I recognize that you see it that way (I do not)...
Hence the use of the passive(?) 'I' rather than the accusative 'he'. I recognize that while I may have felt that I was being trolled, he may not have seen what I was doing as trolling.
...but two wrongs don't make a right.
I wouldn't pretend otherwise, however context and history are two things that I try and take into consideration when moderating within earth science. To whit, if, for example, you had dropped that bomb in a thread in Earth Science, generally I would simply delete it, along with any replies (or replies of a kind) - editing, rather than deleting as neccessary, followed up with a warning to both parties that
contined trolling or flaming may result in time out cards.
But when all is said and done, what I did was stupid, and I apologize unreservedly.
And regardless, there's a serious problem of consistency when regular members get banned for much less extreme instances of the offense in question - which were themselves similarly prompted, let's note.
Not that I necessarily agree it should be an offense to cuss at people. But if I'm going to get banned for a few choice "dicktards," then...
I'm going to take you at your word on this, as I'm unfamiliar with the specific instances you're referring to.
All of this is admirable enough, and to be perfectly clear I don't have a particular problem with you.
Accepted.
My complaint here is addressed to the higher powers-that-be, who somehow see fit to ban regular members for much less extreme violations of the exact same rules. When they fail to apply the same standard to moderators, there's a serious cost to credibility and legitimacy. Calls the motivations for the bans that do get handed out into severe question.
To be clear, I'm not sure that the software that this forum uses
allows moderators to be banned. I have an inkling I might have tried it once to see what would happen, but I didn't make it as far first confirmation before throwing up an error. The only other thing that I can think of to say is that I didn't do it because I was expecting to get away with it. To be honest, I was surprised to log on an hour later and find it was still standing and there were no PM's.
You're also advancing an assertion about iceaura's motivations in interacting with you: that he's trolling. I.e., specifically engaging in bad faith in order to wind you up. Could the conflict not be adequately explained by good-faith interaction foundering on certain incompatibilities in communicative style and tactics, along with a certain hard-headedness all around?
Ordinarily, I might be willing to extend this good faith, however, I have tried to point out, more than once, in clear terms why I took offense at the way my comments had been characterized - in essence, the way they had been characterized was an antithesis to both my career, my personal philosophy, and my political leanings. Consider, for example, what I would be inclined to consider good faith. Earlier in the thread, I made a comment, yourself and Bells took it to mean something other than was intended, I clarified my comment further, you and Bells accepted it, and that was that.
Having said that, although I might be somewhat incredulous in light of
everything that has transpired in that thread, if a reasonable explanation can be offered, I would be willing to at least consider it. It's the repeated nature that I find irksome, combined with the persistence to pursue the point that wasn't being made, and the repeated harking back to it. All of which is why I tend to characterize it as trolling.
To the other, yes, trolling implies a level of deliberatness, and an objective of aggravation, and I freely admit that his aim might not be to aggravate me, but his motivation might be born of an inability to consider the alternative, however, trolling seems to be the closest characterization that I can find at this point.
I've heard this suggested before, as an alternative to "assisted suicide" bans. But: doesn't one have to have an email account in order to open an account here - and is this not linked to a password recovery system? Is the presumption that such a "suicidal" member will delete or otherwise render inaccessible that email account? Because that won't be an option for everyone.
For my part, I do it through the lost password facility - there's a certain point that you get to where you get emailed a randomized alphanumeric password. In the past when I've wanted to take an 'enforced' break for a couple of days (it's happened) I've taken it to this stage and then simply deleted the email with my new password. This is effective for me, because at this point, getting a new password requires more effort than I'm willing to expend to post if I've reached the point where I feel like I need a break in the first place.
However, even this way there has to come a point where the member in question has to decide "I don't want to post here anymore" and actually make that decision, and act on it. Some people however are to compulsive for even that to be effective.
On the other hand, I can honestly say I harbour no resentment towards ice aura - the fact that I'm willing to engage him in good faith in a rational discussion, and step back and let another mod moderate, should be proof enough of that. I can also honestly say that I actively participate in other fora with far tighter rules than this one, and have yet to recieve even an infraction. My most heated debates there wouldn't even draw a second glance if they were on the street, and are the standard that I generally aspire to in all of my dealings.
