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

[Beatsong]

Even people like Beatsong is starting to question the justification that the mods use and he always given the mods the benefit of the doubt and defended them when he thought they were in the right.

Yep. I is certainly aware of a change in my perception of it. The Mick business was just so surreal I couldn't make any sense of it. And as for the post of yours that was supposed to be "inflammatory" - Jesus I don't know, is there a word for something that's more surreal than surreal?

Now that he's questioned them, you get assholes like Metatron following him around the forum insulting him.

I don't know where you're getting that from though. I certainly haven't noticed anything like that. I pointed out in one of the Mick post mortem threads that Metatron had basically said it didn't matter whether Mick genuinely meant what he'd written or not, he'd pissed off a lot of people and that's all that matters. And he pointed out in pretty direct terms that his opinions as an individual have no bearing on moderation (which I find a bit far fetched, personally). But I certainly haven't noticed him "follow me around" for felt "insulted" by anything since then.

[Gallstones]

Well, given I always tread very close to the line when it comes to rules, I tend to know a fair bit about the rules. The problem I (and others) faced was the subjective inflammatory clause over there.

I see.
You can "tread very close to the line" but Seth is bad for doing so--in your estimation.

Can you spell hypocrisy?

[Mr.Samsa]

Even people like Beatsong is starting to question the justification that the mods use and he always given the mods the benefit of the doubt and defended them when he thought they were in the right.

Yep. I is certainly aware of a change in my perception of it. The Mick business was just so surreal I couldn't make any sense of it. And as for the post of yours that was supposed to be "inflammatory" - Jesus I don't know, is there a word for something that's more surreal than surreal?

Hypersurreal? Coined it.

And did they ban that guy that Theropod didn't like because he was found guilty of assaulting a kid? I know they suspended him whilst they "reviewed his case" but it's been quiet since then.

Now that he's questioned them, you get assholes like Metatron following him around the forum insulting him.

I don't know where you're getting that from though. I certainly haven't noticed anything like that. I pointed out in one of the Mick post mortem threads that Metatron had basically said it didn't matter whether Mick genuinely meant what he'd written or not, he'd pissed off a lot of people and that's all that matters. And he pointed out in pretty direct terms that his opinions as an individual have no bearing on moderation (which I find a bit far fetched, personally). But I certainly haven't noticed him "follow me around" for felt "insulted" by anything since then.

Maybe he was joking with you then and I got the wrong end of the stick, but I've seen in at least one thread him accuse you of basically whining and trolling the mods, then he suggested that I needed an organ grinder or something (his ranting just rolls together for me and I don't pay much attention to it).

[pErvinalia]

[pErvinalia]

Seriously, just go through some of the feedback threads (of myself or anyone else), look at what the question was and what the official response is and most of the time you'll find they give vague politiciany sounding non-answers to the questions.

He won't find that. There's a core group of sycophants over there who worship everything the mods do and could never find fault in them. SP has shown over and over that he is one the main members of that group.

[pErvinalia]

Well, given I always tread very close to the line when it comes to rules, I tend to know a fair bit about the rules. The problem I (and others) faced was the subjective inflammatory clause over there.

I see.
You can "tread very close to the line" but Seth is bad for doing so--in your estimation.

Can you spell hypocrisy?

No, Seth goes way over the line, but thinks he's clever by appealing to technicalities. When I go over the line, I know I have, and I accept responsibility for it. Seth doesn't.

[Hermit]

Careful there, matey. That's pisscator you're laughing at.

[Skinny Puppy]

Mr.Samsa wrote:
No, because "answered" means to answer a question. If you like, we'll amend it to: "and my feedback threads get
locked and even though they are responded to, the response has nothing to do with the question asked".

It's dishonest to make it sound like I'm demanding a particular answer or that what I'm looking for is unreasonable
to expect. I just want an answer at this point, I don't care if it's "satisfactory" or not, just something relevant
to what I ask would be a godsend.

Well I just looked at each thread title and whether there was or wasn’t a mod note with an answer at its end.
All of them (except the two open ones, which I indicated) were answered so I posted the list. I’d have to follow
them through to see whether or not the answer was fair and reasonable.

Mr.Samsa wrote:
For example, how many threads now have I (and multiple other people) started asking how the mods are interpreting
the "inflammatory" rule and why is "intention" included in the rule when they've explicitly said that they don't
take intention into account, and had no answer? Countless. If you disagree, dig through the threads and see if you
can find them describing how they interpret the inflammatory rule.

I don’t know the FUA like you do nor do I have an insight (like you had) into the inner workings. I have been
looking at some threads, but it’s a big job to go through so many threads and posts. I can’t (at this point) give
an informed opinion either way.

Mr.Samsa wrote:
Since we're focusing on the feedback thread issue, how do you feel about the mods only responding to my PMs asking
for clarification on issues with template responses that don't answer the question or closing my reports immediately
without bothering to check them out?..

I’m not doubting you, but without access to those PMs how can I answer?

<Now I’ll be the Puppy you don’t see on the other forum>

You’re one step away from a one year suspension. While you and I rarely (if ever) agree on anything, I do value your
opinions in many threads and on many subjects. I can disagree with what you say, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t
have respect for what you say. I’d sincerely hate to see you gone for a year. We’ve lost a lot of people recently
and I wouldn’t want to see you as one of them.

<Mother Puppy mode on>
While the mods may or may not have a grudge against you, hopefully you’ll watch your Ps and Qs so as to not give
them any reason to suspend you.

You know the FUA to a ‘T’ so if you say within its guidelines then there’s nothing that they can do to you.

From my POV. In all of the time that I’m been on that forum I’ve only had 2 blue advisories, not even a single
warning. I’ve written so many posts that would have guaranteed me a warning, but I wait 24 hours before I post it.
By them I’ve cooled down, re-written it to stay within the FUA and then I post it. I get just as pissed off as you
probably do with many posters, mod decisions etc. What’s kept me out of harm’s way is waiting for that 24-hour
period.

Anyway, I don’t want to sound as if I’m lecturing, ‘cause I’m not, I just hope that you’ll stay within the FUA and
not get sent packing... so we can continue to argue about things.

P.S. The fact that I always come out the winner in our disagreements is neither here nor there.

[piscator]

Mr.Samsa wrote:
No, because "answered" means to answer a question. If you like, we'll amend it to: "and my feedback threads get
locked and even though they are responded to, the response has nothing to do with the question asked".

It's dishonest to make it sound like I'm demanding a particular answer or that what I'm looking for is unreasonable
to expect. I just want an answer at this point, I don't care if it's "satisfactory" or not, just something relevant
to what I ask would be a godsend.

Well I just looked at each thread title and whether there was or wasn’t a mod note with an answer at its end.
All of them (except the two open ones, which I indicated) were answered so I posted the list. I’d have to follow
them through to see whether or not the answer was fair and reasonable.

Mr.Samsa wrote:
For example, how many threads now have I (and multiple other people) started asking how the mods are interpreting
the "inflammatory" rule and why is "intention" included in the rule when they've explicitly said that they don't
take intention into account, and had no answer? Countless. If you disagree, dig through the threads and see if you
can find them describing how they interpret the inflammatory rule.

I don’t know the FUA like you do nor do I have an insight (like you had) into the inner workings. I have been
looking at some threads, but it’s a big job to go through so many threads and posts. I can’t (at this point) give
an informed opinion either way.

Mr.Samsa wrote:
Since we're focusing on the feedback thread issue, how do you feel about the mods only responding to my PMs asking
for clarification on issues with template responses that don't answer the question or closing my reports immediately
without bothering to check them out?..

I’m not doubting you, but without access to those PMs how can I answer?

<Now I’ll be the Puppy you don’t see on the other forum>

You’re one step away from a one year suspension. While you and I rarely (if ever) agree on anything, I do value your
opinions in many threads and on many subjects. I can disagree with what you say, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t
have respect for what you say. I’d sincerely hate to see you gone for a year. We’ve lost a lot of people recently
and I wouldn’t want to see you as one of them.

<Mother Puppy mode on>
While the mods may or may not have a grudge against you, hopefully you’ll watch your Ps and Qs so as to not give
them any reason to suspend you.

You know the FUA to a ‘T’ so if you say within its guidelines then there’s nothing that they can do to you.

From my POV. In all of the time that I’m been on that forum I’ve only had 2 blue advisories, not even a single
warning. I’ve written so many posts that would have guaranteed me a warning, but I wait 24 hours before I post it.
By them I’ve cooled down, re-written it to stay within the FUA and then I post it. I get just as pissed off as you
probably do with many posters, mod decisions etc. What’s kept me out of harm’s way is waiting for that 24-hour
period.

Anyway, I don’t want to sound as if I’m lecturing, ‘cause I’m not, I just hope that you’ll stay within the FUA and
not get sent packing... so we can continue to argue about things.

P.S. The fact that I always come out the winner in our disagreements is neither here nor there.

5 Fucking Stars, you smug little fuck.

[pErvinalia]

[Mr.Samsa]

Mr.Samsa wrote:
No, because "answered" means to answer a question. If you like, we'll amend it to: "and my feedback threads get
locked and even though they are responded to, the response has nothing to do with the question asked".

It's dishonest to make it sound like I'm demanding a particular answer or that what I'm looking for is unreasonable
to expect. I just want an answer at this point, I don't care if it's "satisfactory" or not, just something relevant
to what I ask would be a godsend.

Well I just looked at each thread title and whether there was or wasn’t a mod note with an answer at its end.
All of them (except the two open ones, which I indicated) were answered so I posted the list. I’d have to follow
them through to see whether or not the answer was fair and reasonable.

You're dishonestly conflating "responded to" with "answered". If you ask me "What is 2+2?" and I quote you with the reply: "Tuesdays are generally considered to be the second day in the week", that wouldn't be an answer. We aren't debating whether the reply was "fair and reasonable" - any answer would be good at this point. Unfair and unreasonable, I don't care. Just an answer would be awesome.

Mr.Samsa wrote:
For example, how many threads now have I (and multiple other people) started asking how the mods are interpreting
the "inflammatory" rule and why is "intention" included in the rule when they've explicitly said that they don't
take intention into account, and had no answer? Countless. If you disagree, dig through the threads and see if you
can find them describing how they interpret the inflammatory rule.

I don’t know the FUA like you do nor do I have an insight (like you had) into the inner workings. I have been
looking at some threads, but it’s a big job to go through so many threads and posts. I can’t (at this point) give
an informed opinion either way.

You don't need to know anything about the rules or the inner workings, or trawl through the threads. You said that they answered my question, just summarise their modnote in one of the "inflammatory" threads.

Mr.Samsa wrote:
Since we're focusing on the feedback thread issue, how do you feel about the mods only responding to my PMs asking
for clarification on issues with template responses that don't answer the question or closing my reports immediately
without bothering to check them out?..

I’m not doubting you, but without access to those PMs how can I answer?

I'm just asking what your opinion on those things are. You can speak hypothetically if you don't want to commit yourself to the veracity of my claim.

<Now I’ll be the Puppy you don’t see on the other forum>

You’re one step away from a one year suspension. While you and I rarely (if ever) agree on anything, I do value your
opinions in many threads and on many subjects. I can disagree with what you say, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t
have respect for what you say. I’d sincerely hate to see you gone for a year. We’ve lost a lot of people recently
and I wouldn’t want to see you as one of them.

<Mother Puppy mode on>
While the mods may or may not have a grudge against you, hopefully you’ll watch your Ps and Qs so as to not give
them any reason to suspend you.

You know the FUA to a ‘T’ so if you say within its guidelines then there’s nothing that they can do to you.

From my POV. In all of the time that I’m been on that forum I’ve only had 2 blue advisories, not even a single
warning. I’ve written so many posts that would have guaranteed me a warning, but I wait 24 hours before I post it.
By them I’ve cooled down, re-written it to stay within the FUA and then I post it. I get just as pissed off as you
probably do with many posters, mod decisions etc. What’s kept me out of harm’s way is waiting for that 24-hour
period.

Anyway, I don’t want to sound as if I’m lecturing, ‘cause I’m not, I just hope that you’ll stay within the FUA and
not get sent packing... so we can continue to argue about things.

P.S. The fact that I always come out the winner in our disagreements is neither here nor there.

I appreciate the kind words but you have to understand that I have been doing everything I possibly can to stay within the rules. Part of the problem is that I personally wrote many of the rules we have there, or at least contributed to them, so I know in great detail what they mean and what they refer to. However, the current mods have different interpretations.

That part is fine, rules change and evolve and the moderation practices will necessarily adapt to the progression of the forum. But I don't understand how these interpretations are being applied, or what they mean. In hopes of trying to stay within the rules, every time I'm pinged for an infraction I PM the mods and ask them where exactly I've gone wrong so I can avoid it in the future. In response I get a template PM telling me that I broke "Rule X" and if I had further questions I should start a feedback thread (if they're feeling particularly snippy with me then they tell me "if I don't know what I've done wrong then there's no use in trying to tell me"). I start a feedback thread and the mods will tell me to "stop whining", then give a non-response to my feedback thread so I'm no closer to understanding where I went wrong.

As such, I'm getting warnings and month long suspensions for saying things like: "Your behavior in this thread is shitty", and "It's cowardly to personally attack people in that way". Part of the problem is that the mods want to permaban me (that's why I was tempsuspended for nearly a week as they decided whether they wanted me to stay or not), and when they couldn't get the go-ahead they wanted they just started warning me for anything which may or may not be an infraction.

The long and short of it: trust me, I'm doing everything I can to stay within the rules. I've PMd a couple of the mods, and messaged them here, trying to work through whatever issues they have with me and all I get is bullshit accusations that I'm "trolling" the mods by criticising some of their actions in feedback and I'm only on RatSkep because I hate the site and I'm trying to disrupt everyone's enjoyment.

[pErvinalia]

You won't get respect and professionalism out of them, Samsa. I went through the same thing. If I was you I'd either give up and leave the forum, or essentially troll the shit out of them highlighting all their inconsistencies and unprofessional actions until they ban you.

[pErvinalia]

And how is it that MS2 isn't a sock of MS1? Posts in the same threads... there's a style that similar between the two... I'd put money on MS2 being a sock of Samsa. What you up to, Samsa? Getting another account ready for the day they ban MS1??

[Gallstones]

This Shit is Fucking Ridiculous 11.01.10

etc.

Why the bewilderment?

[Mr.Samsa]

You won't get respect and professionalism out of them, Samsa. I went through the same thing. If I was you I'd either give up and leave the forum, or essentially troll the shit out of them highlighting all their inconsistencies and unprofessional actions until they ban you.

Eh, I can't give up the place because there are some great people there and sometimes there are really interesting discussions (when they aren't being derailed with calls of "But theists do that sometimes so that thing is bad!" or with throwbacks to early 20th century logical positivist leanings where "if it isn't empirical, it doesn't exist!"), which is why it's silly when people like Metatron try to tell me I "hate" the place. I think there are problems with the functioning of bits of it and I find the discussion less than ideal sometimes but it doesn't mean I "hate" it - if I "hated" it then I wouldn't hang around because why the fuck would I bother spending so much time and energy being somewhere I hated?

As for trolling them, I'll leave that up to you. It's not my style and I have no real interest in disrupting everyone else's enjoyment for the sake of my own feelings.

And how is it that MS2 isn't a sock of MS1? Posts in the same threads... there's a style that similar between the two... I'd put money on MS2 being a sock of Samsa. What you up to, Samsa? Getting another account ready for the day they ban MS1??

Maybe they're couple or something? As for it being me, nah - if I were to ever make a sock there's no way the mods would catch it. There's certainly no way I'd use a username that was only one number away from being identical to another and then comment in threads I've commented in with the same types of comments that I would normally make. You may as well wave a flag saying "I'm a sock" and use the same IP address.