Yes, I noticed last night. I looked at his recent posts, and the only 'offense' I could come up with was his 'opps' post, post no. 17 in the Sciforums World Map thread in the About the Members subforum. I thought it was funny, but it seems some moderators do not have a sense of humor. I suppose they thought Nick was 'promoting violence'. That may not be the reason for his banning at all, but I could find no recent infractions against him.
james R still is trolling
- Thread starter spuriousmonkey
- Start date
- Status
It's a good thing I'm not a mod. I'd have you all beheaded, then banned - indefinitely!
Opinions is not what should be heralded first, not before the capacity behind the person who expresses an opinion. And if that capacity is not fully understood or in full view, a person's capacity is nonetheless present and manifest—in his opinion. Inotherwords, it's all about vibes, baby, vibes.
Actually Nick's Temporary ban was due to being asked to do a couple of things, one in regards to his User Title and the other was in regards to him posting without any useful content.
I've given him warnings before, however I've never been stern with him. It's just some posters for entertainment will push the boundaries just to see how far they can go and well unfortunately for Nick he went a little too far this time.
I've given him warnings before, however I've never been stern with him. It's just some posters for entertainment will push the boundaries just to see how far they can go and well unfortunately for Nick he went a little too far this time.
Yep. Our private little playground.so you and sam can do stuff eh?
Anyway, the yahoos here complaining about the mods should be thankful at just how tolerant they all are. If they troll or inject their own opinion sometimes, so what?
If you get your way, there are two possibilities:
1) The moderation stops and any rational person finds another forum.
2) The mods become modnazis and any rational person finds another forum.
I like the mix of rationals and wacknuts here.
Don't fuck it up!
..Rant concludes / 19:22 .. Exit code 377 ... message terminated..
redarmy11:
I don't really see how much of this relates to my actions as a moderator. I see most of these comments as your personal assessment of my online persona. I could easily respond in kind with my assessment of your personality, but I don't think it would be very productive.
Briefly, though, I'd like dispute your perception that I am "too quick to show annoyance". On the contrary, I would say that my restraint in responding to deliberate provocation is most times admirable; many members have commented on that in the past. I do not "jump to conclusions" about people. I form a perception of them based on their posts, just like everybody else here. I am seldom, if ever, rude, but as I said I am quite willing to meet arrogance with arrogance. Probably it is this that you regard as pomposity. I do not believe I am beyond reproach. If I did, this thread would not remain open.
I certainly try to prick consciences from time to time, where they exist. The resulting feelings, I hope, are not entirely my doing. I hope that some people can reflect on their poor actions and feel shame and regret. It's not something that many people are good at in the modern world.
Your assumption that I do not already do this is quite telling. My first approach to problem posts is always done in a way which points out why certain behaviour on the forum is unacceptable and how that behaviour might change to become acceptable. The vast majority of infractions that I hand out have zero personal element. As I said earlier, most result from reports by other members.
Where the gentle reminders and warnings fail to result in any change of behaviour, then it becomes necessary to take a harder line. And when there is deliberate flouting of the posting guidelines, often in an attempt to provoke the moderators, there is no point in treating the member involved with kid gloves.
I have explained the rationale behind the infraction system in an earlier post in this thread. There is currently no plan to drop it. It is a warning system for users and an accounting system for moderators.
mountainhare:
Thus multiplying the workload for the remaining moderators by many times. Few people would volunteer for that job.
Perhaps you were not here when the Open Government forum accepted proposals for members on which everyone could vote. What resulted was that over 90% of proposals were proposals to ban one or another member. And most of those were motivated by personal animosities.
Much as the members here complain about the moderators, when given the chance to govern themselves all the evidence shows that they did a sub-standard job.
Bans at present are only given for severe offences, or for a continued pattern of bad behaviour over a short period of time (10 days).
None of the posters you list here were excellent contributors.
Why not try a porn site instead?
shichimenshyo:
Yes, I am. My avatar identifies me, just as everybody else's avatars identify them. Stealing an avatar is a kind of identity theft. Besides that, copying an avatar without permission is a display of immense bad manners.
I also note that you have not apologised.
Please read my lengthy post on this topic earlier in the thread.
About Nickelodeon:
That was not the reason for his banning.
I banned him for three reasons:
(a) he was asked to change an offensive user title to something acceptable, and instead he changed it to something equally offensive.
(b) he joined in pencil's vandalism of sciforums
(c) over the last few days he has gone out of his way to post useless comments in many threads, which amounts to trolling.
He was given warnings and asked to change his behaviour. He did not do so.
VitalOne:
Next time you want to make such a suggestion, try to come up with a reason to support your personal prejudice. Thankyou.
I don't really see how much of this relates to my actions as a moderator. I see most of these comments as your personal assessment of my online persona. I could easily respond in kind with my assessment of your personality, but I don't think it would be very productive.
Briefly, though, I'd like dispute your perception that I am "too quick to show annoyance". On the contrary, I would say that my restraint in responding to deliberate provocation is most times admirable; many members have commented on that in the past. I do not "jump to conclusions" about people. I form a perception of them based on their posts, just like everybody else here. I am seldom, if ever, rude, but as I said I am quite willing to meet arrogance with arrogance. Probably it is this that you regard as pomposity. I do not believe I am beyond reproach. If I did, this thread would not remain open.
I certainly try to prick consciences from time to time, where they exist. The resulting feelings, I hope, are not entirely my doing. I hope that some people can reflect on their poor actions and feel shame and regret. It's not something that many people are good at in the modern world.
Your assumption that I do not already do this is quite telling. My first approach to problem posts is always done in a way which points out why certain behaviour on the forum is unacceptable and how that behaviour might change to become acceptable. The vast majority of infractions that I hand out have zero personal element. As I said earlier, most result from reports by other members.
Where the gentle reminders and warnings fail to result in any change of behaviour, then it becomes necessary to take a harder line. And when there is deliberate flouting of the posting guidelines, often in an attempt to provoke the moderators, there is no point in treating the member involved with kid gloves.
I have explained the rationale behind the infraction system in an earlier post in this thread. There is currently no plan to drop it. It is a warning system for users and an accounting system for moderators.
mountainhare:
Thus multiplying the workload for the remaining moderators by many times. Few people would volunteer for that job.
Perhaps you were not here when the Open Government forum accepted proposals for members on which everyone could vote. What resulted was that over 90% of proposals were proposals to ban one or another member. And most of those were motivated by personal animosities.
Much as the members here complain about the moderators, when given the chance to govern themselves all the evidence shows that they did a sub-standard job.
Bans at present are only given for severe offences, or for a continued pattern of bad behaviour over a short period of time (10 days).
None of the posters you list here were excellent contributors.
Why not try a porn site instead?
shichimenshyo:
He really is serious about his avatar
Yes, I am. My avatar identifies me, just as everybody else's avatars identify them. Stealing an avatar is a kind of identity theft. Besides that, copying an avatar without permission is a display of immense bad manners.
I also note that you have not apologised.
Please read my lengthy post on this topic earlier in the thread.
About Nickelodeon:
That was not the reason for his banning.
I banned him for three reasons:
(a) he was asked to change an offensive user title to something acceptable, and instead he changed it to something equally offensive.
(b) he joined in pencil's vandalism of sciforums
(c) over the last few days he has gone out of his way to post useless comments in many threads, which amounts to trolling.
He was given warnings and asked to change his behaviour. He did not do so.
VitalOne:
Next time you want to make such a suggestion, try to come up with a reason to support your personal prejudice. Thankyou.
Well if it actually made you mad that I stole your avatar I apologize, but if something like someone stealing your avatar upsets you bad enough to threaten to ban them instead of just telling me that you wanted it taken down (which I would have done) then you need to get some thicker skin.
-shichi-
shichimenshyo:
If you had chosen a different time, my reaction may well have been more equivocal. However, at the time, we had a number of members trolling sciforums, several members making personal attacks on me and one member trying to vandalise the forum. I was not in a receptive mood for jokes.
Also, for future reference, note that an apology of the form "If I have offended you..." is a form of weasel words. An apology is supposed to be sincere and unqualified. Essentially, your apology is cancelled by your insistence that my thin skin is to blame rather than your own unscrupulous actions.
Let's just drop it, shall we?
If you had chosen a different time, my reaction may well have been more equivocal. However, at the time, we had a number of members trolling sciforums, several members making personal attacks on me and one member trying to vandalise the forum. I was not in a receptive mood for jokes.
Also, for future reference, note that an apology of the form "If I have offended you..." is a form of weasel words. An apology is supposed to be sincere and unqualified. Essentially, your apology is cancelled by your insistence that my thin skin is to blame rather than your own unscrupulous actions.
Let's just drop it, shall we?
Deal, no hard feelings?
James:
The fact that several moderators would 'struggle' under the workload implies that they are overmoderating. If they don't feel the need to micro-manage every conflict and blip on a forum, then they won't be overworked.
Sure I was. And that's irrelevant. Freedom of expression should be allowed in the Open Government forum. It's up to the moderators to decide whether they take the stuff seriously, though.
'Bad behaviour' does not equate to severe offenses.
Depends what you define as 'porn', doesn't it? I'd argue that shot of beautiful females (or males!) is very artistic in nature. Merely because it doesn't suit your tastes does not mean it should be censored.
The fact that several moderators would 'struggle' under the workload implies that they are overmoderating. If they don't feel the need to micro-manage every conflict and blip on a forum, then they won't be overworked.
Sure I was. And that's irrelevant. Freedom of expression should be allowed in the Open Government forum. It's up to the moderators to decide whether they take the stuff seriously, though.
'Bad behaviour' does not equate to severe offenses.
Depends what you define as 'porn', doesn't it? I'd argue that shot of beautiful females (or males!) is very artistic in nature. Merely because it doesn't suit your tastes does not mean it should be censored.
James
I think the criticism towards you has been far disproportionate. It is only like this though, because you hold the crown jewels so to say.
Authority will always be challenged: And whilst you yourself is not impervious or infallible to error, you can understand why i might personally have found one of the reasons for a banning a bit, uncalled for.
But in the end, everyone, leave James alone. He has a job to do, and like us all, we can slip a bit from time to time.
I think the criticism towards you has been far disproportionate. It is only like this though, because you hold the crown jewels so to say.
Authority will always be challenged: And whilst you yourself is not impervious or infallible to error, you can understand why i might personally have found one of the reasons for a banning a bit, uncalled for.
But in the end, everyone, leave James alone. He has a job to do, and like us all, we can slip a bit from time to time.
- Status