no more IIDB for me

[xouper]

I don't have many posts on IIDB and I had pretty much confined my posting to their Science forum, assuming there's not much chance I would run afoul of any of their rules in that subforum. I was wrong.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2193910&posted=1#post2193910





Two threads merged

BioBeing,
S&S Moderator
I wasn't aware that you would do such a thing. My fault, apparently, for not understanding the rules sufficiently. In any case, I cannot live with the threat that at any time any of my threads could be fucked with like this so I guess I should just resign my membership. It was fun while it lasted, though.

[Dingfod]

What?

You will only post in a board that will not change your posts or threads in any way?

Do you think a board should allow any number of random number threads?

If you want zero editing, zero thread merging or splitting, or even zero thread closure, good luck. In fact, I wish you good luck finding any venue at all other than your own message board that wouldn't have that as a possibility. If you were posting illegal stuff here or threatening or stalking and harassing members here you'd get edited at the very least or banned outright. Your standards are either way too high or completely unrealistic.

[Petra]

I kinda have to agree with warrenly, xouper. I think you're being a little bit hypersensitive about it. I guess I don't really understand your beef. :shrug:

[xouper]

warrenly: Your standards are either way too high or completely unrealistic.
Or, more likely, you simply misunderstood my point. Perhaps that is my fault, since I failed to consider that my point might be misunderstood. I'll explain if you wish, but not if your intent is to insult me.

[xouper]

lunachick: I guess I don't really understand your beef. :shrug:
Apparently not.

[Petra]

lunachick: I guess I don't really understand your beef. :shrug:
Apparently not.

No, I don't. That's why I said so. You could offer further clarification of your point, but it seems you would rather simply be petulant about it. S'pose that's your perogative, but it does make me less inclined to care.


And now I'm definitely going to bed. G'night.

[xouper]

lunachick: I guess I don't really understand your beef. :shrug:

xouper: Apparently not.

lunachick: No, I don't. That's why I said so. You could offer further clarification of your point, but it seems you would rather simply be petulant about it. S'pose that's your perogative, but it does make me less inclined to care.
You agreed with warrenly's mistaken interpretation and called me hypersensitive and yet you are surprised that my reply to you was petulant?

OK, whatever.

I posted a rant and the first two replies are essentially "What the fuck is the matter with you?"

OK, whatever.

[Seven of Nine]

I don't have many posts on IIDB and I had pretty much confined my posting to their Science forum, assuming there's not much chance I would run afoul of any of their rules in that subforum. I was wrong.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2193910&posted=1#post2193910





Two threads merged

BioBeing,
S&S Moderator
I wasn't aware that you would do such a thing. My fault, apparently, for not understanding the rules sufficiently. In any case, I cannot live with the threat that at any time any of my threads could be fucked with like this so I guess I should just resign my membership. It was fun while it lasted, though.

The problem with merging threads is that all continuity is lost for good, and the new thread is likely to be so garbled that it can't be understood. Once two threads are going on the same subject, they're unlikely to be identical.

Although I agree with warrenly, in general terms, that sometimes editing is unavoidable, members of a message board need to feel a certain security in regard to their posts, and that the staff of a board basically wants them. After, on a message board, who are we but our posts?
Does anyone enjoy posting at a board when they feel that their posts or threads could be changed out of all recognition (or removed entirely) at any time, and for no reason they understand?

Xouper, may I ask what made you feel you had to hide in one subforum to begin with?

[Dingfod]

warrenly: Your standards are either way too high or completely unrealistic.
Or, more likely, you simply misunderstood my point. Perhaps that is my fault, since I failed to consider that my point might be misunderstood. I'll explain if you wish, but not if your intent is to insult me.I meant no insult, but take it that way if you want, I can't stop you. You still haven't explained why my perception is wrong.

BTW, not much of a rant. I've ranted better than that about low flush toilets.

[Farren]

I've never thought of merging threads as a bad thing. Its a common practice all over the web. It often stimulates discussion by getting people who are talking about the same thing on different threads to talk to each other.

I think the issue here is ownership. Xouper, you obviously feel that as a thread starter, you "own" the thread. I disagree. I think you "own" your words and that's about it. Continuity may be affected, but continuity is often bad on unmerged threads anyway. Where people cite the post they're replying to it usually doesn't have that much of an impact.

Its your perogative of course, but I think its rash to leave a board over something like that. I assume you post there because you enjoy the kind of feedback you get. How do you profit from leaving, really?

[xouper]

Farren: I've never thought of merging threads as a bad thing.I accept that's your opinion. Do you accept that I have an opinion to the contrary?


Its a common practice all over the web.Argumentum ad populum - the logical fallacy of appealling to popularity for the truth of your position.


How do you profit from leaving, really?I don't. However, I no longer "profit" by staying either.

[Seven of Nine]

I've never thought of merging threads as a bad thing. Its a common practice all over the web. It often stimulates discussion by getting people who are talking about the same thing on different threads to talk to each other.

Sometimes it works out well, but in the case of some debate and discussion threads, the result can be nearly incomprehensible.

<snip> Continuity may be affected, but continuity is often bad on unmerged threads anyway.

When continuity is already lacking on two threads, merging them can make it even worse.

Where people cite the post they're replying to it usually doesn't have that much of an impact.

Think of me as Lois Common Denominator, then, but when a fifty page thread suddenly turns into a hundred page thread, I often can't even find the post to which I'd planned to reply before the merger.

Its your perogative of course, but I think its rash to leave a board over something like that. I assume you post there because you enjoy the kind of feedback you get. How do you profit from leaving, really?

erm...I don't see how anyone can know what xouper's "issues" are or if xouper enjoys the received feedback, unless xouper explains more fully.

I post at a board at which I'm nearly always unsure of what kind of feedback I'll get, whether from members or staff, and am often anxious there, as a result.

[xouper]

xouper: ... I'll explain if you wish, but not if your intent is to insult me.

warrenly: I meant no insult, but take it that way if you want, I can't stop you. You still haven't explained why my perception is wrong. BTW, not much of a rant. I've ranted better than that about low flush toilets.
Is there, like, a full moon tonight that might explain this total failure to communicate?

I said I would explain if you wish, and you reply by saying I still haven't explained.

http://www.skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/images/smiles/PoundHead.gif

Also, I did not know that my rants had to live up to certain standards to qualify as a rant. I shall report to remedial training at my soonest convenience.

[Seven of Nine]

arrh :sadnana:

[xouper]

Seven of Nine: Xouper, may I ask what made you feel you had to hide in one subforum to begin with?I assumed the topics would be less confrontational on the science forum and thus assumed I would be less likely to run afoul of the rules. Perhaps I am still smarting from my bad experience on the highly moderated ebla forum.

[Seven of Nine]

Xouper, may I ask what made you feel you had to hide in one subforum to begin with?

I assumed the topics would be less confrontational on the science forum and thus assumed I would be less likely to run afoul of the rules.

I tried that, too. ;)

Perhaps I am still smarting from my bad experience on the highly moderated ebla forum.

If so, I find that reaction entirely understandable, although I have no clue what "ebla" stands for. :blush3:

[xouper]

Seven of Nine: ... I have no clue what "ebla" stands for. :blush3:I don't either, but that's what they call it:
http://www.eblaforum.org/main/index.php

[ceptimus]

Ebla means white rock and is named for the limestone outcrop upon which the ancient city stood. We use the term "White Rock" informally to refer to places around this website. The historical site, from which we took our name, was a centre of literacy and learning that flourished in the third millenium B.C.E. The city, now identified with the ruins at Tell Mardikh in Syria, is probably the most important centre of its period. Almost 16,000 tablets were found here dating to about 2400 B.C.E., and reveal a sophisticated trade and social system. They wrote in Akkadian cuneiform, but derived probably the earliest West Semitic language from which Hebrew (the Bible) and Phoenician (the alphabet) were to evolve millenia later. It was destroyed by Naram Sin of Akkadia in 2250 B.C.E. Although rebuilt and inhabited for another millenium, it never quite recovered the glory of its heyday.Source: The Ebla Forum, here (http://www.eblaforum.org/about.html)

[Seven of Nine]

Seven of Nine: ... I have no clue what "ebla" stands for. :blush3:I don't either, but that's what they call it:
http://www.eblaforum.org/main/index.php

Thank you. :)
I can see that there's plenty of potential for confrontation in that forum.

[Seven of Nine]

Ebla means white rock and is named for the limestone outcrop upon which the ancient city stood. We use the term "White Rock" informally to refer to places around this website. The historical site, from which we took our name, was a centre of literacy and learning that flourished in the third millenium B.C.E. The city, now identified with the ruins at Tell Mardikh in Syria, is probably the most important centre of its period. Almost 16,000 tablets were found here dating to about 2400 B.C.E., and reveal a sophisticated trade and social system. They wrote in Akkadian cuneiform, but derived probably the earliest West Semitic language from which Hebrew (the Bible) and Phoenician (the alphabet) were to evolve millenia later. It was destroyed by Naram Sin of Akkadia in 2250 B.C.E. Although rebuilt and inhabited for another millenium, it never quite recovered the glory of its heyday.Source: The Ebla Forum, here (http://www.eblaforum.org/about.html)

Thank you, Ceptimus. :)

[Ensign Steve]

I think leaving iidb is a great idea! :appl: :clap: Congratulations, xoup! vm, beth, where are you? Why are we letting this guy get tromped over this dumb issue when it is obviously the best decision he's made all week! Good luck, xoup.

[Seven of Nine]

I think leaving iidb is a great idea! :appl: :clap: Congratulations, xoup! vm, beth, where are you? Why are we letting this guy get tromped over this dumb issue when it is obviously the best decision he's made all week! Good luck, xoup.


As the old joke song goes, I spent a week there one day. :qsigh:
I never went back, and don't regret my decision. Boards like IIDB aren't for everyone.

[livius drusus]

I used to be a big splitting and merging fan, particularly of the former as a highly effective means of control -- even more than editing or deleting posts, in fact. I'm not anymore, however, because as Seven says, on message boards all we are is our posts, so I'd rather not dick with them unless refraining from doing so would materially damage the board.

Now, I'm sure it never for one moment occurred to BioBeing that someone might have profound objections to a thread merge, but Seven's right: the continuity of that thread is shot to hell. The second half of page one is nonsense because it was basically a bunch of people telling the mergee about the thread he is currently in, a thread which he apparently knew about already and chose not to post in.

So in effect, what you're looking at there is a big ol' vacuous derailment inserted into a substantive dicussion. Is that a good choice from a moderator perspective even if you have no ethical problem with merges? In my opinion it is not. I think it's a kneejerk clean-up reaction -- two threads about the same subject. Must. Merge. -- and was done for no good reason at all. There were other options.

As for thread ownership, Farren you're totally off-base here. xouper is not the thread starter. 99Percent is the OP of the primary thread, jinto of the merged one. Also, your assumption about feedback is pretty massively unwarranted by the thread in question, as xouper made two substantive posts which went completely unreplied to.

I get the feeling you didn't even click on the link before your analysis, and that ain't right, my friend.

[Celsus]

I can see that there's plenty of potential for confrontation in that forum.
Can I ask you what you're thinking of? I haven't had to make an edit there in at least a month (Ebla is a board I run together with a number of others), with the exception of two cases of spamming (porn site + and an advertisement for a subscription-only journal).

Joel

[viscousmemories]

I think leaving iidb is a great idea! :appl: :clap: Congratulations, xoup! vm, beth, where are you? Why are we letting this guy get tromped over this dumb issue when it is obviously the best decision he's made all week! Good luck, xoup.
Hey, some people sleep. :P

Xoup I'm not surprised you ended up not being happy there. You don't like moderation and IIDB is a heavily moderated forum. I can't say it ever seemed like a good fit to me. :)

That said, I think I can see both sides of the coin. The regular usership of IIDB has accepted the fact that their threads/posts may be edited, moved, or deleted at the discretion of a varied assortment of largely unregulated moderators. When you accept that as part and parcel of posting there, you probably aren't going to sympathize with someone complaining about a thread merge.

Ironically, many of the people there consider IIDB largely unmoderated since it is often contrasted with forums like CF that are even more heavily moderated. Yet I see some kind of moderator action in just about every thread I post in there, and I post there very rarely. I also frequently see moderator inaction there when I would expect otherwise, and while some might see that as an attractive hands-off approach I personally prefer hands completely off or on consistently.

I see your point too, though. The continuity of discussions can get all thrown out of whack when threads get split, merged, or if substantial posts are edited or moved. So in my opinion it should be avoided if it's not absolutely necessary. Of course that gets us in to the realm of when is it ever necessary to moderate people's interactions on a discussion board and of course I have a dramatically different opinion about that than the administration of IIDB.

But even if I did decide to favor that kind of heavy-handed moderation I would probably apply it very differently. Like making very rigid guidelines for moderation and requiring the moderators to justify their actions publicly. Then again I realize there are no easy answers and I have no experience acting as a moderator, so take my opinion for what it's worth.

[Blake]

That new thread is quite weird. I mean, you end up with a post in the middle of the thread linking to itself. If the two threads were already linked by the participants, what was the point of merging them?

[xorbie]

I can't speak for II mods/admins as a whole, but I personally don't merge threads in which both have, say, over a page. With PD, usually what happens is two people start a thread linking to the same news article, so I just merge them together.

I'm afraid I don't quite understand the complaints most people are having. I see merging as almost always a positive thing. The reason being is, say I see two threads on the same topic. Am I really likely to post to both? Most likely not, because I don't want to have to give my same reaction to the topic twice in a row (what's the point?). Merging the threads helps make sure everyone who wants to discuss the topic can respond to everyone else.

[livius drusus]

Did you see the thread linked to in the OP, xorbie? As I said, it's a moderator-created derailment. I don't see how it can be considered a positive thing.

I could provide you several other examples of how merging can seriously disrupt the sense of a thread. Here's (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=114758) a recent and particularly egregious instance. Not only was continuity utterly mutilated, but anyone who hadn't followed both threads all along would think the venom was in the new thread was directed to someone who had been somewhere else entirely during the controversy.

I see xouper's post linked in the OP has now been split to P&C (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=116210). That's pretty standard procedure these days, xouper, just fyi. Even in my day the rule was no posting about mod action in the thread itself, and we used to warn people to start P&C threads instead of keeping it in the problem thread.

[Beth]

I think leaving iidb is a great idea! :appl: :clap: Congratulations, xoup! vm, beth, where are you? Why are we letting this guy get tromped over this dumb issue when it is obviously the best decision he's made all week! Good luck, xoup.
Honestly I only left because of someone who posted in there, not because I disliked the board. I never had that much trouble with the moderation staff. Administration warned me once when I told PK that I reported his site to the FBI. Shortly after, he made his site "MembersOnly" for the more child pornish stuff. Anyway, I was told I should not have threatened him in the thread and I apologized to administration and was forgiven.

That site has let me rant and be silly, so I really can't say anything bad about it. And when I left, I was treated with a lot of kindness by many of the moderators and a couple administrators.

[xorbie]

Did you see the thread linked to in the OP, xorbie? As I said, it's a moderator-created derailment. I don't see how it can be considered a positive thing.

Derailment to the first thread, maybe. If it were me I would have locked the second thread and just linked to the first or PMed the thread starter.

I could provide you several other examples of how merging can seriously disrupt the sense of a thread. Here's (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=114758) a recent and particularly egregious instance. Not only was continuity utterly mutilated, but anyone who hadn't followed both threads all along would think the venom was in the new thread was directed to someone who had been somewhere else entirely during the controversy.

I believe you are correct here.

I see xouper's post linked in the OP has now been split to P&C (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=116210). That's pretty standard procedure these days, xouper, just fyi. Even in my day the rule was no posting about mod action in the thread itself, and we used to warn people to start P&C threads instead of keeping it in the problem thread.

Right. The link to original thread is in the P&C thread anyway.

So besides an argument from bad example, I still don't see why merging is bad or would be anywhere near bad enough to make a hissy fit and leave a board entirely.

[xouper]

xorbie: ... I still don't see why merging is bad or would be anywhere near bad enough to make a hissy fit and leave a board entirely.
Pardon me for having a strongly held opinion you disagree with. Feel free to ridicule me some more about it, if it makes you feel better.

[xouper]

The usual advice given to people who discover they don't like the way a forum is run:

Don't go there!


If I were to just whine about the way IIDB is run, I would expect strong disagreement. I did not expect, however, to be jumped for choosing to leave as per the standard advice. Silly me.

My supply of soma® seems to have run out, so excuse me while I go get some more.

[beyelzu]

The usual advice given to people who discover they don't like the way a forum is run:

Don't go there!


If I were to just whine about the way IIDB is run, I would expect strong disagreement. I did not expect, however, to be jumped for choosing to leave as per the standard advice. Silly me.

My supply of soma® seems to have run out, so excuse me while I go get some more.
I rarely post at ii anymore, I find myself getting moderated kind of heavily.

xouper, would you explain exactly why you have a problem with the merging of the two threads to the point that you want to leave ii?

[xorbie]

It's not just that I disagree with you. I just can't for the life of me figure out why the merging of two threads is such a big deal that NOT ONLY do you have to publically anounce on that forum that you are leaving, but then you then feel the need to tell everyone here about your hellish experience with hypothetical future mergings of your threads.

[livius drusus]

Well, I can't for the life of me figure you out why you can't just ask like bey did instead of caricaturing xoup's posts with snide rhetoric. To each his own, I guess.

[xorbie]

I'm afraid I don't quite understand the complaints most people are having.

I did ask, actually.

[xouper]

xorbie: It's not just that I disagree with you. I just can't for the life of me figure out why the merging of two threads is such a big deal that NOT ONLY do you have to publically anounce on that forum that you are leaving, but then you then feel the need to tell everyone here about your hellish experience with hypothetical future mergings of your threads.
Bite me.

[xouper]

I'm afraid I don't quite understand the complaints most people are having.I did ask, actually.
To me, that looks more like an admission of ignorance rather than a question.

But I will say the same as I said to warrenly: I will explain, but not if your intent is to insult me. Your disparaging rhetoric leads me to believe you are not truly interested in understanding my position. Feel free to disabuse me of that notion.

[xouper]

Ya know, I now regret starting this thread. I didn't anticipate how many hot buttons would get pushed by it. Sheesh. You'd think I called their mothers aliens or something.

All I wanted to do here was rant about having discovered I cannot live with the rules at IIDB. I did not call them bad guys. Nor did I call for them to change their rules to suit my preferences. And for this I get dumped on?

:wtfsign:

[Ensign Steve]

aww... xoup. who loves ya, baby?

:glomp:

[xorbie]

I'm afraid I don't quite understand the complaints most people are having.I did ask, actually.
To me, that looks more like an admission of ignorance rather than a question.

But I will say the same as I said to warrenly: I will explain, but not if your intent is to insult me. Your disparaging rhetoric leads me to believe you are not truly interested in understanding my position. Feel free to disabuse me of that notion.

Questions are admissions of ignorance, inasmuch as they are seeking an answer. My intent is not to insult you, but I think you've already made up your mind so I suppose I'll continue on in blissful ignorance.

[xorbie]

Ya know, I now regret starting this thread. I didn't anticipate how many hot buttons would get pushed by it. Sheesh. You'd think I called their mothers aliens or something.

All I wanted to do here was rant about having discovered I cannot live with the rules at IIDB. I did not call them bad guys. Nor did I call for them to change their rules to suit my preferences. And for this I get dumped on?

:wtfsign:

My intention was not make you regret starting this thread. It still strikes me as incredibly arrogant though. "All I wanted to do here was rant about discovering I cannot live with the rules at IIDB"? Please. Everyone else lives with them fine. Nobody else has such an extreme aversion that the very act of merging a thread has made you so upset you can no longer post there. It screams, to me at least, of some sort of surreal absurdity, acting as though you had discovered that the II admins were sponsoring sweatshops in Bangaladesh or something.

[Dingfod]

FIJPFI

If you don't want to post at IIDB or the LaLeche League, that's your business. It really doesn't make any difference to me. I don't think I started out to insult you, specifically you as a person. I was only trying to convey that I thought your reaction was an overreaction. You are entitled to your opinion. I'll leave it at that.

[Ensign Steve]

Everyone else lives with them fine. Nobody else has such an extreme aversion that the very act of merging a thread has made you so upset you can no longer post there.

Not.

[xouper]

xorbie: Questions are admissions of ignorance, inasmuch as they are seeking an answer.
Of course. But not all admissions of ignorance are questions.

When you said, "I'm afraid I don't quite understand the complaints most people are having," it seemed to me (given the context of your other comments) that you were saying, "I'm afraid I don't quite understand why most people are being a jerk."

That's not a question, it's an insult. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how it looks to me.

My intent is not to insult you, ...
An apology might help convince me. Saying the following does NOT help convince me you meant no insult:

My intention was not make you regret starting this thread. It still strikes me as incredibly arrogant though. "All I wanted to do here was rant about discovering I cannot live with the rules at IIDB"? Please. Everyone else lives with them fine. Nobody else has such an extreme aversion that the very act of merging a thread has made you so upset you can no longer post there. It screams, to me at least, of some sort of surreal absurdity, acting as though you had discovered that the II admins were sponsoring sweatshops in Bangaladesh or something.
Point of fact, no, everyone else does not live with them fine. Besides that is the logical fallacy of appealing to popularity to support your position, argumentum ad populum.

Look, I'm somewhat soma® defficient lately and I apologize for being rude to you. Unless you have something constructive to say, I'm not likely to bother replying to you any further in this thread.

[livius drusus]

Everyone else lives with them fine.

That's just patently false, xorbie, and I know you know it.

[xouper]

warrenly: I was only trying to convey that I thought your reaction was an overreaction.
Fine. You conveyed it. What did you expect me to do with your opinion?

[Dingfod]

Fine. You conveyed it. What did you expect me to do with your opinion?Stick it in your pipe and smoke it?

Stick it in your ear?

Stuff it up your ass?

[livius drusus]

Nice.

[xouper]

Ensign Steve: aww... xoup. who loves ya, baby?

:glomp:
Thanks, Ms. Ensign. It's since to know not everyone here thinks unkindly of me for having an (apparently) unpoplular opinion.

And thanks also to Seven, livius, vm, and others who helped explain things.

[xouper]

Warrenly, what did I do to you that deserved the hostility you expressed in your first reply in this thread? I would really like to know so I can apologize.

[beyelzu]

Ensign Steve: aww... xoup. who loves ya, baby?

:glomp:
Thanks, Ms. Ensign. It's since to know not everyone here thinks unkindly of me for having an (apparently) unpoplular opinion.

And thanks also to Seven, livius, vm, and others who helped explain things.
I imagine that it got lost in the shuffle.


but I did ask, I do want to know.

[xorbie]

Everyone else lives with them fine.

That's just patently false, xorbie, and I know you know it.

Obviously not everyone, everyone. More like an "everyone loves ice cream" everyone.

So let's try again.

How is merging so bad that the very act of it requires the immediate cessation of posting, as a continution of said posting would apparently necessitate the forfeiture of life?

[beyelzu]

Everyone else lives with them fine.

That's just patently false, xorbie, and I know you know it.

Obviously not everyone, everyone. More like an "everyone loves ice cream" everyone.

So let's try again.

How is merging so bad that the very act of it requires the immediate cessation of posting, as a continution of said posting would apparently necessitate the forfeiture of life?
damn, you just cant help it can you?

:glare:

[Dingfod]

I really don't think I'm being hostile. Let's examine what's transpired between us so far. Here, I'm looking for the hostility in my first reply...
What?Asking what, even in a rhetorical way doesn't seem to me to be hostile, confrontational, maybe, puzzlement, maybe?

You will only post in a board that will not change your posts or threads in any way?A question, perhaps rhetorical, perhaps not, but one you still haven't really answered.

Do you think a board should allow any number of random number threads?An honest question deserving of an answer.

And, finally...
If you want zero editing, zero thread merging or splitting, or even zero thread closure, good luck. In fact, I wish you good luck finding any venue at all other than your own message board that wouldn't have that as a possibility. If you were posting illegal stuff here or threatening or stalking and harassing members here you'd get edited at the very least or banned outright. Your standards are either way too high or completely unrealistic.Here, I merely stated my opinion about you quitting IIDB over this. I meant no insult to you personally and I don't really think I was insulting, only disagreeing with your choice. What did you expect, support? I'm sorry I don't live up to your expectations.

I go on, downhill, I'm sorry to say...
I meant no insult, but take it that way if you want, I can't stop you. You still haven't explained why my perception is wrong.A plea for you to explain yourself further, which you still haven't done. But, I'll admit, you don't have to, that's your right.

BTW, not much of a rant. I've ranted better than that about low flush toilets.Okay, I'll admit I was getting catty there. Sorry. However, as rants go... well, I've seen better ones.

FIJPFII put that in there out of frustration. Sorry.

If you don't want to post at IIDB or the LaLeche League, that's your business. It really doesn't make any difference to me. I don't think I started out to insult you, specifically you as a person. I was only trying to convey that I thought your reaction was an overreaction. You are entitled to your opinion. I'll leave it at that.I'm sorry if you take offense at this statement. I think it is a statement of my opinion about your freedom to do what you think is right for you and to reiterate my point in the first post if you happen to miss it. Apparently you didn't.

Fine. You conveyed it. What did you expect me to do with your opinion?Stick it in your pipe and smoke it?

Stick it in your ear?

Stuff it up your ass?I apologize for what was an admittedly catty response to what I thought was a catty response to my post just above that. It was undeserved. I deserve no response from you if you do not wish to respond, I should've left it at that to begin with.

[xorbie]

xorbie: Questions are admissions of ignorance, inasmuch as they are seeking an answer.
Of course. But not all admissions of ignorance are questions.

When you said, "I'm afraid I don't quite understand the complaints most people are having," it seemed to me (given the context of your other comments) that you were saying, "I'm afraid I don't quite understand why most people are being a jerk."

That's not a question, it's an insult. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how it looks to me.

Well, that's I guess I should be more careful with my words then.

My intent is not to insult you, ...
An apology might help convince me. Saying the following does NOT help convince me you meant no insult:

My intention was not make you regret starting this thread. It still strikes me as incredibly arrogant though. "All I wanted to do here was rant about discovering I cannot live with the rules at IIDB"? Please. Everyone else lives with them fine. Nobody else has such an extreme aversion that the very act of merging a thread has made you so upset you can no longer post there. It screams, to me at least, of some sort of surreal absurdity, acting as though you had discovered that the II admins were sponsoring sweatshops in Bangaladesh or something.

I was explaining my point of view. If you are insulted by it, I apologize, but I really can't word it any other way. Would you prefer it if I didn't tell you that you were, IMO, acting in an arrogant fashion? Your continued refusal to explain what your complaint is, either here or at II, doesn't make you look any better. There are rules at II. You signed up, agreeing to follow them. One of them is that mods are allowed to merge or split threads, without having to PM every user just to make sure its ok. Your pressing of the "I agree" button means you agree. If you do not agree, there's no reason to rant about it. Just leave. Post in the P&C thread to say you don't care anymore and just leave.

If you do not agree but are willing to make your case, fantastic. Make it. But as it is, you are just wasting moderator and admin time, and for what we see as no justifiable reason.

Point of fact, no, everyone else does not live with them fine. Besides that is the logical fallacy of appealing to popularity to support your position, argumentum ad populum.

I love how you trot out a fallacy and pretend like that's the final word. Of course it's an argumentum ad populum. Matter of fact, it's an argumentum ad that's the way it's been working and it's been working pretty ok, if I should say so myself. The fallacies which you cite are, in fact, a non sequitor because we aren't looking for a perfect proof of a philosophical truth. We are looking for the best way to run a message board. If everyone (note: not literally everyone!) seems to agree that something works then yes, we will be argumenting ad populum until the cows home. If you had started an ICR thread, put forth your case and then asked what other's thought, that would be fine by me.

Look, I'm somewhat soma® defficient lately and I apologize for being rude to you. Unless you have something constructive to say, I'm not likely to bother replying to you any further in this thread.

There's no need to apologize, really. I'm not offended, I just feel you're a bit out of place. As to your second comment, I can only hope I've been constructive in this post.

[xorbie]

Everyone else lives with them fine.

That's just patently false, xorbie, and I know you know it.

Obviously not everyone, everyone. More like an "everyone loves ice cream" everyone.

So let's try again.

How is merging so bad that the very act of it requires the immediate cessation of posting, as a continution of said posting would apparently necessitate the forfeiture of life?
damn, you just cant help it can you?

:glare:

Nope, I can't. I was hoping someone would catch the irony in a literal interpretation of the OP given the complaint with my post, but apparently not.

[viscousmemories]

How is merging so bad that the very act of it requires the immediate cessation of posting, as a continution of said posting would apparently necessitate the forfeiture of life?
I don't think xouper had a hissy fit, mentioned anything about sweatshops in Bangladesh, or suggested that continuing to post at IIDB would necessitate the forfeiture of his life. If you're really trying to understand where he's coming from here you might want to try not insulting him with this ridiculous hyperbole in every post.

Is it really so hard to understand that some people really don't like having their posts or threads messed with by moderators? Honestly I can't relate to the converse. People who don't care what moderators do to their posts and threads mystify me.

I value my own words too much to give other people control over them without a bother and I can't help but think that people who don't really care don't really value what they write as much as I do. But I don't go around telling such people there's something wrong with them. Well, not usually anyway.

[xorbie]

How is merging so bad that the very act of it requires the immediate cessation of posting, as a continution of said posting would apparently necessitate the forfeiture of life?

I don't think xouper had a hissy fit, mentioned anything about sweatshops in Bangladesh, or suggested that continuing to post at IIDB would necessitate the forfeiture of his life. If you're really trying to understand where he's coming from here you might want to try not insulting him with this ridiculous hyperbole in every post.

Actually, I really wasn't adressing him at all, so much as making what I thought (wrongly) was a clearly ironic reference to his OP using an obvious attempt at being highbrow and a rediculously literal interpretation of his words:

In any case, I cannot live with the threat that at any time any of my threads could be fucked with like this so I guess I should just resign my membership

Sorry for the confusion.

Is it really so hard to understand that some people really don't like having their posts or threads messed with by moderators? Honestly I can't relate to the converse. People who don't care what moderators do to their posts and threads mystify me.

I do understand. I even sympathize. This thread is not about moderation of posts, but merging. I'm completey dumbfounded as to how someone can be a member of what is, relative to FF, a very tightly moderated forum for two years and then suddenly decide to leave, with no real explanation, because a thread was merged.

I value my own words too much to give other people control over them without a bother and I can't help but think that people who don't really care don't really value what they write as much as I do. But I don't go around telling such people there's something wrong with them. Well, not usually anyway.

Which is a great reason not to post at II, and would be a perfectly acceptable explanation for Xouper to have given.

[viscousmemories]

Actually, I really wasn't adressing him at all, so much as making what I thought (wrongly) was a clearly ironic reference to his OP using an obvious attempt at being highbrow and a rediculously literal interpretation of his words:

In any case, I cannot live with the threat that at any time any of my threads could be fucked with like this so I guess I should just resign my membership

Sorry for the confusion.
Ah, I get that now. Thanks for the explanation.

I do understand. I even sympathize. This thread is not about moderation of posts, but merging.
Merging threads is moderation.

I'm completey dumbfounded as to how someone can be a member of what is, relative to FF, a very tightly moderated forum for two years and then suddenly decide to leave, with no real explanation, because a thread was merged.
He has explained in other posts here that he didn't post much there to begin with because he is strongly averse to being moderated. So he was taken aback by the fact that he was moderated after all, despite having made a concerted effort to stay within the forum guidelines. To me this isn't a question of whether the merging was or wasn't a reasonable action, despite the fact that some veteran moderators here have suggested it wasn't. It's a matter of a person not wanting to have a thread he's active on get trashed by an unnecessary merge.

Which is a great reason not to post at II, and would be a perfectly acceptable explanation for Xouper to have given.
Why does xouper owe you an explanation?

[xouper]

beyelzu: but I did ask, I do want to know.
I will try. I may not explain myself to everyone's satisfaction, but I will try.

If I start a new thread, it's because I want to be given the benefit of the doubt that I know what I'm doing and that I specifically do not want it appended onto the end of another thread, else I would have done that myself. I don't care how related the topic is. Nor do I want another thread appended onto the end of any thread I might start. It's not a question of thread "ownership" as some mistakenly think. It's a question of changing the contexts of my posts.

I do not challenge IIDB's right to merge threads. It is their forum to run as they wish. I am not, however, required to agree with all their conditions. The fact that many other people are willing to accept those conditions has no logical or ethical bearing on my own personal preferences.

I acknowledge that there are likely to be times when such merging does no harm and I may not always disagree with specific mergings. But I have now seen that sometimes there is harm, that a moderator's judgment on the matter is not always in alignment with my own. I cannot accept the condition that any moderator can merge at whim based on criteria that I profoundly disagree with. It is better for my own peace of mind that I simply stop participating under those conditions. That is my right, is it not?

[livius drusus]

There are rules at II. You signed up, agreeing to follow them. One of them is that mods are allowed to merge or split threads, without having to PM every user just to make sure its ok. Your pressing of the "I agree" button means you agree.

I'll point out that merging is never specifically mentioned, and most relevantly, xouper registered a full 2 years before the current rules were enacted. IIDB in August of 2002 -- a year before you registered -- was a very different place. I don't recall threads ever being merged or split then; it wasn't even technologically feasible, iirc. Hell, even a lock was news in those days.

If you do not agree, there's no reason to rant about it. Just leave. Post in the P&C thread to say you don't care anymore and just leave.

I wasn't aware that you would do such a thing. My fault, apparently, for not understanding the rules sufficiently. In any case, I cannot live with the threat that at any time any of my threads could be fucked with like this so I guess I should just resign my membership. It was fun while it lasted, though.

This is a rant according to you, xorbie? You who moderate PD think this is a rant? Because it looks like a very simple and even-tempered statement of position to me.

If you do not agree but are willing to make your case, fantastic. Make it. But as it is, you are just wasting moderator and admin time, and for what we see as no justifiable reason.

He posted a can't live with this post which BioBeing turned into a P&C thread. If you see that as a waste of moderator time, than take it up with BioBeing. Meanwhile, I suggest you refrain from speaking ex cathedra here because it rather makes the P&C "moderators have it under review" process look like a bit of a sham.

We are looking for the best way to run a message board. If everyone (note: not literally everyone!) seems to agree that something works then yes, we will be argumenting ad populum until the cows home.

On what grounds do you claim that "everyone", even the non-literal version, agrees with the current rule structure of IIDB? The overwhelming majority of registered users don't even post and of those who do, a good number turn up in ICR and P&C expressing displeasure with the operations of the site. You know: the whiners mods talk shit about in the MCR. Those guys.

It's a hellacious catch 22. xoup posted once on IIDB about his irreconcilable differences and left. Even though he'd be the last person on earth to want that post split into a P&C thread, BioBeing made a farewell into a complaint. Now that complaint is a waste of moderator and admin time to be held against xouper, but you would have been a fan of him making an argument in the ICR. It just doesn't make sense.

As far as people not liking the way IIDB is run and leaving goes, xoup was a veritable pussycat. If you weren't a poster here, xorbie, I doubt you would have known there ever was a living being named xouper, nevermind thought he was ranting or wasting moderator time.

[xouper]

xorbie: There are rules at II. You signed up, agreeing to follow them. One of them is that mods are allowed to merge or split threads, without having to PM every user just to make sure its ok. Your pressing of the "I agree" button means you agree.
Agreed. Problem is I didn't fully understand the implications of the rules or how they would be interpreted and enforced. There is nothing in the registration agreement that explains any of that and so I felt the most expedient way was to accept the conditions provisionally until I gained some experience with how the rules work in practice. Which is what I did. When I discovered I could no lionger accept the conditions, I left. Nor do I accept your assertion that I am not entitled to post any rant about it.

[xorbie]

Ah, I get that now. Thanks for the explanation.

No problem, was my fault anyway. I often forget not everyone lives in my head (which is a damn shame, it's a fun ride, I swear).

I do understand. I even sympathize. This thread is not about moderation of posts, but merging.
Merging threads is moderation.

Yes, but this is about merging specifically, as opposed to moderation in general. I don't see Xouper complaining about posts that have been edited, or threads being locked (though I don't want to put words in his mouth and say he's ok with that). It just seemed so peculiar to me that this is what would set him off.

I'm completey dumbfounded as to how someone can be a member of what is, relative to FF, a very tightly moderated forum for two years and then suddenly decide to leave, with no real explanation, because a thread was merged.
He has explained in other posts here that he didn't post much there to begin with because he is strongly averse to being moderated. So he was taken aback by the fact that he was moderated after all, despite having made a concerted effort to stay within the forum guidelines. To me this isn't a question of whether the merging was or wasn't a reasonable action, despite the fact that some veteran moderators here have suggested it wasn't. It's a matter of a person not wanting to have a thread he's active on get trashed by an unnecessary merge.

How was he, specifically moderated? Does he really expect a mod to PM every single member of a thread to get their input on every action (rhetorical questions I guess, since I'm asking you, but you can I suppose answer from your own POV)?

And those veteran mods you allude to include me (and nobody else acually, unless I missed a post), so you're preaching to the choir on this particular case. I just don't see how merging, in general, is such a horrible thing.

Which is a great reason not to post at II, and would be a perfectly acceptable explanation for Xouper to have given.
Why does xouper owe you an explanation?

Why does anyone ever owe anyone an explanation? And it's not just Xouper either. I'd like for someone, anyone at all, to explain to me why merging threads is inherently a bad thing.

[beyelzu]

Everyone else lives with them fine.

That's just patently false, xorbie, and I know you know it.

Obviously not everyone, everyone. More like an "everyone loves ice cream" everyone.

So let's try again.

How is merging so bad that the very act of it requires the immediate cessation of posting, as a continution of said posting would apparently necessitate the forfeiture of life?
damn, you just cant help it can you?

:glare:

Nope, I can't. I was hoping someone would catch the irony in a literal interpretation of the OP given the complaint with my post, but apparently not.


or maybe you were just being an ass???


that is how it seems to me, and I ought to know as I have often been an ass.

[xouper]

warrenly: I really don't think I'm being hostile.
You first post in this thread seemed hostile to me. It contained judgments and presumptions which are simply not true.

[beyelzu]

beyelzu: but I did ask, I do want to know.
I will try. I may not explain myself to everyone's satisfaction, but I will try.

If I start a new thread, it's because I want to be given the benefit of the doubt that I know what I'm doing and that I specifically do not want it appended onto the end of another thread, else I would have done that myself. I don't care how related the topic is. Nor do I want another thread appended onto the end of any thread I might start. It's not a question of thread "ownership" as some mistakenly think. It's a question of changing the contexts of my posts.

I do not challenge IIDB's right to merge threads. It is their forum to run as they wish. I am not, however, required to agree with all their conditions. The fact that many other people are willing to accept those conditions has no logical or ethical bearing on my own personal preferences.

I acknowledge that there are likely to be times when such merging does no harm and I may not always disagree with specific mergings. But I have now seen that sometimes there is harm, that a moderator's judgment on the matter is not always in alignment with my own. I cannot accept the condition that any moderator can merge at whim based on criteria that I profoundly disagree with. It is better for my own peace of mind that I simply stop participating under those conditions. That is my right, is it not?


thanks for the answer, I understand.

I have to say that merges dont bother me personally, I think you might be over reacting. I mean I understand that you dont like the moderation, but does that one instance really necessitat you leaving?

[xorbie]

or maybe you were just being an ass???


that is how it seems to me, and I ought to know as I have often been an ass.

I'm pretty sure I was being a lighthearted smartass, but it clearly came across as worse. I apologize.

[viscousmemories]

I'll just be brief since xouper can speak for himself and I've said pretty much all I intended to...

How was he, specifically moderated? Does he really expect a mod to PM every single member of a thread to get their input on every action (rhetorical questions I guess, since I'm asking you, but you can I suppose answer from your own POV)?
I'm not sure I understand your question. A thread he was actively posting on was merged with another thread, resulting in a barely coherent scramble. If "being moderated" means something more than just having your own posts edited (and I think it does) then everyone posting on that thread was moderated. It just so happens xouper was the only one who complained. Like I said in my first post, most regular posters at IIDB are probably acclimated to the heavy-handed moderation.

And those veteran mods you allude to include me (and nobody else acually, unless I missed a post), so you're preaching to the choir on this particular case. I just don't see how merging, in general, is such a horrible thing.
Actually I was thinking of liv's post (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=43806#post43806) on the first page. But anyway I never said I think merging in general is a horrible thing, I just think that the default should be no moderator interference at all unless there is some solid justification for it. I get the impression it works the other way around at II sometimes. Moves, merges, and the like are done whimsically and then justified only if someone complains (and then rarely reversed even if it's later decided that the action was unnecessary).

[xouper]

xorbie: ... this is about merging specifically, as opposed to moderation in general. I don't see Xouper complaining about posts that have been edited, or threads being locked (though I don't want to put words in his mouth and say he's ok with that). It just seemed so peculiar to me that this is what would set him off.
Peculiar? Then perhaps you have judged without sufficient information. Any of the other moderation actions you mentioned would also have "set me off" if they had happened to any of my posts, and it is just a coincidence which one I encountered first.

[beyelzu]

or maybe you were just being an ass???


that is how it seems to me, and I ought to know as I have often been an ass.

I'm pretty sure I was being a lighthearted smartass, but it clearly came across as worse. I apologize.
it's cool, I guess I just thought that the levity was unwarranted or perhaps came accross as unduly flippant and thus assholish considering that most of us were taking things pretty seriously.

[xorbie]

Well I guess everyone has to just ..... lighten up!

THAT WAS SARCASM, BY THE WAY

[beyelzu]

Well I guess everyone has to just ..... lighten up!

THAT WAS SARCASM, BY THE WAY
you are right, liv, it is really fucking irritating and makes me want to say fuck you even when it is done jokingly (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1790&highlight=lighten)


so sarcasm not appreciated, xorbie, fuck you very much.

[xouper]

beyelzu: ... I understand.

... but does that one instance really necessitat you leaving?
Since you ask, I am tempted to think maybe you do not understand after all. Maybe I didn't explain just how much I do not like moderators messing with my posts. Perhaps I was naive in thinking that on their Science forum the topics would not attract much moderation.

Edited to add: In hindsight, I should have known better than to go there in the first place.

[viscousmemories]

If xouper's hate of being moderated was people, he'd be China.

liv went to bed so I had to take over with her line...

[beyelzu]

beyelzu: ... I understand.

... but does that one instance really necessitat you leaving?
Since you ask, I am tempted to think maybe you do not understand after all. Maybe I didn't explain just how much I do not like moderators messing with my posts. Perhaps I was naive in thinking that on their Science forum the topics would not attract much moderation.
I understand now why you were bothered by the merge, but I guess the difference is that when I have been moderated I just dont post for awhile, I dont feel a need to leave permanently. also, something like a thread merge doesnt seem to be aimed at you specifically which would be an important point for me.

you mileage may vary and all that.

[xorbie]

I'll just be brief since xouper can speak for himself and I've said pretty much all I intended to...

How was he, specifically moderated? Does he really expect a mod to PM every single member of a thread to get their input on every action (rhetorical questions I guess, since I'm asking you, but you can I suppose answer from your own POV)?
I'm not sure I understand your question. A thread he was actively posting on was merged with another thread, resulting in a barely coherent scramble. If "being moderated" means something more than just having your own posts edited (and I think it does) then everyone posting on that thread was moderated. It just so happens xouper was the only one who complained. Like I said in my first post, most regular posters at IIDB are probably acclimated to the heavy-handed moderation.

I meant that he wasn't being single handedly moderated, but I guess it's a moot point anyhow as xouper has explained himself.

And those veteran mods you allude to include me (and nobody else acually, unless I missed a post), so you're preaching to the choir on this particular case. I just don't see how merging, in general, is such a horrible thing.
Actually I was thinking of liv's post (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=43806#post43806) on the first page. But anyway I never said I think merging in general is a horrible thing, I just think that the default should be no moderator interference at all unless there is some solid justification for it. I get the impression it works the other way around at II sometimes. Moves, merges, and the like are done whimsically and then justified only if someone complains (and then rarely reversed even if it's later decided that the action was unnecessary).

It can appear whimsical at times, because there's different mods. It's tough to really get a perfectly consistent system going, because there's just too many posts to have the same people double and triple check everything. We try to get enough redudancy that we hold most everything to the same standard. I assure you I do not merge, move or edit whimsically.

I also disagree that decisions are rarely reverse if we decide that it was the wrong move.

[xorbie]

xorbie: ... this is about merging specifically, as opposed to moderation in general. I don't see Xouper complaining about posts that have been edited, or threads being locked (though I don't want to put words in his mouth and say he's ok with that). It just seemed so peculiar to me that this is what would set him off.
Peculiar? Then perhaps you have judged without sufficient information. Any of the other moderation actions you mentioned would also have "set me off" if they had happened to any of my posts, and it is just a coincidence which one I encountered first.

I'm going to say this as nicely as I can. You appear to be blaming me continuously for every single mis communication. I'm not sure why. You read various things into my posts, and then blame me for "judging without sufficient information" when it's really you who hasn't supplied the information. If you are against moderation in general (in which case I'm still surprised you'd bother posting at II at all, but you've already adressed this so no need to do so again..), you should have stated that, instead of complaining about this one specific action.

Saying "I refuse to have my posts edited or move in any fashion" would have been sufficient, and saved quite a bit of hassle on all ends.

[xorbie]

Well I guess everyone has to just ..... lighten up!

THAT WAS SARCASM, BY THE WAY
you are right, liv, it is really fucking irritating and makes me want to say fuck you even when it is done jokingly (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1790&highlight=lighten)


so sarcasm not appreciated, xorbie, fuck you very much.

Yes thank you for pointing out my reference to that thread. I thought I had been clear enough..

[beyelzu]

Well I guess everyone has to just ..... lighten up!

THAT WAS SARCASM, BY THE WAY
you are right, liv, it is really fucking irritating and makes me want to say fuck you even when it is done jokingly (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1790&highlight=lighten)


so sarcasm not appreciated, xorbie, fuck you very much.

Yes thank you for pointing out my reference to that thread. I thought I had been clear enough..
hell, I guess you and miscommunication are just good friends this evening.

ah, well, perhaps better more fruitful communications will be with us both tomorrow.

[xorbie]

Hopefully so.

[xouper]

xorbie: I also disagree that decisions are rarely reverse if we decide that it was the wrong move.
From my point of view, it doesn't matter whether decisions get reversed. The process of appealing a decision is by definition adversarial. After too many such appeals by me, the moderators are likely to suggest that if I dont like their decisions, maybe I should find some other forum to post. I'm simply saving everyone that headache by leaving now. You really don't want me on your forum, since I will eventually just whine about all the moderation and get banned. Instead of beating me up for it, you should be thanking me for leaving voluntarily.

[xorbie]

xorbie: I also disagree that decisions are rarely reverse if we decide that it was the wrong move.

From my point of view, it doesn't matter whether decisions get reversed. The process of appealing a decision is by definition adversarial. After too many such appeals by me, the moderators are likely to suggest that if I dont like their decisions, maybe I should find some other forum to post. I'm simply saving everyone that headache by leaving now. You really don't want me on your forum, since I will eventually just whine about all the moderation and get banned. Instead of beating me up for it, you should be thanking me for leaving voluntarily.

It's true that if you refused to follow rules, you would eventually be banned. However, it's wrong that I (or the mods/admins in general) don't want you at II. As far as I've seen here at FF (barring this thread, I guess), you're posts are high quality. You'd be great at II, but not if you're going to complain about every instance of moderation.

I still think that not posting at all is a bit extreme, and I still disagree that forums should be completely unmoderated, but such is life.

[Seven of Nine]

Again, no one needs to stay at a heavily moderated forum if it makes them unhappy. Why should they?

[viscousmemories]

It can appear whimsical at times, because there's different mods. It's tough to really get a perfectly consistent system going, because there's just too many posts to have the same people double and triple check everything. We try to get enough redudancy that we hold most everything to the same standard. I assure you I do not merge, move or edit whimsically.

I also disagree that decisions are rarely reverse if we decide that it was the wrong move.
I'm not surprised you disagree. I've yet to meet an admin or moderator of any forum who agrees with my opinions about forum administration and moderation, and the more moderation a forum has the less we have to agree on. That's why I took the advice of those who told me if I didn't like it I could start my own forum. :D

Alas the midnight hour approaches, and I must sleep... :wave:

[xorbie]

I must sleep too, but I have hours of homework left over. College rules.

[xouper]

xorbie: I'm going to say this as nicely as I can. You appear to be blaming me continuously for every single mis communication. I'm not sure why. You read various things into my posts, and then blame me for "judging without sufficient information" when it's really you who hasn't supplied the information.
And how exactly am I to know what information you require for your judgments until you ask? You could have asked me why, before you judged it peculiar.

If you are against moderation in general (in which case I'm still surprised you'd bother posting at II at all, but you've already adressed this so no need to do so again..),
In hindsight, I should never have gone there in the first place. I was mistakenly naive and optimistic. My fault. I will readily admit to that.

Saying "I refuse to have my posts edited or move in any fashion" would have been sufficient, and saved quite a bit of hassle on all ends.
Actually I thought that was the essence of my statement on IIDB. Did I not say I cannot abide moderators merging threads I post in? Livius had no trouble interpreting my statement accurately without any explanation from me. What do you suppose I should infer from that?

Your interaction with me here in this thread is exactly why I do not trust certain moderators. I would hate to be having this conversation where you can moderate my posts.

[xorbie]

[quote]Saying "I refuse to have my posts edited or move in any fashion" would have been sufficient, and saved quite a bit of hassle on all ends.
Actually I thought that was the essence of my statement on IIDB. Did I not say I cannot abide moderators merging threads I post in? Livius had no trouble interpreting my statement accurately without any explanation from me. What do you suppose I should infer from that?

No, you complained in thread about a moderation, made a reference to you not understanding the rules and said you would leave. If you had instead said "I refuse any form of moderation whatsoever" that would have been better. Also, just so this can come full cirlce, you saying that livius understood you constitutes an argumentum ad (not very) populum. Several others didn't understand your beef exactly.

Your interaction with me here in this thread is exactly why I do not trust certain moderators. I would hate to be having this conversation where you can moderate my posts.

Well that's fantastic, but I guess I had it coming. For the record, mods don't generally moderate threads they are involved in deeply.

[xorbie]

And how exactly am I to know what information you require for your judgments until you ask? You could have asked me why, before you judged it peculiar.

Because the first three pages of this thread are comprised of, among other things, several people asking you what exactly your problem with the merging was? A simple "I dislike any form of moderation because ...." would have been nice. You kept not answering though, which I still don't understand.

[xouper]

xorbie: ... You'd be great at II, but not if you're going to complain about every instance of moderation.
And in time, that's probably what would happen. So you are better off if I just recognize that now and save you the trouble of banning me. I only have 19 posts on IIDB (17 this year and 2 from 2002). You may wish to read them sometime, they are not long. Or not, since it no longer matters what kind of poster I was on IIDB.

[Seven of Nine]

<snip>
I would hate to be having this conversation where you can moderate my posts.

At every heavily moderated board to which I've belonged, being allowed to have such a conversation publicly at all is pretty rare; the member is routinely required to have it via PM, or to appeal.

Xorbie, what's the usual procedure at IIDB?

[xorbie]

<snip>
I would hate to be having this conversation where you can moderate my posts.

At every heavily moderated board to which I've belonged, being allowed to have such a conversation publicly at all is pretty rare; the member is routinely required to have it via PM, or to appeal.

Xorbie, what's the usual procedure at IIDB?

There is a Problems & Complaints forum, in which all complaints about moderator actions go. A member makes his or her complaints, the mods discuss it and either agree (and take whatever requisite actions) or disagree and explain why.

Then there is the ICR, where you can discuss policy more generally.

[Seven of Nine]

<snip>
I would hate to be having this conversation where you can moderate my posts.

At every heavily moderated board to which I've belonged, being allowed to have such a conversation publicly at all is pretty rare; the member is routinely required to have it via PM, or to appeal.

Xorbie, what's the usual procedure at IIDB?

There is a Problems & Complaints forum, in which all complaints about moderator actions go. A member makes his or her complaints, the mods discuss it and either agree (and take whatever requisite actions) or disagree and explain why.

Then there is the ICR, where you can discuss policy more generally.

Thank you for the info, Xorbie! :)

Would a conversation as irate as this one has been, overall, be acceptible there, and what are the chances that two threads, having once been merged, might be restored, as the result of a such a complaint?

[xorbie]

<snip>
I would hate to be having this conversation where you can moderate my posts.

At every heavily moderated board to which I've belonged, being allowed to have such a conversation publicly at all is pretty rare; the member is routinely required to have it via PM, or to appeal.

Xorbie, what's the usual procedure at IIDB?

There is a Problems & Complaints forum, in which all complaints about moderator actions go. A member makes his or her complaints, the mods discuss it and either agree (and take whatever requisite actions) or disagree and explain why.

Then there is the ICR, where you can discuss policy more generally.

Thank you for the info, Xorbie! :)

Would a conversation as irate as this one has been, overall, be acceptible there, and what are the chances that two threads, having once been merged, might be restored, as the result of a such a complaint?

This conversation would for the most part be acceptable sure (I suppose a couple "asses" and "fuck you" would have been edited).

If a thread's been merged, it's tough to restore, but it could probably be locked and split assuming you knew which posts where originally in which thread (which actually shouldn't be too hard, if merging is as bad as people are making it out to be).

[xouper]

xorbie: Saying "I refuse to have my posts edited or move in any fashion" would have been sufficient, and saved quite a bit of hassle on all ends.

xouper: Actually I thought that was the essence of my statement on IIDB. Did I not say I cannot abide moderators merging threads I post in?

xorbie: No, ...
No? You said no? Did you suddenly forget how to read? I posted on IIDB, referring to the merge, "I cannot live with the threat that at any time any of my threads could be fucked with like this." How is that not akin to saying I refuse to have my posts moved?

xorbie: ... you complained in thread about a moderation, made a reference to you not understanding the rules and said you would leave. If you had instead said "I refuse any form of moderation whatsoever" that would have been better.
Your misunderstanding of my post on IIDB is one of the reasons why I do not trust moderators to mess with my posts.

xorbie: Also, just so this can come full cirlce, you saying that livius understood you constitutes an argumentum ad (not very) populum. Several others didn't understand your beef exactly.
I get the impression you aren't even trying to understand my point here.

xorbie: Because the first three pages of this thread are comprised of, among other things, several people asking you what exactly your problem with the merging was? A simple "I dislike any form of moderation because ...." would have been nice. You kept not answering though, which I still don't understand.
Perhaps you need to go back and reread my reasons for not answering right away. If you can't even figure out that simple thing, how do you expect me to trust your judgment as a moderator? If your participation in this thread is typical of other IIDB moderators, then for sure I have made the right choice by leaving.

[xorbie]

xorbie: Saying "I refuse to have my posts edited or move in any fashion" would have been sufficient, and saved quite a bit of hassle on all ends.

xouper: Actually I thought that was the essence of my statement on IIDB. Did I not say I cannot abide moderators merging threads I post in?

xorbie: No, ...
No? You said no? Did you suddenly forget how to read? I posted on IIDB, referring to the merge, "I cannot live with the threat that at any time any of my threads could be fucked with like this." How is that not akin to saying I refuse to have my posts moved?

I didn't say No. I started a sentence with no. I'm going to stop now, because this is going nowhere, and I thought this had been already resolved but clearly you disagree and would rather disparage me and my moderating abilities. Thanks, but no thanks.

[Seven of Nine]

[QUOTE=xouper] <snip>
I would hate to be having this conversation where you can moderate my posts.

At every heavily moderated board to which I've belonged, being allowed to have such a conversation publicly at all is pretty rare; the member is routinely required to have it via PM, or to appeal.

Xorbie, what's the usual procedure at IIDB?

There is a Problems & Complaints forum, in which all complaints about moderator actions go. A member makes his or her complaints, the mods discuss it and either agree (and take whatever requisite actions) or disagree and explain why.

Then there is the ICR, where you can discuss policy more generally.

Thank you for the info, Xorbie! :)

Would a conversation as irate as this one has been, overall, be acceptible there, and what are the chances that two threads, having once been merged, might be restored, as the result of a such a complaint?

This conversation would for the most part be acceptable sure (I suppose a couple "asses" and "fuck you" would have been edited).

Thank you. :)

If a thread's been merged, it's tough to restore, but it could probably be locked and split assuming you knew which posts where originally in which thread (which actually shouldn't be too hard, if merging is as bad as people are making it out to be).

I found it pretty difficult, myself, and I was experimenting with my own thread to see what the results of spliting and merging would be. I split and then merged the same image thread to find that it took me hours to fix it, even though I had only to delete the double posts, because the thread ended up scrambled, rather than one copy being tacked onto the end of the other. :banghead:

However, my question was not how hard it is to do, but what are the chances that two merged threads might be restored, as the result of a such a complaint?

btw, Zorbie, I'm asking out of curiosity, so if it's a bummer answering my questions, please don't put yourself out doing so, okay?

[xorbie]

It's no problem answering questions, really.

As for how likely it is that two threads would be unmerged, I have to say it depends on how bad the merge was, and how easy it would be to fix. If I accidently merged two threads, rest assured I would try to split them.

[xouper]

xorbie: No, ...

xouper: No? You said no?

xorbie: I didn't say No.
Well, I'm glad you cleared that up.

xorbie: ... Thanks, but no thanks.
Now you know how I felt starting from your second reply in this thread.

[Seven of Nine]

It's no problem answering questions, really.

Cool, but if you become bored, please feel free to tell me!

As for how likely it is that two threads would be unmerged, I have to say it depends on how bad the merge was, and how easy it would be to fix.

It must be that I don't quite understand what you're saying here; surely IIDB's position isn't "If our members are made terribly unhappy by a good-faith attempt to tidy the board and promote discussion, then we will only correct it, rather than lose such members, if it causes us little trouble."?

If I accidently merged two threads, rest assured I would try to split them.

I consider that a given, of course. :)

[xouper]

xorbie: There are rules at II. You signed up, agreeing to follow them. One of them is that mods are allowed to merge or split threads,
I have so far been unable to find that particular rule. Could someone please point me to where I agreed to let my posts be merged?

[xorbie]

xorbie: There are rules at II. You signed up, agreeing to follow them. One of them is that mods are allowed to merge or split threads,

I have so far been unable to find that particular rule. Could someone please point me to where I agreed to let my posts be merged?

It doesn't say merge specifically, but we can do mostly whatever we please, really. I suppose this should be added, and I'm assuming it's not in there because nobody really foresaw this being an issue. However, the following segment of the rules covers this:

[Moderators] are also empowered to make positive actions that improve the general well-being of the board and its community. Therefore, be aware that Moderators are able to take any necessary and appropriate actions.

So there you have it. If you feel that merging threads can never be a positive action, you could start an ICR thread or something (you don't have to ever intend to post again at II to do so). If you feel your specific thread which was merged was done so in a way that did not improve the general well-being of the board (by messing up that thread), you should bring this up in the P&C thread.

[xouper]

xorbie: ... the following segment of the rules covers this:

[Moderators] are also empowered to make positive actions that improve the general well-being of the board and its community. Therefore, be aware that Moderators are able to take any necessary and appropriate actions.
So there you have it.
Thank you.

xorbie: It doesn't say merge specifically, but we can do mostly whatever we please, really.
I see. Thank you again for explaining.

[livius drusus]

you are right, liv, it is really fucking irritating and makes me want to say fuck you even when it is done jokingly

Dismissive and insulting to a t, isn't it? And I don't think it was a joke, really, particularly since xorbie was making a specific reference to the thread in which several participants here noted its dismissive and insulting nature. Oh well...

This conversation would for the most part be acceptable sure (I suppose a couple "asses" and "fuck you" would have been edited).

C'mon, man. There's just no way in hell this thread or anything like it would be allowed to go at IIDB, fuck yous or no fuck yous. If xoup had posted this OP in the Problems & Complaints forum, he would have gotten a see ya and had the thread locked. Even if they had been willing to engage him, nobody but the thread starter and the staff are allowed to post in threads in that forum, so by definition this thread could never have happened.

If he had started it in the ICR, it most likely would have been moved either to P&C or to the new forum for individual complaints and then repeat as above. I think you're envisioning some hypothetical thread on the value of merging instead of this actual one.

However, my question was not how hard it is to do, but what are the chances that two merged threads might be restored, as the result of a such a complaint?

If there ever was a circumstance under which a merge should be reversed it would be the Boro Nut situation (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=114758) I liked to previously. I'll wager such a remedy wasn't even considered. I have seen splits corrected (posts that ended up in the wrong thread merged back into the right one), but merges are generally viewed as so benign even the worst case scenario is hardly worth noting. An apology from the mod who fucked up is the most you're likely to get, imo, as IamMoose gave to Boro.

[livius drusus]

xorbie: There are rules at II. You signed up, agreeing to follow them. One of them is that mods are allowed to merge or split threads,
I have so far been unable to find that particular rule. Could someone please point me to where I agreed to let my posts be merged?

xorbie pointed you to the overall clause, but a slightly more specific explanation of what to expect can be found in rule 6:

(6) You agree that if it is deemed by the Moderators and/or Administrators that any of these rules are abused the Moderators and/or Administrators are empowered to take all necessary and appropriate actions. For example, the offending message may be moved to another thread or forum, be split out of a thread, have sections deleted from it, or be deleted in its entirety--all without prior notice. If you repeatedly violate any of these rules or otherwise seek to disrupt the board then the Administrators will disable your account.

Now, of course this doesn't quite apply to thread merges because they aren't done as a consequence of rule breaking, but it does give you some idea of what specific actions moderators are empowered to take. Combine that with the general clause and there you have it.

Again though, you never agreed to this version of the rules. The details about moderator action were added to the 2004 version precisely because people had unexpected problems with moderator action.

I remember once Doctor X insisted that his posts either be entirely deleted or left alone; he considered partial edits an egregious violation of his intent. Nobody had ever said that before and we were all totally perplexed about it. When the rules were overhauled, there was a brand new f'rinstance in rule 6 directly stemming from the Doc X incident.

[ceptimus]

When Hal was intent on pruning away the community forum at JREF, I posted (half jokingly) that if a sizable portion of my posts were to be pruned, then I would demand that all my posts be erased entirely: to leave only some of them would give people a misleading impression of my views and character.

A few people (tamiO was one) took up the idea and ran with it, but as you know, Hal's plan fizzled out. I believe though, that the Community section at the JREF is still officially in a "trial period", and "under review", to see whether it can live up to the required standards of civility, whatever they are this week.

[Clutch Munny]

Saying "I refuse to have my posts edited or move in any fashion" would have been sufficient, and saved quite a bit of hassle on all ends.
Actually I thought that was the essence of my statement on IIDB. Did I not say I cannot abide moderators merging threads I post in? Livius had no trouble interpreting my statement accurately without any explanation from me. What do you suppose I should infer from that?

Actually, you said you could not live with it. And that what you could not live with was a threat. And that the threat was of having your posts fucked with.

I don't understand the hostility of this thread, but I do understand being puzzled at the extremity of your response. I disagree with livius that your post was obviously moderate or proportionate in tone. I agree with her, however, if the general idea was that its somewhat overblown tone did not merit the tone of some of the replies you've received here.

[livius drusus]

I disagree with livius

You what? Clearly I've been letting you run off-leash way too much.

[Clutch Munny]

I disagree with livius

You what? Clearly I've been letting you run off-leash way too much.

Yeah, when a man's gotta beg for discipline it's a sad state of affairs. But here goes:

You're not the boss of me!

[Shake]

Hi ho! Long time II member, and brand-new II mod here with my own two pennies:

Consistency within a thread is relative IMO, but merging definitely destroys any remaining shreds of such consistency. Or at least makes them very difficult to find.

In the past, if mods hadn't gotten to it first, when I saw similar threads -- either from the same forum or from a different one -- and wished to alert readers of one to information in the other, I'd simply post a link to the related thread. I bring this point up because earlier in this thread, someone said that the reason for merging was to bring in folks who might be missing out on relevant or interesting information. This, I feel, can still be accomplished by the aforementioned posting links to the other threads without the need for a merge.

Thus, merging, IMO, should almost never be done. The exception would be if both threads had few to no replies made to them yet.

Splitting threads, OTOH, is much more valuable because it can actually help preserve the consistency of a thread. Like removing derailments, which can then be linked to by the mod who has removed the appropriate posts.

This is how I plan to moderate. (Oh, I'm in Positive Atheism & Secular Activism, in case you were wondering.)

[Gurdur]

This conversation would for the most part be acceptable sure ...
Not at all necessarily. It is very far from rare that such complaint threads get locked and the complainant in effect to be told to shut up.
It happens a fair bit.

[xorbie]

Thus, merging, IMO, should almost never be done. The exception would be if both threads had few to no replies made to them yet.

I guess I just have a different perspective on this, because that exact situtation happens to me at least once a week. People post articles all the time, as PD is a very current events related forum, and I'm very often merging threads that each have three posts, or possibly even just merging an OP (if it was well thought out, as opposed to just a link) into an already existing thread.

I'd like for anyone to explain to me how that's a bad thing.

I agree it shouldn't be used for anything beside that. Perhaps a change is necessary in the mod handbook, who knows.

[Shake]

I guess I just have a different perspective on this, because that exact situtation happens to me at least once a week. People post articles all the time, as PD is a very current events related forum, and I'm very often merging threads that each have three posts, or possibly even just merging an OP (if it was well thought out, as opposed to just a link) into an already existing thread.

I'd like for anyone to explain to me how that's a bad thing.

I agree it shouldn't be used for anything beside that. Perhaps a change is necessary in the mod handbook, who knows.
3 posts is still within what I'd consider reasonable, and then I suppose one would have to consider the nature of each forum. I'm sure that happens a lot in PD. It's probably good to do it there due to the staggering number of new threads each day.

[godfry n. glad]

You ain't gonna miss a thing.

The administrator I dealt with at IIDB has some serious cognitive processing problems. He told me I could not discern as to whether a poster was being duplicitous or not, because I could not read their mind (he, of course, never asked me how I knew) and then, in the very next breath, he turned around and told me I was doing something for a specific reason....which he'd have had to have read my mind to discern. And, he did it all while being unctuously patronizing. Consequently, I have a very, very, very low opinion of administrator/moderator skills at IIDB. Subsequent events have done naught but reinforce that opinion.

You are better off not being there.

godfry n. glad

[Dragar]

If Xouper doesn't like the taste of tuna, then I'm glad he's decided to avoid eating it.

[livius drusus]

If Xouper doesn't like the taste of tuna, then I'm glad he's decided to avoid eating it.
Indeed. Which makes me wonder why the tuna purveyors would seek to forcefeed him by splitting off a farewell post into the complaint forum. :shrug:

[godfry n. glad]

If Xouper doesn't like the taste of tuna, then I'm glad he's decided to avoid eating it.
Indeed. Which makes me wonder why the tuna purveyors would seek to forcefeed him by splitting off a farewell post into the complaint forum. :shrug:

More evidence of serious cognitive processing problems amongst the powers that be at IIDB?

[viscousmemories]

People post articles all the time, as PD is a very current events related forum, and I'm very often merging threads that each have three posts, or possibly even just merging an OP (if it was well thought out, as opposed to just a link) into an already existing thread.

I'd like for anyone to explain to me how that's a bad thing.
I evaluate whether I want to read a thread based on some or all of a few criteria.

1. Does the person who started the thread usually have a viewpoint I'm interested in?
2. Does the subject of the thread sound interesting?
3. Is the OP particularly well-written or engaging?

Etc.

I assume other people use similar criteria to decide what threads to read.

So...

If you take my carefully crafted OP and brilliantly descriptive and captivating title and merge it into a bland thread by JoeBoringUser whose OP isn't as carefully constructed as mine, you have greatly diminished the likelihood of my reaching my target audience with the post I wrote. It really doesn't matter whether anyone else thinks my post was a singular masterpiece deserving of its own showcase. The point is the decision should (imo) be the author's.

And yes, that would really piss me off and so I would describe it as a Bad Thing™. Especially if you did it for no good reason.

[xorbie]

Move evidence of people complaining no matter which way it goes?

If the post wasn't split out, would you complain that the rules weren't being followed the same for everyone?

[livius drusus]

To whom are you addressing this question? Also, are you suggesting someone would complain if that post had not been split off? Who?

[xorbie]

To whom are you addressing this question? Also, are you suggesting someone would complain if that post had not been split off? Who?

Not adresing anyone in particular, just venting. I've had a rough day.

But I would say that several people do frequently complain that rules are not enforced evenly and with one standard. It would seem to me that splitting of what is in an in thread complaint to the P&C forum would be a good thing.

[livius drusus]

Not adresing anyone in particular, just venting. I've had a rough day.

That's cool. Here's a :cthulhu3: to cheer you up. :)

But I would say that several people do frequently complain that rules are not enforced evenly and with one standard.

They aren't, of course, and I believe you mentioned that yourself earlier in this thread. IIDB mods are allowed a wide range of responses to given stimuli; that's pretty much the definition of uneven enforcement. It's not always a bad thing, mind you. I think Shake's approach will be a fruitful one for his forum, for example.

It would seem to me that splitting of what is in an in thread complaint to the P&C forum would be a good thing.

The original idea behind splitting off complaints was to end pathological meta-discussion derailments. A single post doesn't qualify, imo, so no, I don't think as a matter of standard such splits are a good thing.

Furthermore, a P&C thread can be a pretty significant burden on the thread starter since he or she must make one's case entirely alone, and now that the procedure has been formalized, I don't think it's fair to make a post into a formal complaint without the input of the poster.

[Dragar]

If Xouper doesn't like the taste of tuna, then I'm glad he's decided to avoid eating it.
Indeed. Which makes me wonder why the tuna purveyors would seek to forcefeed him by splitting off a farewell post into the complaint forum. :shrug:

Sometimes good marketing involves changing the taste of your product. Sometimes it means you keep it the same, even though not everyone buys it.

I haven't looked at IIDB though, so I don't know if their intent is to discuss a marketing change, or some other goal.

[Crumb]

<aside>
I think I should change my name to JoeBoringUser. :giggles: It seems so appropriate.
</aside>

[viscousmemories]

Shirley it doesn't apply to you, Crumb. :slide:

[Crumb]

It most definitely does!

and don't call me Shirley

[xorbie]

Not adresing anyone in particular, just venting. I've had a rough day.

That's cool. Here's a :cthulhu3: to cheer you up. :)

:)

It would seem to me that splitting of what is in an in thread complaint to the P&C forum would be a good thing.

The original idea behind splitting off complaints was to end pathological meta-discussion derailments. A single post doesn't qualify, imo, so no, I don't think as a matter of standard such splits are a good thing.

Furthermore, a P&C thread can be a pretty significant burden on the thread starter since he or she must make one's case entirely alone, and now that the procedure has been formalized, I don't think it's fair to make a post into a formal complaint without the input of the poster.

I think it's pretty standard for mods to split off any and all in thread complaints to P&C (or just edit them out and point them to the forum if it's a line or so).

You probably do have a point though.

[xouper]

xorbie: Saying "I refuse to have my posts edited or move in any fashion" would have been sufficient, and saved quite a bit of hassle on all ends.

xouper: Actually I thought that was the essence of my statement on IIDB. Did I not say I cannot abide moderators merging threads I post in?

Clutch Munny: Actually, you said you could not live with it. And that what you could not live with was a threat. And that the threat was of having your posts fucked with.
To set the record straight, what I said was "fucked with like this" which was a direct reference to the merge by the moderator.

There are many ways to say that I do not want my posts moderated. And the way I said it on IIDB is one of those ways. That was my intent, anyway.

If you want to object that the way I expressed myself is open to misinterpretation, then I can accept that. If you want to argue about my intent, then you can't win that one.

[xouper]

Dragar: If Xouper doesn't like the taste of tuna, then I'm glad he's decided to avoid eating it.
That's exactly my point. I hindsight, I wish I had said it that way.

I am disappointed that some people chose to crticize me for not liking tuna.

Actually I like tuna. :)

Instead, I would have said:

I don't like the taste of asparagus.

[viscousmemories]

I don't like the taste of asparagus.
Freak.

[Blake]

Asparagus makes your pee smell funny.

[viscousmemories]

Well I wouldn't say funny, exactly.

God what is it about that pancake bunny? He's just so cute.

[godfry n. glad]

Dragar: If Xouper doesn't like the taste of tuna, then I'm glad he's decided to avoid eating it.
That's exactly my point. I hindsight, I wish I had said it that way.

I am disappointed that some people chose to crticize me for not liking tuna.

Actually I like tuna. :)

Instead, I would have said:

I don't like the taste of asparagus.

Oh, good! MORE for me!

[Clutch Munny]

There are many ways to say that I do not want my posts moderated. And the way I said it on IIDB is one of those ways. That was my intent, anyway.

If you want to object that the way I expressed myself is open to misinterpretation, then I can accept that. If you want to argue about my intent, then you can't win that one.

I'm not objecting that what you said is open to misinterpretation. I'm just pointing it out. If you accept that, it's tantamount to accepting that (some) misinterpretations of your intent are understandable, though. (That is, not necessarily based on some determination to insult you, for example.)

In any case, expression is all one has to go on; inferring intent from expression is what communication, especially online, is. Misinterpretable expression just is misinterpretable intent.

Post hoc clarification of intent can be very important, of course, but the initial words have an autonomy that cannot be vitiated after the fact. One's subsequent clarification of one's intent are additional evidence, but do not automatically carry the day. It's an interesting matter of language pragmatics. I'm not talking about this case in particular, now -- just observing that it is perfectly possible to "win" the argument about intent even in the face of the speaker's insistence to the contrary. We do it all the time, after all. ("Your Honour, when I say on that taped phone call, 'Have Fat Tony whack that piece of shit Clemenza,' what I mean is that he should give the old fella a slap on the bum from me. I admit it's ambiguous, but you can't argue intent with me.")

Philosophers of language refer to the denial of this fact as the Humpty-Dumpty theory of meaning: If I claim after the fact that when I said "There's glory for you!", I meant "A nice knock-down argument", I try to assert the primacy of my intentions in determining the meanings of my utterances. But that does not seem to be how language works.

'[T]hat shows that there are three hundred and sixty-four days when you might get un-birthday presents --'

'Certainly,' said Alice.

'And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'

'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master -- that's all.'

[beyelzu]

This conversation would for the most part be acceptable sure (I suppose a couple "asses" and "fuck you" would have been edited).

which is why I dont post at ii very much. there was a time when my posting style was more accepted. admittedly, the posts you reference obliquely probably would have been edited even when I first started posting there.

[xouper]

Clutch Munny: ... Post hoc clarification of intent can be very important, of course, but the initial words have an autonomy that cannot be vitiated after the fact. ...
Not sure why you brought this up, since I did not attempt to vitiate my statement on IIDB.

[maddog]

Disclaimer: I have not read (1) the whole of this thread (though I've read some of it), or (2) whatever the brouhaha at IIDB was.

All I want to say, is, Gee, Xoup, I'm really sorry that it comes down to all or nothing for you. I, like you, would have bet that usually the Science forum would be less often and less likely messed with. In fact, I still think that, percentagewise, that might likely be the case (no stats to back this up, this is just an opinion). I'm always happy to see what you have to say substantively on threads, and I think your contributions at IIDB will be missed. :(

{{Sorry, Xouper.}} That's all.
#309

[xorbie]

I still think you would be better of starting an ICR thread explaining why you don't think longer threads should be merged. I for one would fully support you.

Also on a slight tangent, if you don't want a thread merged with another one, just leave a note in your OP that states so and explains why. Don't expect a moderator to be able to read your mind and know that you are aware of the other thread (when this is rarely ever the case). Not that that this matters if you are indeed leaving, which, again, would be a shame.

[xouper]

xorbie: I still think you would be better of starting an ICR thread explaining why you don't think longer threads should be merged.
Thanks for the suggestion, but I am not interested in arguing with them about changing their moderation policy. Been there, done that. I must be getting old in my old age.

[xouper]

maddog: ... I think your contributions at IIDB will be missed.
I appreciate the sentiment, but considering how few replies I actually got there, I seriously doubt most people will even notice I stopped posting. No big deal.

[Dingfod]

maddog: ... I think your contributions at IIDB will be missed.
I appreciate the sentiment, but considering how few replies I actually got there, I seriously doubt most people will even notice I stopped posting. No big deal.If that is the standard, I should've quit IIDB almost 2000 posts ago. You'd have to have a dozen Chinese accountants armed with abacus to calculate how many threads I've killed there. Not only do my posts not deserve a reply, they kill whatever IS going on in a thread. Perhaps, my posts, in terms of substance, have the viscosity of quicksand, and there actually were replies, but they got swallowed up by my posts. I expect this thread will end with this post.

[Shake]

I appreciate the sentiment, but considering how few replies I actually got there, I seriously doubt most people will even notice I stopped posting. No big deal.
I agree with Warren, here. Just because someone has gotten something out of one of your posts or really appreciates it, they're not obligated to reply. People talk about thread-killing sometimes -- well, sometimes the last post in a thread has made an excellent point and no one has anything further substantive to add. Not getting lots of replies is hardly a reason to leave.

Besides, you said you were pretty restricted to the Science forum. There's a lot of questioning and statements of fact there. Not always a lot of room for opinions, as with topics in The Lounge, Misc. Discussions, or Media & Popular Culture. It's in part the nature of that forum.

[livius drusus]

Not getting lots of replies is hardly a reason to leave.
Well, that's not why he left, though. That was just his reply to maddog's comment that he would be missed.

[Corona688]

This conversation would for the most part be acceptable sure ...
Not at all necessarily. It is very far from rare that such complaint threads get locked and the complainant in effect to be told to shut up.
It happens a fair bit. Indeed. Sometimes it has to be done, like with trolls that are proactively attacking their opponents in complaints threads, but other times, it seems needlessly suppressive. And their complaint-waiting policy is really beginning to tick me off. "Why was my thread closed?" "Please hold, your call is important to us." "Still here!" "Please hold, your call is important to us." "Helloooooo!?" "Hi. We closed your thread because some people said bad things about other people, causing the whole thread to be infected to the point where we had to set it on fire. Since I'm sure you'll find this response satisfying, and since it's all we're required to give anyway, I'm closing this thread now. Have a nice day."

My main beef with iidb is their policy of banning people who "take an unusual amount of moderator time". Hell, I probably qualify for that if they should feel like banning me.

[Roland98]

Indeed. Sometimes it has to be done, like with trolls that are proactively attacking their opponents in complaints threads, but other times, it seems needlessly suppressive. And their complaint-waiting policy is really beginning to tick me off. "Why was my thread closed?" "Please hold, your call is important to us." "Still here!" "Please hold, your call is important to us." "Helloooooo!?" "Hi. We closed your thread because some people said bad things about other people, causing the whole thread to be infected to the point where we had to set it on fire. Since I'm sure you'll find this response satisfying, and since it's all we're required to give anyway, I'm closing this thread now. Have a nice day."

I'd love to hear suggestions on a better way to do it. Used to be that any mod could answer, and the thread starter often got swamped by a large number of responses to his OP. The new way gets all the mods to discuss first and then present a response, to try to prevent this appearance of "ganging up" on the thread starter. Unfortunately, since mods are on different schedules in different time zones, it takes awhile to get things done.

Additionally, if you take a look at how many P&C threads actually get closed, it's a very small percentage. In the last month, 1 was closed, and that's because it wasn't a serious complaint. If you view the last 100 days, there are maybe 6 more, including 1 which is empty and another which was moved there from some other forum, and a third which wasn't a complaint but just support of a mod. They're generally closed when either 1) they get insulting or nasty, or 2) we're at an impasse and feel that further discussion isn't going to be fruitful, or when we've been down that road several times already and a particular user still isn't satisfied. It's a waste of our time to continue to answer, and a waste of the user's time to keep hammering in something that's not going to be changed.

My main beef with iidb is their policy of banning people who "take an unusual amount of moderator time". Hell, I probably qualify for that if they should feel like banning me.

That's not exactly why they were banned--that's just the easy summation we post in the ICR thread, because we don't give out all the (usually boring) details. Basically, by the time someone gets to that point, they've generally been edited repeatedly, warned via PM, warned by admins, etc.

[godfry n. glad]

That's not exactly why they were banned--that's just the easy summation we post in the ICR thread, because we don't give out all the (usually boring) details. Basically, by the time someone gets to that point, they've generally been edited repeatedly, warned via PM, warned by admins, etc.

You forgot "concerns ignored", "contradictory policies rationalized and obfuscated","patronized", "insulted" and "generally pissed on by one of the moronic IIDB admins."

[Roland98]

That's not exactly why they were banned--that's just the easy summation we post in the ICR thread, because we don't give out all the (usually boring) details. Basically, by the time someone gets to that point, they've generally been edited repeatedly, warned via PM, warned by admins, etc.

You forgot "concerns ignored", "contradictory policies rationalized and obfuscated","patronized", "insulted" and "generally pissed on by one of the moronic IIDB admins."

godfry, I'd really prefer not to get into this with you. I'm aware of your history, I've read the threads, and I think yours is one where shit just went down poorly all around--but can we please keep that in the past? AFAIK, you have no desire to go back to II, and there are still a lot of hard feelings, which I understand. I wasn't involved, and I really don't want to discuss it because franky, I've seen the venom that can come out of you when you're ticked off and I simply don't need it for something I wasn't a part of. I like you and don't want that to change, so I'm not going to get into your banning.

[godfry n. glad]

That's not exactly why they were banned--that's just the easy summation we post in the ICR thread, because we don't give out all the (usually boring) details. Basically, by the time someone gets to that point, they've generally been edited repeatedly, warned via PM, warned by admins, etc.

You forgot "concerns ignored", "contradictory policies rationalized and obfuscated","patronized", "insulted" and "generally pissed on by one of the moronic IIDB admins."

godfry, I'd really prefer not to get into this with you. I'm aware of your history, I've read the threads, and I think yours is one where shit just went down poorly all around--but can we please keep that in the past? AFAIK, you have no desire to go back to II, and there are still a lot of hard feelings, which I understand. I wasn't involved, and I really don't want to discuss it because franky, I've seen the venom that can come out of you when you're ticked off and I simply don't need it for something I wasn't a part of. I like you and don't want that to change, so I'm not going to get into your banning.

Well, Roland, I've always held you in high regard. I do not consider you as one of the "moronic administrators" at IIDB. Indeed, I have such a high opinion of your abilities that I'm surprised you are still there. As I am with several others here who are still in moderating and/or admin capacities at IIDB. Such a tragic waste of true talent....

As long as I remain banned, and my request unfilled, I will make my opinions on IIDB and its policies and representatives known as publicly as possible. It may by your past, but it's my present. In a brief moment of regret and a desire to return to BC&H, I tried reconciling. Once, and was rebuffed....if IIDB won't "leave it in the past", I won't.

:qsigh:
godfry

[Corona688]

I'd love to hear suggestions on a better way to do it. Used to be that any mod could answer, and the thread starter often got swamped by a large number of responses to his OP. The new way gets all the mods to discuss first and then present a response, to try to prevent this appearance of "ganging up" on the thread starter. Unfortunately, since mods are on different schedules in different time zones, it takes awhile to get things done. Set it to a totally-moderated fora where anyone can post and you'll deal with the reality of moderators ganging up on individual posters instead of the appearance of it.They're generally closed when either 1) they get insulting or nasty, or 2) we're at an impasse and feel that further discussion isn't going to be fruitful, or when we've been down that road several times already and a particular user still isn't satisfied. It's a waste of our time to continue to answer, and a waste of the user's time to keep hammering in something that's not going to be changed. Indeed, and a lot of them I agree with. I'm just displaying a worst-case example that occasionally happens with the way policy is.My main beef with iidb is their policy of banning people who "take an unusual amount of moderator time". Hell, I probably qualify for that if they should feel like banning me.That's not exactly why they were banned--that's just the easy summation we post in the ICR thread, because we don't give out all the (usually boring) details. Basically, by the time someone gets to that point, they've generally been edited repeatedly, warned via PM, warned by admins, etc. Then the IIDB moderators ought to find a better way of explaining that. Saying you're banning somewhone for "taking up excessive amounts of moderator time" amounts to a blatant threat -- take up moderator time and we will ban you. You'll notice I've been rather quiet about iidb policy on iidb lately, that threat is why.

[Gurdur]

...Additionally, if you take a look at how many P&C threads actually get closed, it's a very small percentage.
Well now, I still am waiting on a reply to my Complaint thread promised by Wyzsub10 --- over a year later. And Wyzsub10 locked the thread.
And since neither spamming nor venom are charges that can be raised against me, Roland98, let's just admit that the SecWeb admins can show amazing partiality at times (given the then effectual protection of a bad mod which that thread covered, a matter rendered moot by that mod's demodding several months later) --- let alone lack of professionalism in adminning.
Yes, I'm aware that you weren't one of the admin at that time. So what ?
The issue has been raised a couple of times, and you SecWeb admin apparently don't feel the need to publically explain or apologise for never giving a reply that one of you actually promised.
So how about addresssing that issue before all the standard excuses get trotted out ?

[Roland98]

Set it to a totally-moderated fora where anyone can post and you'll deal with the reality of moderators ganging up on individual posters instead of the appearance of it.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Indeed, and a lot of them I agree with. I'm just displaying a worst-case example that occasionally happens with the way policy is.

I can't think of any that went down like that, but maybe you have one in mind?

Then the IIDB moderators ought to find a better way of explaining that. Saying you're banning somewhone for "taking up excessive amounts of moderator time" amounts to a blatant threat -- take up moderator time and we will ban you.

1) It's not the mods, it's the admins. 2) Actually, only one user in the entire "banned users" thread has that stated as the reason for banning, and that's theophilus, back in August of 2004. Mostly the reason is "failure to adhere to mod/admin directives." As I said, generally users which we have problems with get several PM's from mods and then admins. When they've been through several rounds with the mods, the admins will step in and basically give them an ultimatum, asking them to re-read and agree to follow the rules. Sometimes they agree, then go right back to the same behavior they were previously edited for, which can lead to a suspension or ban. Sometimes they just tell us where we can stick our rules and they have no intention of following them. This leads to a suspension or ban. These are the 2 most common bans of regular users. (Spammers are banned on sight).

You'll notice I've been rather quiet about iidb policy on iidb lately, that threat is why.

How so? You can criticize policy until you're blue in the face--as long as you're not calling someone a fuckwad or something while you're doing it, you're not going to get banned. Just ask vm. :)

[viscousmemories]

Sorry to interrupt but I just have to say I think it's a complete crock of shit for the moderators to lure xouper back to IIDB to give his rationale for being unhappy with the moderation just so BioBeing can tell him at length why he believes his complaint has no merit. Wasn't his choosing not to post there anymore and his very graciously coming back to try to explain himself good enough to warrant being treated with respect?

Oops, cross-posted with Roland. What fuckwads! :P

[Gurdur]

....1) It's not the mods, it's the admins. 2) Actually, only one user in the entire "banned users" thread has that stated as the reason for banning, and that's theophilus, back in August of 2004.
Nonetheless, it's a threat against users (and BTW, it was openly used against Galiel as well).
Back to my post above --- had I opened another thread after Wyzsub10 locked mine, I could have easily been accused of "taking too much of admins' time up". Nasty situation that; locking the thread so if I open another one I can be accused of spamming in effect, then promising me a reply only to never give one.
And since SecWeb admin have been reminded of this particular matter several times, then it looks like pure evasion on their part, yes ?

[Roland98]

...Additionally, if you take a look at how many P&C threads actually get closed, it's a very small percentage.
Well now, I still am waiting on a reply to my Complaint thread promised by Wyzsub10 --- over a year later. And Wyzsub10 locked the thread.
And since neither spamming nor venom are charges that can be raised against me, Roland98, let's just admit that the SecWeb admins can show amazing partiality at times (given the then effectual protection of a bad mod which that thread covered, a matter rendered moot by that mod's demodding several months later) --- let alone lack of professionalism in adminning.

I've never denied that.

Yes, I'm aware that you weren't one of the admin at that time. So what ?
The issue has been raised a couple of times, and you SecWeb admin apparently don't feel the need to publically explain or apologise for never giving a reply that one of you actually promised.
So how about addresssing that issue before all the standard excuses get trotted out ?

I don't feel I can "explain" something that happened before I was involved--that's the reason I've never tried to address that issue, Gurdur. I do agree that the action taken against you was wrong, and frankly I'm not sure why some of our past moderators were chosen in the first place. There is, however, nothing I can do to change any of that. Additionally, I can certainly apologize for the way you were treated in the past, but that seems to me somewhat hollow, as I wasn't involved in the prior action. I am, however, genuinely sorry that your complaint wasn't resolved in a better manner, because it's past actions (or inactions) like these that still come back to haunt us, no matter what we try to do better.

(Now for the standard excuses...;) )

Things get forgotten, and threads drop off the page without resolution. Even I forget things at times until someone bumps a thread. It's unfortunate, but it happens. I'm not sure what you did to remind anyone about this at the time, or if perhaps the admins felt that since that person was no longer a mod, the issue was settled. I do agree it's poor form to leave you hanging like that, and reading the corresponding ACR thread, I'm not sure what was done either with you or the other participants, as it just drops off.

[Roland98]

Sorry to interrupt but I just have to say I think it's a complete crock of shit for the moderators to lure xouper back to IIDB to give his rationale for being unhappy with the moderation just so BioBeing can tell him at length why he believes his complaint has no merit. Wasn't his choosing not to post there anymore and his very graciously coming back to try to explain himself good enough to warrant being treated with respect?

No one's trying to "lure" xouper back. BioBeing didn't have a chance to tell his side or give his reasons for merging. I pointed him to this thread so he could read xouper's reasoning to the question he posed without xouper having to post again on II. Indeed, if xouper wants anything added on his behalf, I'd be happy to add it to that thread so he can respond without actually going back.

[Roland98]

Nonetheless, it's a threat against users

No more so than any of the rules are.

(and BTW, it was openly used against Galiel as well).

Link please?

Back to my post above --- had I opened another thread after Wyzsub10 locked mine, I could have easily been accused of "taking too much of admins' time up". Nasty situation that; locking the thread so if I open another one I can be accused of spamming in effect, then promising me a reply only to never give one.

I agree, that's a nasty catch-22. This is why I've campaigned to keep most of the P&C threads open when possible.

And since SecWeb admin have been reminded of this particular matter several times, then it looks like pure evasion on their part, yes ?

I addressed some of this in my post above as you were writing this.

[Gurdur]

I don't feel I can "explain" something that happened before I was involved--that's the reason I've never tried to address that issue, Gurdur. Yet you are one of SecWeb admin. And SecWeb admin have been reminded of this several times. See below.
And SecWeb admin have a collective responsibility.
How about they live up to it ?
I do agree that the action taken against you was wrong,
Yet SecWeb admin --- in the person of Wyzsub10 --- have promised me an official reply.
Still waiting after over a year and several reminders.
And Wyzsub10 is still an admin.
(Now for the standard excuses...;) )

Things get forgotten, and threads drop off the page without resolution. Even I forget things at times until someone bumps a thread. It's unfortunate, but it happens.
Oh puh-leeze, that looks like pure rudeness. What did I mention about several reminders ?
I'm not sure what you did to remind anyone about this at the time, or if perhaps the admins felt that since that person was no longer a mod, the issue was settled.
I have raised the matter with you and with crazyfingers.
Just what do you mean "at the time" ?
Need I remind you of the threat SecWeb admin have used against users (such as Galiel) of taking up too much of their precious time ?
Or that it was several months before Jobar was demodded ?
I do agree it's poor form to leave you hanging like that, and reading the corresponding ACR thread, I'm not sure what was done either with you or the other participants, as it just drops off.Yeah, yeah. IOW SecWeb admin do not want to give any official reply. Fine, fine, they want to duck out.

Fair enough though, you've given a personal apology on a non-SecWeb arena.
Then let's just admit SecWeb admin at times can show amazing partiality, protection of bad mods (and Jobar is not the only example), and prejudicial non-professionalism in adminning.
I admit you are trying to change things for the better.
Which of course admits the need to do so.

[viscousmemories]

No one's trying to "lure" xouper back. BioBeing didn't have a chance to tell his side or give his reasons for merging. I pointed him to this thread so he could read xouper's reasoning to the question he posed without xouper having to post again on II. Indeed, if xouper wants anything added on his behalf, I'd be happy to add it to that thread so he can respond without actually going back.
Can you say for sure that no one was trying to lure him back, Roland? xorbie here and Demosthenes there both encouraged xouper to return to IIDB and elaborate about his reasons for leaving, well after he had said repeatedly (here and there) that he would rather simply cease posting there due to his dissatisfaction with the policy.

So for whatever reason (simple courtesy, probably) he goes back and explains in detail his personal reasons for not liking his posts to be moderated as they were, and he is told at length why his complaint has no merit. Since when does someone have to empirically prove that their personal feelings about moderation are justified before they're treated as though their opinion counts?

I'm sorry but I can't help but think that thread was a set-up from the minute BioBeing turned a frustrated farewell post into a P&C thread to his grandiose dismissal of xouper's complaint as completely without basis. It looks to me like the mods kicking someone when he's down just to puff themselves up.

[Roland98]

Yet you are one of SecWeb admin. And SecWeb admin have been reminded of this several times. See below.
And SecWeb admin have a collective responsibility.
How about they live up to it ?

By what, bumping a thread that's 18 months old, regarding people who aren't on staff?


Things get forgotten, and threads drop off the page without resolution. Even I forget things at times until someone bumps a thread. It's unfortunate, but it happens.
Oh puh-leeze, that looks like pure rudeness. What did I mention about several reminders ?

You mention them indeed, and I know we've discussed this before. But I cannot know what personal correspondence you undertook with the other admins, or when.

I'm not sure what you did to remind anyone about this at the time, or if perhaps the admins felt that since that person was no longer a mod, the issue was settled.
I have raised the matter with you and with crazyfingers.
Just what do you mean "at the time" ?

I mean, at the time of the complaint, October 2003.

Need I remind you of the threat SecWeb admin have used against users (such as Galiel) of taking up too much of their precious time ?

And I elaborated on that, and still don't recall Galiel. Generally what that has referred to is time doing edits/splits of derailments/etc., not discussing a valid complaint.

Or that it was several months before Jobar was demodded ?

I understand that, and again I have no idea what happened in the interim.

Yeah, yeah. IOW SecWeb admin do not want to give any official reply. Fine, fine, they want to duck out.

I'm not speaking for SecWeb admin, only for myself as an administrator. Personally, I think the time to discuss this was October 2003, not now.

Fair enough though, you've given a personal apology on a non-SecWeb arena.
Then let's just admit SecWeb admin at times can show amazing partiality, protection of bad mods (and Jobar is not the only example), and prejudicial non-professionalism in adminning.

I agree to that, and I've said that previously. I do hope it's something that happens less frequently; that's the best that I can do.

[Roland98]

Can you say for sure that no one was trying to lure him back, Roland? xorbie here and Demosthenes there both encouraged xouper to return to IIDB and elaborate about his reasons for leaving, well after he had said repeatedly (here and there) that he would rather simply cease posting there due to his dissatisfaction with the policy.

So? I'd like him to elaborate at II as well, but I respect his decision not to.

So for whatever reason (simple courtesy, probably) he goes back and explains in detail his personal reasons for not liking his posts to be moderated as they were, and he is told at length why his complaint has no merit. Since when does someone have to empirically prove that their personal feelings about moderation are justified before they're treated as though their opinion counts?

I don't think he was told that his complaint has no merit. I can understand why moderation makes him unwilling to post on II; however, BioBeing merely asked what harm had been done to that thread, which xouper didn't explain in his post. I don't think it's an unreasonable question, though I too wish it had just been dropped.

I'm sorry but I can't help but think that thread was a set-up from the minute BioBeing turned a frustrated farewell post into a P&C thread to his grandiose dismissal of xouper's complaint as completely without basis. It looks to me like the mods kicking someone when he's down just to puff themselves up.

vm, you know I love you, but I think your paranoia is shining through here. Set-up from the beginning? C'mon. It's not uncommon at all to have an in-thread post about moderation split to P&C so that the mods can actually, y'know, discuss the complaint and all. And when discussion ends in the MCR, something is posted. Look at BioBeing's first sentence--

And I, being the one who made the merge, will attempt to explain my reason for doing so.

This is not only for xouper, but for lurkers who want to understand why we do things as well.

[xorbie]

No one's trying to "lure" xouper back. BioBeing didn't have a chance to tell his side or give his reasons for merging. I pointed him to this thread so he could read xouper's reasoning to the question he posed without xouper having to post again on II. Indeed, if xouper wants anything added on his behalf, I'd be happy to add it to that thread so he can respond without actually going back.
Can you say for sure that no one was trying to lure him back, Roland? xorbie here and Demosthenes there both encouraged xouper to return to IIDB and elaborate about his reasons for leaving, well after he had said repeatedly (here and there) that he would rather simply cease posting there due to his dissatisfaction with the policy.

Whoa, now. I said it was a shame to see him go just because he doesn't like his threads merged. I didn't say he had to go back just to post for my perverse pleasure or something. I wanted him to elaborate here on his reasons for leaving, so I could better understand them.

So for whatever reason (simple courtesy, probably) he goes back and explains in detail his personal reasons for not liking his posts to be moderated as they were, and he is told at length why his complaint has no merit. Since when does someone have to empirically prove that their personal feelings about moderation are justified before they're treated as though their opinion counts?

I somewhat agree with you here.

I'm sorry but I can't help but think that thread was a set-up from the minute BioBeing turned a frustrated farewell post into a P&C thread to his grandiose dismissal of xouper's complaint as completely without basis. It looks to me like the mods kicking someone when he's down just to puff themselves up.

Ditto.

[Corona688]

Set it to a totally-moderated fora where anyone can post and you'll deal with the reality of moderators ganging up on individual posters instead of the appearance of it.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I mean nothing other than in a forum where only one user but many administrators and moderators are allowed to post in one thread, you will still by definition be ganging up on users. All the rule-change has done is make the same sequence of events proceed painfully slow.

My suggestion would be to open the complaints threads to other users -- but keep the forum totally moderated, nothing gets posted without some moderator explicitly clicking an 'OK' button. Given the traffic in that forum I don't think that's too extreme a solution.I can't think of any that went down like that, but maybe you have one in mind?Others in this thread have already got this covered.Then the IIDB moderators ought to find a better way of explaining that. Saying you're banning somewhone for "taking up excessive amounts of moderator time" amounts to a blatant threat -- take up moderator time and we will ban you. 1) It's not the mods, it's the admins. 2) Actually, only one user in the entire "banned users" thread has that stated as the reason for banning, and that's theophilus, back in August of 2004. As Gurdur has pointed out, it's not just in the banned users thread, the phrase has been used in many places outside of it as well. And yes, it remains a threat.No more so than any of the rules are. Except that, last I checked, "taking up excessive amounts of moderator time" is not against the rules, as you stated above. And saying it means something radically different than what it actually says sounds extremely fishy; how much interpretation is it open to? If I do become a bother, can my past "excessive use of moderator time" be used against me?

A threat it remains.

[Corona688]

Yet you are one of SecWeb admin. And SecWeb admin have been reminded of this several times. See below.
And SecWeb admin have a collective responsibility.
How about they live up to it ?

By what, bumping a thread that's 18 months old, regarding people who aren't on staff? In a situation like this, it does seem called for. The thread only became that old and off-page and locked because the moderationship/administration didn't live up to their duties, instead locking it.

[Roland98]

I mean nothing other than in a forum where only one user but many administrators and moderators are allowed to post in one thread, you will still by definition be ganging up on users. All the rule-change has done is make the same sequence of events proceed painfully slow.

Well, I disagree that the change has made no difference--look at some of the older threads where you have the entire forum of moderators posting their opinions and only the poor OP to defend him/herself.

My suggestion would be to open the complaints threads to other users -- but keep the forum totally moderated, nothing gets posted without some moderator explicitly clicking an 'OK' button. Given the traffic in that forum I don't think that's too extreme a solution.

I think that has been suggested previously and nixed, but I'll bring it back up for discussion.

Others in this thread have already got this covered.

Well, not really. All we have is a long-ago thread from Gurdur. We changed the way things were handled last May. (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=87203)

As Gurdur has pointed out, it's not just in the banned users thread, the phrase has been used in many places outside of it as well. And yes, it remains a threat.

And I'm still not sure what was said IRT Galiel.

Except that, last I checked, "taking up excessive amounts of moderator time" is not against the rules, as you stated above. And saying it means something radically different than what it actually says sounds extremely fishy; how much interpretation is it open to? If I do become a bother, can my past "excessive use of moderator time" be used against me?

A threat it remains.

We have procedures for banning, which have been discussed in the ICR ad nauseum. The "excessive moderator time" is the combination of edits, derailments, etc. that I mentioned above. With the exception of spammers, or as I mentioned, people that tell us to fuck off, the basic procedure is

--Moderator PM's user following edits/derailments/etc.
--Wash, rinse, repeat, generally many times.
--Admins step in and send an official notice to shape up.
--User agrees to behave.
--If user is still getting regularly edited, they may receive more notice (depending on the length of time since the prior admin notice) or they may be suspended or banned at that point.

No one is banned for using "excessive moderator time" merely due to, say, starting P&C threads. The time refers to the time spent actually making the edit, documenting the edit, PM'ing the user and having any discussion of the edit, and then doing it all again with their next edit. This is only circumvented in, as I mentioned, the case of spammers or someone who thumbs their nose at the rules (or reincarnations of bannees, which is an automatic ban when they're discovered). Hell, we usually catch flak for not being quick enough to ban people. No one is whisked away in the night without a chance to work with us and an explanation of why whatever they're doing is unacceptable.

[livius drusus]

I don't think he was told that his complaint has no merit. I can understand why moderation makes him unwilling to post on II; however, BioBeing merely asked what harm had been done to that thread, which xouper didn't explain in his post. I don't think it's an unreasonable question, though I too wish it had just been dropped.

If I may interject, he didn't just merely ask what harm had been done to that thread, Roland. He was debating xouper's reasons, particularly in this rather unfortunately strawmanny quote:

Do you want to control who posts in the thread too? Do you want to control the content of what they say? After all, if not, they may change the context of it.

Then he threw in the old you accepted the rules chestnut for good measure, even though a simple glace at xoup's join date indicates that he did not, in fact, accept the current rules on registration, and even if he had, merging is not in there.

Finally, he justified his split by calling xouper's final post a complaint when it was actually an accpetance of moderator practice and went on at some length on the topic as if xouper was somehow negligent for not posting a complaint in P&C, when you and I both know that if he had, half the population either in public or private would have been telling him if you don't like it get the fuck out, which is what he was trying to do with the split post in the first place! :sweat:

It was only after that that he asked the question about why xoup thought this particular merge harmful, even though, again, it's not even necessary that he think so, but only that he consider the potential for harm excessive.

vm, you know I love you, but I think your paranoia is shining through here. Set-up from the beginning? C'mon. It's not uncommon at all to have an in-thread post about moderation split to P&C so that the mods can actually, y'know, discuss the complaint and all.

There is a difference between "I can't groove on this moderation; I'm out of here" and "why did you do this? Explain it to me at length in a formalized process I choose to be a part of." The latter may be a rational candidate for a split; the former is not because it drags a departing poster into a formal process he never once requested or desired.

Now, vm is paranoid, no debate on that score, but he's in the ballpark here. The split forced a user to either leave questions unanswered or pursue a discussion alone against all the staff, a discussion they are not likely to cotton to because, frankly, none of them before this incident spent more than a second thinking about the potential ramifications of thread merges.

That doesn't mean BioBeing was all "woohoo! I get to kick someone when he's down!" But it was a thoughtless, knee-jerk move, made with no consideration of context and the official justification only underscores that.

[viscousmemories]

I don't think he was told that his complaint has no merit. I can understand why moderation makes him unwilling to post on II; however, BioBeing merely asked what harm had been done to that thread, which xouper didn't explain in his post. I don't think it's an unreasonable question, though I too wish it had just been dropped.

Here's what I'm referring to:

I acknowledge that there are likely to be times when such merging does no harm and I may not always disagree with specific mergings. But I have now seen that sometimes there is harm, that a moderator's judgment on the matter is not always in alignment with my own.

Had you intially complained here, with reasons, and the moderating team agreed with you, the merged thread could have been split to reform the two original threads. Moderating decisions do get reversed if the complaint is deemed valid.

As it stands, I completely fail to see the harm that was caused by the merge. Do you wish to elaborate on why it was so harmful?
It looks to me like xouper is saying the harm came from the fact that BioBeing's judgement on this particular matter was not in alignment with his own, and as a result a thread he was active in was (in his opinion) messed with unnecessarily. I'm not sure how BioBeing could completely fail to see that xouper answered the question, so I'm led to believe that he doesn't think his complaint was valid.

vm, you know I love you, but I think your paranoia is shining through here. Set-up from the beginning? C'mon. It's not uncommon at all to have an in-thread post about moderation split to P&C so that the mods can actually, y'know, discuss the complaint and all. And when discussion ends in the MCR, something is posted.
I love you too. :D And you're right, I might have exagerrated the extent to which anyone acted maliciously and I am sometimes overly suspicious (paranoid is such an ugly word. :P ). But I'm pretty sure you know why I'm overly suspicious that the public face some moderators wear may not accurately reflect their real thoughts and feelings as held and/or expressed in the MCR. :wink:

In my opinion BioBeing's response isn't even as subtle as moderators typically are when they're painting a 'whiner' as an irrational complainer. Comments like "I am sorry, but again I am unable to see why this particular merger in question could have had such a profound impact upon you." are pretty direct accusations of overreaction, in my opinion.

[Roland98]

Yet you are one of SecWeb admin. And SecWeb admin have been reminded of this several times. See below.
And SecWeb admin have a collective responsibility.
How about they live up to it ?

By what, bumping a thread that's 18 months old, regarding people who aren't on staff? In a situation like this, it does seem called for. The thread only became that old and off-page and locked because the moderationship/administration didn't live up to their duties, instead locking it.

Why is it called for, and what will it help now? That's what I don't get. What does it help to keep bringing this up? Jobar is gone, and that thread is long, long, long dead.

[TomJoe]

...

[livius drusus]

:sobbing:

[Roland98]

Here's what I'm referring to:

I acknowledge that there are likely to be times when such merging does no harm and I may not always disagree with specific mergings. But I have now seen that sometimes there is harm, that a moderator's judgment on the matter is not always in alignment with my own.

Had you intially complained here, with reasons, and the moderating team agreed with you, the merged thread could have been split to reform the two original threads. Moderating decisions do get reversed if the complaint is deemed valid.

As it stands, I completely fail to see the harm that was caused by the merge. Do you wish to elaborate on why it was so harmful?
It looks to me like xouper is saying the harm came from the fact that BioBeing's judgement on this particular matter was not in alignment with his own, and as a result a thread he was active in was (in his opinion) messed with unnecessarily. I'm not sure how BioBeing could completely fail to see that xouper answered the question, so I'm led to believe that he doesn't think his complaint was valid.

I obviously can't be sure of what BioBeing was thinking, and again, I pointed him to this thread to read more of xouper's comments on the issue. But again, I mentioned lurkers--as I see it, his first comment was more so that people knew that a thread can be re-split if there's a good reason.


I love you too. :D And you're right, I might have exagerrated the extent to which anyone acted maliciously and I am sometimes overly suspicious (paranoid is such an ugly word. :P ). But I'm pretty sure you know why I'm overly suspicious that the public face some moderators wear may not accurately reflect their real thoughts and feelings as held and/or expressed in the MCR. :wink:

I understand. And you've used paranoid previously to describe yourself, y'know. ;)

In my opinion BioBeing's response isn't even as subtle as moderators typically are when they're painting a 'whiner' as an irrational complainer. Comments like "I am sorry, but again I am unable to see why this particular merger in question could have had such a profound impact upon you." are pretty direct accusations of overreaction, in my opinion.

See, and if I read that, I'd not see it as an accusation at all, but merely a request for more information and probably sincere puzzlement. Probably goes back to that whole not reading the worst into things outlook. ;)

[Roland98]

If I may interject, he didn't just merely ask what harm had been done to that thread, Roland. He was debating xouper's reasons, particularly in this rather unfortunately strawmanny quote:

Do you want to control who posts in the thread too? Do you want to control the content of what they say? After all, if not, they may change the context of it.

I agree that quote is hyperbole and over the top.

Then he threw in the old you accepted the rules chestnut for good measure, even though a simple glace at xoup's join date indicates that he did not, in fact, accept the current rules on registration, and even if he had, merging is not in there.

Believe it or not, not everyone knows the whole storied history of the II rules. ;) BioBeing registered around the same time I did, and I have no idea how much he knows about the rule changes that occurred before he was a mod. So I doubt this was deliberate.

Finally, he justified his split by calling xouper's final post a complaint when it was actually an accpetance of moderator practice and went on at some length on the topic as if xouper was somehow negligent for not posting a complaint in P&C, when you and I both know that if he had, half the population either in public or private would have been telling him if you don't like it get the fuck out, which is what he was trying to do with the split post in the first place! :sweat:

Then why comment on it at all in the thread? Why not just leave? Many posts we see that are like xouper's are from people who really don't end up leaving, so I'm not surprised the post was split to P&C.

It was only after that that he asked the question about why xoup thought this particular merge harmful, even though, again, it's not even necessary that he think so, but only that he consider the potential for harm excessive.

I understand and respect his position.


There is a difference between "I can't groove on this moderation; I'm out of here" and "why did you do this? Explain it to me at length in a formalized process I choose to be a part of." The latter may be a rational candidate for a split; the former is not because it drags a departing poster into a formal process he never once requested or desired.

I agree, but the third option was to merely leave the thread. A parting post still has a lot of potential for derailment; hence, the reasoning for the split. I know xouper is unhappy with it and I'm sorry, but them's the breaks sometimes.

Additionally, many times new users (and despite xouper's registration date, he only had 20 posts--so we can't know if he registered, never posted, and only recently came back) are unaware of P&C or the proper way to actually lodge a complaint. In this case, obviously that wasn't xouper's intent, but in other cases a thread to work it out may be fruitful.

Now, vm is paranoid, no debate on that score, but he's in the ballpark here. The split forced a user to either leave questions unanswered or pursue a discussion alone against all the staff, a discussion they are not likely to cotton to because, frankly, none of them before this incident spent more than a second thinking about the potential ramifications of thread merges.

What's wrong with leaving questions unanswered? If he'd intended it to be his last post, what does it matter where it went? Just leave and be done with it.

That doesn't mean BioBeing was all "woohoo! I get to kick someone when he's down!" But it was a thoughtless, knee-jerk move, made with no consideration of context and the official justification only underscores that.

Perhaps xouper didn't consider the context very well either? Surely an "I'm leaving" post doesn't belong in a thread about random number generators.

[viscousmemories]

I understand. And you've used paranoid previously to describe yourself, y'know. ;)
Oh I know, I wasn't giving you shit for it. I'm just more careful with using terms to describe myself that can and will be used against me in future debates, by people I don't trust as much as I trust you.

See, and if I read that, I'd not see it as an accusation at all, but merely a request for more information and probably sincere puzzlement. Probably goes back to that whole not reading the worst into things outlook. ;)
I don't doubt that his puzzlement was sincere. What I doubt is that there was no intentional insinuation that xouper's complaint was overblown underlying his response. But you're right, I can't read his mind either so I can't say for sure. I'm just saying what it looks like from the outside - to someone who doesn't assume that moderators intentions are always pure. :P

[Corona688]

Why is it called for Well, because a response was promised, and instead, the thread was locked?and what will it help now? Fairness? Reuptation? Dealing with at least one person who thinks the issue is unresolved? The satisfaction of dealing with issues instead of ignoring them?That's what I don't get. What does it help to keep bringing this up? Jobar is gone, and that thread is long, long, long dead. It's the principle of the thing. If the administration's allowed to duck issues by ignoring them until a sufficiently long time has passed for them to call anyone still following it a pointless horsebeater, they could do that about any issue. And frankly it's not a very nice thing to do.

[Roland98]

Why is it called for Well, because a response was promised, and instead, the thread was locked?

If you want to get technical, it wasn't locked instead of a response, it was locked in lieu of a response.

and what will it help now? Fairness? Reuptation?

I'm probably getting cynical in my old age, but I'm not sure it will do anything in that arena.

Dealing with at least one person who thinks the issue is unresolved?

And if everyone else thinks it is...?

Really, I'm not sure what we could possibly do here. Hmm, we'll speak with Jobar about behavior from a year and a half ago? No good, he's not even a mod anymore; it's known that Gurdur doesn't post on II any longer, and rainbow walking actually apologized at that point in time, so he's in the clear.

The satisfaction of dealing with issues instead of ignoring them?

Again, I don't know that anything's been ignored. Some action was indeed taken after the thread, but I don't know exactly what was passed along to Gurdur and what other issues are involved here, nor do I know exactly what was done to remind the admins of this thread between now and October 2003.

It's the principle of the thing. If the administration's allowed to duck issues by ignoring them until a sufficiently long time has passed for them to call anyone still following it a pointless horsebeater, they could do that about any issue. And frankly it's not a very nice thing to do.

Ignoring is an active process. I ignore my kids when they're throwing temper tantrums. Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you suggesting that the admins 1) even remember this, and 2) have spent the last 18 months actively hoping it will go away or something? I bumped the thread in the ACR and they'll probably think I'm insane. And I can't exactly disagree with them.

[TomJoe]

Well, the Pope did apologize for things Catholics did over 8 centuries ago. Resolving an issue occuring 18 months ago is minor compared to that. :)

[livius drusus]

I agree that quote is hyperbole and over the top.

Groovy.

Believe it or not, not everyone knows the whole storied history of the II rules. ;) BioBeing registered around the same time I did, and I have no idea how much he knows about the rule changes that occurred before he was a mod. So I doubt this was deliberate.

Oh okay. Thoughtless and knee-jerk, then. ;)

Then why comment on it at all in the thread? Why not just leave?

Action and reaction. Mod does x; response follows. Besides, I think it's both principled and polite to alert the staff and the participants in the thread.

But even if xoup posted it out of pure petulance, that still doesn't mean he wanted to make a federal case of it. That's what BioBeing did by splitting it. You know there are people right now calling xoup a whiner and a complainer because he's in P&C and if he complains about being put in there, then he's only whining more.

Many posts we see that are like xouper's are from people who really don't end up leaving, so I'm not surprised the post was split to P&C.

I'm not surprised either, but it wasn't moved because xouper might not leave, but because mods are splitting these things off at first sight. Not even I, in the heyday of my splitting fervor, split off a single post, especially not one alerting to a total disengagement from the thread and board. The kinds of things I moved to P&C were Starboy GRD monstrosities which had overtaken a thread. It's moderator action creep is what it is, and it's a prime example of why slippery slopes are not always fallacies.

I agree, but the third option was to merely leave the thread. A parting post still has a lot of potential for derailment; hence, the reasoning for the split.

I hope you understand how rickety this reasoning sounds to me given that a half page derailment was actually merged into that thread.

Additionally, many times new users (and despite xouper's registration date, he only had 20 posts--so we can't know if he registered, never posted, and only recently came back) are unaware of P&C or the proper way to actually lodge a complaint. In this case, obviously that wasn't xouper's intent, but in other cases a thread to work it out may be fruitful.

So again, a move made with no consideration of context.

What's wrong with leaving questions unanswered? If he'd intended it to be his last post, what does it matter where it went? Just leave and be done with it.

I dunno... Good manners, perhaps? Not wanting to look even more like an asshole than the split already made him look?

Perhaps xouper didn't consider the context very well either? Surely an "I'm leaving" post doesn't belong in a thread about random number generators.

If "No." or "I don't understand. Why didn't you just post in the other thread then? Or was there something else?" fit into a thread about random number generators, then so does I'm leaving because the mod action evinced in this thread is not something I can live with.

[Gurdur]

If you want to get technical, it wasn't locked instead of a response, it was locked in lieu of a response.
I'm probably getting cynical in my old age, but I'm not sure it will do anything in that arena.
Yes, this does indeed get to look more and more like patronising, evasive rudeness on your part, Roland98.
You have to admit I have been more than patient about this issue, and yet you can't even deal with it officially as a SecWeb admin,.

Really, I'm not sure what we could possibly do here. Hmm, we'll speak with Jobar about behavior from a year and a half ago?
How about an official apology on SecWeb from general admin that you SecWeb admin failed to exercise your responsibilities ? That SecWeb admin deliberately ignored an issue ? Despite two personal reminders and a general reminder in a SecWeb thread ?
Or is that too simple for you ?
it's known that Gurdur doesn't post on II any longer,
Guess why, Roland98, how about the dishonesty of SecWeb admin in protecting bad mods ? How was that "unstated grandfather clause" again ? How about the toleration of personal abuse and baiting of users if of course the "right" people are doing it ?
How about letting no less than two SecWeb admin know personally about an issue, only to see it ignored, and that with rudeness ?
I bumped the thread in the ACR and they'll probably think I'm insane. And I can't exactly disagree with them.
Jeeezuss chrissakes, Roland98, I let two Secweb admin including you kinow personally about this, and you want to try claiming SecWeb admin don't even remember the issue. And now you duck the issue with evasive rhetoric about Jobar or Rainbow Walking --- neither of whom are SecWeb admin, and neither of whom have anything to do with the issue.
The constant evasive excuses disgust me.

So, Roland98, I'll simply pipe up now and then to point out the dishonesty of SecWeb admin --- whenever the standard blame-the-users excuses get trotted out.

[Gurdur]

Why is it called for, and what will it help now? That's what I don't get. What does it help to keep bringing this up? Jobar is gone, and that thread is long, long, long dead.
I'll tell you what it will help.
Every time SecWeb admin claim all complaints and users are treated with fairness, equality and promptitude, I'll simply point out the facts that that isn't so. That SecWeb admin have been dishonest on occasion, played favourites, stacked the deck, and generally been far less than professional.

It is not my problem that you duck the issue, and now you use the passage of time over which the issue was ducked in order to try justifying ducking it even more.

So, each time you SecWeb admin try making these grandiose claims of fairness, I'll simply point out it isn't true. Because you refuse to deal with it.

[Gurdur]

And a note to other users:
just in case any of you are personally mystified why I should be so gung-ho about one single relatively old issue, I've actually been in private contact with SecWeb admin --- including Roland98 --- about quite a few concrete issues, including this one, and the dishonesty I have received over time in response has gotten me to the point where I now no longer post on SecWeb (but I made no fanfare about that, or public pronouncement there; officially, I am still a registered user on SecWeb, and I still occasionally lurk).
However, my withdrawal from SecWeb was no fast decision --- in fact, it was over a year in the making, and only finally followed after an intensive round of PM's with a couple of admin.
I'm personally disappointed in Roland98, that she should even use the fact I no longer post on SecWeb as an excuse not to deal with things, because she knows better than almost any other SecWeb admin just how much I haven't made public song-and-dances about matters; just how much I've tried accomplishing things in private --- only to see nothing get done.
And to see the long period of my public patience used against me as an excuse --- when just on the one issue several SecWeb admin were alerted over that "18 month period" --- disgusts me; it's not being honest and square, it's simply using any excuse at all possible.
So this concrete issue is simply something of a symbol for me --- and its a symbol of several concrete issues, most of which are far, far more recent.

[xouper]

Shake: Not getting lots of replies is hardly a reason to leave.

livius drusus: Well, that's not why he left, though. That was just his reply to maddog's comment that he would be missed.
Exactly right, liv.

[godfry n. glad]

Well, the Pope did apologize for things Catholics did over 8 centuries ago. Resolving an issue occuring 18 months ago is minor compared to that. :)

Touche'.

Particularly considering the issue involved and the high stakes. :eyebrow3:

[xouper]

After reading the last three pages of this thread, my decision to stop posting on IIDB has been very much re-affirmed. I have also perused some of the threads in the IIDB complaint forum and that too has re-affirmed my decision to leave.

And if that wasn't enough, BioBeing's replies to me on IIDB clinched it. The observations posted here about that complaint thread, by both liv and vm, echo my own feelings. If that's how their complaint process works, I want no part of it.

It seems obvious to me that if I did stay, as has been suggested, and make use of the complaint process every time I disagreed with a moderator action, then eventually I will be told that if I don't like it there, then why do I continue to participate. I assume we all know this, so what is the point of telling me I should stay and do that. It makes more sense to leave now and save everyone the hassle.

In any case, I have made my last post on IIDB in that complaint thread (which I pointed out it was not a complaint and I did not request any moderator action). I will no longer discuss the issue on their terms. If any IIDB moderator wishes to continue discussing the issue, they can do it here where the playing field is not so lopsided.

[xouper]

As an example of how lopsided the playing field is there, I offer the following recent post from that complaint thread:

xouper: Pardon, but the current moderation policy was not in effect when I signed up. I accept that you are entitled to change your policy at any time, but you must also accept that I can decide I don't like the change and leave. In hindsight, I can see that I was perhaps naive in coming here in the first place. Now that I see my error, I know how to fix it.

Loren Pechtel: I do not remember when I became a mod, I think it was likely before you signed up. It's been the policy as long as I've been a mod. There's been almost no changes in mod policy in the years that I've been a mod.
Anyone wanna commnet on the accuracy of that claim by Loren?

[livius drusus]

The current rules (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=79159) were posted on March 13, 2004. The admins worked on them for literally months; I quit in November of 2003 and the rule review had already started. Notice the title of the thread: "New Rules/Registration Agreement and Statement of Purpose".

Now, Pechtel's been modding since some time in 2001. Since then, the following forums have created their own standards in addition to what were the basic IIDB rules because it was deemed that those basic rules were not sufficiently containing problem behaviors:

Philosophy
Existence of God(s)
Moral Foundations and Principles
General Religious Discussions
Formal Debates & Discussions
The Lounge
Secular Lifestyle
Political Discussions
~~Elsewhere~~

One of those forums, PD, Loren himself moderates. To say there have been almost no changes in mod policy in that forum alone, is palpably ludicrous, nevermind over the whole site. It is his own moderation approach which has remained frozen in time, not the general mod policy. The latter has changed an enormous amount since those days.

[Crumb]

Hey Xouper, your actions make perfect sense to me. If you don't like the way things are run there, then leaving is exactly the thing to do. We like you more over here anyway. :thumbup:

[xouper]

livius drusus wrote:

The current rules (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=79159) were posted on March 13, 2004. The admins worked on them for literally months; I quit in November of 2003 and the rule review had already started. Notice the title of the thread: "New Rules/Registration Agreement and Statement of Purpose".

Now, Pechtel's been modding since some time in 2001. Since then, the following forums have created their own standards in addition to what were the basic IIDB rules because it was deemed that those basic rules were not sufficiently containing problem behaviors:

Philosophy
Existence of God(s)
Moral Foundations and Principles
General Religious Discussions
Formal Debates & Discussions
The Lounge
Secular Lifestyle
Political Discussions
~~Elsewhere~~

One of those forums, PD, Loren himself moderates. To say there have been almost no changes in mod policy in that forum alone, is palpably ludicrous, nevermind over the whole site. It is his own moderation approach which has remained frozen in time, not the general mod policy. The latter has changed an enormous amount since those days.
Thank you for that explanation. It will be interesting to see if anyone points this out in that thread. If they don't, will you compose a version of that explanation that I can post there? I don't like being made to look like a liar and I will break my promise of last post to defend myself against such a dishonest tactic.

[livius drusus]

I'll be glad to draw something up if nobody else responds to Loren. You won't need to break your promise. Technically, anyone can contribute to a P&C thread by submitting a contribution to the admins. That clause is not used much because it's a pain in the ass, but assuming I refrain from breaking any rules, my post should be accepted and made for me by an admin.

[xouper]

livius drusus: I'll be glad to draw something up if nobody else responds to Loren. You won't need to break your promise. Technically, anyone can contribute to a P&C thread by submitting a contribution to the admins. That clause is not used much because it's a pain in the ass, but assuming I refrain from breaking any rules, my post should be accepted and made for me by an admin.
Thanks. Another point that I forgot to make is that just reading the rules and accepting them at registration does not necessarily give one a sense of how they will be applied in practice. Thread merging is a good example since it is not specifically mentioned in the rules and must be observed after the fact. So to argue that I should have known this kind of thing would happen when I signed up is, at best, misleading.

[xouper]

I see that BioBeing has just un-merged that thread. I didn't ask him to do that. It seems perhaps he has now put himself in a no-win situation, in that regardless what he does now, someone won't like it. Since I did not ask him to split the thread, I hope no one blames me for that if it was their preference to have it merged.

[xorbie]

I see that BioBeing has just un-merged that thread. I didn't ask him to do that. It seems perhaps he has now put himself in a no-win situation, in that regardless what he does now, someone won't like it. Since I did not ask him to split the thread, I hope no one blames me for that if it was their preference to have it merged.

I for one am glad to see it happened, so don't worry about it. Seriously if you've decided to leave II behind, just leave it behind. No point in agonizing over this or that. We (as mods and admins) have had worse shit to deal with.

[Roland98]

If you want to get technical, it wasn't locked instead of a response, it was locked in lieu of a response.
I'm probably getting cynical in my old age, but I'm not sure it will do anything in that arena.
Yes, this does indeed get to look more and more like patronising, evasive rudeness on your part, Roland98.
You have to admit I have been more than patient about this issue, and yet you can't even deal with it officially as a SecWeb admin,.

I have been dealing with it, Gurdur. As I said earlier, I bumped an 18-month old thread in the ACR for discussion of this very issue. However, what I can do on an issue that occurred well before my time is minimal. I'm sorry that you can't accept that. All I can do is try, and I'm only one person. I'm sorry that I can't resolve it in the way both of us would like to.

Really, I'm not sure what we could possibly do here. Hmm, we'll speak with Jobar about behavior from a year and a half ago?
How about an official apology on SecWeb from general admin that you SecWeb admin failed to exercise your responsibilities ? That SecWeb admin deliberately ignored an issue ? Despite two personal reminders and a general reminder in a SecWeb thread ?

No one has a record of personal reminders at the time, Gurdur. And it's your opinion only that it was deliberately ignored--everyone else that's involved seems to believe it was forgotten.

Or is that too simple for you ?

I really don't need this, Gurdur. I am trying. I have gone to the mat for you and this is the response I get. I don't know why I bother. There's absolutely no need for this abuse.

it's known that Gurdur doesn't post on II any longer,
Guess why, Roland98, how about the dishonesty of SecWeb admin in protecting bad mods ? How was that "unstated grandfather clause" again ? How about the toleration of personal abuse and baiting of users if of course the "right" people are doing it ?
How about letting no less than two SecWeb admin know personally about an issue, only to see it ignored, and that with rudeness ?

Gurdur, it's not been ignored. You know that I've addressed your complaints and worked with you previously. There's only so much that I can do, especially when I'm alerted about an unfinished thread that happened when I was a newbie mod.

I bumped the thread in the ACR and they'll probably think I'm insane. And I can't exactly disagree with them.
Jeeezuss chrissakes, Roland98, I let two Secweb admin including you kinow personally about this, and you want to try claiming SecWeb admin don't even remember the issue. And now you duck the issue with evasive rhetoric about Jobar or Rainbow Walking --- neither of whom are SecWeb admin, and neither of whom have anything to do with the issue.
The constant evasive excuses disgust me.

I'm sorry it disgusts you, but as you know, I work my ass off at II. But I can't do it all, and you didn't inform me about this until recently. I apologize that I can't remedy something from a year and a half ago, but I simply cannot. I tried. It's not good enough for you. It's all I have. I'm sorry.

So, Roland98, I'll simply pipe up now and then to point out the dishonesty of SecWeb admin --- whenever the standard blame-the-users excuses get trotted out.

Please do so. I've never blamed the users, and I've never said that II is perfect. In fact, whenever I point out that we do indeed make mistakes, you summarily dismiss that as me simply "making excuses." Either way, I can't win.

I'm personally disappointed in Roland98, that she should even use the fact I no longer post on SecWeb as an excuse not to deal with things,

That's not what I said, Gurdur. I hate watching you do this to people, but I expect you'll deny you do so. I didn't use it as excuse not to deal with things--I merely am stating the obvious. You've made your dislike of II and the admins clear, and you're no longer a presence there. This makes people less likely to want to resolve an ages-old issue. It's a simple fact, not an "excuse" not to deal with things. If you were still over there and posting, I could bring that up as a reason to trot this back out. You're not, so in that arena, my hands are tied.

because she knows better than almost any other SecWeb admin just how much I haven't made public song-and-dances about matters; just how much I've tried accomplishing things in private --- only to see nothing get done.

And again, only recently in private, as far as things go with me.

And to see the long period of my public patience used against me as an excuse --- when just on the one issue several SecWeb admin were alerted over that "18 month period" --- disgusts me; it's not being honest and square, it's simply using any excuse at all possible.

No, it's not. I really, really, really wish I had some record of who you alerted, how, and when. Paper trails are a Good Thing, and if I had them, I could point out what you mentioned on such and such a date, and what response you received, etc. As it is, I don't know who's been told what and when, and for an issue so old, there's simply nothing I can do about it by myself, since I wasn't even involved in the original complaint. I'm sorry. I just can't do it alone.



You know, I have an incredibly tough skin. I can't recall ever being upset over stupid online issues before, even when I'm called a moron, or insulted in ever new and creative ways, or other issues that have gone down since my time on II and elsewhere. But this one cuts too deep, simply because you know the effort that I've put into all this, Gurdur, and because I considered you a friend. But I'm sorry, I can't resolve this issue. I just can't. I tried, and I failed, and we'll both have to simply live with that because it's all I can do. And I abhor having my words twisted and my motivations impugned by someone who should know better after all this time. And that really, really hurts. But winning seems more important to you, Gurdur, than friendships or moving on from past issues--and this isn't the only one I'm referring to. So, you win. I hope all those victories are worth the people you've alienated over the years.

[wei yau]

I've been incredibly hesitant to post here. Talk about aborted posts (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1904), but I must have written and deleted a dozen posts to this thread.

I don't have an opinion on what's being discussed here, as far as IIDB is concerned. Some like it there, some don't. Some have hard feelings, some are utterly ambivalent.

Like I said, I don't care too much about the goings-on over there.

But, I care an awful lot about what goes on here.

And frankly, the nature of this thread has degenerated to such an extent, that it should be euthanized (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=44889#post44889) .

Yeah, yeah, I know. If I don't like it, I can just ignore the thread. There's truth to that, but there's also truth that I don't like seeing shit flung in my home.

[livius drusus]

I don't really think this qualifies as shit flinging, eldar. People are just trying to work some stuff out as best they can, is all. Nobody's trolling just for kicks or anything cruel like that. Besides, warrenly already tried to kill the thread and failed. ;)

I'm glad you feel so at home here and appreciate your protective impulse. :hug:

[godfry n. glad]

I've been incredibly hesitant to post here. Talk about aborted posts (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1904), but I must have written and deleted a dozen posts to this thread.

I don't have an opinion on what's being discussed here, as far as IIDB is concerned. Some like it there, some don't. Some have hard feelings, some are utterly ambivalent.

Like I said, I don't care too much about the goings-on over there.

But, I care an awful lot about what goes on here.

And frankly, the nature of this thread has degenerated to such an extent, that it should be euthanized (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=44889#post44889) .

Yeah, yeah, I know. If I don't like it, I can just ignore the thread. There's truth to that, but there's also truth that I don't like seeing shit flung in my home.

Welcome to the Monkey House.

[wei yau]

Hmmm.... :chin:

I might be too non-confrontational and too protective in my reaction. I understand that some people are working out a very emotional issue. I'm just not comfortable watching it, I suppose.

It'd probably be best for me to stay out of this particular thread.

which would suck because I do a "New Post" search like every other minute just to see if there's something new for me to read or reply

[viscousmemories]

Well Roland, I for one realize that you don't have any obligation to answer questions about IIDB policy or administrative actions here and greatly appreciate your taking the time to do so. Our exchanges both public and private since you became an administrator have helped me acheive a much better understanding of what goes on there and why.

I have also always had a tremendous amount of respect for your willingness to listen to and implement suggestions when you agree with them and to provide a reasonable, respectful and thorough explanation when you disagree. I can't say I've had such a positive overall experience with any of the other administrators at II - or anywhere else for that matter.

As an aside, I'd also hate to see discussion of this or any other IIDB related issue make anyone feel like they have to pick a side, like there is some kind of institutional hostility between the two sites. Because despite my vocal criticism of some of the social dynamics, administrative policies and moderator actions there I really have no beef with the vast majority of the staff or population of II as individuals. Anyone who claims otherwise is mistaken.

[xouper]

viscousmemories: ... I'd also hate to see discussion of this or any other IIDB related issue make anyone feel like they have to pick a side, like there is some kind of institutional hostility between the two sites.
That's a good point. I'm certainly not asking anyone else to agree with my preferences in moderation policy. To each her own.

One of the reasons I started posting again at IIDB a few weeks ago (after a hiatus of more than two years) is because it seems there are many people here who post at both places. That seemed a hopeful sign to me.

In hindsight, I should have known better than to go to a restaurant that serves asparagus when I know I don't like the stuff, but I was perhaps hopelessly optimistic and naive that I wouldn't get served any of it. :)

[Dingfod]

You don't like asparagus either? I knew we could find some common ground.