WellCookedFetus's Moderator Position

How disingenuous. You live up to your name, Spurious.

Why should I take criticism of WCF seriously when so much of it is so dubiously founded?

Something about the validity of complaints?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

when so much of it is so dubiously founded?

isn't that an assumption?

Or are you telling me he didn't scare a new member away by insulting her?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I've scared away new members. You don't have to try.

Besides, I don't see why WCF should be worried at all about insensitivity. Why don't you let us know what about Xev's responses to this topic don't make sense to you. That's a good place to start. In the meantime, WCF had good reason to believe the poster is capable of the forum's more scandalous side. I guess the offended poster could give it but not take it. That's too bad.

Look, nobody's claiming WCF is a saint. But this request for action is akin to a tax rebellion that leaves schools unfunded. I had no idea the members of Sciforums were so damned thin-skinned. Given people's passion for the rough around here, I would have thought them tougher.

However, I'm still wondering: if this prosecution is so important to you, Spurious, why can't you do it correctly? Why can't you make well-founded points? Such as the one I noted earlier:

Yes, when we certain issues are afoot, we look at IP's. For instance, when I became a moderator, one of the first things I did was play around with my authority in order to figure out how to use the system. So I looked up a "new poster" I had managed to gravely offend somehow. Turns out it was just a second handle for a poster who'd been around for a couple years. Lots of people play dishonestly like that. They resurrect themselves, resume their old arguments under a new name, maintain their classic behavior, and then play hurt when people get annoyed at them, as if nobody noticed. So we look into IP's to make sure whether we're dealing with a new or an old problem.

It's very simple. I'm surprised a bright guy like you couldn't figure out so elementary a concept. Of course, that was never really the point, anyway, was it?

I mean, geez, a poster with 10 posts complains about ancient history ...? Yeah, that's not an easy one to spot at all, is it? Heaven forbid WCF or anyone else should do some research before making a decision.

What do you want from us? Sex favors? Maybe we should stand around and look pretty so as to complement the furniture?

Stop being so superficial, and the world will be considerably less confusing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

aren't we in an ad hominem attack mode today.

 

Why dont you just say it, some people can and some cannot, the illusion of everybody being equal here is just that, an illusion.

It has nothing to do with being thin skinned, personly I find it all rather ammuzing. It does how ever have everything to do with playing by the same rules, which clearly we are not.

stupid bitches, how bold of me

 

I reiterate:

• If this prosecution is so important to you, Spurious, why can't you do it correctly? Why can't you make well-founded points?

"Ad hominem attack"? Calling you disingenuous is a bit like calling Saddam Hussein irrational--except for Republicans, it's a little too easy. Calling you superficial is a little like calling Michael Jackson different.

What grad school did you go to where they teach that observation is a political vengeance?

Honestly? Because it's not nearly so simple as y'all pretend it is.

Take a look at Spuriousmonkey, for instance. He complains that WCF isn't sensitive enough to an insensitive poster. Yet all he really does is wander around this place and muck up discussions with his whining. Frankly I wonder why everyone is so anxious to sanction WCF for something that, as Xev has pointed out, falls well within the range of what the posters have worked for a long time to keep acceptable. Insensitivity is par for the course around here. And, as Spurious shows, so is dishonesty--er, I mean, "inaccuracy".

We've given people all sorts of freedom to be creative, but really, it's like instead of building anything people are just sitting around eating paste.

Okay, here's the deal. If WCF should be sanctioned, then both you and Spurious should be booted from this site for perpetuating such unfounded horseshit.

End of story.

Y'all need to stop pretending you're so smart and just use your brains. If such simplicity is the best you folks can imagine, fine. But we're not turning this site to pabulum just to accommodate the myopia of some and the malice of others. Posters have had five years to start obeying the rules, and they never have bothered. That people are making a stand over something so damnably petty speaks very poorly of them.

 

Don't bother. You bore me.

 

A microbiology forum. I'm a developmental biologist. Great recommendation.

 

I think this is the proper method of admonishing the Fetus. It has been shown in [post=666060]Gendanken's Banning[/post] that deliberate gender misidentification is a perfectly acceptable means of insulting a member. So, everyone just refer to Fetus as an insecure woman, as a goddess overflowing with knowledge, with all us suckling pups at her sagging teats of wisdom.


I would like to know if Fetus has been admonished in any way over calling a member a stupid bitch. For saying "fuck you" (a bannable offense for some.)

Or if he hasn't, I'd like to be told that there is now a more lenient interpretation of the rules in effect than was apparent two weeks ago.

Silence. Horrible and ignoble silence descends so mightily from those mighty lords of sci. Spread your bounteous words upon us, O Mighty Ones! (I'm starting to wonder if you're just a fantasy.)

 

This is a general sciences forum if even that spuriousmonkey. If you think a microbiology forum is incorrect for you I can't imagine what logic makes you think of coming here, well accept perhaps to demand respect.

The rules on this forum were usually enforces with deletion of inappropriate post or wording, with warnings for continued inappropriate behavior and finally with banishments, temporary or permanent. Most are not banished for petty crimes they are banished for repeated crimes and violations of the highest degree. If you all feel the moderators should deserver special treatment and be banished or impeach for any violation right of the spot, then be prepare your selves to suffer the same. What your asking for is equivalent to the death penalty for littering.

About gender, I specified that's its appropriate to call people "s/he", as its not easy for people to prove their sex and it does happen that people like to pretend their the opposite sex for wired reasons. I have met such weirdoes and as such do not trust those that demand to be specified sexually. I’m sorry if I call Gendanken a he and you did not feel that was right, I corrected my self on that thread with “s/he” but you feel that I should appeal to Gendanken even though s/he has yet to prove it. But if you think calling me a she as an insult to me is effective, you’re dearly wrong, it turns me on in fact.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Many have already mention my masochistic tendencies, I would not be here without them, I’m very bad at arguing for my self and usually make a fool of my self, only intensifying the hate of my enemies, oh that hate it fills me so.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

A Note to Those Who Support This Requested Action:

Once again, we see the people calling for action have no case to put before us. Unable to respond to Xev's explanations, unable to answer my inquiries, we see that those calling for action against WCF are incapable of putting forward an honest justification for their position.

Since Spuriousmonkey is unwilling to put up anything other than childish spite, perhaps someone else could explain it to me: What is the basis of this requested action?

It's not really superficiality and stupidity, is it?

 

Tiassa:

We could ask the thread-starter.
But alas, she has not responded to my explanations either.

Since this action cannot find a sponsor, I request that it be closed if no-one puts forth further allegations within the next 24 hours.

 

I second. Whether or not such a motion will have any influence is its own question. But I second nonetheless.

 

Regardless of sponsorship, it is obvious from the results of the poll that there is a large percentage of members who would like to see Fetus removed from his position. I find it odd the lack of posters on both sides of this argument.

Don't you?

But, that's no real reason to close a poll.

I do wonder if there aren't any repeat votes... If perhaps the Spooky-poodle hasn't voted more than once?


To all who vote without posting... WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU? POST YOUR DAMN REASONS FOR VOTING!!!!

 

Yes, please.
This thread is becoming a role model of inefficiency.

 

I'll request action if there are no sponsors by 2pm on 11/9.

Odd. Missed that tomorrow's the aniversery of the WTC attacks.

invert nexus:
This poll should be closed, as it is motivated not by rational decision but spite and determination to play the role of unelected moderator.

There is no "lack of posters on both sides". Tiassa, 'Fetus and myself have all posted in his defense. Arditezza and spuriousmonkey have posted in opposition to him.

Since neither Arditezza nor spuriousmonkey have defended their desire to have 'Fetus removed, I see no reason why we should leave this open. To deprive the forums of a competent moderator because of popular vote is an action of mob rule and not of democracy.

 

and poster stupidity.

 

He is also effective in spamming threads on his own and not reporting them. He takes it personally when people oppose him, and he does treat those people unfairly. Like Paul Samuel and Spuriousmonkey as he already stated in this very thread. People who disagree with him are his enemy and hate him.

How often do you review his moderation that you think you can really say that he is fair and impartial. I don't think you can honestly say you've reviewed his actions all that seriously at all.

That was part of my point. He takes his moderator duties TOO seriously, and tells people to go away a lot or to other forums as if he's in a position to tell other people what to do. He did not do that prior to his moderatorship. He's also constantly coming into SFOG, and other forums that are not his and telling people what to do and not do as if they were his forums. I think his thirst for power and control is overboard.

He's also insulting, and breaks the rules. Which NONE of you disproved, only that you said it didn't make him a bad moderator. But, it does. As it does you. Resorting to insulting posters, instead of just doing your job is not okay. Breaking the rules when you think you can get away with it, is also not okay. He needs a nanny, and someone to watch him or he needs to be removed. It's as simple as that.

Also, you can't change the rules at your whim. I think the vote should stand for ALL the reasons I posted and I object to you taking them down until the vote is finished, regardless of the outcome.

 

Whether we compare the number against the whole of Sciforums' registry or merely those who post regularly enough to have seen this topic in the list on the front page, fifteen votes doesn't represent a large percentage of either.

It's the equivalent of a mistrial: it is asserted there is no valid charge. Without some legitimate charge, it doesn't matter what people are voting on.

Again, I note Xev's early responses, which pretty much cover the initial issues for the time being. And I point to Spuriousmonkey's disingenuous position, as well as his refusal or inability to make a substantial argument in favor of action against WCF.

A war of words is an unfortunate metaphor, I admit. The the continued effort against WCF's office in the wake of Xev's responses would, in that metaphor, be equivalent to the folks we generally call "terrorists". It's not the lack of posters on both sides of the argument, but rather the lack of a proper charge to consider. The vote might as well be chocolate vs. vanilla, cotton candy vs. licorice ropes. Pot brownies vs. dope chocolate chip bars.

(Name yer poison.)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You know, the question becomes... does there need to be a valid reason for removing a moderator from power other than the will of the members?

What if someone just starts a poll with no stated reasons whatsoever? What if they just ask if such and such should be removed from power and leave it to the individuals to supply their own reasons?

Is this truly open government? Is a reason required? Or is it just that a vote must be requested? Are there rules on moderator impeachment? Or is it an informal affair?