Please use this thread for alerting admins to moderation issues and for discussion or complaints arising from particular decisions. This thread has been reissued as a post rather than a page as the “ignore commenter” button does not apply to threads started as pages.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
Alan:
If ALurker turns out to be Patrick, then he has been dishonest and I strongly disapprove. But you haven’t made that case. And as I pointed out above, even if that were true, it wouldn’t constitute a rule violation. Your response was completely off-base and unjustified.
As for this:
Where did you get the bizarre idea that if ALurker turned out to be Patrick, you would be exonerated? Read my three comments above. What I said would still be true even if ALurker turned out to be Patrick.
You are absolutely unfit to be a moderator. Being able to say “That other guy did something dishonest!” would not change that.
Its kind of unsettling watching keiths brain completely short circuit.
I wonder how many people he is driving away from the forum.
I bet a lot of you thought it would be a theist who would be its undoing. Whaddya know…
I think it might be a side effect of his acquiring a new faith 😉
peace
And I will answer thoughtfully you as soon as I have time, I still work for a living. Still recovering from the Saints loss with heavy medication.
Thanks on your input on how I should think, good luck,people have been failing at that for quite a while. If your cure is to kill the patient then any assessment of the present condition is affected. It is called pragmatism.
Seems like my initial reaction that it is a waste of my time is being proven correct. Maybe if you repeat the question a few more times I will change my mind. I am coming to the conclusion that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox did exist
It is still possible if a intelligent enough theist ever decides to post here.
You have my sympathy there: mainly because that Diggs chap is an nasty flopping little shit.
Go Pats!
I never had a mental image of keiths before. Now I do. Thank you for that: it’s absolutely brilliant!
Regarding keiths`s strange assessment of the history here:
Well, that’s not how I saw it.
[Drinks beer]
[Sighs]
[Drinks beer again]
Can someone refresh my memory: when, precisely, was the Great Server Crash?
Thanks in advance.
newton:
Yes, that’s the problem. Newton simply hasn’t had enough time to decide whether Alan’s actions are worthy of a moderator, or whether he’s handled this incident honestly and capably.
It’s such a difficult question, and the facts are so ambiguous.
LMAO.
Meanwhile, DNA_Jock would very much like to change the subject. Odd, that.
I have a better idea, Jock. Why not answer the question I posed to newton?
ETA: And do you still feel that you’ve seen no evidence of Alan’s dishonesty?
Yes, keiths, that would be odd, if it were true. But it is false. Your motive-mongering is as accurate as ever, I see.
Well, with the caveat that I am not in possession of all the data needed for a thorough assessment, but since suspension is not banning, I will say that I think he missed a couple of not-straights in the line-out.
So, satisfactory.
“Satisfactory”? LMAO.
And what about my ETA? Would you still say that you’ve seen no evidence of Alan’s dishonesty?
It requires intelligence?
phoodoo:
Poor phoodoo thought he qualified. Now he knows better.
For the decade that I was the President of the local referees` society, it was my job to deal with complaints lodged against referees. I remember one case where the complainant sent me video of the incident in question. The video failed to capture any misconduct by the ref, but it clearly and unambiguously showed malfeasance by the complainant’s team.
The situation here is exactly analogous, keiths, exactly.
The analogy breaks down because, technically, I should have cited the miscreant to the disciplinary committee. Here, I have no such standing, nor obligation.
ET clarify: the video lacked the quality necessary to confirm or refute the complaint against the referee
Jock,
I sense a reluctance on your part to answer directly. Give it a go anyway.
Would you still say that you’ve seen no evidence of Alan’s dishonesty?
cross-posted.
See my ET clarify above, or, analogously, read “I am not in possession of all the data needed for a thorough assessment” for comprehension.
I didn’t ask whether you had the data needed for a thorough assessment.
I asked:
Nobody asked for my opinion, but I’ll give it anyhow. I think Alan bumbled a bit here, as he occasionally does, and then also dissembled a bit, as he also sometimes does, especially when keiths is working him with a taser.
I don’t think he’s a fabulous moderator, because he can be impulsive as well as bumbling and dissembling. Neil does a better job, I think.
Otoh, Alan does decent job, imo: he adds value here that, AFAIK, nobody else is willing to replace. It’s unpaid, seems unpleasant, and I’m glad he’s willing to do it.
Keiths gets a huge charge out of inflicting as much pain as he can. He likes to embarrass people. So, when Alan does make a mistake, keiths always makes the situation worse. He’s an unpleasant guy. But he, too, adds considerable value here, as i’ve said before on several occasions.
Re the Alurker affair, I mostly find it amusing, for reasons I’ve already given. I think it’d be pretty easy to find out if he’s Patrick just by asking a few questions about the 2nd amendment, Hillary Clinton, Rand Paul, whether he knows of a nice cartoon that sets forth the only possible positions one can take toward theism, etc.
But, as keiths points out, whether something is amusing and pathetic does not make it actionable under the rules here.
Readers may be wondering why newton and Jock are trying to defend the indefensible. I am too. It’s obviously a losing proposition.
I don’t know the answer, but one interesting clue is that they both regard themselves as having been in moderator-like roles in the past. You can see that with Jock’s endless references to his rugby refereeing. You can also see it in this comment of newton’s (addressed to Alan):
Perhaps they feel the urge to defend “one of their own”. If so, they should ask themselves why they are doing that when the evidence against Alan is so damning.
I see that the list of questions that keiths did NOT ask continues to grow. Heh.
Okay.
I have not seen evidence of Alan’s dishonesty.
By and large, I agree with walto`s assessment.
Right now, the most important rule to be added here seems to me to be something that allows the immediate banning of any NE Patriots fans. Sorry, Jock. Nice knowing you.
PS: condolences to Newton over the incredible finish of the Saints game. But it may be helpful to keep the prime directive in mind at this sad time: Anybody But The Pats.
DNA_Jock:
Unbelievable. Well, it’s your reputation.
Yes I believe intelligence is compatible with but not necessary for theism
walto:
TSZ does just fine in his absence; in fact it gets better. We’ve seen that recently during his trip to England. We don’t need to replace him.
As for “value”, I don’t see the value of guanoing at all, much less guanoing done as poorly and partially as Alan does it. I certainly don’t see the value in his chronic dishonesty, his abuse of moderator privileges for personal benefit, his unwillingness to acknowledge and correct moderation mistakes, and his lack of impulse control.
TSZ consistently gets better when Alan leaves or is otherwise occupied and not guanoing. That’s not much of a testament to the “value” he brings.
Wow, there’s a thought. Perhaps commenters here (other than keiths, evidently) have relevant experience.
So perhaps sympathy leads to empathy.
Not to worry keiths, in addition to my experience playing and reffing rugby, I also have experience coaching, reffing and playing soccer. In fact the last one is the only one that I still do, so my empathy extends to those who see themselves on the wrong side of a refereeing call. I once got yellow-carded for standing still.
Sadly my empathy does not extend to taking on responsibility for your lack of experience and resulting cluelessness.
Haters gonna hate
ETA: this comment is addressed to walto. Sorry for any confusion there.
Jock:
And clannishness. A tendency to defend each other, right or wrong, against the people you are supposedly serving.
You see that in spades with Alan and Neil.
I would consider you one of my own in the event we were the last people on Earth and I have no urge to defend you.
walto,
I might as well ask you the same question I asked Jock and newton:
You are under a mistaken impression if you imagine my style of management involved any moderation. It just required writing down ten names on paper usually in the order they appeared.
I answered that question a few posts up.
newton,
I’m not saying you were a moderator. Managers are not moderators. But your role was moderator-like in the very sense that you yourself pointed out in your comment to Alan:
walto,
You made some general observations about Alan’s conduct, but I am asking specifically about the ALurker kerfuffle.
You mentioned it…
…but none of that answers my question, which was:
Incidentally, I don’t agree that things have generally been better in Alan’s absence. You’ve liked the situations more is all. Even though they’ve left less play for your weird interest in inflicting pain on Alan, they left you more space to indulge those urges with respect to others here. You just want to insult people, and Alan acts as a slight constraint.
I answered those in my opening graph.
Sorry, I guess you were under the impression that your obsession was shared by me.at one point I intended to reply thoughtfully to your answer to my question, it seemed polite. Still do at my convenience. What is the rush exactly?
It is the punctuation that takes most of the time.
How very clannish of you, walto.
DNA_Jock logic fail:
1. Members of a clan defend each other.
2. Walto defended a member of the clan.
3. Therefore, walto is a member of the clan.
Just write ten names down and see where it goes.
I coached U-6 soccer and U-12 girls’ basketball. I was awful! I’m neither an athlete NOR a numbers guy!
walto,
Here’s that paragraph:
That sounds like a low score on “Honest” and a low score on “Capable”. What about “Worthy of a moderator”?
Also, do you think it’s accurate to say that he only bumbled, and dissembled, “a bit”?
newton:
So you’re saying that walto and Jock, who answered my question, are obsessed with the topic? That’s odd.
Dunno. How much is ‘a bit’? Less than a passel, certainly. Possibly more than a smidge. But only slightly. And because you keep goading him!
Let’s say a half-tablespoon. That’s pretty precise.
Hey, walto, that’s not fair! Here I was, quietly congratulating myself of having trolled keiths into refuting his own goofy logic (defend each other, therefore same clan: remember keiths, you twit, that’s HOW you arrived at the clannishness conclusion) merely by one jokey comment : no logic offered up by me at all…
You come along and reveal that the conclusion is correct! Dammit, man, keiths will now somehow retreat to the position that his accusations of clannishness are always well-founded, whenever he makes them, because, err, because he’s keiths.
What the hell, man?
That’s it, I am putting on my “XLXIX: the Butler did it, with the pick, in the endzone” t-shirt.
Howdya like them apples?
walto,
In your opinion, do good moderators start bumbling and lying when they are criticized? Do they abuse their moderator powers and silence their critics?
Christ, Jock. The clannishness causes the defensive behavior, not the other way around.
Also, I have to say I was amused by your “I did that on purpose!” response to your logic fail.
I’m sending something off to THE RULES COMMITTEE right NOW.
On the clan issue, I thought keiths was referring to the moderator clan (I think that’s # XF7-46(g).) I’ve never been one of those. (A) Too lazy; (B) Nobody knew who I was; (C) My teams always sucked.
But why am I talking to you?–you’ll be banned within the hour, no doubt.