(Off-topic anti -science polemics will be deleted. Please do not reply to them, but flag them instead.)

Please do, we have a tendency to bash each other on a left / right basis (here and elsewhere), and it would be interesting to focus on developing a common core of sensible principles both sides could agree on.

Perhaps it's easier to agree on the sort of behavior that belongs in a community like ours, than it is to agree on the sort of subject matter, or the sort of point of view, that belongs in a community like ours? — Cabbage Farmer

I agree that balancing how much free speech to allow while maintaining the character and integrity of the site is probably the biggest challenge here and one that posters on either side of the issue tend to get more animated about than general behavioural moderation.

Lol.

I can only hope that I have added to your store of wisdom, good sir.



There is a record of all changes in fact although due to the software posters are not automatically notified, so it's understandably difficult to track what's happening re moderation for those who don't have access to that. Your post in any case is well expressed and certainly food for thought.

I prefer "Muppet" personally.

Oh, bollocks! :(

I'm not talking bollocks, you numpty.

Ah go on, ya bollocks, really?

like "cunt" in Australia, I guess — Michael

Really? I would have that thought that depends on how it's said. You can call someone a "bollocks" affectionately quite easily in Ireland, for example, but it depends on context. Calling someone a "lemon" would be like calling someone an "egg", pretty much neutral.

(Y)

I agreed with the perspective point earlier in this discussion. I also think you tend to take things too personally or read too much into them at least some of the time, but I also acknowledge Wos made a fair point about that discussion.

I'll do a duet with Agu as long as we don't have to hold hands. :P

Sorry, Wos, couldn't find a kiss smiley there and the love heart seemed a bit too much...

That's why we love you.

It wasn't a conscious decision that there were several staff members in that discussion but I do take your point on that, Wos.

@Michael's joke was a joke, and not intended to initiate anything in my view.

Yes, the Shout box is called the Shout box for a reason. It's not supposed to be intellectual whatsoever. If you don't like the Shout box, simply stay out of it.

Some of my comments were quite biting, which is not unusual for me but they were mixed in tone. and in the end conciliatory.

That was a case in point about the bitter sarcasm. — Thorongil

So @Michael's joke about lemons was bitter sarcasm but this isn't?

Ah, the "I know you are but what am I?" grade-school response — Thorongil

in response to me neutrally stating a fact?

That's just a very odd assessment in my view. And I realize the discussion is about mods but your case becomes much weaker when you continue to engage in the type of posting behaviour you criticize us for.

I've just gone through all my posts in that discussion. I can't find any of mine that are "purple prose-laden, hyperbolic, and ill-tempered". — Michael

If Thorongil's standard for that accusation includes this:

We were only bitter because we had to deal with so many lemons. — Michael

as a case in point, as he has claimed, it could include almost any joke or negative comment aimed at him, so it may actually include some of yours.

Still, the fact remains that there were several mods in that thread who saw fit to post in such a way as I describe. — Thorongil

The fact is that some posts by some of us in the discussion fit some of your negative description as did some of your own posts. The fact also is that members of the mod team have distinct personalities and post in accordance with them just like regular members. There's no special uniformity among the mod team that differs significantly from the community as a whole.

Is that one of the ones where if you stare at it for more than ten seconds, you go insane?

Red is catching up. There is still hope.

The problem is that you've deleted posts, including my own posts, that have been similarly innocuous and yet patronizing little snipes like Michael's post above are paid no mind. Naturally, you agree with the sentiment, so why moderate them? — Thorongil

No, in fact, I haven't. Not only have I not deleted a post like the above from anyone including you, I haven't moderated you at all in as long as I can remember. In any case, we can settle it now. We have a record of all changes including edits and deletions, so let me know roughly what the content of the post was and roughly when it was deleted and I'll check the record. And that can be done any time by the way if any member really feels a post was unfairly deleted.

But if an Emptyheady engages in sarcasm of a similar nature, you gullibly take the bait, interpret him literally, and permaban him. — Thorongil

As much as I enjoy being reminded of ridding the site of a Nazi sympathizer, I'm not going to debate the banning of Spaceyskull again. We have completely different interpretations of events, so it's pointless.

If an innocuous joke like that is a case in point of the "bitter sarcasm" you object to then we're not going to change anything because the problem is in your interpretation not in the comment itself. (Mod or non-mod, a comment like that is acceptable.)

For the record, I see now the John Harris stuff did go on more than a few days and I and others received a few PMs about him. I had forgotten some of the details. Doesn't change what I said though.

Okay then... :’(

I forgive you. Let's be friends again and set an example for everyone.

Now you've ruined it. :(

Nobody clicked the third option, which is telling.

When you say something like this it sometimes makes me wonder if we're using the same forum - like if you watched his interactions with John, Thorongil, Buxtebuddha, myself, Mongrel, etc. - how is it even possible to think that wasn't extreme behaviour I don't know. But I'll leave it at that, since we obviously disagree. — Agustino

Your disagreement is with Erik. I didn't comment on my view. I did ban him though. You can draw your own conclusions from that.

Things were "extreme" in your view. Not in others', for example, Erik's. Anyway, as I said, your complaint is duly noted.

He was actually quite reasonable in our interaction by PM, but he was given a warning and repeated the same behaviour again, so that, added to the litany of complaints, made the banning warranted in my view.

And yet in this Thanatos case, I was the OP of that thread, and asked Thanatos to follow the OP, warned him 6 times or more that he should follow the OP, etc. - so why is it that action is taken against someone like me on the right almost immediately, and yet someone on the left like Thanatos doesn't even get those posts deleted? — Agustino

Just to note, I can't answer to this specific issue because I wasn't the moderator involved.

I complained about the leniency that was shown to him — Agustino

You didn't want him banned yet we banned him. But we were too lenient? And that is because we are atheistic and left-leaning. OK, let's leave it at that. Your complaint is duly noted.

It's possible the moderator was online but not actually at his computer at the time or that he disagreed with you. That we don't always do things exactly as you want does not make us biased against you, and certainly not biased against you on the basis that you are a right-winger. I would appreciate it if you and others would realize that.

No, I didn't want you to ban him — Agustino

if someone with right-wing views behaved the way he did, they would have been banned or taken action against much sooner. — Agustino

So, you are both saying you didn't want him banned and you wanted him banned sooner. Therefore we are biased against right wingers. Can you begin to see how irrational your complaint appears to be? Let me repeat, there were a couple of complaints, then he got a warning and was banned all within a few days. To accuse us of being biased in his favour is unsupportable.

I've checked and I can't find any message from you about him actually. Also, I've just told you I warned him. He was also moderated in other ways. Failing to heed the warnings, he was banned. But I don't know what you want from us. Now we were too strict on him for banning him? How do you suggest we force people to be civilized without the possibility of a ban?

I think you did. I also think it's a bit much to complain that we are biased because we didn't ban the person you wanted us to ban quite quickly enough for your tastes. As I said, I banned him within a few days of being alerted to his behaviour. And not everyone (as you can see from Erik's post) would even agree that he should be banned. And his political views were irrelevant. What got him banned was the complaints plus the fact that he didn't heed the warning he was given.

I've seen way too many innocuous, sarcastic posts deleted... — Thorongil

Speaking for myself, I rarely delete sarcasm. As well as that, posters themselves may delete their own posts. So, you need to give a more specific example/examples.

...and yet most of the mods do nothing but post bitter sarcasm — Thorongil

The mods in general are anything but bitter. There is quite a bit of sarcasm though, mostly intended to be humorous as far as I can see.

I've seen certain posts deleted or censured for apparently being "offensive" and yet many of the mods themselves, depending on one's perspective, post highly offensive dreck. — Thorongil

What's "offensive dreck" does depend on perspective to a degree, I agree.