Mods Gone Wild

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bells said:
Well you're all apparently 'jaded moderators' who moderate unfairly.

It is easier to say that than to take responsibility for what one posts. After all, it's always the fault of another if one acts like an idiot.
Click to expand...

I would be leery of such an argument. its to easy to be flipped.
 
Captain Kremmen said:
I don't think that James is a bad moderator. I complained only that, in a specific case, in my opinion, he made a bad decision.

I don't see James intervening too much on here at all.
What problem do people have with him?

This forum demands that people treat each other with respect.
Without that, there would be anarchy.
Click to expand...

the bolded is the problem. there are those who felt something was wrong. when they went to the mods they weren't treated with respect. they were treated with disdain, an almost casual arrogance echoing that of the Olympians that we mere members would dare criticize them. than there is the well if you continue to do something you will get banned a person stops and they get banned anyway. Right bells you all about that way of suppressing criticism.
 
Randwolf said:
James:
In any event, whether you find that WillNever is making "a grab for authority" or not, his post stands. How will you respond to it differently if Will is not HeadCheese? You can't ignore it - well,I guess you could - but that would give a very unfavorable flavor to the way people view Admin. Don't you agree?

So now that you have acknowledged the post's existence, you are going to have to deal with it. Who cares whether WillNever "officially" represents this nebulous group? You still have to answer the challenge, right?
Click to expand...

Correct. That group was created by me for the purpose of establishing a separate place where people can behave civilly and calmly toward each other, without the routine insulting that takes places on the rest of sciforums. I represent the group inasmuch as I put forth that group's values and those who joined agreed with those values. If a member of the group feels misrepresented by me, then they are free to bow out. However, only one person has ever done that. :cool:
 
pjdude1219 said:
Right bells you all about that way of suppressing criticism.
Click to expand...

Ah. But the problem here is that I and others are being told that we need to suppress certain criticism because it is against a particular member and allow others.

Tiassa said:
That sort of self-victimization is one of the reasons it's hard to take you seriously at this point.
Click to expand...
Not at all. You called me stupid, remember?

I am merely agreeing with your own sentiments.:)

Self-victimization. I mean, all that whining about all the horrible things I said in December and January? And yet you still had to go make up exaggerations to pretend offense at. Then again, I would have thought it just the typical sort of argumentative posturing that goes on around here, except you went so far as to resign your commission over it.
Click to expand...
Quite the contrary. I resigned my position because I honestly don't want to work with a hypocritical and immature arsehole who would whine every single time something did not go his way.

I don't do it for money and I certainly see no reason why I should do it for free.

At the moment? Not that I can see. But, then again, neither is this the moment when you're running around calling people you disagree with "twat".
Click to expand...
I'm sorry. Next time I'll use the terms you used.

How does half wit troll sound to you? Or was it least favourite troll? You call so many people trolls that it is quite hard to keep track...

In that subforum, yes. In a public presentation? I've already noted evidence of the bowdlerization standard. That you wish to overlook it in order to keep up this ludicrous charade is your own choice.
Click to expand...
Just post it all Tiassa.

Win administrative approval to do so, and we can move to the next step.
Click to expand...
I am sure if you ask nicely, Mummy and Daddy will let you post it.

You have the inside track. I am sure if you whine enough, they'll give in and let you do it.

Address the issue, and the evidence put in front of you. Don't just—

—run away and throw stones in your own private jihad.
Click to expand...

Refer to above.

The evidence is in front of you to do with as you wish.

Having just reviewed the thread in question, I'm hard presed to find S.A.M.'s "violence". Perhaps she can advise us of her memory, if she even remembers that one.
Click to expand...
I had assumed you would have recognised that I meant figuratively.

I'm not afraid of that part of the record, either. It was withheld to protect others, not me.

Then again, what do you think went too far? The part where I was disappointed in my colleague? Where I tagged him for his age? Maybe the part where I suggested he tickle his armpits and shout like an orangutan in order to make his point more clearly? Maybe the part where I called his ranting post ignorant and bigoted?

Your memory is so accurate, Bells. You tell me.
Click to expand...
I would suggest you go back and revise it again. Even you admitted you had gone too far.

But it is not just to him. It is also to other moderators you do not agree with. You are insulting half the time. I understand that you were "elected" as a moderator oh so long ago. But that did not give you the right to speak to your colleagues in such a manner.

And as I said, take it up with James. Win administrative approval, and we'll move on to the next part.
Click to expand...
I am asking you. As a member to a moderator.

My point exactly. Thank you for making it. As I said, I disagree with your assessment. You've misrepresented a recent thread about Baron Max in the back room. You've misrepresented S.A.M. in an older dispute about Baron Max. Now, maybe in your mind, that's really what you believe. Are you lying? At this point, it would be hard to establish that you are. After all, you could simply be mistaken. Or you could simply be crazy.

But, by the administrative standard—invented and enforced by James, and supported by Plazma Inferno—yes, I could undertake that route. Unsurprisingly, however, you've missed the point yet again.
Click to expand...
How did I misrepresent her? She disagreed with your special need to ban him. She did not agree with you at all.

So how exactly am I misrepresenting her, Tiassa? Are you now going to claim that Sam agreed with you and said yes to banning him?

I fail to see how I have made your point. Everything I have said can be easily substantiated by the other moderators. I am sure if I was lying they would be in this thread telling me that I am lying and defending you. Wouldn't they?

Nothing has been invented. James, with Plazma's support, banned someone for making things up about him, even after he asked them to retract their comments.

I can't apologize to you for your thoughtless, emotionally-driven reactions.
Click to expand...
There we go. So since I will not apologise to you and you will not apologise to me, it is a moot point, is it not? Or do you need to strut around some more with your petty and childish little threats?

You forget, dear: You turned in your "credentials and badge", to borrow a phrase. And James never served his thirty days for "lying about me". So I would think at some point you could start to see the problem with such a standard. Which brings us back to the fact that I objected to that standard. And you, it seems, have a problem with the fact that I did.
Click to expand...
You so objected to James' standards that you tried to use it yourself to get others banned. Yes, that makes sense.:rolleyes:

I am well aware that I "turned in my credentials and badge". That you refer to it as that makes me glad I did. You are just a moderator Tiassa. It is not a 'badge' or a 'credential'. You're just a moderator.. glorified cleaner of crap on an internet forum. That is what you do. You clean up threads. It is what I did and what others do. You issue warnings where appropriate and you watch to make sure that threads remain somewhat on track.

I stated my reasons why I did resign. I see no problem with what James did. You only saw a problem with it because of who it was aimed at. As I said previously, if it was aimed at Baron or another of your least favourite trolls, you would have rejoiced.
 
I see no problem with what James did. You only saw a problem with it because of who it was aimed at. As I said previously, if it was aimed at Baron or another of your least favourite trolls, you would have rejoiced.
Click to expand...
Then you are acting somewhat delusional, Bells. James R applies a special standard to himself in cases where he is personally aggrieved and moderates more aggressively against people on that basis. Is that a good thing? I don't think it is. Check out this quotation from another post by me:

This is the second time that James R has applied a double standard to himself and used his position as admin to self-gratify. A couple months ago James R banned SAM for allegedly libeling him based on a statement he never made.

Meanwhile, in another thread, someone quoted me as ""expressly indicating that black people were inferior" when I never even said anything that resembled that, let alone used the word "inferior." I asked that poster for either a retraction of that statement or a quotation by me in which I "expressly" indicated such a thing. When neither was given, I PMed James R telling him that I was being libelled in the same way that he was libelled by SAM and for which he BANNED her. But in my case, James R refused to take action, PURELY because he disagreed with my other viewpoints on a fundamental level. That is a clear example of James R letting his innate bias against a person affect moderation outcomes while giving special treatment to himself.

LINK TO THE THREAD I AM REFERENCING ABOVE:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2472201&postcount=117

Now, it doesn't matter if you don't agree with my statements; the point is that I never, *EVER* said that, and yet THAT libel was excused. Giving yourself special treatment in cases where you feel aggrieved and then ignoring similar cases for other people is wrong, regardless of the scenario. Trying to substantiate that kind of behavior with claims that some people deserve to be unfairly moderated for their views is equally wrong.
 
Last edited:
WillNever said:
Official Statement from Sciforums High Society:

Due to the observed unfair moderation practices of James R and other forum-fatigued moderators who are allowing their jaded, cynical, and prejudicial expectations of users of the board to dictate their acts of moderation, High Society group is making an official statement of depreciation and contempt for ALL perpetrators of this low-down, scumsucking behavior on the part of the moderators. We see this kind of innately and purposefully unfair moderation as a serious violation of ethical values and that sort of thing is simply not acceptable in our eyes, and therefore we officially disapprove of it. We consider anyone who sits by while users are alienated in this way to be UNPRINCIPLED if they do not decry these acts in a large, bold voice. Bullying users of your board is wrong, regardless of whatever you think of their viewpoints.
Click to expand...

I agree and support this statement.
 
The obvious question

Bells said:

Not at all. You called me stupid, remember?
Click to expand...

In which discussion or dispute? Your recollection is questionable enough at this point.
 
WillNever said:
Official Statement from Sciforums High Society:

Due to the observed unfair moderation practices of James R and other forum-fatigued moderators who are allowing their jaded, cynical, and prejudicial expectations of users of the board to dictate their acts of moderation, High Society group is making an official statement of depreciation and contempt for ALL perpetrators of this low-down, scumsucking behavior on the part of the moderators. We see this kind of innately and purposefully unfair moderation as a serious violation of ethical values and that sort of thing is simply not acceptable in our eyes, and therefore we officially disapprove of it. We consider anyone who sits by while users are alienated in this way to be UNPRINCIPLED if they do not decry these acts in a large, bold voice. Bullying users of your board is wrong, regardless of whatever you think of their viewpoints.
Click to expand...

I agree.

People should be judged simply on their actions. Not on their background or religion or other such prejudiced expectations of them.
 
Bells said:
Nothing has been invented. James, with Plazma's support, banned someone for making things up about him, even after he asked them to retract their comments.
Click to expand...

1. Yes, James banned S.A.M for misrepresenting HIM. Posters frequently misrepresent each other on this forum. Indeed, I know of someone who has been banned twice in the past because they were misrepresented. Apparently one's popularity and status as a mod determines whether you are protected under the rules of sciforums. I resent this. That is not fair.

2. For James to use his status to coerce a regular poster into retracting a statement and issuing an apology is outright bullying. It was bad enough when moderators banned you for not supporting an argument you did not make, but now they can extort apologies as well. Jesus Christ.

I agree with the sentiment of Will's statement. Something drastic needs to change regarding how this forum is moderated. I re-iterate the notion of a review committee.
 
Tiassa said:
In which discussion or dispute? Your recollection is questionable enough at this point.
Click to expand...
You know what Tiassa, you can shove it. Your denial of what was said in the public and private forum does not take away what you actually did say. Even in my goodbye message in that forum, you just had to try to get that last little dig in. You couldn't even resist that, could you? You can attempt to portray me as delusional all you want. You have been attempting to do so for a few months now. Why? Because I dared disagree with you. That you would stoop to such a level says more about you and your ethics than it does about me. Your notion of what constitutes ethical behaviour goes out the window as soon as the member is someone you simply don't like.

It is because of this type of behaviour from you, and it is ongoing, that frankly, enough was enough. I took a stand for what I believe in.

At this point, I am done with you.
 
Crunchy Cat asked:
Can someone summarize what this thread is objectively about?
Click to expand...

If we think of the following....
James R is tryin to make ponts by showin how tolerant he is.???
Click to expand...
It's all farting and retards...
Click to expand...
....as analogous to the Democrat and Republican positions in politics, objectivity will be found in the precise midpoint between them.

At least if I use the implicit logic of commentators and my lovely TV. Other positions are by definition extreme and so subjective.

I love math.
 
Doreen said:
If we think of the following....


....as analogous to the Democrat and Republican positions in politics, objectivity will be found in the precise midpoint between them.

At least if I use the implicit logic of commentators and my lovely TV. Other positions are by definition extreme and so subjective.

I love math.
Click to expand...

I see. I am not looking for objectivity, I am looking for an objective issue. So far there doesn't appear to be one.
 
Crunchy Cat said:
I see. I am not looking for objectivity, I am looking for an objective issue. So far there doesn't appear to be one.
Click to expand...

The thread is mainly an argument over the banning of SAM due to libel and later warnings that were made against her.

EXAMPLE:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2496200&postcount=116

That post is from page six and that warning has spurred most of the argument that is taking place now. Whether or not the warning is logically sound (and if it would been issued to other members besides SAM if they had made the same statement instead of her) is what some of us are questioning... and what others are trying to dismiss.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top