S.a.m.

[James R]

pjdude:

which is why anti Israeli posters get warned and banned but the same language never seems to have any effect in the reverse.

This is a continuing complaint from you, but it's also a dishonest one, because you know that pro-Israel posters have been warned and banned. Frankly, I'm getting sick of this whining from you (again). And you can keep your issues out of this thread about SAM. Start up a different thread for your claims of moderator bias if you want.

and don't give me your shit I read the post nothing was libelous about it and secondly you never established BOTH the required things to show libel untrue and malicious intent to defame.

Read the thread in question. I have conveniently linked to it in the current thread. Don't make stupid claims based on a lack of research on your part.

No one should have to apologize for calling some one out on something they merely implied rather than having the balls to say up front. Any honest person would read what you wrote and think you were calling SAM a bigot.

I'm not sure which incident you were talking about. But yes, I have referred to SAM as a bigot in the past. That's because she is a bigot, or at least comes across as one on this forum.

So you would rather the community think you a shitty admin for not giving a fuck about the rules and rather than being shitty admin for being to simple to understand their concern's. I fail to see how that is an improvement?

You'll think I'm a shitty moderator regardless of what I do at this point. You're so blinkered I've stopped giving you much credit. Your opinion of me doesn't really matter to me any more. That is the legacy of your constant whining.

i do not recall any calls to lift sam's ban

Just letting you know.

your lack of charity is astounding
sure you did not utter those exact words but the ones you did were semantically identical to what sam attributed to you. both versions could be inferred from each other

Bullshit.

 

[James R]

Tiassa:

You twice misrepresented my reason for suspending FellowTraveler in order to justify your attempted three-day suspension of S.A.M.

Not deliberately.

However, let's assume you're right and I did misrepresent your reason for suspending FellowTraveler. Let's say I said you suspended him for making a death threat when in fact you suspended him for overriding a moderator's edit.

Does this affect my decision to suspend SAM for making a death threat? Not at all. Her conduct would stand on its own merits. It's irrelevant whether or why fellowtraveler was suspended. (Besides, I told you that I would have suspended fellowtraveler for the threat had he not already been suspended.)

As it happens, I was wrong to suspend SAM, because although she appeared to be making a death threat she was in fact merely replying to fellowtraveler in a way that required careful reading to see that she was not making such a threat. When that was clarified for me, I retracted her suspension and apologised to her.

I have asked you, Bells, and our colleagues in general, for some explanation of just how you managed to fuck that up so badly, and as yet no answer is forthcoming.

Nobody's perfect, Tiassa, except perhaps you.

In defending your decision, you misrepresented my defense of S.A.M.

I'm sorry if I have failed to correctly parse the gist of your defence of SAM from the large volume of material you've written on the subject.

In attempting to brush aside the public discussion, you falsely accused me of bringing a moderators' discussion to the public forum.

We're having a public discussion right here. The current thread was closed, independently, by TWO other moderators. I OVERRODE those decisions precisely to allow the current discussion. So, to accuse me of bushing aside public discussion is a bit rich, don't you think?

Now then, I will ask you specifically: Are you willing to bring the text of the moderators' discussion to the public?

You've done it once. If you want to add to your mess, go right ahead. My estimation of you is unlikely to improve if you choose to go down that path, though. Right now I'm reading your behaviour as similar to a childish tantrum by somebody who is not getting his way. And it's not over a very important issue. SAM is but one poster on this forum. She'll be back (if she wants to be). I'm not going to reverse my decision to suspend her in this instance, because I believe I was justified in doing so.

I don't think so. In fact, I've noticed an increase in new people posting on the forums since SAM has been gone. Now, maybe that's just my perception, but I think it's possible that without SAM stamping her mark all over the place perhaps people feel more inclined to contribute.

Now that is some scientific science.

We'll await your peer-reviewed statistical analysis, which I'm sure, in this bastion of science, is very soon forthcoming.

Please read the bolded part of my post. You must have missed it the first time.

Instead of talking around a point, why not be specific? I have no idea what this "experiment" is that you're talking about. Is it banning other members? Removing me as an administrator? Or what?

I'm sorry, but I am already forbidden by administrative decree (Plazma) from being more specific. If you can't figure it out, well, one of you will have to unlock that fetter.

I can't figure it out, so I guess this obscure point stops here.

The incident you refer to was an honest misinterpretation that I corrected after it had been pointed out to me. The net effect at the time was that SAM was banned for perhaps 8-12 hours. I apologised to her at the time.

And then you blamed your error on someone else. Not exactly genuine.

What are you talking about? I advised SAM to be more careful about how she phrased posts in future, but I don't think that amounts to blaming her. I apologised for my mistake.

Or is this another of your obscure references to something else? Who am I supposed to have blamed for my error? You?

I'm sorry, James, but posting a few links and expecting everyone to perceive what you do just doesn't make a good argument. How many times have you, or I, or any of us, looked into accusations flying back and forth and found them inaccurate? Such is the case with you. Like in September, when I looked up your list of accusations and responded, and the best you could come up with was a casual dismissal buried in a response ostensibly intended for another member but, rather, in practice, played to the gallery.

So says you. Meh.

I am quite sure that some people have grudges against SAM for whatever reason, and are happy to see her take a break for any reason.

And yet, as you showed with the three-day issue, you're happy to follow.

Considering the amount of flack I get every time I dare to call SAM on her behaviour, it's much more trouble than it would be worth to take action against her at the illegitimate request of other members.

It's never your fault, is it, James?

Occasionally it is. Nobody is perfect. Like I said.

If that constitutes an actionable lie, James, how many people are in on their way out now?

SAM's libel was the last straw in a recurring pattern of behaviour. Thus, her ban was for libel + general trolling.

And no, I'm not going digging for examples of her trolling. If you think she's a troll-free zone, good luck to you. I have already covered that particular issue in depth in a previous thread.

One thing I don't get, James, is how you can continue to lie to us. A substance-free attack against you and Plazma? I have the facts on my side. Your misrepresentations. Plazma's endorsement. Who's going to ban you for lying about people, James? And will that happen if I don't get a sincere apology from you in twenty-four hours?

I'd like to hear from any forum member who thinks I've lied about you. I invite them to post in support of your claims in the current thread. Otherwise, it might just be your perception.

If you would like to put this accusation of lying to rest, I would propose the following: Copy the "no confidence" thread into a publicly-viewable subforum, locked and in its entirety, and I'm happy to duel it out with you.

If you wish to air more dirty laundry in public, that's entirely up to you. It's not a good look. It's not good for the forum. I'm sure that SAM, if she is reading this, will be immensely amused to see further evidence of an apparent split in the ranks of the moderators, as will other members with their own agendas.

Do whatever you think is best. I have nothing to hide.

 

[Gustav]

Bullshit.

care to tell me why?

lets examine again

lets examine....

How many Americans in their hearts are on the side of the humble families of Pakistani citizens slaughtered in Predator drone airplane Hellfire missile attacks, and how many are on the side of the angelic, charming, Harvard Law School educated first black president of the United States, who, a few days after his inauguration, ordered these drone airplane Hellfire missile attacks in the name of 9/11? (Something he had said he would do if he were elected.)

it is quite clear the rhetoric intends to invokes sympathy towards the humble peasants rather than obama.

james characterizes this effort by jay janson as...

Anti-American hatred, anti-American propaganda, anti-Obama propaganda, loaded question, etc.(james)

i have a really simple word to sum all of james's descriptors of the above passage........bigotry

that is exactly what sam inferred

it is bigoted to write like that. it is anti american hatred and bigotry. it is anti american propaganda that could only stem from bigoted attitudes

there is no distinction b/w the two accounts. there was no misrepresentation. there was no libel. there was however, an accurate inference of james's ranting

lemme make it simple

i see james mumble "yum" while eating an apple
i tell you that james said apples are tasty
he promptly sues me for libel asserting he never said apples were tasty

thats not operating in good faith is it?
why would one be so uncharitable?

all i did was infer "tasty" from "yum"
sam inferred "bigotry" from "Anti-American hatred, anti-American propaganda, anti-Obama propaganda"

get specific please
where do i get it wrong?

 

[Gustav]

lemme also put this up just so all can marvel at james's diabolical interpretation

/chuckle

james you are...irrepressible!

yes, yes.
its all that and more but what it clearly is not, is an invitation to bigotry
right, buddy boy?

/cracks up

 

[James R]

S.A.M.'s specific lie was:

And as James has clearly said, sympathising with the victims of American invasions and occupations is bigotry.

Now, a reminder about what I actually wrote:

From the [post=2444174]Holocaust Industry = Hate Speech?[/post] thread.
Also [post=2444177]from the same thread[/post].

And here's the original context:

How many Americans in their hearts are on the side of the humble families of Pakistani citizens slaughtered in Predator drone airplane Hellfire missile attacks, and how many are on the side of the angelic, charming, Harvard Law School educated first black president of the United States, who, a few days after his inauguration, ordered these drone airplane Hellfire missile attacks in the name of 9/11? (Something he had said he would do if he were elected.)

Now, consider for a minute how SAM phrased her opening post. We have "humble families", "Pakistani citizens", "slaughtered", contrasted deliberately with a clearly intended irony of the "angelic, charming" President. A loaded assessment before we even start, in the guise of an innocent question or opener for a debate.

SAM also has a racial dig at Obama. How is the fact that he is black relevant here? Perhaps SAM thinks Obama should show solidarity with those "humble families" in Pakistan because he is black. Also, there's an implied slur on the fact that Obama was educated at Harvard. Probably SAM is having a go at what she perceives as privilege, and implying that Obama's privileged education makes him disconnected from the concerns of ordinary people such as "humble" Pakistanis.

Also consider that SAM smears Americans in general, asking what is in their hearts. The implication is that any American who supports Obama is anti-Pakistani and in favour of the killing of innocent civilians. SAM deliberately wants to paint Americans in general, and Obama in particular, as immoral and uncaring.

This is not an opening post that invites intelligent discussion. It is an opening post that invites people to hate the evil Americans and their evil President, since they all set out to kill the humble and innocent citizens of Pakistan, for reasons we can only imagine but which can in no way be justified.

Now, I am in no way saying that a discussion of drone missile attacks in Pakistan is invalid. I have issues not with the topic, but with the hateful way in which it is presented. This OP invites only an extreme response either way. Either you are on the side of the Good and the Right (which means you agree with SAM's assessment that the United States and Obama are evildoers through and through) or you are with the terrorists (i.e. America and its foreign policy, headed by the evil and despised Obama).

A long post by me containing my views on "the SAM issue":

[post=2361258]James R: the S.A.M. issue[/post]

This one is the most important by far, while most of Gustav's and Tiassa's complaints aim at the much less important issue of SAM's libel.

I hope this is all specific enough.

 

[Tiassa]

Digging in the dirt? This time, you've gone too far.

Not deliberately.

However, let's assume you're right and I did misrepresent your reason for suspending FellowTraveler. Let's say I said you suspended him for making a death threat when in fact you suspended him for overriding a moderator's edit.

And your decision to chastise me inappropriately based on that? To accuse me of not doing my job?

James, you might claim it wasn't deliberate, and that might, actually, be true. But the thing is that you're so predisposed against S.A.M. that you couldn't see what was right in front of your face.

And you're so fucking full of yourself that you decided to blame someone else for your own mistake.

Does this affect my decision to suspend SAM for making a death threat? Not at all. Her conduct would stand on its own merits.

So ... what does that mean? Her conduct that you have since acknowledged wasn't a threat would still have warranted a three-day suspension?

As it happens, I was wrong to suspend SAM, because although she appeared to be making a death threat she was in fact merely replying to fellowtraveler in a way that required careful reading to see that she was not making such a threat. When that was clarified for me, I retracted her suspension and apologised to her.

It's a pretty explanation, James, but it doesn't add up. It didn't require careful reading. If S.A.M. wasn't in your crosshairs, you wouldn't have blinked. Which is why you had to blame someone else for your mistake.

Nobody's perfect, Tiassa, except perhaps you.

Oh, well, there's an answer that really gets to the bottom of things.

I'm sorry if I have failed to correctly parse the gist of your defence of SAM from the large volume of material you've written on the subject.

Well, James, perhaps in the future you'll learn to not make such bratty, stupid arguments in contradiction of fact. Or is your problem that I'm not hard enough on her? You know, maybe if I called her a few vile names, that would satisfy you?

You're so upset that S.A.M. called you out on an implication of your conduct. You think it's some horrible lie about you. Yet you give that cheap, snide, ridiculous excuse when you unquestionably make an assertion in contravention of fact?

I think right there, James, we see how far gone you are. You dismiss people's advice and explanations about S.A.M.'s perception of implications, but the best you can come up with in defense of your own dishonesty is immature bullshit.

We're having a public discussion right here. The current thread was closed, independently, by TWO other moderators. I OVERRODE those decisions precisely to allow the current discussion. So, to accuse me of bushing aside public discussion is a bit rich, don't you think?

You could run for office in the States with a pitch like that, James. We're having a public discussion right here, but only because you're starting to get a bit annoyed. You've ignored the details of accusation throughout this and other related discussions, but would like me to specify what I'm talking about?

I think your noble you act is what's a bit rich, James. Seriously, man, American politicians do this all the time: they find themselves cornered, so they pretend they've been out in front of the issue. Congratulations, Senator.

You've done it once.

Remind me so I know which occasion you're talking about. Your terminology is so unreliable that I need to double check to make sure I know what you're referring to.

If you want to add to your mess, go right ahead. My estimation of you is unlikely to improve if you choose to go down that path, though.

Of course it isn't. You're trying to play the role of innocence; you want to make claims about your conduct, but you're quite afraid to have that behavior and argument closely scrutinized. After all, if people see how you actually conducted yourself, it will make this dishonest defense you're putting forward that much harder to justify.

Right now I'm reading your behaviour as similar to a childish tantrum by somebody who is not getting his way.

Now that is rich, especially coming from a guy who used his authority to suspend someone in retaliation for his prior attempt to suspend them blow up in his face.

Answer me this, James: What is so hard about saying, "This is an example of S.A.M.'s misbehavior. She wrote this, and this is what I perceive?"

Why do you think you can just put up a link and expect other people to see exactly what you do?

I have yet to see, either from you, or those of our colleagues who support you, an explanation of the anti-Semitism you claim in the three threads you cited in proposing her permaban. And the reason for this is clear. After you ducked the counterpoint in September, and then fucked up the "threat", it's probably best to give people as little to look at as possible. After all, it would start to get really embarrassing if you screwed the pooch yet again.

You know, we pay lip service to the scientific method around here. We treat it like half-wit fundamentalists treat the Bible. It's a great bludgeon, but it's not like anyone actually gives a damn, right? Otherwise, the least you would do is present a rational argument.

And it's not over a very important issue.

Actually, I think that, in terms of being a moderator, the policies we are expected to enforce are something of an important issue. But, given all else, perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that you consider our duty to this website unimportant.

I'm not going to reverse my decision to suspend her in this instance, because I believe I was justified in doing so.

And your belief is all it takes, isn't it? That's the scientific way, isn't it? No rational argument to make your point is required. The scientific method says that whatever you believe is accurate, doesn't it?

Please read the bolded part of my post. You must have missed it the first time.

No, I didn't miss it. I thought you actually gave a damn about the scientific method, since suspending S.A.M. for a month is an "experiment" and all.

I can't figure it out, so I guess this obscure point stops here.

Fine with me.

What are you talking about? I advised SAM to be more careful about how she phrased posts in future, but I don't think that amounts to blaming her. I apologised for my mistake.

Or is this another of your obscure references to something else? Who am I supposed to have blamed for my error? You?

James, go back to the no confidence thread, and read your own post at #8. The last paragraph of that post opens with your explanation of what the main problem was. And, apparently, the mistake wasn't yours.

And when you're done, I expect you to come back here and apologize for yet another lie.

So says you. Meh.

And so says the facts. Or is, "Meh", the scientifically correct address of the facts?

• Your accusation in September
• My response
• Your dismissal (in your response to Strawdog)​

Facts, James. If you have some to present, do so. But I'm pretty sure that, "Meh", isn't what we would call a scientific, rational, resonable, or even useful address of the facts.

Considering the amount of flack I get every time I dare to call SAM on her behaviour, it's much more trouble than it would be worth to take action against her at the illegitimate request of other members.

And yet, the facts of the record show us just how dishonest that staement is. You know, post #8 in the no confidence thread? Your explanation of the main problem.

Occasionally it is. Nobody is perfect. Like I said.

This is one of those occasions, James. And you're only making the situation worse by lying about it.

SAM's libel was the last straw in a recurring pattern of behaviour. Thus, her ban was for libel + general trolling.

And no, I'm not going digging for examples of her trolling. If you think she's a troll-free zone, good luck to you. I have already covered that particular issue in depth in a previous thread.

Which previous thread are you referring to? Because you surely can't mean the fracas back in September when, in the face of refutation, you offered up a paltry dismissal.

Indeed, one thing that irks me about that now is that you did something people are complaining about with S.A.M. You made an assertion, saw that assertion refuted, waited a couple of months, and then opened that same line of accusation again in a new thread a couple of months later. And while your prior attempt at a rational argument was truly pathetic, you didn't even try this time. You just posted links and expected that others would see the same thing.

I'd like to hear from any forum member who thinks I've lied about you. I invite them to post in support of your claims in the current thread. Otherwise, it might just be your perception.

Then you need to make that information available to them.

Or is that how honesty works around here? You want a critique from a forum member about information they haven't access to?

Sounds scientific to me.

If you wish to air more dirty laundry in public, that's entirely up to you. It's not a good look. It's not good for the forum. I'm sure that SAM, if she is reading this, will be immensely amused to see further evidence of an apparent split in the ranks of the moderators, as will other members with their own agendas.

Do whatever you think is best. I have nothing to hide.

I haven't the system permissions to copy that thread to public view. You, on the other hand, do.

And as you have nothing to hide, that's quite obviously why you want the record hidden from public view.

Frankly, James, you're right about one thing: dirty laundry. Compared to the Avatar riot, I can see why you want some moderator perspectives, as well as your own conduct, hidden from public view.

You're the one with the authority to put this to rest by putting up the evidence that would allow forum members to take up your invitation. And I'm certainly up for it. Bring that whole thread to public view.

You think you've got nothing to hide. I think I've got nothing to hide. But only one of us has the system authority to make it happen.

We've got nothing to hide, James. Both of us have said so. Dirty laundry doesn't bother me.

Who's afraid of the big bad historical record? Not I, said the Duck.

 

[pjdude1219]

This is a continuing complaint from you, but it's also a dishonest one,

How is it dishonest? No change and I'm supposed to believe that something was done or I was listened too? No its honest. If I did have the offenses that I complained about I would have been permabanned long ago.

because you know that pro-Israel posters have been warned and banned.

every so often but not at the same rate as anti Israeli posters.

Frankly, I'm getting sick of this whining from you (again).

Guess what when some one doesn't listen you generally keep getting the same complaints. Maybe I don't know if you actually tried to be a half way decent admin you would get my whining. hell I don't even ask you to enforce the rules just be consistent.

And you can keep your issues out of this thread about SAM. Start up a different thread for your claims of moderator bias if you want.

The issues are linked.

Read the thread in question. I have conveniently linked to it in the current thread.

I know I read your post and tried to track down the threads the post were in; in the future if you could please show me the same curtesy it would be much abliged.

Don't make stupid claims based on a lack of research on your part.

For someone who is appartently so concerned with libel you have no problem doing it your self. this is completely false I read your link as I told you I did which you conveniently ignored and it is a malicious intent on your part. Unlike your bullshit claims against SAM which a were true and had no malicious intent to defame this comment isn't in other words when are you going to ban your sorry ass for libel?

I'm not sure which incident you were talking about. But yes, I have referred to SAM as a bigot in the past. That's because she is a bigot, or at least comes across as one on this forum.

The one you banned sam about for calling you out on you calling her opposition to american violence bigotry.

You'll think I'm a shitty moderator regardless of what I do at this point.

No if you started doing a good job I think you would be a great moderator but that will happen sometime after I get apoligies from buffalo for his attacks against me and string for ignoring said attack on me.(in other words never) because like string your to damn arrogant to listen to other people and realize that sometimes their right and your wrong

You're so blinkered I've stopped giving you much credit.

You never gave me any credit you dismissed me like you have dismissed al compalints about the biases in moderation.

Your opinion of me doesn't really matter to me any more.

How can it stop mattering when it never did?

That is the legacy of your constant whining.

My legacy of "whining"[/QUOTE] what established that was it when I came to you about the whole string buffalo fiasco that you claimed was even(which still to this day amazes me how you and string can even begin to justify that in your heads) and that when in a fit of fustration told you the reason I pissed in detail(something if you were doing your job you would have ASKED about) something that if you know actually did what you claimed you did looked into would have known about from the begining your response was oh. I'm sorry you find be asked to do your job as an admin to be whining but if your too lazy to do the job step down so someone who will do it can.


and I'm tired of you being a dismissive asshole towards me. I used to be one of the biggest supporters of the moderators here until I came to you all with a serious offense against me and it was ignored and I was basically told to shut the fuck up about.

 

[pjdude1219]

S.A.M.'s specific lie was:



Now, a reminder about what I actually wrote:

From the [post=2444174]Holocaust Industry = Hate Speech?[/post] thread.
Also [post=2444177]from the same thread[/post].

And here's the original context:





A long post by me containing my views on "the SAM issue":

[post=2361258]James R: the S.A.M. issue[/post]

This one is the most important by far, while most of Gustav's and Tiassa's complaints aim at the much less important issue of SAM's libel.

I hope this is all specific enough.

Well it shows what Tiassa, Gustav, An myself have all said You don't get what the fuck you said. Well that's not entirely true the two of them think you are intentionally playing stupid about what you wrote and I think your you too lazy to bother to think about the ramifications of what you were saying but the simple fact is how SAM labeled your response was correct.

 

[Randwolf]

I don't think so. In fact, I've noticed an increase in new people posting on the forums since SAM has been gone. Now, maybe that's just my perception, but I think it's possible that without SAM stamping her mark all over the place perhaps people feel more inclined to contribute.

In two weeks James? Please...

My concern in this matter has to do primarily with the future here... I am not really focused so much on the SAM issue, although I do have my own opinions regarding that event. However, if this situation is representative of future Mod/Admin conduct, then I see red skies in the morning.

Are you really saying that it is acceptable to declare "I expect an apology. You have twenty-four hours to respond, or suffer a perma-ban."? I don't see this as appropriate behavior (not that my opinion matters one whit), but it does seem to highlight the differences between the "untouchables" and us regular posters.

Perhaps, in retrospect, you might reconsider alternate avenues that you could have traveled to achieve your goals. Quite simply, I think that you let your temper get away from you. This is not a "mortal" sin, as our theist brethren might term it, but rather something that you could have managed.

Instead, it seemed that you had no desire to "manage" it, but rather preferred an escalation, with a 30 day ban for SAM as a "given" prior to any discussion. Now you may point out that there is no need to "discuss" any of this with any of us, you are within your rights to dispense "justice" as you see fit.

However, I feel that some of us fear that slippery-slope - if we are all to be held to this same standard, how many would pass? Have you honestly asked this of yourself, James? Or are you, and perhaps other authorities, ready to concede that "fairness" is not really a priority here?

Either way, it does not invoke visions of a happy, provocative, free wheeling sort of community that used to make this place so much fun...

 

[Tiassa]

Be like S.A.M.?

A long post by me containing my views on "the SAM issue":

[post=2361258]James R: the S.A.M. issue[/post]

This one is the most important by far, while most of Gustav's and Tiassa's complaints aim at the much less important issue of SAM's libel.

I hope this is all specific enough.

Interesting that the post itself relies entirely on your narrative without any supporting examples.

The links I provided in my prior post, and in other posts as well, come from the same thread, and examine actual examples you provided in response to Gustav's request for clarification of your narrative.

I responded to those examples.

You dismissed them.

At present, the argument put forth in the post you have referred us to is quite up in the air, and nothing more than your own opinion. Indeed, by ducking the response to your examples, you undermined the very narrative you now present.

But, also, what we see is an assertion, eventually supported, and that support refuted. And then, a couple of months later, you're reiterating the assertion in another thread. According to the argument against S.A.M., this is a form of intellectual dishonesty, and apparently quite severe. Note, for instance, a forum member's inclusion of that issue in asking my opinion about S.A.M.'s conduct:

Let me ask you about your opinion, Tiassa ....

.... How about ignoring the arguments that she does not agree with, only to come back at a much later point and attempt to assert the same initial argument?

I would suggest, James, that in the interest of integrity, you might want to go back and attempt a substantial response to the refutation you dismissed so casually. After all, you don't want to be like S.A.M., do you?

 

[Gustav]

/chuckle

since they all set out to kill the humble and innocent citizens of Pakistan, for reasons we can only imagine but which can in no way be justified.

haha
ok james
go ahead. justify the slaughter of civilians
give us your scenario where you incorporate civilian deaths into your war plan and watch me drag you in front of a tribunal and try you for crimes against humanity

you buddy, will hang

 

[James R]

Tiassa:

However, let's assume you're right and I did misrepresent your reason for suspending FellowTraveler. Let's say I said you suspended him for making a death threat when in fact you suspended him for overriding a moderator's edit.

And your decision to chastise me inappropriately based on that? To accuse me of not doing my job?

I guess you're talking about where I noted that you'd banned fellowtraveler for making a death threat but not SAM. I think I made a comment along the lines that you'd only done half the job. At that point, of course, I believed SAM had made a death threat. Fair comment, I'd say.

And you're so fucking full of yourself that you decided to blame someone else for your own mistake.

I'll get to that in a moment, since now I know what you're talking about.

Does this affect my decision to suspend SAM for making a death threat? Not at all. Her conduct would stand on its own merits.

So ... what does that mean? Her conduct that you have since acknowledged wasn't a threat would still have warranted a three-day suspension?

It means that my banning her was justifiable at the time I believed she had made a death threat. As it turned out, that belief was mistaken, but that doesn't mean I was dishonest at any point.

It's a pretty explanation, James, but it doesn't add up. It didn't require careful reading. If S.A.M. wasn't in your crosshairs, you wouldn't have blinked. Which is why you had to blame someone else for your mistake.

You're entitled to your opinion. The fact is, despite your accusations, I had no ill-intent against SAM. The ban I imposed on her at the time, I would have applied equally to any other poster for the same offence.

Well, James, perhaps in the future you'll learn to not make such bratty, stupid arguments in contradiction of fact. Or is your problem that I'm not hard enough on her? You know, maybe if I called her a few vile names, that would satisfy you?

Looks like you have some pent-up anger at me. "Bratty"? "Stupid"? Do you have any other insults you'd like to add to your list? You already have "Liar" and "Hypocrite". Go to town. Get it out of your system.

You could run for office in the States with a pitch like that, James. We're having a public discussion right here, but only because you're starting to get a bit annoyed. You've ignored the details of accusation throughout this and other related discussions, but would like me to specify what I'm talking about?

I think I'm being very patient with you, actually. Rather than shutting this thread down, I'm still responding to your insults and accusations. I don't think this makes either of us look very good. Some of this shit will stick with some readers, either way.

Of course it isn't. You're trying to play the role of innocence; you want to make claims about your conduct, but you're quite afraid to have that behavior and argument closely scrutinized. After all, if people see how you actually conducted yourself, it will make this dishonest defense you're putting forward that much harder to justify.

Oh come on. Don't you think you're doing a good job in this thread of exposing my dastardly and despicable conduct?

Now that is rich, especially coming from a guy who used his authority to suspend someone in retaliation for his prior attempt to suspend them blow up in his face.

Actually, the two incidents with SAM are completely unrelated. The whole death threat thing is a sideshow to the main game here. As, incidentally, is the whole libel thing. The thing we ought to face head-on is the trolling issue. But that one has already been done to death, don't you think? Your conclusion is that SAM doesn't troll; mine is that she does. You demand evidence for that; I tell you the evidence is easy to find - just review her posts objectively. End result: we disagree. Problem: I won't treat SAM with kid gloves like you want. Outcome: you're angry at me and want to take me down a peg or two.

Answer me this, James: What is so hard about saying, "This is an example of S.A.M.'s misbehavior. She wrote this, and this is what I perceive?"

Nothing. I've done that over and over again.

James, go back to the no confidence thread, and read your own post at #8. The last paragraph of that post opens with your explanation of what the main problem was. And, apparently, the mistake wasn't yours.

Here's the relevant post:

Tiassa:

Ok. You've convinced me. I'll lift SAM's ban right now.

She really ought to be more careful, though. I have a very low tolerance for threats made by one member to another. They just push my buttons, no matter who they come from. I can see now what SAM probably meant, but her post did read like a threat to me. madanthonywayne is right - if she had used the word "would" rather than "will" this misunderstanding may not have occurred.

Note especially that the main problem here was not my misunderstanding of her post, but fellowtraveler's. He obviously read it as a threat. I don't think he was lying when he complained about it - he was honestly affronted. And that was only exacerbated by his perception that the moderators were not taking action. He still deserves his ban for what he posted later (some of which has been deleted), of course.

Context for others reading: Here I tell Tiassa that he has convinced me that SAM's post to fellowtraveler did not, in fact, amount to a death threat.

Tiassa now accuses me of "blaming" fellowtraveler in this post for my mistake. I note that I acted to ban SAM following a report of her post by fellowtraveler (with accompanying complaint threads in Site Feedback). My point to Tiassa is that clearly, fellowtraveler read SAM's post as a death threat. On reviewing that post, I agreed with fellowtraveler. Later, I was talked out of that assessment by a group of moderators and other members that included Tiassa. fellowtraveler himself was banned for overriding Tiassa's edits. Some of his posts to SAM following the perceived threat were, in fact, also death threats, this time directed at SAM.

Now, I've already admitted I made a mistake in banning SAM in this instance. I do not and have not blamed anybody else for my mistake. However, given that the recipient of the perceived threat himself perceived and acted on the post as a threat, I do not think it is unreasonable that I drew the same conclusion at the time.

Facts, James. If you have some to present, do so. But I'm pretty sure that, "Meh", isn't what we would call a scientific, rational, resonable, or even useful address of the facts.

You want me to go digging through the (large) record of SAM's 60 posts a day to find further examples of bigotry and trolling.

I doubt this would be a productive use of my time. If you really can't see the pattern of behaviour in the mountain of evidence available to you, then my highlighting some examples for you is unlikely to sway you.

Which previous thread are you referring to? Because you surely can't mean the fracas back in September when, in the face of refutation, you offered up a paltry dismissal.

Start with the long post I linked to in my post immediately prior to this one if you want to relive the heady days of last September.

I haven't the system permissions to copy that thread to public view.

You want the entire "No confidence" thread copied verbatim to the public forum for viewing by other members? If so, we'll need to ask the other moderators whether they agree with their posts being published.

Alternatively, I could copy just the posts made by you and me from that thread, if you agree.

Please let me know. I don't think this is likely to be a useful exercise, but it's your choice.

Frankly, James, you're right about one thing: dirty laundry. Compared to the Avatar riot, I can see why you want some moderator perspectives, as well as your own conduct, hidden from public view.

The other moderators can speak for themselves.

We've got nothing to hide, James. Both of us have said so. Dirty laundry doesn't bother me.

You're out to make your point at any cost, obviously.

You must really have the hots for SAM.

 

[Gustav]

as far as sam's current ban goes....

i am mystified why james insists on holding the libel less important than the other alleged factors

did he not say that an apology for the libel would see the ban deferred?
set a moronic countdown clock?
does that not imply it was the primary offense as far as james is concerned

 

[pjdude1219]

as far as sam's current ban goes....

i am mystified why james insists on holding the libel less important than the other alleged factors

did he not say that an apology for the libel would see the ban deferred?
does that not imply it was the primary offense as far as james is concerned

libel is only important when it happens to james when it happens to other people it gets ignored.

 

[James R]

Randwolf:

In two weeks James? Please...

Just a perception. Look at the new names around the place. Make your own judgement. You don't have to agree with me.

Are you really saying that it is acceptable to declare "I expect an apology. You have twenty-four hours to respond, or suffer a perma-ban."? I don't see this as appropriate behavior (not that my opinion matters one whit), but it does seem to highlight the differences between the "untouchables" and us regular posters.

This is inaccurate. It was "You have 24 hours to apologise or I will seek a mandate from the other moderators for a perma-ban." As a matter of fact, SAM has not been banned permanently.

Of course, I did ban SAM for 1 month. As I said previously, I take full and sole responsibility for that. The trigger for that action was SAM's libel of me, but that is not the sole reason I imposed the ban, as I explained.

Perhaps, in retrospect, you might reconsider alternate avenues that you could have traveled to achieve your goals.

We've been through alternate avenues with SAM. At one point, SAM was a moderator. It has been a gradual downhill slide from there for her. This is just the latest chapter.

Quite simply, I think that you let your temper get away from you.

I think SAM let her good sense and good manners get away from her.

Instead, it seemed that you had no desire to "manage" it, but rather preferred an escalation, with a 30 day ban for SAM as a "given" prior to any discussion.

The 30 day ban was not a given, and 24 hours was allowed for discussion.

If you think my temper got away from me on this one, you might like to consider how likely it is that I'd carry over my ill-tempered explosion to a whole new day.

However, I feel that some of us fear that slippery-slope - if we are all to be held to this same standard, how many would pass? Have you honestly asked this of yourself, James? Or are you, and perhaps other authorities, ready to concede that "fairness" is not really a priority here?

Moderators and administrators are not robots. Bans and warnings are not applied automatically (though they could be). Like it or not, a member's posting history, overall conduct, recent behaviour etc. all go towards deciding what kind of penalty to impose for a particular infraction (if any).

The "standard" you refer to is, I hope, applied equally to all. But it is not a simple case of "Do X and Y will be the penalty." It never has been, except for the most clear-cut offences. If you like, compare sentencing in the criminal justice system. Mandatory penalties are rare for all but the most straightforward crimes. The characteristics of the offender, the victim, the criminal's past record, the particular circumstances of the offence etc. etc. are all taken into account in imposing sentences. And an inevitable factor is the particular judge him- or herself.

Either way, it does not invoke visions of a happy, provocative, free wheeling sort of community that used to make this place so much fun...

One person's "provocative" is another person's "insulting". One person's "fun" is another person's "immature rabble-rousing". And what makes people happy varies greatly from person to person.

If this community doesn't seem like a good fit for you, you're invited (encouraged) to express your opinion, as you're doing. You might even change things. But failing that, there are other internet forums.

 

[pjdude1219]

Tiassa:



I guess you're talking about where I noted that you'd banned fellowtraveler for making a death threat but not SAM. I think I made a comment along the lines that you'd only done half the job. At that point, of course, I believed SAM had made a death threat. Fair comment, I'd say.

Why are you not familiar with english? it was a clearly conditional statement.

It means that my banning her was justifiable at the time I believed she had made a death threat. As it turned out, that belief was mistaken, but that doesn't mean I was dishonest at any point

Begging the question of your familiarity with the english language.

You're entitled to your opinion. The fact is, despite your accusations, I had no ill-intent against SAM. The ban I imposed on her at the time, I would have applied equally to any other poster for the same offence.

real easy to make that claim when their is no way of knowing it to be true.

Looks like you have some pent-up anger at me. "Bratty"? "Stupid"? Do you have any other insults you'd like to add to your list? You already have "Liar" and "Hypocrite". Go to town. Get it out of your system.

But its ok for you to imply I'm stupid or whiny? Tiassa is treating you the same way you treat those that call you out of your dishonest, inconsistent crap moderating. Now you know what its like to interact with you. Annoying isn't it?

I think I'm being very patient with you, actually. Rather than shutting this thread down, I'm still responding to your insults and accusations. I don't think this makes either of us look very good. Some of this shit will stick with some readers, either way.

Its easy to be paitent when you can get rid of anyone on a whim. try being powerless while being abused and see how long you can wait?

Actually, the two incidents with SAM are completely unrelated. The whole death threat thing is a sideshow to the main game here. As, incidentally, is the whole libel thing.

Its called showing a pattern.

The thing we ought to face head-on is the trolling issue. But that one has already been done to death, don't you think? Your conclusion is that SAM doesn't troll; mine is that she does. You demand evidence for that; I tell you the evidence is easy to find - just review her posts objectively. End result: we disagree.

The problem is other people do what sam does but more so and you refuse to label them as trolls hence dishonesty. which is a patern with you falsely making out people to be the sam when their not and different when they are the same.( like what you did with me and buffalo. I'm still waiting for you to show where I have attacked another member for their own life style choices?

Problem: I won't treat SAM with kid gloves like you want.

Once again showing you have no understanding of the complaint against you . The complaint is not the action against sam but the inconsistency of you actions against SAM and those that do the same thing.

Outcome: you're angry at me and want to take me down a peg or two.

Actually Tiassa wants the same thing I want for you to do a good job and be consistent.

I doubt this would be a productive use of my time.

Well some would argue that what you do do with your time here isn't all that productive.

You're out to make your point at any cost, obviously.

against power that what one has to do?

You must really have the hots for SAM.

once again showing you think your above the rules with this example of trolling. and yes I'm holding you to higher standard your a fucking admin you should hold yourself to higher standard rather than the no standard at all you currently seem to have.

 

[pjdude1219]

The 30 day ban was not a given, and 24 hours was allowed for discussion.

So in other words your a liar. earlierl you said the choice was a perma bann or 30 days. so james which time were you lying than or now?

 

[pjdude1219]

Of course, I did ban SAM for 1 month. As I said previously, I take full and sole responsibility for that. The trigger for that action was SAM's libel of me, but that is not the sole reason I imposed the ban, as I explained.

and has been explained to you what SAM di wasn't libel it was a truthful no matter how you want to spin it what you said was basicilly the definition of bigotry so sam saying you chacterized what was said as bigotry is truthful and secondly their was no malicious intent to defame your character.

 

[James R]

as far as sam's current ban goes....

i am mystified why james insists on holding the libel less important than the other alleged factors

did he not say that an apology for the libel would see the ban deferred?
set a moronic countdown clock?
does that not imply it was the primary offense as far as james is concerned

Specifically, I said:

1. No apology for libel within 24 hours means I will seek a mandate for a permanent ban.
2. Failing to get 2/3 majority approval for a permanent ban, and lacking an apology, I would impose a 1 month ban.

I did not say what would happen if an apology was forthcoming. You may infer, however, that I would in this particular instance have let SAM off the hook again, despite her continuing trolling. It's because I'm such a nice guy and a soft touch.

The trolling would no doubt have caught up with SAM sooner or later anyway.

As things turned out, the libel issue provided a convenient trigger to deal with two issues at once.

 

[CheskiChips]

So in other words your a liar. earlierl you said the choice was a perma bann or 30 days. so james which time were you lying than or now?

He didn't lie, you must be illiterate. By the way, I posted a convincing set of threads posted by SAM here in this thread. It was no bias list...it was the last threads created by sam that exemplified her behavior.