Removal of Tiassa as moderator

Status
Not open for further replies.
wegs said:
Fair enough. I think the historical squabbling should have been squelched long ago. It’s just not a good look for mods to be fighting in the open.
Click to expand...
Yeah. On a forum I moderate we do all our moderation discussions via a separate (hidden) forum and via messages. But we also don't have the sort of rancor that seems to be common here; the mods disagree sometimes but it always remains civil.
This level of public persecution of Tiassa seems over the top.
Click to expand...
Well, except Tiassa has been persecuting them right back. And given his (former) position of power, that's more concerning.

Some crazy guy on the corner who yells at you and calls you names for no reason is annoying but not really a big problem. A cop that does the same thing is a much bigger problem.
 
James R said:
I have removed Tiassa from his position as a moderator of sciforums.
Click to expand...

So far so good... an while you'r on a roll ther needs to be one promotion... an one more demotion... ie... you an Tiassa switch you'r Sciforum jobs.!!!

Its a win... win... win... etc... an i promise that Sciforums will immediately begin to improve in many ways... eg... more sane/respectable leadership... increase in active members... more science oriented... friendlier/more interestin discussions... an finaly... Sciforums will once agan be "The Place To Be".!!!
 
cluelusshusbund said:
So far so good... an while you'r on a roll ther needs to be one promotion... an one more demotion... ie... you an Tiassa switch you'r Sciforum jobs.!!!

Its a win... win... win... etc... an i promise that Sciforums will immediately begin to improve in many ways... eg... more sane/respectable leadership... increase in active members... more science oriented... friendlier/more interestin discussions... an finaly... Sciforums will once agan be "The Place To Be".!!!
Click to expand...

Tiassa can apply for a moderating job at the soon to be published thescienceforum dot com.Will that be the "Place to Be" then or will James have to register there as a Punch Bag member?

A Judy and Punch show rather than the Punch Punch show here till recently or the Punch and Judy show you are warning us against here?
 
geordief said:
Should any new mod be versed in some scientific discipline?

I might nominate TheVat as he has moderated before over at the now defunct sciencechat forum and might be interested in doing it again.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the thought, but I've only been looking in her once or twice a week, so I couldn't provide the daily presence that I think moderating would call for.

Plus, I think newbies generally lack the historical perspective on the site, and familiarity with social dynamics among members, that should inform moderation.

Also, I'm lazy. As a retired person, I am carefully cultivating that quality, with an eye towards achieving world-class levels of indolence in the coming decade. Indolence demands a consistent and rigorous approach, and takes years of diligent application to bring off successfully.
 
TheVat said:
Thanks for the thought, but I've only been looking in her once or twice a week, so I couldn't provide the daily presence that I think moderating would call for.

Plus, I think newbies generally lack the historical perspective on the site, and familiarity with social dynamics among members, that should inform moderation.

Also, I'm lazy. As a retired person, I am carefully cultivating that quality, with an eye towards achieving world-class levels of indolence in the coming decade. Indolence demands a consistent and rigorous approach, and takes years of diligent application to bring off successfully.
Click to expand...
Indolence is really not that hard but it can be honed.

Apparently there are recent studies that fragrances can remedy the loss of memory as we get older to quite a degree.

Indolence is more presentable in the full of our senses.


https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2023.1200448/full
 
cluelusshusbund said:
So far so good... an while you'r on a roll ther needs to be one promotion... an one more demotion... ie... you an Tiassa switch you'r Sciforum jobs.!!!

Its a win... win... win... etc... an i promise that Sciforums will immediately begin to improve in many ways... eg... more sane/respectable leadership... increase in active members... more science oriented... friendlier/more interestin discussions... an finaly... Sciforums will once agan be "The Place To Be".!!!
Click to expand...
James comes across as an ok guy. Tiassa did not come across that way.
Exchemist jumped on me as did James and some other posters about climate change.
In a very intelligent way.
Tiassa did not on another issue.

From an outsider? Member only.
 
Seattle said:
[...] It turns out that if you don't label everyone a "white supremacist" there is a lot less drama. Go figure?
Click to expand...

In his potential defense, though, there's no such thing as passive antiracism (in the Kendi-verse).

If we're not actively challenging systemic oppression in every aspect of our lives, and trying to suppress the speech of those advocating/maintaining it, and also criticizing those still allowing the latter under traditional liberalism... Then we're part of the problem.

If that's what he was working from, then such is just being consistent with the ideology (caricaturized version?).

Though I've got a CDIB card, I'd expect being called "white-this" and "Karen-that" by an angry activist crowd because that's pretty much what I look like. Receiving the lofty status of "f__ing mongrel b_ch" is surely out of practical reach as far as chance sidewalk encounters go (i.e., its particularly loathsome overtones suggesting population-group betrayal).
_
 
C C said:
In his potential defense, though, there's no such thing as passive antiracism (in the Kendi-verse).

If we're not actively challenging systemic oppression in every aspect of our lives, and trying to suppress the speech of those advocating/maintaining it, and also criticizing those still allowing the latter under traditional liberalism... Then we're part of the problem.

If that's what he was working from, then such is just being consistent with the ideology (caricaturized version?).

Though I've got a CDIB card, I'd expect being called "white-this" and "Karen-that" by an angry activist crowd because that's pretty much what I look like. Receiving the lofty status of "f__ing mongrel b_ch" is surely out of practical reach as far as chance sidewalk encounters go (i.e., its particularly loathsome overtones suggesting population-group betrayal).
_
Click to expand...
I'm not of the Kendi-verse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: C C
C C said:
If we're not actively challenging systemic oppression in every aspect of our lives, and trying to suppress the speech of those advocating/maintaining it, and also criticizing those still allowing the latter under traditional liberalism... Then we're part of the problem.
Click to expand...
Sounds exhausting.

And then if you do THAT, you're not an anti-fascist, because you're too busy being an anti-racist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: C C
Tiassa said:
Moreover, in your latest accusations, you're not even capable of enumerating your complaint.
Click to expand...
Clearly, Tiassa did not read post #1 of this thread.

I realise that I have not linked, in this thread, the false accusations that he made about me. I link here to the relevant thread where all three are set out in a single post of Tiassa's. If anybody wants the relevant context, from the horse's mouth, so to speak, it's here. Tiassa's post is post #1, and my reply at the time immediately follows that. My complaint regarding Tiassa's lies is very clearly "enumerated".

Moderator makes ad hominem attacks on another moderator

Tiassa doesn't get to play dumb and pretend he was unaware of what he did, or what I wanted from him.
 
Pinball1970 said:
From an outsider?
Click to expand...

Well, that's actually a good place to start:

Pinball1970 said:
You said something pretty stupid to me early doors fella. I let it go but you never addressed it.
Click to expand...

Can you explain to me what about you as a person, or what about your argument, should entitle you to say things like your line about the Old Testament? You delivered an off-topic feelgood line, and at best simply don't care about the implications. And what you said is the Hebrew Scriptures are "very much immoral, bad, wicked whatever way you read it", excluding even the Jews from finding a better way to read it.

And instead of adjusting your statement, you chose indignance↗: "Ah ah stop right there sir. No one is 'going after' anyone at all." And you doubled and tripled down↗.

But the question has more to do with why you won't write a better argument, or perhaps why your argument requires that kind of statement. Really, in discussing a particular iteration of Christianity, you interjected an off-topic broadside that actually hits Jews.

So, what makes you, or your cause, so special that you shouldn't need to worry about such things?

While there is certainly much range for discussion of the nature, function, and value of scripture, starting with such generalization as, "SCRIPTURE is clearly inhumane, backward and savage", within the context that "The OT is very much immoral, bad, wicked whatever way you read it", is not a reliable or rational framework. Even if we set aside the point about the Hebrew Scriptures in particular, your argument would preclude anthropological and historical readings that do not trade in such assessments as "immoral, bad, wicked". But in your particular application, you crosscut a discussion to drop a line hitting Jews.

So even if the answer is that the hit didn't occur to you when you said it, we come back to wondering what makes what you have to say so special that you shouldn't have to attend even this basic degree of rhetorical diligence.

And, in its way, you'll find that's not too dissimilar from some issues tied up in all this drama. More generally, though, it will always stand out as strange when people who are within range of the correct answer would pass it over in order to go take part in the bacchanal they criticize. See it happen enough, and eventually it's easy to accept that's probably the point.
 
billvon said:
Sounds exhausting.

And then if you do THAT, you're not an anti-fascist, because you're too busy being an anti-racist.
Click to expand...

Yes, burnout may be a problem for progressive capitalists burning both or multiple ends. Since one must continually reinforce that one is indeed an authentic do-gooder in a particular area of social justice, rather than being another opportunistic poseur.

Contrast to antifa proper. Where the nice thing about being a member of the various Marxist, social democrat, and anarchist cliques loosely subsumed by that category is that you are part of the legitimate left. I.e., all battle fronts against systemic oppression and their applicable values are automatically covered via splintered intellectual descent from the legacies of Antonio Gramsci and other historic giants. Who have addressed and incrementally expanded focus on the assorted inequities and ruthless tactics of Western tradition and commercial enterprise since the early 20th-century (and before).
_
 
Tiassa said:
Well, that's actually a good place to start:



Can you explain to me what about you as a person, or what about your argument, should entitle you to say things like your line about the Old Testament? You delivered an off-topic feelgood line, and at best simply don't care about the implications. And what you said is the Hebrew Scriptures are "very much immoral, bad, wicked whatever way you read it", excluding even the Jews from finding a better way to read it.

And instead of adjusting your statement, you chose indignance↗: "Ah ah stop right there sir. No one is 'going after' anyone at all." And you doubled and tripled down↗.

But the question has more to do with why you won't write a better argument, or perhaps why your argument requires that kind of statement. Really, in discussing a particular iteration of Christianity, you interjected an off-topic broadside that actually hits Jews.

So, what makes you, or your cause, so special that you shouldn't need to worry about such things?

While there is certainly much range for discussion of the nature, function, and value of scripture, starting with such generalization as, "SCRIPTURE is clearly inhumane, backward and savage", within the context that "The OT is very much immoral, bad, wicked whatever way you read it", is not a reliable or rational framework. Even if we set aside the point about the Hebrew Scriptures in particular, your argument would preclude anthropological and historical readings that do not trade in such assessments as "immoral, bad, wicked". But in your particular application, you crosscut a discussion to drop a line hitting Jews.

So even if the answer is that the hit didn't occur to you when you said it, we come back to wondering what makes what you have to say so special that you shouldn't have to attend even this basic degree of rhetorical diligence.

And, in its way, you'll find that's not too dissimilar from some issues tied up in all this drama. More generally, though, it will always stand out as strange when people who are within range of the correct answer would pass it over in order to go take part in the bacchanal they criticize. See it happen enough, and eventually it's easy to accept that's probably the point.
Click to expand...
I think the OT is backward tribal and wicked and I still don't think you should be a mentor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: C C
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top