In a way, that's what this is all about; i.e., James R issued some infractions, was doubted, and when pointed out that he was contradicting his own established, declared policy, he pitched a fit, demanded an apology, and then relieved me of my duties when the facts failed to support his complaint. That is to say, he feels bullied that anyone would question his authority and righteousness in issuing personally-interested infractions according to arbitrary standards reflecting his attitude in the moment.
Nothing is against site rules if James R wants it. The actual custom is approximately to wait for the other person in the message to talk about it.
For instance, I don't know if you noticed, but one member oft-criticized for pseudoscientific crackpottery suddenly becomes a lot more credible among his critics when he does his atheistic bit. What makes the contrast stand out in our moment is actually in a PM, the existence of which has at least been acknowledged by its author, but we haven't publicly discussed the actual content.
The message is from one of that member's critics, and describes approximately a struggle against pseudoscience and crackpottery, but in our dicussion it emerges that the critic is actually okay with pseudoscience and crackpottery as long as it gets him what he wants. Similarly, in the public sphere, I can't really get any clearer than suggestiong it's one thing if Arfa Brane shouldn't have called James R a dick, but nobody is going to stop James from dicking people around; that's why the would-be scientific definition of beauty becomes important, it's part of the justification of why Arf was wrong. In that struggle against pseudoscience, Authority wielded pseudoscience, and feels bullied when questioned on that point. Additionally, the critic who described the struggle to me would seem to see this sort of behavior as appropriate toward his pursuit of integrity and honesty.
But there is also something else to consider about these sorts of customary constraints: One of the easiest decisions is whether to cite one's own part in those discussions. I know it's an easy decision because I've made it, and done so, many times.
For instance, I discussed that oft-criticized member with the critic in August, explaining: In truth, if [member] was posting more of his other crackpottery instead of [pseudoscience in question], most of his critics wouldn't be complaining.. It didn't take so long for that one to prove true.
Irony abounds: What those critics share with the oft-criticized member is not simply an overlapping politic, but also the manner of their attendance. When the critics rail against the member even to the point of their own make-believe, they are attempting to manifest and share an internal sense of empowerment. When the critics and the member are railing in common against a target group of people out there in the world, somewhere, they are chasing the same internalized sense of empowerment, with the main difference between the two circumstances being who anyone chooses to share that empowerment with.
Feelings of empowerment, in general, are worth a lot to people. This particular pretense of empowerment means more to those who seek it than anything they might pretend to stake it on; it is an empowerment toward personal satisfaction, as ephemeral as it is variable. And it always feels bullied; that is both its internalized raison d'etre and externally comparative moral justification.
And it's a house specialty at Sciforums. (See also, C C↑, above, in re "correction site"; "What Can Be Done to Bring Traffic Back to SciFo?" #4↗, 27-28↗ on member interest in what is contentious; "Skeptics have already made their minds up about UAPs", #372↗, which considers whipping idols, member interest, and what is contentious↗.)
