Sorry, I do not. That could refer to dozens of instances over the years.I mean, it's not like anyone is going to stop me from trying to support my discussion with evidence and records. But― ... oh, hey, do you happen to remember inquiring about moving certain posts from a thread to the Cesspool? Would you happen to remember what that was about?
The reference number is #5705, but you're probably never going to need it; you had inquired about a splinter thread↗ in which I had pulled James R's post out of a thread and chastised his behavior because I can't flag him.
Certainly, I'm overdue in this thread, but something you said in another brings me back to that episode.
If the rest of us see a course to follow that isn't just opportunistic grudges and dragging some of us might try to follow it.
There is a bit I have done a couple↗ times↗ for James, recalling the thread on discussing religion↗, compiling resources and perspectives; or maybe that other thread about religion itself↗; I might even try to have some fun↗ with the study of history; or maybe contribute↗ usefully↗ to↗ other↗ people's↗ threads↗; even when I disagree with someone, it's easy enough to include relevant↗ historical↗ analysis↗.
Look, I'm not going to say people need to imitate my posts, but do please remember that it's not up to me to decide how other↗ people↗ receive my posts. "Opportunistic grudges" and "dragging" aside, for instance, people can always complain about word count↗ if it's important enough to them. While it's probably more useful for us to consider what kind of course people might need set out, that's a part I can't write for them.
I also can't be the one who decides what you mean by a course to follow. For instance, sure, some of my posts offer what I might construe as a suggestion toward a better course, but that recycled list probably isn't quite what you mean. And it's easy enough to recognize that you don't mean an actual course curriculum for discussion. But the boundaries of what you mean are really, really open; I wouldn't know what course, or kind of course, to suggest, address, or formulate.
It's like when you push the question back to me: What do I want to see change? "Reasonable standards of intellectual integrity and honesty" aren't really such a bad idea, but I already lost that argument, and I'm probably not winning it anytime soon, especially if is to be just written off as opportunism, grudges, word counts, &c., in order to pass it over. Still, there has long been a strange gray area↗ around ideas like good faith and basic sociality, and coupled with low expectations for argumentative support, we can expect a certain amount of dysfunction.
It's like today, in dealing with a staff discussion, I came across an old memo, circa 2018, and, honestly, Dave, it fulfills something I said to you earlier↑, about standards and free speech. And maybe I keep losing the argument, but if I'm the only one making it, that's going to happen. And it's one thing if I can answer you and tell you how the problem emerged and evolved, but it seems a waste of both our time if you're just going to complain that I told you.
So the question of what you want persists: For instance, I'm pretty sure you don't mean we should simply settle one member and just go back to whatever passes for normal. What do you want, Dave? Something about reasonable standards of intellectual integrity and honesty? Okay, but what does that mean to you? Is it something more than one person can advocate? Is it a general principle, as such, or a particular rule intended for particular questions of intellectual integrity and honesty?
"So why then, is it not me," you asked↑, "who has been getting warnings and bannings?" Well, why would it be; or, more directly, you might have been a little bit too wrapped up in a false dichotomy, there. And, yes, it can feel "rather Sisyphean"↑, but ... well, I'm not sure what to tell you about that post: Chess and pigeons? In that metaphor, I think the idea has to do with liberating chess. Staying out of the Fringe subfora? Actually, there is illustrative value in that consideration that we will come back to. And in your world, maybe some things cannot happen, but even setting aside everything James and I disagree about, that has literally never been Sciforums. Pick a point in the past and say once upon a time, and maybe, but if there was a better course to follow, there's a good chance I lost that argument. Bells calling someone a fuckwit is entirely plausible, and even probable; I would imagine there was a good bit of fuckwittery involved, too, and, no, while I don't disagree with your invocation of good faith, "the spirit of the forum", a lack of good faith has never been grounds for expulsion, and if you might wonder why staff might publicly describe it as fuckwittery, well, flagging it—speak nothing of booting it, as such—has long been controversial. I often reach back to recall an old staff discussion of particular behavior, and James' distrust of his staff, but the 2018 memo I encountered today is really clear on good faith and how our Administrator thinks of the staff. So what do I tell you, then, Dave? Maybe those regions don't overlap in your world, but ... er ... uh ... well, this is Sciforums. If you ever wondered why Bells and I are so rough and tumble with the members, it's because having it out in the thread is the main tool we have; similarly, one of the ironies undermining James' point↗ about if I was not a moderator is that no small part of his complaint that I don't moderate enough is in fact, what he wanted. And, sure, it's a long story, which kind of brings us 'round to ... uh ... something.
Okay, so, one of the posts I keep failing to bring you has to do with what people complain about, and the rough-hewn short form is that the good guys, the smart people, filed a bogus report about crackpottery. And, y'know, whatever. But it's also one of any number of signs, or circumstances, warranting some consideration, and that's part of the discussion around that episode. To wit, if there is an old societal commentary about how the kids get in trouble when they're bored, it's also a particularly American context, so I don't know how well it translates. Still, we come to observe, this is where we're at, and this is what they're complaining about. And, yeah, that's where everything starts to get complicated despite its apparent simplicity. But with a range like↗, the threads we start, what we contribute to other threads, and even what we complain about, yes, it's going to be at least a little bit messy. It's why questions of disincentive are important. Any course can I offer faces any number of disincentives we might want to give some thought along the way.