Reflections On...Uhh...Governance?

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by Gustav, May 20, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Note that the words "you do" are present tense.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    interesting

    /ponders

    perhaps the inclusion of "all" broadens the temporal scope?

    "is that all you do?"
    "well, i was once a carpenter......."


    ??

    i'll msg frag and ask him to weigh in
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    lets reflect on posting behind locked threads


    those are folks that understand convention and have a heightened sense of etiquette on the internet

    here is one that appears not to.....


    "not offended"? what strange choice of words. does he approve? encourage? it certainly seems that way. string probably exults in the fact that mod privileges allows him to abuse and flout the norms of reasoned discourse and etiquette
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    I wasn't offended because I wasn't offended. I don't care if ALL the mods run around posting in locked threads because I don't run around looking for "GOTCHA!" moments with them like you. I don't know that I've ever done it, but I certainly have never consciously ever done it (beyond locking it first, then posting a message that I just locked it). Interesting, though, that you--a fit throwing, rule flaunting [to the point of suspension on several occasions], polemicist, who intrudes upon conversations throwing out idiotic, poorly spelled, grammatically laughable non sequiturs at the drop of the hat--would have the amusing punctilio to bring up "etiquette".

    I know with your frail ego, it's tough to imagine that I just plain didn't care that he did it, what his intention was or how it effected what is--obviously--a very sensitive guy like you. Moreover, governing Mad's actions isn't really a concern for me because (a) that's why we have admins and (b) I trust his intentions. Personally, I would have just left it open. But if James or Plazma feel he did something wrong, then they are the only ones capable of punishing him.

    If, on the off chance I thought he was wrong, I would have PM'ed him about it (which maybe I did) and then if that didn't work, I would have PM'ed the Admins or even created a thread about it in our "super secret" mod/admin forum, NOT aired the argument for all to see.

    Have fun with your temper tantrum throwing thing. You've got James right where you want him!

    ~String
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2010
  8. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    sweet
    the expected hissy fit
    thanks

    now
    go reverse your spiteful infraction and motormouth an apology for the weeks of reruns i had to endure
     
  9. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    You are talking about your little cry-fest here, right? Or one of your other fifty thousand other pointless diatribes, embarrassingly idiotic posts or [no-so] witty rejoinders? Maybe I should start my posts with a "/" followed by mood/attitude description in a puerile attempt at sounding brilliant but aloof! Gustav, all I did was point out the blatantly obvious to--what is sadly--a very little man with very little going for him.

    Why would I do that? You earned it, and from what I've seen of your behavior in other areas in this website, you deserve much longer. I think you should be perma-banned for your behavior throughout the forum. You are quickly running out of freebies on this site and you've whittled down the mod/admin staff to just one defender. The rest of us would just as soon see you go away forever and forget you ever came here. You contribute nothing whatsoever to this place other than a non-stop flow of empty bitching and moaning. As I pointed out recently, I usually try to avoid addressing you on account of your just plain lack of intellectual capacity and usual vitriolic nature. In this case, I opted for an answer because (a) my points are just plain true and (b) you brought me into it.

    This is the open government forum, not the WE&P fora (where rules on behavior are obviously much stricter). Post all the nonsense you want, just don't bitch when people reply or defend themselves. If you can't handle hearing my side of your behavior and others opinions of you, then you really should get up from the computer and make some real friends.

    ~String
     
  10. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575

    not too shabby at all
    you acknowledge i earned a infraction motivated by spite

    why dont you give me your take on the thread in question?
    do a play by play. assess all contributors and then tell me why i was singled out. feel free to add another round of catty histrionics too. it is rather amusing to see you lose it

    your points are self serving garbage. when 7000 odd posts are exaggerated to 50000, your intent becomes embarrassingly clear


    no shit sherlock
    why else would i have chosen to slam you?


    an obvious non sequiter. how did you deduce that revelation?

    look string
    justify the 2 week ban. that's how you defend yourself. working yourself up into a frenzy of tears and recrimination is not


    haha
    quite a few of you occasionally do
    i wont mind if you do too

    hmm, what is that they say..... ah yes...imitation is the best form of flattery

    poor sci
    string had just slagged off those of you that use smilies
    how hardcore is that?

    /snicker
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2010
  11. qwerty mob Deicidal Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    786
    To whom it may concern-

    I've read the evidence for the original infraction of Gustav's so-called trolling, and found that it was not warranted at all, especially considering what did not also pass for trolling; no, I suspect something more nefarious and systemic was at play; and having had my fill of that sort of personal defamy and disparaging treatment already here by one corrupt moderator, suggest strongly that SciFor draft clearer posting rules (and post manipulation rules) which include exact statutory penalties, and introduce some checks and balances to the appeal process, else this forum de-evolve into a mere blog... if it is not too late to rescue it already.

    Those drawing lines in the sand arbitrarily need look no further than over their own shoulder for the last transgression; need look no further than their own actions for the latest injustice and missed opportunity to set a higher standard of ethics; and need look no further than their own noses for what usually offends them.

    Even Ophiolite has split recently over moderator behavior, and that's pretty shameful.

    ...

    When is anyone going to get it?

    That the problem isn't a cabal of rampant crazy posters out to make all moderators look like fucking idiots; you simply have some bad seeds among you, and the failure to address even one injustice paved the way for the next.

    Now ask yourself on what road you travel, and consider the texture of that pavement.

    I suggest you have too far to go to carry people who make you look bad...

    Whether they are all us ban-worthy "indigents"- or your own peers.

    ...

    Do you want to fix this, or fuck it?

    You may have your hand on the wrong tool for either outcome.
     
  12. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    Digging a hole

    There need not be a cabal. But there are plenty of egotistical members willing to take up the crusade. I will say, of Gustav, that what he has over most of them is a genuine concern for the state of this community. Most others seem to be in it for their own perverse satisfaction.

    To compare, for instance, Gustav sees a complicated set of circumstances contributing to the decline in post quality at Sciforums, and indicts the staff for its role. You, on the other hand, seem to be upset that, say, Trippy, didn't let you further politicize a thread in a scientific subforum.

    I have disagreed, vociferously and, occasionally, spectacularly with my colleagues over many issues pertaining to our duties. Part of me is inclined to let them suffer whatever wrath they bring down on themselves. However, that doesn't work for two reasons. First, not all the wrath they receive is legitimate and, secondly, many of the members who complain about them are contributors to the problems this community suffers.

    I would simply suggest that the proper route for such concerns would be to take it up with Plazma Inferno! in such a manner as to express your concerns without the egotistical and often paranoid bent that so many of these public crusades involve.

    We could accomplish both at once, but we've never resolved to undertake such drastic action.
     
  13. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575

    could be both, y'know
    the enlightenment portion...... recognizing a new spin to an ombudsman proposal floated a while back. the entertainment......i particularly liked ...."Sigh For Open Government"

    ja
    funny yet serious
     
  14. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575

    jesus frikking christ
    the mods are out to get me by any means necessary. even the most innocuous posts are deemed infractionable!



    /paranoid

    hmm
    i just noticed an instance of megalomania....."and forget you ever came here."

    lets try this for size....11 of the mods came to my forum
    goddamn uppity noobs

    /chuckle


    gee
    you think....

     
    Last edited: May 25, 2010
  15. qwerty mob Deicidal Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    786
    There must be "plenty" of humble posters with clean records who have also been fucked over here once too often, as well.

    One may bear that in mind before further assigning 'egotism' to the place reserved for justifiable moral outrage.

    I share his concerns, unperversedly.


    Your other hand is as naked of substance as it is of reasoning, also, since you bring this up again in an effort to contrast Gustav's motives and my own.

    Read the facts again.

    Had you done so in the first place, you may have disagreed vociferously and spectacularly with your colleague on evidentiary grounds.

    And spared us both your personal criticism and pretend apathy.

    Too bad that has yet to include post manipulation as revenge and censorship.

    I can't possibly disagree with such broad generalizations; even if that is all true- it doesn't excuse what has happened to me, and if left unchecked and uncorrected then, yes, I will needlessly be thrust into the precise circumstances Gustav finds himself in now.

    In my case, there is still time for James R to come to his senses, and no hard feelings if Trippy's obvious blunders are addressed.

    It is not 'I' who started the hack-job on James R's thread; my points were poignant, coherent, and contingent on the original thread title, and even tacitly expressed by Ben Cubby himself, the author of the article which James quoted in the OP.

    Again, it is a point of Ethics in the Climate Change debate, not "politicization" as you also egregiously refer to it; and if Cubby's article doesn't belong in the Politics Section then neither does my discussion of a point he, himself, raised (That we don't need camps of "deniers" versus "alarmists").

    You might think about that again at length, Sir, since there is room for "legitimate poster wrath" and no greater enabler of community despair than corrupt authority.


    You have my thanks for the suggestion, I may yet act on it. Surely, if such advice isn't a fool's errand, Gustav and I and others will be able to drink from the Holy Grail of fairness...

    Rather than just get the 'holy shit' again-

    And again.

    Cheers
     
  16. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    qwerty
    i remember a similar incident. not quite as egregious as creating an entire thread in one's name without consent but a tt and op edit

    ------------------------------------------

    i know you do
    tiassa assesses my sentiments quite correctly (thanks t). however in this instance, i do have more pressing concerns, namely an honest review of infractions received that i have disputed. each attempt had unfortunately been cavalierly dismissed

    it seems sci prefers to resolve disputes by arguments bestowed by administrative privileges and not ones put forth by the force of logic and reason. furthermore, if one refuses to be muzzled, off with his head

    it is a bogus escalation of commitment that makes them go down this road. it is a poignant reminder of the ever present frailties of humankind. one would think the impulse to improve one's lot would be a motivator to act but preserving the status quo overrides those concerns with ease

    ja
    james put it quite succintly...."We will not be bullied"
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2010
  17. qwerty mob Deicidal Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    786
    In complete agreement on every point so far, Gustav, and am still wondering if it is principle or practice which is more deficient in the present model of governance here; the 'SAP' theory will prevail without a worthy challenger, accompanied by the administrative will to make logical improvements. Cheers
     
  18. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575

    an absolute classic
    i just dont bother simply because even holy shit stinks to high heaven. still tho, that should not dissuade you from trying

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    while most of my infractions were justifiable, some of the one's that were disputed were actually reversed....
    The Thing about UFOs...
    Reason: Flaming
    09-17-08 05:11 AM by SkinWalker 0 / Reversed

    Private
    Reason: Flaming
    09-17-08 05:09 AM by SkinWalker 0 / Reversed

    Private
    Reason: Insulted Other Member(s)
    11-09-07 08:16 PM by SkinWalker 0 / Reversed

    james R still is trolling
    Reason: Racist trolling
    10-31-07 10:19 AM by Plazma Inferno! 5 / Reversed
     
  19. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    Paranoia will destroy ya, or, at least, your credibility

    Well, yes. But they tend to handle their problems in a ... let's say, different manner.

    In a few extreme cases, moral outrage has been justified. Nobody claims the staff is perfect. But there is a difference between, "This is a problem," and shouting about conspiracy theories.

    I would point out that your dispute with Trippy, as publicly aired, has more to do with how offended you feel that your perspective was not adopted as sacrosanct truth than anything more communal.

    The facts you claim are subject to interpretation. Your insistence that they are facts is telling. So is the fact that your protest is peppered with phrases like:

    • "... has recently been renamed by a moderator in an effort to whitewash the evidence central to the thesis of several posts of mine over a few days time."

    • "It is retaliation and harassment, not capitulation or fairness, which drives this individual to break the rules as a poster, and their abuse their moderator privileges. Else he would've simply conceded the point or left it at a draw ...."

    • "You've edited your post yet again in your continued efforts to disparage me."

    • "Your continued efforts to make all of this look AS IF it was EVER for anybody else's sake or benefit but yours (and at my expense) is as preposterous as it is inexcusable."

    • "You locked the 'deniers' thread for almost a day before then hacking it up deliberately and vindictively; by starting a stupidly-named thread which you attributed to me°; which I did not start, and would not have started, in a forum where I would not have posted and in which it does not belong, and which I sure as fuck would NOT have so-ignorantly-named."

    • "You shoved it all down the 'memory hole' of an irrelevant section, chilling further discussion. Then whitewashed the original name of the thread, hoping to 'astroturf' the very premise with which you disagreed ...."

    • "If you don't have a single complaint to show that the original title IS offensive, then you did this for the reasons I put forward; revisionism; personal vendetta; revenge; censorship."

    • "Us? Oh, it does indeed, else you wouldn't be trying to have a chuckle at my expense also."

    • "Your opinion of what it and is not foolish means nothing since you also intended to troll and to flame a poster who requested your help, in good faith° and on evidentiary grounds, in fixing a specific problem with another moderator."

    • "Admin, please review the evidence that the thread originally titled 'Time for climate change deniers to get real' was inappropriately changed as revenge, and that sections of that thread were also inappropriately moved, renamed, and attributed to me on false pretenses."​

    I've been at Sciforums for nigh on eleven years. I've been a moderator for something like seven of those. Over the years, I have seen plenty of these disputes. Nothing good comes from the self-centered rants reminiscent of conspiracy theories. We've been through this so many times, and these things always go pretty much the same way. When one deviates from the pattern, we'll notice.

    Actually, there was one occasion in which a fellow moderator, frustrated by one of my posts, destroyed it—not just deleted, which can be recovered, but permanently destroyed a post—in order to avoid answering it.

    You don't have the credit that Gustav has built over the years. To the other, his credit is honored only by specific individuals, and is, in the eyes of some of my colleagues, being spent fast; in the eyes of others, he's already in the red.

    I've seen James when he is genuinely in the realm of senselessness, and, in truth, sir, you have yet to suffer that.

    Yes, there is room for legitimate poster wrath. However, the key word there, and presently in contention, is "legitimate".
    ____________________

    Notes:

    ° a stupidly-named thread which you attributed to me — Threads are attributed to the first poster in the sequence. When moderators splinter out a number of posts to another thread, the member writing the first post in that sequence is listed as the starter. There is a way around it, but it involves transferring a completely unrelated post into the splinter and then completely rewriting its content. The time stamp will stand out as unusual, and, of course, that will lead to conspiracy theory accusations of its own.

    ° in good faith — When someone comes out swinging with a customized conspiracy theory, moderators tend to doubt good faith.
     
  20. qwerty mob Deicidal Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    786
    One can only wonder what the living fuck is wrong with you, since you intend to further grind this axe, perversely.

    Thread mechanics do not even begin to address why it was done in the first place, nor excuse the ridiculous title; the motives which I suggested make more sense than the offending Moderator's own.

    To Doubt is fine, but doesn't explain your behavior.

    Either.
     
  21. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    The obvious

    To quote Yoda: "That is why you fail."
     
  22. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    if i were trippy, i'd come in and offer up an apology to qwerty.
    a relatively painless solution, i think

    i am sure that we all have embarked on a course of action, at one time or another, with seemingly good intentions, only to see it horribly backfire

    so why the hell not?
    do it for sci, trippy
     
  23. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    no matter
    i am still inclined to treat post #15 as a valid response to your harangue
    i see no conventions being flouted
    of course you are welcome to elaborate and educate

    i have a closing reflection....

    i was wondering if my disputed infractions...1 2 3, will be reviewed and either upheld or reversed and additionally, afforded an opportunity to mount a defense if required

    /reflects in sheer and utter boredom

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: May 25, 2010
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page