Moderators

[northstar]

+1000 ^^

I do not mind Dr. Mas’ discussions with the usual suspects. It serves a purpose. If you cannot back up your questionable claims you will be blitzed by the dr. It may be painful to read at times but I think it’s better to let the exchanges run their course than to stop them. Facts can be established and agenda's exposed that way. And I do not view his ‘nitpicking’ as thread derailing or ‘clogging’ the thread as his posts are usually informative even when they become part of a long dialogue.

Why did the mods ban him today?
.

 

[Eshnar]

Why did the mods ban him today?

For the same reason as last time. He seems to think it's fine to ignore warnings.

 

[Cyivel]

Absolutely ridiculous that Dr.Mas has been banned again, for what?? Are you guys on some sort of power trip or something. Sure he can be a pain when the vortex gets going but he is usually good at calling out BS.

Trolls run free distorting and lying, continue as normal. Someone actually calls out their BS, take a nice break.

The standard of mods in this place has hit rock bottom. Too bad that Susan has quit.

I like Dr Mas for sure and would much rather he wasn't banned as he's easily one of the more valuable contributors to the forum but sometimes it seems he doesn't know when to pull back a tad.

(Not saying the ban was justified as it appears to be a behind the curtain kind of thing so I don't know either way)

 

[pmcg76]

For the same reason as last time. He seems to think it's fine to ignore warnings.

Sorry but the warning was BS, that is the problem. A certain poster was lying/distorting things as usual and Dr.Mas called them on it and asked the poster to back up their claims.

Then a mod steps in and says it's up to Dr.Mas to do the donkey work. Sorry but Dr.Mas didn't tell a porkie so why should he be the one to clarify. If you cannot back up your own posts, then you shouldn't really be spouting BS or the mods should be handing out warnings. But then that seems to be the mantra around here lately, posters can invent whatever they want but don't dare challenge them or ask them to back it up, that will end in a nice bad whilst the distortion and lying continues.

Maybe instead of banning good posters, the mods should be asking themselves why they let a poster back in here who was perma-banned for doing the exact same thing as they are currently doing.

As I said, total BS.

 

[King Boonen]

Sorry but the warning was BS, that is the problem. A certain poster was lying/distorting things as usual and Dr.Mas called them on it and asked the poster to back up their claims.

Then a mod steps in and says it's up to Dr.Mas to do the donkey work. Sorry but Dr.Mas didn't tell a porkie so why should he be the one to clarify. If you cannot back up your own posts, then you shouldn't really be spouting BS or the mods should be handing out warnings. But then that seems to be the mantra around here lately, posters can invent whatever they want but don't dare challenge them or ask them to back it up, that will end in a nice bad whilst the distortion and lying continues.

Maybe instead of banning good posters, the mods should be asking themselves why they let a poster back in here who was perma-banned for doing the exact same thing as they are currently doing.

As I said, total BS.

I hope there is more to it than this. I really do.

 

[the sceptic]

I think Dr is a very good contributer to the clinic and I usually like reading his posts. Having him around makes it harder to post bs because you know he is going to call you out on it (which is a good thing of course)

However I do think his obsession with having the last word and never giving up on any argument can get a bit tiresome at times.

 

[ElChingon]

Dr. Vortex is finally banned! Weeee....

Find it odd the one Mod that wasn't on his scent did the banning

 

[Cyivel]

Netserk moves in mysterious ways.

 

[The Hitch]

Maybe the problem is the 1 week bans. Mods here used to use to rely heavily on the 24 hour option. Unless you said you were going to kill another member, or insulted a mod (and in the age of FTP, people even got away with that on a few occasions), you got the 1 day ban to lick your wounds, get over your high blood pressure or whatever, and then could continue to enjoy the forum.

Now it seems even for a minor first offence you can get a whole week off the forum.

Dr Mas can be a bit difficult on occasion, and he did turn the vortex on 2 occasions in 3 years (when he was looking for a challenge), but is this not the sort of thing that a short cool it off suspension would solve rather than having one of the more respected members of the forum missing for a whole week?

Of course the real advantage of the 24 hour ban is that if you don't feel the poster has stopped, you can still give use the week ban option, immediately after. In which case, what do you lose?

 

[ElChingon]

The forum should apply UCI type bans and with the new doubling it should be 48 hour bans for 24 hour bans, 2 week bans for week bans and so on. At least people would have a reference point instead of the random ban times.

 

[the sceptic]

Agree with 24 hour bans

 

[hiero2]

I don't recall it being important years ago, but good to hear that you don't consider it necessary today. See #4838 though, maybe a little staff room chat will get everyone on the same page.

Here's the problem with the written word, sometimes. Perfect example. I don't disagree with #4838 - amof, #4838 is technically quite correct. It just didn't cover the whole TMI range of info needed to understand the situation. On this subject, sfaic, Esh and I ARE on the same page. I didn't think the way he said things quite covered the answer - so I chipped in my $.02. But it was a matter of how it was said - not something deeper.

Prima facie: a few years ago someone thought this topic was important enough to create a rule about it, and get it accepted. My opinion is that same action could not be done today. Primarily on this basis, I say that the atmosphere a few years ago was stricter in this regard. There are more justifications, but that would be TMI and would generate lots of TLDR, yeah?

 

[hiero2]

Agree with 24 hour bans

I find it interesting that a number of you should propose this. At least so far as I understand it, the feeling amongst mods lately has been that anything less than a week has no impact whatsoever. Perhaps we are wrong in this. But, I fail to see that if a poster finds it impossible to heed warnings delivered over a period of days and weeks, then that poster would likely not be deterred by a 24 hour hiatus.

There you have it. A penny. Heads on one side, tails on the other. Which side earns you the $.01?

 

[darwin553]

Sorry but Dr.Mas didn't tell a porkie so why should he be the one to clarify. If you cannot back up your own posts, then you shouldn't really be spouting BS or the mods should be handing out warnings.

That is exactly right.

 

[The Hitch]

I find it interesting that a number of you should propose this. At least so far as I understand it, the feeling amongst mods lately has been that anything less than a week has no impact whatsoever. ?

Then if they keep going you give them a week. Then a month. Its not like bans are a non-renewable resource.

Sure as hell beats giving people 1 week bans without a warning even for the most minor of infractions that 9 times out of 10 don't even get posts edited.

 

[Hugh Januss]

For the same reason as last time. He seems to think it's fine to ignore warnings.

Well, warnings from you clowns...yeah! Worst mods ever. I feel proud to be a part of this record interweb performance. (Smilie means I am just kidding, right?)
But seriously you guys sukk. Can I say that?

 

[BroDeal]

Graph of Clinic postings over time:

#
##
###
####
#####
######
#######
########
#########
##########

We should hit the X axis in a few months.

 

[Ferminal]

Sorry, that's rubbish unless you have error bars.

 

[sittingbison]

...A certain poster was lying/distorting things as usual and Dr.Mas called them on it and asked the poster to back up their claims. Then a mod steps in and says it's up to Dr.Mas to do the donkey work. Sorry but Dr.Mas didn't tell a porkie so why should he be the one to clarify....

was the certain poster lying or distorting things as usual? Is that even the issue?

The poster said he didn't have time for a link (might or might not be a lie). DrMas said he found the link in less than two minutes (but didn't post it) and rhetorically challenged the certain poster. Is that baiting? Entrapment? Derailing?

All DrMas had to do was post his link (seeing as he already had it), and prove his point the certain poster was lying or distorting without resorting to a rhetorical challenge. The certain poster could have come back with his version if there was one. Or not, and look like a lying distorter.

All of this after I had clearly warned everyone on that thread to desist:

...Enough of the tiresome circular arguments, self aggrandisement and baiting trolling insulting personally attacking nitpicking pedantic BS that has completely derailed this thread......

which DrMas clearly read and understood as we started to have a discussion about it, even if he didn't agree to it.

DrMas did point out that he wanted to give the certain poster an opportunity to post his own quote, however that is not really commensurate with the nature of his rhetorical challenge and certainly not in the spirit of my general warning.

 

[sittingbison]

Then if they keep going you give them a week. Then a month. Its not like bans are a non-renewable resource.

Sure as hell beats giving people 1 week bans without a warning even for the most minor of infractions that 9 times out of 10 don't even get posts edited.

In this instance DrMas was given a weeks ban only three weeks ago (after plenty of warning) for ignoring a mods warning. It looks like its exactly the same again today for another week. Did he get off lightly this time? Or too heavy last time?

In the case of you and spalco, yes it could well have been for two or three days instead of a week. However I was already unimpressed with half of spalcos post and pondering what to do, and your own insulting response to it was only 90 minutes and two posts after I politely asked everyone to desist with personal insults:

come on gentle(wo)men,
lets not resort to personal insults and attacks. Remember message not messenger comprende?

cheers
bison

So I thought you were being purposely flagrant, and upped it to a week. And decided to give spalco the same because it was a blatant bait (that you fell for).

 

[darwin553]

The poster said he didn't have time for a link (might or might not be a lie). DrMas said he found the link in less than two minutes (but didn't post it) and rhetorically challenged the certain poster. Is that baiting? Entrapment? Derailing?

All DrMas had to do was post his link (seeing as he already had it), and prove his point the certain poster was lying or distorting without resorting to a rhetorical challenge.

If this is what happened, I'll take back what I said

 

[Netserk]

Note that the only reason why he was banned, was because he blatantly ignored a clear warning from a PM. Without that there wouldn't have been any ban.

 

[Netserk]

Sorry but the warning was BS, that is the problem.

Really? Did you read the PM?

 

[Zam_Olyas]

If this is what happened, I'll take back what I said

You would have to delete it and feed it to the crocs, for it to be meaningful. :d

 

[sittingbison]

If this is what happened, I'll take back what I said

No, the bit you quoted from pmcg76 was spot on....even if you were being a smart ar$e However as I pointed out that is not the issue in this particular case.

In general though, yes pmcg76 is correct.