Hold mods to same standard they inforce

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by seagypsy, Jun 6, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. seagypsy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,153
    In the real world people in positions of authority over others are held to a higher standard than those they are in authority over. Meaning they are expected to uphold the standards they are enforcing at all times. A police officer is expected at all times, on duty or off, to exhibit self control and strict obedience of the law.

    Granted, moderators are not paid police officers, and they are as human as the rest of us. But I still feel if they are not able and willing to uphold the rules they are enforcing and consistently demonstrate the correct way of behaving on the forums then they should step down as Moderators. If they are not willing, then they should be forcibly stripped of their position.

    Bells has consistently exhibited an inclination to engage other posters in flame wars. Whether other posters are at fault or not she should remain in a state of self control and not respond to flaming with flaming. If she sees a flame attack she should simply put on the mod hat and take care of business in a professional manner. Not participate in the flaming outburst and only after she completely loses control decide to step back and threaten to moderate those with whom she is equally guilty of flaming.

    Why is this particular moderator allowed to get away with such behavior? It is detrimental to threads and the forum as a whole. She abuses her position and does not demonstrate the ability to objectively view a situation. She is blind to her own faults while seeking out like a laser guided missile the buttons on other posters to push in order to get them to lose face so that she claim she is innocent and therefore able to "justify" the character assassination that she instigates.

    She has done this to Neverfly (and probably others)and is attempting to now do it to me simply because I did not attack him as she did. I was not supporting his opinion only questioning the points she made in a thread. Yet she has subtly hinted that she will use her power against me now for simply disagreeing with her on some points, and I might point out that I also supported some of her claims in the same thread, and for not joining in her attack on Neverfly.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,834
    And it's "enforce", not "inforce"..

    Ah Seagypsy, what lovely accusations you have made..

    For those who are curious, the thread Seagypsy is talking about is here:

    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=113969

    Why don't you let everyone see exactly what was being discussed, how and by whom, eh?

    You know, before you make even more spurious allegations against me than what you already made in the thread in question? Just sayin'..
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. seagypsy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,153
    Yes please, everyone, see the thread I am referring to. Thank you Bells for adding this. I was having trouble going back and forth between tabs to get the link.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,834
    Very strong accusation. One of many. All of them false. The most important one I wish to discuss with you, however, is this one.

    Can you please quote and link where I apparently threatened you with moderation or threatened to use my "mod powers" against you for disagreeing with me?
     
  8. seagypsy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,153
    I will discuss this with other mods only.
     
  9. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,834
    Sorry, but I am allowed to question you on the accusations you have stated against me.

    And I am requesting, politely, proof of that particular claim. You have stated the following:

    So please quote and link it. And I can assure you seagypsy, I am well within my grounds to make such a demand from you at this point in time.
     
  10. seagypsy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,153
    When I am afforded the same rights to question you I will comply with your demands. I attempted to discuss this with you and you did not respond politely as you claim. And thus far the only official mod action was a post suggesting that your actions were excusable but no mention of anyone else. Leaving readers to assume you are the only one to be judged excusable.however in pm a mod has told me that they believe I was possibly more civil than you were but that they won't get involved because you back them up sometimes. I don't agree with his lack of resolve to correct a wrong but I did not ask hi to take action. I only asked for genuine feedback of my own behavior. If he was able to see me as mostly innocent after actually reading the entire thread I am sure other mods can too, if they just actually read it ALL. I am not confident the mod who officiated a response actually read the whole thread. So when this gets attention of james r, other mods or maybe supermods then I will be more willing to specify my claims.
     
  11. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,834
    And you are adding in accusations of collusion amongst moderators.

    I repeat, please provide evidence of the following accusation you made against me:

    I am more than well within my grounds and my rights to make this request of you. Since you were so free with the accusation, it should not be very hard to provide a quote and link. There are precedents of other moderators and administrators having accusations made against them and their making a direct request from their accuser to provide quotes and links. I am following said precedents and making the same request of you.

    Do I now make myself clear seagypsy?

    You have 24 hours to do so. Otherwise, following said precedents, you will be moderated.
     
  12. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Jesus Christ, is this what I sound like when I complain about moderators?

    Yikes.
     
  13. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,834
    No, you're able to provide links and quotes.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,676
    Mod Hat — let me clear my throat ....

    Mod Hat — Let me clear my throat ....

    That's a Beastie Boys line, okay? Never mind. If you didn't get the joke ... er—right.

    At any rate, just to be official: What is this thread about?

    Thank you.
     
  15. Chipz Banned Banned

    Messages:
    838
    seagypsy said Bells was using her authority in a way which makes an unfair playing field. Bells ironically took offense and threatened to moderate him if he didn't prove it. Something which obviously only moderators are privy to doing. Thus seagypsy was proved correct.
     
  16. seagypsy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,153
    If you click the link in post # 2 provided by Bells it will direct you to the thread in question. Reading the entire thread, and yes I know it is tedious and I apologize, but it is necessary to keep all of what everyone said in context.

    Neverfly and Bells,mostly, got themselves into a flame attack. Neverfly expressed an opinion, Bells didn't like it. She proceded to conclude along with JDawg and apparently Neverfly, that he was a monster because of his opinion. That didn't really bother me so much, but Bells was stating things as if they were fact about the actual OP. Making insuations about the intentions of the guards involved. I asked her if she meant what her how her words were coming across of if she wanted to rephrase for clarity. I also then went on to support her initial position regarding the actual case. I did not support her summation of Neverfly. This seems to be where she and I got off on the wrong foot, and at times no matter how I tried to maintain the topic, with occasionally pointing out that she was putting words in Neverfly's mouth because she was, She insisted on blasting me, ironically, even when I was making posts in support of her claims. She criticized my posts and even rebutted my posts that were clearly in support of her prior stated position. She and Neverfly were really flaming back and at some point Neverfly backed off and said he was done. I indirectly acknowledged his wise decision by concurring because she was turning her attention towards me, in spite of the fact that I was supporting her claims for the most part.

    I stated that I was not going to discuss anymore because I felt she was too emotionally charged at the time based on her bizarre rebuttals of my posts that were in support of her claims. She was making no sense. I can only imagine that strong emotion was clouding her ability to recognize that I was supporting her claims in regards to the OP.

    She then got very snarky in her tone in dealing with me. And yes she gave subtle hints to gave me the impression that she would in due time use her position to take mod action against me.

    I perceived this as a subtle hint that she would be willing to take retaliatory action against me in the future for how she was interpreting my actions in this thread.

    I can only say that I never attacked her character, unless making an observation of emotionally charged counts. I defended another poster who was having his character attacked and I challenged the statements that were used to justify the character attacks. I am not saying Neverfly is without fault and I didn't say so in the thread. I suggested that they were both jumping to conclusions and that the article did not give enough information for reasonable conclusions to be made. I several times stated that I did not want to discuss it further but she kept rehashing and bringing up new arguments. After a bit I just gave up. Especially when I attempted to get the thread back on topic by posting an updated article with new information. I posted the link and then quoted excerpts. A common practice and something she also has done in that very same thread. Most of my responses to the article in question were directly in support of what her original position was, yet she completely overlooked it and went right into rebuttal. Im sorry but who rebuts an argument that supports their own claim? It makes no sense. She just had it in her head that I was against her because I did not support her justification for attacking Neverfly's character. Her perceptions by the way were caused by her reading way too far into what he actually said, At least that is how I perceived it. If she can post her perceptions then I should be allowed to post mine. She demanded a change in my approach but was unwilling to see where she was in error herself.
    She kept insisting on asking me why I left things out. While at the same time ignoring parts of posted article and comparing it to links she provided stating that I am ignoring her posts. I didn't ignore her posts, I simply posted a new article and was addressing the points it was suggesting. I said repeatedly that more evidence was needed. Something all but 1 or 2 posters in the thread had all been saying repeatedly.

    Ultimately kittamaru, seemingly frustrated, and understandibly so, told us all to chill out but did not neglect to excuse at least some of Bells behavior. From the way kittamaru worded the post it didn't seem to me that he had read the entire thread. He only seemed to be addressing the current state of the debate which had disintegrated at that point to finger pointing. If that is all he read then I can see why he would think Bells was excusable, but if the entire thread was read I don't think he would have agreed.

    I, in sincere interest of finding out if I did indeed cross a line, pmed a mod that was not involved and asked him to read over the thread and specifically let me know if I was out of line in anyway or if i conducted myself in a rude uncivilized manner. He responded saying that it was clear that bells was at least equally to blame, but that he didn't think she was necessarily uncivilized but that she didnt use tact and that I was probably more civil and polite than she was. He also said he is not inclined to address problems with bells because she helps him out on threads sometimes. That bothered me but at the time i was not asking him personally to take up a crusade or to take any kind of action against her. I simply asked him to critique my behavior and he did, giving me a relatively clean report.

    Yet the official mod statement is that bells is excusable. and no exoneration of any other participants. by stating one participant is excused and not addressing other participants it leads one to believe that it is accepted that the others are not excused. In this case i simply do not believe the entire thread was reviewed.

    My issue is that Bells was as much at fault for causing the flame war. My initial posts were actually in support of her claims regarding the OP. I even continued to support her claims further into the debate in spite of her nonsensical rebuttals of my support for her claims. Her only REAL disagreement was me was how each of us perceived Neverfly. But she insists on rebutting. I don't get her.

    Then when she is made aware that her behavior is reported she turns her sweet tone on and tries to convince me and readers that it was all my fault and that i was obviously just trying to start trouble. That is an attack on my character and is a dispicable tactic used by people who do not want to take responsibility for their actions. So rather than take responsibility they try to turn the tables and make it look like they were being picked on.

    Yeah i was picking on her by supporting her claims in regards to the op. I don't think there is any rule that says I have to agree with her character assessment of another forum participant. and I tried countless times to redirect to the OP.

    So why is she allowed to incite flame wars or at least participate equally in them and then not get any reprimand for it? I don't care if you ban everyone on in that debate, but be fair and ban her too. She needs correction as much as anyone else. As a moderator she should not stoop to flaming. As a moderator if she felt Neverfly said something so horrendous she should have drawn fellow moderator attention and taken action if deemed necessary. She should not have gone on the attack in such a personal way but should have handled what she perceived as advocating cruelty and violence with a warning and then an infraction if necessary. But she could have even diffused it by simply asking him to clarify and accepting his clarification rather than telling him what he thought and twisting his words.

    Please review that thread and issue whatever infractions you deem necessary. All I ask is that you do not allow her moderator status to give her immunity to the rules.
     
  17. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
  18. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,834
    Seagypsy

    Firstly, why didn't you post it in full context?

    I am still trying to fathom how you could possibly have perceived that as a threat to moderate you for disagreeing with me.

    As for my "turning" my attention towards you..

    You posted at me, what? Twice before I actually even addressed you in that thread, let alone I think this forum. Your opening line was to suggest that I was saying the guards had intended to kill the suspected shoplifter. In short, you deliberately disregarded what I said and attempted to misrepresent it and made things up. You also made up that I was somehow "emotinally charged" for debating against Neverfly. I ignored you. Deliberately. So you tried again.

    So after so many attempts to gain my attention, I responded to you. You again made up lies about what I had said that they had apparently intended to kill the suspect and again tried to say I was somehow emotionally charged.

    Another poster comments on both yours and Neverfly's appalling behaviour in the thread. I then respond to you again, and ask you to show where exactly I had ever claimed or even mentioned that the guards had intended to kill the suspect. I also politely and respectfully address your repeated assertions that I was somehow emotionally charged by asking you this:

    The other poster again comments on your behaviour in the thread.. You disregard it.. And then you again make comments about my being "emotionally charged", even after I asked you to stop doing so. You then tried to suggest I took offense to your posts. Which is when I responded:

    In other words, people who know me well on this site know when I am "emotionally charged" and so I said to you, that when I do get emotionally charged, I'll let you know so that you can see what that would look like. JDawg is one such individual who knows me well enough to know if and when I am "emotionally charged" and you even disregarded his advice that you stop with the ridiculous accusation that I was being emotional because I actually was not.

    At no time was that ever intended or worded as a threat.
     
  19. seagypsy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,153
    I will let the thread speak for itself rather than leading Tiassa by the nose in hopes of controlling the context of what he sees. I suggest that he reads the entire thread and makes his decision based on our actions and statements in full context.

    I don't need to post separate links to any claims. If he does not see things jump out at him then it was not as obvious as I believed it to be. At least I am able to conceive the possibility of error on my part. You "simply cannot fathom" the possibility that you were in any kind of error at all.

    The sad thing is that my post where I linked to an article and posted my opinions about specific points in the article, was almost entirely in support of your previous claims, yet you insisted on rebutting all my assessments. Weird, why would you rebut my statements that were in support of your previous claims in regard to the OP? Could it be that you already had an assumption about me and simply could not read what I actually wrote and somehow your mind twisted my support of your original claim into rebuttals? I was supporting you and you disagreed with it. Wow. That's all I can say.

    ETA: I find it interesting that you can ask me for clarification in such a way that it suggests I intentionally hid information but if I ask you to clarify something because something you said came across a certain way I am accusing you. So if you do it, you are just asking for clarification. If I do it I am making wild accusations..
    Here is my "wild accusation"
    Most people would see that as asking for clarification and pointing out that your remark as stated simply gave an impression. It is also an offer to allow you to rephrase it for clarification. You responded as if it were an accusation, so I rephrased my statement as a direct question in order to clarify what you believed to be true.
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2012
  20. seagypsy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,153
    It is 2:30 am here. I am going to bed now. So if you do not get a response, it is simply because I have the biological need for sleep and it is far past time for me to be doing so since I have to work in the morning.
     
  21. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Shoot, that's actually kinda true.
     
  22. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    And that's all we're asking be Checked.

    Seagypsy, in my opinion has shown remarkable calm. My nature is to be more explosive- something I think Bells Knows. Bells made a faulty assumption that since that's muh wife, she would agree with everything I post. She doesn't. She made the mistake of thinking she was defending me- She wasn't. Bells treatment if her is far more indicative than hers to me was as it's known I will explode if pushed far enough. But seagyspy did not explode.
     
  23. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,834
    The irony didn't escape me either.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    But there is a precedence for this. She made an accusation, I asked her a couple of times to please provide evience of it, she refused point blank to and said she'd only do it for other moderators. So I invoked the precedent.

    I had kept my colleagues up to date as things were developing during this whole soap opera.

    ________________________________

    Seagypsy


    You have provided the link, I have responded to your accusation and explained my side of things.

    You'll excuse me if I don't feed your need for attention and martyrdom any further. People will read the thread and make of it what they will.

    Good night to you!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/hold-mods-to-same-standard-they-inforce.113991/
www.sciforums.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2019-04
113759
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:LLEV742QCZREY7R2CBWMTXAOQ5YHTRTR
<urn:uuid:5e7eb42c-1d78-4dce-abd0-5826eb9c715d>
2019-01-22T05:59:29Z
66.70.141.185
text/html
sha1:HV4KFCJDW3KBJYCKTECE5DIVRWHOPI3C
<urn:uuid:afb035d2-4f74-4dfc-8492-c728cb3f1b5b>
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/hold-mods-to-same-standard-they-inforce.113991/
response
<urn:uuid:ae3a757e-0a83-4073-be92-c7ded944ed84>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2019-04
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for January 2019
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-153-175-168.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.15 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 0.11-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/