matter that much to you.

Whether you want to continue to think I am a sock-puppet of Sarkus, or he of me, that is for you.

Indeed. I will continue to think what I think, based on the evidence I have. If new evidence comes to light, I will update what I think in light of the new evidence.

This is how critical thinkers work.

You have dragged this thread to be all about that.
Why?

You made an issue of how you're all concerned about good of the site. You made out that you were jumping in to fight the good fight as an unbiased observer who saw an injustice inflicted on another member of this forum by a biased and petty moderator.

But that's not why you appeared in this thread. It's never why you show up to fight Sarkus's battles for him.

The issue of your closeness to Sarkus is directly relevant to why you're here doing an anti-James R song and dance on your puppet strings.

That's why.

 

[Baldeee]

Ah. People. Right.

You mean, people who I have moderated? .... etc.

I would suggest you are confusing cause with effect.
They pull you up on a point.
You get defensive, and as a result dishonest.
They get irked with your dishonesty.
That causes them to do things that get them infracted.
There will be exceptions to this, of course.

Meanwhile, you've been pretending to be an unbiased commentator when, all the while, you've been chatting with your mate Sarkus behind the scenes.

I chat with Sarkus.
It's what friends do.
Rarely, if ever, about this site.
Him mentioning his temporary ban was a recent exception.
I can't be held accountable for your apparent paranoia.

Your secret is out, now. But you've been hiding for years, haven't you?

Lurking.
Not hiding.
As said previously, I post when I want to.
Not when others want me to.

Just generally, then? And what's with your vigorous, specific, defence of Sarkus in the other thread that's running about this - the one about the definition of trolling?

That thread is specifically about whether the term "trolling" is used too much.
I thought it a good case-study to examine what it was that Sarkus did that was "trolling".
You haven't been able to offer anything that warrants the warnings.
But I'll leave that to the other thread.

How can you say you're not fighting anything specifically on Sarkus's behalf, when every second post of yours references the specifics of what Sarkus wrote and the specifics of how I replied to what he wrote?

When one builds a wall around a city, you don't do it for a specific person, even if you do point to a specific person's damaged house as example of how the wall will benefit the city.
That I reference Sarkus, beyond the fact that the temporary bans of him and Parmalee gave cause for the thread, is because you keep raising him.
Or are you confusing this thread with another, in which I'm trying to understand how what he did was "trolling", as a case-study?

Sure. You obviously have what's best for the site in front of mind at all times. It's because you're so loyal to the site.

Sarcasm noted.
But so is you trying to dismiss what I say because of my person.
Noted.

Oh yes. I can see that your focus on attacking me is irrelevant to your relationship with Sarkus. Your focus is on the good of the site, always.

I am not focussing on attacking you.
I am trying to focus on a solution.
You are trying to minimise everything I say by attacking me, my friendship with Sarkus.

How do you think you're going, trying to convince the other readers of this to see things your way, at this point, Baldeee? (If there are any readers left who wouldn't rather shoot themselves than read more about this little battle of yours.)

There's no battle, other than the one you're continuing.
I felt the situation expressed in the OP was symptomatic an issue.
I expressed that issue.
I have offered a solution.

The rest is on you.

That's not very convincing, is it, given that it took you 7 years to come clean to the members of this forum about your close relationship with Sarkus?

I hid nothing when asked.
My personal relationship simply didn't factor into what I wrote.
If I agree with someone on a philosophical matter, why does it matter if I am friends with that person?
Even here, my personal friendship with Sarkus is irrelevant to the points I'm making.
You, though, are trying to use it to minimise what I say.

You wouldn't lie if you weren't posting in bad faith. Ironic that you chose to lie and then protest that you are posting in good faith.

I didn't lie.
I haven't lied.
I haven't posted in bad faith.
Do you have anything else other than you simply assuming so, so as to minimise what I say?

As you know, Baldeee, I have never alleged that there is any kind of organised conspiracy involving yourself and parmalee, or yourself and Tiassa, or yourself and cluelusshusbund, or yourself and Seattle. Nor have I alleged an organised conspiracy in which parmalee, Tiassa, clueluss and/or Seattle are all chatting to one another behind the scenes, making plans against me.

I don't know that, James R.
Perhaps you can prove it to us.
And prove that Sarkus and I are conspiring, while you're at it, please.
Again, making up lies about me so as to minimise what I am saying, rather than addressing the solutions offered.

As for you and Sarkus, any idiot should be able to see that the two of you have been conspiring behind the scenes.

Idiots might think that, yes.
Idiots might also think they see alien craft.
Unfortunately even idiots can not see what does not happen.

Now it is out in the open that the two of your are friends in real life, that you apparently shared a house at one point in time, and that you are in regular communication outside this forum.

Regular?
No.
Occasional?
Yes.
But why would we talk about this site?
We are both members.
We can both read what is going on.

You also admitted that when Sarkus told you he had been temporarily banned, that inspired you to come here to fight against evil James R on his behalf.

I admitted that when he mentioned his temporary ban, it gave me increased impetus to visit and to see what had gone on.
The rest is you seeing alien visitors.

But here you are, now, saying there's no conspiracy. You're trying to throw other members under the bus in a futile attempt to distract from the actual conspiracy (as it were) that you and Sarkus have together.

There is no conspiracy.
I look forward to you proving your accusation, though.
But until then, I guess your ad hominem attacks to minimise what I say will be all you have.
And I am not throwing anyone under a bus.
How absurd.

Methinks you protest too much. The other members here will make up their own minds, of course.

After you have strongly suggested to them what to think, have insinuated as much as you can, all without any proof.
In order to minimise the criticisms and solutions offered.
All this from a moderator.

Your situation with Sarkus is different, because the two of you actually are having discussions and making plans behind the scenes - off the forum.

Occasionally we talk.
Rarely about this site.
We have never "made plans" regarding this site.
I do look forward to either the proof that what you say is correct, or a public apology for lying.

Now, don't get me wrong. All of that is just fine, and also not something I can or would want to try to control. Have at it, if you want to bitch about me on some other forum or in your loungeroom over a few beers. If I'm renting space in your head when you're not on the forum, so be it.

Sorry to disappoint you, James R, but it's just not happening.

But don't come here and pretend that you're not conspiring, when you are. That's just not very believable any more, Baldeee.

I do look forward to either the proof that what you say is correct, or a public apology for lying.

Try to practice what you preach. Try honesty.

I have been.
Entirely.
How about you.

Hmm... What do all these individuals you admire so have in common, I wonder, other than superior capacities to follow conversations and to comprehend what people have written and the implications?

And why were those particular names the first to spring to mind for you?

Just coincidence, I'm sure.

No, it's not coincidence.
It is because, as I stated previously, you struggle with people who are more capable than you in that regard.
You get irked when they criticise something you have said.
You get defensive, and you become dishonest in your posting.
This causes those people to push back.
It spirals.
They get infractions, rightly or wrongly.
So, no, it is not coincidence.

I apologise to you now for declining your kind offer to send me on a busy-work errand to dig up the past at your request.

You could try a search for posts including the word "sorry", posted by me, if you're really interested. I don't think you really are.

Again, I will decline. You just want to me to do some busy-work for you. Go do it yourself, if you're really interested.

"Sorry" is too short a word for the search engine here.
Also it won't cover apologies that don't include that word specifically, should you claim there to be any.
So I'd like you to support what you say.
You can't, or don't want to.
Okay.

Don't be a troll. I quote your response here, for the record.

Why is that "trolling"?
You insinuate without proof that 2 people are the same person.
Why is pushing back to ask it you are the same person as one of them now considered "trolling"?
Please explain.
Maybe in the other thread about whether the term is used too much?

 

[Baldeee]

Cont'd...

Don't be silly.

Of course you have the means of disproving that you and Sarkus are one and the same person, if it really matters to you. I'm sure it does not matter that much to you.

I asked you tell me what those means of disproving such a negative are.
You chose not to.

You made an issue of how you're all concerned about good of the site. You made out that you were jumping in to fight the good fight as an unbiased observer who saw an injustice inflicted on another member of this forum by a biased and petty moderator.

I find you dishonest, especially when you struggle with the people I've mentioned.
You start those conversations with the assumption of bad faith, because you are biased.
I am concerned about the good of the site.
I saw a symptom of an issue.
I raised what I think the issue to be.
I have offered solutions.
The rest of this nonsense is you trying, for whatever reason, to miniminise what I say.

But that's not why you appeared in this thread. It's never why you show up to fight Sarkus's battles for him.

I do look forward to either the proof that what you say is correct, or a public apology for lying.

The issue of your closeness to Sarkus is directly relevant to why you're here doing an anti-James R song and dance on your puppet strings.

Not directly.
Indirectly.
My friendship with him resulted in him telling me of his ban.
That led to me visiting the site.
That led to me seeing this thread (and the other).
That led to me offering input.
If I had been visiting this site when this thread was raised about anyone else that I felt their absence to similarly be symptomatic of the same issue, I would have similarly chipped in.

That input is what you've gone out of your way to minimise.
Instead you have focussed on me.
Ad hominem fallacy.

Ignore who has raised the issue.
Focus on the fact that the issue is even merely perceived to exist (whether you accept the underlying cause or not).
Focus on whether the proposed solutions will benefit the site, irrespective of the veracity of the underlying issue.

 

[James R]

Baldeee,

Well, those last two posts of yours were a huge waste of everybody's time. And I think you're still protesting a bit too much to come across as credible to your readers.

I'm no longer interested in your dishonest excuses. And I have never been remotely interested in running your pointless busy-work errands. I thought I made that clear in my posts directly above your most recent production.

As I have said several times already, readers of this thread are quite capable of reading your posts and mine and drawing their own conclusions.

So here's what we're going to do. I'm going to close this thread, so that we can keep your trolling to a single thread - ironically, the one about trolling. I'm be winding that one up soon, too, just so you know.