|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 47 (9216 total) |
| |
KING IYK | |
Total: 920,555 Year: 877/6,935 Month: 158/719 Week: 150/116 Day: 24/40 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 301 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did Mod cause the collapse of evcforum? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 301 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
In Gender and Humor, Rrhain claimed that "The board collapsed because your incompetence. You, specifically.", referring to me. I think he is wrong.
I would warn anyone that decides to read this thread - it's going to be a long and boring slog through 'he said, she said' nonsense. Rrhain was not happy that I disagreed with him about something related to a cry of homophobia and thus decided to bring up an argument we were having back in the summer of 2007. Essential background reading can be found at General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 11.0. There are some other threads related to it that may come up and this discussion is presumably going to include Rrhain - so be prepared for a billion words on the first page. I bring this here because Rrhain repeatedly brought it up - and I repeatedly demurred answering him, requesting he take it elsewhere. His continued, so clearly he has a bee in his bonnet. No doubt, if it is ignored - he'll bring it up again in few years and I'd rather it was put to rest. So, to give it a decent burial, we must first exhume the rotting corpse. So how wrong is Rrhain? Let me count the ways. In Message 198 he said:
Rrhain writes: It isn't a game. He wants to be able to spout his homophobia without any consequences to his actions. And given your own personal history regarding the treatment of gay people on this board (*Dan Carroll*cough!*cough!*), you're not exactly helping. You should probably notify Dan and his girlfriend that he is gay:
quote: from Message 44.
quote: Message 8 I suspect this is actually case #1 of Rrhain being wrong. I should also add, that there are some gay people who are incredibally satisfied with my treatment of them ![]() Moving on, in Message 224:
Rrhain writes: You really think that was the problem? Your attention span really is that short, isn't it? N_j insulted gays and berberry called him out on it...and got banned for it. No. Berberry claimed N_j should be chastised for what Berberry claimed was an insult to gays - and therefore to him specifically. The Admin team seemed to be in consensus that whatever N_J was doing - it didn't merit suspension. Berberry got very upset. Going so far as to make this post in a Moderation Procedures thread (Message 33:
quote: Emphasis in original. That's the entirety of what he said in that post (excluding title and a quote). And then, referring to me,
quote: It was for this loss of calm and taking it out on others that seems to have inspired Percy to suspend Berberry. Case #2. Of course - because he is wrong, Rrhain will continue to repeat the falsehood that it was the criticism that got Berb suspended for calling NJ out rather than the manner in which he conducted himself. It doesn't matter that Berberry managed to make at least 11 posts on the subject previous to that without getting suspended.
Rrhain writes: Dan Carroll pointed out that it was wrong to ban berberry...and got banned for it. I didn't suspend Dan for pointing out it was wrong to ban berberry. Case #3, here is the reason I suspended Dan, lifted from Message 188:
quote: I'm still amused whenever I see the claim made ![]() Dan made like 14 posts before he got suspended - if I was going to suspend him for pointing out it was wrong to ban berberry why did I not do it immediately after Message 55? Why did I let him make a dozen posts criticising berberry's suspension?
Rrhain writes: Let's not forget, you specifically said that Dan had not broken any rules
Mod writes: You've not explicitly broken any rules Dan An awesome quotemine. I think we'll call this Case #4. He is what I actually said in Message 86:
quote: Which sheds a bit of a different light on it, since now it becomes a final warning of tone - and giving Dan the benefit of the doubt regarding disrespect. Dan had previously chided my inability to make judgement calls in Message 74:
quote: Hence my reference to judgement calls in my warning. Here is his cogent contribution that resulted in his suspension, in Message 90:
quote: An admission to explicitly breaking the rules (ie admitting to disrespecting a member of the forum), continued with the same belligerent tone. So I gave him a short suspension for being off topic, not following moderator requests and disprespecting a member of the forum.
Rrhain writes: ...Even crashfrog pointed it out...And even he realized that you would probably ban him for pointing it out (Message 133) Case #5. Message 133 was addressed to Percy, not me.
Many people were banned outright, not in protest, but because they dared to ask the moderators to explain themselves. Case #6. Percy fired the moderators - and then suspended people that either requested it, or he judged were just going to carrry on discussing moderator action, which Percy said was no longer going to occur at EvC (or indeed, anyone that gave Percy the impression that they were divisive). In another post, Message 232 in the Gender/Humour thread you say
Rrhain writes: Remember, berberry was suspended not for something he did say but rather because Percy thought he might say something:
Percy writes: I suspended him to prevent him from saying even more things he might later come to regret Case #7. Percy said "saying even more things he might later come to regret", which implies he had been saying regretful things. Nevertheless - you can take up your angst with Percy with Percy.
When Dan Carroll pointed out that was bullshit, he got suspended, even though Percy admitted that he didn't do anything wrong:
You've not explicitly broken any rules Dan Case #8 and Case #9. You've already admitted to wrongly attributing "I suspended him to prevent him from saying even more things he might later come to regret" to me instead of Percy and you have already accepted that you subsequently mistook Percy and I again here - in the gender and humour thread so I include it only for completeness.
And you were...how shall we say..."less than truthful" regarding that action, pretending that I had violated a command of Phat's, though he wasn't wearing his admin hat at the time...and despite the fact that it was Minnemooseus who did the suspending specifically for violating his edict in post 111. This is not a case. Indeed - you have a valid point about your initial suspension for violating the guidelines. I agreed at the time that Moose was wrong to do it, but Phat had also called for a stop. But yes, he neglected to check a box to post as a Moderator. Phat did that fairly regularly (see Message 88 where he is speaking as a moderator using the Phat account) - but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and concede that suspension was unwarranted. As per your emphatic instructions however, (Message 172.
Rrhain writes: You need to STOP. I stopped. I posted A General Reply to explain Dan's suspension and then left it at that.
Then turn around and look at the corpses left in your wake: Schraf, berberry, Dan, Ringo, I can go on. case #10. I didn't ban any of them. How are their 'corpses' my liability? They aren't. I suspended Dan for like 72 hours, that's it. Dan didn't get perma-banned until the New Year, after I was no longer a moderator, months after the thread in question and after he posted, Message 130. Again - it is Percy you should reserve your ire for, not me. But confusing me and Percy seems to be your forte, neh? Your next post, Message 235, says:
Rrhain writes: You suspended Dan Carroll for not breaking the rules. I suspended him for breaking rules 1, 2, and 10. Case #11
Rrhain writes: Mod writes: Fortunately, I'm not as big a prick as you Right...because I was the one banning people left and right for daring to contradict me.
Mod writes:
You mean there were no mass bannings? Or that I was the one who did them? That you didn't rise to the defense of the moderators? Do I really need to post all of the comments made directly to you regarding your behaviour?
you are wrong about this. No, that's not what I mean. You were suggesting that I was the one responsible for the mass banning. Case #12 - I wasn't. I'll make it a cool #13 with this one from Message 218 RRhain writes: The board collapsed because your incompetence. You, specifically. I'm not sure a discussion forum that has 50,000 posts per year is showing those symptoms of collapse. It was 3 years ago - we're still here, still discussing. With some new faces - new code being released from the owner. I'd say this was an uncollapsed board. I don't mind taking a blame for the utter failure that is this board...but I think Percy would want to share some of the responsibility - don't confuse the two of us! ![]() What will it take? Rrhain writes: What would it take for you to consider the possibility that you screwed up? And not just in a small way but rather at every single turn? Someone suggesting that I screwed up at every single turn. I have therefore considered that possibility. I'll require evidence that every thing I did was a screw up before I would accept it as a true statement. So - if you were to go through all my posts in General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 11.0 and demonstrate that at every single turn I screwed up, defining screwing up first of course, then I'd concede. I have already conceded that I made mistakes in that post.
Rrhain writes: But that said, what good would providing evidence do? You'll only ignore it. If you really think that - there is no point discussing it with me and the only rational thing to do would be to stop trying. I can be persuaded by evidence, I've done it before. I'm human, and maybe I'll see it better if someone were to civilly and calmly explain - without endlessly questioning my intelligence and my intellectual honesty - what errors I made and what impact those errors had. I don't have high hopes that you will be able to even attempt this method of discussion. If Rrhain prefers this to be a Great Debate (And I can't see anyone else being interested in it anyway), I'll move it there myself...no need to stand on ceremony eh?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 301 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Isn't this thread serving solely to stir up the same sort of shitstorm that resulted in the Great Purge? Yes, you'll have to ask Rrhain why he felt the need to dredge it up.
Does discussion of past moderation actions really serve to do anything other than stir up useless drama? Nope. Rrhain is the King of useless drama.
I mean, I don't see any recent moderation activities that fill me with righteous fury. Glad to hear it ![]()
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 301 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Look, we covered this at the time and you weren't willing to listen then. Is anything different now, Mod? It's three years later. Otherwise - only you can be the judge of that, I suppose.
It wasn't a "he said, she said" question No it wasn't. It is now.
It was a question of the laity having genuine problems with your moderation and the moderation of a few others, and the moderators in turn perceiving absolutely no problem except the laity complaining. That basically sums up the 'laities' position.
Rrhain quoting my words from back then gave me occasion to re-read the thread Sorry you went through that again.
and I continue to be struck by how thoughtful, well-reasoned, well-supported, and polite the critics of the administration were, and how petulant, unfair, and capricious the moderator response was. Fair enough.
. And the truth is, the answer was no - you couldn't be unfair enough, capricious enough, and cruel enough to get people to see your actions as anything but cruel, capricious, and unfair. Is there anything that I did that was capricious, cruel or unfair?
We all remember what happened, Mod, despite your revisionist history. Revisionist history? Is there something inaccurate in my corrections of Rrhain's version of events where I banned everybody for merely criticising moderator actions?
NJ chased Berberry around three different threads offering insulting comparisons of homosexuality to bestiality and rape, under the guise of making an argument about "moral relativism." Predictably Berberry got tired of how this was being ignored by moderators and blew his stack. Yes, that was your view - I guess that is one thing that hasn't changed ![]() Dan complained and was suspended But not for complaining.
I showed you how your moderation was serving not to defuse the situation, but to inflame it, and you ignored me. No, I paid attention.
Rrhain is absolutely correct, as well he should be, since he was there. As was I. So was I - and I just documented where Rrhain was wrong. He has even accepted being wrong twice. So 'absolutely correct' is clearly false.
So, as you look back on your actions in that thread, Mod, ask yourself now what I asked you, then - did your actions have the desired result? No. Did yours?
Did suppressing debate about the moderator's role in inciting flamewars prevent the moderators from inciting flamewars? I suppressed debate? You made 22 posts, most of which were critical of the moderator's actions (or lack thereof). How did I suppress your debate?
Ultimately, Mod, did your actions result in an improvement, or decline, in the general quality of debate and participants? A decline.
The answer is abundantly obvious to me, which is why I don't post here anymore. What do you think? How about you - do you think you helped?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 301 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Who had the bright idea to let normal members discuss moderator actions? That can never lead to a good thing. People will get pissy over the slightest things. Yeah - it actually worked for many years. Normally there would be a brief discussion. Moderators would reverse an action, or uphold it. If people were still upset about it, they would be told the decision has been made. If they continued to argue against the arbitrattion, lost discipline and strated hurling insults or getting generally pissy, they'd get suspended.
It seems that Rrhain was wrong saying you banned all those people, but since I haven't read his side of the story, I'll reserve judgement for now. Not that my judgement will make the slightest amount of diference anyway. Fair enough, don't take my (or Rrhain's) word for it.
Since the forum is still here, I'd say it hasn't collapsed. Yeah - sure we lost a few regular prolific posters - but forum drama happens all over the place, especially when the forum is small enough for relationships to develop.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 301 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
After reviewing the numerous debates (my head hurts from all the reading) that led up to the Great Purge a.k.a. "Night of the Broken Glass", I have concluded that you were as even-keeled then as you are now. My apologies if I was instrumental in sparking sufficient curiosity to engage in such masochistic behaviour. I've spent plenty of time reading through them - reading what the various parties were saying and constructing a less memory biased picture of the whole thing and trying to change the way I handle similar events in the future. Thanks for the vote of confidence: But even-keeled or not I was not without fault during the Reichstag fire thread (The one that allowed My particular favourite "Fuck Mod, why did you do that?" was Message 125. Confrontational, snarky, passive aggressive - it has basically no redeeming features.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 301 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I don't see the importance of that, now. More to the point, the question is too broad to answer straightforwardly.
Does it matter?
You used the word laity, Crash. No - the role of the moderators should have been to state their position - explain it and then terminate further discussion. Much like everyone else.
Link to the posts demonstrating three examples of my capriciousness, cruelty, and unfairness with an explanation as to how they meet the criteria. If you want to wave your hands and say "it's obvious to anyone with half a brain!!!", I'm not interested.
I did so in the OP, Untitled(Message 1) Did Mod cause the collapse of evcforum? | Coffee House | |
He got a little too mouthy to you and you whollop'd him. Was that your idea of dispassionate moderation? Is that the conduct you're attempting to defend even now? |
What we're talking about, Mod, is a complete failure of confidence in the moderation of the board that culminated in the Great Purge. |
A failure of confidence because the moderators completely abdicated their responsibility to moderate dispassionately and objectively and began moderating on the basis of personal agendas and pique - or from no rational basis whatsoever, such as the moderator inaction that ultimately led to Berb's blowout. |
And you still can't see your part in it? |
Really? It was just our mistake, the whole time? Astounding. |
Don't evade the question, Mod. I didn't say you, specifically, suppressed debate. |
I'd like to thank everyone for their efforts at talking this through to a mutual understanding, but I think it's time to call a halt to this topic. |
So why defend those actions three years later? I don't understand. |
Mod, it was never in my power to help, because it was never my actions that were causing the problem. |
The problem was caused entirely by the actions of the moderators, yet there was absolutely no indication in that thread - or in this one - that any of the moderators were prepared to admit that their actions were wrong. |
This message is a reply to: | |||
Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 06-28-2010 3:32 PM | crashfrog has replied |
Replies to this message: | |||
Message 27 by crashfrog, posted 06-28-2010 5:39 PM | Modulous has replied |
![]() |
Message 31 of 424 (566940)
06-28-2010 6:37 PM |
Reply to: Message 27 by crashfrog 06-28-2010 5:39 PM |
|
But what if they're wrong? |
In other words, I'm accusing you now if the exact blindness you and Percy and the rest showed then - the blindness that says whenever there's a controversy about moderation, it's the fault of the laity for objecting. |
It's never, ever the fault of the moderators for doing the wrong thing. |
Do you agree that when moderators act unfairly, capriciously, cruelly, follow personal vendettas and respond out of pique, they erode confidence in their ability to do their jobs effectively? |
Do you agree that when moderators refuse to address objections to their conduct, and support one another regardless, that erodes confidence in their objectivity |
Look, let's not be ridiculous, here. I'm putting direct questions to you, and I'd like them to be answered. I think I deserve it. If people want to see your conduct in that thread they can go to it. |
That was very helpful, but now I'm confused. I asked you to point out the message that you felt was Dan "disrespecting" you, but you linked to message 90 which is a reply to you accusing Dan of "disrespecting" you. So, again, which message is it that you felt was the "disrespectful" one? |
crashfrog writes:
Er, well, no. You advised him, in fact, that he hadn't broken a forum rule. You wrote:
Did you write that, or didn't you? It's your face by those words. |
You accused him of disrespecting you and then you suspended him. I'm trying to tell you - absolutely none of that gives the appearance of dispassionate, impersonal moderation. What it looks like is you not being able to take criticism or disrespect, and suspending someone in revenge. |
I don't see how, objectively, there can be any other conclusion. What actions did you take? As you keep reminding us, the only person you yourself took action against was the one person you felt was being "disrespectful" to you. NJ's disrespect to Berberry you not only gave explicit approval to, you actually shortened NJ's suspension when he was suspended for it. |
No, but you did then - you have the second-most number of posts in that thread - and those defenses were a part of how you were central to the erosion of moderator confidence. When authority closes ranks to protect their own and ignore the objections of those their actions are meant to serve, it erodes confidence in their fairness and objectivity. |
And yet, clearly it was not enough |
Clearly people had more to say, because some of them did continue, and were suspended. Hell you even continued. |
You're just asserting that Message 160 is where "enough" debate had occurred |
So then why are you saying anything besides "Rrhain and Crash and Dan were ultimately proved right, and I'm sorry for my actions"? |
This message is a reply to: | |||
Message 27 by crashfrog, posted 06-28-2010 5:39 PM | crashfrog has replied |
Replies to this message: | |||
Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 06-28-2010 7:50 PM | Modulous has replied |
![]() |
Message 42 of 424 (566986)
06-29-2010 3:51 AM |
Reply to: Message 34 by crashfrog 06-28-2010 7:50 PM |
|
This message is a reply to: | |||
Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 06-28-2010 7:50 PM | crashfrog has replied |
Replies to this message: | |||
Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 2:19 PM | Modulous has replied |
![]() | |||||||||
![]() |
Message 43 of 424 (566991)
06-29-2010 5:41 AM |
Reply to: Message 39 by Bolder-dash 06-28-2010 11:30 PM |
|
This message is a reply to: | |||
Message 39 by Bolder-dash, posted 06-28-2010 11:30 PM | Bolder-dash has not replied |
![]() |
Message 75 of 424 (567078)
06-29-2010 2:49 PM |
Reply to: Message 67 by crashfrog 06-29-2010 2:19 PM |
|
This message is a reply to: | |||
Message 67 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 2:19 PM | crashfrog has replied |
Replies to this message: | |||
Message 80 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 3:10 PM | Modulous has replied |
![]() |
Message 104 of 424 (567118)
06-29-2010 5:27 PM |
Reply to: Message 80 by crashfrog 06-29-2010 3:10 PM |
|
quote:
So by your own words I'm forced to conclude that you recognized NJ's words as being disrespectful to Berb, but opted not to take action.
quote:
So by assuming you are lying or circling the wagons I'm forced to conclude that you recognized NJ's words as being disrespectful to Berb, but opted not to take action.
quote:
When so many people are telling you're wrong, Mod, isn't it just slightly possible that you are?
quote:
A brief conversation with Nosy followed by some reflection leads me to conclude that the problems had almost nothing to do with the moderator team, who performed admirably with great sacrifice under often difficult and ambiguous circumstances, but more with the lack of leadership, which makes the fault mine.
quote:
If there were mistakes it was in believing that the site could be run democratically, not in the sense of voting but in the sense of trying to allow everyone a voice.
This message is a reply to: | |||
Message 80 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 3:10 PM | crashfrog has replied |
Replies to this message: | |||
Message 108 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 5:49 PM | Modulous has replied |
![]() |
Message 105 of 424 (567120)
06-29-2010 5:31 PM |
Reply to: Message 78 by crashfrog 06-29-2010 2:56 PM |
|
This message is a reply to: | |||
Message 78 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 2:56 PM | crashfrog has not replied |
![]() |
Message 125 of 424 (567153)
06-29-2010 7:38 PM |
Reply to: Message 108 by crashfrog 06-29-2010 5:49 PM |
|
quote:quote:My own words repeatedly said the opposite, but don't let that stop you being wrong about that.
So by your own words I'm forced to conclude that you recognized NJ's words as being disrespectful to Berb, but opted not to take action.quote:
Yes, but I thought I was clear - you were either lying or engaged in false consciousness out of a desire to uphold "the thin blue line."
This message is a reply to: | |||
Message 108 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 5:49 PM | crashfrog has replied |
Replies to this message: | |||
Message 129 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 8:31 PM | Modulous has replied |
![]() |
Message 133 of 424 (567172)
06-29-2010 9:29 PM |
Reply to: Message 129 by crashfrog 06-29-2010 8:31 PM |
|
This message is a reply to: | |||
Message 129 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 8:31 PM | crashfrog has replied |
Replies to this message: | |||
Message 135 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 10:07 PM | Modulous has replied |
![]() |
Message 159 of 424 (567227)
06-30-2010 7:43 AM |
Reply to: Message 135 by crashfrog 06-29-2010 10:07 PM |
|
This message is a reply to: | |||
Message 135 by crashfrog, posted 06-29-2010 10:07 PM | crashfrog has replied |
Replies to this message: | |||
Message 195 by crashfrog, posted 06-30-2010 1:13 PM | Modulous has seen this message but not replied |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025