Moderator makes ad hominem attacks on another moderator

Discussion in 'About the Members' started by Tiassa, May 12, 2023.

  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    You're years behind where you'd need to be to weigh in knowledgably on the matter of Tiassa's bullshit, in this particular instance.

    You seem to be under the impression that this thread, here, is another one that's about your ethical failure in regard to declaring any vested interest you might have in Bitcoin. That's a mistake. This thread is not about that. In fact, I split off an entirely separate thread for discussion about that matter (as if it needs any more discussion).

    This one is, as it says, about Tiassa's lies and false accusations: inappropriate ad hominem attacks he made on me.

    I doubt you can make any relevant contribution to this thread.
    I have addressed all the "issues raised" at length in previous public threads, in private threads in the Moderators' forum and in personal messages.

    Tiassa's personal attacks on me are based on claims he knows are false. He is knowingly telling lies about me. He is an actor who only wants to hurt. The "issues" he raises are illusions he has created, a confected set of half-truths and outright lies. He knows this, because I have, in the past, responded to him in good faith, in sufficient detail so he could understand. I have directly addressed his "concerns" on multiple occasions.

    For reasons best known to himself, he chooses to tell lies. Moreover, he has chosen to do so in the public forums, which is the only reason you're reading this.

    This thread should not exist. It is wrong on multiple levels. It is entirely inappropriate. Tiassa should be ashamed of his appalling behaviour. If he had an ounce of decency, he would apologise for his lies. But then again, if he had an ounce of decency, he wouldn't keep telling them in the first place. First time might be an innocent mistake. 20th time, no way.

    Certain members also have their heads too stuck up to contemplate that their habitual behaviours might be an issue, too. I believe Tiassa has touched on that with Seattle. So far, you're poodling along scott free. Maybe Tiassa will address you at some point, too, in regards to your habits. Or, maybe the enemy of my enemy is a convenient friend substitute. We'll see - or maybe not.
    If you have spent any time perusing Tiassa's posts, you'll have noticed that Tiassa tends to talk around points rather than directly making them. He invites you to draw inferences and read things in, rather than saying them directly. As a result, in this particular case, you don't even know what "standard" he was referring to. You're just seeing what you want to see, thinking this is somehow about you. You're way out of your depth.
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    I'm simply addressing your refusal, or at least current failure, to address the issues he raised about the nonsense standard you tried to impose on me through harassment. I couldn't care less about any other issues you have with Tiassa, or Tiassa has with you. That's your misunderstanding, I'm afraid.
    And I've addressed all your nonsense in that particular thread, which highlights even more issues for you to resolve, by the way. My concern here is that you're dismissing valid criticisms of a specific discussion we were having, by dismissing Tiassa's post in its entirety.
    Sure, and my point is that you're throwing baby out with the bathwater. I.e. you're not addressing the criticism raised in the post as it related to the specific issue in that thread, but instead dismissing it all.
    Again, I'm not talking about the personal baggage you two have, just about the criticisms specific to the thread from which the post was split out. Which you're still not addressing anywhere. But, sure, we can discuss that in the other thread, if and when you can be bothered. I hope that's clear by now?
    Sure. If you say so. Let me be clear, though: I couldn't care less about the other personal issues you might have.
    He responded to your nonsense standard for disclosures, and there are valid criticisms within. That's all I care about. As and when you care to respond to those criticisms.... But hiving them off to this thread and then ignoring them, well, sure. Whatever.
    Again, if you say so. But then you'd still not be responding to the valid criticism in context of the nonsense standard you insisted upon. But, sure, we can discuss that in the other thread.
    Oh, I have no doubts I'm considered in the same vein as Seattle, as overtly aggressive in my manner, as abrupt, and snarky and all the other failings my style might have. And I have no doubt my style is seen as yet another symptom of the way that this site has been run over the past however long it is. There may be far more personal things he might want to say, if he ever feels like it. And I'll address them as and when that happens. The difference is that when members become the issue, there is a corrective process in place. When moderators become the issue, though?
    It's not about me, and never was about me. It was about the standard you were harassing me with. So it was all about you. That much is clear. That the issues between you and Tiassa have been layered over time to become a morass of detritus for the rest of us, doesn't mean that everything he writes about you isn't valid and have merit in the context in which it was written. Deeper layers, sure, that were maybe written only so you would be aware of the underlying meaning, but the criticisms on the surface of this specific one, in context, were clear and valid. And remain uncountered by you, by the way. Whether he saw it as a symptom of this ongoing issue between you, that's frankly irrelevant to me, 'cos, as you remind, I'd be way out of my depth in understanding the history, even if I was in any way interested. But, baby and bathwater, and I'm only concerned here about the baby you threw out. I don't care about the bathwater, so don't assume I'm in any way focussing on that.

    So I'll leave it here, and look forward to the baby making a visit to the other thread you have set up. If you ever want to address it, that is.
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    I have no intention of discussion anything with Tiassa until he retracts his false accusations and apologises for his appalling behaviour. I want nothing to do with him and his hateful lies.
    I have not misunderstood.
    I fully intend to dismiss all of Tiassa's posts in their entirety, going forward. At least until I receive the appropriate retraction and apology from him. I think I have been more than clear about that.
    I have responded to your issue about the declaration of vested interests in the thread on that topic. I responded to you, not to Tiassa.
    There is no such "nonsense standard". If you want to keep making that claim, you need to try to support it. But not in this thread. In the one where it's on topic. This one is for Tiassa's bile.
    There are corrective processes that could be applied. Some of them might be quite drastic. We'll see what transpires.
    None of Tiassa's issues with me should have seen the light of day on the public forums. It is entirely inappropriate that he keeps airing his dirty laundry there.

    I have never claimed that "everything he writes about [me] isn't valid". That would be stupid and churlish. But he has gone too far in confecting three separate lies about me, all of which he knows are not true. Enough is enough. I'm done with his bullshit.
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Considering the theory that the Forumatti are wanting to encourage traffic to the site, one must wonder what they might think of moderators dragging moderators in public, and what that might do to membership and traffic.
  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Well, that's just it. What do you want? And here's the thing, Dave, everyone is good at telling us they're unhappy about something; what nobody can really tell us is what they want. And part of it is because it's idyllic, and part of that has to do with how simplistic and even childish idyll can sound. Like the part about no ad homs or insults; sure, I get you, and this, that, or the other, but at the end of the day, human diversity makes it virtually impossible.

    Historically, everyone tends to be good with a little sting in the discourse until they're out on a ledge and everyone else needs to let them off easy. Okay, that last part is probably a bit more variable, but, sure, everyone tends to be good with a little sting until they're not.

    It's not that I expect you to spell out the solution, but, like with the peanut gallery line, many times people will complain quite literally for the sake of the feeling of having complained; it's a brain chemistry thing, and it's not exactly uncommon around here. Thus, does one complain because they want a problem addressed and solved, or just because they want someone to complain at? And, sure, it's probably often a little of each, and in that range is how this thread, while you may not see it as your battle, is related to your inquiry.

    Consider a basic range: Sometimes something negative comes up because that's how things go, i.e., people fight with each other. Sometimes people even inject a little vice into those things, i.e., that probably didn't help. But then ask yourself about the parts that aren't part of anything like that, but just someone is looking to be disruptive and vicious. Because what do we do about this third condition? Right now I don't have a good answer, because the answer I have appears to be variable in a manner that renders it dysfunctional.

    Well, we could do a bit of a joke, here: Foghorn↑ suggests, "PM James and vice versa", but, well, James and private messages are their own discussion.

    Meanwhile, there is also the fact that we do have a subforum set aside for staff discussions that members don't see. If that worked as well as you or Foghorn would seem to expect, certain other discussions↗ might not be necessary. As I suggested↑, the difference between what is said in public and what is said behind closed doors can sometimes become relevant.

    And then there is this, Dave:

    As long as you do your part, like that, sure. Meanwhile, there is evidence on the table, no explanations, and only obfuscation. That's some good work, there, helping out the obfuscation.

    So, what was that you were saying about obfuscation and explanation↗, or was it just not that important, some manner of complaint for the sake of complaining?

    Here's a basic question about consistency, Dave: Which consistency is more important to you, that the rules are respected, or that you are satisfied regardless of the rules? At Sciforums, the consistency of what is enforced or not is ... let's go with, consistently inconsistent.

    Imagine a Sciforums where Billvon has been absent for a few years, now, on the grounds that he was a terrorist who tried to compel mass murder, including killing me. I mean, hell, he did it, so I should probably throw his ass out, right?¹ Except maybe there is another way to look at what he said, one that isn't quite so harsh? Well, sure, but what happens if it's someone else he offends? What happens if he doesn't have the right politics? We already know that answer, and as it happens, we also already know Billvon agrees that other people should not be granted the same leeway he was.

    Again, Dave, take a look around. Try Sarkus↑ and Geordief↑ for example. If Sarkus observes, "Tiassa's post (#1 in this thread)", remember that it is an artificial designation; I already told you↑ that, and pointed to↗ what had been farmed out to another splinter in order to recontextualize the discussion. Now, do you, Dave, think Geordief actually cares that James' pretense is contrived? Or, compared to other such posts (see Billvon, Foghorn), is the point just to complain?

    For some, as long as James isn't after them, they're okay with it. Or maybe they're more than okay with it. It's hard to tell, compared to the vagary, but observe the effect of what they have to say compared to what is actually going on here, which in turn must be pieced together, now, from three threads because apparently the best way to address the question is to break it into smaller pieces in order to address it fallaciously. Remember, what James is so upset about is that I suggested↗ his vested-interest standard in the "Cryptocurrencies" thread was too broad. (Hint: It's a make-believe standard.)

    I can give these issues as much time as your or anyone else's two cents might ask, but if everything is to be pushed away as opportunism and grudges and word count, &c., then it is more likely to be time wasted. So, sure, ask yourself about consistency, and what you think your inquiry about explanation and obfuscation is going to be worth in a market where even you can be found pitching in for obfuscation. Regardless of what you think about what I have to say, you did put some effort and emotion into your SFOG inquiry, so I really don't think you were doing it for nothing. But that's the thing, Dave, if you're just going to push everything aside as something else, it's unclear what answer would fail to leave you unsatisfied.

    Remember how you cited the rule about "reasonable standards of intellectual integrity and honesty"? And I pointed back five years, and suggested↗ I've been losing staff arguments about integrity and honesty for a long time? Even five years ago, the idea of "reasonable standards of intellectual integrity and honesty" were disdained as oppressive. It's part of how we end up winging it more often than not, which, in turn—lather, rinse, repeat—is how we end up in this discussion.

    It's gone this way for years. Consider, please:

    1) What the moderators enforce or don't affects your experience at Sciforums.

    2) Your experience at Sciforums informs and affects the decisions you make, here.

    3) Take a look around at the decisions people are making, and maybe wonder why those are the decisions they make.​

    How many experiences and decisions, over time? There is a question puzzle pieces and bigger picture in all this.

    And, on decisions: Check James at #31↑, telling Seattle, "You're clueless when it comes to issues of moderation on the internet, it seems." And then Seattle, at #39↑: "Why should a reader have to get past his 'style'?" Well, setting aside the part that comprehending stylistics is part of reading, let's just focus on the fact of that post, for a moment. And setting aside whether Seattle is "clueless" about moderation, let's try that moderation outlook: First, nobody forced him to come to this thread and read it, so nothing says he should have to get past any stylistics. Second, in its original form, the present discussion includes protestation inherently on his behalf; remember, the vested interest drama includes Seattle's infraction for making a Star Trek joke. Thus we might observe that Seattle goes out of his way to deliver a particular line. That is his decision, and according to his priority, but he does not seem to care that he is opposing his own benefit vis à vis moderating authority. Like I said in March↗: And even what we complain about. Sure, I was thinking of something else, at the time, but, sure, this works in its moment. I'll do the other story in the other thread; I have notes, already, somewhere.


    ¹ There is also the question of self-interest; it's one thing if I hand off an episode in which I have a personal stake, like Billvon exhorting religious obsessives to mass murder that includes me among the targets, but for others, it would appear that Billvon did not have the wrong politics, and thus could be afforded the interpretive consideration. Not everybody gets that, and speaking of self-interest, Billvon, who has benefitted from this consideration, would refuse it to others. Or, as such, something about consistency goes here.​
  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    All that text and you didn't address* the core issue - the show-stopper:

    What is the point in even discussing what's good or bad, problems or fixes - if the Forumatti won't countenance change (if we are to understand that correctly from you guys)?

    *so maybe you could chill out a little on your habit of immediately pouncing on anyone who doesn't respond fully and completely in the timeline you like. Patience.
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    1. Anyone is free to call me on any obfuscation I might be doing. That's the nature of an open forum. I don't claim to be sinless and I don't claim to be above criticism. I have never done it so aggressively that it has garnered an infraction or warning.

    But you can bet that, if I thought SciFo were actively bringing about change to stop trolling, deriding, and insulting - I'd do my best to be the first (OK, second) to fall in line.

    2. I'm curious what you see as obfuscation by me. I'm sure the term can be cunningly applied to virtually any discussion where people disagree, but the thread in question was specifically about searching for explanations. Knowingly providing false "facts" and then trying to use those false facts to make a false narrative is directly counter to finding explanations. If I've committed obfuscations to that extent I'm interested in hearing about it.
  11. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    That would require a little more definition on your part.

    For instance, consider that part of what is going on here is that James has demanded I apologize, and even so particularly as each thread in which he feels I have misrepresented him. I have asked him if I can quote him in circumstances not usually open to such direct discussion, but he has yet, after three inquiries, to answer the question directly.

    So, maybe you could ... okay, I won't do the sarcasm. But here's the thing, this goes a lot quicker if I can discuss it more directly.

    What I said is, "pitching in for obfuscation", not that you are explicitly obfuscating.¹

    Do you understand, for instance, that part of this bit about how James has treated other issues in the past affected other decisions about moderation?²

    But, like I said, examples are on the table, and unanswered, but you would simply dismiss this as opportunism and grudges? Dave, some of this pertains explicitly to how we moderate. Yet, you would keep pushing it off with cynical insinuation, like reducing the whole thing to muttering scandalization↑ about "what they might think of moderators dragging moderators in public". If we abide your suggestion, fine, but where does that go:

    What's the point in discussing it, Dave, if it's all just opportunistic grudges and dragging?

    This is part of the discussion, Dave: If there is inconsistency, then how does that work? Or is the answer, that something might have gone wrong along the way, mere opportunistic dragging?

    To wit, again↑: What do you want me to do to ufologists that I'm supposed to spare white nationalists? It's not an arbitrary question, Dave. It's part of how we get here. It's part of the discussion. I wasn't joking when I said these are some of the issues that make it harder to answer that inquiry more directly. Like you said, "maybe you could chill―" ... oh, right, I said I wasn't going to do the sarcasm.

    Still, patience? We'll get there. Well, as long as you let us. If you're absolutely determined to forestall, it's easier to let you.


    ¹ It's not an unfamiliar ... distortion? ... sleight? ... mistake? ... see also, James' demand↑ for apologies; he's generally exaggerating, but point (b) is a clear misrepresentation.

    ² This is something that puzzles me about various complaints and protestations, some amorphous manner by which it really does seem like what people want is pet exceptions for their own something or other, inasmuch as that tends to be the common outcome; e.g., I don't disagree with your general appeal in the question of explanation and obfuscation↗, but (a) the actual thread you refer to is more complicated than that, which is its own discussion, and, (b) the problem you describe does not stop with the issue you suggest, but, rather, the issue you refer to can be seen as symptomatic of other things. And it's that second point that connects your discussion of a ufo thread intended to denigrate a member with the seemingly arbitrary standard of the vested-interest drama and our history of accommodating a certain degree of crackpottery in order to not violate free speech.​
  12. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Tiassa seems to place undue emphasis on rules and strictly following them. What is important aren't the rules but the spirit of the rules or rather the ability of the forum to function amicably. If it was just about the rules, an algorithm could replace the moderators.

    Being consistent in opposing something isn't the goal either. I'm not on team red or team blue or team Tiassa or team James. I'm not going to worry about a consistent message when details change and therefore my comments will change.

    Too many have to be "right" regardless of the subject matter. We could have too much moderation and too little moderation. Both could be true. Comments should reflect that.
  13. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Fair enough. I was thinking of the OGUatSoM thread as a recent example. It was gratuitously aggressive. The impatience and accusation outweighed any sincere effort to dialogue. The point is, I don't think it's any stretch to surmise (and suspect many will agree) that you thoroughly enjoy crafting scathing disapproval for its own sake. I suspect that's why James calls you angry.

    OK, apparently that phrase means something different to you. So now I have no idea what you meant.

    I assume this about the James points. I'm sort of skirting that issue, it's not really my fight (which is why I'm concerned about whether I am dragging this thread off-topic).

    I don't follow. I feel like you are ascribing motives to me, not sure how you know me. And I'm not sure how I'm "cynically insinuating" anything, or "reducing" it at all, never mind to muttering scandalization. I think I said what I said and the point is obvious. It sounds more like you're editorializing for its own sake than you're making any attempt to communicate your point.

    The issue about the Forumatti is not a dig - if that's what you thought it was - it is a valid question. Is seems to me it is the central issue. It is the crux of change - or lack of.

    Do you not think it is poor form how to have moderators openly bashing each other in a dedicated thread? What kind of example is this setting? It tells the rest of us that it's a free-for-all.

    You and I are not equals.
    Mine was a member-to-moderator question: "What is the point, if you tell us you can't effect change?".
    Your response is a moderator-to-member question about "what is the point". That's alarming - if a moderator doesn't know what the point is of discussing change.

    So here's the point: Collectively, you are the de facto example-setters. If you're not the rudder for the boat, then we go in circles. If you tell us there's no point in trying to effect change then we have to no choice but believe you. The only way that can change is if you take the rudder. If the rest of us see a course to follow that isn't just opportunistic grudges and dragging some of us might try to follow it.

    And that's one of the reasons why (I think) many people are hard on you about your style. You're supposed to both setting an example and enforcing rules that set the example. The example should not be member-bashing is institutionalized in moderator policy.

    Or perhaps a better nautical metaphor: we're on a sinking ship and the captains appear to be in the stateroom fighting over the jewels in the safe. Are you expecting positive reviews from passengers and crew?

    So, here's a question: What - if anything - do you want to see change?
    Last edited: May 23, 2023
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    I doubt it has much impact. I don't think visitors are likely to care very much about infighting among people they don't know.
  15. geordief Valued Senior Member

    A bit off topic (a relief?) but my opinion is that all social media sites should (a) be compulsorily moderated and (b) rated for their moderation quality.

    A poorly moderated site should be shut down and the owners fined for cultural(?) pollution.

    Oh ,and mods should be remunerated for their service.
  16. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    To do that a site has to make money.
  17. geordief Valued Senior Member

    I see that ,but does that mean there would be no merit in pursuing policies (I mean legal conditions) along those lines?

    Those that do make a profit (or earn income) might still be obliged to operate on those lines whilst those that were run as a hobby could be treated differently but would still have to follow the law as applicable . .

    And users would have to be made aware of where any particular site fitted in in that regard.
  18. Bells Staff Member

    There is a moderator forum. And yes, fighting happens there too..

    I've been a way for a long while. What a great time to come back....
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Welcome back and have fun in there!
    Bells likes this.
  20. Bells Staff Member

    I was actually going to try to wade through this, but then I saw this..

    My Dude..


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I mean, clearly you are both upset and lots of nasty and stupid things being said after a brief skim over this thread and the other one in the back room.

    But it's 2023. You are fighting about stuff from 2016!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    wegs and exchemist like this.
  21. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    I, for one, am delighted to see you back, Bells. Hope all is OK, or at least under control, your end.
    Bells likes this.
  22. Bells Staff Member

    Ah thank you! You may be the only one though..

    It's been a hair raising ride these last couple of years, but we are starting to see the light at the end of the proverbial tunnel.
    pjdude1219, exchemist and Seattle like this.
  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Maybe start with Twitter?

Share This Page