Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely

[pErvinalia]

It stands.

With Seth, enough is fucking enough. We are not here to bend over backwards for the perfect niceties of continually allowing scathing group attacks on membership, and continuing disruption which has driven away far too many.

In that case I want to see posts by Pappa, Rachelbean and whoever else has the power to decide on suspensions, writing if they agree with this one, and if so, why. I also want them to reply to my objection, which is that Seth did not call us hypocrites. What he basically said was that we have indulged in hypocrisy. It therefore cannot be described as constituting a group attack against the membership here.

I disagree. His phrase was "your own hypocrisy", labelling us collectively. Not our posts, our persons.

This has been my problem with your latest crackdown. Our hypocrisy can only refer to our posts. But I can accept that what he said might fall under the "play nice rule". It's obviously incredibly mild, but he's got a never ending track record, and returning from a suspension to be aggressive to everyone at the forum isn't the smartest thing in the world, and I think he can suffer the consequences of his actions.

[JimC]

It stands.

With Seth, enough is fucking enough. We are not here to bend over backwards for the perfect niceties of continually allowing scathing group attacks on membership, and continuing disruption which has driven away far too many.

Wow. I thought you were joking.

I didn't feel attacked in the slightest.

Why not just ban him permanently like CJ and have done with it?

Whether you feel "attacked" or not are immaterial. His words "your own hypocrisy" are clearly intended to be an attack on rationalians in general. Coupled with his long-standing pattern of generalised abuse such as "marxist useful idiots", "Atheist fools", and his flood of faux reports, it has reached a point where a line needs to be dawn.

And we don't ban. He has been suspended, and if he were to return, and decide to post without such attacks (personal or general), he would be welcome.

[JimC]

It stands.

With Seth, enough is fucking enough. We are not here to bend over backwards for the perfect niceties of continually allowing scathing group attacks on membership, and continuing disruption which has driven away far too many.

In that case I want to see posts by Pappa, Rachelbean and whoever else has the power to decide on suspensions, writing if they agree with this one, and if so, why. I also want them to reply to my objection, which is that Seth did not call us hypocrites. What he basically said was that we have indulged in hypocrisy. It therefore cannot be described as constituting a group attack against the membership here.

I disagree. His phrase was "your own hypocrisy", labelling us collectively. Not our posts, our persons.

This has been my problem with your latest crackdown. Our hypocrisy can only refer to our posts. But I can accept that what he said might fall under the "play nice rule". It's obviously incredibly mild, but he's got a never ending track record, and returning from a suspension to be aggressive to everyone at the forum isn't the smartest thing in the world, and I think he can suffer the consequences of his actions.

Hypocrisy is an attribute of a person, not a message.

[pErvinalia]

So? I can call a post hypocritical. That means the person was a hypocrite for that post. They are the same thing. You can't call what Seth said a "personal attack". It was clearly referring to our posts. If he said, "you are all hypocrites", then that is clearly a personal attack.

[JimC]

Simply, I disagree. I have treated it as a general attack, on members rather than their posts.

[Forty Two]

Seth wrote:

...I'm surprised you've all forgotten my "rhetorical mirror" practice, given how many, many years I've been doing it. I haven't forgotten it however, and I'll keep shoving it in your face for as long as I participate here, which admittedly might not be much longer, but still, you deserve to be hoist on your own petard and spanked by your own hypocrisy....

This constitutes a group attack against the membership here. You are therefore suspended for a period of 2 weeks

Well, if that's a suspension worthy statement, I have to say the rules are being interpreted in a rather strange manner. That statement doesn't attack anyone. Saying that people are being hoisted on their own petard is suggesting that they are being defeated by their own arguments or statements. Similarly, saying someone is being spanked by their own hypocrisy is an assertion that they are making hypocritical statements which are being used against them.

If that's an impermissible attack, then a lot of people are going to need to be suspended, if it's desired that the rules be applied fairly and consistently.

[Forty Two]

It stands.

With Seth, enough is fucking enough. We are not here to bend over backwards for the perfect niceties of continually allowing scathing group attacks on membership, and continuing disruption which has driven away far too many.

In that case I want to see posts by Pappa, Rachelbean and whoever else has the power to decide on suspensions, writing if they agree with this one, and if so, why. I also want them to reply to my objection, which is that Seth did not call us hypocrites. What he basically said was that we have indulged in hypocrisy. It therefore cannot be described as constituting a group attack against the membership here.

I disagree. His phrase was "your own hypocrisy", labelling us collectively. Not our posts, our persons.

Hypocrisy is the practice of claiming to have moral standards that one does not practice or actually have. He said he's using "your hypocrisy" against you, which is an attack on the argument, not the person. It seems very difficult to fit that into a personal attack. We can't say that someone else is having their hypocrisy used against them after they make an allegedly hypocritical statement? If that's correct, then a lot of people are going to need to be suspended.

I gather that this is about Seth in particular, and that, as you said, enough is enough. I would urge you to resist that temptation. Whether he has committed thousands of offenses before is not a reason to tighten a rule against him that would not be as tight against someone else.

And, for often days or weeks at a time, I am the only moderator around. I will act when I see the rules, which include both general in indirect attacks, broken.

It stands.

I think Seth should change his name to Marvin K. Mooney --

[Forty Two]

[

Hypocrisy is an attribute of a person, not a message.

Not by its primary definition. Hypocrisy is a practice in which a person engages.

[Forty Two]

It stands.

With Seth, enough is fucking enough. We are not here to bend over backwards for the perfect niceties of continually allowing scathing group attacks on membership, and continuing disruption which has driven away far too many.

Wow. I thought you were joking.

I didn't feel attacked in the slightest.

Why not just ban him permanently like CJ and have done with it?

Whether you feel "attacked" or not are immaterial. His words "your own hypocrisy" are clearly intended to be an attack on rationalians in general. Coupled with his long-standing pattern of generalised abuse such as "marxist useful idiots", "Atheist fools", and his flood of faux reports, it has reached a point where a line needs to be dawn.

Yeah, but, in those cases he's referring to non-members. He hasn't generally explicitly referred to people here as Atheist fools or Marxist useful idiots." If someone refers to "Christian idiots" and there happens to be some Christians on the forum, it doesn't become a personal attack.

And we don't ban. He has been suspended, and if he were to return, and decide to post without such attacks (personal or general), he would be welcome.

The thing is, it isn't fair to make him abide by a tighter interpretation of the rules than others have to abide by. So, either (a) the rules are going to be interpreted consistently, and exchanges are going to get really really tame, or (b) this is a special rule for Seth.

[pErvinalia]

It stands.

With Seth, enough is fucking enough. We are not here to bend over backwards for the perfect niceties of continually allowing scathing group attacks on membership, and continuing disruption which has driven away far too many.

Wow. I thought you were joking.

I didn't feel attacked in the slightest.

Why not just ban him permanently like CJ and have done with it?

Whether you feel "attacked" or not are immaterial. His words "your own hypocrisy" are clearly intended to be an attack on rationalians in general. Coupled with his long-standing pattern of generalised abuse such as "marxist useful idiots", "Atheist fools", and his flood of faux reports, it has reached a point where a line needs to be dawn.

Yeah, but, in those cases he's referring to non-members. He hasn't generally explicitly referred to people here as Atheist fools or Marxist useful idiots.

He's done it heaps of times.

And we don't ban. He has been suspended, and if he were to return, and decide to post without such attacks (personal or general), he would be welcome.

The thing is, it isn't fair to make him abide by a tighter interpretation of the rules than others have to abide by. So, either (a) the rules are going to be interpreted consistently, and exchanges are going to get really really tame, or (b) this is a special rule for Seth.

While I agree with you (and Hermit and Devogue and Jamest) that this new direction is the wrong path to take, I don't see this as a special rule for Seth. Moderation at all forums I've been involved with take history and particularly recent history into account when applying sanctions. I don't see a problem with that. If someone has just been suspended once or multiple times, then it's not unreasonable that that information form part of considerations for new sanctions.

[Hermit]

While I agree with you (and Hermit and Devogue and Jamest) that this new direction is the wrong path to take...

Don't pull me into this, please. I do not altogether agree that this is the wrong path to take. In fact, I think too many personal attacks have been let slip through. My disagreement with JimC's decision is limited to this: "you deserve to be hoist on your own petard and spanked by your own hypocrisy..." is in my opinion not a personal attack. I worded my objection like this: "Seth did not call us hypocrites. What he basically said was that we have indulged in hypocrisy. It therefore cannot be described as constituting a group attack against the membership here."

Unless I am misreading Forty Two's post, he is taking a similar position to mine, but I leave it to him to correct me if he deems that necessary.

[pErvinalia]

....

[pErvinalia]

While I agree with you (and Hermit and Devogue and Jamest) that this new direction is the wrong path to take...

Don't pull me into this, please.

Yes, this thought occurred to me after it was too late to edit. It occurred to me from your almost totally ignored thread pleading for change that you do want to go down a path somewhat similar to this. Whether it's under the play nice rule or the personal attack rule, it seems to me you're happy to suspend any of us three because it upsets you.

I do not altogether agree that this is the wrong path to take. In fact, I think too many personal attacks have been let slip through. My disagreement with JimC's decision is limited to this: "you deserve to be hoist on your own petard and spanked by your own hypocrisy..." is in my opinion not a personal attack. I worded my objection like this: "Seth did not call us hypocrites. What he basically said was that we have indulged in hypocrisy. It therefore cannot be described as constituting a group attack against the membership here."

I agree with that it wasn't a personal attack. That's what I should have said in relation to you (and devogue) above.

Unless I am misreading Forty Two's post, he is taking a similar position to mine, but I leave it to him to correct me if he deems that necessary.

Unless I am misreading it, I'm pretty sure 42 is taking a similar position to me and Jamest in that this 'new direction' isn't something we really want to see happen. I.e. his point (a).

[JimC]

It was deemed to be a personal attack, and the current moderator staff still active have not altered that. More to the point, as rEv said, past posting behaviour can and will be a factor in determining penalties.

The key point is this; when someone returns from a suspension, they can learn from that to alter the posting behaviour that lead to the suspension, or not. If they do, fine.

If not, further holidays, or a choice to find a different forum, more suitable to their needs are the available choices.

[Forty Two]

It stands.

With Seth, enough is fucking enough. We are not here to bend over backwards for the perfect niceties of continually allowing scathing group attacks on membership, and continuing disruption which has driven away far too many.

Wow. I thought you were joking.

I didn't feel attacked in the slightest.

Why not just ban him permanently like CJ and have done with it?

Whether you feel "attacked" or not are immaterial. His words "your own hypocrisy" are clearly intended to be an attack on rationalians in general. Coupled with his long-standing pattern of generalised abuse such as "marxist useful idiots", "Atheist fools", and his flood of faux reports, it has reached a point where a line needs to be dawn.

Yeah, but, in those cases he's referring to non-members. He hasn't generally explicitly referred to people here as Atheist fools or Marxist useful idiots.

He's done it heaps of times.

Sure, but by this interpretation, then it would also be a violation of the rules to call people Republican fools or Trump Idiots or something. If a forum member is a Republican or a Trump supporter, than attacking the group to which he belongs is a personal attack to the same extent as attacking Progressive Marxist Fools or the like, or say, Christian Theocratic Idiots or something like that, if someone here happened to be a Christian.

And we don't ban. He has been suspended, and if he were to return, and decide to post without such attacks (personal or general), he would be welcome.

The thing is, it isn't fair to make him abide by a tighter interpretation of the rules than others have to abide by. So, either (a) the rules are going to be interpreted consistently, and exchanges are going to get really really tame, or (b) this is a special rule for Seth.

While I agree with you (and Hermit and Devogue and Jamest) that this new direction is the wrong path to take, I don't see this as a special rule for Seth. Moderation at all forums I've been involved with take history and particularly recent history into account when applying sanctions. I don't see a problem with that. If someone has just been suspended once or multiple times, then it's not unreasonable that that information form part of considerations for new sanctions.

It should only take into account repeat offenses, and there should be a fairly clear step-up in punishment. It's not reasonable to declare someone generally to have a bad posting history and punish them because they are a bad person.

But, I don't know if it is or is not a wrong direction to take. I, for one, will respect the rules as applied and try to make the moderators' lives easier, not harder. I'm just making note of what I think are important points.

I get that JimC is trying his best, and wants to be fair, and he can't be expected to take hours and hours of hand-wringing, votes, debates, etc. to resolve rule violation issues. That's why I mentioned to Seth to calm down, take a step back, and cut the shit for a second.