BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Policy & Help >

Issue with a mod in Games.

  
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
Spatula Clarke
22:18 / 05.08.05
Which isn't to say, of course, that I don't think EL isn't at least equally complicit in the wrecking of that thread and the subsequent fallout, just in case that wasn't clear.

If that sentence makes sense. Awful lot of negatives in there.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
22:34 / 05.08.05
Well I understood it and Stoatie I totally agree with you about the importance of Policy.
 
 
8===>Q: alyn
22:46 / 05.08.05
feuds between H and X do, for the most part, have their criticisms (of the feuds themselves) lessened be it because of Haus' tenure or because of the old nugget, "but that's what The Haus is supppppossssseeed to do."

Well, you know, I'm not exactly apologizing for haus, I'm objecting to the allegation that he abuses his status as a moderator. I don't particularly enjoy the reccurring bouts of H and X, which is why I stopped reading them, for the most part. You may notice that his opponents tend to bring up his moderator status after he has made them look like a tit.

"Darn! Now I look like a tit! That moderator abused his power!"

If he has any special priviledge, it's based on his ability to control the rhetoric of a certain type of argument. In fact, this is simply his style, and this type of exchange seems to bring him some kind of satisfaction. I found it satisfying to call my interlocutors "motherfuckers" in the Fat Man Walking thread, because it is my style occasionally to be ridiculously aggressive. Is that really such a big deal? If you want to argue, based on his impact on those threads where this problem arises, that haus' style is too disruptive for Barbelith to tolerate, I guess you have some kind of argument. I think, however, that most of us here have had disagreements with haus without turning into tits, right?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
23:03 / 05.08.05
As a correction, I was trying to improve the quality of threads in G&G before I was a moderator, and will probably continue to do so if I cease to be a moderator in C&C. I will also continue to believe that not being a moderator does not give one the freedom to indulge in neurotic acts of petty aggression, to lie aboout one's previous behaviour, too send abusive PMs and generally to behave like a child.

Hieronymus: I believe that the last time I had to deal with you was when you claimed, without evidence, that there was a secret conspiracy of moderators in Film, TV and Theatre, a forum of which you were, hilariously enough, a moderator. I feel I would like to conclude that conversation before you start accusing other people of sweeping anything under a carpet, since you kind of refused to engage with it having made the accusation.

Randy: A fair point. The short version is that EL is, as this thread and many other threads have demonstrated to my satisfaction, not possessed of a game to raise. Since I did not see anything particularly offensive in calling him "Sparky", and I had assumed at that point that he might actually have read my post, I was somewhat taken aback by his response. I will not make that mistake again. It may not be possible for me to moderate a forum where he is setting the level of discussion, but that's another question.

Lurid: You're right. In any other contesxt, I would never have considered citing the ADD stuff, and I regret it primarily because it has allowed EL to start yet another Craigapalooza. However, EL deciding that he is all messed up in a new and exciting way, and therefore that everything has to be about him until further notice is by no means a shockingly new phenomenon, and as such I felt frankly jaded. If anyone has any indication of EL actually apologising for his previous beaviour, btw, rather than claiming he has, or indeed anything to suggest his behaviour has at any point actually changed, I would be fascinated to read it.

Triplets: Fancy having a hack back to see who was vile to whom when? This is the kind of thing that people who want to take moderation seriously, or indeed contribute value to the Policy, need to be prepared and able to do, although obviously it is an awful lot easier not to. As Randy said: I know for a fact that others have called Haus on aspects of his behaviour when they think it was warranted, just as they would do and have done anybody else. All you need is an actual case.

So, from my highly partial perspective, key issues here are:

From Nina: Why do moderators need to be polite? An interesting question, especially when the moderator hat was actually cited by the boy Sparky over there, not me.

From Randy: You know this how?

From Stoatie: The very fact that this discussion is going on at all in Policy kind of gives the lie to any suggestion that stuff's being swept under the carpet.

From me: Where exactly did I lie through my teeth about EL's behaviour, and then refuse to admit it when the massive contradiction between his claims and what actually happened was revealed, as EL has on at least one occasion? Should I just take this shit because I am, for some reason, special? If so, can I have the power to ban people with the power of my mind? OK Thx bye.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
23:22 / 05.08.05
It may not be possible for me to moderate a forum where he is setting the level of discussion, but that's another question.

As I said, I'm not satisfied with the long string of pictures that passed for a discussion-inviting post there, but I'm not sure if that was at least partly the result of EL misunderstanding a previous conversation about my personal view of G&G. I'll PM him once this current situation calms down to clarify that.

I would have stepped in at that point to request the replacement of the images with links to the pages they came from and the addition of some meat on the bones of the descriptions given, but by the time I read that post this had already blown up. It should hopefully be obvious from the conversation we were having here that no, that post as it stands isn't really the sort of thing that I was hoping for from G&G.
 
 
Ganesh
00:22 / 06.08.05
If I was more sensitive I'd be well with in my rights to throw a fit about the ADD comment

How come? Even when applied by professionals (who aren't heading off to Hawaii on an all-expenses 'conference' sponsored by the pharmaceutical company which makes the drug which supposedly alleviates it), ADD - particularly in adults - is a controversial, problematic entity. Like multiple personality disorder and alien abduction, it seems to be diagnosed much, much more in the US than anywhere else in the world. Funny, that.

Even letting all that pass, Electric Lucifer, as I understand it, you haven't yet been granted the responsibility-dissolving label of AD(H)D; you've merely assumed it, in an act of self-diagnosis. Why should anyone respect that? Why would you be well within your rights to "throw a fit" if they didn't?
 
 
Tom Coates
00:31 / 06.08.05
God. This is fun, isn't it. My general instinct with all of this stuff from both sides is to ask what the hell are you trying to achieve? I don't think a moderator has to be polite, except to the extent that they should be trying to keep their forum on topic and inspiring it with interesting discussions. In my experience that means that you wouldn't go courting personal arguments or decrying people in public unnecessarily. Even when someone else starts a personal argument, unless absolutely necessary, I would expect such moderators to try and stop that argument

I've generally found that if you want to get someone to change their behaviour and recognise that they were wrong, that it's really important to find ways in which they can preserve their self-respect. Forcing people into a position where they have to either be antagonistic back to you or be humiliated doesn't seem to me to be sustainable or practical. Haus does an enormous amount of good on this board, and has done so for a very long time, but I think we'd all accept - him included - that on occasion he does rather seem to plough straight into the fight rather than trying to diffuse it or redirect it. I could be being really unfair, but it does seem to me that this will trigger exacty these kinds of problems.

On the other hand, just because Haus doesn't always handle these emerging situations terribly well (one of the few things that I could take issue with in an otherwise uninterupted line of barbelith-positive moves on his part), in my experience they don't just appear out of nowhere. Normally, when someone's had a big fight with Haus and comes to me for some kind of weird judgement thing, I make it very clear that finding yourself in these situations is pretty much your own fault. The first time it happens, you forgive it because people aren't familiar with the way Haus works and they've said something stupid and ploughed into a dodgy area and had their ass handed to them. The second time it happens you do start to wonder if they're ever going to learn. Third time, well, then it seems wilful.

I'm with the people who think this particular flare up does neither of you any good and that you'd both be better served to walk away from it. I don't see anything particularly wrong with Lucifer's post in the thread in question, and I don't think that particular post deserved the response it received (although I will also accept there are subtlties here I may have missed). And while Haus' reaction to it was a bit dismissive, I think the rapid escalation of the whole thing to its current state is also frankly a little ridiculous. If you want to complain to Haus, then complain to Haus. If you have an action you want to propose to the board, then propose it to the board. If you feel hassled or directly threatened in some way then come and talk to me and we'll see what needs to be done. It's sometimes difficult to tell if people are interested in trying to sort out these issues or simply want to perform them as a drama for the rest of the board.

I don't reallly know what to recommend as a next step though. Does anyone have any ideas?
 
 
Ganesh
00:35 / 06.08.05
%Ritalin?%
 
 
Hieronymus
01:33 / 06.08.05
Hieronymus: I believe that the last time I had to deal with you was when you claimed, without evidence, that there was a secret conspiracy of moderators in Film, TV and Theatre, a forum of which you were, hilariously enough, a moderator. I feel I would like to conclude that conversation before you start accusing other people of sweeping anything under a carpet, since you kind of refused to engage with it having made the accusation.

First off you didn't "deal with me", sir. I stepped away from the Dr. Who debacle to wait until cooler heads prevailed. Please see the third paragraph for this. Second, I want to make myself perfectly clear that I am not making any claims about a conspiracy of deception going on here. It's a tired old canard that I do not subscribe to. There is an attempt to make sure threads are kept free of threadrot and that endeavor to clean up rot has on occasion included mopping up after your persnicketiness and verbal donnybrooks, a kind of accidental apologism that I personally would prefer to see kept on the record.

I want to reiterate that: my previous statement in this thread regarding your squabbles has absolutely nothing to do with you being moderator, Haus, and everything to do with you being an unnecessarily caustic member of the board. The two are not synonymous in my mind. Moderator or not, your tone has consistently been one of condescension and snark, often times when there wasn't a need to be so. The scrap you had between Mr. Six and yourself comes immediately to mind, as does The Flex Mentallo for sale thread. I'm not saying you always start the vitriol (though in the case of the Flex Mentallo thread, you certainly did) but you're always there to dump more gasoline on the campfire and then playing the part of the saintly innocent when the damn thing's raging out of control. There's no nuance or a strive to defuse in your replies. Only a drive towards greater antagonism. And I'm really growing tired of watching it, much less cleaning up after it.

As for the Doctor Who thread to which you're referring to, I'll refer you to exactly what I explained to Mr. Six and Randy Dupre when the incident occurred:

"Haus moved to have the original Dr Who thread stripped of its 'spoiler-filled' abstract'. He put the change on the docket twice, once before when I voted against it (as I disagreed with the move) and once again when I voted against that one too. THEN somehow, either he or Spatula or some other person got the TITLE removed of its 'SPOILERS' disclaimer, a move I wasn't present for, and then Haus moved to have the abstract changed because "then it would reflect the title change", a move I was present for and had no choice but to agree to. So when I bitched about 'machinations', I wasn't exaggerating. I'd voted against it. Twice. And it still got pushed through."

You are correct, Haus. I am a moderator, same as you are. But when my vote gets ignored and the moderation request gets pushed through again and again until it's approved, it makes me wonder just how valid my vote really is. This requires a separate thread, I know, but I wanted to make sure your issue with me was replied to before I started that discussion.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
01:53 / 06.08.05
Briefly, because I've already mentioned this...

Tom: I don't see anything particularly wrong with Lucifer's post in the thread in question

Not wrong, as such, but it falls foul of doing one of the things that's already being discussed here - namely, it lists games but provides no real information on them. EL's hardly alone in doing that in G&G, I realise - it's something that we're trying to work out in that linked thread.

As for the edits I would have suggested he made to his post, I don't think screenshots of a game are any substitute for a well-written description of that game. Great long strings of images tend to detract from the actual talking in a thread and, well, can make the place look a bit Playschool.

It was also rather bizarre that he'd submit that post, then say that he didn't think that the thread should be turned into a general steampunk one, despite the fact that this was what he'd just used it for himself.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
08:25 / 06.08.05
Hieronymus: Oh! You're Dissipated Mass! I didn't realise. Well, that does rather explain a lot. But thanks for quoting your own explanation of what happened. That is, of course, entirely disinterested and accurate.

"Haus moved to have the original Dr Who thread stripped of its 'spoiler-filled' abstract'. He put the change on the docket twice, once before when I voted against it (as I disagreed with the move) and once again when I voted against that one too. THEN somehow, either he or Spatula or some other person got the TITLE removed of its 'SPOILERS' disclaimer, a move I wasn't present for, and then Haus moved to have the abstract changed because "then it would reflect the title change", a move I was present for and had no choice but to agree to. So when I bitched about 'machinations', I wasn't exaggerating. I'd voted against it. Twice. And it still got pushed through."

So, you were blocking something that the majority of people posting to the thread wanted. The creation of a new thread for spoilers to anything other than the first episode, which the thread was set up for, made sense and meant that the core discussion, which people wanted to remain spoiler-free, was kept going and the potential spoilers were removed. No content was lost, and the desires of the majority, of posters and of moderators, were enacted. If you're still not happy, might I suggest contributing further to that thread in Policy you linked to about spoilers? I said at the time that the strident, abusive and hectoring tone Mister Six, you and others were adopting was giving strength to an unfortunate stereotype of sci-fi fans as immature children which the general level of discussion did not justify, but I'm sure this time around we would all be compelled to admit your sexy rightness.

Mister Six's behaviour is interesting in some ways, however. He PMed me calling me a wanker, then denied outright that he had ever been abusive. He hijacked a thread in Policy to talk about himself, quoting somebody else's PM in the process. He was rude to anyone who disagreed with him. He tied himself into ever more ludicrous knots through his refusal to admit any mistakes whatever (his brilliant denial that he misspelled "semen" on page two is pure Partridge). And, of course, what he said was not offensive, ever. Anyone see a pattern forming? To quote myself, as seems to be the fashion:

If you are unable to cope with people being rude, I strongly suggest you try to avoid being rude. There's a thread in the Policy about that as well.

Of course, to you his insulting behaviour is not in any way "caustic", because he isn't me. Again, you've been perpetuating this for how long now, Mass? So long I forgot who you were. That's pretty hardcore. If you are so upset that my words are snatched forever from us, might I suggest you start a thread in the Conversation and copy and paste every statement I make or respond to into it? It could be a vast reference library to support these accusations next time round. Alternatively, start lots of threads trying to pick fights with me in the Conversation - it's a pretty traditional approach, but it has its fans.

Incidentally, Mephisto - Joined 2002, 41 posts. Far be it from me to suggest I was right to believe that he had little real interest in Barbelith as anything other than a money-maker. I was sure tellt there.

Tom - I get what you're saying, but I also get that there is a school of people on Barbelith who are simply not able to deal with the board being run in any way that they do not like, and who are sufficiently bored and boring to perpetuate feuds across years. If they are allowed to smear and traduce unimpeded, then Barbelith will become more like them, which will be a net negative. I think that Electric Craigiland over there was putting himself forward as a moderator recently, presumably by remote broadcast from the Selfawarian border. I don't love being a lightning rod for halfwits, but, and this is quite a big but, it's a lot better than having them messing up the rest of the board.

Incidentally, Randy, on "halfwit" - no, it was not polite. Neither is accusing somebody repeatedly of "faking posts". That goes beyond simple abuse into accusations of malpractice, and I don't think his persecution complex deserves respect or politeness. I tried being polite and trying to calm him down a number of times in the years that he has been hanging around Barbelith, and it works at best for as long as it takes for something else to happen or an opinion to be expressed that he does not like. Remember the next-generation games consoles?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
10:12 / 06.08.05
(New Chaos Engine/Bitmap Brothers thread started).
 
 
Spatula Clarke
13:43 / 06.08.05
Cheers for that Stoatie. You're a star.

Haus: No, calling somebody a halfwit isn't the same thing as accusing somebody of abusing their position, but it does perpetuate this notion of having the Haus suit chuck a snide comment at you as being a sort of Barbelith hazing ritual. It provides yr modzeros and the like with an alternate complaint when the stuff about moderator conspiracies is inevitably shown to be bullshit and, personally, I find that it makes it more difficult for the rest of us to point out how baseless most of the complaints about abuse of position are when we're having to jump through the additional hoop of explaining this to somebody who's not just been shown to be wrong, but has been called a pillock at the same time and is now unable to process anything without the red mist descending.

Remember the next-generation games consoles?

Yes, but I think that's a fairly good example of what I'm trying to get at, too. It was mainly me and Sylph knocking horns, with EL being a sort of side issue, but, for whatever reason, any antogonism between the two of us hasn't carried through to later threads. The same applies to other people I've got into that sort of session with - even Chrome. If somebody's posted something that's a bit daft or you feel isn't really of the standard that Barbelith should be aiming for, getting that across to them without it turning into a personal fued that'll repeat itself every time the two of you are in the same thread seems to me to simply be a matter of not prodding them in the ribs at the same time.

But if it's got to the stage where it's something that's been carrying on for years, then I've got to admit that I have absolutely no idea how you'd best go about dealing with that.
 
 
Tom Coates
20:03 / 06.08.05
I think Randy's point there is pretty much what I've been trying to express - that once the Red Mist has descended then basically the debate is over because neither party will then be capable of coming to any kind of accomodation or compromise or developing conversation. At which point, you really have to start wondering what the point of continuing the discussion after that point is anyway.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:43 / 06.08.05
With respect, Tom, I recognise and acknowledge that point entirely. However, you do not read Barbelith on a regular basis, and particularly not the Conversation, and you are simply not aware of EL's endless attention-seeking. We are talking years here - I believe he first lost his shit completely when somebody dared to quite like the Strokes, and he's been following his reluctant nemeses around ever since. This is by no means the first time this problem has cropped up.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:48 / 06.08.05
Which is to say, while calling EL a halfwit was clearly not very moral high groundy, the fact that he behaves like one is causing problems outside this thread.
 
 
w1rebaby
21:03 / 06.08.05
Whilst I may or may not have opinions on the original comments made, I am certainly not going to post anything discussing whether Haus was a meanie or not on a thread that has been started under false pretences - i.e. that there was a moderation or board issue involved instead of just "oh that poster was rude to me". I seem to remember having said something similar before. This is not a board issue. This is not a mod issue. Keep it out of the fucking Policy unless it actually has something to do with the running of the board. Creating a thread called "issue with a mod" suggests that there is some issue with a mod relating to his or her mod status, which is simply not the case. Don't waste everyone's time.

Neither Haus nor EL should have engaged in any of the continuing banter that's been taking place here as far as I'm concerned, but that's just an accessory really.

If there's anything relevant at all in this thread it's discussion relating to the G&G thread in question, which I do not consider should have been monkeyed with since the disagreement therein was short and self-contained, but that's now moot since action has already taken place.
 
 
w1rebaby
21:06 / 06.08.05
Incidentally, Haus, if you think that EL is a continuing problem on Barbelith that needs to be dealt with, might I suggest you start some sort of thread about that specifically with examples, links and so on.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:27 / 06.08.05
Fridge - primarily I think he's a problem for a small number of people who have invoked his wrath, and for others who have to watch him shouting, picking fights and deceiving himself. He's more of a danger to himself than others, though. I was aiming merely to provide context.

I have no idea why this thread is still in the Policy, to be honest; as you say, without any substantial policy implications this is just a screaming fit; it belongs in the Convo, if anywhere.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
21:35 / 06.08.05
If there's anything relevant at all in this thread it's discussion relating to the G&G thread in question, which I do not consider should have been monkeyed with

Well, we've now got two threads, each split off to discuss its own thing, instead of a single thread which would have been half of one thing and half the other, and probably have covered neither satisfactorily as a result. We no longer have a large space of wasted and off-topic posts immediately after the starters in those threads - off-topic which, in the defunct thread, would undoubtedly have led to the odd person popping in to it try and score points off the bickering, regardless of whether everyone else had moved on from it or not. The discussion in that thread hadn't progressed to the point where transfering posts to new ones and starting over was going to be a hassle or lead to confusion. It's now progressing quite nicely in each of the new topics, I think.

I'm not sure what the bad is there.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
21:49 / 06.08.05
short and self-contained

Short, yes, but proportionately, given the length of the thread, not so much.

Self-contained? Yes, apart from what Randy just said above about other posters pitching in.

Personally, I think the thread was rotted beyond use, above and beyond which it had raised two separate issues, each of which could be (and, thus far, look like being) productive threads in their own right.

What with G&G being a new forum and all, I think we should be trying our hardest to start as we mean to go on- stuff like this (while it's kind of inevitable to some extent, given the nature of a message board) should be an aberration rather than the rule- when it happens in the first few weeks of the forum's existence, what kind of example is that setting?
 
 
Tryphena Absent
21:57 / 06.08.05
Right, does anyone have qualms about me proposing to move this thread to conversation? I don't really think it's a Policy thread but if people feel like they want to keep it here for future perusal than it should stay here...
 
 
Lurid Archive
22:12 / 06.08.05
Yes, I'd rather this thread stayed here. It involves a discussion about how we should deal with personal spats which could be useful to refer to later. Besides, I think that EL has every right to question Haus behavoiur as a moderator and that kind of query belongs in the Policy.

The fact that we have decided that the charge is essentially baseless is, I think, irrelevant. I think we should keep something of a record of it, so that people can see the type of accusation that finds no traction here.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
22:12 / 06.08.05
The general stuff about how moderators should approach posters who they've been involved with in previous spats - I'd say that was Policy material, no? Same goes for the posts dealing with the issue of moderator 'politeness'.

It'd be quite handy to have something to point to in order to to say "you're wrong, you're twisting the truth to suit your own ends, and here's why" should this sort of thing happen in future, rather than having to repeat ourselves over and over, as keeps happening.

Sooner see it stay here, to be honest. Well, I'd sooner it had never happened at all, but unless moderator actions now extend to 'Rewind Time', there's not much can be done about that.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
22:13 / 06.08.05
Jinx.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
22:16 / 06.08.05
Yeah, I'd keep it here, even though it's actually really not an issue about a mod but an issue about a poster (who is also a mod, but this seems not to be pertinent to the issue). Well, two posters, really, but...

Issues about how posters should deal with each other fall just as far within the remit of Policy as issues of how posters should deal with mods, to my way of thinking.

A lot of it could profitably be moved to PMs, but I don't think a move of the whole thread to Conversation would achieve a great deal, to be honest.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
23:10 / 06.08.05
Good, good, just checking because the issue had come up a few times.
 
 
Tom Coates
08:42 / 07.08.05
I don't really buy some of Haus' assertions here - there does seem to be a worthwhile question to ask here about whether this thread is just about Haus (and should be in the Conversation) or whether it's about Haus as a moderator. If it's the later then it's worth us talking about whether we think moderators do have a responsibility to try and diffuse arguments and calm things down - either in the places where they're being moderators or across the board. My personal opinion is that - to an extent - they do. But that may be my opinion alone.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:46 / 07.08.05
I think that - to an extent - they do. And, to an extent, they do.

However, I don't think I'm making many assertions here - simply defending myself against accusations of malpractice from Craig's list. Whether I should be doing that at all is another question - Fridgemagnet suggests above that both plaintiff and defendant should drop out of subsequnet discussion, which may make more sense.

However. My assertions, as near as I can tell:

1) This thread was started under the auspices of being a problem with a moderator, but actually was simply a problem with me as a person, and thus a new way for Electric Craig to try to make his personal issues a matter for the entire board to have to deal with.

2) Electric Craig's account of what happened is so partial as to be pretty much worthless.

3) Electric Craig's account also demonstrates why there is no real point in attempting to reason with Electric Craig - he is utterly unable to imagine that he is ever in any way at fault, but reserves the right to ascribe whatever motivation and meaning he wishes to the speech of others. Because he is Craig. See Randy's You know this how?

4) Electric Craig's account also fails to mention that he was the first person both to cite moderation as an issue and also to be demonstrably rude:

Is this you with your moderator hat on or are you just wearing one of those battery powered clapping things?

Of course, this was totally inoffensive, unlike calling somebody whose name is Electric Lucifer "Sparky", which is, as has been mentioned, tantamount to mumrape.

5) Electric Craig is currently claiming another legitimating mechanism to give him sole permission to act like a troll without anyone being allowed to call him on it. See Ganesh's:

Even letting all that pass, Electric Lucifer, as I understand it, you haven't yet been granted the responsibility-dissolving label of AD(H)D; you've merely assumed it, in an act of self-diagnosis. Why should anyone respect that? Why would you be well within your rights to "throw a fit" if they didn't?

(Answer - because in Electric Craigiland, Craig is _always_ within his rights to throw a fit)

6) Nonetheless, Electric Craig's behaviour has for some years revolved around trying to gain attention by insulting people and is characterised by following his mortal enemies around the board and trying to pick fights with them.

7) Electric Craig's accounts of these processes are also so partial as to be worthless. See my:

Where exactly did I lie through my teeth about EL's behaviour, and then refuse to admit it when the massive contradiction between his claims and what actually happened was revealed, as EL has on at least one occasion?

Thus:

8) This thread is an excrescence of Electric Craig's desperate need for attention and utter lack of self-awareness.

This, I think, pretty much sums up my assertions. I don't believe that at any point I asserted that moderators have no obligation to be polite, although I have in the past stated that moderators are IMO given a large amount of freedom to act as private individuals by the existence of distributed moderation. That assertion was made by Nina and Qalyn, I believe. Since Electric Craig is intent on pursuing his reluctant nemeses to the very ends of the Earth, and since he demands the right to see his own contributions as utterly inoffensive and the contributions of anyone he does not like as mumfuck (and an abuse of moderator powers, as it turns out), it is pretty much impossible to treat him as a competent interlocutor.

So. In my opinion, Electric Craig is a net negative to Barbelith, and unless and until that ceases to be the case I don't think Barbelith should be taking too many actions or making too many changes to accommodate his idea of how the board should function. If we want to get Trial of a Timelord about it, I would very much like to ask people who have long-term experience of the Board and are generally acknowledged as net positives to it to share their thoughts. If we want to have a general discussion about how moderators should behave, I think a new thread, possibly in the first instance with moderators primarily involved, would be a good idea.

If you feel there are assertions being made that I have not covered, then let's talk about those.
 
 
sleazenation
10:13 / 07.08.05
If it's the later then it's worth us talking about whether we think moderators do have a responsibility to try and diffuse arguments and calm things down - either in the places where they're being moderators or across the board.

Hmmm
While I actively advocate intellectually rigourous engagement and politeness as a first point of departure for all, regular posters and moderators alike, I am concerned here that moderators would be backed into the position of suffering insults and fools gladly and appeasing lazy thinking and unreasonable behaviour in attempt to 'diffuse arguements'. Worse, this could be interpreted as appeasement to lazy thinking and unreasonable behaviour, particularly as practiced by actively malevolent trolls.

I am also concerned that adding a particular onus one-sidedly onto the moderators undermines at least part of the goal of distributed moderation, to decrease the diffence between moderators and other Barbelith users...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
10:27 / 07.08.05
I *really* think we need a new thread for that - this one is meant to be about a specific issue with a specific moderator in a specific forum...
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
07:13 / 08.08.05
And could I just ask that if this thread were to go any further that if Haus could stop with the BB references, unless I really am the only Barbeloid in the village that isn't watching it...
 
 
Ariadne
08:03 / 08.08.05
Agreed. Plus, changing someone's name to mock them in a thread that's supposed to be about sorting this out, really isn't helpful.
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply