Da Schneib shows up late

[tattuchu]

I have absolutely no idea what's going on here, but I liked Da Schneib. What happened, is he gone or something?

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

T'would seem so.
Pity, I was looking forward to more beaver otter shots.

[laklak]

Are we all OK now? Ever little thing hunky dory? Excellent. Top notch.

Carry on.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I have absolutely no idea what's going on here, but I liked Da Schneib. What happened, is he gone or something?

He's looking for something very precisely defined. I hope he lets us know when he finds it, it would be thing.

[Audley Strange]

If it makes you feel any better, I still lovathe you.

Not really, you're comedy gold.

HOW DARE YOU! This is just the sort of... blah blah blah etc.

Mods get your act together, my kitchen needs redecorated, why are no not already working on it, this is victimisation!!!! Do it now or I'm leaving, this is terrible I'm being repeatedly violated by you're massive epeens, WHAAAAAH!!!

On a serious note. Perhaps it might be an idea to have a single mod address a members complaint, because it certainly could appear like a bunch of jackals jumping on a wounded pig. I've had it done to me, I'm sure many have had it done to you, it's never beneficial, both sides become more entrenched.

[rachelbean]

He continually claimed his question was not being answered (it was several times, in several ways, just not in the way that he wanted.), that everyone was afraid of his scary questions, that he had been clamped down on, had revenge sought against him, that moderators were colluding to get him off the site. None of those things were true, because all that happened was he received a REMINDER -- not a suspension, not even a warning. When he started calling everyone liars and demanding that we prove that we were worthy of him staying it turned into surreal comedy to me, and I did post "yes" and "no" which contributed to the circus (or "gangfuck"/"gang rape" as he called it), but I'm not particularly sorry because his comments were just plain silly.

It did remind me why I'd not like to be a moderator though

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It did remind me why I'd not like to be a moderator though

[Seth]

He continually claimed his question was not being answered (it was several times, in several ways, just not in the way that he wanted.), that everyone was afraid of his scary questions, that he had been clamped down on, had revenge sought against him, that moderators were colluding to get him off the site. None of those things were true, because all that happened was he received a REMINDER -- not a suspension, not even a warning. When he started calling everyone liars and demanding that we prove that we were worthy of him staying it turned into surreal comedy to me, and I did post "yes" and "no" which contributed to the circus (or "gangfuck"/"gang rape" as he called it), but I'm not particularly sorry because his comments were just plain silly.

It did remind me why I'd not like to be a moderator though

Yup, you nailed it. But I'm still not clear on what he meant by "gaming the system."

[Pappa]

I assume he meant using loopholes (or perceived loopholes) in the rules to get away with attacking other members in a way contrary to the spirit but not the letter of the rules. Or something like that...

[Ronja]

This is the only definition-like thing that I have found thus far, at the very end of a medium-long post, and thus easy to overlook:

In the thread "What is a personal attack?"
http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 75#p969077
Wed Sep 07, 2011 2:51 am (that's our time, GMT+3 hours)

...people being offended because they think someone's criticizing them is gaming the system.

I'm surprised that nobody (including myself) apparently took notice of this, because at least one kind of hole in the rationale/logic is, IMO, pretty apparent.

How could one reliably, based only on typed words (+ smileys + sometimes pictures) tell if:
1) someone really is genuinely offended?
2) someone is genuinely offended yet trying to master it?
3) someone is just a little bit offended and mastering that pretty well?
4) someone is pretending not to be offended?
5) someone just is of a different opinion and not offended at all?
6) someone is pretending to be offended?
7) someone is just joking?

And if one managed to somehow figure that^^ out and conclude that someone is, indeed, offended, then how would one go about reliably determining that the cause of such offence is "thinking [that] someone's criticizing them" - ???

IMO, if we had rules (e.g. "gaming the system is not allowed") that relied so much on guesswork, such rules would very likely be already from the start unfair and also impossible to apply even remotely consistently in practice.

Now WHY did I not notice that sentence when it was new? Too many posts to browse through the next morning, I suppose (and still a bit shook up after the quote debacle - the previous evening was a bit *too* interesting even by RatZ standards).

[Pappa]

That quote sound more to me like using the system of rules here to get somebody else reminded/warned/suspended by taking offence at something they've said to you and reporting it. Like a Brazilian footballer crying that they've been fouled.

[Ronja]

That quote sound more to me like using the system of rules here to get somebody else reminded/warned/suspended by taking offence at something they've said to you and reporting it. Like a Brazilian footballer crying that they've been fouled.

Maybe, but the problem still would remain the same, if we had to consider each report not based on "Is this an actual personal attack / harassment case / some other form of not playing nice?" (according to our current interpretation of the rules) but based on "Can we reasonably believe that this person (or some hypothetical "average, reasonable forum member") is genuinely offended by that post, or are they faking, or maybe exaggerating a bit?" Instead of looking at the words (+ possible smilies + possible pictures) in their context we wold be required to somehow read minds. Which I at least am very bad at.

[Seth]

That quote sound more to me like using the system of rules here to get somebody else reminded/warned/suspended by taking offence at something they've said to you and reporting it. Like a Brazilian footballer crying that they've been fouled.

I think you have it. My impression was that he didn't like me because he thought I was a "troll" and was offended that the staff wasn't doing anything about it in his favor.

In other words, when I criticized his posts, and he took offense at being criticized in a particular (though unidentified) manner, he was expecting some RatSkep like hammering of me by the Mods for being provocative and somehow not adequately protective of his interests.

That's about all I can take from it.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

On the gang-fucking.

I tried to answer Schneib's concerns in the "What is a personal attack?" thread on numerous occasions, as did most of the staff and many other members. He seemed impervious to what was being said and continued to rail against perceived flaws in our system. His accusations of "gaming the system" became more and more frequent and aggressive. When he immediately followed an accusation of Seth gaming the system with the generalised "jackbooted thugs" comment about those that gamed the system, it was felt by the staff that he was deliberately and provocatively doing what he was accusing others of doing in order to make some kind of a point and to personally attack Seth in a roundabout (yet blatantly obvious) way. It was felt that this was not playing nice and a reminder was given. Perhaps a reminder should have been given to both parties but that wasn't the joint opinion of the staff at the time, so only Schneib was reminded - your onions may vary.

Note, a reminder. No sanctions were imposed. He was not threatened with suspension. He was simply informed that we considered that particular line to be in breach of our rules and he was given a link to them. Hardly draconian!

Following this, he became further entrenched in his repetitive crusade against system gamers, liars, subject changers, cranks and unfair moderation, to the point where he was becoming a ridiculous caricature. After several attempts to talk sense to him, I finally decided that enough was enough and decided to talk nonsense instead. Others joined in - not in some organised campaign but simply because they were fed up with him as well.

There is simply a point where I can no longer suffer fools (or those that appear to be making fools of themselves) gladly. I am also convinced that nothing much less than allowing Schneibster to rewrite our rules and reorganise our staff procedures for us would have shut him up on the subject and that he would eventually have left in a huff whatever we did. His performances at other sites seems to back this up!

I apologise if my behaviour was less than that expected of a member of the staff - but perhaps those expectations are a little unrealistic - I am just human with a limited amount of patience for intransigence and repetition.

[Pappa]

That quote sound more to me like using the system of rules here to get somebody else reminded/warned/suspended by taking offence at something they've said to you and reporting it. Like a Brazilian footballer crying that they've been fouled.

Maybe, but the problem still would remain the same, if we had to consider each report not based on "Is this an actual personal attack / harassment case / some other form of not playing nice?" (according to our current interpretation of the rules) but based on "Can we reasonably believe that this person (or some hypothetical "average, reasonable forum member") is genuinely offended by that post, or are they faking, or maybe exaggerating a bit?" Instead of looking at the words (+ possible smilies + possible pictures) in their context we wold be required to somehow read minds. Which I at least am very bad at.

Offence doesn't really come into it though Ronja. It's been pretty clear cut here for a long time that we use the "you have every right to be offended" system... (ie. suck it up). In almost all cases all we have to do is decide if there was a personal attack (which is usually easy except in borderline or indirect cases), or decide if harassment is taking place (which is often a little more difficult, but not usually that hard to be sure about). The only place "offence" comes into the rules is in the sense of "widespread general offence", which was brought in to deal with things like when Mandy was repeatedly posting pictures of grossly disfigured faces. As far as I remember, that portion of the rule has never needed to be used, but it is pretty handy to have there as I can imagine scenarios where it could be useful. But again, that's for use when a large majority of forum members are deeply offended by something being posted. The staff have set the bar really very high, as it's never been used in situations where many members may be offended by generalised racist/sexist/homophobic posts of posts disparaging of people with disabilities, etc..