Rationalskepiticism,lol.

[Mr.Samsa]

How about instead of enjoying the drama you actually attempt to contribute something positive to the forum and help improve the way it functions like I do ?

I keep within the FUA the vast majority of the time. I have received one advisory and that is it. I disagreed with it and referenced my objection and then I let it
be. You in contrast have been suspended multiple times and have a tendency to question every decision against you ad nauseum.

Have you seen some of the warnings against me? I once got a warning for responding to a question of whether I believed in X by saying "Of course not because I'm not stupid", and then two pages later someone said that they believed in X and I got suspended for it. I got warned for intending to inflame somebody that I didn't know existed by insulting a position I didn't know they held.

If a warning against me is justified then I'd accept it. Mostly they have abused the "inflammatory" rule by saying my posts are inflammatory without demonstrating any intent (which is explicitly required in the rules). If they demonstrate intent, or remove "intent" from the rule, then I'll be happy.

So now then who do you think is contributing more positively to the forum ?

It's still me, by a country mile. Because when I see a flaw in the forum, I don't throw my hands in the air and say, "Oh well, the mods are imperfect, nothing we can do here!" and then personally attack people trying to improve the forum as you did (but luckily you aren't sanctioned for it despite making blatant personal attacks, so much for you "Staying within the rule!").

When you have been sanctioned for something you have done all you have to do is not repeat it. All the nonsense about
the mods not telling you is completely irrelevant.

Sounds easy - except they don't tell me what I'm doing wrong, so I have no way of knowing what to avoid. I start threads asking for clarification precisely so that I can avoid repeating it, and people like you personally attack me (without sanction) and act like a sanctimonious asshole because I'm supposed to know not to repeat a behavior they won't tell me is bad.

It's like playing fucking minesweeper on a forum.

A mod note tells you why you have been sanctioned anyway.

Except it didn't. Remember? I pointed that out in the thread and you tried to rationalise it by saying that pink mod notes never explain what the warning is for. And then I showed you a bunch of other pink mod notes doing exactly that. And then you shut up, I'm not sure why you didn't admit that you were wrong but now you're suddenly holding the completely opposite position on it.

The mods are not responsible for your actions. If you
have broken the FUA then you accept responsibility for that and not shift the blame onto them instead.

There is no shifting of blame. In that thread I asked what the warning was for so that I can avoid doing it again in the future. That is what you're telling me I should be doing. If they don't tell me what behavior is being sanctioned then how can I stop performing that behavior? Come on Surr, stop being an idiot here. The mods have enough people jerking them off, you can think independently every now and then instead of just trying to please them constantly.

Of course they are not perfect but nor are you so by the laws
of averages then you must be guilty of at least some of the violations for which you were sanctioned.

That doesn't follow at all and is a horrific misuse of the lay concept of "law of averages".

Accept responsibility and learn from your mistakes and move on instead of endless bickering about why you were sanctioned in the first place.

But I haven't fucking debated the sanction, I've only asked what the sanction was for and they refuse to explain it. How dense do you have to be to continue to miss this vital point?

Which takes place after the sanction has been fully served and so is a complete waste of time and energy. As they can not be reversed even if they are subsequently found to have been wrongly implemented.

I haven't appealed a decision so this point is irrelevant but if I were to it would still matter because warnings add up and suspensions get longer and longer. If they fucked up, I don't want to risk getting a longer suspension because of it.

And just because a mod suggests that you start a thread in feedback does not mean you have to. You could ignore them and just move on regardless

Yes, let's just ignore the problems of the forum, that'll make it a better place. Hey, it's inevitably going to be imperfect so there's no use trying to fix it to make it a better place for everyone, eh?

See, this is where you are failing to contribute anything of substance to the forum.

If you suggest an improvement to the FUA and I agree with it I shall unconditionally support it.

How about this one: The inflammatory rule currently explicitly states a requirement for an "intent" to inflame. The mods have officially stated that they ignore the intent part. I think that they either need to demonstrate intent on the part of the people they sanction or remove it from the rule. Are you with me?

But I am not helping you in your private war with the mods now as that is something you have to fight all on your own.

Fuck off. If anyone looks at my comments on the forum and views it as a "war with the mods" then they are irreparably retarded. If you view valid criticisms of flaws with the rules and mod decisions as a "war with the mods", then you need to get a grip on reality. I suggest starting by not taking criticisms of behavior as attacks on people.

But if you can manage to pull yourself away from that for just a second and then propose a positive amendment to the FUA I will support it.

I've suggested a number of valid amendments and you have never chimed in so you're obviously talking shit here.

But that does not translate as : surreptitious said he will help me so whatever I say he has to agree with. No no no. And so when you go back now think about what I have said and then see what you can come up with. But it must be completely divorced from any ongoing dispute you are currently involved in.

I like how you're describing it as a "dispute". The mods linked me to an entire post of mine and assigned a warning to it. I have no idea what part was apparently sanction worthy. I simply want to know what part they found disagreeable so I can avoid that behavior in the future.

Is that what you call a "dispute"? Is that enough to justify the descriptor "war"? Fuck off.

So do not keep on saying that I will not support you now because that is demonstrably false. So there you are now. I have made my position on these matters crystal clear. You may respond if you want to but I would prefer it if you just reflected on what I am saying here as I have nothing more to add

You claimed that I have your full support when bringing valid concerns about the forum. Don't go contradicting yourself now!

I think one of the problems is that once you start falling foul of the mods on a more regular basis, that then works against you in future interactions. So when they decide whether something is worth an advisory or warning, they'll take into account that you've had plenty of advice before. So one has to really consciously step back from debating as vigorously (or perhaps "aggressively" is a better word) or they'll just keep getting pinged.

The mods have also told me that I'm on their "troll" list, which means that they treat my posts differently to people saying the exact same thing. They've also told me upfront (and other members) that I'm on their "ignore" list, which means that they don't bother answering my questions in feedback threads properly, they don't respond to PMs or emails, and any time I report a post it gets closed within hours with no action. So if anyone thinks they've crossed the line on RatSkep, just let me know and I'll report it so you get off without warning.

edit: Just to clarify a bit further... The example Samsa gave of him and Cali saying the same thing. One gets sanction and the other doesn't. The only reason Samsa got sanctioned is because of his past record of infringements. So it's sort of a self-fulfilling prophesy in some regards, unless you take a big step backwards and basically let other people walk all over you.

Sort of but not quite. If a statement is a violation of the rules then it violates the rules for everyone. The user history doesn't change whether a comment is against the rules or not, it just alters the severity of sanction that you receive. So if Cali has a clean record (which is wondrous given some of the shit he's had to publicly apologise for saying on the forum) then him saying the same thing as me should result in an advisory, whereas it would be a warning for me. There is no way (without the mods acting inconsistently) for a comment to be against the rules but only sanctioned in one case and not the other.

What a smug, condescending sermon, surreptitious57.

Also, it's a bit difficult to recognise one's mistake and accept responsibility for it when the alleged mistake consists of a copy-paste job of something someone else has posted for which you were sanctioned while the originator was not. In that kind of situation I don't see how the moderator can possibly explain it to Mr Samsa either unless they rationalise their action in terms of "different context", a rather subjective tool.

Exactly. They've so far failed to address how a mod can get away with a (reported) comment without sanction, yet me repeating it near-word for word is somehow falling afoul of the rules.

The obvious answer is that they can't sanction Cali because he's a mod but they're not going to say that. Instead THWOTH will just say "Context and user history is different, therefore thread closed!". Everyone will be pissed off for a while and then they'll get on with it since questioning the mods means that you're at war with them and clearly have an ulterior motive.

[pErvinalia]

I think one of the problems is that once you start falling foul of the mods on a more regular basis, that then works against you in future interactions. So when they decide whether something is worth an advisory or warning, they'll take into account that you've had plenty of advice before. So one has to really consciously step back from debating as vigorously (or perhaps "aggressively" is a better word) or they'll just keep getting pinged.

The mods have also told me that I'm on their "troll" list, which means that they treat my posts differently to people saying the exact same thing. They've also told me upfront (and other members) that I'm on their "ignore" list, which means that they don't bother answering my questions in feedback threads properly, they don't respond to PMs or emails, and any time I report a post it gets closed within hours with no action.

Yeah, the same thing pretty much happened to me, and others before me. The "fairness" and "consultative" doctrines are totally bullshit. If they get jack of you, all that goes out the window. Little lords with their miniature fiefdoms.

edit: Just to clarify a bit further... The example Samsa gave of him and Cali saying the same thing. One gets sanction and the other doesn't. The only reason Samsa got sanctioned is because of his past record of infringements. So it's sort of a self-fulfilling prophesy in some regards, unless you take a big step backwards and basically let other people walk all over you.

Sort of but not quite. If a statement is a violation of the rules then it violates the rules for everyone. The user history doesn't change whether a comment is against the rules or not, it just alters the severity of sanction that you receive. So if Cali has a clean record (which is wondrous given some of the shit he's had to publicly apologise for saying on the forum) then him saying the same thing as me should result in an advisory, whereas it would be a warning for me. There is no way (without the mods acting inconsistently) for a comment to be against the rules but only sanctioned in one case and not the other.

That's pretty much what I meant. The outcome of that sort of approach is that say, for example, you and Cali got in a reasonably heated debate, he could get away with inflammatory behaviour that you couldn't. That's fucked. And that's pretty much what happened with me and Redwhine and MoS.

[Strontium Dog]

The mods have also told me that I'm on their "troll" list, which means that they treat my posts differently to people saying the exact same thing. They've also told me upfront (and other members) that I'm on their "ignore" list, which means that they don't bother answering my questions in feedback threads properly, they don't respond to PMs or emails, and any time I report a post it gets closed within hours with no action.

That's disgusting. I bet I'm on the same list. It would certainly explain why I keep getting sanctioned for things that nobody else does.

It would also explain why there's exactly six months between each of my last three warnings. No sooner does my solitary warning expire before I'm being given another one on extremely spurious grounds - doubtless to justify my inclusion on one or more of their pathetic lists.

They've so far failed to address how a mod can get away with a (reported) comment without sanction, yet me repeating it near-word for word is somehow falling afoul of the rules.

The obvious answer is that they can't sanction Cali because he's a mod but they're not going to say that.

Everyone knows that's the reason. It's the elephant in the room. Their failure to acknowledge it makes them thoroughly dishonest.

Since I value honesty above everything, it's becoming very hard to believe a single word that comes down from the moderators.

[Beatsong]

That's pretty much what I meant. The outcome of that sort of approach is that say, for example, you and Cali got in a reasonably heated debate, he could get away with inflammatory behaviour that you couldn't. That's fucked.

Who cares?

People have "got away" with inflammatory behaviour towards me plenty of times. I just laugh because if someone needs recourse to all that, it's an indication that they've already lost. The point of arguing about religion, politics or anything else is the religion, politics or whatever else - not how many times each person gets to say "fuck off".

Maybe you'll all understand once you've hit puberty.

[Beatsong]

It's not difficult to stay within the rules when the rules are applied fairly.

Way to miss the point. It's not difficult to stay within the rules even when they're not applied completely fairly.

The fact that you spend your time actively looking for inflammatory comments that haven't been sanctioned to use in your posts, shows quite clearly that your focus is not on just having non-inflammatory debates and staying easily within the rules; it's on testing the boundaries of the rules. That's your problem.

[Strontium Dog]

It's not Samsa's fault if the moderation is unfair and inconsistent.

The funny thing is, if real-life policing was done in the same way, you'd be the first to moan about it.

[Beatsong]

It's not Samsa's fault if the moderation is unfair and inconsistent.

No, it isn't. I didn't say it was. All I said was that he's wrong when he claims that makes it so difficult to stay within the rules, and that he can't possibly work out how to.

There are two different issues here. 1: Inconsistencies in moderation, and 2: How to stay within the rules.

As long as people are clear that they're talking about (1), then fine. I still don't get why people care so much, but if they want to do what they can to make it better, so be it. It's when people start pretending that it's all about (2) that I call BS. Especially when those people have shown and admitted by their actions (of cutting and pasting inflammatory comments that have been "gotten away with" by others) that they don't actually just want to stay within the rules at all; they want to get even and prove a point.

[Strontium Dog]

But you don't seem to want to acknowledge that "cutting and pasting" previous comments should raise zero problems, precisely because those previous comments have already been deemed to be within the rules.

This is how legal systems work - by precedent.

You don't seem to think it a problem that RatSkep has chosen to ignore established principles of justice in favour of inconsistent, ad hoc, case-by-case judgements.

If RatSkep's regulations were expanded to the entire nation, you wouldn't hesitate to call it a kangaroo court.

[Mr.Samsa]

It's not difficult to stay within the rules when the rules are applied fairly.

Way to miss the point. It's not difficult to stay within the rules even when they're not applied completely fairly.

Apparently not. As I mentioned above, I've been warned for inflaming someone who wasn't part of the discussion for holding a belief that I didn't know they held because I said I wasn't stupid enough to believe it (I think it was something like the idea that man had nothing to do with global warming). I've been warned for responding to Cito who told someone that their "woo belongs in the creationism forum" by saying that his woo belongs in the creationism forum (whilst he received no sanction). I've been warned for saying that someone was being intentionally ignorant of the facts. And now apparently I've been warned for saying that I thought Scarlett's behavior in that thread was shitty.

Seriously now, let's not pretend that it's possible to stay within the rules when criticism of ideas and positions is treated as violations of the rules.

The fact that you spend your time actively looking for inflammatory comments that haven't been sanctioned to use in your posts, shows quite clearly that your focus is not on just having non-inflammatory debates and staying easily within the rules; it's on testing the boundaries of the rules. That's your problem.

What the fuck are you going on about? You were spouting the same drivel in the now locked thread. When have I claimed that I go looking for inflammatory comments? I do the exact opposite - I look for comments which cannot possibly be against the rules so I have an idea of where the line is supposed to be. So if a comment doesn't seem to be against the rules to me, has had reports closed on it, and it was posted by a moderator without sanction, then I have done absolutely everything I can to ensure that that comment is not against the rules. However, when I repeat it, apparently I've broken the rules and I should have known.

As long as people are clear that they're talking about (1), then fine. I still don't get why people care so much, but if they want to do what they can to make it better, so be it. It's when people start pretending that it's all about (2) that I call BS. Especially when those people have shown and admitted by their actions (of cutting and pasting inflammatory comments that have been "gotten away with" by others) that they don't actually just want to stay within the rules at all; they want to get even and prove a point.

But that makes no sense. If they "got away with it" then that means that it's not against the rules. People like you need to drop whatever agenda they have and just look at things with a little less emotion.

I'm doing everything I can to stay within the rules. I censor my own posts and comments by replacing things I've written with comments that I know for an absolute fact cannot be against the rules. And I get sanctioned. What more can I possibly do? How else can I avoid "attempting to inflame" someone beyond simply not attempting to inflame anyone?

[Beatsong]

The fact that you spend your time actively looking for inflammatory comments that haven't been sanctioned to use in your posts, shows quite clearly that your focus is not on just having non-inflammatory debates and staying easily within the rules; it's on testing the boundaries of the rules. That's your problem.

What the fuck are you going on about? You were spouting the same drivel in the now locked thread. When have I claimed that I go looking for inflammatory comments? I do the exact opposite - I look for comments which cannot possibly be against the rules so I have an idea of where the line is supposed to be. So if a comment doesn't seem to be against the rules to me, has had reports closed on it, and it was posted by a moderator without sanction, then I have done absolutely everything I can to ensure that that comment is not against the rules. However, when I repeat it, apparently I've broken the rules and I should have known.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/feedb ... l#p1955019

Jesus fucking christ, are you hearing yourself here? You're accusing others of not providing substance. You. You must be joking if you cannot see how coal black your kettle is right now. I have never seen you post anything of worth to any thread on this forum.

But we've already established that that comment isn't a sanctionable offence, given that Scarlett made the same comment twice in the thread and all of the reports on it were closed, and even the mods themselves (like Cali who I copied the comment from) has said the same thing without sanction. THWOTH also didn't mention that as being a reason for my warning.

It's really, REALLY not difficult to work out that that comment COULD reasonably be interpreted as inflammatory.

Is it bad that Cali got away with it whereas you got sanctioned for it? Yeah, probably, if there aren't significant factors of context making a difference. That would make a reasonable case that the moderation is inconsistent. All of which is a separate issue. Even with all that imperfection in the moderation, it's STILL not difficult to work out that the comment could likely be considered inflammatory. It's a directly personal insult, departing entirely from the subject matter of the thread to focus on attacking the person. You didn't need to make the comment. It had nothing to do with the debate. You were in an acrimonious personal exchange with Scarlett so you CHOSE to go and look for something SPECIFICALLY personally insulting, and used the words of Cali to do it.

So there are two SEPARATE issues here: the inconsistency of the moderation (which you have a valid point about) and the supposed difficulty of staying within the rules (which you are being completely disingenuous about).

As long as people are clear that they're talking about (1), then fine. I still don't get why people care so much, but if they want to do what they can to make it better, so be it. It's when people start pretending that it's all about (2) that I call BS. Especially when those people have shown and admitted by their actions (of cutting and pasting inflammatory comments that have been "gotten away with" by others) that they don't actually just want to stay within the rules at all; they want to get even and prove a point.

But that makes no sense. If they "got away with it" then that means that it's not against the rules.

I'm doing everything I can to stay within the rules. I censor my own posts and comments by replacing things I've written with comments that I know for an absolute fact cannot be against the rules.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the rules. There aren't specific comments or phrases that are against the rules. "Fuck off" is not against the rules. Neither is "Yo mama so fat, when I fuck her I have to slap her thigh to ride the wave in". There is no specific word or phrase that is against the rules, so the energy you're expending here to insist that the phrases you have used aren't, is meaningless.

What more can I possibly do? How else can I avoid "attempting to inflame" someone beyond simply not attempting to inflame anyone?

Looks like you're properly fucked then. Watcha gonna do?

[pErvinalia]

That's pretty much what I meant. The outcome of that sort of approach is that say, for example, you and Cali got in a reasonably heated debate, he could get away with inflammatory behaviour that you couldn't. That's fucked.

Who cares?

People who care about fairness and reasonable debate. You obviously don't.

People have "got away" with inflammatory behaviour towards me plenty of times. I just laugh because if someone needs recourse to all that, it's an indication that they've already lost.
.....
Maybe you'll all understand once you've hit puberty.

My irony meter just busted.

[pErvinalia]

It's not difficult to stay within the rules when the rules are applied fairly.

Way to miss the point. It's not difficult to stay within the rules even when they're not applied completely fairly.

No, you've missed the point. If one person can get away with saying one thing and another one can't, then it's very hard to know where the line is that one shouldn't be crossing. I'm not sure what's so hard about this point.

The fact that you spend your time actively looking for inflammatory comments that haven't been sanctioned to use in your posts, shows quite clearly that your focus is not on just having non-inflammatory debates and staying easily within the rules; it's on testing the boundaries of the rules. That's your problem.

Pointing out problems in the moderation system is a good thing, not a bad thing, IMO. Allowing problems to go unresolved will only lead to a worsening of the moderation problems there. Air them and sort them out. That's the way any system progresses.

Seriously, you are becoming a Paula/Scarlett or Scott Dutchy. Make any negative point you can to avoid having to agree with other points being made. Samsa does make some spurious points, as did I probably from time to time. But we also made/make some very valid points about failures in the moderating system (pretty ironic, given Samsa was a mod when I was complaining, unless I'm mistaken). If you don't like people criticising the mods, just come out and say it. The other alternative is that you are a tone troll who just doesn't like other people having a certain view point. There's a number of them that haunt the feedback forum there at Ratskep. You wouldn't be alone if you are one of them.

[Beatsong]

It's not difficult to stay within the rules when the rules are applied fairly.

Way to miss the point. It's not difficult to stay within the rules even when they're not applied completely fairly.

No, you've missed the point. If one person can get away with saying one thing and another one can't, then it's very hard to know where the line is that one shouldn't be crossing. I'm not sure what's so hard about this point.

What's hard about that point is why then the vast, vast majority of people on RatSkep don't have any problem staying within the rules.

Knowing exactly where the line is only matters if you are determined to get close to the line. If you're not, then it's completely irrelevant and unnecessary. You just don't write anything vaguely near the line in the first place. The example above is as good as any. Samsa made a comment that was clearly about insulting the other person, rather than anything to do with the debate. If he didn't want to break the rules, all he had to do was not make such a comment. That's how the vast, vast majority of people there manage to not break the rules. Addressing yourself to the post and not the poster is probably the most important part of it.

What you're talking about is something different from that: how you can address yourself to the poster just enough to get away with it. And then because the "line" is not clear, because the interpretations are not watertight and consistent, this morphs into a claim that it's somehow "difficult to stay within the rules". It isn't.

It's easy to see how this happens. Scarlett started the personal acrimony on that thread, and Samsa responded in kind. I thought it was a bit unfair for him to be sanctioned for that, TBH (and said so on his thread). But if he wanted to just "stay within the rules" then the way to do that was blindingly fucking obvious. Just ignore Scarlett's comment completely and get on with the debate.

Cue a deafening uproar of prepubescent wailing about how "unfair" that would be. OK, let's agree for the sake of argument that it's unfair. We still know what the answer is for Samsa - he needs to not care enough about the unfairness to be drawn into making personally abusive comments.

The point is that the personal attacks, and any unfairness that comes with them, are separate and irrelevant to the point of the debate at hand. In that case it was feminism and evolutionary psychology. Who gives a fuck if Scarlett pops in to say something completely irrelevant? To me that's like some mad person passing me on the street and utter an obscenity at me.

The fact that you spend your time actively looking for inflammatory comments that haven't been sanctioned to use in your posts, shows quite clearly that your focus is not on just having non-inflammatory debates and staying easily within the rules; it's on testing the boundaries of the rules. That's your problem.

Pointing out problems in the moderation system is a good thing, not a bad thing, IMO.

I didn't say it was a bad thing, and in fact I've agreed with some of Samsa's reservations about the FUA at various times. My issue was only with his dishonest pretence that it's difficult to stay within the rules, which is BS.

Seriously, you are becoming a Paula/Scarlett or Scott Dutchy. Make any negative point you can to avoid having to agree with other points being made. Samsa does make some spurious points, as did I probably from time to time. But we also made/make some very valid points about failures in the moderating system (pretty ironic, given Samsa was a mod when I was complaining, unless I'm mistaken). If you don't like people criticising the mods, just come out and say it. The other alternative is that you are a tone troll who just doesn't like other people having a certain view point. There's a number of them that haunt the feedback forum there at Ratskep. You wouldn't be alone if you are one of them.

LOL. You're funny.

[pErvinalia]

It's not difficult to stay within the rules when the rules are applied fairly.

Way to miss the point. It's not difficult to stay within the rules even when they're not applied completely fairly.

No, you've missed the point. If one person can get away with saying one thing and another one can't, then it's very hard to know where the line is that one shouldn't be crossing. I'm not sure what's so hard about this point.

What's hard about that point is why then the vast, vast majority of people on RatSkep don't have any problem staying within the rules.

Because the vast, vast majority of people on ratskep are limp squids!

Not sure if I need to address anything else after this.

[pErvinalia]

Look, in fairness, to try and explain it a bit more clearly...

The point is it becomes HARDER to stay within the rules the more advisories/warnings you rack up. So stuff one would have got away with earlier in the warning process gets pinged later in the warning process. Stuff doesn't just magically become more inflammatory because you've got more warnings under your belt. This is the problem with the whole inflammatory rule. It's fucking hard to know where the line is. The personal attack rule is fine, as a personal attack is always a personal attack, regardless of your warning level. It remains consistent. Surely you can see this?