Damn You, Compared2What!

[Hunter]

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

Agree, it is a thankless job and while I generally dont care much for authority it is difficult to craft an argument that it is not needed, this place would be a mess without those people giving their time freely to sort things out when need be.

So that said, thanks Bruce and others for trying at least.

[OP ED]

:: ::

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.

perhaps they had not, but they have now.

or at least it really really looks that way from here.

of course, OP ED would point out that someone's actions can be construed as officious, self-serving and petty without it being necessary to assume that the person indicated is inherently officious, self-serving and petty.

[also, assuming they were inherently a character attack indicates a reading of the grammar much different from how OP ED reads it, that is, as being descriptive of the "abuse of power" itself rather than the so-called "abuser"....i'm sure this seems like splitting hairs to you, but i don't consider what she said to be any more of an inherent insult than the "finding it interesting which posters question the enforcement of rules" bit of draconian rhetoric which was engaged in at the start]

all of which is to say that it isn't nearly so obviously "abusive" as you may be attempting to convince yourself of. at least, certainly not so obviously abusive as actually calling someone a dickhead or whatever.

[although dickhead is a pretty lame insult, hardly worth the effort to type]

[OP ED would've suspended the Fish for not coming up with something more original]

....

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.

posters can get angry at mods all they want as long as they don't disagree with their [incorrect] understanding of informal fallacies and/or [mis]construe ANY of their actions whatsoever as being out of line or even (gasp) possibly self-serving.

[it was, at the least, ill considered]

[given that you ended a discussion about whether YOUR behavior was abusive by suspending the other participant in the discussion, winning said argument by default. although i'm certain it will eventually become apparent that this was a Pyrrhic Victory at best]

[its like arresting someone for not being a party member, even if your intention is perfectly pure and you have no emotional investment in the discussion whatsoever, it comes across as extremely heavy-handed]

[unless of course your "job", as you put it, is to negate any discussion of the arbitrary nature of enforcing posting guidelines and to generally stir up resentment among long-time board members who naturally have formed what used to be called "friendships" after many battles together]

....oh, as for the other thing, to be clear:

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...

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

actually what you SAID originally WAS:

I also think it's interesting to note which posters seem bothered by the enforcement of a rule that has always existed

[emphasis added]

now perhaps you didn't intend for such to be read this way, but she was [is] correct in calling this ad-hominem, a character attack. indeed, this is almost the definition of the term as listed in several links provided by myself and others previously. at any rate it just as easily falls under the heading of that particular guidlline, albeit the second half, as any of the more overt methods of personal attack, such as name-calling.

[i actually don't even remember a "rule". i remember a "guideline" that actually has the word "please" in it and is phrased much less harshly than all of the other guidelines, most of which end with "is not permitted"]

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.

we have our reasons. some of mine are personal, but then again, so are most of my reasons for most of the things i do. i actually think that a little heat in the debate brings true feelings to the surface and examines the actual integrity of an idea much more efficiently than walking on eggshells or worrying overmuch about people's feelings with regard to their attachment to their pet theories or whathaveyas. just a personal preference.

[during an election cycle none of the things that have resulted in suspensions this week would've raised even the tiniest eyebrow's worth of attention]

"Fire is the Test of Gold"
{Seneca, the Younger}

of course, he also said:

errare humanum est

[at least i think that was him]

[Wombaticus Rex]

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

Yes. Thank you, Bruce D.

[Bruce Dazzling]

:: ::
actually what you SAID originally WAS:

I also think it's interesting to note which posters seem bothered by the enforcement of a rule that has always existed

[emphasis added]

now perhaps you didn't intend for such to be read this way, but she was [is] correct in calling this ad-hominem, a character attack. indeed, this is almost the definition of the term as listed in several links provided by myself and others previously. at any rate it just as easily falls under the heading of that particular guidlline, albeit the second half, as any of the more overt methods of personal attack, such as name-calling.

No, what I said comes nowhere near to fitting the description of an ad hominem attack. What I said was a statement of fact.

I did think it was interesting to note which posters seem bothered by the the enforcement of a rule that has always existed.

It's worth noting that I didn't name any names initially, yet C2W seemed to immediately believe that my comment was directed at her, when in fact it was directed at multiple posters, none of whom (besides her) seemed to take personal offense.

It's also worth noting that after being pushed by C2W, I was able to document two recent occurrences where C2W made the exact type of name-calling posts that led me to find it interesting that she, among others, seemed to be bothered by the enforcement of the rule as it pertained to barracuda's "dickhead" comment. I said I found it interesting, and I still do, and it's still not an ad hominem for me to say so.

I've addressed this situation multiple times at this point, and I really don't think there's any more to be said about it, and as I said elsewhere recently, I really don't have the time or the patience for marathon cut and paste rhetorical gymnastics. I've made my position perfectly clear. There's no more clarity to be gained from yet another post.

Edited to add a tip of the hat to Wombat.

[barracuda]

Cross posting with some edits from here:

Having and supporting opinions on the mechanics of the forum and its rules is important, as much as one may find it naval-gazing. Realistically, the amount of interest in the subject helps create and sustain the disposition of the rules and their enforcement here. In point of fact, if you examine the rest of the subjects included in the Posting Guidelines sub-forum, many of the rules on the board exist simply because of discussions just like this one, discussions filled with passion and heated disagreements, but which eventually resulted in more concise definitions of just what ought be permissible in this environment. That is what is happening here. It is a process, a messy process, but one which is necessary for the health of the board and the inclusion of the members of the board in the environment in which they submit what are often very personal and difficult thoughts.

I am interested in this board because I consider it to be a writer's forum primarily, a place established by a writer of both esoteric research and satire as well, and a place where the boundaries of societal propriety are by necessity approached in order to even begin discussion about many of the subjects. Many people here, I realize, view the place as a convenient news-aggregation depository, a place they can come and see what is happening in the world and if those happenings, usually in the form of cut-and-pate from news outlets, are deemed by members to be worthy of an RI approach. I, personally, am more interested in the ability of the best writers here to startlingly delineate exactly what the RI approach really is, or should be, often through a cutting examination of the opinions of other posters. In this regard, I have rarely been disappointed by compared2what?'s slant on the subject, among others.

Peoples' opinions often represent the core of who they think they are, the projection into the world of themselves and their personalities. Violations of those projections are going to be painful, almost by definition. And the limits of allowable pain in that regard in this context is what is under discussion here. It matters.

[dbcooper41]

"naval-gazing"?

perhaps you meant to say "Omphaloskepsis".
jk of course. this place is so serious these days.

[barracuda]

No, I was talking about boats, matey.

[Wombaticus Rex]

Barracuda, an excellent & eloquent post.

Thank you.

You changed my mind about the nature of this conversation.

I'm listening.

[Hunter]

I think what we are experiencing here are some false flag trolls and personal attacks by those who may benefit from a crackdown on the forum.


(BTW this is just a joke with nobody particular in mind)

[beeline]

I am interested in this board because I consider it to be a writer's forum primarily, a place established by a writer of both esoteric research and satire as well, and a place where the boundaries of societal propriety are by necessity approached in order to even begin discussion about many of the subjects. Many people here, I realize, view the place as a convenient news-aggregation depository, a place they can come and see what is happening in the world and if those happenings, usually in the form of cut-and-pate from news outlets, are deemed by members to be worthy of an RI approach. I, personally, am more interested in the ability of the best writers here to startlingly delineate exactly what the RI approach really is, or should be, often through a cutting examination of the opinions of other posters. In this regard, I have rarely been disappointed by compared2what?'s slant on the subject, among others.

Interesting. I hadn't thought of RI that way before, but, it is true. As a logical extension of the blog, really. The quality of the members' postings reflects this also.

[Wombaticus Rex]

I think what we are experiencing here are some false flag trolls and personal attacks by those who may benefit from a crackdown on the forum.

I think that sounds luridly paranoid but I'd be interested in an explanation of two things:

1) WTF is a "false flag troll" and who would that be a reference to?

2) "those who may benefit from a crackdown on the forum" is problematic to me because I have never seen how this community represents a credible threat to anyone but David Miscavige & Jim DiEugenio.

[Bruce Dazzling]

Cross posting with some edits from here:

Having and supporting opinions on the mechanics of the forum and its rules is important, as much as one may find it naval-gazing. Realistically, the amount of interest in the subject helps create and sustain the disposition of the rules and their enforcement here. In point of fact, if you examine the rest of the subjects included in the Posting Guidelines sub-forum, many of the rules on the board exist simply because of discussions just like this one, discussions filled with passion and heated disagreements, but which eventually resulted in more concise definitions of just what ought be permissible in this environment. That is what is happening here. It is a process, a messy process, but one which is necessary for the health of the board and the inclusion of the members of the board in the environment in which they submit what are often very personal and difficult thoughts.

I am interested in this board because I consider it to be a writer's forum primarily, a place established by a writer of both esoteric research and satire as well, and a place where the boundaries of societal propriety are by necessity approached in order to even begin discussion about many of the subjects. Many people here, I realize, view the place as a convenient news-aggregation depository, a place they can come and see what is happening in the world and if those happenings, usually in the form of cut-and-pate from news outlets, are deemed by members to be worthy of an RI approach. I, personally, am more interested in the ability of the best writers here to startlingly delineate exactly what the RI approach really is, or should be, often through a cutting examination of the opinions of other posters. In this regard, I have rarely been disappointed by compared2what?'s slant on the subject, among others.

Peoples' opinions often represent the core of who they think they are, the projection into the world of themselves and their personalities. Violations of those projections are going to be painful, almost by definition. And the limits of allowable pain in that regard in this context is what is under discussion here. It matters.

I'm definitely down with barracuda's well crafted bit of wisdom. This place is absolutely what we make of it, and yes, the process of change is often a painful one. Even when that change is ultimately positive.

I think some wise person once said something about omelets and broken eggs.

Maybe this is the time to take a step back and reexamine what exactly RI is, and what exactly the majority of us wish for it to be going forward.

I'd love to hear some specific ideas.

[Hunter]

I think what we are experiencing here are some false flag trolls and personal attacks by those who may benefit from a crackdown on the forum.

I think that sounds luridly paranoid but I'd be interested in an explanation of two things:

1) WTF is a "false flag troll" and who would that be a reference to?

2) "those who may benefit from a crackdown on the forum" is problematic to me because I have never seen how this community represents a credible threat to anyone but David Miscavige & Jim DiEugenio.

LOL it was just a joke man, this place has become so tense and serious, it was just an attempt at a little humor. Sorry if anyone misunderstood, that is the truth.


My sarcasm doesnt always go over well on these damn forums.

[Wombaticus Rex]

I just don't have any real context for your voice & character, no worries. Now I know!

[Hunter]

I just don't have any real context for your voice & character, no worries. Now I know!

Yes, understandable =) not a problem.