Bring back spookz.
- Thread starter outlandish
- Start date
- Status
I abstain from the vote not because I am a moderator, but because in lieu of any consistent process, I defer to Porfiry in such matters.
That said . . . what tears me is the fact that Sciforums, in general, tolerated Spookz for 6,400 posts. Being sympathetic toward the guy, I can only say I hope in the future that we won't have to put up with 6,400 posts before it becomes intolerable.
One thing that both Nico and Spookz had in common--and, incidentally, one of the earliest blow-ups over a moderator that I can recall, which resulted in a member asking Porfiry to cancel his monthly subscription and vowing to not debate at Sciforums again also bears this mark--is that they both had issues with moderators.
Perhaps S/FOG will give members a forum for the future, so that such confrontations can be defused.
For the record, Spookz was always decent to me as a moderator. I think the strongest thing he ever said to me on the subject of moderation was, "Go ahead and moderate it, then."
And of those who might think, inasmuch as we are examining Spookz, that he had legitimate issues with Xev, it is worth mentioning that, after a constant river of drivel that Sciforums' mods were sick of before I ever took up a position, we might expect some people to be impatient with complaints about moderators. So even if we argue that complaints about Xev are accurate, we must acknowledge that our administrator and moderators are tired of putting up with people's crap all the time.
I had a moment the other night in which I thought too hard about Net Nanny and other such software that I've never used. I can't quite pin the issue correctly, but if you're in your school years, or if you're parents of school-age kids ... imagine that one day my daughter turns in a paper and after checking the grammar and source-citation, the teacher remarks, "It's a very unique thesis. How did you come up with it?" So Emma turns to the computer to show the teacher this long-running discussion she's had only to find that the school's filters block the site because it's thick with all manner of R-rated banter .... (I was actually high and thinking about Pollux's "Fascist Club" topic at the time.)
Just a thought that struck me the other day. I still don't know what to do with it.
I relate that to the idea that if we threw away all the garbage and tried to measure the primary intellectual contributions of Sciforums, there might be 10,000 posts out of the current 473,000 or so that would remain.
I'm not sure this is what our fearless leader had in mind when he started this place. I'd actually be willing to bet a beer or two that it wasn't.
So people ought to bear that in mind. By the time it gets to the point that people are calling for bannings based on slight deviations from the norm, your moderators and administrator are, most likely, merely tolerating the norm.
Our greatest contribution, as a posting body, to future knowledge has thus far been a sterling testament to the cacophony of webworld to be dissected by some future social science who is simultaneously bored to suicide and desperate for a thesis.
We can certainly aim higher.
That said . . . what tears me is the fact that Sciforums, in general, tolerated Spookz for 6,400 posts. Being sympathetic toward the guy, I can only say I hope in the future that we won't have to put up with 6,400 posts before it becomes intolerable.
One thing that both Nico and Spookz had in common--and, incidentally, one of the earliest blow-ups over a moderator that I can recall, which resulted in a member asking Porfiry to cancel his monthly subscription and vowing to not debate at Sciforums again also bears this mark--is that they both had issues with moderators.
Perhaps S/FOG will give members a forum for the future, so that such confrontations can be defused.
For the record, Spookz was always decent to me as a moderator. I think the strongest thing he ever said to me on the subject of moderation was, "Go ahead and moderate it, then."
And of those who might think, inasmuch as we are examining Spookz, that he had legitimate issues with Xev, it is worth mentioning that, after a constant river of drivel that Sciforums' mods were sick of before I ever took up a position, we might expect some people to be impatient with complaints about moderators. So even if we argue that complaints about Xev are accurate, we must acknowledge that our administrator and moderators are tired of putting up with people's crap all the time.
I had a moment the other night in which I thought too hard about Net Nanny and other such software that I've never used. I can't quite pin the issue correctly, but if you're in your school years, or if you're parents of school-age kids ... imagine that one day my daughter turns in a paper and after checking the grammar and source-citation, the teacher remarks, "It's a very unique thesis. How did you come up with it?" So Emma turns to the computer to show the teacher this long-running discussion she's had only to find that the school's filters block the site because it's thick with all manner of R-rated banter .... (I was actually high and thinking about Pollux's "Fascist Club" topic at the time.)
Just a thought that struck me the other day. I still don't know what to do with it.
I relate that to the idea that if we threw away all the garbage and tried to measure the primary intellectual contributions of Sciforums, there might be 10,000 posts out of the current 473,000 or so that would remain.
I'm not sure this is what our fearless leader had in mind when he started this place. I'd actually be willing to bet a beer or two that it wasn't.
So people ought to bear that in mind. By the time it gets to the point that people are calling for bannings based on slight deviations from the norm, your moderators and administrator are, most likely, merely tolerating the norm.
Our greatest contribution, as a posting body, to future knowledge has thus far been a sterling testament to the cacophony of webworld to be dissected by some future social science who is simultaneously bored to suicide and desperate for a thesis.
We can certainly aim higher.
CounslerCoffee
Registered Senior Member
If me and Xev aren't allowed to vote, then you shouldn't be able to vote either. You were involved in that thread as well.
Porfiry said:
His last few posts were not insulting you but mocking the way your name was dragged in.
Mostly his comments on your service are misread instead of ones asking for more freedom rather than 'handouts' (spooky language).
It is well known that you run this forums much to your disadvantage (fund, time etc). Still you run this forums, fighting to keep it of some worth for all the pains you take. My due appreciation for that.
But should a member always post with a nagging in the mind that he/she would be axed next when he/she disagrees & fights it out with moderators.?
i hardly found spookz ever been in a tug of abusive-war with mods like Cris, James, Tiassa or You. Generally, spooky language had been abusive but funny rather than insulting when compared to his detractors. But often his posts were worthy enough to change opinions.
Please be lenient once more & give him another chance.
CounslerCoffee
Registered Senior Member
He was banned once before, and now again. How many chances is a member supose to get?
CounslerCoffee
Registered Senior Member
I didn't answer your request, I asked a question.
----deleted----
Last edited:
CounslerCoffee
Registered Senior Member
Spurious, you keep saying that everytime I post. I seek no conflict. I merely state the obvious.
CounslerCoffee
Registered Senior Member
Everneo, those were two different posts and two different conversations. I gave you a statement and asked you a question:
Looks like a question mark to me. So it must be a question mark.
*EDIT* On further review of this post, and my previous post to Everneo, it appears to me that I may come accross sounding like a jerk. I assure you that I'm not trying to appear as mean, I really am saying this in the friendliest of ways.
Looks like a question mark to me. So it must be a question mark.
*EDIT* On further review of this post, and my previous post to Everneo, it appears to me that I may come accross sounding like a jerk. I assure you that I'm not trying to appear as mean, I really am saying this in the friendliest of ways.
Last edited:
CounslerCoffee
Registered Senior Member
It was not a question to Porfiry either. It was a question to you.
How many times do you think banned members should be let back in?
That's all I wanted to know. No smart ass comments intended, or any ill intent. I just wanted to know how many times you think members should be let back in... That's all.
How many times do you think banned members should be let back in?
That's all I wanted to know. No smart ass comments intended, or any ill intent. I just wanted to know how many times you think members should be let back in... That's all.
I am not discussing "How many times members should be let back in".
I putforth a request to Profiry to reconsider the ban for certain reasons. I really find no reason as to why should i answer your question or why are you asking me questions instead of telling what you think.
I putforth a request to Profiry to reconsider the ban for certain reasons. I really find no reason as to why should i answer your question or why are you asking me questions instead of telling what you think.
CounslerCoffee
Registered Senior Member
I just wanted your opinion on the matter. If you want mine, okay: Never. Banned members should never be able to come back.
CounslerCoffee
Registered Senior Member
Okay, Everneo, we both obviously are missing something here. I asked you a question, you don't have to answer it. You then said that you weren't requesting to me, you were requesting to Dave. When in fact I was not answering for Dave, I was just asking a question. That's all.
Why should the two involved mods not be allowed to vote?
First of all, the "Official Rules" of this sub-forum state that no measure would be considered without at least 100 votes (the two of them only account for a maximum of 2% of that).
Second, if someone were not "involved" in one way or another, they would have no cause to vote. It seems to me that only involved people would bother voting in a poll such as this.
First of all, the "Official Rules" of this sub-forum state that no measure would be considered without at least 100 votes (the two of them only account for a maximum of 2% of that).
Second, if someone were not "involved" in one way or another, they would have no cause to vote. It seems to me that only involved people would bother voting in a poll such as this.
We now have the entire forum deciding if he should stay away or come back... including people that always agreed with him. That is no more insane then allowing people who usually disagreed with him.
I am speaking not of the decision to bring him back, but rather the decision to ban him. His was a complaint in direct response to reprehensible behaviour by Xev, actions she even lied about. Thus, her credibility in any decision to ban Spookz must be questioned.
Counsler has crearly shown an inability to be objective when concerning Xev, that is unbecoming of a moderator. And thus, has quite frankly lost all respect from me, and shall never get a response from be either.
I am speaking not of the decision to bring him back, but rather the decision to ban him. His was a complaint in direct response to reprehensible behaviour by Xev, actions she even lied about. Thus, her credibility in any decision to ban Spookz must be questioned.
Counsler has crearly shown an inability to be objective when concerning Xev, that is unbecoming of a moderator. And thus, has quite frankly lost all respect from me, and shall never get a response from be either.
Ironically I received a PM from spookz a day before he was banned, it was the only PM I ever received from him (which may surprise a few people).
I won't go into specific details, but suffice to say the basic tone of the PM was advising me to cool it here and there, and how to handle certain situations better.
The PM showed spookz had two things: a great understanding of the intricate political issues regarding sciforums, but secondly, and more importantly it showed that he indeed did have a great respect and (for want of a better word) love of the "community" as he called it.
Spookz could have easily posted the pm and scored brownie points, but he did the decent thing and spoke to me privately.
People talk about his cussing and insults etc, well I have a couple of points to say about that. If he indeed has had a few choice words to say to mods in the past then good is what I say. Good!! bravo!! what are you mods? A bunch of yellow livered inferiortiy complexed pussies?!! What ,you can't take a little heat every now and again? I'm sure if spookz had grievances then they were justified to a point, he was deffinately not one to hassle mods just for the sake of it.
I won't go into specific details, but suffice to say the basic tone of the PM was advising me to cool it here and there, and how to handle certain situations better.
The PM showed spookz had two things: a great understanding of the intricate political issues regarding sciforums, but secondly, and more importantly it showed that he indeed did have a great respect and (for want of a better word) love of the "community" as he called it.
Spookz could have easily posted the pm and scored brownie points, but he did the decent thing and spoke to me privately.
People talk about his cussing and insults etc, well I have a couple of points to say about that. If he indeed has had a few choice words to say to mods in the past then good is what I say. Good!! bravo!! what are you mods? A bunch of yellow livered inferiortiy complexed pussies?!! What ,you can't take a little heat every now and again? I'm sure if spookz had grievances then they were justified to a point, he was deffinately not one to hassle mods just for the sake of it.
- Status