General discussion of moderation procedures - Part 7

Make your case concerning the thread "Inconvenient Truth" and only that thread.I ask that only you and I discuss this for the moment, so it doesn't snowball.Please state the problem clearly with links to pertinent posts.

Detailed here: EvC Forum: An Inconvenient Truth

Hopefully you won't mind if I take day or two to digest all of that. Hopefully Wednesday I can get back to you with my impressions.Is that acceptable?

Take whatever time you need. And consider examining other threads, like the abortion threads.

Here's a twist for you Crash.There are two "An Inconvenient Truth" threads.The one that I think Quetzal was complaining about and the first one I saw on the list, has the Admin warnings and was started by ohnhai. Last post 09/16/06. In that thread many were not dealing with the topic.The one you referred me to was started by RAZD and the last post was 08/31/06. I don't see any Admin actions on it. I saw no threats of closure for the one you referred me to.The case you made concerns the topic itself and the information being discussed. I don't have the expertise to know who is correct and who isn't. If you still want help, call on one of the science Admins.Since I made no Admin actions in the thread you referred me to, I have no Admin actions to explain.Sorry I couldn't help.

Yes ma'am, the thread begun by ohnai was indeed the one I was whining about. I think that was also the one crash was referring to.

While he may have complaints about Ohnai's thread, that is not where all of this began and he was more than likely referring to RAZD's Inconvenient Truth thread.In that thread he created a post (#75) which allegedly "catalogues" all my distortions of his posts. Since that time he has (apparently) been following me around EvC trying to pick fights in order to boost that catalogue for me to address.My reply (#82) to his post was the following and I stand by it... Personally I wanted to get more out of both threads regarding their topics. I did not enjoy what was going on in any and have been attempting to reach a conclusion. Specifically in Ohnai's thread I attempted to make a clean break with post #85, and have repeated that attempt three times, the latest coming after PD's (thankful) intervention.It currently appears to be back on track. So the "waters are safe" again to come back in.I apologize to you and everyone else for the mess (all over the place). For my part I am going to try to avoid posts insulting me, or which shift debate away from the topic by arguing about miscommunication instead of solving such.Again I apologize.Edited by holmes, : nothingEdited by holmes, : clarityEdited by holmes, : more clear?

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

quote:

---

People reading along can (or have already since we discussed much of it previously) come to their own conclusion about who is saying what about whom.

---

In fact, that's exactly what I'd like the admins to do. Read the post, and determine if your actions as detailed in it merit action. Clearly the admins, some of them at least, have determined that the rest of us are not allowed to discuss those actions. Consequently the admins have, in my opinion, a duty to at least investigate that behavior if they're not going to allow the rest of us to do so.

I don't see what that has to do with anything. Either Holmes' constant distortions and misrepresentations are against the rules and disrupt discussion, or they aren't. What does it matter where he's doing that, as long as we're not talking about a Showcase thread? Read the post. Either it's an accurate catalogue of Holmes' bad behavior, or it isn't. Look up the posts if you wish, to see if I'm taking him out of context or some other shenanigans.I don't see what the issue is, I guess. This is the General moderation thread.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

I find posting with Holmes to be an unusual experience since you could be agreeing with each other in the most disagreeable tones. That said, both parties in an argument have a responsibility for continuing the argument and staying on topic. I was reading the threads trying to work out what either of the parties involved where talking about. In the end I ended up just thinking Why don't you BOTH SHUT UP?. It's times like that that I consider the option of closing the thread, but I was so baffled by the exchange that I just closed the window and walked away to do something more interesting - which is mostly anything.In the end, I can't lay blame at anybody but everybody.Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

---

Well, shit buddy, I don't see how any of that matters. There's a responsibility commensurate with your position and it doesn't end when the posts get boring.That's how Holmes has gotten away with it for so long, like I said, Absolutely nobody is sufficiently interested enough to actually read his posts, so he can post whatever he likes as long as its in the middle of one of his extended tomes.

You seem concerned about the closure threats. Since I was the Admin I was willing to address your concerns, but your concerns aren't about the thread that I responded to.Now that I know there are two threads, this will be a lot easier, although still time consuming since there aren't any links. I will look through your post and as I said it will take some time, but keep in mind I have no idea what you guys are talking about on that thread. So I can't weigh in on the validity of anything said, only the tone or presentation. Is that what you want?

All very well and good, crash. I thought that all three of you should have been suspended in that thread (ohnai's). You've all been around more than long enough to know that tu quoque is neither a valid defense nor a valid form of argument. I brought the issue up originally here in the moderation forum because it was beyond my comprehension why the admins allowed any of you to get away with it. "Be careful what you wish for" is not a bad adage for you in this instance: if it'd been me, you'd all have been gone.

Looks like you misunderstand me. Let me try again in a less facetious manner. Looking at the posts I came to the conclusion that both parties were right. That both parties were also misunderstanding one another and sooner or later things would end. I could sift through the epic he said she said thread, but it is certainly not my responsibility to do so - its my responsibility to decide what would be the best manner to deal with a situation.I decided to let it go, it was simply an annoying thread to have to drive through. I considered closing the thread, but given that both parties had a valid greivance I decided against it. I thought about suspending one party, but could not discern which that should be. I considered suspending two parties but I didn't think that would ultimately solve anything, since upon return it is likely that any unresolved conflict would simply re-raise its head.Since you are both experienced posters I anticipated that given time and space you would be able to resolve the issue eventually and come to a mature close of the differences between you. I beleived that the thread it was taking place in was a better place to settle it rather than in some other thread. Perhaps my judgement was wrong in that, but I'm an optimist.If you want me to start moderating on the issue, I would suspend both of you for 72 hours so you can have time to consider how you are going to tackle the communications failure you are having with one another. Hopefully then you'll be able to return, deal with whatever it is, and start making more quality threads again. As explained above, I want to believe that it doesn't need to come to that - but that's up to the two of you to decide I suppose.

I have already apologized (in this thread) for my part in allowing the problem to continue and have said that in the future I will refuse to respond to posts which discuss my behavior, or argue about miscommunication rather than solving such. If this is not enough I am open to any suggestions.I let this go a long time ago, and have been striving for solutions. I believe I have even reached a solution with Flies (where we had clearly been talking past each other).This reminds me of the go 'round I had with Rrhain. At the time my solution was to just open a thread where he could post to (or I could point to) if he wanted to post off topic discussion. The admins closed it and said I should get over it. Whether I agreed with closing it or not, I agreed (even at the time) that the solution is for both parties to get over it.I have my own opinion of what is happening, but I don't really care and don't want to waste my time on these kinds of issues. I am over it and want to move on. I'm not sure what more I can do, except stick to the topic and avoid side issues?AbE: In summary, I don't think a 72hr suspension is a solution to the problem. It seems to me a clear statement of how to stay on topic, or deal with miscommunications would be more profitable and I am open to such suggestions.Edited by holmes, : perhaps clearerEdited by holmes, : maybe

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)