Moderators

[Eshnar]

But you didn't respond to a post. If you had you would post with it - you responded to my post and the subsequent comment by 'the sceptic' whose point
about 'power trips' is perfectly valid in the context of the qualifiers they included, quoted below:
"yeah the mods seem to be suffering from power trips now and then and just handing out ridiculous bans for basically nothing. Its like a kindergarden where no fun is allowed"

I'm pretty sure I know what post I responded to.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'm pretty sure I know what post I responded to.

Sure, you do - but when you post a response that covers numbers of 'reported posts' and say how tolerant you are, then it can be interpreted as to either post.
The fact you didn't quote a particular post makes it even more difficult (as well as irrelevant).

If your response was solely to 'the sceptic' it is imo still wrong.

 

[Eshnar]

If your response was solely to 'the sceptic' it is imo still wrong.

it was - and imo is right. If you don't agree I can't help it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

it was - and imo is right. If you don't agree I can't help it.

That we don't agree is not an issue.

But you can help it if you had point to 'the sceptics' post:

yeah the mods seem to be suffering from power trips now and then and just handing out ridiculous bans for basically nothing. Its like a kindergarden where no fun is allowed

Your response was to submit meaningless numbers to suggest tolerance-it does not address that the bans (whatever number) are often for basically nothing.

 

[aphronesis]

That we don't agree is not an issue.

But you can help it if you had point to 'the sceptics' post:


Your response was to submit meaningless numbers to suggest tolerance-it does not address that the bans (whatever number) are often for nothing.

Name some. And define often.

 

[Eshnar]

That we don't agree is not an issue.

But you can help it if you had point to 'the sceptics' post:


Your response was to submit meaningless numbers to suggest tolerance-it does not address that the bans (whatever number) are often for nothing.

that the bans are for nothing is such a ridicolous statement that it's not worth responding to - I just responded to the power trip bit.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Name some. And define often.

Here is one:

timbo25 is baninated for trolling, baiting and blatant lying.....all in a single post. Thise
perfect storm gets a month each totalling three months.

3 months? For 3 different things from a single post.

And I was banned for a 'rule 303', a rule that does not exist. This was all in the last 10 days.

 

[aphronesis]

Here is one:


3 months? For 3 different things from a single post.

And I was banned for a 'rule 303', a rule that does not exist. This was all in the last 10 days.

That's one. And three things seems to be more than nothing. Maybe you quantify differently.

You were banned for being willfully obtuse and disrupting discourse.

The first is arguably excessive; the second was welcome to many I expect. Taken together they don't constitute nothing or often so much as potentially arbitrary to the discontented.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

that the bans are for nothing is such a ridicolous statement that it's not worth responding to - I just responded to the power trip bit.

If you will notice I was editing my post when you responded, to use the exact quote from 'the sceptic' of "basically nothing".

 

[Dr. Maserati]

That's one. And three things seems to be more than nothing. Maybe you quantify differently.

You were banned for being obtuse and disrupting discourse.

The first is arguably excessive; the second was welcome to many I expect. Taken together they don't constitute nothing or often so much as potentially arbitrary to the discontented.

Interesting - not only is that not the reason offered for my ban, it is not against any rule.
Maybe thats Rule 304

As to timbo25s post - how would a mod know if someone was lying? Perhaps they are just mistaken? Instead of questioning the poster, allowing them to clarify or correct, the ban hammer was deployed.

And lying, or baiting is trolling - people don't get hit twice for it.

 

[aphronesis]

Interesting - not only is that not the reason offered for my ban, it is not against any rule.
Maybe thats Rule 304

As to timbo25s post - how would a mod know if someone was lying? Perhaps they are just mistaken? Instead of questioning the poster, allowing them to clarify or correct, the ban hammer was deployed.

And lying, or baiting is trolling - people don't get hit twice for it.

It was unstated but implicit in the posts leading to your ban. "Reading between the lines" and the consequences for failing to do so, as I'm sure you know, occur in every aspect of life.

Poor timbo. Again, that's arbitrary--nothing more. And the two hardly constitute often.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It was unstated but implicit in the posts leading to your ban. "Reading between the lines" and the consequences for failing to do so, as I'm sure you know, occur in every aspect of life.

Poor timbo. Again, that's arbitrary--nothing more. And the two hardly constitute often.

The very fact that you say "reading between the lines" is exactly the problem.

I was informed I was 'hijacking' a thread in the clinic and to desist - not only did I comply, I did not post in the clinic since that request.
But I was still banned after anyway.

And 2 out of (what was it 6 or 10 bans in August?) is IMO often.

 

[Eshnar]

If you will notice I was editing my post when you responded, to use the exact quote from 'the sceptic' of "basically nothing".

still ridiculous.

 

[the sceptic]

Banning posters for months (taxus, xrayvision, timbo) for what seems like pretty mild trolling is what i would call a power trip. Just give them a couple of days and if they dont learn then slap them with the long term ban.

 

[Eshnar]

Banning posters for months (taxus, xrayvision, timbo) for what seems like pretty mild trolling is what i would call a power trip. Just give them a couple of days and if they dont learn then slap them with the long term ban.

tried and failed. Short bans don't work.
edit: Oh, and xrayvision... "mild trolling"? lol

 

[Netserk]

Just give them a couple of days and if they dont learn then slap them with the long term ban.

Which is what happens....

 

[hiero2]

That's one. And three things seems to be more than nothing. Maybe you quantify differently.

You were banned for being obtuse and disrupting discourse.

The first is arguably excessive; the second was welcome to many I expect. Taken together they don't constitute nothing or often so much as potentially arbitrary to the discontented.

Interesting - not only is that not the reason offered for my ban, it is not against any rule.
Maybe thats Rule 304

As to timbo25s post - how would a mod know if someone was lying? Perhaps they are just mistaken? Instead of questioning the poster, allowing them to clarify or correct, the ban hammer was deployed.

And lying, or baiting is trolling - people don't get hit twice for it.

Dr. Mas, with all respect, what you say is "not against any rule" is incorrect. You will note that being obtuse, and disrupting threads are part of usenet troll FAQ as actions typical of a "troll" or "trolling".

One of the original troll FAQ was originally hosted here: http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/anti_troll_faq.htm It is no longer publicly available at that url, I guess due to being somewhat ancient history. This particular faq (I have a copy in my files) of was authored by Dave Hawthrop, and you should be able to google and find it without an excessive effort. While I don't believe he states motivation specifically, he does cover some motivation for "trolls" - one of which is disrupting a thread.

From, (gasp!) wikipedia:

. . . As noted in an OS News article titled "Why People Troll and How to Stop Them" (January 25, 2012), "The traditional definition of trolling includes intent. That is, trolls purposely disrupt forums. This definition is too narrow. Whether someone intends to disrupt a thread or not, the results are the same if they do . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

I'm not saying you are a troll. But, I would say you were found to be disrupting things - and that could be covered by any rules about trolling.

Now, as to rule 303. That was an attempt at humor when it was posted, although it was quite apropos. If you do not understand it in the context, again, a quick google will settle that for you. Any further complaining that it is not "in the rules" will be regarded as disingenuous.

I also believe you are honest in your efforts to work within the confines of the system. Take a deep breath, be calm, and we will all move on to tomorrow. You are still the same intelligent poster you were before all this happened. Remember that, and all will come out for the best. It that isn't too treacly for ya.

 

[Benotti69]

Can those not satisfied with moderation please go to the refund desk on your way out.

 

[sittingbison]

Banning posters for months (taxus, xrayvision, timbo) for what seems like pretty mild trolling is what i would call a power trip. Just give them a couple of days and if they dont learn then slap them with the long term ban.

Both timbo25 and Taxus4a were given a week ban. They didn't learn, and were then slapped with a longer term ban.

 

[hiero2]

Can those not satisfied with moderation please go to the refund desk on your way out.

I ken jes heer it. Yer $0.02, ser (woops, sorry madam, no insult intended, yer know).

 

[ElChingon]

Can those not satisfied with moderation please go to the refund desk on your way out.

Why do you think the site went down

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Dr. Mas, with all respect, what you say is "not against any rule" is incorrect. You will note that being obtuse, and disrupting threads are part of usenet troll FAQ as actions typical of a "troll" or "trolling".

No.
Let us be clear. A member of the forum made a claim, I questioned it.
Thats it.

I find it incredible that I am being accused of being "obtuse" and "disrupting a thread" when I am seeking to correct the record.

As for usenet - I have no idea what that is.

One of the original troll FAQ was originally hosted here: http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/anti_troll_faq.htm It is no longer publicly available at that url, I guess due to being somewhat ancient history. This particular faq (I have a copy in my files) of was authored by Dave Hawthrop, and you should be able to google and find it without an excessive effort. While I don't believe he states motivation specifically, he does cover some motivation for "trolls" - one of which is disrupting a thread.

From, (gasp!) wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

I'm not saying you are a troll. But, I would say you were found to be disrupting things - and that could be covered by any rules about trolling.

Now, as to rule 303. That was an attempt at humor when it was posted, although it was quite apropos. If you do not understand it in the context, again, a quick google will settle that for you. Any further complaining that it is not "in the rules" will be regarded as disingenuous.

Ok.
I have to say that is exceedingly poor form.

Rule 303 would be an "attempt at humor" but for the fact a member (me) is banned for it.
(as well as having googled what Rule 303 is and it is not even humour)

I also believe you are honest in your efforts to work within the confines of the system. Take a deep breath, be calm, and we will all move on to tomorrow. You are still the same intelligent poster you were before all this happened. Remember that, and all will come out for the best. It that isn't too treacly for ya.

Hold on - I believe I am that same poster that I was when I joined, I am here to learn and I am also happy to abide by 'the rules' or as you put it "work within the confines of the system".

But how can any member do that when new Rules are made up and various bans or enforcement is issued?

 

[Benotti69]

Why do you think the site went down

I dont know. Do you?

I suspected a Skyborgs attack!

 

[aphronesis]

No.
Let us be clear. A member of the forum made a claim, I questioned it.
Thats it.

I find it incredible that I am being accused of being "obtuse" and "disrupting a thread" when I am seeking to correct the record.

As for usenet - I have no idea what that is.





Ok.
I have to say that is exceedingly poor form.

Rule 303 would be an "attempt at humor" but for the fact a member (me) is banned for it.
(as well as having googled what Rule 303 is and it is not even humour)



Hold on - I believe I am that same poster that I was when I joined, I am here to learn and I am also happy to abide by 'the rules' or as you put it "work within the confines of the system".

But how can any member do that when new Rules are made up and various bans or enforcement is issued?

Since I'm recovering from a rather brutal concussion and have time to kill, I'll play. You were not seeking to correct the record. You were seeking to vindicate your mode of interaction which you present as more pure and objective than that of others. It has its virtues no doubt when ranting and passions override most factuality. However, if you were, as you say, still here to learn, you would have noted that sadistic pedantry wasn't flying with the mods during the time that you were banned and desisted accordingly, perhaps taking the time off to contemplate how and why times have changed.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Since I'm recovering from a rather brutal concussion and have time to kill, I'll play. You were not seeking to correct the record. You were seeking to vindicate your mode of interaction which you present as more pure and objective than that of others. It has its virtues no doubt when ranting and passions override most factuality. However, if you were, as you say, still here to learn, you would have noted that sadistic pedantry wasn't flying with the mods during the time that you were banned and desisted accordingly, perhaps taking the time off to contemplate how and why times have changed.

That sounds sweet, in fact it sounds like it has nothing to do with the current subject and may go back to a time when you posted in the clinic - to assist you here was my original post where I actually ask the poster 2 questions, where they could have corrected, clarified or withdrawn what they said.

As for what happened while I was banned, you must have missed this thread called Windy Mountain - trolling can be a broad catchall term, but that thread alone has it all. It should be stored in a museum.