Removal of Tiassa as moderator

Status
Not open for further replies.
Or maybe you think I am also bullying you here?

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.

I'm fairly sure that it is against site rules, James R, to reveal matters discussed in PM, is it not (without the other's permission, at least)?

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↗.)
 
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.
You're either utterly clueless, or pretending to be so.

Wouldn't now be a good time for a little self-reflection? What do you think?
 
You're either utterly clueless, or pretending to be so.

James, I've already discussed this, at least twice. That you don't wish top accept the facts is what it is.

You cannot say my summary is untrue: You're pissed off that I cited your own standard in telling you why you were wrong.

You demoted me in order to continue behaving poorly with less dissent.

It's like you said, years ago, James↗: "So what will you do? Give it up as a lost cause?" Because, in the end, you just gave up.

(I know, I know, you intended it as a throwaway line, but it's your own behavior that makes it read like anything more. Kind of akin to when you said, in the same post, "Such is the way of revolutions." What otherwise might read as nothng more than glib duck and dodge starts to sound like foreshadowing, prophecy, and warning, as it turns out to be what you have brought to bear.)
 
This could all end in a mass migration to Scivillage.
Geez, Louise - I haven't thought about that in ages. Thanks for the nostalgia trip.
I realize you're quite likely referring to something else entirely, but here's what I mean:

https://www.sciforums.com/threads/scivillage.33826/

IIRC, my contribution to this concept was the map pictured below:

upload_2023-12-23_22-41-27.jpeg

I suppose I should say something about the topic at hand, lest I be accused of attempting to derail this thread for some nefarious purpose.

All in all, I'd say it's about time. I never understood why Tiassa was made a moderator in the first place.
 

Attachments

  • Sci_Village.jpg
    Sci_Village.jpg
    114.9 KB · Views: 0
At some point, James, you need to start dealing with facts.
Tiassa has already been called out once in this thread for mistaking his subjective viewpoints for objective facts. Just another example of his attempt spin the narrative as if he is the only authority on what constitutes the facts.
 
Tiassa has already been called out once in this thread for mistaking his subjective viewpoints for objective facts. Just another example of his attempt spin the narrative as if he is the only authority on what constitutes the facts.
You don't need to refer to him in the 3rd person when you are quoting him directly.
 
You don't need to refer to him in the 3rd person when you are quoting him directly.
Quoting someone's words does not automatically mean one is speaking to that person.

My comment is speaking to the readership about Tiassa's attempt to control the narrative by claiming to own the facts - a (mild) attempt to gaslight readers, and forestall enagaging on any but his own terms.

You know you don't need to do? Gatekeep others' post etiquette. :wink:
 
Last edited:
Tiassa has already been called out once in this thread for mistaking his subjective viewpoints for objective facts. Just another example of his attempt spin the narrative as if he is the only authority on what constitutes the facts.
I'm wondering if DaveC426913 even knows what Tiassa is referring to when he refers to "facts"?
See what I did there? ;)

But it's a serious question. Do you? I mean, perhaps there are actual facts (F) that he is referring to, upon which he has built a subjective viewpoint (SV), and you are simply assuming that the "facts" that he is referring to is the SV rather than, well, the actual F? Otherwise, are you not guilty of attempting to spin the narrative as if you are the authority on what Tiassa is actually referring to?

If you do think you know what he's referring to as the "facts", care to point provide any detail so that we can see that they really are just a subjective viewpoint, as you seem to assume? And then perhaps Tiassa will be able to confirm or not whether these are what he was referring to, and then one correct any misunderstanding (whichever way it goes) if there is any. Would that not be better than simply making a possibly flawed assumption at the outset, and thereby unfairly criticising someone, just because it suits a predetermined narrative?

Just saying. ;)
 
I'm wondering if DaveC426913 even knows what Tiassa is referring to when he refers to "facts"?
See what I did there? ;)

But it's a serious question. Do you? I mean, perhaps there are actual facts (F) that he is referring to, upon which he has built a subjective viewpoint (SV), and you are simply assuming that the "facts" that he is referring to is the SV rather than, well, the actual F? Otherwise, are you not guilty of attempting to spin the narrative as if you are the authority on what Tiassa is actually referring to?

If you do think you know what he's referring to as the "facts", care to point provide any detail so that we can see that they really are just a subjective viewpoint, as you seem to assume? And then perhaps Tiassa will be able to confirm or not whether these are what he was referring to, and then one correct any misunderstanding (whichever way it goes) if there is any. Would that not be better than simply making a possibly flawed assumption at the outset, and thereby unfairly criticising someone, just because it suits a predetermined narrative?

Just saying. ;)
I have engaged Tiassa in public fora but also directly, and at-length, by PM. How many others here can say that? Can you? I engaged enough to conclude that Tiassa is the consummate dodger and weaver, a verbal prestidigitator.

I am satisfied that, if Tiassa has any objective facts (i.e that others must concede - as opposed to his subjective viewpoint), he is certainly capable of repeating them when they are challenged. IOW, the onus is on Tiassa to back up his claims about these facts. All I am doing is pointing out that he hasn't made his case, here, now, regardless of what murky legends he may be keeping in his file cabinet of transgressions. Which he hasn't. Can you refute that?

When he does trot them out, he does so passive-aggresssively, takng shots in the mdidle of other arguments, like a kid does mad at his mom. It's knda juvenile.

Bah! You've got me bashing him again. Not trying to kick a man when he's down. Deeds, not words and the deed is done. I'm trying to be content with letting this pass as water under the bridge. I'll do better.



Though your post does raise an interesting question about you: Do you know any more about this? Are you privy to these facts? Because if you're not, then "j'accuse !"- you just committed the very crime you suppose I committed - to-wit: an attempt call someone out without knowing what you're talking about.
 
Last edited:
I have engaged Tiassa in public fora but also directly, and at-length, by PM. How many others here can say that? Can you?
I have engaged with him in both, yes.
I am satisfied that, if Tiassa has any objective facts (i.e that others must concede - as opposed to his subjective viewpoint), he is certainly capable of repeating them when they are challenged. IOW, the onus is on Tiassa to back up his claims about these facts. All I am doing is teleing him he hasn't made his case, here, now. Which he hasn't. Can you refute that?
Okay, another question: can you point to where Tiassa has actually accused James R of the things James R has said he has been accused of, for example? Just for my benefit. Consider me too lazy to look for them. ;) But I'm assuming that you can, given you think he has? And that James R is clear that he has been accused of it? Just for my benefit? Note, I'm not saying that he hasn't made those accusations, or that he has.
But your post does raise an interesting question: Do you know any more about this? Are you privy to these facts? Because if youre not, then j'accuse - you just committed the very crime you suppose I committed - to-wit: an attempt call someone out without knowing what you're talking about.
I'm not accusing you of anything, though. I am raising questions, though, yes. Which you still haven't answered specifically, only via a generalised assessment of Tiassa. Again: what "facts" do you think he's referring to such that you are confidently calling them "subjective viewpoints"? Just for clarification, of course. ;)
 
Why is this still being discussed? Tiassa has posted some decent stuff on science and politics. Is it not better to concentrate on that?
 
Quoting someone's words does not automatically mean one is speaking to that person.

My comment is speaking to the readership about Tiassa's attempt to control the narrative by claiming to own the facts - a (mild) attempt to gaslight readers, and forestall enagaging on any but his own terms.

You know you don't need to do? Gatekeep others' post etiquette. :wink:

I don't need to do anything. You probably don't need to get involved in the James and Tiassa dispute but that's not how it works around here, is it?
 
I have engaged with him in both, yes.
Okay, another question: can you point to where Tiassa has actually accused James R of the things James R has said he has been accused of, for example? Just for my benefit. Consider me too lazy to look for them. ;) But I'm assuming that you can, given you think he has? And that James R is clear that he has been accused of it? Just for my benefit? Note, I'm not saying that he hasn't made those accusations, or that he has.
I'm not accusing you of anything, though. I am raising questions, though, yes. Which you still haven't answered specifically, only via a generalised assessment of Tiassa. Again: what "facts" do you think he's referring to such that you are confidently calling them "subjective viewpoints"? Just for clarification, of course. ;)
This exchange happened recently. It is to this I am alluding to.
https://www.sciforums.com/threads/removal-of-tiassa-as-moderator.166220/page-7#post-3723165
The way I read Tiassa's post, he is "informing" a third party that there "facts" that indicate that scifo is not a science site. As if such a thing can be objectively factual. It wasn't a big deal until he cast aspersions upon the third party (calling his "reliability" into question) for having the audacity to consider this a science site. It's a whole lot of puffery and gaslighting in an attempt to control the narrative. But I repeat myself.

That being said, Pinball is correct, above.

The dust is still settling and there are still a lot of ruffled feathers all around, so it's not surprising. But I personally don't want to continue to rattle on about Tiassa. Hopefully, this is be my last (or nigh last) post that devolves into kicking the man when he's down. I'd like this particular topic be water under the bridge.
 
This exchange happened recently. It is to this I am alluding to.
https://www.sciforums.com/threads/removal-of-tiassa-as-moderator.166220/page-7#post-3723165
The way I read Tiassa's post, he is "informing" a third party that there "facts" that indicate that scifo is not a science site. As if such a thing can be objectively factual. It wasn't a big deal until he cast aspersions upon the third party (calling his "reliability" into question) for having the audacity to consider this a science site. It's a whole lot of puffery and gaslighting in an attempt to control the narrative. But I repeat myself.

That being said, Pinball is correct, above.

The dust is still settling and there are still a lot of ruffled feathers all around, so it's not surprising. But I personally don't want to continue to rattle on about Tiassa. Hopefully, this is be my last (or nigh last) post that devolves into kicking the man when he's down. I'd like this particular topic be water under the bridge.
Indeed.
Close the thread please.
 
Okay, another question: can you point to where Tiassa has actually accused James R of the things James R has said he has been accused of, for example? Just for my benefit.
Try to keep up. Why didn't you read through the thread? Post #57, in particular?
Consider me too lazy to look for them. ;)
Oh, that's why. So, you're just idly spinning your wheels by posting here, then?
 
Try to keep up. Why didn't you read through the thread? Post #57, in particular?
Post #57 is a post by you that links back to a previous thread, post #3 of which is you summarising the accusations you think he has already made. There is nothing in post #1 or #2 of that thread that accuses you of those 3 things (it's mostly about your nonsense standard for declaring vested interests), so I'm left to wonder where the original accusations are, and if you even know yourself at this stage, or whether you've just convinced yourself that he's accused you, and brought everyone else along on your coattails?
Oh, that's why. So, you're just idly spinning your wheels by posting here, then?
No, it's because even you can't seem to locate the original accusations, so what hope do we mere mortals have.
So, if you could post/link to the actual accusations, that would at least help us/me understand this spat between the two of you, the one you've chosen to make public?
Or is it not important enough even to you to do so?

Bear in mind, I'm not saying he hasn't accused you, nor that he has. At the moment there is only really your say-so. And you don't honestly think that that's sufficient, do you?

Ta muchly. :)
 
Who the hell cares? I mean, really?

One might have thought that those who claim to care so deeply about the moderation of this once vibrant forum would be more concerned to awaken it from its recent state of hibernation
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top