DaveDodo007... I mean... Rationalskepticism,lol.

[Seth]

Quite simply I was banned because I am more intelligent, more articulate, better educated and a much, much better debator than anyone over there except maybe THWOTH.

Dun dun dun dunnnnnnn

Problem is, YOU are the one suffering from Dunning-Kruger, not me. But then again I allow for your inflated ego because of your handicap, so I don't hold it against you. So many idiots, so little time....*sigh*

I looked up "Seth" in the dictionary. The definition is "fact-free zone". Looks about right to me. You see, unlike you, I never described myself as "more intelligent, more articulate, better educated and a much, much better debator(sic) than anyone" or anything even approaching your overinflated opinion of yourself.

Probably a good thing you haven't because people would laugh themselves to death.

[Warren Dew]

Getting away from the Samsa-Megaton kerfuffle, let me return to the original topic for a moment. I agree with Fallible. Moderation at Ratskep has evolved into a "what I feel like", arbitrary mode, and the increasingly convoluted, Byzantine Forum Users Agreement reflects this.

While we've only heard one side's description of the policy change, if that was the change, it was a good one, because the quality of Ratskep moderation suddenly improved greatly around that time. Previously, the moderators had used the rules as a weapon to get rid of those who disagreed with their collective political position, while overlooking egregious behavior from those they agreed with. Afterwards, moderation became less totally one sided.

Absolute, unadulterated bollocks.

Yep.

There was a thread about this a while back. Can't remember who brought the subject up, it might have been SD.

Anyway, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth about how the mods had been so blatent in banning people for holding right wing political views. So we started a list of exactly which members of strongly right wing tendencies had been banned. Tyrannical wasn't included because he was clearly banned for racism, which has nothing to do with where you are on the economic spectrum.

Please point out in my post where I talk about banning or "right wing". Or, admit that you were wrong about your previous thread being "about this".

Warren - can you add anyone to that list?

Yes, though bans are at most marginally relevant to this topic. Obviously since the moderator turnover bans have become more even handed, what with folks like rEvolutionist being banned too.

[Hermit]

Quite simply I was banned because I am more intelligent, more articulate, better educated and a much, much better debator than anyone over there except maybe THWOTH.

Dun dun dun dunnnnnnn

Problem is, YOU are the one suffering from Dunning-Kruger, not me. But then again I allow for your inflated ego because of your handicap, so I don't hold it against you. So many idiots, so little time....*sigh*

I looked up "Seth" in the dictionary. The definition is "fact-free zone". Looks about right to me. You see, unlike you, I never described myself as "more intelligent, more articulate, better educated and a much, much better debator(sic) than anyone" or anything even approaching your overinflated opinion of yourself.

Probably a good thing you haven't because people would laugh themselves to death.

They probably would, but unlike you I'm not a poster boy of the Dunning-Kruger effect. That's why it never occurred to me to make the sort of absurd claims about myself that you make about your self.

[Robert_S]

It ain't your principles or stance that gets you in trouble. It's your steady stream of gratuitous douchebitchery.

If they deserved better, they would get better. If they even showed a pretense of being objective, rational and logical about anything they disagree with I was happy to chat most politely, but the religious, hidebound close-minded nature of RatSkep obviates any possibility of rational discussion about anything. It's not a lifeboat for the rational mind, it's a tramp freighter filled with derelicts, alcoholics and vermin that needs a torpedo.

If you deserved better, you would have gotten better. Instead you just got bitter. You can't get Ratskep out of your head can you? La la la, la la la lala laaa...

You worked so hard to stink up the place yet stay just within the rules. You felt so smug when someone lost their shit and the mods had to deal with the fallout, didn't you? You thought your sins would never catch up with you as long as you kept to the letter while profaning the spirit. I think it's funny when you try to defend the poor Christians from us atheists. You ain't nothin' but a Pharisee yourself.

[Fallible]

Getting away from the Samsa-Megaton kerfuffle, let me return to the original topic for a moment. I agree with Fallible. Moderation at Ratskep has evolved into a "what I feel like", arbitrary mode, and the increasingly convoluted, Byzantine Forum Users Agreement reflects this.

While we've only heard one side's description of the policy change, if that was the change, it was a good one, because the quality of Ratskep moderation suddenly improved greatly around that time. Previously, the moderators had used the rules as a weapon to get rid of those who disagreed with their collective political position, while overlooking egregious behavior from those they agreed with. Afterwards, moderation became less totally one sided.

Absolute, unadulterated bollocks.

Yep.

There was a thread about this a while back. Can't remember who brought the subject up, it might have been SD.

Anyway, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth about how the mods had been so blatent in banning people for holding right wing political views. So we started a list of exactly which members of strongly right wing tendencies had been banned. Tyrannical wasn't included because he was clearly banned for racism, which has nothing to do with where you are on the economic spectrum. After that, the list went something like this:

1. Seth

2. Er, that's it.

(This was before Hugin was banned, FWIW).

Not even those who had brought the whole sob story up in the first place could actually think of anyone, other than Seth, who had presented a right wing persona and then been banned - LET ALONE show that the banning was on account of the politics.

Warren - can you add anyone to that list? If not, you're buying into a load of cobblers I'm afraid. There may have been moderator bias against right wing members, I don't know. But noone was "got rid of" on account of their politics - except possibly Seth, if you don't accept their judgment of trolling.

Just banning one person simply because you disagree with their political opinion is cowardly enough and not something you should be proud of.

He wasn't banned because of his political opinion. He was banned because he was a troll who deliberately miserpresented the positions of just about everyone who interacted with him.

[Mr.Samsa]

I disagreed with Seth's banning but I can confirm that his political position played absolutely no role in the decision.

[Fallible]

Getting away from the Samsa-Megaton kerfuffle, let me return to the original topic for a moment. I agree with Fallible. Moderation at Ratskep has evolved into a "what I feel like", arbitrary mode, and the increasingly convoluted, Byzantine Forum Users Agreement reflects this.

While we've only heard one side's description of the policy change, if that was the change, it was a good one, because the quality of Ratskep moderation suddenly improved greatly around that time. Previously, the moderators had used the rules as a weapon to get rid of those who disagreed with their collective political position, while overlooking egregious behavior from those they agreed with. Afterwards, moderation became less totally one sided.

Absolute, unadulterated bollocks.

Yep.

There was a thread about this a while back. Can't remember who brought the subject up, it might have been SD.

Anyway, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth about how the mods had been so blatent in banning people for holding right wing political views. So we started a list of exactly which members of strongly right wing tendencies had been banned. Tyrannical wasn't included because he was clearly banned for racism, which has nothing to do with where you are on the economic spectrum.

Please point out in my post where I talk about banning or "right wing". Or, admit that you were wrong about your previous thread being "about this".

What do you think the mods' collective political position was?

Warren - can you add anyone to that list?

Yes, though bans are at most marginally relevant to this topic.

What did you mean by "get rid of"?

Obviously since the moderator turnover bans have become more even handed, what with folks like rEvolutionist being banned too.

Surprisingly, your reasoning's a bit off. rEv was banned for creating multiple socks, and had that happened before the "modertor turnover" he would have met the same fate. Here, look - the entry in the "Permanently Banned Members" thread -

rEvolutionist : Creating sockpuppets while suspended.

Absolutely nothing to do with the mods becoming more even-handed, but an example of them doing what they're supposed to do in a given situation.

[Fallible]

Incidentally, it's interesting that Seth paints the story of his banning as he does as an inability of tiny minds to cope with what he had to say. The topic of his banning came up time and again among the membership and the mods would often be urged to get rid of him. Nevertheless it only finally came after endless heated discussions in the mod section and the rejection of the idea on a number of occasions by a majority of the moderators. If it had just been a case of people's inability as one to stomach his message surely his feet would not have touched the ground. Instead, people like Samsa and Stijn argued against his banning repeatedly and Samsa even now does not regard him as a troll.

[Robert_S]

The spirit of Alinsky will descend upon Samsa with great wrath for his heresy.

[mistermack]

If Metatron thinks there is a problem of overprescription then maybe he's right. But the point I kept emphasising in that thread was that he needs evidence to make that claim. Showing that (for the sake of argument) 10% of boys are treated with ritalin doesn't tell us anything. If (hypothetically) 20% of boys actually have ADHD, then we have a serious undertreatment problem. If only 5% of boys actually have ADHD then he might have a point about overprescription. The best evidence that we currently have tells us that there is no clear problem of overprescription and that there is in fact some decent evidence of a possible undertreatment problem (especially in girls where the disorder is hugely underdiagnosed and treated).

The problem is that Metatron doesn't believe in the existence of ADHD at all so for him there is nothing to treat. Even if only .05% of boys were given ritalin he would be making the exact same argument. It's anti-science at its finest.

You do talk some bollocks. Being cautious about drug prescription is anti-science ?
Fucking rubbish.

Medications are only recommended as a first-line treatment in children who have severe symptoms and may be considered for those with moderate symptoms who either refuse or fail to improve with counseling.[14]:p.317 Long term effects of medications are not clear and they are not recommended in preschool-aged children. Adolescents and adults tend to develop coping skills which make up for some or all of their impairments.[15]

[pErvinalia]

...if Seth's points are so weak why not destroy them in open debate.

Been there, done that. Unfortunately Seth doesn't do debate. He just talks at you. About himself. Even when he appears to say something about the Second Amendment, gun control, abortion, lolbertardianism, or whatever hobby horse he fancies riding at the time, it's always about himself.

[Fallible]

The spirit of Alinsky will descend upon Samsa with great wrath for his heresy.

And all those hundreds of members of ratskep who never even mentioned Seth and to all intents and purposes can be said to have held no opinion on him, no doubt.

[pErvinalia]

Well this is the great thing about Seth's idiotic mega Marxist world (or forum) domination conspiracy theory. You don't even have to know you are a Marxist to be part of the conspiracy!

[Gallstones]

Incidentally, it's interesting that Seth paints the story of his banning as he does as an inability of tiny minds to cope with what he had to say. The topic of his banning came up time and again among the membership and the mods would often be urged to get rid of him. Nevertheless it only finally came after endless heated discussions in the mod section and the rejection of the idea on a number of occasions by a majority of the moderators. If it had just been a case of people's inability as one to stomach his message surely his feet would not have touched the ground. Instead, people like Samsa and Stijn argued against his banning repeatedly and Samsa even now does not regard him as a troll.

Uhm yeah, I was there at the time and I think it was mostly econ41 and me who argued against the ban. In fact when the vote came all voted for it except me , and econ abstained. In fact there immediately followed a thread informing the membership IIRC. During this time of endless heated discussions I had been receiving a lot of ....assertive PMs pressuring me to vote for the ban, 62 in one day once. Quite frankly I am unable to recall if you were a mod at that time or not. It was early days and Richard Prins and Topsy were senior mods.

Also, I was able to read every report along with the posts and they were some bogus ones; which, if they'd have been dropped, would have left Seth shy of enough for suspension let alone ban. There was some manipulation of the process for convenience and to appease the rabble.

Something else, that if you were there and privy you should know. What was THWOTH's stance at the time?

[Gallstones]

The spirit of Alinsky will descend upon Samsa with great wrath for his heresy.

And all those hundreds of members of ratskep who never even mentioned Seth and to all intents and purposes can be said to have held no opinion on him, no doubt.

I expect that most of these hundreds of members weren't members when Seth was. Certain ones who were mention him still. Not that it matters.