Fraggle Rocker, slander and inappropriate comments

All he did was point out that this was Sam's modus operandi, not that he needed to, it is obvious!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have no problems with anyone debating the posts, but yes I do have problems with moderators who flame posters and get away with it.

I have reported the post and I want to know what the admins position is on such mod behaviour

I don't feel threatened or scared of Fraggle. And yes, I do feel that he pops into threads to make inappropriate personal comments about me.

I've already linked to one and I want to know if this kind of behaviour is considered as acceptable by admins and moderators

Currently, I am bringing the matter to the attention of admins and mods. After this, whenever Fraggle does the same thing again, I will report it

The outcome depends entirely on what the mod team thinks should be the outcome. Which is my reason for posting in SFOG, i.e. to ask admins and mods what is the appropriate course of action.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How did I miss this comment? Do you have a link to the post?

 

Ah okay, I was wondering how I missed it. I did wonder what prompted Fraggle's post since I did not see a post from him in the thread for at least four pages preceding that one.

 

A matter of fair play

It's a matter of fair play. Virtually any standard invoked against S.A.M. will be withdrawn if it can be applied to her benefit. We've suspended her before for making threats that she never made. She was suspended even longer, immediately after that, for questioning somebody's moderation methods. Part of the staff has lined up against her in acknowledged bigotry, willing to endorse corruption as long as she is the target.

Think of it this way: Once upon a time, a member complained that S.A.M., a Muslim, threatened his life. There was no threat. We suspended her for three days, anyway, because the administration decided to rewrite the rules of the English language. More recently, Member A threatened Member B (a Muslim, not S.A.M.), and we ended up suspending Member B for offending Member C, who was not actually offended, and according to the complaint of Member A, who had just threatened Member B, and who also admitted that the reason he was complaining was that Member B was a Muslim.

Or another: A couple weeks ago, one of our neighbors mocked S.A.M. for appealing to objectivity, as if she was the first person to ever suggest that Sciforums is to any degree a scientific site that appreciates rational and objective discourse. And I can tell you specifically that the member who mocked her has no intention of challenging the staff advocates of the "science site" argument. He just wanted something to yell at S.A.M. for. You know, a principle by which some staff members have tied themselves into knots over in order to have a go at her. How dare she actually expect us to respect our own policy declarations.

Or perhaps we might consider the thread raised in the topic post. Fraggle's post responds to another, by CptBork, and here's the thing about that post: A couple weeks ago, I lectured S.A.M. on what mistakes she was making in a certain argument. By the latest "S.A.M. Standard", as we have started referring to such seemingly paradoxical circumstances in the back room, telling her what she did wrong now equals "defending" her.

Apparently, I didn't scold her hard enough, or cuss her out to the satisfaction of others. That is what now counts as defending people.

How to say it delicately? Perhaps, "Fair warning"? Or, "This is what you're getting yourself into with this discussion"?

Seriously, I dropped a discussion a couple weeks ago in which one of S.A.M.'s detractors wanted to flip me some shit, but also managed to make clear that it didn't matter what S.A.M. actually says in her posts, she is only what he makes her out to be.

This is what you're stepping into. It's a realm of pure insanity, and, in truth, S.A.M. isn't the insane one.

I mean, I get it. She's not perfect. But neither is she so special that we should have to invent entire rules and standards dedicated to protecting those who would go out of their way to abuse or denigrate her.

Certainly, I will leave you to your opinion, but I would at least comment that you're venturing into strange dimensions where nothing is quite as it seems, and not all of that is S.A.M.'s fault. Indeed, aside from holding opinions unpopular among the majority of our regular-posting members, very little of this lands on her, except, of course, that she hasn't found a better way to respond to this insanity than any of us might come up with. And, well, that just means she's the goddamn Devil.

Or so it might seem, if you hang around long enough.

 

The twisted dimensions of this insanity

No, he hasn't. Sure, we'll have to answer for some of the imbalances resulting from these ad hoc standards, but the only person he has cost any credibility would be himself. (And you know there's a punch line I'm itching for right now, but we can let that pass for now.)

As I mentioned to Quinnsong, though, I find this episode important because it offers some definition to the dimensions of craziness people are willing to apply. That is, we might look to Bork's post, to which Fraggle responded:

"... Bells you could at least be more objective towards me- when S.A.M. says something outrageous and inflammatory, someone like Tiassa rushes to her defense and explains her positions in terms of concepts like 'ontological parsimony'. How come no one comes here and uses big words to defend me?"​

Every once in a while, people slay themselves with details. Bork certainly did here.

Hmm ... let's see ... ontological parsimony? I mean, great detail, there, right? Point to a post in which I tell S.A.M. what she's doing wrong, and complain that I'm defending her?

It would seem that I failed to call her a worthless, superstitious bitch—or something of the sort—while criticizing her argument, and in that failure defended her error.

I'm accustomed to this asserted form of logic, which has quite a rich history here at Sciforums. Quite clearly, Fraggle was more interested in finding a way to insult someone he so dislikes that he is willing to sacrifice his objectivity. Bork's strange and plaintive complaint is its own mystery, but its estrangement from fact was irrelevant to our colleague.

You and I have taken our shots at people; other moderators have certainly had their say in issues they undertake with various members; as a basic consideration, I suppose Fraggle gets to have his goes, too.

But it's the disconnection from fact that is curious, to me. I mean, if S.A.M. is so damn evil and pathetic and all of that, one would think it easy enough to denigrate her according to reality. But, like the member who wants to blame staff policy principles on S.A.M. in order to tell her how evil she is, I find myself puzzled and perhaps a little amused at the silliness about this fantasy. Really, if she's all that, one should not have to invent reasons to complain.

I don't carry the hammer for this crucifixion, so I'll just laugh while they scurry about looking for nails. Barring some divine intervention that slaps some sense back into these people, things aren't going to change any time soon.

 

i should be surprised at james but im not, how does it feel to become a pollie james? Because thats what you have become, you spend all your time covering ass. I dont for a min think you could possibly belive what FR says yet you back him for what? for the sake of covering? Maybe you need the nickname Mr Weathervain

 

Excuse me?

 

of course bells, how long have michael and spider been getting away with it, its ok as long as its anti muslim didnt you know. But if james judges a post anti semitisium god help you

 

Sorry, I think most of us assume that, with a few incomprehensible exceptions like Tiassa, everybody here knows that you're right[ and she's just practicing for the Intellectual Dishonesty Olympics. Sam is our little private joke. You're in on it now, a rite of passage.


Mmmh..............
Intellectual Dishonesty.
Is that a track event or a field event?

 

You appear to have lost the plot.

You are reading far more into this than there is it seems, and also it would appear you are dragging a lot of personal baggage into the fray.

I don't always agree with Fraggle, but I don't really see that he said anything heinous here. But then I can't really follow the thread without taking SAM off ignore, and that just isn't going to happen.

 

Don't try to make this thread about you phlog.

 

What an odd thing to say.

 

Agreed

What do you think was the purpose behind Fraggle popping in to that thread to make that particular post? Since he was not at the time participating in the discussion?
What does your "eye of the beholder" tell you?

Okay, lets consider that it was a post about posting style or methods of argument and not a personal comment. What was the purpose of Fraggle Rocker responding to this [now deleted]post of Capt Bork :

Okay

I realise now that Fraggle's post may have been a response to an argument in the mod forum a la Avatar; since we are not privy to what is happening back there it is difficult to know exactly how it resulted in Fraggle's jumping into the thread to post. So I will wait to hear from admins or mods wth is going on.