Moderator makes ad hominem attacks on another moderator

See? You're not even capable of answering a straightforward question.

What's that? A post hoc excuse? Really↗?

• • •​

Priorities, Dave.

The only point I'm making is that the splinter at hand has to do with standards of moderation.

So if, for instance, I happen to agree that no, the post doesn't really warrant an infraction, you're too busy telling me off to stop and think about the circumstances in which it would be. You know, like, if someone other than me was in a bad enough mood.

Inasmuch as you might wonder why↗ things are the way they are, around here, these sorts of discussions are not irrelevant to your inquiry; certainly, you can understand that part.

And as far as the peanut gallery is concerned, you're also perfectly capable of comprehending the difference between "comments from the peanut gallery" and par for the course from the guy whose purpose is to be disruptive in his particular way and never intended to be taken seriously.

Honestly, Dave, when you complain about the moderation, are you complaining toward a solution, or just to complain? I'm sorry if I don't have time to look up the specific formulation from the recent discussion, but it's something about a lack of ad hom or insults, except I don't understand how you or anyone else expect that to come about. Just for instance. It's kind of like Seattle's formulation for a better site compared to how his own conduct would disrupt that. What do you want me to do to ufologists that I'm supposed to spare white nationalists? And in re the peanut gallery, would you prefer more or less vapid bad faith?

It's not a matter of not wanting comments from the peanut gallery; take a look around, Dave, and maybe none of us should be complaining about the moderation so much. Even you are snarling at the discussion about moderation.

Think it through: Maybe the post doesn't warrant an infraction, but what about circumstances by which it does? It's annoying, intended to be provocative, and in that way off topic, but is it really worth a flag? Well, should the fact that I can spare it the annoyance warrant a flag? If your answer is no, then please think through what's actually going on, here. If you're okay with that prospect, then, sure, great, James would agree that it's a matter of how I wish to treat Foghorn.

Should your peanut gallery line be construed as some sort of violation for attempting to legitimize low-grade trolling? Well, what standard do you want in effect? I'm sure I can make something up, but why would I? And then go back and look at how this splinter starts. As I told James, he set a standard by which he disqualifies himself in other issues; the example in question was actually farmed out to another splinter↗ in order to break up the episode into disparate pieces, but that example is what he is so upset about.

Inasmuch as you wonder, and your inquiry about expectation, obfuscation, and moderation is sincere, then, yes, Dave, this is actually part of what goes into that.

And these are some of the issues that make it harder to answer that inquiry more directly.

 

Well, think of it this way; after I asked if I could quote you, you have refused to respond, splintered the thread, and referred to what you think I can't use. You don't really have much confidence in your words and actions, do you, James?

You would leave others to do your work for you. But even as you say words like "lies", there are examples on record that you refuse to answer. So it is left to wonder if you're just going to sit there and seethe and try to hide inside your indignance.

Consider: In an issue pertaining to how you moderate a thread, you are reminded↑ of a prior episode, skip over it in two↑ posts↑ accusing lies and demanding evidence, are given that information↑, yet you still refuse to address that evidence.

It's not entirely unlike the time, last month↗ when you quoted the links to something you had skipped over in order to complain, "Try to be specific, if you're going to make accusations", and demand, "why waste time like this, with a hide-and-seek game with post references? Why not just state how you think I misrepresented you?" And, well, that's the thing, I already had. And you skipped↗ over↗ it only to come back and indignantly demand it.

There are a few jokes I might make about your twenty years here, especially about how that line is more of an excuse than anything useful, but there are a couple more useful points we might consider: ¿What have you learned in those twenty-plus years? And, sure, that is a question for a different thread on a more peaceful and amicable day.¹ More direct to our moment is the point that, for our members, part of the searchable archive of your, and my, twenty years, here, is not available to them; you shouldn't hide behind that.

It is a splinter thread, and you were, in fact, moderating the thread from which it came. The difference between what you say behind our closed door and what you present to the membership can sometimes become relevant. Like when you said, in our present public discussion:

It was only February, James. Memoranda #3474-3485. Attend the question of which post, your consideration of your shifting role, a passing note about infatuation, and the place of personal interest in our moderating decisions.

Meanwhile, it's like I said a couple years ago in one of our policy discussions, if he's just another member, sure, I don't have to give a damn what James R says or thinks or does until, as with any number of our crackpots, it becomes too disruptive to not. But, as I said, what James says and does matters. Like your complaint that I don't moderate enough; compared to your policy outlook, there just isn't much to do. Should I have banned Liverani at the outset, for instance, because that outcome was pretty easy to see coming. What if it was the ranting incel, wow, that was five years ago; but, sure, what if I had thrown him out on the basis of what I described as a Petersonesque performance², because the only part of what came next that actually surprised me was how absolutely determined a performance he put on. But, do you know why I didn't? I would think it obvious, because we don't want to suppress political views, and, even more particularly, it wasn't so long after another Peterson episode in which the Administrator, i.e., you, had made your particular opinion known. I shouldn't need to walk you through the history of the fact that you are an administrator. And, honestly, if I still don't know at what point I should have stopped answering Covid bullshit and just banned it, that's a harder decision according to the implications and effects of what I choose. Compared to what you do, that sort of thing might feel subtle, but after years of Administrative advice to the other, it sounds like you want me to flag more people than I have been. Perhaps you should come right out and say what it is you want.

Compared to your prior policy outlook, James, you are clearly attending a more active standard. If we're changing direction, that's fine, just say so. But I can reach back years, like Memorandum #2791, in order to remind that it's all ad hoc, anyway. Or #3266, in re rational discourse as a pretense for suppression. One of the hard things about answering Dave in re explanation and obfuscation↗ really is the point that while sandwich-board preachers and ufologists are, generally speaking, not high priorities compared to certain crackpottery I am expected to show deference, well, inasmuch as I'm supposed to give wide berth, that expectation cannot be arbitrary or customized or whatever; it is not appropriate to turn rules on and off according to personal aesthetics.

Anyway—

• One of the points I've always wondered about and has never found any real traction at Sciforums is the idea of argumentative or conceptual integrity. Does the argument agree with itself throughout? Can the argument be applied in a larger framework? Or, in a negative formulation: Does the argument conflict with itself in order to be true? Is the argument a one-time custom piece, or does it work in the larger framework involving the particular issue one examines.

• Look at the political views, such as we might call them, that coincide with ignorant bullying. That these are the arguments requiring special accommodation and exemption from rational discourse isn't surprising.

• Think of it like antithetical affirmative action: If bigotry has no rational support, then we are somehow obliged to make exceptions to our demand for rational argument lest we suppress a political view.​

—those points are as true, today, as they were in 2018. Again, #3266, James; your response to the second of those points is extraordinary in its particular context, and the question you asked therein cannot remain so limited.

So, what is it that the Administrator needs me to do in order to help him stop banging on Sarkus about some make-believe standard of vested interest? Y'know, just for instance.

Or were you just trying out new words like "odious" and "diatribe"? You keep saying things like lies and accusations, but as the linked examples pile up, you just seethe indignantly. It's like I said about the Georgia question, there are parts when everyone out beyond the fourth wall has a chance to learn something about how these things go. But, clearly, you have other priorities.
____________________

Notes:

¹ I wasn't joking, James, when I suggested↗ a teachable lesson in which everyone out beyond the fourth wall has a chance to learn something about how these things go.

² see Memorandum #3211.​

 

billvon,

You are right, of course, when it comes to airing dirty moderator laundry in public. Tiassa's track record, in that regard, is appallingly bad, and getting worse.

 

Not all mods. Just certain ones.

There is no reason Tiassa's lies and personal attacks should pollute other threads. They shouldn't rightly be on public display at all.

 

Seattle:

You're clueless when it comes to issues of moderation on the internet, it seems. But this thread isn't about that.

If you want to start a more general thread on that topic, go right ahead. I'll be happy to educate you on some basics.

Meanwhile, this thread is reserved for Tiassa's personal attacks and nonsense. It should rightly be closed and this stuff shouldn't be here, but since Tiassa is a moderator, we have to put up with it, apparently.