By his own assertion that moderators should be held to the same rules as posters, he has stepped over the line again.

In light of his actions, and in light of his performance as a moderator, I am putting up a poll to remove WCF's moderator status. Please don't let him sway you with another sob story.

Should WellcookedFetus be removed as a moderator. Yes or No.

Here is the thread, where not only does he call her a stupid bitch (see the white after the calm down bit. You have to highlight it with your mouse)
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=672563#post672563

In this thread, he also asked her to post naked pictures of herself (sexual harrassment)

And he said she was lying or to post another picture with a sign, which she did and he STILL called her a stupid bitch. Then he proceeded to say that with her attitude, she wouldn't have been around long... when it was his attitude that sucked.

Not to mention his stepping into forums and thread where he doesn't belong acting like a spastic Don Knotts, where he doesn't have any powers but still telling people what to do. Also, he seems to like to say "fuck you" to a lot of posters, and tell lots of people that "if you don't like it, you can leave".

I voted yes. He crossed the line once too many.

Arditezza:
Get a life.

Out of the thirteen threads you've started here, seven are about Sciforums itself. Four of those are requests that a moderator be removed, installed or chastised. Rather interesting from a psychological point of view, no?

Of all your thirteen threads, only thirteen - yes, three out of ten - are actually about something besides another member or members.

Is wellcookedfetus your new target?

On 'Fetus
His actions hardly violate our member rules. While he may have been boorish to another poster, this is not specifically prohibited. You yourself have been rude to other members.
While cursing is prohibited, the rule is rather informal. Such things are generally edited or deleted upon moderator discretion.
His request (obviously not serious) for nude pictures was, obviously not serious. Get your head out of your puritan cloaca.
Nor is it any more sexual harassment than the "most beautiful women on earth" thread.

As a member he may or may not be annoying, but as a moderator he is fair and impartial. (As far as I know). He is effective in noting spamming/excessive crossposting and bringing it to the attention of other moderators, often before the rest of us notice.

He takes his duties quite seriously. His behaviour may be in need of some amendment, but as a moderator:

Removing 'Fetus as a mod would definitely impair the quality of these forums.

Spoken from the woman who has no clue what the forum rules are, and has abused them at will for years.

This isn't about me, this is about Fetus. I could care less what you think of my posting abilities or intentions. Because like most of your rhetoric and opinion, it's full of crap. You are smart, Xev but you lack common sense. It is not enough to "know" what you are talking about, it's also important to know how to apply it. But my opinion is just like yours, probably full of crap. As usual, you are going to turn this into something about me, instead of letting people vote on the actions of the Fetus. Just like you did in all the threads asking for your removal. Instead of coming in here full of crap about me, why did you just not defend Fetus? Maybe because you need to distract from the actual problem at hand, which is Fetus's moderating and his breaking the rules repeatedly.

Of course, saying "fuck you" to many people, and calling someone a stupid bitch after asking her to post naked pictures of herself is completely ok and not against the rules. Silly me.

He's immature, and while that's not a problem for the most part, it is when it turns him into an antagonistic jerk to the posters, constantly causing drama, breaking rules and generally being a tard. Give him time, I'm sure he'll come in your forum and tell people how to post like he has in all the other forums where he isn't moderator.

This is about you. I felt it was important for others to see this as what it is: not an offended member seeking help against a mod who stepped over the line, but as an expression of your fixation with the workings of this site.

However, it is perhaps undiplomatic for me to bring that up.


Of course, saying "fuck you" to many people, and calling someone a stupid bitch after asking her to post naked pictures of herself is completely ok and not against the rules. Silly me.

"Fuck you" is something most of our members have said to each other. Fetus is not in a minority in using it, nor is he egegriously abusing his mod status by saying it.

"Stupid bitch" was written in white type, it was unreadable and only could be noticed if one cut and pasted that text into another block. Admittedly that is juvenile, but not truely horrendous.

"Naked pictures" is something most of our female members have been asked for once or twice. I presume that the requests are in a joking manner, and almost complimentary.
It's a little sexist - nobody asks males for nude pictures - but I don't think it counts as sexual harassment.

Further, I never said he was complying with the rules. He has broken them.
But so have most posters, and in more outrageous fashion. I do not think that his actions warrent removal of mod status.

Oh, now look at this, an impeach moderator thread...

So repeatedly breaking the rules is just fine as long as you are a moderator. Except that in the "Moderator Rules" thread WCF himself said that moderators should follow the rules in all forums on the site, but hypocritically went against that by breaking them. Not to mention, he pointed someone in the direction of Paul Samuels information (as he admitted) which resulted in someone calling Paul Samuel. Then, when everyone was saying that he should apologize, he went into a fit about how pitiful his life was to make people feel sorry for him.

Now, he feels that everyone hates him, so he antagonizes many people he comes in contact with outside of his own forums. He treats people poorly, and he has no respect for others, or the rules of the site.

No matter how you look at it, he's a poor example of a poster and a really bad example of a moderator. He has not been fair to people who do not like him, by playing the pity card and the "everyone hates me" weakness ploy to get everyone to back off. It's silly, and it's immature. And it's not fair to the posters of this forum to have to put up with a whiney little child who has access to their information and IP addresses. There is no reason why WCF should ever need to monitor who is on and what IP address other than the fact that it's a power issue. The Supermods can handle that just fine, and someone who is a moderator of two forums, and who HAS given information to others for the purpose of harrassment shouldn't have access to that.

shut the hell up arditezza, your threads are uninteresting and rather boring indeed

You know something? I voted yes out of pique. But now I wish I would have waited. There is no reason to impeach him. This has nothing to do with his moderation skills. I don't suppose it'll make much difference. There's no chance of him being removed anyway. So, my vote'll just be one of the few admonishment votes (I hope. If it passes I might very well consider turning my vote. If possible.)

He has his areas of knowledge as a poster, just as we all do. And, I don't really do the WE&P section much to judge his conduct in there. He's trying to chew on my nuts quite a bit lately. But, I can handle it, I think. Hasn't broken skin yet. :D

What I find odd and ironic about this situation is the similarity with events past. The picture thread becomes ominous for disparaging comments now. His insults were not as direct as someone else's posts, but "Stupid bitch" is certainly on par with "Fat cow" or whatever the other could break down to. Fetus's insult was whited out, but she found it rather easily. And then it progressed to a statement of "fuck you" rather than "fuck you all". Very ironic.

He also never apologized, either. I find that distasteful because he said he would if he offended someone and she was obviously offended. Yet, he never apologized. He's definitely a hypocrite. No doubt about that. But, hell, he admitted to that in Gendanken's thread. So that's no big news.

Anyway, this is getting too dramatic for me. There's a throw shit at Fetus thread in the cesspool. Everyone go down and there and do your worst if you have anything to work out on him. Hell, you never know. He just might listen... Nah. :D But, at the least, you can have a nice cathartic experience getting out your primal angers and hatreds.

"Stupid bitch" was written in white type, it was unreadable and only could be noticed if one cut and pasted that text into another block. Admittedly that is juvenile, but not truely horrendous.


Almost correct, email notification does not use bb code, making it plainly visable. WCF attempts at hidding its was just weak, IMO if she had something say she should have said it, where is the fun when know one hears your insults anyway

Kunax:
I thought an email notification simply lets you know that someone's posted in a subscribed thread, and doesn't actually tell you what the post is.

Arditezza:

So repeatedly breaking the rules is just fine as long as you are a moderator.

Nobody said that. Grow the hell up and quit trying to win arguments through temper tantrums.

Everybody breaks the rules. Moderator Tiassa, moderator CounselorCoffee, moderator wellcookedfetus and myself all have been profane and acerbic on occasion. Most of our members have.

Why single out wellcookedfetus?


Except that in the "Moderator Rules" thread WCF himself said that moderators should follow the rules in all forums on the site, but hypocritically went against that by breaking them.

So now you propose to dis-bar the 'Fetus for hypocrisy?
This is a referendum on 'Fetus' ability to moderate WE&P, not his interpersonal skills.


Not to mention, he pointed someone in the direction of Paul Samuels information (as he admitted) which resulted in someone calling Paul Samuel.

I wasn't here when that happened, however, this is only relevent if 'Fetus used tools only accessable to mods (visible IPs) to find this information.


Then, when everyone was saying that he should apologize, he went into a fit about how pitiful his life was to make people feel sorry for him.

Irrelevent. We are not voting on whether he is a whiny masochist, we are voting on whether he is a competent moderator.


Now, he feels that everyone hates him, so he antagonizes many people he comes in contact with outside of his own forums.

Again - this is not about his interpersonal skills.


He treats people poorly, and he has no respect for others, or the rules of the site.

This is not shown by your single example of poor behaviour. Everyone behaves in self-pitying, annoying and stupid ways at some time. Being an asshole is part of being human.


And it's not fair to the posters of this forum to have to put up with a whiney little child who has access to their information and IP addresses.

Do you have any concrete proof or any logical reason to suppose that he will abuse that access?


There is no reason why WCF should ever need to monitor who is on and what IP address other than the fact that it's a power issue.

I can just see wellcookedfetus looking up someone's IP:

"Mwahahaa, ich hab' ein reisen kraft!!"

There is a very good reason, and not a power issue at all:

'Fetus, like him or not, is a competent moderator who does not abuse his position and who does diligently bring problems to the attention of other mods

Moderator Tiassa, moderator CounselorCoffee, moderator wellcookedfetus and myself all have been profane and acerbic on occasion.

I merely wanted to add that in Xev's and my cases, we have the dubious distinction of setting a few benchmarks. Xev often gives the appearance of being utterly indifferent to the rules, but she knows exactly where on the map she's standing when it comes down to it.

It's always in the back of my mind that I/we/whomever should go ahead and commit to the obvious hailstorm and lay out a massive critique of various styles of insulting, angry, and intense discourse. I'm not sure, however, that doing it, say, next week, would see the end of the carnage by Christmas--2005. Oh, the bad blood that would boil over.

Lesson #1: Leave yourself out of it. Implying a deficiency in your counterpart's perception, assimilation, functionality, or general intelligence is harsh enough; it only looks silly to tout yourself at the same time. Compare the following, which both call someone narrow-minded:


• Remember that the detail does not the whole painting make.
• Unlike you, open-minded people like myself are capable of understanding how something so simple works.

Both tell the other that they're taking the narrow-minded approach, but narrow-mindedness can be either an observation of fact or a zinger in lieu of a point. If you make it the former, be prepared to show it; if you opt for the latter, well, leave yourself out of it.

Which reminds me:

Lesson #2: Minimize the occasions on which you refer to yourself as open-minded. In fact, let it be implicit--don't even give a straight answer to, "Do you think you're open-minded?" Don't say, "Yes". Say, "Who doesn't think they are? Only the proud, drunk, flag-waving bigot."

Yet another stupid fucking thread in Open Government. Hand a moron some chocolate and he goes scratching his ass looking for more.

I will respond in white because that is ok apparently.


shut the hell up arditezza, your threads are uninteresting and rather boring indeed

Shut the fuck up yourself david if you have nothing to contribute.


Yet another stupid fucking thread in Open Government. Hand a moron some chocolate and he goes scratching his ass looking for more.

Another stupid fucking post by you in SOF.

Not to mention, he pointed someone in the direction of Paul Samuels information (as he admitted) which resulted in someone calling Paul Samuel.

Just for information, paul samuel gave information on his person freely. Anyone who looked in his user info or at some of his posts was able to find address, phone number and place of work.


Apart from that, I never found WCF misusing his moderator position. And everyone uses insults once in a while, as long as they are used with a certain limit I do not see a problem.
Also, some things should not be taken too serious.

Also, some things should not be taken too serious.

He certainly does.

Who does?

Who does?

WCF.

He is a drama queen.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40508

What? Now I should go and take WCF serious? You kidding me?

I know he is a drama queen, a hypocrite, sometimes an ass and a loser. But still he manages to be a fair moderator and I always manage to laugh about the not-so-serious posts he produces as a member.

I'm fucking fed up with him chasing away all the fucking scientists.

Perhaps you have a point there...that is definitely not a nice result. Alas, they should stand above such profanity, they can after all just ignore him.

Still, that does not really concern his modship, I found he is quite able as a moderator.
Of course I cannot back this statement 100% since I do not post so often in those forums.

Alas, they shold stand above such profanity, they can after all just ignore him.

Yes. It often suprises me how poor many scientists are when it comes to social skills.

That has nothing to do with our social skills.

It has to do with not being interested in discussing science in kindergarten.

Then why try to discuss science in kindergarden, if you are a scientist and know that science is nothing to be discussed in kindergarden?

spuriousmonkey,

If you wanted a science forum filled with other scientist, why don't you go to one of these fine forums:
http://micro.nwfsc.noaa.gov/forums/
http://www.protocol-online.org/forums/index.php?act=idx
Oh that right you want to have semi or non-intellectual conversations rarely related to you field of study, silly me stay here then.

Go yourself.



Oh that right you want to have semi or non-intellectual conversations rarely related to you field of study, silly me stay here then.

Could you possibly write a sentence that makes sense? Or is that too much to ask for?

I found a nice forum for you WCF.

http://www.curezone.com/forums/fs.asp?f=460

or this one

http://www.pokemonparadise.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewforum&f=4

Now talk about kindergarten behaviour... :rolleyes:

you reap what you sowe.

Spuriousmonkey,

You were the one asking for more scientist not I. Yes indeed you reap what you sowe.

WCF -

(Scoooorebooooard!) Honestly? Just let it be. This topic isn't worth the time it takes you to dignify it. You're clearly winning the vote, and the most part of Sciforums would be unhappy with the new standard of conduct invoked by your removal from office.

You've got a winning hand; don't throw it away. Make them keep drawing until they come up with something respectable. Junk hands have no sway on the table when you're the only one in position to make a bet. They need jacks or better to open, and right now they've got nothing.

Spuriousmonkey, WellCookedFetus,


Stop it! You two are being silly.

This is a banishment thread, did not even occur to me. My conversation here is between me and monkey: spuriousmonkey sided with paulsamel as such he is my swarm enemy. Spuriousmonkey approves of appeals to authority and demaned respect, what kind of loser comes to a internet forum to demand people respect him and teat him like he was above them?

teat him like he was above them

Everybody wants the milk & honey. (Sorry, I couldn't resist that typo.)


My conversation here is between me and monkey: spuriousmonkey sided with paulsamel as such he is my swarm enemy.

In all honesty, I would focus instead on a specific aspect of that--the anger is apparently based on accusations lacking evidentiary merit.

yes funny typo. :D

Actually it's based on evidence from many posts passed, when ever I argued with paulsamel, spuriousmonkey would back paulsamel and try to persuade me to following paulsamel as my superior.

http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/explode.gif
("Rrrrgh-mmmph!")


Actually it's based on evidence from many posts passed, when ever I argued with paulsamel, spuriousmonkey would back paulsamel and try to persuade me to following paulsamel as my superior.

Wrong anger. As you have it presently, it's not the most complimentary examination of your posting character.

Or, maybe not. There's a longview I can barely grasp, having not watched closely. But that speculative extrapolation isn't worth the time.

You're doing fine; let them be static. You give your critics the appearance of legitimacy in this case. Certes, there are times to tread down to the gutter to meet them, but I can't say for sure that this is necessarily one of them.

Your horoscope, good Fetus:

• Invisible hands do not get slapped when reaching for the cookie jar.

I do have some sense of honor you know? I can't just let people bitch about me without me bitching back. (insults sure, just send them off to the cesspool.)

Actually it's based on evidence from many posts passed, when ever I argued with paulsamel, spuriousmonkey would back paulsamel and try to persuade me to following paulsamel as my superior.

Could you even imagine that 2 trained biologists agree because they were right and you were wrong?

No you can't. That is your problem. You can't possibly imagine that you are ever wrong.

Could you even imagine that 2 trained biologists agree because they were right and you were wrong?

No you can't. That is your problem. You can't possibly imagine that you are ever wrong.

Your anger is justified. And your argument shows a flaw of the forum setting. The victory goes to the loudest and most strident posters, not necessarily the ones that are in possession of the accepted facts in the scientific community at large.

However, the truth is that this argument has nothing to do with Fetus's qualifications as a moderator. If he were moderator of the biology or a science forum, then perhaps you would have a case. But as his mod powers are over wholely unscientific forums, they have no basis.

As I've said, I really don't post in WE&P and therefore can't say whether Fetus is worthy or not. The other mods have certainly come out in their multitudes to show solidarity, but is that surprising? No. It is standard operating procedure.

What I have noticed is a lack of general poster support. The vote is for him. But most posters seem to have no desire to enter the fray of commentary for yay or for nay. That is certainly interesting.




Nobody said that. Grow the hell up and quit trying to win arguments through temper tantrums.

I wonder how many arguments have been won through temper tantrums and sheer persistence of will? How many arguments has Fetus herself won in this manner? And yet, this is only a side issue and not one that is truly relevant to impeachment.


Everybody breaks the rules. Moderator Tiassa, moderator CounselorCoffee, moderator wellcookedfetus and myself all have been profane and acerbic on occasion. Most of our members have.

Why single out wellcookedfetus?

I can't speak for the others, but the reason that I am unhappy with Fetus as a poster (not as a mod) is a direct result of the recent spurt of bannings. The Gendanken incident in particular is very striking because much of it resembles the Fetus incident quite remarkably. Both took place in the Picture Thread. Both were insults leveled at relatively new posters (although the intellectual level of the two (three) posters in question are quite different. I have no doubts that Inamorata truly held a degree. Either that or she had a spiel ready to bust out to "prove" her background in her introduction thread. However, her posting history was not impressive, IMO. No real contributions as of the date of injury.) And both were capped off with a "fuck you". Gendanken's was a more abstract "fuck you all" while Fetus's was a more direct "fuck you."

So, what does this have to do with impeachment? Nothing I'm afraid. But it shows my dissatisfaction with the situation. I would prefer it if the rules were more leniently followed, allowing such jibes on occasion. And, it seems they are. Now. On this occasion. Has Fetus been warned for his behavior? I don't know. The last I knew the offending remarks have not been edited in any way. Is Fetus remorseful for his behavior? It certainly seems not. He's mentioned that he, for one, is willing to apologize if he should happen to offend, yet that is as close to apology as I have seen him come.

I suppose the question is is this leniency a result of Fetus's modship? Or is it a result of the uproar over the recent spate of bannings? I'm afraid that with the silence that descends so mightily from certain quarters, we'll never know. Keep them in the dark seems to be the decision. Anyway, if the leniency is on account of the former then this situation would show an abuse of moderator power. But, not necessarily Fetus's power. Unless she warned and edited herself. (Heh.) Otherwise, this situation is good in that it shows that the will of the posters has spoken. I suppose the way to test it is for some brave individuals going out on an insulting spree. Let's see if this leniency is shared by all or a select few.

So, all in all, Fetus has proven himself to be an asshole. Yet, being an asshole is not necessarily indicative of his worthiness of modship.



=====
The vote is rather close at the moment, though, isn't it?

As I stated earlier, I voted yes out of pique and on reflection decided that I voted incorrectly. However, I'm not sure if such a reneging of one's vote is sanctioned under the rules.

Keep your fingers crossed, Fetus. It is possible that interpersonal skills might just spell your doom. Because while in the past other moderators have won votes even though there personal skills are acerbic, said moderators also have proven to be intelligent and thoughtful posters. There is a delicate balance at work here. And, perhaps Fetus may weigh on the wrong side of the scale.

Or perhaps the yes votes are even coming from genuinely dissatisfied WE&P posters? Who knows? I certainly don't.

If not the moderator status is in question then someone maybe should propose to ban him as a member for 3 days. (theoretically, because it will never happen)

hehe was going to suggest a 3 day ban to, but deleted because its never going to happen :)

yeah..we should delete our last 2 posts. We spoke the unspeakable.

:D

yeah..we should delete our last 2 posts. We spoke the unspeakable.

:D

And your hopes gather dust.

I hope that I will never end up with no life.

No dust there.

And your hopes gather dust.

Isn't that almost a quotation?

Yeah. Here is its. T.S. Eliot's The Waste Land. (http://www.bartleby.com/201/1.html)


And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.


I hope that I will never end up with no life.

No dust there.

No, but plenty of fear. ;)

No, but plenty of fear. ;)

fear is an essential ingredient of life. How you live your life is dependent on how you deal with fear.

So, someone explain to me about the vote, please. The more ridiculous this topic gets, the more folks want to blame it on WCF?

Think of it this way, folks: we moderators will make sure to respect the standards set by this or any other vote. The more ridiculously low you set the bar for action, the more of you will find yourselves upset at us for taking action over something you think is petty.

Think of yourselves, as well as for yourselves.

I can shout that a bus is going to hit you. I can even try to pull you out of the way. But if you really, really want to be hit by a bus, eventually you will be. Jesus Christ I am not--I cannot save you from yourselves.

If you wish for your moderators to be inhuman, well, theoretically we can accommodate.

The more ridiculously low you set the bar for action, the more of you will find yourselves upset at us for taking action over something you think is petty.

I agree. I don't like the idea of setting a low bar either. I wonder if word from some higher ups might influence the situation? Has the bar been set somewhat higher after the recent debates? Or is it Fetus's moderator status that protects him from warnings for his actions? Has he been warned?

As I've said, the situation has nothing to do with Fetus's mod status. Nothing.

I didn't think the vote would be so close. It's early yet, though. We shall just have to wait and see what time brings.

The thing is that so few people are posting in this thread. We have no idea why the vote is going the way it is going. Perhaps if a few more voters would post and give their reasons we could see more clearly?

wyt lyss

So, someone explain to me about the vote, please.

is it not self evident? the initial request seems to have been misdirected. a ban would have been the appopriate penalty. what is more to the point....the members here are dying to see you tards disciplined for infractions of forum rules. the same rules that are applied willy nilly, without rhyme or reason, without the slightest bit of rationality, to the commoners.

witness...the goofball's crazed spree of bannings, the subsequent outing of his preferred method of flouting civilized behavior (vicious attacks thru pm's), the acknowledgement of wrongdoing.

why was he not banned?
demonstrate, to the public, the moderators are not above the law

wcf will make the perfect sacrificial lamb. in my book, ragging on newbies is truly pathetic.

it also appears some of you mods prefer sneaky shit. the goofball with his pm's and now wcf wiith his invisible ink.

good fucking showing.

The more ridiculous this topic gets, the more folks want to blame it on WCF?

explain the connection and make it a good one. hedging and obscurities will be dealt with in the harshest possible manner

Think of it this way, folks: we moderators will make sure to respect the standards set by this or any other vote.

you deliberately misinteprete the real issue at at hand. none of you can be this dense. you also threaten as jamesr did in a similar situation. is it in the rule book? you lie too. you will do no such thing. mod egoism will prevent the community from setting their own standards and acceptable modes of discourse.

The more ridiculously low you set the bar for action, the more of you will find yourselves upset at us for taking action over something you think is petty.

06/22/04 - abnoxio - Insulting Members - Permanent
06/28/04 - thefountainhed - Insulting Members - 3 days
07/06/04 - shag_pole - Insulting Members - Permanent
07/07/04 - outlandish - Insulting Members - 3 days
07/14/04 - thefountainhed - Insulting Members - 7 days
08/10/04 - uzi - Racial slurs, insulting other members - Permanent
08/17/04 - MadGreenwood - Insulting Members - 3 days
08/19/04 - Eluminate - Insulting Members, Excessive Profanity - 3 days
08/19/04 - crackthewhip - Racial Insults - Permanent
08/19/04 - kasi - Racial Insults - Permanent
08/20/04 - schizophrenic muslim - Sock puppet - Permanent
08/20/04 - cutegirl - Racial Insults - Permanent
08/20/04 - gendanken - Insulting Members - 7 days
08/22/04 - otheadp - Insulting Members - 7 days
08/22/04 - Preacher_X - Insulting Members - 7 days
08/23/04 - Undecided - Insulting Members - 3 days

now tell me mr wyt lyss.

who is setting the bar here? the mods or the members? who is making the frikkin judgement call? who sets the standards?


09-06-04, 01:59 PM



calm down, calm down! Stupid Bitch

I was not try to insult you, its was just that I'm suspicious of everyone that claims to be someone or something. Years of internet gaming have left me that way.

My picture is somewhere on the old picture thread.

Stupid bitch hey???? Very clever of you to try and mask it with white text. And you are a 22 year old university student? How very eloquent. hahahahahha

Oh well. Perhaps. But I dont feel threatened by you, nor will I stoop to childish name calling. Very mature behaviour, my dear. But your insecurities are really not my problem Good luck with that degree too.

the dankass goes down for a "fuck you all". nico for a "...like a asshole". (like a something anyway)

these guys all paid a price for their crap. now it is your turn. do the right thing and and penalize the fetus. you do not need a poll to nag you into action. do it instead, as a matter of principle. you know that others have gone down for less

it has always been about fairness. there can be no arbitrary application of the rules. if this cannot be done, just drop it.focus on actual malicious shit.

Think of yourselves, as well as for yourselves.

I can shout that a bus is going to hit you. I can even try to pull you out of the way. But if you really, really want to be hit by a bus, eventually you will be. Jesus Christ I am not--I cannot save you from yourselves.

pompous lil prick ;)

If you wish for your moderators to be inhuman, well, theoretically we can accommodate.

"AS WE SEE FIT!"

* i am always surprised to see you defend these fucks. can you not come out and condemn when appropiate? stryder sems to be the only one that will not kowtow to the code of silence that you mods perpetuate.

[You give them your critics the appearance of legitimacy in this case. Certes, there are times to tread down to the gutter to meet them, but I can't say for sure that this is necessarily one of them.

what a depraved and cynical attitude. shame on you. corrupting the young eh?

Well I wouldn't consider "stupid bitch" to be a polite way to address another member on this forum, now would you? I don't take kindly to being called a "stupid bitch". Particularly since I was not the one who addressed either of you in the first instance.

But I guess thats how some people like to entertain themselves. The psychology behind this sort of behaviour is quite interesting, really. You come across as quite an insecure young woman who feels that she needs to belittle other users in an attempt to perhaps validate your own position in these forums. Why you even felt the need to comment to me in the first place is interesting in itself. You don't like me? Simple. Don't communicate with me.

It would have been that simple. Instead, you have made ME feel uncomfortable, resorted to insults, and basically, what I would consider childish behaviour unbefitting a university student. I wonder if you would have behaved this way if my photos were of an older man? Or an older woman? Its pathetic, really.

As a scientist, I would think you would WELCOME other scientists onto these forums, rather than resorting to this crap. Stupid bitch hey? hahahahhahaha.

poor sexy little inamorata! i sooo feel her pain!

and what brought that on?



calm down, calm down! Stupid Bitch

I was not try to insult you, its was just that I'm suspicious of everyone that claims to be someone or something. Years of internet gaming have left me that way.

the profanity and accusations of perpetrating a fraud!

Notes:

Gendanken -

We do not have, in our moderation, the luxury of being as superficial as the general tenor of diverse posts throughout subjective and even more-objective fora.

Zayev -

Actually, I'm cringing at the state of the sentence itself; I didn't clean up after my revision. Ugh.

As to the note itself . . . I know, I know.

wcf spams his own forum


Clinton was a smack user? I also did not know the man smoke cigars I just thought he shoved them up interns... aah you know :D

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40495

he deletes my complaint as off topic...the hypocrisy...poor pangloss

..and pm's me


Actually spaming is to provide information for you own benfit such as advertisments. I was asking Neildo to provide evidence for his claims though.

But your comments were off topic, please post complains in private or in a suitable forum.

norman, neildo and wcf shit all over the thread. who will moderate the moderators

heh

now there a good reason why one must never get walmart employees to mod forums :D

tiassa, do a IP search on zayev, you would not believe what a sock puppet he is of!

Doi, like it was so hard to recognize Spookz. I got him first:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=675194#post675194

tiassa, do a IP search on zayev, you would not believe what a sock puppet he is of

You'll notice I went with the patronizing response, though. :cool:

how interesting.

Your answer to complaints is to do an IP search instead of looking at the validity of the complaints.

Your answer to complaints is to do an IP search instead of looking at the validity of the complaints.

How disingenuous. You live up to your name, Spurious.

Why should I take criticism of WCF seriously when so much of it is so dubiously founded?

Something about the validity of complaints?

when so much of it is so dubiously founded?

isn't that an assumption?

Or are you telling me he didn't scare a new member away by insulting her?

Or are you telling me he didn't scare a new member away by insulting her?

I've scared away new members. You don't have to try.

Besides, I don't see why WCF should be worried at all about insensitivity. Why don't you let us know what about Xev's responses to this topic don't make sense to you. That's a good place to start. In the meantime, WCF had good reason to believe the poster is capable of the forum's more scandalous side (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=671728). I guess the offended poster could give it but not take it. That's too bad.

Look, nobody's claiming WCF is a saint. But this request for action is akin to a tax rebellion that leaves schools unfunded. I had no idea the members of Sciforums were so damned thin-skinned. Given people's passion for the rough around here, I would have thought them tougher.

However, I'm still wondering: if this prosecution is so important to you, Spurious, why can't you do it correctly? Why can't you make well-founded points? Such as the one I noted earlier:



Your answer to complaints is to do an IP search instead of looking at the validity of the complaints.

Yes, when we certain issues are afoot, we look at IP's. For instance, when I became a moderator, one of the first things I did was play around with my authority in order to figure out how to use the system. So I looked up a "new poster" I had managed to gravely offend somehow. Turns out it was just a second handle for a poster who'd been around for a couple years. Lots of people play dishonestly like that. They resurrect themselves, resume their old arguments under a new name, maintain their classic behavior, and then play hurt when people get annoyed at them, as if nobody noticed. So we look into IP's to make sure whether we're dealing with a new or an old problem.

It's very simple. I'm surprised a bright guy like you couldn't figure out so elementary a concept. Of course, that was never really the point, anyway, was it?

I mean, geez, a poster with 10 posts complains about ancient history ...? Yeah, that's not an easy one to spot at all, is it? Heaven forbid WCF or anyone else should do some research before making a decision.

What do you want from us? Sex favors? Maybe we should stand around and look pretty so as to complement the furniture?

Stop being so superficial, and the world will be considerably less confusing.

aren't we in an ad hominem attack mode today.

Why dont you just say it, some people can and some cannot, the illusion of everybody being equal here is just that, an illusion.

It has nothing to do with being thin skinned, personly I find it all rather ammuzing. It does how ever have everything to do with playing by the same rules, which clearly we are not.

stupid bitches, how bold of me

aren't we in an ad hominem attack mode today.

I reiterate:

• If this prosecution is so important to you, Spurious, why can't you do it correctly? Why can't you make well-founded points?

"Ad hominem attack"? Calling you disingenuous is a bit like calling Saddam Hussein irrational--except for Republicans, it's a little too easy. Calling you superficial is a little like calling Michael Jackson different.

What grad school did you go to where they teach that observation is a political vengeance?



Why dont you just say it, some people can and some cannot, the illusion of everybody being equal here is just that, an illusion.

Honestly? Because it's not nearly so simple as y'all pretend it is.

Take a look at Spuriousmonkey, for instance. He complains that WCF isn't sensitive enough to an insensitive poster. Yet all he really does is wander around this place and muck up discussions with his whining. Frankly I wonder why everyone is so anxious to sanction WCF for something that, as Xev has pointed out, falls well within the range of what the posters have worked for a long time to keep acceptable. Insensitivity is par for the course around here. And, as Spurious shows, so is dishonesty--er, I mean, "inaccuracy".

We've given people all sorts of freedom to be creative, but really, it's like instead of building anything people are just sitting around eating paste.


It does how ever have everything to do with playing by the same rules, which clearly we are not.

Okay, here's the deal. If WCF should be sanctioned, then both you and Spurious should be booted from this site for perpetuating such unfounded horseshit.

End of story.

Y'all need to stop pretending you're so smart and just use your brains. If such simplicity is the best you folks can imagine, fine. But we're not turning this site to pabulum just to accommodate the myopia of some and the malice of others. Posters have had five years to start obeying the rules, and they never have bothered. That people are making a stand over something so damnably petty speaks very poorly of them.

I reiterate:


Don't bother. You bore me.

http://micro.nwfsc.noaa.gov/forums/

A microbiology forum. I'm a developmental biologist. Great recommendation.

You come across as quite an insecure young woman who feels that she needs to belittle other users in an attempt to perhaps validate your own position in these forums.

I think this is the proper method of admonishing the Fetus. It has been shown in Gendanken's Banning that deliberate gender misidentification is a perfectly acceptable means of insulting a member. So, everyone just refer to Fetus as an insecure woman, as a goddess overflowing with knowledge, with all us suckling pups at her sagging teats of wisdom.


I would like to know if Fetus has been admonished in any way over calling a member a stupid bitch. For saying "fuck you" (a bannable offense for some.)

Or if he hasn't, I'd like to be told that there is now a more lenient interpretation of the rules in effect than was apparent two weeks ago.

Silence. Horrible and ignoble silence descends so mightily from those mighty lords of sci. Spread your bounteous words upon us, O Mighty Ones! (I'm starting to wonder if you're just a fantasy.)

This is a general sciences forum if even that spuriousmonkey. If you think a microbiology forum is incorrect for you I can't imagine what logic makes you think of coming here, well accept perhaps to demand respect.

The rules on this forum were usually enforces with deletion of inappropriate post or wording, with warnings for continued inappropriate behavior and finally with banishments, temporary or permanent. Most are not banished for petty crimes they are banished for repeated crimes and violations of the highest degree. If you all feel the moderators should deserver special treatment and be banished or impeach for any violation right of the spot, then be prepare your selves to suffer the same. What your asking for is equivalent to the death penalty for littering.

About gender, I specified that's its appropriate to call people "s/he", as its not easy for people to prove their sex and it does happen that people like to pretend their the opposite sex for wired reasons. I have met such weirdoes and as such do not trust those that demand to be specified sexually. I’m sorry if I call Gendanken a he and you did not feel that was right, I corrected my self on that thread with “s/he” but you feel that I should appeal to Gendanken even though s/he has yet to prove it. But if you think calling me a she as an insult to me is effective, you’re dearly wrong, it turns me on in fact. :D

Many have already mention my masochistic tendencies, I would not be here without them, I’m very bad at arguing for my self and usually make a fool of my self, only intensifying the hate of my enemies, oh that hate it fills me so. :D

A Note to Those Who Support This Requested Action:



Don't bother. You bore me.


Once again, we see the people calling for action have no case to put before us. Unable to respond to Xev's explanations, unable to answer my inquiries, we see that those calling for action against WCF are incapable of putting forward an honest justification for their position.

Since Spuriousmonkey is unwilling to put up anything other than childish spite, perhaps someone else could explain it to me: What is the basis of this requested action?

It's not really superficiality and stupidity, is it?

Tiassa:

Since Spuriousmonkey is unwilling to put up anything other than childish spite, perhaps someone else could explain it to me: What is the basis of this requested action?

We could ask the thread-starter.
But alas, she has not responded to my explanations either.

Since this action cannot find a sponsor, I request that it be closed if no-one puts forth further allegations within the next 24 hours.

Since this action cannot find a sponsor, I request that it be closed if no-one puts forth further allegations within the next 24 hours.

I second. Whether or not such a motion will have any influence is its own question. But I second nonetheless.

Since this action cannot find a sponsor, I request that it be closed if no-one puts forth further allegations within the next 24 hours.

Regardless of sponsorship, it is obvious from the results of the poll that there is a large percentage of members who would like to see Fetus removed from his position. I find it odd the lack of posters on both sides of this argument.

Don't you?

But, that's no real reason to close a poll.

I do wonder if there aren't any repeat votes... If perhaps the Spooky-poodle hasn't voted more than once?


To all who vote without posting... WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU? POST YOUR DAMN REASONS FOR VOTING!!!!

Since this action cannot find a sponsor, I request that it be closed if no-one puts forth further allegations within the next 24 hours.

Yes, please.
This thread is becoming a role model of inefficiency.

I'll request action if there are no sponsors by 2pm on 11/9.

Odd. Missed that tomorrow's the aniversery of the WTC attacks.

invert nexus:
This poll should be closed, as it is motivated not by rational decision but spite and determination to play the role of unelected moderator.

There is no "lack of posters on both sides". Tiassa, 'Fetus and myself have all posted in his defense. Arditezza and spuriousmonkey have posted in opposition to him.

Since neither Arditezza nor spuriousmonkey have defended their desire to have 'Fetus removed, I see no reason why we should leave this open. To deprive the forums of a competent moderator because of popular vote is an action of mob rule and not of democracy.

Yes, please.
This thread is becoming a role model of inefficiency.

and poster stupidity.

As a member he may or may not be annoying, but as a moderator he is fair and impartial. (As far as I know). He is effective in noting spamming/excessive crossposting and bringing it to the attention of other moderators, often before the rest of us notice. .

He is also effective in spamming threads on his own and not reporting them. He takes it personally when people oppose him, and he does treat those people unfairly. Like Paul Samuel and Spuriousmonkey as he already stated in this very thread. People who disagree with him are his enemy and hate him.

How often do you review his moderation that you think you can really say that he is fair and impartial. I don't think you can honestly say you've reviewed his actions all that seriously at all.


He takes his duties quite seriously. His behaviour may be in need of some amendment, but as a moderator:

Removing 'Fetus as a mod would definitely impair the quality of these forums.

That was part of my point. He takes his moderator duties TOO seriously, and tells people to go away a lot or to other forums as if he's in a position to tell other people what to do. He did not do that prior to his moderatorship. He's also constantly coming into SFOG, and other forums that are not his and telling people what to do and not do as if they were his forums. I think his thirst for power and control is overboard.

He's also insulting, and breaks the rules. Which NONE of you disproved, only that you said it didn't make him a bad moderator. But, it does. As it does you. Resorting to insulting posters, instead of just doing your job is not okay. Breaking the rules when you think you can get away with it, is also not okay. He needs a nanny, and someone to watch him or he needs to be removed. It's as simple as that.

Also, you can't change the rules at your whim. I think the vote should stand for ALL the reasons I posted and I object to you taking them down until the vote is finished, regardless of the outcome.

Regardless of sponsorship, it is obvious from the results of the poll that there is a large percentage of members who would like to see Fetus removed from his position.

Whether we compare the number against the whole of Sciforums' registry or merely those who post regularly enough to have seen this topic in the list on the front page, fifteen votes doesn't represent a large percentage of either.


I find it odd the lack of posters on both sides of this argument.

Don't you?

But, that's no real reason to close a poll.

It's the equivalent of a mistrial: it is asserted there is no valid charge. Without some legitimate charge, it doesn't matter what people are voting on.

Again, I note Xev's early responses, which pretty much cover the initial issues for the time being. And I point to Spuriousmonkey's disingenuous position, as well as his refusal or inability to make a substantial argument in favor of action against WCF.

A war of words is an unfortunate metaphor, I admit. The the continued effort against WCF's office in the wake of Xev's responses would, in that metaphor, be equivalent to the folks we generally call "terrorists". It's not the lack of posters on both sides of the argument, but rather the lack of a proper charge to consider. The vote might as well be chocolate vs. vanilla, cotton candy vs. licorice ropes. Pot brownies vs. dope chocolate chip bars.

(Name yer poison.)

:cool:

You know, the question becomes... does there need to be a valid reason for removing a moderator from power other than the will of the members?

What if someone just starts a poll with no stated reasons whatsoever? What if they just ask if such and such should be removed from power and leave it to the individuals to supply their own reasons?

Is this truly open government? Is a reason required? Or is it just that a vote must be requested? Are there rules on moderator impeachment? Or is it an informal affair?

Whether we compare the number against the whole of Sciforums' registry or merely those who post regularly enough to have seen this topic in the list on the front page, fifteen votes doesn't represent a large percentage of either.

By that logic all votes should not stand. How many votes have passed or failed with a mere 50+ votes?

Are you suggesting that now the quorum be changed to a significantly larger number?

What number do you think? About half the total membership of sciforums? A quarter of the membership?

I understand your point and I understand that the reasons stated are not really relevant to moderator issues, but this coming together to stamp out the vote is rather disturbing. The people are voting and it seems there is fear in a handful of dust. And it seems the fear is for more than just Fetus.

Arditezza:

He is also effective in spamming threads on his own and not reporting them.

Since you've given no evidence, I can only treat this as assertion.


How often do you review his moderation that you think you can really say that he is fair and impartial. I don't think you can honestly say you've reviewed his actions all that seriously at all.

I do not "review" his moderation. I simply have never seen a member complain about his capabilities as moderator or say they have been treated with bias. Generally they will message another moderator, and no complaints have been brought.


That was part of my point. He takes his moderator duties TOO seriously, and tells people to go away a lot or to other forums as if he's in a position to tell other people what to do. He did not do that prior to his moderatorship. He's also constantly coming into SFOG, and other forums that are not his and telling people what to do and not do as if they were his forums. I think his thirst for power and control is overboard.

Being a moderator does not mean you cannot act as a member. Any member can, and most do, act in the ways you've described 'Fetus as acting.

Further, it's not-uncommon for a moderator to admonish the members of a subforum not their own, or to remind members of the rules in that subforum. We may also note the presence of spam/trolling/whatever in another forum, to that moderator.
It's generally considered a courtesy, and not an attempt to "take over". We are not baboons.

Further, considering that you have constantly mentioned "power" throughout this charade, and that you, not Fetus, are the one trying to enforce your vision of the rules without being elected as a moderator, you should seriously consider whether these "power and control" obsessions are his or yours.

Pedantic, petty thing to exert power over anyway.


He's also insulting, and breaks the rules. Which NONE of you disproved, only that you said it didn't make him a bad moderator.

And will reiterate that. Your point is dead, it cannot be revived.


But, it does. As it does you.

You may start a thread requesting that I be disbarred or banned. I am sure this would brighten your day. But here it is not relevent.


Resorting to insulting posters, instead of just doing your job is not okay. Breaking the rules when you think you can get away with it, is also not okay. He needs a nanny, and someone to watch him or he needs to be removed. It's as simple as that.

He does have people "watching him". You for one. Other moderators for another. If he were to abuse his duties, he would be noticed.


Also, you can't change the rules at your whim. I think the vote should stand for ALL the reasons I posted and I object to you taking them down until the vote is finished, regardless of the outcome.

Good, then you will finally give us some reasons why wellcookedfetus should be removed as moderator.

Arditezza:

Isn't that a little bit ... ah ... inaccurate? I mean, even I cringed at the "enemy" bit, but as I recall, he was referring to Spurious extending his own dislike of WCF to support an unsubstantiated charge of inappropriate harassment of a Sciforums member. Should I deny him his opinion of someone else's grudge against him? I know what I think of people who carry grudges with me. Had I that sort of monkey on my back, I would not regard it kindly in the least.


He is also effective in spamming threads on his own and not reporting them.

Perhaps you could make a convincing case about that? I'm not impressed by the last mention of it (Zayev's example).


How often do you review his moderation that you think you can really say that he is fair and impartial. I don't think you can honestly say you've reviewed his actions all that seriously at all.

Provide a review.

All I'm asking, and all Xev seems to be asking, is that a substantial charge be introduced before we continue debating WCF's office.


He's also insulting, and breaks the rules. Which NONE of you disproved

See Xev's posts.


only that you said it didn't make him a bad moderator. But, it does

It has long been the standard at Sciforums to draw a line between conduct as a poster and a moderator. We've tested this rule over and over and over again.


Resorting to insulting posters, instead of just doing your job is not okay.

Make that evidentiary case.


Breaking the rules when you think you can get away with it, is also not okay.

Make that evidentiary case.


Also, you can't change the rules at your whim. I think the vote should stand for ALL the reasons I posted and I object to you taking them down until the vote is finished, regardless of the outcome.

I object to such empty venom as you're basing your case on.

I object to the proposition that a respectable request for action should be without substance.

I object to the proposition that the outcome of this specific vote has any utilitarian value.

I object to your general tone in that post, especially as it appears to be in lieu of a legitimate evidentiary case.

And I object to your outright false implication that anyone is trying to change the rules at anyone's whim.

Scurrilous or unfounded requests for action should not be given such respect. In the past, wasted SFOG proposals have been closed before their vote period expired. There would be nothing unusual about doing so in this case.

but this coming together to stamp out the vote is rather disturbing

And this prosecution without a substantial charge is rather disturbing.


By that logic all votes should not stand. How many votes have passed or failed with a mere 50+ votes?

Are you suggesting that now the quorum be changed to a significantly larger number?

What number do you think? About half the total membership of sciforums? A quarter of the membership?

What the hell are you talking about?

Please do not waste either of our time introducing new material unless it's relevant.

I mean, really, have you forgotten what you wrote?


Invert Nexus: Regardless of sponsorship, it is obvious from the results of the poll that there is a large percentage of members who would like to see Fetus removed from his position. I find it odd the lack of posters on both sides of this argument.

Tiassa: Whether we compare the number against the whole of Sciforums' registry or merely those who post regularly enough to have seen this topic in the list on the front page, fifteen votes doesn't represent a large percentage of either.

Invert Nexus: By that logic all votes should not stand. How many votes have passed or failed with a mere 50+ votes?

I mean, talk about a non-sequitur .... "Large percentage, large percentage ... quorum"?

Really ... that's just ... crap.


Is this truly open government? Is a reason required? Or is it just that a vote must be requested? Are there rules on moderator impeachment? Or is it an informal affair?

If you had bothered to read the procedure and rules of SFOG (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32273), you would know that there is at present no rule against raising ban proposals for frivolous, scurrilous, or otherwise useless reasons.

More challenging, of course, would be to read the history of action requests in SFOG, which shows quite clearly the order of magnitude of perversity about this topic and its lack of substantial basis. Look, people think that hating one another and seeking specifically to demean large groups of people is okay. People think childishly insulting one another from time to time is okay. If people want action based on something so small as this topic has raised, it ain't gonna happen today. I'm a strict believer that ex post facto is a terrible way to apply rules. The only thing I would get from a vote in favor of action is the note that people are finally ready to have something done about the pettiness that has gripped this forum. Without a more substantial case against WCF's office, all this vote means is whether or not people are tired of the very methods, styles, and privileges they've been defending. Arbitrarily enforcing a rule based on such a shaky claim would not serve this community in the least.

Given the posting history of WCF's "victim", and considering the general tone around here insisted on by diverse posters, I just don't think a qualifying case for any sort of action has been made, and I don't think it can be built without something new, relevant, and well-founded being introduced to the debate.

Because you disagree with my assertions does not make me incorrect, and that you assert that is just simply crap.

I have given examples of him abusing a poster, which were ignored by you two.

Spuriousmonkey gave examples of him spamming a thread, which you ignored.

And it doesn't take a blind man to see all the times in this very forum and in this thread, WCF telling people to go visit other forums.

Just because you are moderators does not give you the power to close a thread in SFOG that you disagree with. Obviously, 15 other people don't feel the same way.


Also, this is not a court of law. It is a open government forum. Let the posters decide what to look at without rabidly trying to force me to defend every single point. I did, and just because you disagree doesn't mean others do. I'm tired of your trite and immature behaviour. It's like being back in third grade arguing with the school bullies about not taking our lunch money.


What are you so afraid of that you two would be so insistant on having it closed? If it's so frivolous and unsupported, why are there 15 votes? If you are so confident that it's stupid, why not let it run it's course as it should?

Many of us are vulgar to each other often, and we (all members in general) are rarely punished for it. At best are comments are deleted, the moderation having to do it repeatedly will warn of impending banishments, and then if it still does not stop punishment is delivered. I have yet to reach stage two.

Actually I told monkey (singler) to visit another thread because he fears I am scaring off all of the scientist. I would like to see where I told others to do it.

I would like to see these examples of spamming. Spamming is defined here as advertising for ones benefit, and I can’t imagine when I ever did that.

Despite his apparent fixation with attempting to act as a de facto moderator, invert_nexus has raised some valid points here.

He asks:


does there need to be a valid reason for removing a moderator from power other than the will of the members?

Answer: No. There is nothing in the protocol for SFOG which requires valid reasons or justification for starting any poll or motion. What that means is that members can put forward completely frivolous motions if they wish. It is up to the members as a body to use their brains and vote down stupid motions. If motions were censored, it would not be Open Government, would it?


What if someone just starts a poll with no stated reasons whatsoever? What if they just ask if such and such should be removed from power and leave it to the individuals to supply their own reasons?

It happens all the time. This thread is an example. We have a motion to remove a moderator from his position. It is up to the people who support the motion to give cogent arguments as to why people ought to support it. And for the people who disagree with it - they should vote against it. Simple.

If you can convince people that WCF should be removed as a moderator, then great. If not, then accept that most people disagree with you. Maybe you should put a bit more thought into it before you post your next poll of this type, lest you be labelled as the boy who cried wolf.


Is this truly open government? Is a reason required? Or is it just that a vote must be requested? Are there rules on moderator impeachment? Or is it an informal affair?

The rules are clearly stated for all to read.

One last thing, though. This is Porfiry's site. As such, he has veto over all motions. This is also clearly stated. This has only resulted in the premature closing of polls on a few occasions. I doubt it will on this occasion, but that's at Prof's discretion.
--------

To tiassa and Xev: You are advocating that this poll be closed prematurely. Obviously, I disagree. I say, let the vote go for the allotted time. Then we'll be done with it, one way or the other.

To Arditezza and others who want WCF removed as a moderator: I advise you to build a case against him, because as things stand right now, your position looks fairly weak to me.

To everybody else: Think before you vote. This isn't a popularity contest.

James R:

It is up to the members as a body to use their brains and vote down stupid motions. If motions were censored, it would not be Open Government, would it?

It is not a matter of censorship. It is a means of showing that admin will not be swayed by the spite of a few members.
I brought that up on condition that, by 11/9, nobody has given a reason for this baseless action. Thus the thread would be treated as any other valueless thread, and left to moderator discretion.
Note that stipulation.

Arditezza:

Because you disagree with my assertions does not make me incorrect, and that you assert that is just simply crap.

Do I have to point out the logical failings of this statement?
Your assertions are just that - assertions. They have no backing.


I have given examples of him abusing a poster, which were ignored by you two.

Which was addressed, and being properly addressed, no longer treated.


Spuriousmonkey gave examples of him spamming a thread, which you ignored.

Show them.


And it doesn't take a blind man to see all the times in this very forum and in this thread, WCF telling people to go visit other forums.

Not a valid reason to remove him as a moderator.


Just because you are moderators does not give you the power to close a thread in SFOG that you disagree with.

No, that is the call of one of the uber-mods.


What are you so afraid of that you two would be so insistant on having it closed? If it's so frivolous and unsupported, why are there 15 votes? If you are so confident that it's stupid, why not let it run it's course as it should?

Because I'm fed up with power-hungry hausfraus like yourself bullying their way into positions of influence. Because I don't like the idea of leaving such spiteful tripe up. Because, most of all, I despise the way your type are trying to turn this forum into a Tipper Gore wet dream.

But I am not requesting that the thread be closed. Go back and read my post.

Actually, spamming is repeatedly posting in a thread when you really don't say anything new or add anything to the coversation or take it off topic. Which is exactly what you accused Spurious of.

Here are some examples of WCF telling people that if they don't like it, they can leave, or even pointing them to other forums;(Only going back a month. I'm too tired atm)

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=674045#post674045
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=672579#post672579

Oh, and another stunning example of WCF;s fine moderation and suggestion;

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=672108#post672108
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=667664#post667664
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=666361#post666361
(If you can cipher that post, he knows better than Porfiry and the rest of us how to run a forum)

More insulting of posters;

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=669216#post669216
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=653959#post653959

This is also interesting;

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=665390#post665390
(not to mention WCF repeatedly insults Invert by calling him illogical and saying that he can't have a logical argument)
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=665359#post665359
(same thread, different bullshit)
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=665294#post665294
(again, same thread... this time calling Xev rude)

And this prosecution without a substantial charge is rather disturbing.

Yes, it is somewhat. I have already stated that I don't think that Fetus should be removed from his position for the reasons stated, but as you say there are no rules against "frivolous, scurrilous, or otherwise useless reasons."

Maybe you should start a poll on whether such rules or points of procedure should be introduced?


I mean, talk about a non-sequitur .... "Large percentage, large percentage ... quorum"?

Really ... that's just ... crap.

I said that a large percentage of voters are voting for removing him from office. 44.12% at the moment.

Then you said that "fifteen votes doesn't represent a large percentage of either." Which seems to me to be saying that 44.12% is not good enough for you.

So, I asked you if you are saying that a quorum should be raised from 50 to some higher number? Or maybe there should be a method to ensure that certain valued posters have voted?

You are the one who said that 15 votes are not a large percentage. Not me. 30 votes would also not be a large percentage of total members even if it were 30 out of 55 which would be enough to ensure a passing vote. So, what are you trying to say exactly?

I mean really... that's just... crap.


If you had bothered to read the procedure and rules of SFOG, you would know that there is at present no rule against raising ban proposals for frivolous, scurrilous, or otherwise useless reasons.

I had at one time, that's how I know that a quorum is 50 votes. But, it was quite some time ago.


The only thing I would get from a vote in favor of action is the note that people are finally ready to have something done about the pettiness that has gripped this forum.

What do you mean by pettiness that has gripped the forum? The fact that posters were banned for such petty reasons recently?


Without a more substantial case against WCF's office, all this vote means is whether or not people are tired of the very methods, styles, and privileges they've been defending. Arbitrarily enforcing a rule based on such a shaky claim would not serve this community in the least.

I agree. I would prefer that something were done to address this. But, it seems that nothing will be.


Given the posting history of WCF's "victim", and considering the general tone around here insisted on by diverse posters, I just don't think a qualifying case for any sort of action has been made, and I don't think it can be built without something new, relevant, and well-founded being introduced to the debate.

But, there are no rules against spurious ban threads correct?



Look. I'm being sort of devil's advocate here. But even so, I'm not really arguing FOR Fetus's removal. But, if voter results are going to be just thrown out the window then SFOG might as well just be shut down.

Because no one is posting their reasons for why they are voting the way then we cannot say what criteria they are using. Are they judging Fetus as a poster or a mod? Are they voting to impeach as a sign of disapproval of the recent spate of bannings? Of the apparent nonchalance towards Fetus for practically the same offense that got another member banned?

It is true that warnings were issued before the bannings, but has Fetus been warned for his actions?

Are the rules now under a more lenient observance?

These are the questions that need to be addressed. These are the questions that are being ignored over and over again.





Actually I told monkey (singler) to visit another thread because he fears I am scaring off all of the scientist. I would like to see where I told others to do it.

You also suggested it to me: "if your feed up with how things work here then just leave." But, I didn't mind, personally.





Despite his apparent fixation with attempting to act as a de facto moderator, invert_nexus has raised some valid points here.

Heh. Just call me the new supermod. :p

I don't mean to. It's just that I was in the midst of the picture thread debacle with Fetus. Plus the fact that Fetus pissed me off in Gendanken's Banning thread where he stated that he believed sincerely in not insulting members and then he goes on to an insulting spree.

I originally voted yes as I stated early in this thread but later changed my mind because his actions have no relevance to his modship. And that's why I've been so active in this thread. Because I voted so soon and I have since regretted my vote. I actually thought the vote wouldn't be anywhere near as close as it is. I'm kinda trying to convince people to vote responsibly and to please post why they are voting as they are.

I am not advocating Fetus's removal. If any think I am then they are not reading my words.

I am advocating responsible use of government and moderator powers.


One last thing, though. This is Porfiry's site. As such, he has veto over all motions. This is also clearly stated. This has only resulted in the premature closing of polls on a few occasions. I doubt it will on this occasion, but that's at Prof's discretion.

Absolutely. No arguments from me here.

Because I'm fed up with power-hungry hausfraus like yourself bullying their way into positions of influence. Because I don't like the idea of leaving such spiteful tripe up. Because, most of all, I despise the way your type are trying to turn this forum into a Tipper Gore wet dream.

But I am not requesting that the thread be closed. Go back and read my post.

This is the funniest thing you've ever said to me. And a complete misunderstanding of my intentions.

I am not a moderator, nor am I wanting to be. All I want, is a place where discussion could be had without all the trite bullshit that comes from posters AND moderators. I don't want more moderation, quite the contrary, I want less rules and less stupid moderators. I don't like all the new rules and the new crackdowns on good posters. I don't like the "overzealous cop" (his words not mine) leading a charge against specific posters that he doesn't like. I don't mind insults either, but if you (the moderators) can sling insults whenever you please, it should also be allowed that the posters can as well. I think Open Government sucks, because humans are stupid and can't make up their minds or even commit to trying. All votes here fail because of that, so the whole thing is a lesson in futility.

Why have a democracy when it's a dictatorship? Everyone knows it's a dictatorship and Porfiry will override or veto what he doesn't agree with, so the whole thing is a bit stupid. In my opinion, get rid of SFOG or stop bitching about all the friviolus threads. Every thread in here is frivious, or don't you see that?

But here's the thing. I'm not angry, or spiteful. If I met you or WCF on the street, I wouldn't hold anything here against you because I know about internet personna. I don't do this out of anger at all, I do it for fair and honest treatment of everyone. I do it because I believe you shouldn't fool people into thinking they have a voice here, when clearly they have none.

Actually Arditezza, spamming is defined thus:

spam vt.,vi.,n.

[from "Monty Python's Flying Circus"] 1. To crash a program by overrunning a fixed- size buffer with excessively large input data. See also buffer overflow, overrun screw, smash the stack 2. To cause a newsgroup to be flooded with irrelevant or inappropriate messages. You can spam a newsgroup with as little as one well- (or ill-) planned message (e.g. asking "What do you think of abortion?" on soc.women). This is often done with cross-posting (e.g. any message which is crossposted to alt.rush- limbaugh and alt.politics.homosexuality will almost inevitably spam both groups). This overlaps with troll behavior; the latter more specific term has become more common. 3. To send many identical or nearly-identical messages separately to a large number of Usenet newsgroups. This is more specifically called `ECP', Excessive Cross-Posting. This is one sure way to infuriate nearly everyone on the Net. See also velveeta and jello. 4. To bombard a newsgroup with multiple copies of a message. This is more specifically called `EMP', Excessive Multi-Posting. 5. To mass-mail unrequested identical or nearly-identical email messages, particularly those containing advertising. Especially used when the mail addresses have been culled from network traffic or databases without the consent of the recipients. Synonyms include UCE, UBE.

-New Hacker's Dictionary

Off-topic posts are not necessarily spam.


I am not a moderator, nor am I wanting to be. All I want, is a place where discussion could be had without all the trite bullshit that comes from posters AND moderators.

Then stop feeding the trite bullshit by constantly starting threads about posters.


I think Open Government sucks, because humans are stupid and can't make up their minds or even commit to trying. All votes here fail because of that, so the whole thing is a lesson in futility.

Then why are almost half of your started-threads in Open Government or Site Feedback?

http://www.sciforums.com/search.php?searchid=187634

Arditezza,

Your examples are pretty pathetic.

First of all it was Spuriousmonkey and only him I told to try a science forum if he want more science, he the only on I suggested other forums for.

Second, Many of us moderators make suggestions to Porfiry, many of us try new things and retract are discussions.

Third, many of your examples of insulting are lame at best, being call illogical is not much a insult, all of the examples are thing we have let other members pass by with repeatedly.

invert_nexus:


Because no one is posting their reasons for why they are voting the way then we cannot say what criteria they are using. Are they judging Fetus as a poster or a mod? Are they voting to impeach as a sign of disapproval of the recent spate of bannings? Of the apparent nonchalance towards Fetus for practically the same offense that got another member banned?

Behold the charms of the democracy! You can never really be sure why people vote the way they do. You can only hope they exercise wise judgment - or at least that the number of people who use their brains outnumbers those who do not. Sadly, it doesn't always work that way. It's not a perfect system.

Arditezza:


Everyone knows it's a dictatorship and Porfiry will override or veto what he doesn't agree with, so the whole thing is a bit stupid.

Perhaps it would be worth your time to explore just how often Porfiry overrides votes in this forum. I think you will find it is a very rare thing.

Xev:

Fair enough.

Anyone who moderates the political forum should be as light or heavy handed equally, in regard to how they enforce the forum rules on the posters.

Being strict against only those who hold an opinion that a moderator does not like, while conveniently overlooking the violations of the others is just plain wrong.

wellcookedfetus seems to be either unwilling or unable to be equally fair to all and is doing basically the same thing that the liberal media is doing.

God (and everybody else) knows that I am not perfect, but then again I am not a moderator (and don't want the job).

Surely, there should be someone at Sciforums who could fill the job without shutting down the views of one group of members, while allowing the other side to run rampant with their views and propaganda.

I really am sorry to write this wellcookedfetus. I hold no anger toward you personally, but you are being really unfair about your political moderation and I did vote that you should step down, sir.http://www.sciforums.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

ps...If you do step down as moderator, then you would be free to express your views at the political forum, like everyone else. http://www.sciforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

I was not against your opinion howard, but your post was lacking in evidence, and it’s format was provoking at the very least. You should have notices goofyfish and I close many threads that start off as provocative as yours, the subject are greatly varying and are not limited to moderator political beliefs. I'm sorry if you presume I'm being unfair to you.

if you want examples of my "unfairness" please observe:
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40312
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40299

This Howard is more like it:
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40644

What's with the evidence, wellcookedfetus? Evidence to prove what? I was reporting the scandal and commenting. I then posted pics and commentary that I thought was funny.

The only way that I can prove that the documents are forged is to have a video of someone actually typing the forged documents out!

Besides, almost every news outlet on the planet earth is reporting the incident. If that is not enough proof, then what is?

As far as my thread being "provoking".........so what! What's wrong with it being provocative? I didn't attack any other member. Maybe some won't like it, but I don't like what 99% of what is being posted there now. I find it offensive and almost always completely wrong!

And again, wellcooked fetus, as I have already pointed out at the thread: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40643 & in the PM that I sent to you, the political forum is replete with statements made by other members that have no evidence attached to prove their statements. However, you are not stopping them from making accusations or demanding that they prove it.

You are saying that I should prove absolutely for a fact that the CBS documents are forged, but I'll bet the farm that the political forum is full of statements that claim that Bush went AWOL. Did you demand that these people prove or provide evidence that shows this? Hell no, you haven't!

The job of the moderator should be:
- to make sure that the members reframe from insults and attacks on each other, and
- to limit vulgarity and foul language, and that's all!

If there is anything that is really terrible posted, the moderator might first post a reply that addresses his/her concerns & politely ask the poster to tone it down a bit. Almost all of the first moderators at Sciforums would do that if they thought that a post was a little out of line. Porfiry himself has done just that many times, before taking stern measures.

You are censoring the political views of the members.

If I stopped everyone for rule 1C most of the post on that sub-forum would not exist. Your post not only violated 1C but also 4, the subject was presented in a provoking manner. As you mention my job is to prevent flaming and try to maintain some intellectual quality on those sub-forums, and your post was lacking in both those areas. I also provide an example of a post on the very same subject of much greater quality:
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40644

All I want, is a place where discussion could be had without all the trite bullshit that comes from posters AND moderators.
And for the most part, that is the norm in this place.


I don't want more moderation, quite the contrary, I want less rules and less stupid moderators.
And yet here we are discussing the need for more moderation of moderators. Are the moderators stupid? Hmmm, seeing they were once and continue to be members like you and I Ardi, do you really wish to ask that question? We voted to put them there, so one would think that they are representative of the members.


I don't like all the new rules and the new crackdowns on good posters. I don't like the "overzealous cop" (his words not mine) leading a charge against specific posters that he doesn't like.
Has there been a crackdown on the good posters? I tend not to keep up with the SFOG forum. How many banning threads are there at the moment?


I don't mind insults either, but if you (the moderators) can sling insults whenever you please, it should also be allowed that the posters can as well.
They do. Don't they? I mean I still sling insults at people and I'm still here. But that's a good point. If they sling insults, then so should we as members. If we sling insults, then so should they as members. Hmmm... Don't we already do that anyway? Hell I'm suprised I haven't been banned as yet for insulting other people, including the mods.... well... ermm... nevermind all that... anywho...


I think Open Government sucks, because humans are stupid and can't make up their minds or even commit to trying.
And yet this is where you seem to spend most of your time. Ironic isn't it?


Why have a democracy when it's a dictatorship?
This place is a democracy? *GASP* As far back as I can remember, I have never recalled this forum being democratic. Most of the people here were aware of that when they joined. No one seemed to have a problem with the way the land lay when they joined. So why accept that when joining but complain about it later? And Ardi, democracy does not exist. It's a myth perpetrated by the Governments of this world to shut the people up.


In my opinion, get rid of SFOG or stop bitching about all the friviolus threads. Every thread in here is frivious, or don't you see that?
Get rid of SFOG? But what will you do with your time in here then? ;)


I don't do this out of anger at all, I do it for fair and honest treatment of everyone.
Fair enough. But you do it so much. The problem here Ardi is that people aren't voting for or against WCF for what he did. They are voting based on whether they like him or not. If he broke a big or major rule, then yeah he should be banned, and so should all of us if we break such rules. If it's not a big big rule, then maybe a warning and the offending thread be removed, as they have done in the past and continue to do. I'm not saying that for personal feelings towards WCF. He's done ok as a mod so far, regardless of the debarcle with that stupid phone call, but that's another thread.

What needs to stop are these little banning threads for each time an individual breaks a rule. Their tedious.


I do it because I believe you shouldn't fool people into thinking they have a voice here, when clearly they have none.
If we had no voice in here, this thread would not exist.

RULE 1c (your rule): C. Stating Opinions
If you have an opinion, back it up with evidence, a valid argument and even links and references if possible.

1) wellcookedfetus, what the hell does that rule mean? How can someone provide evidence of their opinion? Are you saying that my opinions are against the "rules?"

2) Why do I need to provide a valid argument to back up my opinion?

I assure you that the words & pics that I posted do reflect my opinion, since I am the one who wrote them. That should be more than enough proof.


RULE 4 (your rule): 4. Goading, flaming and trolling
Posts which, in the moderator's opinion, serve no purpose other than to attempt to provoke an angry reaction from another poster, will be deleted.

My post was provoking only to those who are doing their best to make people believe absolutely the opposite. Again, you are not doing anything to prevent the other side from provoking me or others who believe as I do.


As you mention my job is to prevent flaming and try to maintain some intellectual quality on those sub-forums, and your post was lacking in both those areas.
Wellcookedfetus, you have no idea of what constitutes intellectual quality & you certainly are not qualified to criticize my posts or any other post, for that matter. I am not "flaming" you wellcookedfetus, I am just stating the truth. If you must have evidence or a link to support this statement, then here it is: http://www.sciforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=90 http://www.sciforums.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

That should be more than enough evidence to "prove" it.

HOWARDSTERN,

1) Your opinions are not against the rules as someone managed to post the very same opinions and back it with evidence.

2) Because if you don't then why should we believe you, many people don't provide evidence and thus many will ask them "why should we believe that?" at which point there argument is revealed to be null. The way you distributed your opinion was not in argument form but in inflammatory pictures, fearing retaliation or at the very least total ignoral of you topic that I think needs to be discussed intellectually, I close your thread.

When others post computer generated pic of Bush snorting smack and saying "look at him snort smack, re-elect a drugy?", I'll delete that to.

Your stating the truth without evidence and appealing to imagery was pretty bad statement. Sorry it is not true until you prove it true, and based on your imagery you have a lot to prove. If you want to learn how to make proper arguments I recommend readings on critical reasoning skills and fallacies, general philosophy also helps.

Your link must be broken because, unless you think the whole subforum supports your statement?

Once again, we see the people calling for action have no case to put before us. Unable to respond to Xev's explanations, unable to answer my inquiries, we see that those calling for action against WCF are incapable of putting forward an honest justification for their position.


The case is presented in the beginning. Unlike you I don't feel the need to reiterate the same point over and over until the other person gives up.

get a mouse with a scroll wheel and scroll to the beginning of the thread.

Actually I told monkey (singler) to visit another thread because he fears I am scaring off all of the scientist.

I don't fear anything. You scare scientists away.



I would like to see where I told others to do it.

What is that supposed to mean? Is a little conspiracy theory building up in your brain again?

First of all it was Spuriousmonkey and only him I told to try a science forum if he want more science, he the only on I suggested other forums for.


It is rather condescending to recommend me to go to another science forum. As if I can't find the google button on my browser.

I never told you I wanted more science. I was of the opinion that you should stop being an asshole towards every scientists that comes to this forum. Maybe then the level f this forum can ve raised. Because that seems to be the public standpoint of sciforums management: there is a desire to raise the level of the forum.

wellcookedfetus,

Since you have already berated me for posting in this thread (and called it cross posting), I will direct you to the other thread:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=676136#post676136
I had not intended to carry on the same debate on two different threads. But I feel that I must respond to your many false accusations against me on this thread.


HOWARDSTERN,
1) Your opinions are not against the rules as someone managed to post the very same opinions and back it with evidence.



You say that my opinions are not against the rules, yet you say that I can't post them, without providing evidence that they are my opinions with this rule:
Political Forum Rules
C. Stating Opinions
If you have an opinion, back it up with evidence, a valid argument and even links and references if possible.

For one thing, wellcookedfetus, that rule makes no sense at all. It says that I must provide evidence of my opinion. An opinion is just that. An opinion does not mean that it is a fact. There is a big difference between an opinion and a fact, wellcookedfetus.


2) Because if you don't then why should we believe you, many people don't provide evidence and thus many will ask them "why should we believe that?" at which point there argument is revealed to be null. The way you distributed your opinion was not in argument form but in inflammatory pictures, fearing retaliation or at the very least total ignoral of you topic that I think needs to be discussed intellectually, I close your thread.

I don't care if you believe it or not, wellcookedfetus. It's up to you or anyone else to choose to believe it or not.

Besides all that, wellcooked fetus, I did not state that any of the things at my closed thread were facts. In fact, I was asking questions, not stating anything as being a fact.

You seem to be more than a little confused about the differences between opinions and facts, wellcooked fetus.


The way you distributed your opinion was not in argument form but in inflammatory pictures, fearing retaliation or at the very least total ignoral of you topic that I think needs to be discussed intellectually, I close your thread.

wellcookedfetus, the quote above that you wrote pretty much says it all. It should not be up to you to decide what is being discussed intellectually. Your job should be to maintain the peace to some degree, basically.


When others post computer generated pic of Bush snorting smack and saying "look at him snort smack, re-elect a drugy?", I'll delete that to.

For god's sakes why? Yes it will offend me, but that's why I read that forum: to find out about the opinions of those that I don't agree with. I don't want you or anyone else to sugar coat it because you are afraid that someone will be offended! That's their opinion, wellcookedfetus. I know it's not true. If I want evidence from the guy that posts a picture of GWB snorting coke, I'll ask/demand it from them myself. I don't need you to hold my hand & spoon feed me or the other members, sir.


Your stating the truth without evidence and appealing to imagery was pretty bad statement. Sorry it is not true until you prove it true, and based on your imagery you have a lot to prove.

First, I never stated that it was true, wellcookedfetus. You are accusing me of something that I did not do. In fact, I was asking a rhetorical question & commenting that if true, some people could be looking at prison time. After that, I posted pics & humor. Obviously, you don't know the difference.

Second, I should not have to prove anything, wellcookedfetus. That is not what the political forum is about. If you are so hot for the truth, wellcooked fetus, then you should try to find it in official government records, by way of the Freedom Of Information Act. Or at least watch the goings on of the government at C-span, with an open mind and a large dose of skepticism of both parties. That skepticism should also be applied to all sides of the media, as well as the many political action groups that are constantly jockeying for power over others, by way of bills & proposed amendments.



Your stating the truth without evidence and appealing to imagery was pretty bad statement. .


Again, I did not make any statements saying that they are absolutely forged documents. I NEVER said that!



Sorry it is not true until you prove it true, and based on your imagery you have a lot to prove.
I WAS NOT TRYING TO PROVE ANYTHING AS BEING FACTUAL WITH THOSE PICS! ! !



If you want to learn how to make proper arguments I recommend readings on critical reasoning skills and fallacies, general philosophy also helps

My God man, based on what you have written so far, I believe that any reasoning person would suggest that it is you who needs take a remedial course in critical reasoning!

As far as my ability to make proper arguments, I think that what I have written in this argument with you proves that you could learn volumes about philosophy, reasoning skills, ect.. from me, guy.


Your link must be broken because, unless you think the whole subforum supports your statement?
Honestly, wellcooked, I don't know what the hell you mean by this one. I'm damn good at deciphering gibberish of idiots, but that one takes the cake!

Besides, I'm just tired of your retarded arguments. Yes, I guess that I just flamed you a bit, but what the hell! At least there is plenty of proof, that you have so willingly provided.

............................

Xev and Bells-

Let me clear something up, since you can't stop making this about me.

Just because the threads I started are "mostly" in SFOG, you will find that most of my posts are not. I wasn't aware that one had to start posts in other forums to be contributing to the discussions. I contribute to lots of discussions in other forums, tho I do rarely begin them. Does that make me someone only concerned with SFOG?

I think that you two have both completely mislabeled me on some absolutely bullshit idea that one needs to begin posts in a forum to actually be contributing.

Ardi, calm down. Don't get your knickers in a knot. I was merely saying that the only place I ever see you post is in SFOG. How have I mislabeled you in saying that? You like posting in here? Then good for you. Keep on truckin... I don't particularly give a flying shit where you post, I was merely pointing out my own personal observation. And seeing that this is the first thread that I voiced that observation, I would hardly see that as something that I can't stop doing. Now get off that high horse of yours. And for God's sake, stop taking everything said in here so personally.

Bells,

I'm not upset, and it was more directed at Xev than you as she is the one in this thread constantly trying to make this about me, and she's already pointed out several times that many of the threads I have started are in SFOG, as if one has to start threads to be participating in other forums. I'm not taking it personally, just trying to focus the attention back to the point of the thread and away from slinging accusations as to my intentions by disproving the accusation itself.

Arditezza, it doesn't matter how many other threads you start in other forums. SFOG is a forum like all the others. You're right, this thread is not about you and if I in some way pointed out comments at you, then I apologise. No offence was meant.

The case is presented in the beginning. Unlike you I don't feel the need to reiterate the same point over and over until the other person gives up.

Neither, apparently, do you pay attention to people's posts.

You've refused to address a simple issue:

• Xev's responses pretty much address the case presented at the outset. There is nothing new to go on.



Why don't you let us know what about Xev's responses to this topic don't make sense to you. That's a good place to start.

Why didn't you answer that point before? Is it because you can't think of a legitimate answer?

You present disingenuous criticism, you duck the legitimate issues, and then you complain that the issues considered by what you've ducked aren't being held aloft as some sort of Gospel of Hate.

Whatever.

I have more of a problem with folks like you, who exist it seems merely to waste bandwidth and people's time for some petty exercise in self-gratification, than I do with the odds and ends slings and arrows that go on around here.

If you're so thin-skinned and intellectually stunted that you can't deal with WCF in a manner that legitimizes your complaints, don't take it out on the rest of us.

Once upon a time a band called Chemistry Set sang, "Baring your soul is the 'in' thing to do; it's fun and it's easy for an empty-headed fool." A decade and a half's consideration of the point suggests that the soul-bearing fools were, at least, trying to be constructive. These days, selfish complaining, egocentric demands that the Universe conform to your will, are the fun and easy things to do. I'd rather drink with the fools of old, because at least they're trying to be honest.

I don't know what your excuse is, Spuriousmonkey.



The case is presented in the beginning.

Don't be so dishonest.

Don't waste SFOG with such a pathetic excuse for argumentation.

That case at the beginning has been effectively addressed, and you and all of WCF's angry critics have pretty much avoided any response or rebuttal.

So either put up or cram it. If you can't make an intellectually-honest argument, then stop touting your goddamned scientific credentials, because you're showing exactly what they're worth: nothing.

Seriously, do you claim that your arguments represent your training?


get a mouse with a scroll wheel and scroll to the beginning of the thread.

Such hostility doesn't really make any point. Just because you are afraid to examine this case honestly doesn't mean you have a point to make.

Get an attitude check, beg, borrow, or buy a point, and try being a decent human being for once in your Sciforums life.

For what its worth-

The Fetus has not broken any moderator rules- everyone here is ill-mannered to some extent.
So?
Should we go down the list and ban or dethrone everyone that breaks the 'rules'? If so, save the energy and just blow the whole fucking place up.

What irks is that Fetus sounds like a fucking fetus.
Tiassa is a man of position. So is James. So is Coffee and Xev and whomever else I've left out (other than the Fish because I'm being a vindictive cow.)
Wouldn't you rather focus on the Fetus' incapacities as an intellectual than as a good hall monitor? Tessie I'd run over in a millisecond but I respect him as worthy of his position.
The Fetus can't even type.

Voted no, because he's making considerable effort, learning, and showing progress. I liked him better before he was a monitor, but I don't want to see him cast gasping from the incubator yet- better to see what develops. Even a monster would be amusing. : pokes WCF with stick:

blaba

I really don't give a fuck about argumentation. You seem trouble understanding that nobody cares about your argumentation either.

edit- let me concentrate the message for you: I do not care.

let me concentrate the message for you: I do not care

You never did. That's why you were incapable of supporting your libelous venom with anything substantial.

Of course, why would a trained scientist care about argumentation, reliability, validity, method, investigation, or anything else so similar?

Better scientists than you do care about those things. You're just a random attitude problem. If you don't care, then why waste your time on such topics? Oh, that's right, you don't. You just pop off with whatever dishonest crap comes to mind and pretend it's real.

Let me concentrate the message for you: Leave the discussion to the intelligent people.

Leave the discussion to the intelligent people.


like who? You?

you are funny.

All those dirty words
They make us look so dumb
What happened to us?
Soon it will be gone forever -- and it's gone ...

For crying out loud, is declaring how much one doesn't give a fuck about something or someone really such a virtue one must aspire to?!

Yes it is.

Why?

It is not so much a matter of not caring about things but rather caring about the proper things.

And in the case of WCF, these "proper things" are ...?

I guess you can answer that yourself now.

like who? You?

Wow, you sure do go a long way to insult the rest of your fellow posters. I mean, look at all the people you left off the list. They'll be glad to know what you think of them.

Let me get this straight. You exclude me from the list of intelligent people (Could be considered an insult). And now you get all upset because I return the favour to you?

Smoking pot again?

Let me get this straight. You exclude me from the list of intelligent people (Could be considered an insult). And now you get all upset because I return the favour to you?

(chortle!)

What the hell are you talking about?


Smoking pot again?

Put down the crack pipe and try again.

(Hint - Take it more slowly this time:read the post.)

I guess you can answer that yourself now.

No, I can't.
What "proper things" are to one person, may be "improper things" to another.

***
But anyway, this is getting tedious.

From what I've gathered, the reason to remove WCF's moderator status is (for those who wish so) not that he would be a bad moderator; but the reason is his "lack of social graces, humanity, intelligence and such" -- right?

While being a bad moderator can be easily proven, "lacking social graces, humanity, intelligence" is easy to point at, but hard to condemn in a just way, with arguments.

In other words, those who want WCF's moderator status removed wish so because WCF is "not man enough", not because he'd be a bad moderator.
Or?

It's not because he's not man enough. It's because he's a hypocrite, an antagonist, and is spammy even by Xev's definition. In some threads he just says one line quips that are completely off topic, but he keeps up with it. He's over zealous, illiterate, makes very bad judgments, insults posters, he can't type, can't get a point across, is hyper paranoid, thinks everyone hates him, isn't fair to certain posters, too quick on the trigger, lacks social graces, humanity and he's not very bright at all.

All of which has been reiterated, and even pointed to in this thread.

It's not because he's not man enough. It's because he's a hypocrite, an antagonist, and is spammy even by Xev's definition. In some threads he just says one line quips that are completely off topic, but he keeps up with it. He's over zealous, illiterate, makes very bad judgments, insults posters, he can't type, can't get a point across, is hyper paranoid, thinks everyone hates him, isn't fair to certain posters, too quick on the trigger, lacks social graces, humanity and he's not very bright at all.

All of which has been reiterated, and even pointed to in this thread.

If you say that he is "a hypocrite, an antagonist, and is spammy even by Xev's definition. In some threads he just says one line quips that are completely off topic, but he keeps up with it. He's over zealous, illiterate, makes very bad judgments, insults posters, he can't type, can't get a point across, is hyper paranoid, thinks everyone hates him, isn't fair to certain posters, too quick on the trigger, lacks social graces, humanity and he's not very bright at all" -- then you are, in short, saying that he is not "man enough".

You want his moderator status be removed because of his personality (which you do not like) then?
And you would like to see some smarter, with more humanity and social graces etc. in his position?

Fact is, he has been elected for moderator, those who voted for him had their reasons to do so. Apparently, to them, being "a hypocrite, an antagonist, spammy, quipping one-liners that are completely off topic, but keeping up with it, being over zealous, illiterate, making very bad judgments, insulting posters, not being able to type, get a point across, being hyper paranoid, thinking everyone hates you, not being fair to certain posters, being too quick on the trigger, lacking social graces, humanity, and not being very bright at all" -- was either acceptable, or they have completely other measurements.

As far as I can see, if you want this forum to be after your taste, you will have to do something with the voters, so that they will vote in a manner that will be pleasing to you ...
And calling them "stupid people" won't help, mind you.

blabla

I hope you can understand yourself.

It is not so much a matter of not caring about things but rather caring about the proper things.


Friends, love, family (if you can stand them), enjoying life.

I might as well start subscribing to AOL again if this is the kind of shit that sciforums is turning into. Now, both, no... all of you shut the fuck up.

Oh yes, no one is forcing me to read this thread; but when it becomes apparent that the entire forum is degrading into this drivel... Well, someone has to cuss.

And yes, I care about this situation deeply because I've spent a large amount of time here and have invested in its quality. Saying that you don't care is a major fuck up. So is assumption (If you get my movie reference; I'll give you head, or face).

I'm sure the quality of the forum is raised by scaring away scientists.

All of which has been reiterated, and even pointed to in this thread.

And none of which has been impressive enough to convince me that we'd be doing anything but arbitrarily enforcing a rule that posters strive to trample every day.

I hope you can understand yourself.

And I hope someday you can beg, borrow, or buy a legitimate point.

Yes indeed, the fact that he likes to scare scientists away with his behaviour is not a legitimate point.

It's not because he's not man enough. It's because he's a hypocrite, an antagonist, and is spammy even by Xev's definition. In some threads he just says one line quips that are completely off topic, but he keeps up with it. He's over zealous ,illiterate, makes very bad judgments, insults posters, he can't type, can't get a point across, is hyper paranoid, thinks everyone hates him, isn't fair to certain posters, too quick on the trigger, lacks social graces, humanity and he's not very bright at all.

All of which has been reiterated, and even pointed to in this thread.

I know that I shouldn't laugh after reading that perfect description of wellcooked fetus,......................but:
http://www.sciforums.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif***http://www.sciforums.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif***http://www.sciforums.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif***http://www.sciforums.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

But seriously now,

I think that wellcookedfetus is trying too hard to do his job. Arditezza's description of wellcookedfetus being "over zealous" seems to be his biggest problem as a moderator.

One of my favorite moderators was old "Oxygen." Every so often, I would go by there and antagonize the religious & anti-religious members, just to get them stirred up a little, as well as give them somebody to punch on & to take out their frustration. And to Oxygen's credit, he would only go after me when I got really out of hand & started in with foul language, ect.. But even then, Oxygen would just post a very polite reply message saying something like, 'Hey Howard, I know what you are doing, but some of the members are complaining about your ...... Would you please refrain from this?'

I always respected Oxygen for that, because it showed that he could deal with a very disruptive element (like me) without creating a civil war, getting personally involved, hurting my feelings & intimidating me, or drawing unnecessary attention & criticism to himself. In all of the times that I would get drunk & terrorize the religious forum, not once did Oxygen delete my crap or ban me. He didn't have to, because he would be polite and respectful toward me, even when I was being a beligerent, drunken ass**ole. And even in that condition, I could appreciate his kindness & would usually stop right afterwards (well, most of the timehttp://www.sciforums.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif).


The point is that, if wellcooked fetus were running religion, he would have either instantly deleted my junk, banned me, or both. At the very least he would have engaged in a series of personal attacks, insults, or arguments.

Honestly, I don't want to see wellcookedfetus forcefully removed from his moderator position. I'm sure that it means a lot to him and I know that all of the criticism is very hurtful to him. I'm sure that he is doing the very best that he can. In fact, I think that he is trying to do his job too well. If he would just stay out of the fray and only step in to be helpful or to settle things down (a little) when they get out of hand, then I think that all of the members would respect his moderating and even grow to like him, in time.

This may sound completely crazy, but how about if the all moderators were to trade off their own forums, like a vacation away...., with each other, say for a month or so? The time away from the same old forum would probably do everyone some good. How about if Stryderunknown & wellcooked fetus were to trade forums for a month? Stryder is another one of those people that I have tried to rile up & every since I came back from the dead, he has shown great restraint toward me. In fact, I feel that he one of the most respected moderators on the internet. In turn, the time away from the political forum would probably do wellcookedfetus a lot of good. He could spend a little more time in computer tech & if something came up that he couldn't help a member with, he could always get a little help from Stryder. I would think that all of the other moderators get a little tired of dealing with the same old forum day after day and that they might like to trade with each other occasionally. It would surely broaden everyone's horizons and bring in some fresh perspectives and ideas. I am sure that if wellcookedfetus got the extra input from being in different forums, that it could only help him and I personally would much prefer that over removing him & eventually causing him to leave Sciforums altogether, out of shame and hurt feelings.

Thanks for reading,
Howie

That is a rather extreme way of reading his behaviour towards inamoranta.
How did he "drive her away"? By treating her as a sexual object?

Foolishness. A woman who posts the sort of picture she did is presenting herself as a sexual object. Your argument is akin to that of the woman who dresses provocatively and then takes offense to being whistled at. Utter hypocrisy.

Was it by swearing? If she is that thin-skinned, then she would have been driven away by the first flame she encountered.

By requesting a nude photo? Again, this is a bit of common sense women like to pretend to forget: if you present yourself in a sexual manner, men will respond to you in a sexual manner.

Ignoring that, the request was tounge in cheek, and you have been more misogynistic in posts that fetus ever has.
Beam...mote.

You want me to explain to you in what kind of atmosphere scientists in general like to discuss scientific topics?

Well, when said "scientists" choose to post their pictures - and to post "sexy" pictures at that - then I can only assume that those "scientists" like to discuss "scientific topics" in a hormonal haze.

sexy pictures. You must be really horny or something.

And none of which has been impressive enough to convince me that we'd be doing anything but arbitrarily enforcing a rule that posters strive to trample every day.

Does it matter that you have that opinion? Are Points only valid if you happen to agree with them? Are you the judge whether a point is impressive enough?

I thought that was what the vote was for on the top of this thread.

Newsflash: Different people judge the same things differenty.

That is the most egegriously stupid thing I've seen today.
A woman posts a picture of herself that has been framed and lit in a way designed to make her look more attractive. I do not have to be horny - or a lesbian, for that matter - to realize that she is trying to appear "sexy".

Ok, that's it! ! ! !

As far as all of the nicer things that I LAST wrote about well cooked fetus brain, ...................
SCREW IT ! ! !

Here's an example of why he should be removed:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40529&page=1&pp=20

and:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40529&page=2&pp=20

Mine explaining what I did wrong?

WellCookedFetus Mine explaining what I did wrong?

What have you done right?

This is like rock and roll with no music. :D

Now I think WCF needs more of an explaination than "What have ya done right".

This is like rock and roll with no music. :D

Now I think WCF needs more of an explaination than "What have ya done right".

What good would it do? He can't or won't even try to understand any of the complaints that are being leveled against him.

Well, when said "scientists" choose to post their pictures - and to post "sexy" pictures at that - then I can only assume that those "scientists" like to discuss "scientific topics" in a hormonal haze.

Hoo doggy, sounds like somebody likes the monkeyman :p

What good would it do? He can't or won't even try to understand any of the complaints that are being leveled against him.

Maybe he won't, but another moderator would. ;)

Howardstern, you persist on removing a moderator who has done no wrong. He is, like yourself, human and shouldn't be perfect in his duties. So I hazard that you stop this foolishness at once. Those previous two links are not legitimate reasons for him to get removed from his present position.

Hoo doggy, sounds like somebody likes the monkeyman :p

Who doesn't?! Right spuriousmonkey? ;)

Maybe he won't, but another moderator would. ;)

Yep! I agree completely! You should run for his job, Athelwulf. I would vote for you, in a heartbeat.


Wellcookedfetus is a complete jerk. He needs to be replaced.

Howardstern, you persist on removing a moderator who has done no wrong. He is, like yourself, human and shouldn't be perfect in his duties. So I hazard that you stop this foolishness at once. Those previous two links are not legitimate reasons for him to get removed from his present position.

No, not alone their not. But they are not even a fraction of what he continues to do.

You should run for his job, Athelwulf. I would vote for you, in a heartbeat.

Aww . . . Thank you. And ya haven't even heard my speech.

No, not alone their not. But they are not even a fraction of what he continues to do.

(They're** to correct your error)

Then please, do give more examples of what he continues to do.

Aww . . . Thank you. And ya haven't even heard my speech.

Well, it's kinda like when Gov. Davis was recalled in California. People didn't really need to listen to the Terminator to know that he was better than what they had in office already.http://www.sciforums.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

(They're** to correct your error)


No guy. "They're" is a contraction of "they are". Both are acceptable.

HOWARDSTERN,

Explain in those two link you just provided what I have done wrong?

No guy. "They're" is a contraction of "they are". Both are acceptable.

If I do recall the post I quoted, it said "their". Your little cheats do not amuse me so.

OOOPS......
After looking back, I see that I did spell it "their." I'm so embarrased ! ! !http://www.sciforums.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

No I didn't cheat.

HOWARDSTERN,

Explain in those two link you just provided what I have done wrong?


Read this & try to understand where I am coming from, wellcookedfetus:


One of my favorite moderators was old "Oxygen." Every so often, I would go by there and antagonize the religious & anti-religious members, just to get them stirred up a little, as well as give them somebody to punch on & to take out their frustration. And to Oxygen's credit, he would only go after me when I got really out of hand & started in with foul language, ect.. But even then, Oxygen would just post a very polite reply message saying something like, 'Hey Howard, I know what you are doing, but some of the members are complaining about your ...... Would you please refrain from this?'

I always respected Oxygen for that, because it showed that he could deal with a very disruptive element (like me) without creating a civil war, getting personally involved, hurting my feelings & intimidating me, or drawing unnecessary attention & criticism to himself. In all of the times that I would get drunk & terrorize the religious forum, not once did Oxygen delete my crap or ban me. He didn't have to, because he would be polite and respectful toward me, even when I was being a beligerent, drunken ass**ole. And even in that condition, I could appreciate his kindness & would usually stop right afterwards (well, most of the time).

I'm sorry if you disagree with how I moderate, unfortunately your examples there do not make a reason to impeach me.

and I was not being polite and respectful to you in those links you posted?

OOOPS......
After looking back, I see that I did spell it "their." I'm so embarrased ! ! !http://www.sciforums.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

No I didn't cheat.

Then I apologize for my false claim.

To hell with this. I spent several hours reading the off topic mud slinging of the other members at:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40644

and then several hours merely responding politely to them at that thread, only to have it removed/split and censored by WellCookedFetus, into another thread.

While I agree that it was off topic, I didn't start the off topic slams by the other members. I notice that their off topic slams are still there.

To hell with it. I deleted my posts on the split thread and left.

I guess that I should have made a complaint at site feedback to Porfiry after all. But that's probably useless also.

Bye......

05-17-04, 10:11 AM




If not, perhaps it is time to close the thread.


this is astounding. is this level of commitment the administration has towards this noble experiment in democracy? is this an indication of the contempt the administration has towards the community?

your facist impulse to shut down this thread is analogous to closing down the polling station and burning the ballot boxes simply because a riot broke out. it very heavy handed and total overkill.

i made a suggestion earlier to delete posts in question as off topic. why do you not think that reasonable? edits are also an option. please consider them.

marching in here with your jackboots and threats puts you in a very bad light. i would be ashamed. but then again, that's just me

i notice paulsamuel's plea towards you. did you like that? would you like the rest of us to beg for the privilege to have our voices heard?

from here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=581242)

heh, that was then


To tiassa and Xev: You are advocating that this poll be closed prematurely. Obviously, I disagree. I say, let the vote go for the allotted time. Then we'll be done with it, one way or the other.

this is now.

see? we have james renouncing facism only to have these two tards, xev and tiassa, donning their jackboots and frantically goosetepping in unison.

i tell ya man. power does indeed make strange bedfellows.

*vomit

hmm ;)
fetus, what is the bodycount so far?
i see the sexy biologist and stern

fetus
you making yourself invisible?

hehe

you forgot paulsamuel :D

by the way the new anti-sockpuppeting policy will make quick work of you, sorry. better hope they don't find out and with a name like that it won't be to long.

130.166.115.xx : s115n060.csun.edu
anu 130.166.115.xx
ghost of anu 130.166.115.xx
Hathor 130.166.115.xx
kazi 130.166.115.xx

interesting, you publish ip to the public? reason?

Proof that you are a sock puppet? Or at least that one user had all of these accounts?

The possibilities... also, he does not publish your whole IP address.

its a lie: the speaker is trying to convince another that his new pet snake is good, especially when its eating him. bye-bye anu. :D

Oh well that over with, see you all at the next bannish thread against me.

I wouldn't be so please with yourself with so many votes against you.

who said I was pleased?

I'm quite pleased with myself.

Well your a asshole of course your pleased.