WTF? Gurdur? Banned @ IIDB?

[Farren]

Tim I only just became aware of your suspension thanks to this thread

WTF happened? I did a search on IIDB and came up with a lengthy discussion n your suspension but I'm still not entirely clear what the issue you were "officially PM'd" about was. The whole thing seems awfully petty on the part of IIBD administration.

[Adora]

The only part I saw was Gurdur bitching in some thread, and then the mods telling him nicely "We've sent you PMs about this. Please read them stfukthnx". Dunno what happened after that.

[Farren]

What's "stfukthnx"?

[Adora]

"shut the fuck up kay thanks". They didn't really say that, but they sounded in the thread like they wanted to, and were rather at the end of their tethers.

Edit: Here.

[godfry n. glad]

heh...

[Gurdur]

Originally Posted by Farren

....but I'm still not entirely clear what the issue you were "officially PM'd" about was.

I was PM'ed in essence over a made-up "rule", or IOW the moderator in question made up a rule which didn't exist and tried forcing me to comply. It backfired. I had had no posts edited in the case in question, and had broken no rules; I replied once to the mod in question, pointing that out, then when the mod immediately replied, I simply ignored the second PM, since I was not in fact breaking any rules.
I was then eventually banned for refusing to "state I would read and reply to all Official PM's in future", since, as I very happily and repeatedly pointed out with the aid of many an example, SecWeb admin don't follow ther own rules, in far more serious cases, so it's ridiculous of them to try demanding I should follow rules by "reading and replying to all Official PM's in future".
Of course, they didn't quite like that.
The gravity of some of their own offences meant they eventually came out with a halfhearted apology about the examples I brought up (while refusing to deal with them), nonetheless while they thusly acknowledged guilt and also thus acknowledged in effect SecWeb admin as a whole just can't be bothered following their own rules, they still demanded the Ritual Obesience of me dutifully promising to "read and reply to all Official PM's in future".

That's the story in minature.

The whole thing seems awfully petty on the part of IIBD administration.

That is one word for it.

[viscousmemories]

I've read all the related threads there and I think Ronin has done a pretty good job of making the case that you did reply to the second PM by way of starting that P&C thread to discuss the matter publicly. I have to say that the fact that they suspended you despite that--while technically justified according to their rules--does look like they were just looking for an excuse.

I know from personal experience that (as Doubting Didymus said) they have ways of making agitators not want to be there anymore. It's ironic in that light that Strict Separationist has mentioned me by name, twice, as an example of how fair and tolerant the administration is when it comes to people who criticize the rules and policies there all because they didn't ban me. Nevermind the fact that I eventually banned myself.

ETA: Oh yeah, and just as a technical note it seems odd to require that you read official PM's when in fact there's no way for them to determine whether you have. Which is to say you might have read it and simply not selected to send the optional read receipt.

[Gurdur]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

I've read all the related threads there and I think Ronin has done a pretty good job of making the case that you did reply to the second PM by way of starting that P&C thread to discuss the matter publicly.

Ronin did in fact make a good case on precisely that.

I have to say that the fact that they suspended you despite that--while technically justified according to their rules--does look like they were just looking for an excuse.

There is no doubt about that. The fact that relations between me and several SecWeb admin were .......coldish, or IOW lots of conflicts all over the place, is rather open knowledge.

I know from personal experience that (as Doubting Didymus said) they have ways of making agitators not want to be there anymore. It's ironic in that light that Strict Separationist has mentioned me by name, twice, as an example of how fair and tolerant the administration is when it comes to people who criticize the rules and policies there all because they didn't ban me. Nevermind the fact that I eventually banned myself.

Lots of things wrong with StrictSeperationist's claims. Maybe he should learn the value of reticence. Bit nasty, you being used like an example like that.

ETA: Oh yeah, and just as a technical note it seems odd to require that you read official PM's when in fact there's no way for them to determine whether you have. Which is to say you might have read it and simply not selected to send the optional read receipt.

It's an Act Of Ritual Obesience they want, not logic.

[Adora]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

Which is to say you might have read it and simply not selected to send the optional read receipt.

Doesn't that mean you're just stupid? If you're meant to read official PMs then there's the expectation, because you're a good law-abiding IIDB user, that you'd then let the sender in this case know, because it's official and shit? I honestly don't know whether there's a rule about letting them know this (the only interactions I've had with mods in PM have been back-and-forth discussions where it was obvious everything was being read), but if that's the rule, is it really that much trouble to follow (and a bit hypocritical to call them petty about it)?

[Matt]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

ETA: Oh yeah, and just as a technical note it seems odd to require that you read official PM's when in fact there's no way for them to determine whether you have. Which is to say you might have read it and simply not selected to send the optional read receipt.

The 'read reciept' is verified the second the user opens the the PM in question. Nothing needs to be sent back.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by dipertni

The 'read reciept' is verified the second the user opens the the PM in question. Nothing needs to be sent back.

Is that so? I thought the default vB behavior was that there is a pop-up that says something like, "So-and-so has requested a read receipt, do you want to send one?" We've hacked that feature here so it's optional and I honestly don't remember how it is at IIDB.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

Is that so? I thought the default vB behavior was that there is a pop-up that says something like, "So-and-so has requested a read receipt, do you want to send one?" We've hacked that feature here so it's optional and I honestly don't remember how it is at IIDB.

We can try testing it over at II but I've never had to confirm a read, and to the best of my knowledge it works that way.

[Dingfod]

Actually, I don't think there is a rule at IIDB requiring you reply to PMs from moderators, comply with requests to follow rules, yes, but reply to PMs, no. In fact, if that's a hard and fast rule, I should be banned because there are several PMs from moderators and admins at IIDB I've received answering questions of mine and I didn't reply or even click to indicate I'd received it. If they wanted a reply they should've said so in the subject line, something like "Urgent Message - Immediate Response Required." Despite that, Gurdur did reply to the content in the PM in public. Since they did not demonstrate that Gurdur had broken any established rule other than that one thing, not replying to a PM, in my opinion they had absolutely no cause for action against Gurdur.

[viscousmemories]

Warrenly's right. The applicable rule they cited is "You therefore agree that you will cooperate with any requests of the forum Moderators and/or Administrators, and give serious attention to any suggestions or recommendations you receive from them."

The admins there have apparently interpreted this rule to mean "You will acknowledge receipt of PM's and respond, via PM, to any Moderator PM's". But the gist of Ronin's argument there (if I understood him correctly) is that Gurdur's having started a fairly lengthy P&C thread to discuss the issue clearly indicates that he did give the matter serious consideration despite not having responded directly to the moderator PM, he just chose to respond in a public complaint thread.

So to me there doesn't seem to be any rational justification for making a big deal out of his not having responded directly to that single PM unless they were looking for a reason to ban him, as I suspect they were. He's been a vocal critic of IIDB and the admins there for a while now. But there's certainly enough leeway in that rule verbiage that it could've been interpreted in his favor if they had wanted to do that.

[Adora]

Oh okay. I just didn't know if there was a rule or not. Unless there's a change to a TOS whilst I'm at the site it's related to (which has happened at places like DeviantArt and SheezyArt and shat me off to no end), I tend to kind of glaze over when it comes to them.

[Farren]

Well its a great pity. Up to now I haven't for the most part agreed with the criticisms of IIDB voiced here and elsewhere but I'm severely disappointed with the IIDB admin about this. Reading more of the background here and in IIDB it looks like the admin were imperious and thoroughly unreasonable in their decision.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Farren

Well its a great pity. Up to now I haven't for the most part agreed with the criticisms of IIDB voiced here and elsewhere but I'm severely disappointed with the IIDB admin about this. Reading more of the background here and in IIDB it looks like the admin were imperious and thoroughly unreasonable in their decision.

Well, Farren, that's nothing new. It's par for the course.

[MooseIBe]

I didn't really want to get too caught up in this one but I have to say I was saddened and shocked by Tim's suspension too .. he is not and has never been a trouble-maker on there and so I genuinely don't understand the reasons for the suspension. Given that I could name off the top of my head a dozen extremely unpleasant and/or disruptive individuals who are free to post whenever and wherever they like it seems weird to me to ban a popular and long term member who HASN'T been disruptive.

There, just my two cents, not that anyone's likely to care

[beyelzu]

My problem is that if they are going to going to go around banning people like gurdur then there is probably no point in me posting there at all.

plus in recent days I find myself being edited fairly often, so I am bound to get some official sanction soon.

[viscousmemories]

Take it from one who has learned the key to unpopularity at IIDB, the way to be a valued IIDB user is simple: Help promote the Metaphysical Naturalist agenda by any means necessary.

This means when locking horns with theists, be strident and indefatigable, demand rigorous evidence, impeccable logic and meticulous critical examination of issues. Specifically, dogging a theist to the ends of the Earth on the most trivial philosophical point will garner you the highest honor. Bonus points for gratuitous interspersing of anti-religious jokes and innuendo.

But, when locking horns with the staff and/or challenging the board rules/policies, forget all that. Be even-tempered, generous, forgiving, tolerant, and exceedingly gracious and appreciative of all the hard work the All-volunteer Army of Infidels do for you despite your utterly undeserving ass, and condemn in the harshest terms any user who doesn't do the same. Bonus points for excessive gratuitous self-deprecation.

Or (probably the easiest strategy) just stay out of the ICR and P&C forums altogether, keep your opinions of the staff, rules and policies to yourself, comply with any and all demands of the moderators and admins and restrict yourself to attacking religion and its adherents.

[seebs]

The problem is not that Gurdur didn't respond to ELGS's request, but that he didn't even read the PM.

I watched this one happening, and I think the admins did the best thing available under the circumstances.

[King Louie]

Gurder,

I'm really interested in the context of the initial edit. Who were you talking to? What point were you making? Why were you edited? Did you call someone a "tallywhacker," or make the claim that Tom Cruise is actually a cool person, and that you actually like Katie Holmes, or did you inadvertantly tell someone you voted for George W. Bush?

For real though: what was going on when you first got edited, in this situation?

From the Jungles of Curiosity,

Kang Louie

[Gurdur]

Originally Posted by King Louie

....Did you call someone a "tallywhacker,"

Quite the opposite, actually, and funnily enough.

Here is the whole story, first the basic formal part:

• 1) On April 03, 2005, Howard started a thread in the SecWeb PA&SA forum, a thread about "Fundamentalist Atheism", criticising fundy atheists. He was immediately jumped on by ELGS, who claimed it was all an insult (assumedly to all Good Atheists Everywhere).
  
• 2) I made a post in that thread criticising some statements by Vorkosigan.
  In my post, two lines were edited out by the moderator, EverLastingGodStopper (ELGS)
  The two lines deleted were (from memory), "This is merely inflammatory personal abuse", and "This is merely an insult";
  
  IOW, I was saying the particular statements that I referred to were only empty abuse and thus not logical arguments.
  
• 3) ELGS edited those particular lines out; I sent her a PM asking why:
  

  Originally Posted by Gurdur

  Pardon me,
  but I don't get how pointing out that Vork's comments were inflammatory insults were in themselves inflammatory insults --- as you say when you edted my comments out.
  Mind explaining why so ? I ask humbly.
  Thanks
  Tim

  and the reply by ELGS was:
  

  Originally Posted by ELGS

  "IIDB rules don't allow for users to accuse others by saying 'this post is a flame'

• 4) That is nonsense of course on three counts:
  a) There is no such SecWeb rule as ELGS tried pretending
  b) and factually, I did not call any "post" a mere flame, I pointed lout two statements (out of a whole lot of statements) inside a post were mere flames and thus not logical arguments.
  c) It's all a bit ironic in view of how ELGS tried justifying the pack attack on Howard in that thread by saying Howard's OP was an "insult".
  Or, IOW, ELGS was guilty of the "crime" she alleged I later committed.
  
• 4) I left it there for the time being, since I had no real interest in a showdown over the matter.
  
• 5) Then on May 12, 2005, I joined in on a new thread, this one being on a UK atheist, Dr Dylan Evans, who roundly criticised extremist atheism in an op-ed piece he wrote for The Guardian, a national UK newspaper.
  I was sent another PM by ELGS, in relation to my posts on that thread, with no specific reason given, merely telling me to use the Report-A-Post function , P&C threads, and not make in-thread complaints about moderation.
  Uh huh. I did not complain about moderation. In that thread, I commented about the tone of many of the contributions to that thread, and so did others, including a person who is a SecWeb moderator in another subforum, and in my replies to people in that thread I noted that certain statements were mere personal abuse (and thus implying they were not rational arguments), and I also noted that Dr. Dylan Evans, the target of most of the empty, irrational personal abuse, was in fact a member of SecWeb (and I got that information simply by looking up the SecWeb Member List, an action anyone at all could have done for themselves).
  
  I replied to ELGS so:
  

  Originally Posted by Gurdur

  I haven't complained about board moderation.
  Pointing out that Dr. Evans is a member of SecWeb, and that personal abuse is just that, is not complaining about moderation.

  None of my posts were edited in that relevant thread, nor were any of my posts moved to the Complaints forum. Thus the accusation against me seems mystifying.
  
  I point out too that that thread is full of empty abuse, and while it was later decided that the personal abuse hurled at Dr. Dylan Evans was OK prior to his join-up date but not after it, nonetheless pointing out that particular statements are mere abuse (and thus the unspecified charge that they are not rational arguments dealing with the actual matter) is to the best of my knowledge not yet prohibited on SecWeb, and neither is things like pointing out that Dr. Dylan Evans is a SecWeb member.
  
• 6) ELGS replied to my PM with another; I did not reply to that one in an effort not to push the matter and to avoid confrontation. That one apparently became the source of the Official Warning to me.
  
• 7) There the matter rested (as far as I knew); I received no further word between 13 May 2005 and 13 June 2005, IOW I heard nothing more about the matter for a month. During that period I did not post on SecWeb at all in any case.
  
• 8) Then, on 14 May 2005 I posted again in a thread on SecWeb, again in the PS&SA forum, where ELGS personally attacked me in an odd way; in my recent post of 14 May 2005, I made a directly relevant and on-topic post merely questioning the correctness of an attempt at a prescriptive definition of the words "atheism" and "atheist", and ELGS accused me of merely "nitpicking", and also informing me that the relevant definition was somehow "Atheism 101", IOW I was supposed to be apparently violating some Standardised Atheism, and also questioned my "motives" merely for my questioning the validity and effectiveness of attempted prescriptive language on the words "atheism" and "atheist".
  I see that as an attempt to stifle relevant debate on the actual issue, as well as being in direct violation of the spirit of the "rule" ELGS is insisting is in force.
  
• 9) I then immediately received an Official Admin PM telling me not to ignore Mod PM's --- all because of that one PM I did not read or reply to.
  I then made an Official Complaint; I was then banned, for "not stating that I would read and reply to Official PM's in future".

That's the formal part. Background in next post.

[Fisher]

Originally Posted by seebs

The problem is not that Gurdur didn't respond to ELGS's request, but that he didn't even read the PM.

I watched this one happening, and I think the admins did the best thing available under the circumstances.

Seebs,

As much trouble as you have had with moderation a CF, I would have expected more out of you. Everything that I have read from you in regards to moderation has displayed a very high standard in terms of fairness and impartiality. This statement completely goes against those ideals that you have so accurately spelled out over several pages in IIDB's Elsewhere.

Furthermore, from what I have read from you, it seems to me that one of your main ideas in terms of the Bible is that people do not look at it as a whole, and take away the basic meaning of goodness from parts of it. You have committed the same injustice to Gurdur here. I think that if you look at the way he handled the situation as a whole, you will find that he did reply to the second PM by way of starting a thread in P&C, and that as a whole, he was not trying to be uncooperative with admin.

[TomJoe]

Originally Posted by Fisher

Seebs,

As much trouble as you have had with moderation a CF, I would have expected more out of you. Everything that I have read from you in regards to moderation has displayed a very high standard in terms of fairness and impartiality. This statement completely goes against those ideals that you have so accurately spelled out over several pages in IIDB's Elsewhere.

Well, I'm glad someone else pointed this out, because if I had said as much, it would have gone ignored.