A Possible Change In The Rules - RatSkep tangent

[JimC]

Well, I can't my criticisms of the place occupy my daily thoughts, or my aside thoughts, or drifting mind when bored.

There are 3 choices:

1. Invade RatSkep, and be their Perfect Troll...

2. Get a life...

3. Start drinking neat gin...

Either will free you of those tormenting thoughts...

[Trolldor]

...omission of a single words changes everything.

"I can't say"

[JimC]

...omission of a single words changes everything.

"I can't say"

Ah Ha!

I thought you'd just left out the comma after the "can't"...

[FBM]

That's the fun thing about irony. You can see it in anything, as long as you want to bad enough.

The key point for me (and I think for many other Ratz posting here) is that we really do recognise that RatSkep is a different forum, with its own culture and rules, which seem to suit most people there, and deep down, it's their business. For me, any criticisms I might have of modding styles are very small beer in the scheme of things, and the differences between us are vastly less important than the similarities...

[pErvinalia]

The key point for me (and I think for many other Ratz posting here) is that we really do recognise that RatSkep is a different forum, with its own culture and rules, which seem to suit most people there, and deep down, it's their business. For me, any criticisms I might have of modding styles are very small beer in the scheme of things, and the differences between us are vastly less important than the similarities...

Well said!

[pErvinalia]

WTF?!? I think you have that arse-backwards. THe first few pages of the GS derail here involved a lot of people telling us from RS how stuck up our forum and moderators were. Sheesh man, you couldn't have failed harder if you tried.

Ironing is always delicious.

I suspect you ought to take a very slow and cautious reading of posts before commenting, eh?

Ah, right you are. Seems I failed bigger...

[NineOneFour]

rEv, like I said before, I don't post at RatSkep much, do you think the majority of the members there are satisfied/happy with its moderation?

Yes.

They get banned if they aren't

FFS. As I intimated earlier - there's an exceedingly short list of people banned. Get a grip people.

And how many realize they simply can't post there without being called a troll? And never come back? The lynch mob mentality is strong there if you attack a sacred cow.

Bullshit.

[NineOneFour]

The fucking serious discussion of philosophy was a thread I STARTED in pseudoscience, and the feather-duster squad sent to the fauxlosophy forum so the cheerleaders would see it. And it wasn't trolling, I was trying to make a point. But it was a sacred cow and those must never, ever be challenged.

Looked to me like you had your ass handed to you in that debate and then decided that the best thing to do was troll the fuck out of it instead.

As the discussion had become a proper one by then you were given the option of

a) stop the trolling and have a proper discussion.
b) Start a new thread in Social and fun and games.

it's pretty hard to look leniently upon posts that are reported for trolling when the person that has been reported has run about telling everyone how cool they were going to be by doing some good old trolling over at ratskep.

See? You side with the cheerleaders. And anything I say after that is trolling.

You have a nice life. OVER THERE.[/quote]

And you can have a nice life over here, but stop trashing over there when the only "crime" was not allowing you to behave like a prick without sanction.

[NineOneFour]

Tell me, people from RatSskep, could this thread right here exist in your forum without the ban hammer or the thread-locked hammer falling?

Hmmmm?

Yes, and there's two of them right now.

Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

Hint: no.

Oh, look, staff at Ratskep temporarily locked a thread to split it into three discussions, none of which is currently locked, what fascists!

Do you ever tire of trying to create drama, Gallstones?

[NineOneFour]

And there has been unfair punitive treatment of Seth.

Bull-fucking-shite! He's a nasty abusive poster
*snip*
What a fucking load of shite.

He abuses other posters personally, not their arguments. There's a difference.

NineOneFour abuses posters personally, not their arguments. There is a difference--NineOneFour isn't sanctioned for it.

Yeah, this is your argument: that I "abused you personally" by replying to a post of yours saying that you want justice or some such bullshit by saying "...and drama."

Oh, the sheer horror of it all!

Speaking of people with hidden agendas.....

[NineOneFour]

And there has been unfair punitive treatment of Seth.

Bull-fucking-shite! He's a nasty abusive poster who derails just about every thread he gets invovled in. He got banned from RD.net. He's about one warning away from being banned from RS.org. There's a pattern there, you know? To think that he is being unfairly targeted is the stuff of conspiracy theories. He gets warning after warning to change his posting style, and he refuses to do it. He's only got himself to blame. What a fucking load of shite.

I disagree.

Oh, go get yourself some Sethlove and leave the rest of us in peace.

Hey, if you're into that, have fun. Just do the rest of us a favor and do him already. Take the edge off.

[NineOneFour]

You're kidding? That's crazy.

That was crazy. I don't know how it ended up, but virtually all of us on mass just ignored that rule, and as far as I know, no one else got pinged for it.

But there was still a rule against attacking a group that one can freely join or leave. I understand that it came from a more general rule against group attacks, which probably seemed like a good idea at the time.

This is how that came about.

The socialists and liberals were getting bent out of shape over Seth's comments about socialists and liberals. He was not attacking RDF persons, just those political groups because they are the bane of his existence. To keep everything copacetic and fair that meant that no political groups for which a member knowingly identified could be subject to negative comments as that would be considered an attack on said known members--as the socialists and liberals wanted it to be.

Therefore, I enforced that standard as requested and as discussed and decided on by a quorum of the staff.

Imagine my surprise when there were cries of "foul" when some were advised they could no longer post negative comments about libertarians or tea baggers.

Hang on a minute here, it was you as a mod that pushed for a rule to ban attacks on groups of people, it was you that suggested and then implemented the rule that 'You can attack ism's but not ist's'

It was you that insisted on being the one and only sole mod for P&CA (the busiest forum on the site) in fact so much so that when other mods were appointed to help you deal with the reports on that forum, and offset accusations that as the sole mod you were being biased towards certain people, you chucked the toys out of the pram and quit being a mod.

All of this is fair enough, but to now come over here and make posts about how terrible the moderation rules are when you pushed for and implemented the rule in the first place is more than a little disingenous I think. If you have changed your mind and you think the rule should be changed then by all means state that you have changed your mind and you think the rule should be rescinded, but please don't run about trying to cause drama elsewhere about how shit the moderation rules are.

You were not a part of any such rule decision so how would you know what went on in the ivory tower?
It all started way back in the first other place and imported to the next other place.

I haven't changed my mind on anything. The Socialists and Liberals where the ones who felt they were being personally attacked because they were self proclaimed members of the groups getting the criticism. OK, fine. I thought that was ridiculous but others wanted it to be policy, and so it became policy. I just took it from there. The problem now is--see the OP to this thread--that no groups can be criticized because there might be members of those groups on the site who would have their feelings hurt. It is so broad that it can encompass any damn thing and it is ridiculous. And I don't think, ultimately tenable.

Yes, I did insist on being the sole mod. Again you are ignorant of the history of that so you speculate.

You also continually misrepresent my reason for resigning. You weren't staff then, I did not tell you my reason. My reason was as I said it was. I don't choose to make that reason public because it is personal and private. Continuing to misrepresent my reason is dishonest. And since I didn't tell you, and it was relayed confidentially to those who were staff at the time--it is none of your business and most certainly none of your business to presume to broadcast to anyone else.

Please don't presume to tell me what I can and can not do, here or elsewhere.

SUMMARY: the rule that YOU instituted to protect Seth was then used against him when he violated it REPEATEDLY and now you want to whine about it.

[NineOneFour]

Tell me, people from RatSskep, could this thread right here exist in your forum without the ban hammer or the thread-locked hammer falling?

Hmmmm?

Yes, and there's two of them right now.

Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

Hint: no.

Could you be any more disingenuous at all?

That thread was briefly locked so that the discussion could be sorted out into appropriate threads, and there was a modnote inserted during the time it was locked saying exactly that. That thread is re opened and is still open.

If you have a point to make then make it, but trying to imply that that thread was locked down to stifle discussion is pure and utter bullshit, if you have to lie to make an argument should you really be making it in the first place?

According to the moderator logs it was shut for a total of one hour, during that hour there was a modnote as the last post saying 'Don't panic, just locked to make it easier to shift all the posts into the right threads, it will re open soon' and now has this modnote :


[quote="stijndeloose";p="417244"]                       

!!1!

NOTMOD Ok. All off-topic posts have been moved to the "Protect us from the Protectors" thread, which is a bit of a mixed salad of all things critical of the current moderation practices and policy anyway To make this a bit clearer: We have a thread discussing the locking of threads in the Feedback forum (this one); We have a thread about replacing public advisories and warnings with PMs here; We have a thread about group attacks and whether moderation should be less strict than it is now here. I'm going to ask this nicely one more time, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls: this thread is about whether or not locking threads in the Feedback forum is rational and justified. Stick to the topic, will you? Thanks. Stijn. ETA: A couple of posts pointing out the derail have been removed, as they were no longer relevant. I'm sure you understand.

Can you try to have a sense of humor and expand your vocabulary?[/quote]

When caught, it's always "satire" after the fact...

[Imagination Theory]

Tell me, people from RatSskep, could this thread right here exist in your forum without the ban hammer or the thread-locked hammer falling?

Hmmmm?

Yes, and there's two of them right now.

Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

Hint: no.

Could you be any more disingenuous at all?

That thread was briefly locked so that the discussion could be sorted out into appropriate threads, and there was a modnote inserted during the time it was locked saying exactly that. That thread is re opened and is still open.

If you have a point to make then make it, but trying to imply that that thread was locked down to stifle discussion is pure and utter bullshit, if you have to lie to make an argument should you really be making it in the first place?

According to the moderator logs it was shut for a total of one hour, during that hour there was a modnote as the last post saying 'Don't panic, just locked to make it easier to shift all the posts into the right threads, it will re open soon' and now has this modnote :


[quote="stijndeloose";p="417244"]                       

!!1!

NOTMOD Ok. All off-topic posts have been moved to the "Protect us from the Protectors" thread, which is a bit of a mixed salad of all things critical of the current moderation practices and policy anyway To make this a bit clearer: We have a thread discussing the locking of threads in the Feedback forum (this one); We have a thread about replacing public advisories and warnings with PMs here; We have a thread about group attacks and whether moderation should be less strict than it is now here. I'm going to ask this nicely one more time, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls: this thread is about whether or not locking threads in the Feedback forum is rational and justified. Stick to the topic, will you? Thanks. Stijn. ETA: A couple of posts pointing out the derail have been removed, as they were no longer relevant. I'm sure you understand.

Can you try to have a sense of humor and expand your vocabulary?[/quote]


Gosh, that was a pretty dishonest and misleading post, Gallstones. This is a different forum and not everyone knew that it was briefly locked so they could sort some posts and put them in the right threads and then OPENED it again and is still OPEN.
Why didn't you explain that with your "joke" or "humour"?

Here it is, open to all members. There was a Modnote telling us that and you posted in there after it was locked and reopened so you must have known.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/feedb ... 8-140.html

[Pensioner]

You mean to say you cannot say right wing libertarians are bat shit crazy? Jeebus….