General discussion of moderation procedures - Part 7

Can people get suspended for behaviour in Coffee House?Brian

Sure if the behavior is bad enough.

"On feeling sorry for people"Message 185 and her posts following deserve a suspension or reprimanding of some sort.Her objective is unclear but I fear she wanted to taint my message with her meaningless words.I thought this was a place to honestly discuss but "Schrafinator" stands in direct contrast to this.She has without a doubt broken Rule 10.

quote:

---

Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.

---

Her rude comments were hard to ignore as I tried. I am humbly asking for something to be done about her actions. I admit fault at responding to give her with some of her "own medicine" despite the fact that I believe she has comprehension problems.She has also broken Rule 7. I am deeply offended by her "drug use" comment as I do not use drugs and my mind is not impaired as hers may be.I am saddened at the fact that she may have succeeded in tainting my post.I again humbly request that something is done about this as I had high hopes for this brand of idealism as some of you may know.

Message 185 of hers is clearly a response to your insults and insinuations, which you went back and deleted. Maybe you think that unrings the bell, but clearly you didn't do it fast enough. She has a right to reply to the statements that you wrote.Honestly? I wouldn't expect the admins to be too extremely receptive to a complaint of "she hit me back." Particularly in a post where you continue to insult her. "Comprehension problems?" Please.

You started the series of posts with one entitled Listen up simpletons which starts off: Perhaps you would like to reread the first sentence of Rule 10 that you posted:

quote:

---

Always treat other members with respect.

---

Would you like me to introduce you to Mr. Kettle? Your post was tainted before anyone replied to it.I hope after giving the matter appropriate consideration the admins will tell you to bog off.

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

quote:

---

Her rude comments were hard to ignore as I tried. I am humbly asking for something to be done about her actions. I admit fault at responding to give her with some of her "own medicine" despite the fact that I believe she has comprehension problems.

---

Unfortunately you have tainted the situation by deleting some of your responses.You set the tone by your Message 153 post entitled "Listen up Simpletons". Schrafinator's simple response "Stop hitting the bong, dude." actually violates rule #4. Unfortunately, you fanned the flame by responding. Even though you deleted your response, what little bit schrafinator quoted shows me that you weren't advancing the discussion of the topic either.If you hadn't responded to her off topic comment and she had continued to harrass you with off topic one-liners, we could have done something.Although it is not a written rule, we do frown upon posters deleting their posts or changing them after people have responded.While I agree that schrafinator's posts did not further the discussion, neither did your responses. While I agree that schrafinator's posts were inappropriate, so were yours.Since you both have decided to stop your off topic discussion, I'm not inclined to initiate an Admin Action. If I did, I would give you both the same sentence.Advice for the future: Keep your own tone respectful and don't respond to off topic comments. Then when you feel harrassed and bring it to an Admin's attention, we can clearly see the problem and act accordingly.

I understand this, I stopped.In this case, it is not in bad form to delete my posts. They were not contributing to the discussion.I came here to tell admin to forget it but it is too late.Edited by -messenjah of one, : explanatiom

http://EvC Forum: Confirming what we already knew -->EvC Forum: Confirming what we already knewIt's a backdoor debate forum now is it?

Only if you rise to take the bait.

Many thanks for clarfying the position for me.

That does not mean you should go to links and information and chum the waters.

You warned me at
EvC Forum: EvC Shorthand
.I have no problem dropping this question even now but I still feel a little uneasy.I had not seen your post while I posted a third time. I trust that I had brought my contribution back "on topic" enough for you nonetheless.Please let me know if you think I was really entering some coffee house "behavior" that was suspendable. I found your post a surprise.Archer is new and EVC "names" also form some kinds of short cuts for me as well.I had been mentioned 5 times in the thread and I had not even responed once till today and I took all of them postively. If there is a problem with discussing my style in this thread it seems to me to be due to others discussing me.The Second picture is an example of a "short cut" across the human reproductive connection. The book showcased was "the evolution of Primates."If you still think that there was some "issue" with my posts in this non-serious thread please let me know. I do like to "kiss and make-up"(K&M^) but I %do not% like to watch.Edited by Brad McFall, : wrong pronoun

And at least three participants either suspended or threatened with suspension? The last post with anything resembling discussion occurred on page 3 - the last four pages have been three people beating on each other in a sophmorish "he said/she said" or "did not/did too" fashion. I don't give a rat's patootie whether those three individuals can't stand each other or not. I WOULD have enjoyed reading a factual discussion about the film - what's presented, how, what's left out. I haven't seen it - and I guarantee I didn't learn anything about it from that thread. Pity the grownups haven't stepped in to put paid to the little menage a trois going on.

I'm surprised that anybody is actually reading that thread.I gave up on it some time ago. I recognized it as an experiment to determine what happens when an irresistable force meets an immovable object.

---

I guess I don't understand what's going on.Anyone who attempts to engage Holmes finds themselves immediately sucked off-topic, having to defend themselves and the record against a ridiculously multiplying series of Holmes' dishonest distortions of their position. It happens to me, it happens to Schraf, it happens to FliesOnly. It's impossible, by Holmes' choice, to discuss any topic with him but this.

quote:

---

Avoid any form of misrepresentation.

---

Yet, the response of the admins, rather than investigate the problem, is assume that all participants are equally guilty and threaten closures and suspensions. Why is that?Look, maybe the three of us are the crazy ones. Can I get some kind of indication that the admins have actually gone through and investigated the recent past of what I believe to be a genuine problem poster, and simply not found the consistent history of distortions and misrepresentations that, to my reading, are all but impossible to miss?Or, as I suspect, do the admins find the minutae of such conversations far too boring to bother to get involved in, and they're just taking the easy way out? I guess for NWR that's true.