Baron Max banned again?

[Tiassa]

Gather moss or don't; just roll away the stone

Like you never do? How quickly you forget your fight for Sam crusade.

Yes, we know your opinion. Too bad you won't offer a rational explanation of it.

Ah, but if I "fill us in", I would be in breach of the confidence of the mod forum, wouldn't I? How comforting that must be for you.

Ah, I see. Or maybe I don't. What the hell are you talking about? I was referring to when you walked into the S.A.M. argument with a chip on your shoulder, started swinging, and then pitched a hissy-cow when you got tagged.

It was strange behavior from you in the first post, but by the second, it was clear you were just out looking for a fight.

You forget Tiassa, I know and have seen exactly how you work and how you apply the rules of this site. I know and have seen your demands and accusations against others who dare disagree with you and I have seen how you have treated those individuals in the past. The pattern just keeps on repeating itself. To dare hold different views or opinions to you automatically makes one an enemy, a hypocrit, a liar, incompetent... Same pattern each and every single time. Now we add 'emotional' to the list. What's going to be next? Menstrual?

Look at you, Bells, baiting for escalation.

Too bad you're unwilling to put up a real argument.

Accusing me of trolling again is also a known pattern with you. I've seen all this before, only on previous occasions, you would say it to others. I guess it is good to see what it is like on the other side and now I see why so many were so unhappy with your moderation tactics in the past. I am seeing it from their end now and I have to admit, it is not a pretty sight.

Well, you should try putting up some sort of substantive, honest argument instead of asking to be hurt so you can complain about how much it hurts.

Do I have a beef with you? No. I am just tired of the hypocrisy.

So, what, you pick a fight, post a dishonest argument, then freak out irreconcilably when this is pointed out to you? If you have no beef with me, why do you so badly want me to have one with you?

You know, I now realise that it really is a shame that the private forums are not made public. But I also realise, looking at it from this end, that it never can be. The respect you demand from others would never be forthcoming if that forum was made public.

Bells, I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand the concept of integrity, especially when you're whining about hypocrisy.

I don't mind fighting losing fights when I believe I'm right. Majorities are very often wrong.

So what is it that seems so horrible? That I was upset at the Politics team once upon a time for protecting open bigotry as a valuable contribution to the site? That I lit into a fellow moderator who once dismissed a detailed complaint as having no merit, but then proudly crowed that he never read it in the first place? That I tore into an administrator for applying new standards in order to sanction a member he doesn't like? That I find it ridiculously hypocritical that people should wail about violations of the scientific method while failing and often refusing to support their own arguments?

I know I can be hard on people, Bells. Because I know how. And apparently, to judge by the reactions I get, I'm very, very good at it. Some people are good with guns. Some people are good with numbers. I'm good with words and ideas. If I got shot in a quick-draw duel, how many people would wonder what the hell someone like me, who can't shoot, thought he was doing in a fucking quick-draw duel? Unfortunately for the shooters among us, duels here are fought with words and ideas.

And, frankly, I thought you were pretty adept with words and ideas, too. Was I wrong to think so, or is there a reason you've forsaken those faculties? Don't get me wrong; it's a hell of a performance art gig you're putting on.

I mean, look at you. Whatever the hell was bugging you when you strolled into the S.A.M. debate and tried to pick a fight with me, I apparently upset you enough with my response that you had to start making shit up to be upset at. And, yes, there is a certain level of entertainment that comes with watching such spectacles, compared to, say, studying actuarial tables or testing my skull to see how much pressure it can withstand from a vise. But it's very enlightening. And it's also somewhat confusing sometimes. People don't only sharpen up in an quasi-anonymous format like this, but they expose raw parts of themselves regardless of how much they try to protect themselves and hide their inner selves away. And every once in a while, it means they show that hideous flicker of insanity that every human being carries inside. As a result, their behavior can be very erratic in the detail. But they're usually thematic, as absurdity does not equal erasure.

If I dragged out the ghost of Camus and asked him, "What the hell is going on here?" he would tell me, "How the fuck should I know? Either put down the rock or don't. But leave me alone; I'm trying to sleep!"

What about you, Bells? Is Sisyphus happy?

This whole thing would make me sad about what you've become of late, but I think you're enjoying yourself, so ... yeah. Have at it. Work out whatever is frustrating you, and send us a postcard when you come back down to Earth. And don't let the rock roll over your toe. That can hurt.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Tiassa seems to think that using a lot of words to say practically nothing makes him 'adept with words and ideas'

Meanwhile he still doesn't understand exactly what is performance art

But hey I guess as long as one uses these words it doesn't matter if they are used incorrectly.

 

[Gustav]

"Meanwhile he still doesn't understand exactly what is performance art"

/added link

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

What is this, a subforum set aside specifically for flame wars? Are Bells and Tiassa the new Sam and Q?

 

[sandy]

What is this, a subforum set aside specifically for flame wars? Are Bells and Tiassa the new Sam and Q?

Nah. Lots of peeps actually *like* SAM.

 

[Randwolf]

Hmmm... Ermmmm....

This really has nothing to do with the Baron, but in light of tonight's development (Identity loss and suicide rates in Maoris), is James going for some sort of record as to number of long term members banned in "x" amount of time? Or is he just the appointed executioner, and someone else makes the decisions?

I mean - Hmmm... Ermmmm.... What?

 

[James R]

One would imagine that 1 month off would allow time enough for a poster to reflect on her behaviour. Apparently not. SAM has now added personal insults to her repertoire, it seems. Besides, she was specifically warned against doing the very thing she has been banned for. She must have wanted a ban.

 

[Randwolf]

One would imagine that 1 month off would allow time enough for a poster to reflect on her behaviour. Apparently not. SAM has now added personal insults to her repertoire, it seems.

OK, and I don't claim to know enough about the politics - even counting "lurking", my time is measured as a little less then two years.

I have been following recent developments though, and I don't fully understand the motives. Perhaps it would help us all if Admin / Management / Whomever would tell us plebes the goal... What sort of environment are we trying to establish? And why? Is it profit driven? I could totally appreciate that if someone would just say so!

Where are the lines?

Even long term moderators such as Tiassa seem somewhat confused. Similar to the "streets", I personally have felt the winds blowing, and have kind of "ducked and covered". Nonetheless, I have had a couple of PM's regarding my conduct even though I'm trying to be a "good boy", while y'all sort everything out, and awaiting the time when the rest of us feel safe to come out of our shells.

Meanwhile, do you have any idea as to when clarification will be forthcoming as to what behavior is (or isn't) actually acceptable? In reality, not theory, I mean practical guidelines...

Things that used to be OK no longer appear to be so. Fine...

Just tell me the rules and I will play by them, same as "real life". Please, though, don't point me to the "published" rules, because they don't reflect the nuances of reality.

Bottom line - do you anticipate, or is it possible, to expect a sort of "State of the Union" address to be forthcoming shortly? Please?

 

[James R]

I have been following recent developments though, and I don't fully understand the motives. Perhaps it would help us all if Admin / Management / Whomever would tell us plebes the goal... What sort of environment are we trying to establish?

I'd like an environment where people are polite to each other. Where people can converse without being called names. Where people aren't flamed for asking legitimate questions. Where voluntary disclosure of personal information is not used as a tool to attack the poster. A place where there is intellectual integrity - where people do not pretend to know what they do not, or pretend not to know what they do know. Where people do not conveniently forget past conversations so that they can troll on the same topic at a later date. Where people ask questions because they want to know the answer, and not because they want to attack somebody or some group of people. Where racism, sexism, homophobia and the like is not tolerated.

And why? Is it profit driven?

Not for me. I make no money from sciforums.

Meanwhile, do you have any idea as to when clarification will be forthcoming as to what behavior is (or isn't) actually acceptable? In reality, not theory, I mean practical guidelines...

...

Just tell me the rules and I will play by them, same as "real life". Please, though, don't point me to the "published" rules, because they don't reflect the nuances of reality.

The published rules are about as clear as things can get. If people want to test those rules by sailing as close to the fire as they can, sometimes they'll get burned. Luckily, we're very fair and forgiving about such things. We have a very fair system in which posters are initially given a friendly warning by PM. If the offensive behaviour continues, we impose a 1 to 3 day ban. Repeat offenders work their way through an escalating cycle of temporary bans, of length 3 days, 7 days, 14 days, and 1 month. At that point, if the poster persists, we have the option of permanently banning them; clearly the chance of them changing their ways after 5 or 6 separate sanctions is slim. However, even here we are forgiving. There are posters on sciforums who have spent an equivalent of over 2 months of total ban time without being permanently banned. Perhaps we take too optimistic a view in our belief that people can learn and change over time. We have even allowed people who have been permanently banned to make new starts under new names (after a break); at least one such poster has arrived in the past month or two and has been allowed to start over.

Bottom line - do you anticipate, or is it possible, to expect a sort of "State of the Union" address to be forthcoming shortly? Please?

The real question is why you expect such a thing. Do you post to any other forums on the internet? How many of them are as transparent about moderation issues as sciforums is? How many of their moderators are willing to discuss their reasons and rationale for moderating in particular ways, in depth? How many are happy to respond to queries such as yours?

 

[Randwolf]

To everything else in your reply, all I can say is - Thanks!

The real question is why you expect such a thing. Do you post to any other forums on the internet? How many of them are as transparent about moderation issues as sciforums is? How many of their moderators are willing to discuss their reasons and rationale for moderating in particular ways, in depth? How many are happy to respond to queries such as yours?

Actually, no, I do not. This is my first, although I have been playing with PC's since my first Kaypro and used to dial in to bulletin boards. I don't know what to expect. I just know things are different now.

I have dropped in and read a few posts at other forums, but never, ever, stayed around long enough to consider joining - this is my first. So, I am sorry, I can not answer your questions on this topic.

Nonetheless, I missed the part where you explained why things are changing here so much. There must be a reason...

As to the other, your visions of Utopia are great, but what about the spice and fire that used to be here? Do you intend to trade it off completely for "civilized" behavior?

 

[James R]

Nonetheless, I missed the part where you explained why things are changing here so much. There must be a reason...

In what way do you think things are changing?

As to the other, your visions of Utopia are great, but what about the spice and fire that used to be here? Do you intend to trade it off completely for "civilized" behavior?

What do you mean by "spice and fire"? People insulting each other with impunity? That's a different kind of forum.

 

[Randwolf]

In what way do you think things are changing?

This question is so simplistic as to insult anyone's intelligence that has been here any length of time at all. For good or bad, moderation is now enforcing a policy of "zero tolerance", or at least trying to, IMO.

In what way do you think things aren't changing here, James? If they aren't changing at all, then why all the apparent effort towards reform, and why all the hub-bub rabble-rabble amongst the members and moderators alike? What to make of the near riot over SAM's ban? Or the somewhat lesser disturbance regarding Baron Max? Why are people now figuratively looking over their shoulders every time they hit "Post" or whatever the hell the submit button is labeled? Why the emergence and subsequent ban of Gustav, the gremlin from below? On the plus side, why the sudden clean-up of the language? The dropping of the ad homs? Edit: I'm just not sure if this is leading to more participation, more true "scientific" content, etc.

Pardon me, but your question seems so disingenuous as to be laughable...

What do you mean by "spice and fire"? People insulting each other with impunity? That's a different kind of forum.

No, James, spice does not equate to "People insulting each other with impunity". Spice, at least the way I intended it, means less fear... More freedom to post a "little closer to the edge". Some like it that way, some not. Apparently, at least. If I had to guess, and it's not much of a guess, just based on your responses in the last few posts - you prefer an atmosphere in which people think twice before they post anything sensitive. Think twice before allowing any emotion to shine through. Think twice before being themselves...

For good or bad, and even if this attitude must be enforced by fear.

Again, fine and good, tell me the rules and I will learn how to play by them, as well as learn how to bend them.

But why is this what you want? Elimination of racism, sexism, etc., I can see. But let adults be adults (as oxymoronic is this is going to sound) - if they want to act like children, so what? Who is going to get hurt?

Let's not forget that this an internet forum, for G*d's sake, not the U.N. Ease up a little - just my opinion...

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Originally Posted by Randwolf
Is it profit driven? ”

Not for me. I make no money from sciforums.

Do you administrate/moderate based on the direction of those who do make money from Scifourms.???

 

[Randwolf]

Originally Posted by Randwolf
Is it profit driven? ”

Do you administrate/moderate based on the direction of those who do make money from Scifourms.???

Thanks Timmy, that is exactly the question I was asking. I'm not sure if James was just being deliberately obtuse, or if he really didn't know that I was already aware that he, personally, was not making money. At least I'm pretty sure he's not...

 

[Randwolf]

One more observation regarding the system:

"We have a very fair system in which posters are initially given a friendly warning by PM. If the offensive behavior continues, we impose a 1 to 3 day ban. Repeat offenders work their way through an escalating cycle of temporary bans, of length 3 days, 7 days, 14 days, and 1 month. At that point, if the poster persists, we have the option of permanently banning them; clearly the chance of them changing their ways after 5 or 6 separate sanctions is slim. However, even here we are forgiving. " (JamesR Quote)

I am very glad for that last bit - "However, even here we are forgiving." If you guys weren't this way, wouldn't it seem that eventually everyone would get permabanned? Especially with the "zero tolerance" thing?

If you post enough, you're bound make infractions on the rules. If nothing else, because you are having a bad day in the "real world", and unfairly take it out here. People lose their tempers from time to time, and say things they don't necessarily mean. Or, my personal favorite, say something that was intended one way and comes across as another. This happens in the "real world" as well. People make mistakes. People fight - then they make up. Why would it be different here?

It's actually easier to offend someone here, because you do not always have the ability to say "Oh, no, no, no... That's not what I meant, this is what I meant". In other words to clarify, especially on an immediate basis. I mean, I have posted before, logged out and went to bed, only to find out the next day that what I said was completely misconstrued. You can always say, "be more careful before submitting your post", but that is not always practical.

As Tiassa cautioned in another thread, a member had forgotten the prefix "un", and if the post were to be taken literally, it would have been considered an infraction of the rules. And no, it's not always possible to tell for sure from the context, and even if you could, under the "zero-tolerance" thingie, the moderators are not "technically" supposed to give allowances for this. Assuming I understand the policy correctly, or even if I just form my own opinion as to what enforcing the written rules literally, every time, in every way, would lead to. Eventually, we're all going to cycle ourselves right out of here. I know that's not your intent.

So what to do? Similar to the real world, I imagine this whole topic is subject to the "pendulum" effect, and things will ease up again in time. Only to rinse and repeat, of course... Anyway, I don't claim to have all the answers, it seems to be a balancing act between civility and heated debate, the latter of which can be great fun. There are, of course, different points at which you can find "balance". Compare, for example, England's Parliament vs the US Congress. One seems to behave more civilly, at least in public, but in the end they both get the job done.

This stuff is just my personal opinion, and again, just let me know the rules and I will find my way around...

 

[James R]

Randwolf:

For good or bad, moderation is now enforcing a policy of "zero tolerance", or at least trying to, IMO.

I can understand why you have that impression. SAM has a very large footprint on sciforums, so actions taken against her may seem overwhelming. But at the end of the day, she's just one more member.

We're very far from zero tolerance, Randwolf. SAM is right at the end of the official ban cycle, having been warned (many times), and banned for differing periods ranging from 3 days to 1 month. Zero tolerance would mean that any future infraction should attract an immediate permanent ban. The fact is, I'm such a softy I keep giving SAM one more chance, then one more chance, then one more chance. But she is actually becoming more and more radicalised. She really needs to decide where the real battles are if she's serious about advancing her agenda rather than dissuading people.

In what way do you think things aren't changing here, James? If they aren't changing at all, then why all the apparent effort towards reform, and why all the hub-bub rabble-rabble amongst the members and moderators alike? What to make of the near riot over SAM's ban?

A "near riot" of 3 or 4 ardent supporters? Meh. We get that every time a prolific poster is banned. Everybody has friends. Some people even have cliques. And some just like to support any perceived rebel against the system.

Why are people now figuratively looking over their shoulders every time they hit "Post" or whatever the hell the submit button is labeled?

You tell me. Are you afraid to hit the "submit" button? If so, why?

Why the emergence and subsequent ban of Gustav, the gremlin from below?

Gustav's been SAM's puppy dog for a while now. And he's never liked me much. Mostly he's harmless though. Mostly.

On the plus side, why the sudden clean-up of the language? The dropping of the ad homs?

Nothing new there. The basis of any civil discourse is a willingness to listen to the other person and to reply to them in good faith. Flaming can be a diverting pastime, but it doesn't add anything particularly useful to a forum for intelligent discussion.

you prefer an atmosphere in which people think twice before they post anything sensitive. Think twice before allowing any emotion to shine through. Think twice before being themselves...

Look. Being yourself is great up to a point, but there's a line to be drawn. If being yourself means being a racist bigot or an insulting attacker or a disingenuous troll, then I don't see how it is such a great thing for the forum.

But why is this what you want? Elimination of racism, sexism, etc., I can see. But let adults be adults (as oxymoronic is this is going to sound) - if they want to act like children, so what? Who is going to get hurt?

This is supposed to be an intelligent community. I suggest that if adults here want to act like children (and that's an insult to some very intelligent children, by the way) then I suggest they ought to look for a forum that suits them better. There are plenty out there where the level of discussion never rises much above playground chatter about last Saturday's football game on TV.

If you post enough, you're bound make infractions on the rules. If nothing else, because you are having a bad day in the "real world", and unfairly take it out here. People lose their tempers from time to time, and say things they don't necessarily mean. Or, my personal favorite, say something that was intended one way and comes across as another. This happens in the "real world" as well. People make mistakes. People fight - then they make up. Why would it be different here?

It's no different here. That's one reason we have human moderators who are aware of human foibles and who try to look at the context when posts are reported. Unfortunately, there's a flip side to that. We get accused of being arbitrary. This moderating gig is not as easy as you might think.

So what to do? Similar to the real world, I imagine this whole topic is subject to the "pendulum" effect, and things will ease up again in time. Only to rinse and repeat, of course... Anyway, I don't claim to have all the answers, it seems to be a balancing act between civility and heated debate, the latter of which can be great fun. There are, of course, different points at which you can find "balance". Compare, for example, England's Parliament vs the US Congress. One seems to behave more civilly, at least in public, but in the end they both get the job done.

I don't disagree with any of this. Personally, I'm always trying to find the right balance. I'm very well aware that I'm not going to please all the people all the time. Complaints are far more common than praise. When things go the way people want them to, they just sit content because that's how they believe things should go. When things don't go the way they want, they tend to complain - some very loudly indeed.


cluelusshusbund:

Do you administrate/moderate based on the direction of those who do make money from Scifourms.???

The owners of sciforums, to their credit, allow a great deal of latitude in the direction that sciforums takes. They are very hands-off when it comes to giving directions to moderators and administrators.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

The owners of sciforums, to their credit, allow a great deal of latitude in the direction that sciforums takes. They are very hands-off when it comes to giving directions to moderators and administrators.

I can only emagine the freedom you mus enjoy by the owners havin a hands-off approach which allows you to monitor you'rself... no dout them givin you that respect makes you a beter Administrater.!!!

Hmmm... sinse you'r effectivly in charge from the top down... how bout tryin this out as an esperiment:::

Leave the threds in the cesspool unlocked... an when you feel a ban is necesary... ban the person to postin only in the cesspool for a period of time.!!!

Personaly... i ant interested in the cesspool an ive only spent aboout 5 minutes thar an that was perty much huntin for threads that i coudnt find... but if a couple of knuckle-heads want to duke it out... it coud be done in the cesspool so us innocent types coud easily avoid any nastynesss.!!!

Som may muck aroun thar for a while but it will get old soom enuff for mos people who try it... but at leas people will have had an opportunity to speek ther mind... an then will be mor congenial to a self moderation which woud allow them to post in the other mor heavly moderated groops.!!!

 

[James R]

Leave the threds in the cesspool unlocked... an when you feel a ban is necesary... ban the person to postin only in the cesspool for a period of time.!!!

We've thought of that. The problem is that we've had posters here who were quite content to spend most of their time in the Cesspool. But the Cesspool is supposed to be a dumping ground for the rubbish. It's a way of avoiding outright censorship (i.e. deleting threads) while also sending a clear message about what kinds of threads are and are not valued here. Most threads in the Cesspool are locked because we really don't want valueless conversations to continue to take up space and be prominent in the recent posts list.

 

[Randwolf]

We've thought of that. The problem is that we've had posters here who were quite content to spend most of their time in the Cesspool. But the Cesspool is supposed to be a dumping ground for the rubbish. It's a way of avoiding outright censorship (i.e. deleting threads) while also sending a clear message about what kinds of threads are and are not valued here. Most threads in the Cesspool are locked because we really don't want valueless conversations to continue to take up space and be prominent in the recent posts list.

Didn't they used to be mostly "unlocked"? Or am I just suffering from faulty memory again... Huh, what? zzzz....

 

[Randwolf]

We're very far from zero tolerance, Randwolf.

Is the intent to approach this as a goal, though? Or am I just over emphasizing some other moderators' comments?