Why?

[Ominous Gamer]

Can't we keep lewk as the exception?

[Nessus]

Can't we keep lewk as the exception?

They have, for years.

[']['ear]

You sometimes misrepresent your own posts, but here is what you said:

Yes! Thanks! I did quote the entire thing right above!

I think the whole point is that we're moving away from using Cain as our measuring stick, maybe it's time you retire that one

How many orders of magnitude are we talking here? I was thinking that an approximation of "you contracted your potentially fatal disease as an STD by gay whoring outside of military bases" was the kind of stuff we were trying to stamp out. You know, as opposed to Dread and Rand sitting around chuckling about how hilarious Cain is when he does stuff like that. Saying "and you call yourself a social scientist?" in response to somebody claiming they proved something by linking to a scientific still birth did not seem beyond the pale to me. Nor did demanding that the poster in question quote the relevant passages in the future before claiming points, or saying "I proved you wrong." Neither of these are unreasonable statements. If I'd called him a dick, asshole, etc. I think I would have been very worthy of warning.

Was it because I used the word "fucking" as an adjective? Is that too hostile? Let's bring back the word filter debate!

Fantastic, and now we're sliding backwards. Overtly hostile posts like the one you made are not continuing here, Tear. Especially when it represents as large an escalation of hostilities as yours did.

Oohhhhkay. How are we sliding backwards? How about we define "overly hostile posting?" You know, we might all benefit from the first person being warned being treated to a little detail about where they went awry, dontcha think? Not a crazy idea. Especially since actual policing of post content is utterly novel here, and was pretty damned unusual even in CC, at least for established members. What was too hostile about it? You could have bolded a couple of things to enlighten us. You know, just the first few times? Maybe say "I'm thinking that this post was too hostile, and this was what I didn't like about it?"

Also, please stop trying to bait Loki. He's not even in this current discussion! Please don't act like you don't know what I'm talking about either - starting another argument as an excuse to bait someone is not acceptable.

I'm explaining why I was justified in being forceful. I wasn't crude or ugly. I didn't call him X, Y or Z. Let's be parsimonious, OK?

Or I'm just starting a thread to bait Loki.

Look, if you want Rated G kindergarten conduct, you're going for it. Funny, people advocating for enforcement on extreme posts were NOT advocating enforcement on posts like this. They want to cut the extreme out. This wasn't extreme.

I'm not very patient by nature,

This is becoming clear. Lack of patience is an admirable trait for a mod policing bad behavior. Excellent choice.

and I'm not going to just let people go and do whatever the maximum they think they can get away with is.

Because it is absolutely clear what I am doing here, right? And it most certainly is not trying to get at the root of why I was warned for something before I even knew we had a new mod, that this mod would be enforcing conduct rules, or what those conduct rules would be. No, absolutely not looking for clarity, just trying to game everybody and find out what I can get away with.

Say, can you warn yourself for being too insulting and hostile? Can I add defensive to that?

I'm not an automaton, so rules-lawyering will not work with me.

Impartiality is critical.

A non-authoritarian guy with people skills would have tried to establish precedents and ease the community into a new era. You couldn't even quote the post, bold it, and say "please don't do this?"

What I really don't see here is a guy trying to be fair and understanding, and trying to bring a somewhat reluctant community to more reasonable behavioral standards. I don't see a guy trying to arrive at a sweet spot of forum moderation in collaboration with other members. Hell, I don't see a guy who read this whole thread. I see a guy who unilaterally decided to come down hard, with no explanation to grease the wheels. Granted that you could have started off worse, but you could have started off a helluva lot better. If you resent it that much, don't be the mod. If you're going to be an impatient hard on, you'll damage the community, so don't be the mod. I get that you're the brains behind the forum, and you have appreciation and respect from me for that. Those sentiments do not spill over to your modding, where you start at neutral. Respect is earned or lost. Guess how you started out? Somewhat heavy handed, non-transparent and defensive. Not a good start.

I'm sorry, is this too hostile?

Look, I know you loath me. You've made that abundantly clear in the past, and I was utterly fascinated to get warned by you under those circumstances. Let's be honest: I'm not expecting a fair shake from you. So let's have an exercise. How about you strive to be fair and impartial? Because otherwise just emotionally jerk your knee and kick my ass outta here. I will stop calling people names or making nasty insinuations. I won't post stuff that I wouldn't say to somebody's face. I won't take disputes cross-thread. I won't be a pit bull about angry disputes. These are concessions I'd think you'd be happy to see. But I'm not going to stop being sarcastic or calling people out on BS. I will not stop saying "You call yourself a social scientist?" under those circumstances, especially when he knows damned well what inferior crap he was peddling and how lazy he was being. And I will not knuckle under to a martinet. If that means I'm gone, so be it. Consider it falling on my sword for the sake of the community. Or consider it catering to my pride. I don't really give a fuck.

[Wraith]

How many orders of magnitude are we talking here? I was thinking that an approximation of "you contracted your potentially fatal disease as an STD by gay whoring outside of military bases" was the kind of stuff we were trying to stamp out. You know, as opposed to Dread and Rand sitting around chuckling about how hilarious Cain is when he does stuff like that. Saying "and you call yourself a social scientist?" in response to somebody claiming they proved something by linking to a scientific still birth did not seem beyond the pale to me. Nor did demanding that the poster in question quote the relevant passages in the future before claiming points, or saying "I proved you wrong." Neither of these are unreasonable statements. If I'd called him a dick, asshole, etc. I think I would have been very worthy of warning.

You still didn't get any WL. It's been explained several times already why the post was inappropriate, and not just by me. Weaving in personal insults, and an overall hostile tone is not conducive to continued civil discussion, and I'm not going to let you try to rules lawyer your way out of it. Context exists, and everyone can see the full context of things. Even when one thing isn't too bad when taking on it's own, a whole run of things that are close can sum to something worth taking action on. Everyone else seems to have a good understanding for this.

Oohhhhkay. How are we sliding backwards?

You seemed to understand and be okay with everything before. I thought the matter was closed and everything could continue on. Then up it springs again. Backwards slide.

How about we define "overly hostile posting?" You know, we might all benefit from the first person being warned being treated to a little detail about where they went awry, dontcha think? Not a crazy idea. Especially since actual policing of post content is utterly novel here, and was pretty damned unusual even in CC, at least for established members.

Which is why I explained what the problem was when I asked you to calm down, and also why no actual warning was issued - I've been trying to give everyone a grace period here.

I'm explaining why I was justified in being forceful. I wasn't crude or ugly. I didn't call him X, Y or Z. Let's be parsimonious, OK?

Or I'm just starting a thread to bait Loki.

No. You were using something else as an excuse to bait Loki. Again. This is all the times Cain brings up Nicaragua. You are responsible for your own posts, and avoiding baiting people. I know you were trying to get this trolling through without actually breaking any rules, but I'm not willing to put up with those games. Again, Cain & Nicaragua - most of his statements along those lines, taken alone and without context, broke no rules. There'd be trolling points now.

Because it is absolutely clear what I am doing here, right? And it most certainly is not trying to get at the root of why I was warned for something before I even knew we had a new mod, that this mod would be enforcing conduct rules, or what those conduct rules would be. No, absolutely not looking for clarity, just trying to game everybody and find out what I can get away with.

Yes I know. Well, there's also a pretty good chance you were trying to a build an excuse to do, well, this, but I didn't want to bring that up just then. You were angry that Rand got away with using sarcasm while you got politely asked to stop doing something worse, so I did kinda see it coming.

Look, if you want Rated G kindergarten conduct, you're going for it. Funny, people advocating for enforcement on extreme posts were NOT advocating enforcement on posts like this. They want to cut the extreme out. This wasn't extreme.

Good thing I didn't hand out any WL for it then, eh? Waiting until the flamewars start clearly doesn't work here, so I've got to be more preventative.

This is becoming clear. Lack of patience is an admirable trait for a mod policing bad behavior. Excellent choice.

Say, can you warn yourself for being too insulting and hostile? Can I add defensive to that?

A non-authoritarian guy with people skills would have tried to establish precedents and ease the community into a new era. You couldn't even quote the post, bold it, and say "please don't do this?"

What I really don't see here is a guy trying to be fair and understanding, and trying to bring a somewhat reluctant community to more reasonable behavioral standards. I don't see a guy trying to arrive at a sweet spot of forum moderation in collaboration with other members. Hell, I don't see a guy who read this whole thread. I see a guy who unilaterally decided to come down hard, with no explanation to grease the wheels. Granted that you could have started off worse, but you could have started off a helluva lot better. If you resent it that much, don't be the mod. If you're going to be an impatient hard on, you'll damage the community, so don't be the mod. I get that you're the brains behind the forum, and you have appreciation and respect from me for that. Those sentiments do not spill over to your modding, where you start at neutral. Respect is earned or lost. Guess how you started out? Somewhat heavy handed, non-transparent and defensive. Not a good start.

I'm sorry, is this too hostile?

Look, I know you loath me. You've made that abundantly clear in the past, and I was utterly fascinated to get warned by you under those circumstances. Let's be honest: I'm not expecting a fair shake from you. So let's have an exercise. How about you strive to be fair and impartial? Because otherwise just emotionally jerk your knee and kick my ass outta here. I will stop calling people names or making nasty insinuations. I won't post stuff that I wouldn't say to somebody's face. I won't take disputes cross-thread. I won't be a pit bull about angry disputes. These are concessions I'd think you'd be happy to see. But I'm not going to stop being sarcastic or calling people out on BS. I will not stop saying "You call yourself a social scientist?" under those circumstances, especially when he knows damned well what inferior crap he was peddling and how lazy he was being. And I will not knuckle under to a martinet. If that means I'm gone, so be it. Consider it falling on my sword for the sake of the community. Or consider it catering to my pride. I don't really give a fuck.

I know this has worked well for you in the past. Building these arsenals labeled "bias" and "favoritism" by attacking mods who are good people can be fairly effective. They become overly concerned with justice, fairness, and the appearance of the two that it's pretty easy to cow them into giving you immunity by making these assaults on them. Good people are just too worried about the appearance of such things and sometimes let the worries and doubt cripple them into inaction. I am not good people. I am far too invested in this community right now to let it go down in flames to protect something as silly as my image.

If you don't want WL, all you have to do is not give me an excuse. Whether you feel or claim you're being persecuted simply doesn't matter. Just stop it.

I think I'm going to have to be done playing nice here. Stop testing me.

[']['ear]

Right. There's some nice insulting stuff in there. OK for you to insinuate all kind of shit, I see. And you still have no inclination actually explain what was wrong. "You're doing stuff I don't like" seems to sum it up, because "hostile" and "weaving personal insults" is vague BS. Brilliant.

A bit of advice: when you warn somebody, or give them WLPs, quote the text, bold what you don't like. Otherwise you're letting your whim rule us, and never defining your standards. That won't go over well.

Of course, doubtlessly you'll say that this, too, is some sort of brilliant manipulation on my part. News flash: I'm not very subtle. Stop imputing motives to me that I couldn't possibly execute.

[Nessus]

']['ear, really. Take a break. Have just a little breather. You're only digging yourself deeper

[Aimless]

Right. There's some nice insulting stuff in there. OK for you to insinuate all kind of shit, I see. And you still have no inclination actually explain what was wrong. "You're doing stuff I don't like" seems to sum it up, because "hostile" and "weaving personal insults" is vague BS. Brilliant.

The excerpt I posted from your post was, I think, one of the hostile and insulting bits. That's why I posted the excerpt, because it seemed as if the rest of your post was obscuring the unnecessarily hostile bits. I figured you were having difficulties seeing those bits because you were saying other more relevant things as well, in that post. I didn't realise that you really couldn't see why some of the things you said were unnecessarily hostile

I say this not because I feel a particularly strong need to engage in policing, I'm just hoping to facilitate your communication. In summary: you got mad, your post was deemed unnecessarily hostile due to eg. calling another member a lazy incompetent fool, you didn't get any WLs for it, and you shouldn't feel diminished by these events in any way (I think).

I think you may be clouding the issue when you get into this business about Cain and STDs and mod-impartiality etc etc. Come on man, one thing at a time. The only reason I can see for you trying to conflate all these things is if you're feeling unfairly attacked from all sides, but I hope you can see this business in less adversarial terms. Nessie's suggestion is a good one. Maybe we all need a bit of a breather to let this settle in

[']['ear]

You recommend that I stop rules lawyering? Is that a W quote, by the way? Come on, you can hear W complaining to Cheney that those liberals like to do that rules lawyering.

I don't even know where to start with that post, so I won't. But I will say that you've got it all sewn up, Wraithy. Any criticism of your actions is me being evil and sneaky. It's your forum. Far be it from me to argue with you further.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Friends, TWFers, countrymen, lend me your ears and 2 minutes 30 of your time.

Play, close eyes, breathe.

[GGT]

I heart Ziggy. Smoothest person in this web.

[RandBlade]

Agreed, saccharin sweetness isn't desirable.

I'd argue that Rand's post was trolling, but trolling is difficult to define. The fact that he never posts like that to me (or anybody else) was also striking. I wonder what the special occasion was?

Can't argue with your reasoning that you can only respond to what has been reported. Seeing as other forum members with an ax to grind will be aggressively reporting any of my transgressions, I'll be punctilious about reporting any offenses I see.

How was that trolling? It was a sarcastic, on-topic jibe against a viewpoint that had nothing personal to do with any users

As for me not being sarcastic before, I must not post often enough any more is the only explanation I can think of as I've often been sarcastic when I think its the right time and place for it and this is the first time I've ever seen anyone complain - about me or anyone else being sarcastic. So are you requesting basically a ban on sarcasm . Or is it not the sarcasm but the fact that it was a viewpoint being targetted in the D&D forum - surely its entire purpose. Is attacking an argument/position now to be banned, because if so we might as well shut down D&D

EDIT: Great song Ziggy

[RandBlade]

Sorry I've not been reading this thread, so just catching up now.

I came here because everyone else did when Atari decided they weren't going to allow basic off-topic discussion in their off-topic section anymore. I've been asking for more active moderation from you and Rand for years. There is a middle ground between your preferred almost entirely inactive approach and a massive silencing of the community.

Indeed there is; I would also have to agree that of all the criticisms of Dread and myself down the years, yours is entirely the most logical and consistent that I can agree with.

The irony is that by far the biggest criticism at least in terms of volume isn't that in my experience, but either a complaint of being "inconsistent" or of "picking" on a user when they do cross the line, whever that line is drawn. Followed by criticism of being too active sometimes. I suppose in a sense, whoever gets a warning/their friends tend to be a lot more vocal than whoever doesn't see one issued but thinks there should have been. I am so in-grained now of trying to be consistent for everyone that the line has probably been pushed too far.

The funny, off topic, thing is at work I have a similar issue sometimes. It is my job to ensure I don't allow people to cross the line, but also there I sort-of get to set where the line is but need to be consistent. I have at times (typically when there have been issues) set the line being of "zero-tolerance" which wouldn't be recognisable from my moderation here probably . But my main issue here is to try and be consistent and fair with everyone. Along with trying to do the sort of moderation that would keep the community healthy and happy.

To be perfectly honest I'm open to whatever the community prefers. If the community prefers a change in the rules I'm open to that. If the community prefers a change in the moderation style or the rules to be enforced more "aggressively" then OK - and if the community were to ever desire a change in who the moderators are, then I'm only here to help and wouldn't want to stay beyond my welcome. The problem is to be honest I'm not entirely certain if the community as a whole does know what it wants and if we push in a new direction I wonder how long before we start to get complaints again. Sometimes its a case of the grass always being greener on the other side I suspect.

[']['ear]

How was that trolling? It was a sarcastic, on-topic jibe against a viewpoint that had nothing personal to do with any users

As for me not being sarcastic before, I must not post often enough any more is the only explanation I can think of as I've often been sarcastic when I think its the right time and place for it and this is the first time I've ever seen anyone complain - about me or anyone else being sarcastic. So are you requesting basically a ban on sarcasm . Or is it not the sarcasm but the fact that it was a viewpoint being targetted in the D&D forum - surely its entire purpose. Is attacking an argument/position now to be banned, because if so we might as well shut down D&D

Actually I'd say the same thing, Rand. I was not particularly incensed by your comment, but rather that it got a pass while mine didn't. And it wasn't your sarcasm that I reacted to, it was your insinuation of political expediency when obviously not reading the tripe that was offered as "proof." This is, BTW, why Loki doesn't quote, he just spams the link as "proof." And yes, I have every right to question somebody's lazy or incompetent debating technique.) In my book, accusing me of no ethics and saying I'd say anything for political expediency in that context is more hostile than me asking if Loki calls himself a social scientist in response to the tripe he linked to. Of course, you didn't use the word "fucking" for emphasis, so there's a clean slate. Then again, we have no idea exactly what I said that was inappropriate, do we?

Of course, that's all just rules lawyering.

PS Nice song, Zigz, but Fogerty's YEAHs aren't terribly peaceful. I'd go with some mellow Chris Isaak song or something.

[']['ear]

snip

That's all nice, Rand. I appreciate your owning it. But you guys never cracked down on some truly obscene behavior by Cain. Yeah, it's self-pitying for me to complain that you never stopped him from saying evil shit to me, though I think it's justified. But what about taunting depressed tweens? Absolutely unconscionable. Unforgivable as well. You guys didn't just look the other way, you threw ethics out the window.

[Nessus]

Hey let's keep harping on about things years past endlessly, that's a good time for everybody

Have you read anything said here

I

[littlelolligagged]

You've got to put your behind in your past.

[']['ear]

Hey, mea culpas are nice, but only if they're accurate. Sanitized mea culpas are arguably worse than not even saying anything at all.

[Ziggy Stardust]

PS Nice song, Zigz, but Fogerty's YEAHs aren't terribly peaceful. I'd go with some mellow Chris Isaak song or something.

All of Creedence works. It's not about peaceful, there's just something in it that makes me feel better.

I found it does work wonders against road rage. During rush hours it's always going in.

[littlelolligagged]

Hey, mea culpas are nice, but only if they're accurate. Sanitized mea culpas are arguably worse than not even saying anything at all.

Enough with the blame game already.

It's tiresome.

You're like the little kid who is so starved for attention that even negative attention will do.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Personal attack. Not helping Lolli.

][ear. Could you please tell us what your idea is to go ahead from here?

[Nessus]

Hey, mea culpas are nice, but only if they're accurate. Sanitized mea culpas are arguably worse than not even saying anything at all.

I don't think it's about asking for forgiveness, or getting it. The point was, and is, that people are so mired in conflicts that started years and years ago (I've been a member for 8 years ), and they dominate conversation. They destroy conversation.

I guess having a place to vent is nice, but I'd also like to read interesting and intelligent discussions, and maybe even participate! That is impossible when people's intellects crumble under the weight of the chips on their shoulders.

We've all said bad things to one another, had (and continue to have) low opinions of other posters, and so on. The point is that we should be able to remain civil, and if we can't, that has to be enforced, apparently.

Rand has a point that we might get tired of that in the future, or whatever. Okay, I'm fine with that! Things change all the time. But right now, for a change to happen, I believe we need stricter guide-lines in the serious forum.

[']['ear]

Enough with the blame game already.

It's tiresome.

Am I buggin' ya? I wouldn't want to bug ya.

You're like the little kid who is so starved for attention that even negative attention will do.

Reported for trolling. Personal insult. You know, if you address the argument rather than the person, you can avoid being warned.

[littlelolligagged]

How is that a personal insult?

The problem with that kid is the parents, not the poor kid, after all.

[Wraith]

Tear, you set the tone of the conversation here. You don't get to become this aggressive and hostile and then complain when others start to approach the same level.

Also, either hit the report button or don't. Announcing your action helps nothing and only serves to drag things out longer.

Lolli, not really helping at the moment.

[littlelolligagged]

Yeah, yeah.

Sorry.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Again, ][ear. Could you please tell us what your idea is to go ahead from here?

[Loki]

I actually don't think people's personal lives are relevant to any serious discussion. Everyone is a hypocrite to some extent, but pointing that out in threads serves no purpose other than to inflame. Dismissing someone's argument because they don't live by the logic of that argument or because they might have some ulterior motive for making it is illogical and harmful to debate. I know virtually everyone here has ignored this line of reasoning in the past, including yours truly, but there is no reason to continue to do so in the future.

I agree with that. Hell, almost every single time somebody has gotten mad at me for the last years, they've posted some version of "but you're a confessed liar, so what you post has no worth." How many times have I had to argue that an argument, any argument, should be taken on its own merits?

Saying "and you call yourself a social scientist?" in response to somebody claiming they proved something by linking to a scientific still birth did not seem beyond the pale to me. Nor did demanding that the poster in question quote the relevant passages in the future before claiming points, or saying "I proved you wrong." Neither of these are unreasonable statements. If I'd called him a dick, asshole, etc. I think I would have been very worthy of warning.

Jesus, and you call yourself a social scientist? I don't know whether this is a commentary on your abilities, your laziness, or your willingness to lose the truth to score your precious "points."

You're being both a) lazy by making us track down the data that "supports" your point, and b) disingenuous because your links often don't even support your point you claim they do (witness the high school graduation rate).

Look, we know that you're training to become a hack at one of these think tanks

[LittleFuzzy]

The irony is that by far the biggest criticism at least in terms of volume isn't that in my experience, but either a complaint of being "inconsistent" or of "picking" on a user when they do cross the line, whever that line is drawn.

To an extent, the relatively non-interventionist style you and Dread take can create an impression of inconsistency *even when it is not, in fact, inconsistent* from sheer small sample size.

[']['ear]

Tear, you set the tone of the conversation here. You don't get to become this aggressive and hostile and then complain when others start to approach the same level.

Also, either hit the report button or don't. Announcing your action helps nothing and only serves to drag things out longer.

Actually, you'll find multiple references in this thread to being responsible for one's own post, regardless of what somebody else says to one. I'm certainly interested in whether you plan on warning people for ostensibly responding to somebody else, or whether flames or trolls are excusable as long as somebody else "set the tone."

Bolding offenses can clue people in on that score, just an FYI.

Again, ][ear. Could you please tell us what your idea is to go ahead from here?

I want Wraith to quote posts and bold the offense when he warns somebody. Otherwise, we have some vague notion of what the rules are, and Wraith can warn somebody for just about anything as long as he calls it "hostile" or "personal." If you look at the parallel in the real world, it's a terrible idea to give police vague powers--it leads to abuse. Defining offenses greatly helps to avoid that.

It's not too much to ask.

PS that's very nice, Loki, and I'm sure your sole purpose for posting here is to further clarify the discussion. I'm sure Wraith won't think you're trying to inflame things or anything. But you're a little off base there, since my posts refer to actual actions within that thread. Contrast to Fuzzy's out of the blue bringing up my wife in this thread. You see the distinction?

[Wraith]

I know where that leads. It didn't exactly help when people tried to give examples previously. Quibbling won't change things, and giving you more room for it isn't going to help.

If you're really having trouble understanding things, would you mind if I put you in touch with this guy:

Wraith told me my posting to Loki was inappropriately personal (true, by the way).

He seems to understand it, and would probably be able to help you out.

---

Tear, perhaps you should take a step back and look at this. You're throwing a fit over being asked to calm down. Not getting an infraction. Not any punishment. Not even anything anyone is likely to have remembered if you hadn't blown up over it.