This and That
James R said:
Just to be clear: sciforums in no way condones personal insults.
I must disagree. We do, in fact, condone personal insults. We do so every day. We even have criteria by which statements are determined insulting or not, and by which insults are determined to be either inappropriate or, as you have suggested—
"He replied, quite fairly it appears, that you might have a bit of growing up of your own to do."
—appropriate.
All else aside, we should not promote this myth that "sciforums in no way condones personal insults".
We might also recall in late 2009, a dispute between moderators led to an attempt to overhaul WE&P, including a mass lock of all threads before the overhaul date, an attempted zero tolerance policy, and so on. The catalyst for that episode was when one of our politically conservative moderators—elevated specifically, we might recall, as a quota appointment to provide the appearance of balance—went so far in his special protection of Mr. Roam as to propose someone be banned for trading insults. And when asked about Mr. Roam's conduct, be it anti-"Muslem", denigrating nicknames and abuse of people's monikers, and similar family-based attacks against members, the moderator's response was that he hadn't seen any of it taking place in his jurisdiction over time.
So what we're seeing here is a repeat of insulting conduct that we have, in fact, endorsed over time.
And you have endorsed that endorsement. Regardless of what you think of PJdude, or this particular episode—and it should be noted that while PJ indeed told Mr. Roam to grow up, he was able to do so without raising family considerations, and one might even go so far as to say he rightly told Mr. Roam to grow up—it only damages our credibility as site staff to promote the obviously untrue myth that "sciforums in no way condones personal insults".
In a broader context, I would also point out that this is part of what makes people upset with governing authorities in general. For many, it's not so much the rules themselves, or even the fact that said rules are enforced poorly and inconsistently, but, rather, the authority's arrogance in expecting that they can say such things and people should believe them despite evidence to the contrary.
One of the reasons people around here invest so much in this petty game of trading stupid insults is that we do, in fact, endorse it. Indeed, a primary effect of our desire to protect low-effort, anti-intellectual members like Mr. Roam is that many people don't see the need to continue to put any real academic effort into their posts. Go back and read through the exchange ("
The Wisconsin Issue, #175-ff).
Mr. Roam is just
recycling talking points.
If in all his years, Mr. Roam had ever bothered to post an educated argument in good faith at Sciforums, we might be able to find something for his defenders to cling to. But our constant pandering to such low-effort, fact-free, anti-intellectual posting has done more to chill the exchange of ideas in this community than any reasonable suppression of bullshit ever would have.
Mr. Roam is a problem we could—and
should—have handled years ago, yet for some reason—apparently, the appearance of political balance—we have condoned and endorsed his behavior to the point that many of the disciplinary actions against him have been begrudgingly given because other people have browbeaten the relevant moderators into dealing with him.
This doesn't mean that PJ, or anyone else, actually needs to shoot back, but what are people supposed to think when they see Mr. Roam's behavior so protected? The message
we, as staff, send is that such behavior is not only acceptable, but worthy of active defense.
• • •
Captain Kremmen said:
Unless you have mentioned this sensitive family business in another thread, and he is making a direct reference to it,
you are overreacting.
Maybe you have good reason to overreact, but you are still over reacting.
Beyond the immediate, there is also an historical context. Mr. Roam has made this jab before. The staff did not take action even after repeated complaint. Indeed, politically conservative moderators receiving the complaints were upset at PJ for even complaining. So when PJ got the message and started shooting back at Mr. Roam, one of our politically conservative moderators proposed action against PJdude, believing Mr. Roam to be utterly innocent of ever having insulted anyone. Apparently, in all his time as a moderator, my associate hadn't really been paying attention.
And over time, the more people have tried to tie PJ's hands, it's been specifically to give Mr. Roam room to abuse people.
