Hold mods to same standard they inforce

[Neverfly]

You cannot learn in an environment where different rules apply.

You cannot debate or discuss issues where different standards apply. Immature browbeating from a Moderator displays a terrible message and conducive debates cannot take place here.

If this is a Science forum, it makes scientists look bad. People come here when they google up questions and google hits on this forum. Imagine what they read...- they go elsewhere. Very few people join up and look at how many active members there are currently. There are FEW actively posting members. Where BAUT and JREF and PhysicsForums are HOPPING, this one's creeping along slowly.

 

[Balerion]

The irony didn't escape me either.

But there is a precedence for this. She made an accusation, I asked her a couple of times to please provide evience of it, she refused point blank to and said she'd only do it for other moderators. So I invoked the precedent.

I had kept my colleagues up to date as things were developing during this whole soap opera.

Yeahhhh I suppose, but don't you think that's weak sauce? I got accused of things by both Neverfly and Seagypsy, and no one demanded proof under penalty of moderation on my behalf. By that logic, her only real mistake was making false claims about a mod. That's not cool.

I think you should retract the threat of moderation. I mean, is that even really breaking site rules? And even if it is, is it fair that she can go around doing the same thing to whoever but not to a mod? That's kind of an abuse of power. And I'm on your side on this, it's just this one aspect that's making me cringe.

 

[Balerion]

You cannot learn in an environment where different rules apply.

You cannot debate or discuss issues where different standards apply. Immature browbeating from a Moderator displays a terrible message and conducive debates cannot take place here.

If this is a Science forum, it makes scientists look bad. People come here when they google up questions and google hits on this forum. Imagine what they read...- they go elsewhere. Very few people join up and look at how many active members there are currently. There are FEW actively posting members. Where BAUT and JREF and PhysicsForums are HOPPING, this one's creeping along slowly.

You're being ridiculous now. I don't disagree that Bells is too "in the fray" to be a moderator--it's a point I've brought to JamesR many, many times, and even thrown in Bells' own face on occasion--but you can make your case without the hyperbole. In fact, the case has been made, so you can just quit it altogether. And I can tell you from experience that absolutely nothing will come of it, so get ready for disappointment.

 

[Bells]

Yeahhhh I suppose, but don't you think that's weak sauce? I got accused of things by both Neverfly and Seagypsy, and no one demanded proof under penalty of moderation on my behalf. By that logic, her only real mistake was making false claims about a mod. That's not cool.

I think you should retract the threat of moderation. I mean, is that even really breaking site rules? And even if it is, is it fair that she can go around doing the same thing to whoever but not to a mod? That's kind of an abuse of power. And I'm on your side on this, it's just this one aspect that's making me cringe.

I wouldn't have moderated her regardless since she provided the information. Don't worry, it makes me cringe as well.

And had you requested proof of the false accusations and claims made by him against you, I would have supported you fully and would have followed up on it. I did comment in that thread that his comments to you were out of line.

But I hereby retract and withdraw any threat of moderation towards Seagypsy on this matter.

See? I even made it purple mod note colour.. so it's official like.

 

[Balerion]

I wouldn't have moderated her regardless since she provided the information. Don't worry, it makes me cringe as well.

And had you requested proof of the false accusations and claims made by him against you, I would have supported you fully and would have followed up on it. I did comment in that thread that his comments to you were out of line.

I appreciate the thought, Bells. You're not such a bad egg after all.

But I hereby retract and withdraw any threat of moderation towards Seagypsy on this matter.

See? I even made it purple mod note colour.. so it's official like.

I'm colorblind, so I can't really appreciate it, but WELL DONE ANYWAY!

 

[Bells]

I appreciate the thought, Bells. You're not such a bad egg after all.

Shhhhh..

None of that!

I'm big bad evil Ogre Bells..

Rawr..

I'm colorblind, so I can't really appreciate it, but WELL DONE ANYWAY!

I didn't know you were colourblind..

Next time I'll bold it so that you can appreciate it.

 

[Balerion]

I didn't know you were colourblind..

You mean you didn't find it odd when I ruined colloquialisms such as "Giving you the gray light" or "Boy is my face brown!"?

Next time I'll bold it so that you can appreciate it.

Danke.

 

[Asguard]

Colourblind can't differentiate between black and purple? Didn't know that, herd of red green and the rarer blue colour blind but never that. Interesting

 

[Balerion]

Colourblind can't differentiate between black and purple? Didn't know that, herd of red green and the rarer blue colour blind but never that. Interesting

I can recognize that it's a different color, I just can't tell you what color it is.

 

[Kittamaru]

You cannot learn in an environment where different rules apply.

Funny, as this is exactly how schools work, all the way from primary school up through university. It's also how the workforce works... it's how laws work and are enforced... it's pretty much how the world works.

 

[Neverfly]

Yeahhhh I suppose, but don't you think that's weak sauce? I got accused of things by both Neverfly and Seagypsy, and no one demanded proof under penalty of moderation on my behalf. By that logic, her only real mistake was making false claims about a mod. That's not cool.

Valid point.

I'm big bad evil Ogre Bells..

No, I don't think you're evil or an ogre. I think you do not think about what you are saying sometimes. I think you do not think out, when you start attacking a post- just how far you take things- and that is why you get accused of appearing overly-emotional.
If you were willing to put an honest effort into not jumping to wild conclusions about what a person has said, e.g. "Inflicting the death penalty," you wouldn't get such strong reactions. It is not that you're being offensive, it's that you're being accusatory. You attack character and not words.

JDawg said something about avoiding Tiassa and Bells. I do not think one can easily avoid mods and I think that a forum in which one must avoid the mods has a problem.

Funny, as this is exactly how schools work, all the way from primary school up through university. It's also how the workforce works... it's how laws work and are enforced... it's pretty much how the world works.

Kittamaru- I attend school, Attended Workforce, lived in public among laws and, also, U.S.Army.
I can tell you - in "real Life" this is not how things work. In "real Life" when people act this way; a Cop takes things too far, a Professor takes things too far, a judge takes things too far- they are held Accountable. If they are are reported or get caught.
Hell, it doesn't even take much- the accusation that they have not held to a standard can be enough sometimes.

This was probably the worst example you could cite. On every other forum I have been on, mods are held accountable for flaming, attacking character- not posts and making mistakes.
Are you suggesting that SciForums is a bastion for Mod abuse?

 

[Bells]

I can recognize that it's a different color, I just can't tell you what color it is.

My father in law (well ex father in law) cannot distinguish anything with a red tone in it, which I would guess includes purple and orange. Also explains why he went out one day and returned with a pair of blood red jeans. He wore them until they fell apart, much to the chagrin of his wife.

It is not that you're being offensive, it's that you're being accusatory.

You mean like when you asked me if I would expect a rape victim to not fight back and just allow herself to be raped so that she does not injure her rapist or if I would pity an injured rapist, etc? Like that?

Remember Neverfly, we can only go by what you say, not what you think.

 

[Neverfly]

You mean like when you asked me if I would expect a rape victim to not fight back and just allow herself to be raped so that she does not injure her rapist or if I would pity an injured rapist, etc? Like that?

Remember Neverfly, we can only go by what you say, not what you think.

Ok, let's discuss this.
At the time, I also said that comparing criminals is Legitimate.
I don't see anything wrong with what I said.

You asked me if I think that security guards can Inflict the Death Penalty and just Kill their suspects. Considering that that is not what happened in that case, then or now, considering that's far fetched and accusatory and has nothing whatsoever to do with what I was saying (One defending them self from violent attack): Two examples got raised:
A woman defending herself from a violent rapist- if he dies, did she "Inflict the Death Penalty?" Or was she doing whatever she could to stave off his attacks?
You do not get to claim that someone killed a suspect just willy nilly. Claiming they are alleged, to the person who was experiencing the violent attack might seem rather- absurd.
JDawg said, He was Unarmed, though.
Ok, well a recent case had an unarmed man violently attacking another and the cop felt sufficiently threatened to still discharge his weapon until the man was dead. I do not think that cop was out of line, even though the violent man was hooped (Hopped?) up on drugs, ordinarily may have been quite a nice guy- etc.

I believe both were relevant since I was talking about what happens when one defends themselves from violent attack.
In that thread, you made it sound like they casually walked on out there and Killed the man. Read over those posts, Bells.
That's not what happened and those gross characterizations could easily have been avoided- thus the argument could easily have been avoided.

 

[Bells]

Ok, let's discuss this.
At the time, I also said that comparing criminals is Legitimate.
I don't see anything wrong with what I said.

Yes but look at the crimes involved.

A violent rape and security guards and a man getting into a possible fight and the man being tackled to the ground because they suspected him of shoplifting. They aren't comparable.

To me it was inflammatory, not just because it was so far from what we were actually discussing and when you consider what I had said in that thread (my first post in it) which resulted in that comparison. It was very much blown out of proportion and inflammatory. My opening remarks commented on Walmart's policies which states security employees and associates (since Walmart outsource security at some of their stores, like this one apparently) are trained to disengage the moment someone's life is in danger and I questioned and queried why they had not done so, even though the man was in obvious medical distress. Your response was to ask me if I would pity a rapist injured by his victim and asked me if I thought a woman should allow herself to be raped rather than fight back and possibly injure her rapist.

And then you say you thought it was a legitimate comparison...

It wasn't.

You asked me if I think that security guards can Inflict the Death Penalty and just Kill their suspects. Considering that that is not what happened in that case, then or now, considering that's far fetched and accusatory and has nothing whatsoever to do with what I was saying (One defending them self from violent attack): T

And yet, from what seagypsy later posted in that article, it appears that he was confronted and tackled to the ground, whereupon he appears to have fought back then and tried to run, when he was again tackled again, where he then said "I'm dying" and he literally did. When the police arrived he had stopped breathing while being restrained and his heart beat was faint so they had to start CPR. So he died while being restrained.

You commented and said "that's what happens to thieves, robbers and crooks", when I queried why they had not disengaged and called the paramedics. You then went on and posted things that were quite violent in nature, about how you could kill a mugger for example, made appalling and insulting comments to JDawg about how he can just sit back and let people like you come in to do the dirty work (while discussing killing someone).. etc..

It was shocking.

So I asked you, and quoted what you had said about "that is what happens to thieves, robbers and crooks".. The point you took completely out of context: Here is the whole paragraph, where I asked you if store rent-a-cops should be allowed to act as judge, jury and executioner:

Bells: My opinion on the matter is that is what happens to thieves, robbers and crooks.

He was suspected of shoplifting.

They confronted him in the carpark, he resisted and they tackled him to the ground and kept him restrained until the police arrived, whereupon the police noticed he was in medical distress and requested paramedics, whereupon he died shortly after in hospital.

Are you possibly suggesting that rent-a-cops in supermarkets are now allowed to take the law into their own hands and inflict the death penalty on people they suspect are shoplifting? You don't think he should have had a right to a day in court? Or do you think that security guards should be allowed to ignore the detained obvious medical distress and let them die?

Now I was asking you this after having read your comments to JDawg and about how one can kill someone and the whole "he had it coming"..

Because this was the tone you set at that point in the thread. And it was appalling. When JDawg asked you to cut it out, it wasn't because it was ridiculous, but because you were posting was going beyond what is acceptable in society.

It is why billvon later on in the thread made this comment about your rape comparison and your comments about "that's what happens to thieves, robbers and crooks":

While we are on reductio ad absurdum:

8 year old steals a candy bar. Guard takes him out back and beats him to death. OK in your book?

It was an absurd comparison and one that could not be taken seriously or actually given serious consideration.

Two examples got raised:
A woman defending herself from a violent rapist- if he dies, did she "Inflict the Death Penalty?" Or was she doing whatever she could to stave off his attacks?

Stop and think for a moment Neverfly.

You are equating the rape of a woman (ie, loss of control, having your body violated in the worst possible way without your consent) and her managing to defend herself against the person violating her body and possibly killing her rapist as being somehow akin or somewhat the same as 3 security guards getting into a fight with a suspected shoplifter and restraining him to the ground, where the suspect then dies and CPR has to be started by police and he is pronounced dead less than an hour later in hospital.

Can you see how what you proposed and raised in the rape example cannot even be answered or addressed? And how when you look at why I asked you and how I asked you, why you took it out of context?

You do not get to claim that someone killed a suspect just willy nilly. Claiming they are alleged, to the person who was experiencing the violent attack might seem rather- absurd.

But he was a suspected shoplifter. They confronted him outside the store in the carpark, tackled him the ground, he fought back and got away and started to run, where they then tackled him the ground again and he died.. he stopped breathing and his heart stopped and when the police arrived shortly after, they had to start CPR.

They cannot deem him to be guilty. One is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, Neverfly. It is the central and founding basis of criminal law.

JDawg said, He was Unarmed, though.
Ok, well a recent case had an unarmed man violently attacking another and the cop felt sufficiently threatened to still discharge his weapon until the man was dead. I do not think that cop was out of line, even though the violent man was hooped (Hopped?) up on drugs, ordinarily may have been quite a nice guy- etc.

But this was not the case this time, was it?

Eyewitnesses to the fight with the security guards commented on how he looked terrible.. in other words, even as he was running, it was clear something was wrong. From seagypsy's link:

Picazo went to the side of the store and the two employees tried to tackle him, according to a Walmart employee who witnessed the incident. The witness asked that he not be identified.

The witness said Picazo broke loose, headed up the parking lot almost to where a speed bump was located and got tackled.

"He looked terrible. Not good," the witness said.

According to the witness, Picazo said, "I'm dying! I'm dying!" while lying facedown in the parking lot then finally didn't say anything.

I'm dying!" while lying facedown in the parking lot then finally didn't say anything.

Do you see what I mean now?

I believe both were relevant since I was talking about what happens when one defends themselves from violent attack.

It was 3 people tackling him to the ground.

You can't compare that to a man raping a woman.

It doesn't compare. Like when you tried to use the recent cannibal in Florida. It doesn't compare.

It was inflammatory and you used it knowing that of course no one would say that the police should not have shot him and no one in their right mind would tell a woman to allow herself to be raped in case she injured her attacker. You took JDawg's and other posters comments and twisted them to make it seem as if that is what we would actually suggest and then went on this spiel about how JDawg can stand back and let people like you come in to do the dirty work he apparently can't in regards to defending one's self against a violent attack and possibly killing the person - like when you described how one can kill a mugger.

In that thread, you made it sound like they casually walked on out there and Killed the man. Red over those posts, Bells.

I actually did not say that.

I never said that. My biggest concern, which is what I posted right from the get go, is why they did not notice he was in medical distress. Why did they not follow Walmart's policy and disengage like they were meant to?

That is when you then came out and asked me if I thought women should allow themselves to be raped lest they injure their rapist and went on your spiel about how to violently injure and kill people. When I read that all that came to my mind was "really?!.. you're going with this? What the hell?!"..

That's not what happened and those gross characterizations could easily have been avoided- thus the argument could easily have been avoided.

And I think more would have been avoided if you had calmed down instead of the weird how to kill people posts and the whole "I am a monster" and the angry and violent nature of your posts in that thread.

You have asked me what I thought and why I responded to you as I did and this is why. Like when I asked you if you would deny a rapist medical help if he was injured.. it was after reading your whole "He had it comin.'" arguments in that thread.. And so I asked you, would you let a suspected rapist die if he was injured. I asked you because I actually wanted to know the answer. I wasn't implying you'd let people die. But after reading some of the inflammatory comments you had made in that thread, I felt I had to ask, because the article in the OP implied that he was restrained and in medical distress and they did not call the paramedics and waited for police to arrive who then immediately noticed and called said paramedics. And so I asked if you felt that was acceptable and then used your comparison about the rapist to ask you if you would let a rapist die and I asked who should make such a call to let people we think are guilty die...

Contrary to what you may believe, I am not out to get you. I don't know you. But when you and seagypsy went out of your way to try to make yourselves out to be the victim of big bad old me, and I had a plethora of accusations made against me, all unfounded and baseless, to the point where I was accused of apparently threatening to moderate someone if they continued to disagree with me, yes, I will push back and I will ask for answers and proof of such claims. That is my right as the person being accused of such things. It was like when seagypsy accused me of knowingly pushing your buttons to get that kind of response. I don't know you. I don't know your buttons. Nor do I want to know your buttons. It was a ridiculous accusation. Like when both you and then she kept going on and on about how I was somehow emotionally charged. I actually was not. I thought you were, the exchange between yourself and JDawg was disturbing because you appeared to get into the violent portrayal of yourself you were pushing. Very few people can get an emotional response from me on this site. Very few. I can assure you Neverfly, you are not one of those few individuals. So when I asked you the questions I asked you, it wasn't to insult you. It was because I genuinely wanted to know the answers to them because of what and how you had been posting in that thread (I mean the whole how to kill a mugger thing and then the 'he had it coming' - what the hell dude?).

 

[WillNever]

She has done this to Neverfly (and probably others)and is attempting to now do it to me simply because I did not attack him as she did. I was not supporting his opinion only questioning the points she made in a thread. Yet she has subtly hinted that she will use her power against me now for simply disagreeing with her on some points, and I might point out that I also supported some of her claims in the same thread, and for not joining in her attack on Neverfly.

I'm not sure. Moderation seems to have really clamped down in the last month or so. Several innocent threads were shut down with moderators refusing to quote specific violations within posts. Some threads have outright disappeared. Many posters have also vanished.

I'm not sure what's going on, but it feels like certain moderators are losing their grip.

 

[Neverfly]

Yes but look at the crimes involved.

The crimes are vastly different, I agree.

However, I was putting in perspective that a violent response to security does not mean someone must accept and take the violence. They can defend themselves. Each case is one in which the victim must defend themselves.

Perhaps it was inflammatory if you have personal feelings on the matter I would not necessarily know about.-If it was I'm sorry. To me, it made sense that people being attacked have the right to defend.

Now, you could have said at the time, "I find this not a fair comparison and inflammatory. Can you provide a better example?"
THAT would have been politely questioning, Bells. Not increasing your attack.

So he died while being restrained.

That's not what I took from the article. He was alive when police arrived but in poor condition. You said as much yourself.
But the problem is how inflammatory it is to suggest that they Pinned him down and Killed him.

So I asked you, and quoted what you had said about "that is what happens to thieves, robbers and crooks".. The point you took completely out of context: Here is the whole paragraph, where I asked you if store rent-a-cops should be allowed to act as judge, jury and executioner:

Are you possibly suggesting that rent-a-cops in supermarkets are now allowed to take the law into their own hands and inflict the death penalty on people they suspect are shoplifting? You don't think he should have had a right to a day in court?

You took what I said out of context.
I said the result is what happens.
People that rob banks get shot quite frequently. Robbers, crooks and thieves do, frequently act violently and get the results of defense.
That does not say, in any way that security and cops take the law into their own hands and execute people- they are defensive and defense is entirely different from execution.
Comparing defense to execution is very inflammatory and suggesting that I agree with public execution without trial is very inflammatory.
I said clearly that I agree with the right to defend.

It is the "defense" that you seem to have difficulty grasping.

You are equating the rape of a woman (ie, loss of control, having your body violated in the worst possible way without your consent) and her managing to defend herself against the person violating her body and possibly killing her rapist as being somehow akin or somewhat the same as 3 security guards getting into a fight with a suspected shoplifter and restraining him to the ground, where the suspect then dies and CPR has to be started by police and he is pronounced dead less than an hour later in hospital.

Defending yourself from violent attack is still defending yourself from violent attack.
Unless you are suggesting that if the man is not a rapist, we must let him attack as all he wants- then the two are comparable.

They cannot deem him to be guilty. One is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, Neverfly. It is the central and founding basis of criminal law.

Wrong, he was a suspect fleeing the scene. Ordinarily, they would have had no issues over the situation, preventing a thief from running.
In this case, there may be extenuating circumstances. That is sad, if so.
But that doesn't mean people are wrong to apprehend a person in the middle of a suspected crime.
This happens daily, all around the world and people catch thieves regularly.
They did not tackle him and Beat Him Into The Ground as you suggested.

Not only did they not execute him, they did not act in anyway that should have caused death- from all reports.

Eyewitnesses to the fight with the security guards commented on how he looked terrible.. in other words, even as he was running, it was clear something was wrong.

People running behind him, could clearly see this, right?

I actually did not say that.

No, you did not say that directly but you did say "Act as judge jury and executioner" which means very much the same thing Bells. It Does.

why they did not notice he was in medical distress.

They were running after a fleeing man. It's understandable if from behind a fleeing man, they did not see distress.

Why did they not follow Walmart's policy and disengage like they were meant to?

All they did was run after him and tackle him, apparently. There was very little to disengage from.
It's very likely that this ended as it did because of a Medical Issue- Not because they went Above And Beyond, Bells.

And I think more would have been avoided if you had calmed down instead of the weird how to kill people posts and the whole "I am a monster" and the angry and violent nature of your posts in that thread.

I think more could have been avoided, easily, had you addressed key points as a proper moderator instead of pushing, repeatedly pushing, vague and far-fetched character attacks. Such as "You think they can act as judge jury and executioner, then?" This clearly puts a lot of words in someones mouth and it flat out does not apply, Bells.

 

[Bells]

I give up.

You asked me to explain why I posted what I did and I responded to you. What I get in return is more anger and the huge bolded posts.. again... And again trying to imply that I am emotionally compromised because of what I said how your rape comments were perceived by myself and others in that thread and trying to say that I have personal feelings about it.. Like saying "if a man is not a rapist we should let him attack".. really? Because I don't think a violent rape is akin or in any way comparable to 3 security guards tackling a suspected shoplifter, you come out with that?

Like when I quoted from an article that he tried to run away and he was again tackled to the ground and how witnesses commented he did not look good.. He was saying "I'm dying".. he became unresponsive and his breathing became shallow and his heartbeat was fading.. How can someone not notice this? He'd stopped making any noise. My question throughout that thread was the same. Why didn't they disengage as per the store's policy? Your response? Compare it to a violent rape of a woman. And then say, without proof, that they didn't notice or know he was in medical distress... etc..

So say what you want Neverfly, do whatever you want. Post whatever you want about me. Make it big and bold again.

We're done.

 

[Neverfly]

You explained what you took offense to- I did as well.
Yes, I wasn't sure if you had personal feelings on the matter of rape- Again, you act as though I said something terrible- I did not.
There is nothing wrong with putting a sentence in bold.

Jeez...

 

[DaveC426913]

This is not the first board to grapple with this issue. Moderators who are also participators are at great risk for balancing these two hats on their heads. Sometimes are they are not fair and balanced; sometimes they are and people think they aren't anyway.

In an ideal world, the Moderators of a forum would not also be participators, they'd be inarguably objective - but that's not practical certainly no fun for these volunteers.

I've always thought the best compromise was to have a Moderator wear only one hat in a given thread:

If a Moderator chooses to participate in a thread, then they should recuse themselves from acting as Moderator for that thread. Moderation would be done by a third party Moderator. If the participating Moderator wants enforcement they would have to defer it to the acting Moderator for that thread.

 

[DaveC426913]

Frankly, I would like to see appropriate behavior enforced unilaterally. I would make a single change.

No ad homs, insults or personal attacks allowed at all It would go a long way towards cleaning up sciforums.

The crux would be in enforcing it. It would require
1] all users to be alert for specific instances of ad homs, insults and personal attacks, and report them, and
2] the moderator's to a] delete them and b] invoke warnings and bannings.

It would be a lot of work at first (certainly for the Mods), but eventually everyone would get it, the work would drop off, and the board would return to a more civilized place.