Fraggle Rocker, slander and inappropriate comments

The only thing he said there, was that I have excellent insight and directness. Nothing there goes to any of your suppositions about what it does or does not take to be a moderator.

I agree with this, and have made so clear repeatedly in the past. Again, have gone so far as to explicitly state that moderators should not directly participate in fora they moderate at all. This is a standard that I would observe, if I were a moderator, and for which I'd continue my long-standing advocacy.

False assumption that my current posting style would continue, were I charged with extra responsibilities and powers that conflict with such, and which conflict I have long explicitly recognized.

But there's some irony in your advocacy of what a good moderator should look like, given that your own stance on such - as enacted - was explicitly rejected as unacceptably damaging to discourse here, and for reasons which you continue to refuse to come to grips with.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"Y'all" was meant to imply that this is a collective problem for moderation as a whole, and not that all moderators are equal offenders (or offenders at all). The failure to formulate an effective policy response to that, however, is indeed a collective failure of the moderation/administration.

Sure, that's all obvious enough. As is the corollary: moderators who breach that (necessary) privacy are undermining the whole thing, and this behavior cannot be accepted. If the confidentiality of such a forum is held to be necessary to the proper function of moderation here, then those who violate that confidentiality are directly undermining moderation of the entire site, as such. There should be a substantial penalty for a moderator that does something like that: revocation of access to said private forum, if not outright removal of all mod powers, privileges and responsibilities. It's frankly embarassing that such is tolerated to such a large extent here.

If the confidentiality of said forum cannot, for whatever reason, be practically maintained, then it does more harm than good and should simply be made public. This failure to choose between a truly confidential forum, and an actually open one, just invites the worst of both worlds.

Actually no. We'd have some pointed discussions about certain issues that need addressing, to be sure, but even amongst the moderators you would not be an immediate target for such actions.

Just stick to some basic rules about atopicality, disruptiveness, stereotyping, and so on. It really doesn't matter if someone is being intellectualy dishonest in the abstract, provided they aren't dragging threads off topic with a bunch of shenanigans. And anyway I think you'll find that the intersection of the intellectually dishonest and those who don't pursue shenanigans is vanishingly small anyway.

Begs the question: is it a good idea to only moderate those offenses that can be readily pinpointed to individual posts? Seems that there needs to be space for more holistic judgements.

That would work really well, if those being dishonest were in the slightest way dissuaded by such attention from the general membership. As it is, provoking such reactions seems to be among the primary motivations for the offenders to offend to begin with. This being exactly how we got to the present juncture.

Except when the offenders are themselves moderators, it would seem.

I agree that a blanket ban on participation at all would be a bad thing. But I don't think that it's unreasonable to expect moderators to restrict their regular posting to fora they do not directly moderate. As a corollary, I think there is some value in avoiding allowing people to moderate fora they are intensely interested in as such - much easier to maintain critical perspective on subjects that one doesn't have a direct interest in. Plus, certain of the sub-fora that are moderated by strongly-interested people have been reduced to little more than their own personal blogs.

And not just in terms of the potential consequences for bad behavior - the very attraction to participate in the first place lies in a very different place than that of academic conferences. Absent great care on the part of the site administrators and moderators, the primary attraction becomes exactly the opportunity to exploit anonymity to act out in front of an audience without meaningful consequences.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We can go back to silence and exclusivity as if our membership doesn't matter

We have long tried to strike a balance between our obligation to a certain degree of confidentiality and trying to address various situations.

To the other, you've convinced me. I'll take it up with Bells, and we'll consider the idea that it will make things much easier on us if we simply tell members who speculate about a moderator's decision that they're wrong. You're right, Quad. The membership has absolutely no need to know what we're up to in the back room. So when someone accuses two moderators who are actually at odds of somehow conspiring, we'll just laugh it off, and not bother to tell people why.

I mean, it's certainly a lot easier that way. And it will make it a lot easier for moderators to screw over the members they personally don't like.

I think we can accommodate you. I'll consider it with my colleagues.

We can go with silence and exclusivity as if our membership doesn't matter. And we'll be happy to tell them that they can all fuck off solely for your benefit.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What do you want, an "A for effort?" Y'all have an executive responsibility for this stuff - meaning that there are no points for "trying."

Maintaining a confidential forum for such things, necessarily implies that you will have very limited ability to address outside speculation about what goes on in there. It's a cost of operating in such a way. If it's more important to you that you can credibly and transparently address such speculations, then just jettison the secrecy. You can't have both, and you do need to make a choice one way or the other.

Not something I've argued, as such.

What I did do was recognize that there is a legitimate purpose to a confidential moderator forum, and also note that such is counterproductive unless said confidentiality has real force. If you feel that transparency to the membership is more important, then by all means pursue it. Just recognize that such a course means that the secret forum must be made public, as such. It won't do to simply leak what you want the public to hear when it serves your purposes. That's not transparency - that's exploiting secrecy to manipulate both the public and the moderation. And you've probably already discovered that it isn't effective at addressing the situations you cite.

If you're going to maintain a confidential forum to handle such issues then, yes, you'll be unable to respond to such accusations with anything more than simple denials. Cost of doing business. If this is unacceptable to you, then you should be pushing for an open forum in the first place. It's not a difference that can be split.

Again, if you feel that such is an overriding concern, you should advocate the opening of said forum (for public viewing, if not posting). I'm happy either way - my complaint is that the status quo is worse than either of the options.

Actually I do not think you can accomodate what I've actually suggested - take a decision one way or the other about whether said forum is confidential or not, and stick with it. We wouldn't be in this situation, if such a capability existed. But perhaps I'll be proven wrong.

Again, I'd personally be just as satisfied with openness. There will be a cost, but it's really one born by the moderation - point is that there is less cost overall in deciding one way or the other, rather than trying to have it both ways. The current approach has all of the downsides, and none of the upsides.

The suggestion would be that you tell them you can't breach moderator confidentiality, for the benefit of effective moderation of the site as a whole. There is no particular benefit to me personally in you doing such - I'm trying to help you guys, and the membership as a whole, here.

But, sure, there must necessarily be some mechanism for publicizing the outcomes of decisions reached in a confidential moderator forum. Someone in a leadership role could compile a consensus position, or list of varying positions (with or without attribution) and officially publicize that. But the set-up wherein individual mods disclose characterizations of other mods' behavior in said forum, when and where it suits them personally to do so, is a real problem.

Also: when did you get so petulant and bitchy? You should consider resigning your station - you don't have the sort of personality that bears authority well.

 

No, members certainly doesn't need to know what's going on in the back rooms, especially if you're going to leak the names of the people you're going after and what they allegedly did, and not let us see the full story for ourselves. If you're going to use your privileges to target certain members like myself, and make it known who you're targeting and how much of an insane f*cktard bigot you think they are, then you should just make it a public forum so we can all see for ourselves. If the backrooms are for fighting out your personal super-tantrums and super-vendettas, then please keep it there, so we don't have to see our names viciously slammed all over the place at your super-convenience.

It doesn't take a conspiracy for someone to have blatant biases favouring some posters over others. There's no need to ask for explanations as to what you're doing, your rhetoric speaks for itself and the readers can see that clearly enough for themselves. BTW I never asked for a "SAM standard" either. My impression is you reflexively come to her defense when she says something controversial and inflammatory, are extremely reluctant to confront her even when you disagree, and IMO you have no such reluctance telling her detractors that they're a bunch of stupid, insane, racist, heartless illiberal swine. I dunno if it's some form of affirmative action or what, but I don't think it contributes to quality debate, and the goal of moderator is (I presume) to enforce a quality, on-topic discussion.

Hey, if you've ever given S.A.M. anything more severe than a gentle piece of cautionary advice, I'd love to see some of these posts, I honestly can't recall any of the sort.

If it's such a burden for you, why not find some mods who know how to keep confidential matters confidential, without using it as an excuse to avoid accountability? Sounds like there are quite a few here who think they can manage that task without too much difficulty.

Wow, I never realized discretionary confidentiality was such a burdensome and impractical thing. There are lots of people who don't see it that way, I personally think maybe some of these folks should be given a fair chance to see if they can do a better job of managing the responsibilities. There's also something called the PM system, when you want to contact an ordinary peasant about an alleged transgression in private before blowing it up in public.

 

We're not as stupid as you need us to be

I'm sorry, Quad, but you are not the whole of our world. Get used to that.

This is one of my favorite dishonest dodges at Sciforums, because so many people try it.

Look, it's real simple. Indeed, it's so simple that I have a hard time believing you're somehow incapable of figuring it out: You advocate a certain outcome that has certain results. That you did not specifically state the results does not mean you have not argued for them.

To use a blunt example, what if I told someone they should shoot themselves in the head?

Member: I can't believe you told me to kill myself!

Tiassa: Not something I've argued, as such.​

I mean, really, who would believe I was giving someone interior decorating tips?

I think the most frustrating aspect of your argument is that, while it has some points of merit, those aren't actually the reason you're on this subject. Rather, you're just looking for something to whine about, like when you wanted to hold S.A.M. responsible for staff policy principles. Yeah, you'll take it up with whomever you damn well please. We get that. But it was dishonest then, and I'm not particularly encouraged now, in light of your attempt to dodge the consequences of your own proposition.

It's not a matter of leaking to the public what we want them to hear. Rather, it's a matter of advising members on what we're up to.

Very little is.

There have been attempts before to open the record to the public. One moderator tried to manipulate the public with selective release of data. In December, 2009, the staff got into a public row that moved some to ask that a back-room deliberation be opened to public view. The administration decided that was fine, and then redacted some very important information because it might embarrass someone.

And, indeed, there are reasons why that information is still important today.

Well, think of it this way: I can either engage a disgruntled member, such as yourself, and try to discuss the issues, or I can simply silence you. What you advocate would bring about circumstances in which the latter would be the only option available to me in light of the insistence of your misguided argument.

The status quo is hardly unfamiliar to anyone who lives in the real world.

But, hey, this is a virtual community, so there's no reason we shouldn't shape this site to conform with your fantasy.

Actually, we wouldn't be in this situation if people like you weren't always looking for something to complain about in order to feel better about yourselves by pretending you're some sort of hero for the masses.

After all, one of the reasons we ever started discussing back room issues in public was because, for all the strife between moderators taking place in public, anyway—e.g., Superstring/Tiassa, (Q)/S.A.M., &c.—the members who spent their time looking for something to complain about tried to push this theory that we were all unanimously conspiring against some member or another, or Islam, or atheists, or whatever.

Frankly, I think you're just full of shit on this one, Quad. That is, you're just looking for something to complain about. We see this all the time.

Why should our status make it an either/or issue?

Because you say so?

You don't need to read every damn word from our fingertips. Hell, you don't read what people write when you're criticizing them for it.

You can either believe us, or not. It won't hurt our feelings. Indeed, with one so dedicated to finding something to complain about as you, we probably won't even notice.

No, you're not. Don't even try that bullshit, Quad.

You know, maybe there is some future in that, but it goes both ways. Why should we waste that effort to create a situation that leaves you with the same exact complaint? Or is it that you're envisioning a partway that is more to your satisfaction, in order that you can feel you've done something important here?

No, seriously, go read through that paragraph of yours. It's a lot of noise, effort, and motion for standing in the exact same place.

Oh, it's nothing new. I've long withheld my patience from those trying to con me.

 

Gawrsh, thanks!

I think much of what may be called my mod wars is due to the fact that my perspective is pretty opinionated - it causes many people to get their dander up and the world echoes with pissed off people hitting report buttons. I recognise that but really, there is also an ignore button for those people who do not want to read what I have written. What many of them don't realise [and they should because I say it ad nauseum] is that I often mirror their opinions to let them know what they sound like from my perspective. So when they hit the report buttons, they actually vindicate my POV.

I've already explained my motives. I have never found Fraggle to be racist or sexist. I don't think he is mean spirited enough to be jealous of anyone's intellect. He has quite a formidable intellect of his own and the ability to get to the heart of things he is interested in. I've learned a lot from many of his posts. I also don't find him condescending, although he may be a tad patronising at times, I have never, in the five years I have followed his posts, ever seen him treat anyone as if their opinion was irrelevant. He does tend to be wedded to his viewpoints but I would be the last person to complain about anyone having strong opinions

I haven't noticed this so yes, I would like to see where I have done this. I usually just bring my own perspective of the topic to the thread, although sometimes I may veer off on tangents by responding to particular posts.

Perception, by definition, cannot be objective.

Its not about your intelligence, its about your personality. I think the best measure of a man is encountered when you see him at his worst

 

Not completely, but to certain degrees it can be. Different degrees of bias etc. The poster did not seem like they were talking in absolute terms to me.

 

Wow, that was a PITA to get through since page 1. A couple of brief points.

1) While I have disagreed with SAM about a couple of things, I have no problem or issue with her at all, and am surprised that some here are so vitriolic on the topic. :shrug: I find her perspective to be out of the mainstream, thought - provoking and refreshing for that.

2) While Frag has made me one of his "special interest" members as well (citation can be provided if needed, as always), I am aware that there are many possible reasons for his unreasonable behavior, some organic in nature. He is not the worst I have encountered, as I pointed out earlier. Heck - I have 2 of my long term trolls stalking me on another site right now....and am watching them blow a gasket because I am unphased.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This is a bother for the regular members, but a problem for the site owners. If they can't be arsed to deal with it, then that is the least of their problems.

..and a last note: some of us appear to be attempting to "baffle with bullshit" via voluminous postings...like Frag often does. You should be aware that it does not work, many of us see through that and think much less of you for it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Remember what I said on page 1 about reputation?

Consider that.

 

Oh yeah, I forgot - the ignore function is for sissies. If you don't like what someone has to say, just don't read it. This is a very profitable exercise in self control.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That was a great song Trippy. Whores is a deep subject . That would be a good thread . Prostitution too . A lot of people don't understand that they to might be prostitutes . How ? There dirty little jobs they might not do if it was not for the money

 

LOL, calm down. If you're so desparate to prove that you needn't answer me, the best course would be to simply not answer me.

You still do not seem to follow what outcome(s) I am and am not advocating.

For the third time, then: I maintain that there are costs and benefits to both secrecy and openness. I further contend that a failure to choose one or the other, ends up with more costs and less benefits than either option on its own. I recognize a legitimate need for secrecy, but also the possibility of doing without such, should moderation conclude that the open option is preferable overall. And I've tried to make clear my respect for moderation's collective prerogative to make that choice - my basic thrust is that some such choice needs to be taken, fully, and adhered to.

You are of course free to disagree, but I'm not really seeing much of an effort to address my point. Instead you seem insistent on straw-manning me as demanding ironclad secrecy as such, and generally attempting to browbeat me into silence. How much clearer can I make it? Why is it such an apparent problem for you to respond to the actual issue with some material defense of - what? the status quo? You seem to have some problem with my even having a say on the issue, as such.

This whole strawman-by-stilted-analogy thing that you (and SAM) seem so fond of has become extremely tiresome. And it was both disrespectful and ineffectual to begin with.

Again, it is blatantly rude to tell someone what their motivations are. You aren't in any place to know that, and anyway it's scarsely relevant to any of the issues I've raised.

I don't deny going where the action is, but I'll thank you to stop trivializing my concerns and telling me what my motives are. You are well into ad hominem territory here and so, between that and the various other cheap browbeating littering your response, burning through your dwindling credibility to lecture anyone on such matters.

Why does it bother you so much that I have complaints and suggestions, and voice them? Isn't that exactly what the SFOG subforum is intended for?

Again with the browbeating. What's the point of all this? Don't you have anything substantial to say?

Those two things are not exclusive of one another. They can even be the exact same thing.

And one of my major criticisms of this approach, is exactly that outsiders have no way to be confident that what they are getting is good-faith advice, and not manipulation. That's why the secret-except-when-it's-not approach is worse than either secrecy or openness: with actual secrecy, the issue is avoided by getting rid of the questionable leaks outright (and hopefully replacing them with some official channels). With openness, everyone can see what happened for themselves, so again there's no issue of individual moderator leaks presenting conflicts of interest.

Except various other fora to be found on the internet are able to do such effectively. So the fact that you find such to be near-impossible, only suggests that you are exactly as ineffectual as you appear to be.

Which would explain your persistent response to complaint: self-excusing narratives about how you're trying, really, but it's just too hard and nobody appreciates the real issues like you do. Add a heavy dose of paternalism - insistence that you understand people's positions and motivations and interests better than them, and so have to disregard them to protect them from the consequences of their own stupidity - and the leeway to characterize secret goings-on to buttress that, and we arrive at your program of "stop bothering me, peons."

The above is an instance of one moderator trying to manipulate the public selective characterizations of data.

Everything that gets released about the contents of a confidential moderator space, are necessarily attempts to manipulate the public with selective release of data. This is unavoidable. It can be manipulation undertaken in good faith and for admirable reasons, but it is still necessarily manipulation. This follows directly from the facts of secrecy and public relations. All you can really do to address that is to either establish a formalized mechanism for such releases (to avoid questions of individual moderator motives in releasing such on their own initiative) or scuttle the secrecy entirely.

Stilted: you can discuss the issues without breaching any secrecy (this places limits on the discussion, as noted, but it's hardly impossible - nothing there would stop you from materially engaging my abstract points about the merits of secrecy and openness here, which you continue to fail to do), or you can remain silent ("sorry, can't get into this without breaching confidentiality."). I don't see how the fact of a member complaint obliges you to "silence" them. Is there some requirement that complaints can't be tolerated, but must be either conclusively addressed or suppressed? Because that just looks like nothing more than a cravenly authoritarian mindset.

While I do not buy that, as described above, I'd note that you're already doing nothing but trying to silence me, so such a prospect isn't much of a deterrent.

And that is why the problems associated with it, and the range of solutions (along with their costs and benefits), are so well understood, and easy for me to articulate. And why it's puzzling that your grasp on them seems to tenuous.

There is no reason you shouldn't take rational steps to address real issues. Why you are so resistant to that is something of a mystery, along with why you think that whiny excuses and personal invective are going to get you anywhere you want to go.

Sure, if by "this situation" you mean only the fact of members pointing out issues that they think degrade the quality of this site. But the issues in question would still be there, and still cause problems, even if I were to shut up as you demand.

And, again, what's with all of the petty ad hom bullshit? I'm trying to make productive suggestions to address something I see as a real issue here. You don't have to agree with them, but what does it get you to attack my motives in this way? You're coming across as increasingly bitter and recalcitrant. Which, again, makes me suggest you give up the power games - you used to be a real credit to this place. Yet somehow, the well-spoken liberal has transmuted into a petty tyrant. It's frankly pretty depressing, not to mention disappointing.

I've never pushed any theory that moderation is unanimously conspiring in such a way. The divisions seem pretty obvious to me. It also seems clear that there are certain factions of moderators who shield certain problem posters from appropriate sanction, apparently as pawns in some political games back there. Or maybe they're truly principled people who simply see things differently - point is that the secrecy prevents anyone from knowing that, and the selective leaks only heighten such ideations.

The only unanimous pursuit I can recall ascribing to moderation is a collective failure to get their acts together and moderate effectively.

Yeah, you've made that clear many times already. Shame you don't seem to be up to putting any force behind that assertion. As it is, it just comes off a petulant and personal.

? Asked and answered, repeatedly. You can maybe address some of those arguments, if you don't want to come off as such an intellectually dishonest hectorer.

Again with this need to attack my standing, while avoiding my actual stated positions. Who do you think this bully nonsense impresses? It's pathetic, and ugly.

It would have been more effective and to the point to just tell me to "fuck off." Or, even better, simply not respond. Because what you're going here, does not resemble "not even noticing."

But, on what planet does exposing an overriding need to silence a (purportedly drama-hungry) complainant work to dissuade them from further complaint? What do you think you're playing at here?

Again, the telling me what I am and am not motivated by, in direct contradiction of my own statement of such. In addition to the extreme rudeness and arrogance, let's note that it's not even substantive. Why not just say "fuck off?"

You shouldn't. You should expend effort to address the complaint in an effective way. It's not really that difficult - this is a matter of technical measures and procedures. Should be firmly within the grasp of any competent group of moderators/administrators.

Again, the overt attempts to tear down my self-image and standing to speak. Nasty bully stuff. How can anyone respect your authority to moderate, when you so gleefully produce such displays of malice and basic disrespect, in response to well-intentioned suggestions? Is this subforum not for the express purpose of airing such concerns and ideas? Why respond at all, if it's just to expend so many characters giving someone the finger?

And why demean the desire to make an important contribution to SciForums? Shouldn't you want to encourage that sort of thing? It's extremely troubling to see a moderator deriding the idea of advancing this site.

No, it isn't. There's a decisive difference between a formalized means for vetting and releasing information about confidential moderator discussions, and the status quo wherein individual mods leak selective data (or, worse, characterizations thereof) as it suits them. To put it in the real-world terms that you invoked, it's the difference between the Freedom Of Information Act and Bradley Manning. If you don't recognize that, then you really don't have any place in a policy discussion of such. And so the fact that you chose to jump in anyway and ejaculate a bunch of bile everywhere, raises troubling questions.

Well, then, you've apparently become paranoid and vindictive, and are seeing "cons" everywhere. Again, I'd suggest a retreat from power, as it does not seem to suit you at all.

One last thing: you are no longer welcome to refer to me as "Quad." My username is "quadraphonics." While I usually let my general distaste at such terms of familiarity slide, their usage in such a patronizing, abusive context is simply too much for me to allow to stand. I will henceforth regard any such usage by yourself of any such terms for me, as an overt, intended display of hostility.

 

As I said, my posting style - up to and including the persona expressed therein - would change if I were charged with responsibilities incompatible with such.

You've never seen me at my worst.

Moreover, let's note that, while I have implied that I would be more capable as a moderator than many here, I have not actually expressed an interest in serving as such. And to be clear, I would not want to serve in the current set-up, where moderation is a closed cabal that lacks popular mandate or accountability. In a set-up featuring term limits and elections by the membership, I might feel differently.

 

I like the ignore function...because I don't want my widdle fweelings hurt, nyaa, nyaa.

:blbl:

If someone's having diarrhea I don't want to smell it, if they're texting diarrhea I don't want to read it.

Just like I do not want to go see ....

(Edited to add: before clicking on that link...it cannot be unseen...)

Mod Note: Sorry, I had to pull that link. While I appreciate your warning on edit, the fact remains that a picture like that can be construed as pornographic, and that is one of the boundaries we keep in effect. And, yeah, that was ... uh ... uh ... yeah, it just can't be unseen.​

 

Oh shit fuck me that is sic . My life will never be the same . you ruined Me Chimp. Why did I look ? i should have known better

 

Oh dear! you never heard of tub girl! Mikey!

Oh my Gods!

I'm sorry, but I can't stop laughing, my sides hurt....

I love you Mikey... I figured everybody knew around here...

*passes eyebleach*

Sorry, Tubgirl's kind of an internet meme...used as a prank.
Somebody doesn't lock their workstation...and they come back to...her.

 

An exercise in futility

Answering you isn't a problem. Accommodating your every need, however, is not something we can do.

You should probably acquaint yourself with something like reality:

• The full content of the moderators' deliberations will never be available to public review.

• The full content of the Moderator subforum will most likely never be available to public review, owing to the probable necessity of a unanimous vote by the staff.

• The consensus proposal encounters the same reliability problem you complain about as things are: You're getting a tailored summary:

"Someone in a leadership role could compile a consensus position, or list of varying positions (with or without attribution) and officially publicize that."​

It just seems like a lot of work for absolutely zero progress, since you can raise the same complaint about partial information whenever you feel things aren't going your way.​

The end result is that opening the record is, at this point, for all practical purposes, a non-starter.

That's reality.

Which, of course, leaves us with the option of simply withholding all information, and simply telling members they're right or wrong about this or that, and then closing the SFOG thread since there's nothing more we can tell them.

Of the outcomes you suggested, the only possible one is, in fact, what you're trying to claim you're not advocating.

To the other, I suppose I might owe you an apology, as it is entirely possible that you simply didn't, in your rush to emotion, think it through.

Some things are just obvious, quadraphonics. It's like when you railed at S.A.M. over the staff's "science site" principle. Okay, sure, there is merit to the proposition that the whole "science site" thing is bullshit. But it's an active policy principle by which many members, including S.A.M., have suffered our wrath. She has every right to invoke fair play.

However, your complaint with the principle quite clearly was a cheap excuse for taking a swing at S.A.M. As you explained, "I'll take it up when and where and with whom I damned well please. If you don't like that, well, sucks to be you."

In other words, you don't want to take it up with anyone who can do something about it. You just want to bawl at S.A.M.

Likewise, your proposed solution to your information complaint is to create a more complex system that doesn't actually resolve the complaint.

Seriously, one need not have X-ray vision to see through that one.

And I'll thank you to stop being disingenuous.

It's always been our hope that people would be constructive.

But, no, you just wanted a reason to whine at Bells.

Sure. In fact, it even has been before. Like in 2009, when a public fight between moderators resulted in the proposition of releasing to public view the relevant thread from the back room. The administration was willing to release it, but only in a redacted form to prevent certain embarrassment. As you might expect, that bowdlerization sort of defeated the purpose of releasing the thread to public view. It also protected at least one moderator who was somewhat definitively operating in the realm of impropriety.

It is a concern, but that varies from person to person. You're the first I've encountered who actually complains about having the information at all. Some have been frustrated by the information they received, but none have ever complained that they had the information.

Only you.

There are ways to settle the issue that we generally find distasteful.

That's not quite it, though I can certainly see why you would want it to be that way.

In the end, one of the curious correlations here is that much of the back room fight is about protecting certain individuals and groups of people from being subject to unfair moderation. What makes it hard isn't so much that it's exceptionally complex, but, rather, the question of why certain biases appear to be acceptable.

Perhaps it looks that way according to your need, and no, the staff is not perfect. But you might also consider that sometimes bullshit is quite apparently bullshit. Like your complaint about the "science site" standard, or your proposition for a consensus release that functionally equals a more complicated and labor intensive version of exactly what you've chosen to complain about.

I'm trying to figure out what your point is with that, and having no luck. The public release of that particular thread strips out eight of fifteen posts. Perhaps that's what you mean by one moderator trying to manipulate the public with selective characterizations of data, but either way, the sum effect is to remind of the infeasibility of bringing the whole record into general view. So, again, that one of your options is simply unrealistic, as the public record has shown since January of last year.

Yes, we can. It will make things a lot simpler. We'll owe you great thanks for that.

As to the merits of secrecy and openness, I think you're putting a lot of effort into unrealistic idealism that stems from your need to have something to whine about.

False or disingenuous complaints probably shouldn't be tolerated.

I mean, in the end, those really are the choices: Discuss the issues, or don't. And if the complaint is disingenous and insistent, it eventually becomes trolling, which eventually results in someone being silenced.

Actually, silencing you would be a lot easier.

It's your grasp of reality as concerns this situation that is tenuous, quadraphonics.

Let me know if you come up with either a real issue or some rational steps to settle it.

I adore the fact that you can't even follow your own posts:

"Actually I do not think you can accomodate what I've actually suggested - take a decision one way or the other about whether said forum is confidential or not, and stick with it. We wouldn't be in this situation, if such a capability existed. But perhaps I'll be proven wrong."​

As I see it, you need a more realistic assessment of this discussion than this self-gratification you're chasing.

No, you're not. You raised this issue in order to dodge Bells. You proposed options that are either infeasible or counterproductive. Like I said, quadraphonics, sometimes bullshit is just quite apparently bullshit.

Oh, clearly nothing; you seem quite determined to carry on like this.

Well, that's what happens when you come across as increasingly disingenuous and combative. I'm not going to give you every little thing you want, and I'm not going to take bullshit as manna from heaven, so of course you find it bitter and recalcitrant.

I'm not worried about disappointing you.

Your egocentrism is revealing, quadraphonics. It doesn't matter if youhave never pushed that theory. Whether or not you have is completely irrelevant; there are, indeed, other members we deal with. You are not the sole star in our sky.

Well, we've established those divisions by bringing back room information to the public.

Well, one thing that people can do that will be helpful to everyone is to actually have a clue about whatever it is they wish to complain about.

The primary factions in that fight differ on the question of consistency in enforcement.

I know. We don't throw people out of here just because you want us to. Poor you.

Seriously, quadraphonics, we have plenty of problems among the staff in terms of moderating effectively, but you have yet to demonstrate any real awareness of what those issues actually are.

Would you like me to make an exception to my standards of moderation just for you? I mean, I don't see any profit in it, but maybe you do.

I can certainly put force behind my position, but I'm of the opinion this discussion doesn't require it. But if you would like me to make an exception to my standards in order to put that force behind it, let me know, and I'll give it some thought.

If I asked what two plus two equals, and you told me, "Fish," well, yes, that would be an answer.

As far as I can tell, it comes down to, "Because you say so."

I'm not out to impress anyone, quadraphonics. Perhaps that's the difference between us.

Well, as I advised earlier, we can go with silence and exclusivity as if our membership doesn't matter. But our membership does, in fact, matter to us.

Even you. Well, you can always insist, and eventually we'll give in and accept that you don't matter, but that's up to you.

While those sentences do make grammatical sense, they don't seem to have any real bearing on the discussion.

Sometimes bullshit is obviously bullshit.

Which rules out any of your suggestions.

I don't know, quadraphonics. Why do you waste so many words when "fuck off" would suffice?

You can keep trying to sell your good intentions, but that cheap pretense is destroyed by your actions.

I don't demean the desire to make an important contribution to the site. But I'm not about to admire a myopic, bullshit complaint as an important contribution to anything.

Well, in real world terms, the board of directors might tell the investors about a few things that came up at the board meeting, but they do have some right to private counsel among themselves.

Suggestions from the bitter and disingenuous just don't have that much credibility, quadraphonics.

Easy enough, quadraphonics. And I will consider further disingenousness on your part an overt display of trolling.