Warning for asking a question via PM

[Bells]

Arthur:

Some mods don't like to be wrong. And, at a push, they can do what they like. Details in such a circumstance become unimportant; the tenet of honesty also then becomes relative.

Please stay out of this and stop flaming. You do not know the circumstances surrounding this issue, nor do you know what has been said. So please, stay out of it and don't flame it.

Thank you.

 

[adoucette]

From what I understand, you PM'ed said mod after he asked you to stop or face a warning.

Bells, when you say, "he asked me to stop", what do you think I was being asked to stop doing?

Not to discuss his warning to you, but because you have a pathological need to be right.

This is not an issue about a need to be right, this is a simple issue of a FACT.

And indeed the FACT is easily checked.

You have misrepresented those exchanges quite a bit in this thread. You know it and the moderators and admin know it. So you can stop lying now. Your charade ended when you started this thread.

No Bells, I have not.

I wanted the answer to a simple question and James has said that "It depends on the context of the PM, and often what has preceded it."

Since I can't go into the other PMs as that is against the rules, I've exhausted my options.

End of story.

 

[GeoffP]

Please stay out of this and stop flaming. You do not know the circumstances surrounding this issue, nor do you know what has been said. So please, stay out of it and don't flame it.

Thank you.

I felt I had a relevant comment on this, having been on the receiving end of such, although I haven't researched the facts of Adoucette's case. The topic, at least, is a legitimate and ongoing one at SF.

My understanding was that there was to be no contact between us. If I may not engage in dialogue with you, it seems rational that you may not do so with me.

 

[rpenner]

I've exhausted my options.

You have not exhausted your options. You could make a resolution to become a paragon of good scholarship and civility; alternately, you could make a resolution to never post angry and should you ever become angry while sitting at the computer to get up and spend a week trying to put yourself into the other person's shoes before posting a civil reply.

Just because the posts are on the Internet does not mandate a reply in "Internet time". Sometimes what is called for is a good think.

Also, any plan which is predicated on making someone else do something is a bad plan -- most of people's sense of control over even their own lives is an illusion, so imagining that one has control over the behavior of another is a delusion.

 

[adoucette]

I believe all my posts on the actual subject have been based on good scholarship, and I've provided links to reputable sources, Charts, Graphs, XL spreadsheets etc that all support my position.

And I've been reasonably civil.

 

[NMSquirrel]

I believe all my posts on the actual subject have been based on good scholarship, and I've provided links to reputable sources, Charts, Graphs, XL spreadsheets etc that all support my position.

And I've been reasonably civil.

it is not your responsibility to make him understand..
it is only your responsibility to share what you know to be true.
it is his responsibility to understand, if he refuses to understand, it is not your fault..

IOW, you said what you had to say, the rest is up to him, you cannot force someone to understand..

you have presented your case to the best of your ability,the rest is up to him.

let it go.

 

[adoucette]

let it go.

I have.

 

[quadraphonics]

The specific warning was for "Trolling / Meaningless Post Content ", which is clearly not the case.

What planet are you on? The PM you quoted there is a clear instance of you trolling. You say nothing of substance, it's just you shouting about how everyone agrees with you, even the hated liberal joe.

Frankly it's pretty funny that you'd reproduce that exchange here under the presumption that it makes you look good, and the warning unwarranted. Try to check the self-serving worldview at least a little bit, eh?

 

[Bells]

Bells, when you say, "he asked me to stop", what do you think I was being asked to stop doing?



This is not an issue about a need to be right, this is a simple issue of a FACT.

And indeed the FACT is easily checked.



No Bells, I have not.

I wanted the answer to a simple question and James has said that "It depends on the context of the PM, and often what has preceded it."

Since I can't go into the other PMs as that is against the rules, I've exhausted my options.

End of story.

Arthur, not everyone has to agree with you and it is not your place to take to whispering people, even moderators, to demand that they agree with you. That is not how life works.

He asked you to stop misrepresenting and to stop being dishonest. We reviewed the issue Arthur, and I do not believe you are right. But that is not the issue here, is it? The issue here is that you were warned at least twice. After the first time warning, you decided to continue the argument in PM with him. When he again asked you to stop, you ignored him and kept going and going. He gave you ample warning Arthur. This warning did not come out of left field. You knew it would come if you kept pushing.

And push you did. And you received a warning.

If you wished to complain about that warning, the first point of call would have been the moderator in question and the administrator. What you did instead was to start a thread with a title that utterly misrepresented your actions and the whole course of events. Reading the title would have people believe that you asked a question via PM and received a warning for it. The reality is far different. So, cut it out.

I felt I had a relevant comment on this, having been on the receiving end of such, although I haven't researched the facts of Adoucette's case. The topic, at least, is a legitimate and ongoing one at SF.

Next time, learn the relevant facts before you decide to comment. Flaming the issue, or trying to as you were, can and will result in moderation. Clear?

My understanding was that there was to be no contact between us. If I may not engage in dialogue with you, it seems rational that you may not do so with me.

Incorrect. I said that I did not want to have to speak to you because I can't really stand you personally. Unfortunately that rule does not apply for me in this sub-forum or Human Science. While I can ignore you for the most part, in this sub-forum and the other I actually have to communicate with you if the need arises and moderate you if the need arises. If you have a problem with that, take your complaint to James and explain to him what you are doing in this thread and then explain to him why you think I should not tell you to butt out of something that a) you know nothing about (by your own admittance) and b) did not concern you.

That is all I am going to say to you on this matter.

 

[spidergoat]

Is getting a warning for a PM to a moderator for asking them a question reasonable?

No, it's not reasonable unless you sent them porn or cursed them out.

 

[adoucette]

We reviewed the issue Arthur, and I do not believe you are right.

Well that settles it.

My bad.

 

[Balerion]

Arthur,

As you are well aware, some moderators here are above the rules that they enforce. Your complaints would be worthwhile if administration attempted to correct such abuses of power, but it does not, so your cries are falling on deaf ears, and all you will get in return is the kind of behavior that would result in a ban if it were you and not a Mod acting that way.

Your best bet is to simply ignore the Mods who harass you. Don't respond to their rude, baiting posts, and in all likelihood you won't receive any more warnings.

 

[Bells]

Arthur,

As you are well aware, some moderators here are above the rules that they enforce. Your complaints would be worthwhile if administration attempted to correct such abuses of power, but it does not, so your cries are falling on deaf ears, and all you will get in return is the kind of behavior that would result in a ban if it were you and not a Mod acting that way.

Your best bet is to simply ignore the Mods who harass you. Don't respond to their rude, baiting posts, and in all likelihood you won't receive any more warnings.

And a warning here to you as well.

Before you comment on something, please be aware of the facts and the situation. Since it is clear that you are not, this post can and will be viewed as flaming.

This issue is between Arthur and the staff. He has a complaint and it is being dealt with. It does not concern you, nor is your personal views on moderators needed in this thread. If you have a problem with a moderator, take it to admin. Ask for a review.

Do not try to flame a situation that does not concern you.

 

[Repo Man]

You could make a resolution to become a paragon of good scholarship and civility; alternately, you could make a resolution to never post angry and should you ever become angry while sitting at the computer to get up and spend a week trying to put yourself into the other person's shoes before posting a civil reply.

Well, the truth is many (most?) of us fall short of this standard. But it's a good one to aim for.

 

[GeoffP]

When is dissent not dissent?

Next time, learn the relevant facts before you decide to comment. Flaming the issue, or trying to as you were, can and will result in moderation. Clear?

I'm not going to waste time beating around the bush: this sort of thing is getting very common. Flaming, character attacks, straw men, and all the things that posters are told not to engage in. Bringing up these facts in SFOG isn't flaming. Much of the behaviour on the forum is childish, and the acceptance of same is hypocritical (probably). Arthur says he was PMed first and got a warning for responding. Unless the first PM was a warning, something's quite wrong.

So: this is SFOG. Welcome to SFOG.

BTW, is the magic ban on our conversations then at an end?

 

[Bells]

I'm not going to waste time beating around the bush: this sort of thing is getting very common. Flaming, character attacks, straw men, and all the things that posters are told not to engage in. Bringing up these facts in SFOG isn't flaming.

It is when you insert yourself in something that does not concern you, that you know nothing about and start attacking moderators (and even if it had been someone else, my response to you would have been the same). Remember GeoffP, no one invited you into this thread. You chose to make yourself party to it by making spurious allegations that we can apparently do what we like. That is wrong. You were asked, politely by me, to stop trying to flame this situation, not just because it does not concern you, but because you do not know the facts or who he is even talking about.

Much of the behaviour on the forum is childish, and the acceptance of same is hypocritical (probably).

I would imagine that accusation could be levelled at everyone who posts here, yourself and myself included.

Arthur says he was PMed first and got a warning for responding. Unless the first PM was a warning, something's quite wrong.

Again, you do not know the facts. From Arthur himself:

Indeed, this started because I was warned by the same moderator that I was going to start getting official warnings and this specific issue was brought up as an example of why that was so. So I took this issue off line via PM to try to resolve the issue and POOF, a warning.

In other words, he was warned for his behaviour, so he PM'ed the moderator in question and kept going at him (not about the complaint, but because said moderator would not say he was right) until he was warned again for his behaviour, he did not stop and received an official warning.

So: this is SFOG. Welcome to SFOG.

Indeed it is. But Arthur and others also forget this:

Feedback and complaints

Complaints about individual moderators should be directed to administrators using Personal Messaging. Do not post them in the public forums.

_____________________________________________________

G. Feedback and Complaints

2. Specific complaints concerning the moderation of individual posts should in the first instance be directed by Personal Messaging to the moderator of the subforum in question. If that does not resolve the issue, send a personal message to a supermoderator or administrator.

3. Complaints about individual moderators should be directed to the administrators by Personal Messaging.


Sciforums - Rules, posting guidelines and advice to members

I can assure you, Arthur did none of this. He was given ample warning to stop the behaviour in question. Instead of doing so, he PM'ed the moderator in question and he kept pushing and pushing. As James noted, everyone has their limits and he reached his with the moderator in question who then issued him with a warning.

BTW, is the magic ban on our conversations then at an end?

As I have noted to you on at least two previous occasions, Geoff. I don't speak to you unless I absolutely have to. I would only ever absolutely have to speak to you if it concerns a moderator issue, such as now. It is not a "magic ban". I don't enjoy conversing with you. The reasons were made very clear last time. I actually do not have to speak to you unless I absolutely have to and the only time I am required by my position to actually communicate with you is if it concerns something official, such as moderating you or warning you, such as I have in this thread and if the need ever arises, in Human Science.

If you have a problem with that, you are free to PM James and address him with your concerns that I don't speak to you unless I am forced to because of my position as a moderator here.

 

[Bells]

::Edit to add::

Since this issue appears to have been dealt with in regards to Adoucette, GeoffP, I see no further need to continue conversing with you (GeoffP) about this matter with Arthur.

Please feel free to take any further concerns to the administrators of this site.

Thank you.

 

[GeoffP]

It is when you insert yourself in something that does not concern you, that you know nothing about and start attacking moderators (and even if it had been someone else, my response to you would have been the same). Remember GeoffP, no one invited you into this thread.

No one invited you either. No one invited anyone to the thread.

You chose to make yourself party to it by making spurious allegations that we can apparently do what we like. That is wrong. You were asked, politely by me, to stop trying to flame this situation, not just because it does not concern you, but because you do not know the facts or who he is even talking about.

Enough nonsense. The forum has seen gross abuse by moderators in the last several weeks. I don't agree with Adoucette's political stance, but repeatedly hammering his character because someone happens to hate him is unethical, besides being a violation of the rules. The only sensible conclusion is that the rules don't matter in such cases. When it's the management doing it, well: there it is. I certainly don't mind being a party to the thread, however.

I would imagine that accusation could be levelled at everyone who posts here, yourself and myself included.

The moderators should be above that nonsense: setting an example, for example.

Again, you do not know the facts. From Arthur himself:

Actually that account lays out a pretty clear case that Arthur is being dealt with unreasonably. He explicitly says he was not told by the mod not to PM him:

A) I was not asked by the Mod to not PM them on this issue.

B) I was in fact responding to a PM the mod sent me.

So unless that initial PM was a warning, there appears to be an ethical problem here. Your reading of the situation appears to be incorrect.

I can assure you, Arthur did none of this. He was given ample warning to stop the behaviour in question. Instead of doing so, he PM'ed the moderator in question and he kept pushing and pushing. As James noted, everyone has their limits and he reached his with the moderator in question who then issued him with a warning.

I have Arthur's statement at this point. I have no further first-hand statement to compare it to. I can say that I wouldn't be terribly surprised if what he says turns out to be true. I don't think your timeline is completely supported. Possibly we'll see.

As I have noted to you on at least two previous occasions, Geoff. I don't speak to you unless I absolutely have to.

That situation is entirely preferable. Please don't change it. Thanks.

 

[Bells]

No one invited you either. No one invited anyone to the thread.



Enough nonsense. The forum has seen gross abuse by moderators in the last several weeks. I don't agree with Adoucette's political stance, but repeatedly hammering his character because someone happens to hate him is unethical, besides being a violation of the rules. The only sensible conclusion is that the rules don't matter in such cases. When it's the management doing it, well: there it is. I certainly don't mind being a party to the thread, however.



The moderators should be above that nonsense: setting an example, for example.



Actually that account lays out a pretty clear case that Arthur is being dealt with unreasonably. He explicitly says he was not told by the mod not to PM him:



So unless that initial PM was a warning, there appears to be an ethical problem here. Your reading of the situation appears to be incorrect.



I have Arthur's statement at this point. I have no further first-hand statement to compare it to. I can say that I wouldn't be terribly surprised if what he says turns out to be true. I don't think your timeline is completely supported. Possibly we'll see.



That situation is entirely preferable. Please don't change it. Thanks.

And one last time..

I have read the PM exchange between Arthur and the moderator in question, from start to end. It was reviewed. I'd suggest you get your facts straight before you start voicing opinions based on what you are just assuming might have happened. If you doubt it, you can ask James or any of the other moderators of this site who reviewed it, by PM.

You keep asking about "the situation". It never changed. And again to add, just so that it might sink in for you:

_________________________________


Since this issue appears to have been dealt with in regards to Adoucette, GeoffP, I see no further need to continue conversing with you (GeoffP) about this matter with Arthur.

Please feel free to take any further concerns to the administrators of this site.

Thank you.

_________________________________

Consider this an official mod note. Failure to adhere to that request will result in moderation. The issue is now closed. Seeing that the issue did not concern you at all, if you have any further concerns about the actions of the moderator involved in Arthur's case, as per the rules of this site, you are free to PM an administrator with said concerns and complaint.

I will repost those rules, just to make sure we are clear:

Feedback and complaints

Complaints about individual moderators should be directed to administrators using Personal Messaging. Do not post them in the public forums.

__________________________________________________

G. Feedback and Complaints

2. Specific complaints concerning the moderation of individual posts should in the first instance be directed by Personal Messaging to the moderator of the subforum in question. If that does not resolve the issue, send a personal message to a supermoderator or administrator.

3. Complaints about individual moderators should be directed to the administrators by Personal Messaging.​

 

[adoucette]

Indeed it is. But Arthur and others also forget this:

Feedback and complaints

Complaints about individual moderators should be directed to administrators using Personal Messaging. Do not post them in the public forums.

But I wasn't complaining about about this poster for his role as a moderator, just arguing about the issue like with any other forum member UNTIL I was given by this same person, now switching to their moderator role, this warning of warnings to come (which was forwarded to James).

__________________________________________________ ___

G. Feedback and Complaints

2. Specific complaints concerning the moderation of individual posts should in the first instance be directed by Personal Messaging to the moderator of the subforum in question. If that does not resolve the issue, send a personal message to a supermoderator or administrator.

3. Complaints about individual moderators should be directed to the administrators by Personal Messaging.


Sciforums - Rules, posting guidelines and advice to members

To point 2, This doesn't apply because I'm not complaining about the moderation of an individual post.

To point 3, This doesn't apply because I'm not complaining about an individual moderator, I'm asking in SFOG if getting a warning for replying to a question in a PM is legitimate.

James has said it is.

I can assure you, Arthur did none of this.

Because none of this applied Bells.

He was given ample warning to stop the behaviour in question. Instead of doing so, he PM'ed the moderator in question and he kept pushing and pushing. As James noted, everyone has their limits and he reached his with the moderator in question who then issued him with a warning.

The behavior in question was that we were discussing the actual issue.

The person in question never asked me to stop PMing them about this.

Which I would have if asked.

I presumed (erroneously it appears) that if someone PMed me, without asking me to not PM them in the future, that that has an implied consent to reply to their PM