james has no intention of making this the norm, signal
he is actually a decent sort and very much human (whatever that means)
James R's Independent Review Process
- Thread starter Gustav
- Start date
- Status
james has no intention of making this the norm, signal
he is actually a decent sort and very much human (whatever that means)
man! you are one manipulative freak, aint ya?
------------------------------------------------
someone please hit the report button on this post
lets see if sci bites
Aaaaand another plank of the facade of impartial moderation is gleefully kicked away in favor of condescension and sarcasm.
Truly, you are a paragon of virtue. No wonder everyone here looks up to you so!
You don't see how the issues of even-handed, unbiased moderation, and the approach to incendiary hate speech, as exercised by the top dog around here, are of concern to everyone who uses the forum?
I don't believe that. You wouldn't even have an SFOG forum if you didn't recognize that stuff. So how about you skip the petulant attempts at intimidation, and instead behave as befits your station?
Well that's good to know.
It's also the kind of thing that you should publicize at the outset, and specifically make clear to anyone that you are sanctioning for their reaction to said hate speech. Otherwise you risk being seen as complicit in hate speech, and so inflame the conflict that you are (putatively) trying to moderate.
Doubly so when dealing with members that you have a history of problematic relations with.
Then why do you cite it as a reason not to reconsider the sanctions?
The sanctions are needed not because they were actually justified as such, but because you need to demonstrate your prerogative to apply even unjustified sanctions to Gustav as punishment for his insufficient deferrence to your authority? Or what?
Where? I don't see where he's been swearing at anyone, in Hindi or any other language - otherwise, you'd have much fresher posts to sanction, and there'd be no question of the relevance of that old post to present behavior.
What current, ongoing problem are you remedying here? I don't see where you're doing anything but creating problems where there were none.
You're the one that dredged up a year-old post and made an issue of it, and you're the one that's refusing to simply admit that such was a mistake and reverse it. Because, apparently, asking that you do the latter was an unacceptable act of disrespect towards your authority.
The fact that people don't appreciate your pigheaded behavior, and don't mind telling you such, is not what is driving the issue here. Unless your view is that you getting criticized for screwing up is the entirety of the problem, which seems to be the case.
And I'm glad that you've gone out of your way to create yet another pointless problem that everyone can unite in opposition to, and that you remain far too arrogant and blustery to extricate yourself from such gracefully. If you'd kept your head down and focussed on doing your job effectively, Gustav and I might well be driving each other to distraction over our differences on how to relate to S.A.M. or somesuch other issue. Instead, we ride again to cut down tyrrany and bring glory unto Sci! Huzzah!
Presumably not - the mods surely don't want a precedent that encourages those with chips on their shoulders to spend time combing the archives for offensive material, and then overwhelming the mods with reports of such.
Which is all the more reason that James's recent actions look like nothing more than personal animosity towards yourself.
woot! woot!
enmos, reverse my infraction please
james, i am sure you can afford to be magnanimous and allow this
thanks, guys
Gee, thanks quadraphonics. Shucks.
There has been no sanction applied to Gustav. You and he have blown this out of all proportion. He merely received a warning not to insult other members. That's all.
Go back and read what happened here. Obviously you haven't quiet caught up.
Another member reported Gustav's post from last year. It was an offensive post that, had it been reported last year, would have attracted a warning at least. The relevant site rule was in place then as it is now. Nothing has changed.
Now, I did not realise at the time I handed out this warning that the post was from last year. Most of the time, current reports relate to recent posts. This one, as it turns out, did not.
If I had noticed, then probably I would have chosen not to act on this. If Gustav had sent me a PM and pointed out the relevant fact instead of grandstanding again, then I might have reversed the warning or simply deleted it.
Instead, Gustav chose to make this yet another chance to have a go at me for my supposedly unfair moderating.
I don't owe Gustav any favours, so in this instance I refuse to exercise my discretion to reverse or remove the warning I gave him. I figure that, given the amount of my time he has wasted, he can put up with this nothing inconvenience. He has been more than amply compensated for managing to attract my attention yet again for his entertainment.
You, quadraphonics, are in this thread for the same reason he is. So, let's drop the pretence that doing this out of some altruistic concern for poor Gustav or sciforums members in general. There's only one reason you decided to stick your nose in here. You know it, and I know it.
There's no problem here. One poster insulted another poster and got a warning for it. End of story. I didn't have to go out of my way at all.
Or, looking at it another way, you gang together to conduct another meaningless trolling escapade that achieves nothing except to reveal the chips on both your shoulders.
Hey James,
I've decided I don't want to be a moderator. It would mean I'd have to be too tolerant of the woo-woos, and too impartial for my tastes.
I'd rather poke a stick through the bars of their cages then try to pretend they have anything worth posting.
I've decided I don't want to be a moderator. It would mean I'd have to be too tolerant of the woo-woos, and too impartial for my tastes.
I'd rather poke a stick through the bars of their cages then try to pretend they have anything worth posting.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
enmos, reverse my infraction please
james, i am sure you can afford to be magnanimous and allow this
thanks, guys
I would if I infracted you in the first place. I didn't. Besides, I couldn't if I wanted to.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
So you concede they are well balanced individuals?
Honestly... I fail to see what the issue at hand is. Far as I can tell, the rule was in place when the infraction happened... saying that, just because it was discovered late means it cannot be punished is like saying that a murder cannot be sent to jail just because the murder was only discovered a year later... except in this case the guilty party left his ID at the scene (since, ya know, it says his name on the post).
Add that to the fact that this is a message board upon which the owners/moderators could create rules however they feel fit (so long as they agree upon them)... I mean, it's not like this is a "public" place or anything... the rules used here could be anything and everything, including (if the staff so desired) that "anyone with a name starting with Q will be banned" - granted, that'd be MASSIVELY silly an incredibly bad PR to enact such a rule, but you get the gist.
Add that to the fact that this is a message board upon which the owners/moderators could create rules however they feel fit (so long as they agree upon them)... I mean, it's not like this is a "public" place or anything... the rules used here could be anything and everything, including (if the staff so desired) that "anyone with a name starting with Q will be banned" - granted, that'd be MASSIVELY silly an incredibly bad PR to enact such a rule, but you get the gist.
As posted earlier in this thread:
Signal said:
I do think there should be a statute of limitation for infractions (although not for moderation).
you will withdraw your nomination
thanks
yeah
you say that the owners can turn sci into a kiddie porn site if they wish
good to know, sherlock
an novel and intensely thought provoking point you raise there
James R said:
sure i know that but who do you think i was insulting? adoucette or cain?
i am pretty sure you think the former, yes?
when i read about cain in the link provided, i thought he was incompetent thus retarded
thoughts?
i even divided the posts into 2 halves by way of.......
-----------------------------------
...that, to minimize any confusion that may arise.
wait, are you saying public figures cannot be insulted?
Your ascetic style leaves too much room for interpretation, thus relying too heavily on others' goodwill, to still allow for friction-free communication between yourself and many posters here at Sciforums.
- Status