II's new open system of infractions.

[beyelzu]

i hang out at ii a little mostly in the games subforum a little bit in misc disc a touch in pd and a hair in the lounge.


anyway, the new system.


demerits and what not, i just cant help but feel that ii is not a board that treats its members like adults rather it treats them like children. maybe thats necessary for a moderated board. but even if its necessary its still the reason that i cant really feel completely comfortable at a place like ii.

[viscousmemories]

I guess it's safe to assume you missed this thread (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9787)? :tmgrin:

[beyelzu]

oopsie, want to merge my thread with that one?

[Moxy]

How many demerits for that?

[beyelzu]

lol

[viscousmemories]

I gotta say, I'm torn. As much as I'd prefer to consolidate the threads, your title is more appropriate. :chin:

I suppose five demerits each for you and Sauron.

[Sock Puppet]

Fine. Now move this thread to ~E~, please.

[cappuccino]

Fine. Now move this thread to ~E~, please.

I'm crying foul at his post's tone, it's in clear violation of regulations section 5 article 45a subsection 12 line 654-L. I'm reporting his post to the moderator.

[TomJoe]

Fine. Now move this thread to ~E~, please.

~E~ the home of the CF bitch thread. ~E~ the home of two II moderators who partake voluminously of that particular thread, moderators who now are part of a system seemingly identical to the one they decry on a constant basis*. Oh, the irony.

*At least one of whom has already defended the IIDB position while still decrying the CF one.

[Shake]

On one hand, I think it creates extra work for the mods, which they really don't need.

OTOH, it does save them some time as the points do apparently expire at some set times. Previously, user notes were used to track edits of members. There was no set number of notes which would trigger mod action like OANs or suspensions, but if there were a whole bunch in a short period of time, then one could expect action. I noticed that sometimes those who'd have a lot of notes would have many from say, a year or more in the past and maybe only 1 or 2 recent ones. I think the points system allows the mods/admins to more quickly see if a user has been edited a lot recently or just occasionally over time. That's where I see a benefit to them.

Also, for any who don't know, the number of points are not visible to other regular users. And you would be able to know how many you had, unlike with the user notes system.

Since I've resigned as a mod there, I won't get to truly see it in action, and I'll therefore leave further comments about the point system to any other FF members who also happen to be on II staff.

[lisarea]

Is anyone else sort of tempted to try to get some demerits just to see what the extra little field looks like?

[beyelzu]

totally lisarea, but i sometimes fuck with the mods just to get a rules clarification, and thn i get accused of trolling.

[Adam]

Is anyone else sort of tempted to try to get some demerits just to see what the extra little field looks like?

Hehe. That was my first thought when I read that you'd only see the field if you had some demerits. I kinda want to go into PD and say the fuck word a lot just so I can find out what a demerit looks lke.

[viscousmemories]

They're editing "grasshopper" these days, Adam. They might just kill you for saying fuck a lot.

[Crumb]

If anyone gets a demerit take a screen shot and post it here. :)

[beyelzu]

well, im trying to get a demerit right now.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=3718775#post3718775

[MonCapitan2002]

It still has not been edited. I am sure that won't last, though.

[MonCapitan2002]

They're editing "grasshopper" these days, Adam. They might just kill you for saying fuck a lot.
You have got to be fucking kidding me! That has to be a joke. I can't believe even edit something that minor.

[Matt]

The real irony:


i just cant help but feel that ii is not a board that treats its members like adults rather it treats them like childre[sic].
well, im trying to get a demerit right now
-----

Not that there's a want for facts in the midst of a good tantrum, but no policy changes have been made. The only difference is that the newest version of vB sends an automatic PM to the user and stores the information in a different table of the database. The grasshoper edit was reversed for obvious reasons, too [it turns out that the moderator was unaware of the allusion and therefore misinterpreted the post].

Now back to your regularly scheduled "I hate everything IIDB has become" fest.

Matt

[viscousmemories]

Now back to your regularly scheduled "I hate everything IIDB has become" fest.
A sardonic quip? That's a demerit for you right there, buddeh.

[lisarea]

I WANT A DEMERIT BADGE TOO, FUCKY MCFUCKLE.

[viscousmemories]

:badger:

[lisarea]

OK. That's close enough, I guess.

Man, I can't even get arrested in this town.

[D. Scarlatti]

You're nobody 'til everybody in this town thinks you're a ... grasshopper.

[lisarea]

Athough I admit I have moved up to self-made man row, I swear that I'm the salt of the earth!

[Ensign Steve]

Hey, I thought referring to other forums (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=3718974&postcount=22) was verbotten.

bey, your integrity is like totally damaged. pwned! :spank:

[Ensign Steve]

Man that thread got closed already. :yes!:

[MonCapitan2002]

Interestingly enough, I noticed that no edits were actually made.

[Ensign Steve]

No demerits were issued either, apparently.

[beyelzu]

yeah, i got a thread closure, not what i was looking for.

i wanted an edit and a demerit but according to loren it would have just been a warning. demerits are so much cooler.

[beyelzu]

Hey, I thought referring to other forums (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=3718974&postcount=22) was verbotten.

bey, your integrity is like totally damaged. pwned! :spank:
yeah, i totally didnt understand that either. what integrity did i have in the first place?

plus i found it insulting.

[beyelzu]

The real irony:


i just cant help but feel that ii is not a board that treats its members like adults rather it treats them like childre[sic].
well, im trying to get a demerit right now
-----

Not that there's a want for facts in the midst of a good tantrum, but no policy changes have been made. The only difference is that the newest version of vB sends an automatic PM to the user and stores the information in a different table of the database. The grasshoper edit was reversed for obvious reasons, too [it turns out that the moderator was unaware of the allusion and therefore misinterpreted the post].

Now back to your regularly scheduled "I hate everything IIDB has become" fest.

Matt

uh, i didnt realize that grasshopper was unedited but at the same time i still think its funny as hell that it was edited in the first place. and i dont hate ii, i dont love it like i love :ff: but i still enjoy being there. i like the broad knowledge base of alot of the posters and i enjoy playing the games in the games subforum.

so a couple of things, one you are clearly going with the broadbrush fallacy and two i didnt really like you sidewise insult of me at ii when you insulted my integrity.

have some balls my friend.

come here and tell me to fuck off call me a cunt a liar a juvenile fucktard.

but spare me sideways innuendo bullshit which is what i found your post to be.


i just wanted an answer, why is that so hard to understand?

[LadyShea]

I never think a step towards bureaucracy is a good thing, and I am pretty sure they are trying to make things simpler for the mods. However, "simple" is not better. I prefer more nuanced and thoughtful moderation myself. If I am out of line, tell me, allow me to correct it, rather than docking me points like a drivers license.

[Adam]

Matt, is there a way to just show a "Warnings: 0" field, or something similar in a user's profile when they have not been edited? Seriously, my very first thought when I read that the field would only show up when a user has actually been warned was that the only way to satisfy my curiosity about what the field looked like would be to actually go say something editable, and I'm obviously not the only one.

bey, while I could have told you from the start you wouldn't score with that OP, that thread made me chuckle. :tmgrin: Cocksuckers, all o' ya!

[Adam]

I never think a step towards bureaucracy is a good thing, and I am pretty sure they are trying to make things simpler for the mods. However, "simple" is not better. I prefer more nuanced and thoughtful moderation myself. If I am out of line, tell me, allow me to correct it, rather than docking me points like a drivers license.

I think their argument is that they were already using the 'point system' behind the scenes, only without automated tracking and reporting. If they're going to use a point system, I prefer the automated methosd, as it lends itself more easily to transparency and accountability. One of the advantages of beaurocracy is that it forces participants (in this case, IIDB moderators) into a tracable system, rather than allowing them to make off the cuff, unaccountable judgements. I can actually see this going some small way toward addressing their moderator consistency problem, although they obviously still have quite a ways to go.

[Stiletto Null]

You guys are silly.

[viscousmemories]

bey, while I could have told you from the start you wouldn't score with that OP, that thread made me chuckle. :tmgrin:
I chuckled too; clearly I'm not Admin material.

[beyelzu]

well shit guys, i was prety sure i would score, i mean i made sweeping insults, that are definitely editable.

its all good though i will find out sooner or later.

[MonCapitan2002]

bey, while I could have told you from the start you wouldn't score with that OP, that thread made me chuckle. :tmgrin:
I chuckled too; clearly I'm not Admin material.
Having a sense of humor is totally inappropriate for an administrator. You should step down and hand this forum over to a two-bit digital tyrant who suffurs overcompensation syndrome.

[livius drusus]

:shiftier:

[MonCapitan2002]

You best get nervous! I have my :sauron: on you and I will :tsktsk: you when you slip up.

[LadyShea]

rather than allowing them to make off the cuff, unaccountable judgements

You mean treating them like thinking, rational adults? Seriously, is it that difficult to find mature people with minimal imagination and/or creative problem solving skills? If so then maybe they ought to consider returning to a less moderated state of affairs rather than adding layers of bureaucracy.

Making administration/management of anything to some kind of robotic following of SOPs is regressive. I can't think of anything less efficient or more hellishly soul-sucking than an army of middle management type pencil pushers.

[MonCapitan2002]

SOP?

[viscousmemories]

SOP = Standard Operating Procedure

[MonCapitan2002]

Ahh. I see. I can see how rigidly (heh, rigid) to such policies can lead to a stultifying atmosphere.

On a completely random note, I wish UPS would get around to delivering my fucking package!

[Sock Puppet]

Not that there's a want for facts in the midst of a good tantrum, but no policy changes have been made. The only difference is that the newest version of vB sends an automatic PM to the user and stores the information in a different table of the database. The grasshoper edit was reversed for obvious reasons, too [it turns out that the moderator was unaware of the allusion and therefore misinterpreted the post].

Now back to your regularly scheduled "I hate everything IIDB has become" fest.
What tantrum? What hate? The posts here have ranged from mild amusement to detached concern. Beyelzu's recent posts at ii have had the same amused tone. But please continue, I wouldn't want to interfere with the standard condescending misdirection employed whenever somebody questions a policy decision.

[viscousmemories]

For the record, it's strictly detached amusement on my part. I'm not remotely concerned.

[Dingfod]

Why is it that certain FFuckers only show up here when their sacred cow has been tipped (or when their server is down)?

[viscousmemories]

I'm always curious if the sporadic cameos result from their seeing these threads while lurking (in which case I wonder why they don't post more) or if one or more of the regulars here runs off to tell them whenever the subject of IIDB arises (in which case I wonder why anyone would bother). I understand the desire to defend their actions, but since they expressly refuse to do so at IIDB why do it here?

[lisarea]

Why is it that certain FFuckers only show up here when their sacred cow has been tipped (or when their server is down)?

Oh, we all do that. Some of us just have more of them scared cows or whatever, so we just end up never being able to leave.

ETA: FUCK! Why did you guys let me post that? My post count was all sexy before I made that dumb post!

[livius drusus]

Oh, we all do that. Some of us just have more of them scared cows or whatever, so we just end up never being able to leave.
Eeexcellent...
:holycow:

[Sock Puppet]

FUCK! Why did you guys let me post that? My post count was all sexy before I made that dumb post!I did the same damned thing the other day. MM went by without my noticing. Oh well, there's always MMM to get all frothy about.

[viscousmemories]

I never notice postcounts unless someone mentions them. Is there something wrong with me?

[Sock Puppet]

Yes, but what does your question have to do with the preceding statement?

[MonCapitan2002]

I'm always curious if the sporadic cameos result from their seeing these threads while lurking (in which case I wonder why they don't post more) or if one or more of the regulars here runs off to tell them whenever the subject of IIDB arises (in which case I wonder why anyone would bother). I understand the desire to defend their actions, but since they expressly refuse to do so at IIDB why do it here?
Could it be because they can? I would not be surprised if any discussion of their their actions is forbidden over there.

[beyelzu]

so i made another post asking for matt to actually tell me how i was damaging my integrity* and now i think it might be deleted or off in invisi storage.

what a fucking joke. now i am actually irritated.

*actually it was a thread and i explained my actions responded to loren who had posted in the locked thread and generally asked for a response.

[beyelzu]

my bad it was just moved and locked by the cocksuckers now im starting to get pissed off.

[MonCapitan2002]

Where was it sent to?

[beyelzu]

started a thread about it in problems and complaints, wonder if they will just move it to e and lock it as well

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=3720408#post3720408

[beyelzu]

Where was it sent to?
it was sent to elsewhere, although it seems to me that it more properly belonged in problems and complaints.

[MonCapitan2002]

I found them. I think they are covering their asses at the moment. Do not expect their decision to be reversed. They will likely brush you off.

[pescifish]

What a fucking waste of time -- if you have a beef with IIDB why don't you just have it out with them there and stop using :ff: as if it were a launching pad for dumbass other-board harrassment?

You dishonor :ff: by using this thread to make your stupid plans and launch your whatever-the-hell-you-are-doing-over-there. :sadcheer:

[Crumb]

I wouldn't worry about :ff: pesci. It's just one thread and it is not like it hasn't happened here before.

[beyelzu]

What a fucking waste of time -- if you have a beef with IIDB why don't you just have it out with them there and stop using :ff: as if it were a launching pad for dumbass other-board harrassment?

You dishonor :ff: by using this thread to make your stupid plans and launch your whatever-the-hell-you-are-doing-over-there. :sadcheer:
Well, I'm trying to have the conversation there. I intitially thought the subject of demerits to be interesting and of interest to the members of this board as many of them do post at II at least on occassion. When lisarea mentioned it would be funny to get a demerit, I agreed with the thought and set about to get one of my very own. I thought it was amusing, I didn't intend for it to be such a shitfest or rather perhaps I did just a funnier one.

That you think I shouldn't talk about something that interests and/or bothers me is your fucking problem. Ignore the thread, ignore me whatever.


But, don't bother to preach to me, I see your condemnation and the thing is, it just makes me more pissed off.

[viscousmemories]

Could it be because they can? I would not be surprised if any discussion of their their actions is forbidden over there.
Well yeah, but it's forbidden by them. So it seems odd to bother arguing their case here when for whatever reason they refuse to allow debate about it over there.

[MonCapitan2002]

Heh. I noticed that your post uses capitalisation and proper grammar. It seems this comment of yours was quite important to you.

[MonCapitan2002]

Could it be because they can? I would not be surprised if any discussion of their their actions is forbidden over there.
Well yeah, but it's forbidden by them. So it seems odd to bother arguing their case here when for whatever reason they refuse to allow debate about it over there.
Maybe some of them use this board as a workaround. I doubt they all totally agree on forbidding such discussions. I do think they would be more appropriate at IIDB, though. It is times like these that I miss the ICR. I think another reason they defend their actions here is because they can't shut us up here like they can there.

[Shake]

Well, considering the history of how this place came to be, is it any wonder that word makes its way back to IIDB? I mean, there are many of us — at least one admin included — who are still active over there. If a server is down at one place, why not go to the other to see what's going on?

As many of you are aware, I have defended II (and HH) on this board, but what you may not know is that I've also defended FF other places and even recommended it to others.

Since I'm no longer on the II staff, I feel slightly less compelled to defend the decisions of the staff there. What I hoped to do with my earlier post was simply to give an objective view as a former mod over there. Since my post, there have been a few good points made here against the points system. For the record, I really haven't voiced a final judgement on the points system, as I haven't made up my mind on whether or not it's actually a good thing. I think that remains to be seen.

And to be honest, I'm not sure why those who don't go there anymore even give a hoot what goes on there.

[viscousmemories]

Well, considering the history of how this place came to be, is it any wonder that word makes its way back to IIDB?
Well I know the history of this place, and as I said it's a wonder to me.

And to be honest, I'm not sure why those who don't go there anymore even give a hoot what goes on there.
Like I said, it's detached amusement for me. I feel the same about a lot of topics that come up here. :shrug:

[Smilin]

And to be honest, I'm not sure why those who don't go there anymore even give a hoot what goes on there.
Like I said, it's detached amusement for me. I feel the same about a lot of topics that come up here. :shrug:

/me raises his hand silently and then fades back into the background, returning to lurking.... :D

[Dingfod]

It isn't even all that amusing to me. I'm so detached, I'm nearly not bound by gravity.

[beyelzu]

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=177972

from up above, im being called a childish asshole, in ii sideways speak, which i can understand but they also say that my actions have a negative impact on my integrity.

can anyone explain what me fucking with the rules cuz i wanted to find out something, my general assholery or perhaps my childishness such as it is has anything to do with integrity?

cuz well i cant help but feel my integrity was insulted and dont understand why.

[Dingfod]

Matt, you're being a dick.

[JoeP]

Matt, you're being a dick.
Now that's integrity.

[Dingfod]

Well, it takes one to know one, doesn't it?

[livius drusus]

Well, I suspect Matt thinks your thread was not actually about wanting to get points to see what the field looks like, but rather a fuck you to IIDB moderation under the mocking guise of demerit-hunting.

The way he quoted your comment about how you've sometimes fucked with the mods to get a rules clarification and been accused of trolling suggests to me that he thought you were doing the same thing again, only unlike you, he thinks the trolling accusation is accurate.

I don't share his opinion, nor do I believe the editorializing in your complaint thread is appropriate -- I consider it unprofressional to say the very least -- but I can understand why he believes your actions were dishonest.

[Dingfod]

I didn't think Matt quoting bey's comments at FF over at IIDB was appropriate. I know it's not against the rules at either site, just colors the judgement of readers, mods, and admins that don't know bey at FF. Perhaps I am wrong, but it just smelled bad to me. As for my addressing Matt here, he is a member.

[livius drusus]

I agree, Ding. I think Matt read that comment in the most negatively light possible, and by posting it in defense of his accusation that bey had damaged his integrity cast bey's motives in the same negative light. Starshark's post -- an intervention contraindicated by the rules governing complaints which theoretically limit official responses to relevant parties and official spokespeople -- indicates that colored judgement was indeed the unfortunate result.

[Matt]

I'm not sure how anything I said could color judgement any better than beyelzu's own post, which reads, and I quote:


"i want a fucking demerit.

any of you cocksucking moderators going to give me one?

pretty please. if anyone posts in this thread i will insult them to get the demerit."

As for the editorializing, I realize that as part of the borg it is considered poor form to voice personal opinion, but quite frankly I don't really give a damn. If you think I'm being a dick, I'll take that as a compliment. This sort of shit wouldn't fly in the "real world" and it's far from cute online.

Liv: I really don't care what his motivation was for the thread. If he gets his kicks from trolling, more power to him. If he's actually interested in the infraction system, I gave him multiple tools to discover it. If I had the time to speculate forum posters' motives I'd probably be out of a job- in fact, my real job requires me to seperate what I think of patients from how to treat them. His motivation for starting such a thread doesn't do much to change the fact I expect better from most ten-year-olds. If my calling out of such behavior offends the delicate sensibilities of how a forum administrator should act, we must have reached a new plateau of politcal correctness.

Dickily,

Matt

[livius drusus]

You've read me as uncharitably as you read bey, Matt, but fair enough. My purpose in posting in this thread was to explain why you might have found bey's actions dishonest (ie, demerits to his integrity), and further explain why I disagreed with your assessment and with your approach to complaint resolution in this case.

If I've said anything inaccurate or unfair, it was inadvertantly so and you have my apologies.

[Dingfod]

Matt, I never made an assessment of beyelzu's attempt at getting a demerit, call it trolling or what have you, I only made an assessment of how you responded. Personally, I wouldn't have done what beyelzu has done. To me, considering the rules regarding decorum that seem to apply to the IIDB membership at large, the response to beyelzu was more than a bit condescending and even insulting. beyelzu represents beyelzu, Matt, as moderator, admin, or whatever, represents IIDB, and badly, in my nearly worthless opinion. Give the fucker a demerit or whatever it is you want to call it and be done with it.

"Two wrongs don't make a right."--Mrs. Kurti, my 6th grade teacher

[beyelzu]

thanks liv, i totally didnt understand the integrity angle, now i do. very interesting. for all interested parties, i totally did want to get a warning to see what it looks like. thats just how i am.

matt, thanks for once again calling me a child, i really appreciate it. and as to being direct and honest and an asshole, those things do totally fly in the real world. admittedly, not in an office, im far to direct for that. but if i have a choice of maturity as epitomized by you or childish as epitomized by me. ill totally take being a child, cuz that seems to be the option that doesnt entail being a complete cunt and hiding behind semantics.

[beyelzu]

and matt, just to be clear, i completely think you are being a cunt.

i want to make sure that i dont engage in such behavior myself.

[viscousmemories]

<Changed my mind, not worth it. Nothing to see here.>

[livius drusus]

thanks liv, i totally didnt understand the integrity angle, now i do. very interesting.
Evidentally my analysis was wrong, however, and it was the act of intentionally stimulating a warning alone that Matt was referring to as damaging your integrity. So we're back to square one, because I have no idea how it can be seen as an issue of honesty or integrity.

[beyelzu]

yeah, barefoot bree totally agrees that trying to get a warning is damaging to my integrity but i really just dont see it.

your response made alot more sense then either of their responses did.

im left wondering if he was just trying to insult me.

[Dingfod]

<Changed my mind, not worth it. Nothing to see here.>Why?

[viscousmemories]

The integrity issue seems like a gray area to me; I can see both points of view. Your thread was, in an important sense, insincere. You were of course honest and direct about the intent of your thread being to get a demerit, but by the same token it's obvious that the thread was not an honest attempt at dialogue.

In any case, Matt's "Borg" comment is just a strawman. It seems obvious that "voicing your opinion", when that opinion just happens to cast a user in a negative light, is tantamount to an insult. It doesn't require a view of admins as a "Borg mind" to expect their behavior to reflect the spirit of their own rules against insults.

[viscousmemories]

Why?
Because it was flippant, sarcastic and arguably untrue.

[Dingfod]

Why?
Because it was flippant, sarcastic and arguably untrue.Okie-dokey.

[beyelzu]

The integrity issue seems like a gray area to me; I can see both points of view. Your thread was, in an important sense, insincere. You were of course honest and direct about the intent of your thread being to get a demerit, but by the same token it's obvious that the thread was not an honest attempt at dialogue.
thanks vm, i really hadnt considered that either. hmm. honest dialogue, i dont see how such a post could actually be attempting honest dialogue tis true. however, i dont think that not going for honest open dialogue necessarily means that i was being dishonest and if i wasnt being dishonest i dont see the integrity angle.

still, it is an interesting view that makes more sense than other things that have been said by the apologists for the statement.



In any case, Matt's "Borg" comment is just a strawman. It seems obvious that "voicing your opinion", when that opinion just happens to cast a user in a negative light, is tantamount to an insult. It doesn't require a view of admins as a "Borg mind" to expect their behavior to reflect the spirit of their own rules against insults.
i agree completely, i also feel though that it is not so unusual for people to adhere to the letter of the rules while shitting all over the spirit.

[Anastasia Beaverhausen]

I think Matt's point was that it was blatant trolling and assholish behavior; would we have cheered him on had Bey not been a beloved member of this forum?

[Plant Woman]

Bey, Are you really surprised by the reaction you received? Isn't it what you went fishing for in the first place? I mean, come on, you went beating on the bushes over there, its no wonder you raised a few hackles where you struck.

Whether their policies are right or wrong, you can't be surprised that your behavior caused the reception you received.

What I want to know is why TJL isn't over there whining about free speech on the web?

[livius drusus]

would we have cheered him on had Bey not been a beloved member of this forum?

Who is "we" in this scenario? Please quote the cheering posts.

[Adam]

Well, vm and I both reported that we chuckled at bey's post over at II. I suppose that's a species of cheering.

[livius drusus]

Well, Adam, I've checked my sources, and :chuckle: and :cheer: are not, in fact, in the same category. If they were both in Positive Reinforcement then maybe you'd have an argument.

[MonCapitan2002]

And to be honest, I'm not sure why those who don't go there anymore even give a hoot what goes on there.
Like I said, it's detached amusement for me. I feel the same about a lot of topics that come up here. :shrug:

* Smilin raises his hand silently and then fades back into the background, returning to lurking.... :D
You do not lurk the :ff:. You post at rates similar to the heavyweights.

[Adam]

Well, Adam, I've checked my sources, and :chuckle: and :cheer: are not, in fact, in the same category. If they were both in Positive Reinforcement then maybe you'd have an argument.

Hahaha...I can't argue with the Horde. Not that I was arguing anyway, simply casting about for charitable interpretations.

[livius drusus]

Alrighty then.
:redhoard:

[Matt]

The integrity issue seems like a gray area to me; I can see both points of view. Your thread was, in an important sense, insincere. You were of course honest and direct about the intent of your thread being to get a demerit, but by the same token it's obvious that the thread was not an honest attempt at dialogue.

In any case, Matt's "Borg" comment is just a strawman. It seems obvious that "voicing your opinion", when that opinion just happens to cast a user in a negative light, is tantamount to an insult. It doesn't require a view of admins as a "Borg mind" to expect their behavior to reflect the spirit of their own rules against insults.

The "integrity" remark was made because most people I know in real life including myself would be outright embarrassed for themselves had they acted in such a manner. It would be inconsistent with folkways guiding proper communication. To this point, I (perhaps wrongly) assumed beyelzu shared a similar definition of "integrity", or a similar set of folkways, at least when it comes to online posting.

Look, I realize it was a bit rash to come over here with a complaint thread still active and imply that his actions were childish. I should have waited until the so-dubbed "saga" was finished before outlining just how poor a communication method that thread was. I also realize that I shouldn't premise that users share anywhere near the same set of folkways I do. For this, I apologize.

However, if someone comes over an acts like a complete tool, there's absolutely no chance they'll be warmly received. Not only did beyelzu come in IIDB's door without bothering to wipe his feet, he then proceeded to piss in the punch bowl, dance in the flower bed, and destroy the fine china- all while remaining oblivious to the fact he was out of line.

To say the hosts of the party are unimpressed would be an understatement.

I think Matt's point was that it was blatant trolling and assholish behavior; would we have cheered him on had Bey not been a beloved member of this forum?
CC: I think that the defense of beyelzu, or rather the counter-attacking method of analyzing and critiquing my words, may be due to his status here. However, I don't hold this as a fault. If I were under fire for my actions, I would expect those that consider themselves as my friends to come to my defense. Friends are supposed to stick up for each other and to that effect I see no double standard. I say "If" above, but it is hardly hypothetical- Several of my friends and peers at IIDB hopped into the complaint thread to support me, so it cuts both ways.

Matt

[livius drusus]

I think that the defense of beyelzu, or rather the counter-attacking method of analyzing and critiquing my words, may be due to his status here.
For the record, I reject any such characterization of my own contributions to this thread, and reject it as a wider characterization of the input of FF members in this thread. Whoever you are talking about may have been swayed by friendship, as you later suggest, but that is hardly the same thing as being swayed by bey's "status here", whatever that might be.

(It was Smoking Dick last I checked, which holds no particular social advantage I am aware of beyond getting called a cock at least once a day.)

Several of my friends and peers at IIDB hopped into the complaint thread to support me, so it cuts both ways.
By your own rules it should not cut both ways. "Friends and peers" hopping into complaint threads to support their buddies is a violation of the official procedure for handling complaints (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=1625902#post1625902) which was created to prevent precisely that sort undue pressure.


1. User makes a complaint. The user must provide links to the topic and quote the relevent posts.
2. An uninvolved administrator or moderator will respond to let the user know that we are discussing the complaint.
3. A topic will be created in the Moderators Conference Room to discuss the issue
4. An admin gathers additional feedback if required based on the MCR discussion
5. Consensus moderator decision is arrived at by involved parties
6. A chosen representative(s) posts the decision and possibly the dissenting opinion
7. The user will have a chance to respond
8. Final response from staff if needed. The decision will be final.

The only exception to these procedures are responses to bugs and technical problems. If this no longer applies, then you should so note in the sticky.

[Matt]

I think that the defense of beyelzu, or rather the counter-attacking method of analyzing and critiquing my words, may be due to his status here.
For the record, I reject any such characterization of my own contributions to this thread, and reject it as a wider characterization of the input of FF members in this thread. Whoever you are talking about may have been swayed by friendship, as you later suggest, but that is hardly the same thing as being swayed by bey's "status here", whatever that is.


I accept your rejection. I'm not in the mood to argue what "status" means, other than in this case I meant a prominent respected and/or appreciated member of this community.

Several of my friends and peers at IIDB hopped into the complaint thread to support me, so it cuts both ways.
By your own rules it should not cut both ways. "Friends and peers" hopping into complaint threads to support their buddies is a violation of the official procedure for handling complaints (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=1625902#post1625902) which was created to prevent precisely that sort undue pressure.


1. User makes a complaint. The user must provide links to the topic and quote the relevent posts.
2. An uninvolved administrator or moderator will respond to let the user know that we are discussing the complaint.
3. A topic will be created in the Moderators Conference Room to discuss the issue
4. An admin gathers additional feedback if required based on the MCR discussion
5. Consensus moderator decision is arrived at by involved parties
6. A chosen representative(s) posts the decision and possibly the dissenting opinion
7. The user will have a chance to respond
8. Final response from staff if needed. The decision will be final.

The only exception to these procedures are responses to bugs and technical problems. If this no longer applies, then you should so note in the sticky.

My comment was a general one, not relevant to special contextual cirmcumstances such as official responses on the part of IIDB. It is indeed outlined in several places including the moderator handbook that only those involved in the complaint should be responding.

Matt

[Sock Puppet]

I think that the defense of beyelzu, or rather the counter-attacking method of analyzing and critiquing my words, may be due to his status here. However, I don't hold this as a fault. If I were under fire for my actions, I would expect those that consider themselves as my friends to come to my defense.Nah, I like beyelzu well enough, but for my part I just reacted to your being a sanctimonious twit. Beyelzu's a big boy, and he can "defend" himself.
Not only did beyelzu come in IIDB's door without bothering to wipe his feet, he then proceeded to piss in the punch bowl, dance in the flower bed, and destroy the fine china- all while remaining oblivious to the fact he was out of line.I've reread that thread a couple of times to try to figure out how this metaphor comes anywhere near relevance. If he'd actually started a real flamewar, I could see it. All I see is a couple of posters throwing mock insults back and forth. Get a grip.

[Dingfod]

I think that the defense of beyelzu, or rather the counter-attacking method of analyzing and critiquing my words, may be due to his status here.beyelzu has status here? News to me. Now, me, on the other hand...

[Corona688]

Ah, FF. The place where II mods go to break all their own rules.

[Plant Woman]

However, if someone comes over an acts like a complete tool, there's absolutely no chance they'll be warmly received. Not only did beyelzu come in IIDB's door without bothering to wipe his feet, he then proceeded to piss in the punch bowl, dance in the flower bed, and destroy the fine china- all while remaining oblivious to the fact he was out of line.

Bey may have acted out of line, which was his intent as he admitted to exactly why he did it, but you are wildly exagerating the harm he did on II. Your feathers are ruffled I'm sure, perhaps rightly so, but it's just a silly post. Perhaps a reality check may be in order here?

[beyelzu]

Bey, Are you really surprised by the reaction you received? Isn't it what you went fishing for in the first place? I mean, come on, you went beating on the bushes over there, its no wonder you raised a few hackles where you struck.

Whether their policies are right or wrong, you can't be surprised that your behavior caused the reception you received.

What I want to know is why TJL isn't over there whining about free speech on the web?
actually i was surprised, i thought i would get a warning and perhaps a vaguely amused pm from a moderator. cuz that is what i felt my post warranted. i certainly didnt expect my integrity to be called into question.

i dont actually troll, or at least i dont think i do, i suppose we could get into a whole meta conversation on whether people like angrybellsprout or lionsden think of themselves as trolls but :shrug:

i was just surprised by how it was handled.

[beyelzu]

The "integrity" remark was made because most people I know in real life including myself would be outright embarrassed for themselves had they acted in such a manner. It would be inconsistent with folkways guiding proper communication. To this point, I (perhaps wrongly) assumed beyelzu shared a similar definition of "integrity", or a similar set of folkways, at least when it comes to online posting.

well that is something of a nonstandard definition of integrity. it felt to me that you were just insulting me cuz you could. now i certainly understood and do understand that my posts werent excatly the paragon of decorum, to grossly understate things. but then my posts were also joking in nature. i dont know if that totally didnt come through or what but for me in general im a substance over decorum guy with a premium on humor and i definitely find lots of shit amusing that other people dont.



Look, I realize it was a bit rash to come over here with a complaint thread still active and imply that his actions were childish. I should have waited until the so-dubbed "saga" was finished before outlining just how poor a communication method that thread was. I also realize that I shouldn't premise that users share anywhere near the same set of folkways I do. For this, I apologize.

However, if someone comes over an acts like a complete tool, there's absolutely no chance they'll be warmly received. Not only did beyelzu come in IIDB's door without bothering to wipe his feet, he then proceeded to piss in the punch bowl, dance in the flower bed, and destroy the fine china- all while remaining oblivious to the fact he was out of line.

To say the hosts of the party are unimpressed would be an understatement.



you know i have been posting at ii for years off and on, i accept that you think i was acting like a complete tool of course, but i didnt feel i was; rather i wanted a demerit and i jokingly and insultingly asked for one. to me it felt like i was at a party in a place i had been many times, i make a somewhat offcolor joke and was told to fuck off. to take your analogy a little farther.


I think Matt's point was that it was blatant trolling and assholish behavior; would we have cheered him on had Bey not been a beloved member of this forum?
CC: I think that the defense of beyelzu, or rather the counter-attacking method of analyzing and critiquing my words, may be due to his status here. However, I don't hold this as a fault. If I were under fire for my actions, I would expect those that consider themselves as my friends to come to my defense. Friends are supposed to stick up for each other and to that effect I see no double standard. I say "If" above, but it is hardly hypothetical- Several of my friends and peers at IIDB hopped into the complaint thread to support me, so it cuts both ways.

Matt

so what exactly is your definition of integrity, matt?

i want to understand exactly what you mean, cuz as far as i can tell your definition boils down to dont be an asshat. which is like incredibly broad and has little to do with the actual definition of the word.

[beyelzu]

i totally started a thread at ii in mfp about integrity.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=178304

its good times. its starting to look like my definition of integrity is pretty standard after all.

[beyelzu]

If you feel that "integrity" is largely about honesty and staying true to your word, may I remind you that you had to review and agree to this forum's rules by registering?

You started a thread with the stated purpose of attempting to break the rules agreed to by you, therefore you willfully broke your word. If that's integrity, I'll have none of it.

Now without further ado, it appears this matter here is settled.

Matt

im not sure if anyone is even bothering to read this thread now. but finally matt managed to come up with an actual argument about how my integrity suffered in that i knowingly broke the rules.

rules that i agreed on when i joined, more or less of course, as when i joined the climate at ii was alot different but there probably was langauge in the rules that made me agree to future rule changes as well.

and of course the thread is locked so i cant respond.

but at least he finally gave me an answer and it only took him a few days to come up with a justification for his little smear. i totally think it was post hoc rationalization, but i could of course be wrong.

in related news they totally turned down my request to become a moderator.

[Sock Puppet]

in related news they totally turned down my request to become a moderator. :roflmao:

[D. Scarlatti]

in related news they totally turned down my request to become a moderator.

There's always christianforums.

[The Jesus Lawyer]

i am curious...

was this site created as a reaction or response to ii? i went and checked it out, but it seemed too big and full of angry nerds for my liking...

anyhow...what's the deal?

michael :)

[viscousmemories]

There's always christianforums.
What's the difference?

[viscousmemories]

was this site created as a reaction or response to ii?
There's a brief history (that I've been too uninspired to rewrite) here (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/ffintro.php?do=ffhistory).

[Smilin]

I think Bey would make a FINE moderator at CF. He certainly had the charisma and the likeability.

I'd vote for him...

Vote Beyelzu

:D

[D. Scarlatti]

What's the difference?

IIDB is a religious board?

[viscousmemories]

Oh yeah! :doh:

[beyelzu]

I think Bey would make a FINE moderator at CF. He certainly had the charisma and the likeability.

I'd vote for him...

Vote Beyelzu

:D
i dont know i was ip banned at cf once upon a time cuz they thought my bunny avatar looked suspiciously like a penis.

i dont know what gave them that idea.

:tmgrin:

but tomjoe actually got me reinstated so i completely try to follow their rules.

[The Jesus Lawyer]

was this site created as a reaction or response to ii?
There's a brief history (that I've been too uninspired to rewrite) here (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/ffintro.php?do=ffhistory).

ah...thanks. i think i actually read that before.

[beyelzu]

i was actually sincere about becoming a moderator, i really thought that a mod with a nice sense of humor would be a good thing. an attribute that is lacking in alot of the current mods.

i guess they thought my personality just wouldnt mesh with their current moderation team.

i understand.

[viscousmemories]

They turned me down once upon a time, too, on the ground that I was too argumentative or something. I don't remember the exact phrasing though, that was a long, long time ago.

[Anastasia Beaverhausen]

They turned me down once upon a time, too, on the ground that I was too argumentative or something. I don't remember the exact phrasing though, that was a long, long time ago.
YOU? Oh, mais oui! :faint:

[Shake]

Ah, FF. The place where II mods go to break all their own rules.
Err ... maybe because the FF is not IIDB and has altogether different rules?

I really don't understand the insinuation that if one acts a certain way at one BB, one should act that same way elsewhere on the net. Care to explain?

[Shake]

for all interested parties, i totally did want to get a warning to see what it looks like. thats just how i am.
FWIW, I too was/am curious what it would look like. That said, I can see some options:

1. You could have found a more tactful way to ask, and hopefully the admins would have complied
2. The admins could have had the foresight to anticipate such a question and perhaps create a sock account solely for the purposes of illustrating this.

I'll bet there are some other ways to work option #2, which Matt or someone else with even a little technical know-how over there could have done.

It seems I resigned as a mod too soon over there, as I would definitely have brought such a thing (posting an example for users to see) up.

/me thinks maybe he should go to the Announcement thread and suggest just that

[viscousmemories]

I really don't understand the insinuation that if one acts a certain way at one BB, one should act that same way elsewhere on the net. Care to explain?
You don't see any hypocrisy in "facilitating civil debate" by enforcing strict restrictions on speech at IIDB and blatantly violating that principle in the course of debate here?

[beyelzu]

for all interested parties, i totally did want to get a warning to see what it looks like. thats just how i am.
FWIW, I too was/am curious what it would look like. That said, I can see some options:

1. You could have found a more tactful way to ask, and hopefully the admins would have complied
2. The admins could have had the foresight to anticipate such a question and perhaps create a sock account solely for the purposes of illustrating this.

I'll bet there are some other ways to work option #2, which Matt or someone else with even a little technical know-how over there could have done.

It seems I resigned as a mod too soon over there, as I would definitely have brought such a thing (posting an example for users to see) up.

* Shake thinks maybe he should go to the Announcement thread and suggest just that


i totally agree that there were definitely more tactful ways of finding out. but i just like touching stoves to see if they are hot i suppose.

which is why i totally understood being called rude, assholish and to some degree childish, it was only when my integrity was insulted that i was all like what the fuck.

[livius drusus]

Ah, FF. The place where II mods go to break all their own rules.
Err ... maybe because the FF is not IIDB and has altogether different rules?

Do you treat people decently only when there are rules that force you to act that way? I've seen you post on boards with a range of behavioral expectations, and it looks to me like you abide by your own standards.

I really don't understand the insinuation that if one acts a certain way at one BB, one should act that same way elsewhere on the net. Care to explain?

I would hope IIDB moderators and administrators genuinely believed in the principles underpinning the rules they enforce. I did when I was on the job. If they do believe in those principles, then why violate them just because nobody's forcing you to uphold them? If they don't believe in those principles, then what business do they have enforcing them?

[MonCapitan2002]

They turned me down once upon a time, too, on the ground that I was too argumentative or something. I don't remember the exact phrasing though, that was a long, long time ago.
I find that hard to believe. You seem the type more interested in minimal moderation. IIDB seems more interested in heavy moderation.

[wei yau]

Damn, got here after both vm and liv already said everything that needed to be said.

It seems perfectly clear to me, if you believe that good behavior is important enough to be enforced on one BB, then isn't it reasonable to believe that the same type of behavior should be followed no matter where you go?

Ultimately, you can boil down any given board to simple communication with others. As a means for making effective and meaningful communication, civil discourse should be encouraged. In some places it is actually enforced. But, whether it is enforced or not, doesn't change the fact that civil discourse is good for effective communication.

[viscousmemories]

I find that hard to believe. You seem the type more interested in minimal moderation. IIDB seems more interested in heavy moderation.
It wasn't really about light vs. heavy moderation, but about whether I would play nice with the other moderators during debates about rule enforcement. The (probably accurate) feeling of the admins was that I would not, given that I was even more strident and bullheaded two years ago than I am today - if that's possible.

[MonCapitan2002]

If anything, those are exactly the type of moderators they need.

[viscousmemories]

I think they were of the opinion that administrative efficiency was more important than judicious moderation, and from what I hear that's more true today than it was then.

[Beth]

And to be honest, I'm not sure why those who don't go there anymore even give a hoot what goes on there.Well, I still go in there from time to time. I like to keep up on Darren because sometimes I think I've narrowly escaped some of his break up mess. I also like some of the people who post in there, but don't in here or in HH. To be honest, I feel less comfortable jumping into coversations over there. I remember there was this one thread about abortion and how it was being equated to Himler. I felt that I was being given an indirect scolding rather than some of the posters who deserved it. I was a little frustrated about that, even though I might not have been the one in trouble, I felt like I had been reprimanded. That said, I can understand the value of moderation, because some site owners simply have different views of how things should be handled.

Anyway, I don't dislike the mods in there. At one time I had a very bad experience over there with another poster. The mods and admin were all very kind and apologetic to me.

I digeress. I do look at look at these threads rarely but I do care because I do agree on principle with the concept of the sec web. It helped me tremendously when I deconverted. For some people, it might be their only means of support during a very uncertain period in their lives.

[JoeP]

I think they were of the opinion that administrative efficiency was more important than judicious moderation, and from what I hear that's more true today than it was then.
:bow2: Efficiency!

[JoeP]

I also like some of the people who post in there, but don't in here or in HH.I'm hurt. Why don't you like any of us?

[Leesifer]

I also like some of the people who post in there, but don't in here or in HH.I'm hurt. Why don't you like any of us?

:giggles:

That's how I read it first too, Joe.

[viscousmemories]

Me too. :laugh:

[Beth]

I also like some of the people who post in there, but don't in here or in HH.I'm hurt. Why don't you like any of us?

:giggles:

That's how I read it first too, Joe.Daminit! I should have edited it. Sorry.

[Leesifer]

Heh! Don't worry about it Beth, it's funny!

I hope :narrow:

[TomJoe]

I really don't understand the insinuation that if one acts a certain way at one BB, one should act that same way elsewhere on the net. Care to explain?

So it's ok to visit one friends house and be nice, neat and cordial and then hop on over to another friends house, shit on his coffeetable and punch his wife in the face?

[Sock Puppet]

I hope so, or our family's Xmas rounds are going to be a bit different this year.

[TomJoe]

I hope so, or our family's Xmas rounds are going to be a bit different this year.

:roflcopt:

[godfry n. glad]

I really don't understand the insinuation that if one acts a certain way at one BB, one should act that same way elsewhere on the net. Care to explain?

So it's ok to visit one friends house and be nice, neat and cordial and then hop on over to another friends house, shit on his coffeetable and punch his wife in the face?

That, TJ, is a classic false dichotomy.

It's okay to visit one friends house and be nice and cordial, but go to another and ignore the lady of the house because she's a bitch and has ignored you since you've been hanging around her husband. There can be many gradiations of behavior, dependent upon innumerable various factors which affect the dynamics of the various relationships.

[livius drusus]

It may be a false dichotomy, but it's one Matt raised himself when taking issue with bey's infraction post and therefore a reasonable question to relay to anyone defending Matt's behavior here, imo.

However, if someone comes over an acts like a complete tool, there's absolutely no chance they'll be warmly received. Not only did beyelzu come in IIDB's door without bothering to wipe his feet, he then proceeded to piss in the punch bowl, dance in the flower bed, and destroy the fine china- all while remaining oblivious to the fact he was out of line.

[Adam]

It seems perfectly clear to me, if you believe that good behavior is important enough to be enforced on one BB, then isn't it reasonable to believe that the same type of behavior should be followed no matter where you go?

I dunno. I believe that professional behavior, for example, is important enoguh that it should be enforced in an office environment, but I don't think that we should act as though we were at work 24/7. It's possible that one could similarly believe that a given BB is an environment where a specific type of behavior is important enough to be enforced but not necessarily believe that the same behavior is required or even desirable on other BB's. II's decision makers evidently feel that their mission is served by enforcing certain standards of behavior, so they enforce them there. It doesn't follow that they must believe those same standards should be adhered to everywhere else.

Ultimately, you can boil down any given board to simple communication with others. As a means for making effective and meaningful communication, civil discourse should be encouraged. In some places it is actually enforced. But, whether it is enforced or not, doesn't change the fact that civil discourse is good for effective communication.

Now, that, I agree with.

Edit: Also, :roflcopt: @ sock

[godfry n. glad]

I'm still left wondering what will happen when the IIDB admins implement their next step of imposing a new open system of infarctions.

[TomJoe]

I'm still left wondering what will happen when the IIDB admins implement their next step of imposing a new open system of infarctions.

I hope they install a few of those portable heart defibrillators.

[godfry n. glad]

Yeah... I suppose...But wouldn't that bring the Scientologists out of the woodwork, what with everybody screaming, "CLEAR"?

[Smilin]

there are scientologists at IIDB?

For real? :?:

[Corona688]

there are scientologists at IIDB?

For real? :?: They're stealth-scientologists, who spend their time raiding psychology-related topics, especially ones related to psychiatric drugs, under the cover of pretend-neutrality.

They make immense arguments that seem to support their position at first glance, but when you look too close, you'll find that their references are narconon, only narconon, and nothing but narconon. When pressed they'll sometimes admit to having taken "a course or two" from the church of s.

There's at least two. They're obvious enough when you look for 'em. Sometimes they slip up amusingly, using Hubbard-invented terminology they think is scientific but actually only exists in scientology.

[Corona688]

I really don't understand the insinuation that if one acts a certain way at one BB, one should act that same way elsewhere on the net. Care to explain? Not just acting a certain way on one board, but enforcing a certain manner of behavior on that board. You're all volunteers. Presumably you're enforcing this behavior because you think II's guidelines are a good idea.

But in a place where II mods aren't forced to behave that way, it's suddenly not a good idea for them anymore, just everyone else. It's about the arrogance, really.