Damn You, Compared2What!

[brainpanhandler]

Neither do I.

And I'm taking a voluntary 1 week suspension in solidarity. Beginiiiiiing, now.

[Canadian_watcher]

un fucking believable.

this is a cult and EDIT:
no, I'm not out

[norton ash]

That civilisation may not sink,
Its great battle lost,
Quiet the dog, tether the pony
To a distant post;
Our master Caesar is in the tent
Where the maps are spread,
His eyes fixed upon nothing,
A hand upon his head.
Like a long-legged fly upon the stream
His mind moves upon silence.

That the topless towers be burnt
And men recall that face,
Move most gently if move you must
In this lonely place.
She thinks, part woman, three parts a child,
That nobody looks; her feet
Practise a tinker shuffle
Picked up on a street.
Like a long-legged fly upon the stream
Her mind moves upon silence.

That girls at puberty may find
The first Adam in their thought,
Shut the door of the Pope's chapel,
Keep those children out.
There on that scaffolding resides
Michael Angelo.
With no more sound than the mice make
His hand moves to and fro.
Like a long-legged fly upon the stream
His mind moves upon silence.

[barracuda]

un fucking believable.

this is a cult

Yes, it is a cult, a cult of appreciation of her clarity of thought, vividness of expression, research abilities, and dogged depth of logical argument that should be a defining characteristic here. This is a discussion board. If the mods, of all people, don't have the time or inclination to deal with rational and non-abusive discussion of the rules within a subforum which exists for that purpose and no other, and turn instead to circumventing that discussion by suspending the participants, there is a problem here. That is what is un-goddam-fucking-believable.

[Bruce Dazzling]

un fucking believable.

this is a cult

Yes, it is a cult, a cult of appreciation of her clarity of thought, vividness of expression, research abilities, and dogged depth of logical argument that should be a defining characteristic here. This is a discussion board. If the mods, of all people, don't have the time or inclination to deal with rational and non-abusive discussion of the rules within a subforum which exists for that purpose and no other, and turn instead to circumventing that discussion by suspending the participants, there is a problem here. That is what is un-goddam-fucking-believable.

In this particular instance, C2W's "rational and non-abusive discussion of the rules" boils down to her putting words into my mouth, repeatedly accusing me of making a non-existent ad hominen attack on her, and repeatedly requesting that I compile a list of verboten terms, which, seeing as such a list may number into the thousands, I declined numerous times. And this all stemmed from my having the gall to suspend you (barracuda) for calling someone a dickhead.

After explaining multiple times to C2W that I did not make an ad hominem attack on her, that the meaning of my comment was simply that I couldn't believe that multiple posters seemed to be defending the right to call other posters names, and also after explaining multiple times that I wasn't going to compile a list of verboten terms, I boiled down my position to it's simplest terms one more time. That position is that no poster should engage in name-calling. I also suggested that everyone on this board is smart enough to know what "name-calling" means.

At that point, I was asked, yet again, to explain my definition of name-calling.

It was also at this point that I was informed by C2W that she doesn't need to be told not to call people names, because she doesn't engage in that behavior.

At that point, I reminded C2W that in the past 5 weeks, she had actually referred to two different posters as a "douche" and an "asshole." I also reminded her that she wasn't suspended for either of those incidents.

It was at this point, amazingly, that she made the "officious, self-serving and petty abuse of power" comment, which was clearly an abusive comment.

That's the reality of what happened.

The short version is that I wanted to create a board as free of petty name-calling and personal attacks as possible, and I was using my limited moderator toolkit to attempt to change things around here for the better, but for whatever fucking reason, some of you seem to be opposed to that, and are willing to engage in endlessly exhaustive methods towards that end.

[Project Willow]

I understand the desire to intercede in the ever increasing and destructive personal acrimony between members of this board. There is a danger however, in overreacting. This is only my opinion, which I hope I am allowed to state freely.

Typically an ad-hominen is a derogatory term or phrase applied to the whole of someone's character. Saying, for example, "You're an asshole!" would clearly be in violation of the rules. More to C2W's first line of questioning, there's a lesser degree when the epithet is applied to specific behavior as opposed to character, such as, "You're acting like an asshole!" yet I can see how that too would be in violation, if only for the use of the word asshole, which is of little constructive value to its target.

It was at this point, amazingly, that she made the "officious, self-serving and petty abuse of power" comment, which was clearly an abusive comment.

"Officious, self-serving and petty abuse of power" is a descriptive criticism of incidental behavior, which is not inherently abusive, as much as it might hurt. I don't see any purely insulting, non-constructive terminology, aimed at denigrating the central character of the person. But then, I'm not in any position to determine for another person what may or may not feel abusive. Mods are often required to put themselves in such positions however, the difficulty here is that one party in this conflict is a mod. I think once the discussion felt as if it were turning personally abusive to you, Bruce, it should have been referred to a third party, preferably to the other mods. That's one way to avoid officious, self-serving and petty abuses of power. Please forgive my presumption if this was indeed the case.

[barracuda]

There is simply no way that anyone on this board could have known before yesterday that using those words, in any combination, could result in a week's suspension. No way.

And if you can't know, how can you avoid the penalty?

[Bruce Dazzling]

It was at this point, amazingly, that she made the "officious, self-serving and petty abuse of power" comment, which was clearly an abusive comment.

"Officious, self-serving and petty abuse of power" is a descriptive criticism of incidental behavior, which is not inherently abusive, as much as it might hurt. I don't see any purely insulting, non-constructive terminology, aimed at denigrating the central character of the person. But then, I'm not in any position to determine for another person what may or may not feel abusive. Mods are often required to put themselves in such positions however, the difficulty here is that one party in this conflict is a mod. I think once the discussion felt as if it were turning personally abusive to you, Bruce, it should have been referred to a third party, preferably to the other mods. That's one way to avoid officious, self-serving and petty abuses of power. Please forgive my presumption if this was indeed the case.

"Officious, self-serving, and petty" are all attacks on character. In this particular case, though, it was even more offensive because, as I outlined above, no such abuses of power had taken place. In addition, the power that I was wielding was being used in a good-faith attempt to improve board dynamics. Finally, the straw that seemed to break the camel's back was my reminder that I had, twice in the past 5 weeks, allowed C2W to break the very rule we were discussing (and the very rule that she had just claimed that she didn't need to be reminded of) with nothing more than a warning.

If I remain a mod, which is very much in doubt at this point, perhaps I'll convene a moderator forum in the case that anything like this happens again, but, and this is not a sleight on DrVolin and Wombat, it often takes awhile to reach the other mods (as it often takes a while to reach me due to job, family commitments, etc), and I felt that it was a pretty cut and dried case of an abusive post that should be dealt with immediately.

There is simply no way that anyone on this board could have known before yesterday that using those words, in any combination, could result in a week's suspension. No way.

Tell me, barracuda, where is the RI discipline matrix that you used to refer to when deciding on the length of suspensions?

Was it visible to all posters except for me?

[barracuda]

Tell me, barracuda, where is the RI discipline matrix that you used to refer to when deciding on the length of suspensions?

It resides in your own sense of justice and proportion, brother.

[82_28]

Personally, I have become far less confrontational myself. I just think it's sad because I enjoy the presence of Bruce and C2W equally, which means a lot. The problem I have with the long arm of the law in this case is that C2W is a knowable quantity and quality and is a known NON-troll. She wasn't just some non-user with three comments to her name that came to disrupt, she was more of a family member. Sometimes, we all know, others get upset at others. If you love that person you don't stick them in a week long time out for something, to me, that seems pretty petty and keeping her cut off from the rest of us. In my opinion, it could have been handled differently. Heaven knows I've had my warnings. If I had my way I would reinstate her and demand a simple apology between both of you. Her for insulting you, Bruce and you for (what I feel to be) a capricious use of your moderator status.

As for me, I am leaving this one alone from this point on.

[Bruce Dazzling]

Tell me, barracuda, where is the RI discipline matrix that you used to refer to when deciding on the length of suspensions?

It resides in your own sense of justice and proportion, brother.

But that sidesteps the bit that seemed to be your point, which was that no one on this board could have known before yesterday that they could be suspended for a week for referring to someone as officious, self-serving, and petty.

Well, now they do. Precedent and whatnot.

There is simply no way that anyone on this board could have known before yesterday that using those words, in any combination, could result in a week's suspension. No way.

I'd say that nobody on this board, at any point in it's history, including your tenure as mod, has had any idea of precisely what type of punishment they would face for breaking any board rules, because, as I said earlier, there's never been a publicly posted RI discipline matrix.

If it's a problem that no such matrix exists, then I'd say that lots of people are to blame, most of whom have had positions of authority on this board long before me.

Perhaps Jeff will compile such a matrix, or maybe he'll ask the mods to do so going forward.

[justdrew]

Let's just be glad we have moderators willing to moderate.

[Project Willow]

But that sidesteps the bit that seemed to be your point, which was that no one on this board could have known before yesterday that they could be suspended for a week for referring to someone as officious, self-serving, and petty.

Well, now they do. Precedent and whatnot.

I find that a bit disturbing. If you're going to exercise any kind of authority over other people, you have to expect to be criticized, and sometimes rudely, and unfairly. Being able to remain measured and fair in these scenarios is part of what generates confidence and feelings of safety in those over whom you exercise power. Appearing to retaliate is going undermine that confidence.

I'm reticent to continue this discussion, but I'd caution about creating the precedent that you can't get angry at a mod.

[Bruce Dazzling]

But that sidesteps the bit that seemed to be your point, which was that no one on this board could have known before yesterday that they could be suspended for a week for referring to someone as officious, self-serving, and petty.

Well, now they do. Precedent and whatnot.

I find that a bit disturbing. If you're going to exercise any kind of authority over other people, you have to expect to be criticized, and sometimes rudely, and unfairly. Being able to remain measured and fair in these scenarios is part of what generates confidence and feelings of safety in those over whom you exercise power. Appearing to retaliate is going undermine that confidence.

I'm reticent to continue this discussion, but I'd caution about creating the precedent that you can't get angry at a mod.

Posters can get angry at mods all they want. They can get angry at non-mods all they want as well. I would just caution them to keep the arguments issue-based, and to not call people names, or make attacks on people's character. Again, especially when the attacks are based on nothing more than the attackee trying to do his thankless job.

[justdrew]

without this rule enforcement, we're nearly certain to devolve into a shit pit of name calling briefly preceding total implosion. So... let's not waste time criticizing and get on with it. You can still swear up a blue streak, just direct the swearing at something other than other posters.