(Insert title here)
A Note for WillNever
Your method is transparent. For instance, in
#41 above, you complain, "And the answer still doesn't come." Yet one thing that stands out about your post is what it lacks. Of all the quotes in that post, what is absent is, in fact, what you're asking for:
Part of the problem I have answering your vagary in this case is that the context
of my earlier remarks seems quite clear; it is part of an historical review. While Joe is certainly aware, through remarks both public and private, what I think of his approach to political argument, those points are actually irrelevant to the historical review. If you would like me to make them relevant, I would simply point out that Joe's method is a choice to play according to the most protected rules of Sciforums debate. Once it became clear that our deliberate decision to attempt an appearance of political balance meant lowering the bar for one side of the discussion, some, like Joe, chose to step down and play by that standard. Perhaps originally the point was that they would play nice when that became the way of things again, but it's been clear to me for a while, now, that playing nice isn't in the cards for the near term. That is, when our efforts to present an appearance of political balance resulted in the proposal to start banning people in order to protect Mr. Roam specifically, it was pretty clear to me that we had completely blown that pretense.
Joe has his own choices to make, and he will make them as he sees fit. But I didn't include him because he's symptomatic of the original problem, which was the number of exceptions we made for low-quality, even belligerent posts in part to bolster (or, at the very least, preserve) what we might describe as our "conservative" ranks.
(#37; italic text represents portion omitted from quotes)
Now, perhaps you disagree with my perspective, but you omit what constitutes the answer in order to complain that the answer never comes.
The whole thing is a house of cards you built, and anything that knocks it over is apparently unfair. Consider how this works. You wrote:
"So quote what is already on record. That's what we do any time somebody wants you to quote some evidence for a claim that you make in the science forums: pulling information or examples that are on documented and "on record" somewhere so that we can all view it. This is a hard concept for some, I recognize. BR isn't the only person to recycle talking points. So let's see posts by the people who berate BR also berating joepistole, pjudude, and others who act similarly. And let's hear why those people are excused and BR is being attacked for it."
Or, to grant your request:
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.
(#10)
This is the "attack" you allege against Mr. Roam. It is, as I advised you, and you apparently refused to consider, an historical review. Thus, to quote the record again, and answer your complaint about the "attack" against poor Mr. Roam:
Part of the problem I have answering your vagary in this case is that the context of my earlier remarks seems quite clear; it is part of an historical review. While Joe is certainly aware, through remarks both public and private, what I think of his approach to political argument, those points are actually irrelevant to the historical review. If you would like me to make them relevant, I would simply point out that Joe's method is a choice to play according to the most protected rules of Sciforums debate. Once it became clear that our deliberate decision to attempt an appearance of political balance meant lowering the bar for one side of the discussion, some, like Joe, chose to step down and play by that standard.
(Boldface accent indicates omitted portion that actually addresses the complaint)
It would be one thing to answer you if you could express your objections to such a perspective, but as long as you ignore such points while complaining that people are withholding them, there's not much anyone else can do to resolve your complaint.
