Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by C C, Aug 23, 2015.
I've been told it was 3 days originally and then was extended to two weeks. Can anyone clarify why?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I suspect not all of MR's infraction points were fully accounted for the first time.
MR currently has 80 active warning points.
The poor bastard's banned again? People just can't leave him alone, can they?
More like he can't leave them alone. He seems pathologically incapable of letting things go, even when he has been proven wrong in terms, and with evidentiary backing, that leave no doubt as to the actual facts are. He gets angry, resorts to personal attacks . . . and gets another warning.
He wasn't the one who made threads in Open Government and Site Feedback which ostensibly targeted a certain individual.
Uh . . . OK. I have no idea what you are talking about, but OK.
He challenges the board's pervasive scientistic faith. MR (damnably) believes that anomalous things happen out there in the world that don't fit comfortably within most Sciforums participants' preexisting worldviews. He (damnably) fails to believe that some "scientific method" provides whatever truth, progress, values and happiness that human beings require.
I'm not sure that that is what gets him banned, Yazata. Sure it gets him noticed and labelled (unfairly or otherwise) and possibly/probably results in him getting more attention than one might think is normal, but I think the bans are the result of identifiable infractions.
It thus seems not what he discusses or what he believes but simply the way he goes about it.
Whether or not he is goaded into those infractions by those whose attention he draws....?
No one here that I have seen has claimed that the "scientific method" provides either values or happiness to people. It is merely a good method of learning about how the world works.
The big issue at hand is not what he believes in, but how he posts; in essence, he continually posts things that demand extraordinary evidence as facts without the kind of evidence (or, often, without any evidence) required to back that sort of claim.
The scientific method is a catch-all, in a way - it should work in virtually any situation, because it isn't about testing a "thing", but rather a set of ideas on how to test for something; basically, a measure put in place to help self-regulate and ensure proper procedures are followed. It isn't perfect, certainly... but to try and just throw it out is foolish, at best.
Indeed - it's a methodology of, well... this is going to make any English majors scream but... it's a method of "doing science".
[false characterization ignored]
Golly, what a shock: he attacks science on a science forum and that doesn't go over well!? Maybe he should just spend his time on bigfootetufoghostfurms.com? He'll get a better reception there.
[false characterization engaged]
You'd be right there with him if you were just a little more aggressive with your false characterization attacks, such as that post.
The original ban that occurred results from deliberate misrepresentation; owing to a strange rule that was invented to protect a specific sociopolitical outlook and concomitant behavior, the fact that he committed the source misrepresentation four times was overlooked, and he was only flagged for the initial offense.
He accrued twenty additional points for violating specific instruction from a moderator. I would also add at this time that Tali89↑ was already aware of said instruction when entering the present thread, having received the same instruction in the very same message distribution.
It should be noted that MR is not without staff advocates in specific aspects of the larger issue, and consequently I would advise it is unwise to go out of one's way to troll on his behalf, as it only complicates the issue and lends justification after the fact to controversial circumstances presently under staff consideration.
A strange rule? I have to admit now that I have never read the rules... But I am now curious. What's the strange rule?
(Not curious enough to read the rules though.)
It isn't a posted rule AFAIK, but basically it states that if someone commits multiple infeactionable offenses in short order, they can only be held accountable for one of them. IE - someone posts several personal attacks, racist remarks, etc - if they happen all before a single warning is issued, only a single offense is supposed to be given points upon... the rest are essentially "freebies"... it's a stupid rule on all honesty
Surely that's working on the assumption that the offender "didn't know" that what they were posting were infractionable comments - hence moderation only occurring after they first warning issued, when the poster knows not to do it any more.
How likely is that "didn't know" defence, when it comes to repeat offenders?
I Wish ... I Was Joking
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That depends on how much credit we wish to grant the excuse that one is too stupid to know what they're doing.
Yes, once upon a time someone tried to invoke that special rule, too. Strangely, they were both invented for the same purpose, which was to protect harassing behavior, i.e., the right to harass.
Then again, one crime at a time was never intended to be used as I have invoked it. That is, specifically it was never intended to be used against intellectual dishonesty. More directly, it was never intended to be used again, until someone needed a precedent to protect harassing behavior.
I am personally disappointed in the rule, but given the stakes when we enforced it, I am unable to simply disregard it now; thus it remains in effect.
(Unlike the one-time rule invoked by a moderator that one should not accuse racism, and most certainly not explain the accusation, because accusing racism of a racist post is a personal attack and should therefore be forbidden. Honestly, I could never figure out how to enforce that one regularly, as it made completely no sense whatsoever. The one-crime-at-a-time rule at least has the credit of being how police and prosecuting departmens throughout the civilized world work ... right?)
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I'd love to know the context of that situation. Did it involve numerous posters belittling and harassing him, a particular moderator editing, deleting and moving his posts, and then surreptitiously banning him from replying from threads that had been started with the intention of ridiculing him? Why is MR expected to behave with grace and decorum at all times, while his detractors pull every dirty little trick in the book to get under his skin? It's analogous to tying a person's hands behind their back while you beat the hell out of them, and using their 'bad attitude' towards this beating as an excuse for further beatings. Yes, MR will eventually hang himself by defying a moderator or going off the deep end, but let's not pretend that he wasn't hung by a noose of other peoples creation.
What instruction? I was prevented from posting in the Site Feedback and Open Government forums (after challenging a moderator's treatment of MR), and you sent me a brief message stating that the restriction had been lifted. You gave me no particular instructions.
So what you're essentially saying is that the more outrage that is provoked against certain moderators, the more likely they are to prune away the symptom of the disease (ie. Magical Realist). Censuring a moderator and a number of senior members for their own shitty behaviour, which is the root cause of the issue, would definitely cast the establishment in a bad light. For a bunch of liberals who moan on and on about the 'thin blue line' in the police force, you sure do show a tendency to engage in the same behaviour when a fellow manager misbehaves.
I think it's a foregone conclusion that Magical Realist is going to be banned. A number of weak excuses will be drummed up to justify this, and his detractors (particularly one moderator) will post a number of gloating threads. Then he'll be forgotten, until the next whipping boy rolls in.
Well, got to laugh a bit every day. That bit did it for me today!
I'm too stupid to be guilty.
Separate names with a comma.