Alyeska: Fired or resigned as SB.com moderator?

Did a related website in the community go down? Come back up? Relocate to a new address? Install pop-up advertisements?

This forum is for discussion of these sorts of issues.
Nonamer
Jedi Knight
Posts: 269
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 7:05 pm
Location: Outer Space

Post by Nonamer » Fri Mar 02, 2007 3:36 am

Alyeska wrote:
Nonamer wrote:Other than being a flagrant ad hominem and strawman?
And, so, therefor? This has what to do with the actual debate in question? It has absolutely nothing to do with the actual debate.
What happened to the rules then? You were suppose to stop these things. You didn't. You've came with no counterargument to this event at all.
Like your a trekkie in that context. Doesn't matter, you let him off the hook.
Show me the rules he violated.
The rules against flaming. Those board-wide rules you apparently didn't enforce.
You were definitely a mod at that time.
The thread occurred in mid July. I was modded in late July. Either way, its irrelevant. The rules regarding civility in the Tech forum weren't created until Jan of the next year.
That was last year! Your were a mod for a long time before then.
Flame and insult are usually used interchangeably. The forum has a rule against flaming, though its enforced in the case of excessive flaming. I guess you've missed the significant insults thrown about the the NSF and Gaming forums that have been ignored.
So when there's mass flaming and sniping, you can just ignore it then? Usually when it gets this bad, the mods intervene. You rarely intervened in such cases.
All the especially problematic ones seem to fall on that one though. That rule might as well say "SW wins so STFU."
The rule was designed for the expressed purpose of making the people debate the facts as presented by the franchise owners. That some universes are more powerful then others is a matter of fact.
That's fucking BULLSHIT and you know it. Since when was the canon rules for SW "ICS trumps everything unless specifically contradicted by the movies?" That's straight out of SDN. Hardly anyone took that position that you did, and especially not the community at SB.com, because of the numerous contradictions between ICS and other canon, higher or lower. You were the one who decided what the canon rules must be and ruled from that position onwards. Any time someone tried to show a contradiction between ICS and the movies, you intervened and either locked the thread or banned people.
That's reasonable and you know it. Only the Warsies were given full reign to act like that.
You have repeatedly stated that the Warsies were allowed to get away with excessive insults. I've asked you multiple times to present an example of Trekkies getting punished for being insulting. You have yet to post this.
Like this brilliant event:
http://forums.spacebattles.com/showpost ... tcount=207

Took you all of 1 minute to react to a minor quip. Strange that multiple Warsie heavy handed troll posts in that thread elicited nothing.
You weren't making an argument. You were essentially sniping at ICS with that statement while also attacking the opposition. No argument, sniping, and insulting at the same time. And the only thing I told you to do was drop the attitude. The moment you started talking to them on point you were left alone.
That was sniping? A bunch of people were sniping in that thread! This was the mildest one there. You're ability to see only the anti-SW is unbelievable.
It's because you let things get that bad that you had to do this. The fact that you wait till pile-on flamewars before you respond just shows how biased you were.
I stopped threads that weren't even flame wars simply because a pile on occurred or was on the verge of occurring. I also have IMed certain SW members to stay out of certain threads to avoid an IM. But Proactive decisions such as that aren't visible on the board as nothing happened.
Yeah, you only intervene when it got really bad or would get really bad. You've created those situation in the first place too.
You banned like a dozen trekkies for way smaller offenses multiple times. Shrike, your worst example, was banned because you wouldn't listen and you broke the rules.
Smaller offenses? What the hell are you talking about? In the VS forum there were not rules on civility or swearing and as such one did not get banned for that. People got banned for making logical errors and the sort.
There are in the board-wide rules which you seem to ignore altogether. How many times were trekkies banned for starting a debate about ICS? At least on a dozen separate occasions. And Warsies got away with tons of logical errors. Not to mention trolling and flames galore. I've already shown this in the quick examples which you've just ignored.

And you're not even responding to the Shrike incident. That was the time where you became a "rabid" Warsie and went on the warpath yourself.
No, that is the conclusion of the evidence. Sure, some trekkies were bad. But the Warsies were way worse. You slammed the Trekkies and did nothing to Warsies. The outcome was clear and obvious: the place turned into SDN-lite with Warsies flaming everybody. The higher-ups finally wised up and got rid of you I think.
Your sole complaint has been that Warsies were rude. That has absolutely nothing to do with the argument being presented. People were judged based on the argument being presented and the rules reflected this. But do go on and continue to ignore this fact.
That's what you think. In reality, the Warsies were both rude and had crap for arguments. All they did was ridicule the trekkies and maybe only occasionally post a serious argument. Anything resembling a serious argument from the trekkies were ignored.
Are you joking? There were plenty of logical, scientific claims made during that time. Some made by me and others. You blatantly ignored them in favor of Warsie flame posts. How the heck do you think your ban was overruled that time? It wasn't because the opposition failed to post evidence.
What exactly are you saying? Your claiming I ignored Trekkies making good arguments. Hello, if they were making good arguments why would I punish them?
Yes you did. I was one of them and that's exactly what you did all the time. That's exactly what you did to Shrike and you got overruled because of it.
Earlier in this thread you said "You were definitely a mod at that time. " about this very same thread. You can't even keep your story straight in a single post.
You're confusing two events. One happened in mid-2006. Another in 2005. I wasn't keeping track of things in the vs. board in 2005, so maybe you were right. But I was aware of things in 2006, and you were definitely a tech board mod in mid-2006.
They did a shitload wrong, and you've simply ignored them all. In particularly, they usually posted nothing of meaning with lots of flames. Anything remotely resemble a counterargument was left a harsh and switch response. I believe I've show enough evidence for others to make this determination. Like I've said before, SB.com is not SDN. Your moderating behavior may be acceptable there, but not where you were. You did a great job of enforcing your own rules, but you failed at enforcing board-wide rules.
Do show me where Warsies violated the rules. And do remember that only one rule has to do with ICS.
Aren't the ones above perfect examples of this?
That begs the question: Why the hell did you make the ICS law? Was it because there was overwhelming agreement at SB.com? I think not.
I didn't make ICS law. I made a law that people must abide by the franchise owners decisions.
Yes you did! By saying "franchise owners decisions" = "ICS is Law." It's the same thing in different wording.
That's in part because they were out of control in the regular vs. board.
No. I created the rule because I wanted to create an atmosphere that encouraged discussion of technical issues that don't include the VS environment. I knew that certain Warsies were likely to be an issue on such an issue and took them into consideration. The VS debates are by their very nature adversarial. Technical discussions need not be and the rules reflected this.
You create a forum atmosphere that went epically bad in STvSW where only the SW side was allowed to win.
That's one weak excuse. That was the first damn reply! If you didn't see that one, you didn't see the thread at all. There also should have been reports of bad behavior. Of course, my experiences with that route has lead to nowhere.
Hello, I already said that. I have never read that thread until yesterday. I do not read every thread, no moderator does. Had someone reported the post I would have dealt with the situation. I have banned people from the Tech forum for lesser insults (this includes warsies). And you call that a weak excuse? Nice to know you have a poor opinion of moderators as a whole.
Then you're incredibly lazy. The tech board gets little traffic. You can easily skim every thread. To make an excuse in such an event is incredibly lame.

Heck, I'll say this: By that time most of the Trekkies have already left the debate, leaving only Warsie trolls. Behavior like this was created by the atmosphere you created at the vs. board and that is something you never addressed. It got so bad that "attack of the rabid Warsies" is a running joke today.

Alyeska
Bridge Officer
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:00 am

Post by Alyeska » Fri Mar 02, 2007 5:42 am

Nonamer wrote:You're confusing two events. One happened in mid-2006. Another in 2005. I wasn't keeping track of things in the vs. board in 2005, so maybe you were right. But I was aware of things in 2006, and you were definitely a tech board mod in mid-2006.
Try again. You quoted the 2005 event and stated I was a moderator at the time.
Then you're incredibly lazy. The tech board gets little traffic. You can easily skim every thread. To make an excuse in such an event is incredibly lame.
I was still moderating the VS forum as of Jan 2006 (the event with Overman). So I had a little more then just the tech forum to moderate. Furthermore, a moderator is not required to read every thread. We are only expected to moderate the threads that we choose to read or have been given a report on.
Heck, I'll say this: By that time most of the Trekkies have already left the debate, leaving only Warsie trolls. Behavior like this was created by the atmosphere you created at the vs. board and that is something you never addressed. It got so bad that "attack of the considerate fellow fans of Star Wars" is a running joke today.
Most of the Trekkies left the debate in 2002 when ICS came out. Check board history. Even warsies complained that ICS made the debates no more fun.

Nonamer
Jedi Knight
Posts: 269
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 7:05 pm
Location: Outer Space

Post by Nonamer » Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:12 am

Alyeska wrote:
Nonamer wrote:You're confusing two events. One happened in mid-2006. Another in 2005. I wasn't keeping track of things in the vs. board in 2005, so maybe you were right. But I was aware of things in 2006, and you were definitely a tech board mod in mid-2006.
Try again. You quoted the 2005 event and stated I was a moderator at the time.
I said excluding the 2005 post. The ones in 2006 you were a mod in each. SB.com is down for me right now, so I'm not going to pressing any issues since I can't double check.
Then you're incredibly lazy. The tech board gets little traffic. You can easily skim every thread. To make an excuse in such an event is incredibly lame.
I was still moderating the VS forum as of Jan 2006 (the event with Overman). So I had a little more then just the tech forum to moderate. Furthermore, a moderator is not required to read every thread. We are only expected to moderate the threads that we choose to read or have been given a report on.
The Overman incident happened in July 2006. You were the tech board mod only then. And it would shock me that no one reported that.
Heck, I'll say this: By that time most of the Trekkies have already left the debate, leaving only Warsie trolls. Behavior like this was created by the atmosphere you created at the vs. board and that is something you never addressed. It got so bad that "attack of the considerate fellow fans of Star Wars" is a running joke today.
Most of the Trekkies left the debate in 2002 when ICS came out. Check board history. Even warsies complained that ICS made the debates no more fun.
Sure many did, but many didn't. Plus new blood.

Alyeska
Bridge Officer
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:00 am

Post by Alyeska » Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:29 am

Nonamer wrote:I said excluding the 2005 post. The ones in 2006 you were a mod in each. SB.com is down for me right now, so I'm not going to pressing any issues since I can't double check.
And then you quoted the 2005 post when I was talking about it and said "You were definitely a mod at that time.".
The Overman incident happened in July 2006. You were the tech board mod only then. And it would shock me that no one reported that.
Whoops, that was July. And I am quite sure I never got a report on that as Overman would have immediately been banned for that. I like Leo1 and I've banned him twice for those same violations. I've banned or warned Overman before as well for violations in the Tech Forum. Had I seen that or had someone reported it I would have dealt with it. As it stands I didn't see it. And since that occurred in July, I was currently out of a job with only occasional internet access at the time. You see, I was fired on July 3rd just 25 minutes from the end of my shift and with that my source of income and ability to pay frivolous bills such as the internet ceased to exist. I didn't get a new job until the very end of August. So excuse me for missing some things.
Sure many did, but many didn't. Plus new blood.
Those that remained ceased debating like they once did. STvsSW was predominant prior to ICS and since then it has fallen behind significantly.

Nonamer
Jedi Knight
Posts: 269
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 7:05 pm
Location: Outer Space

Post by Nonamer » Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:51 am

Alyeska wrote:
Nonamer wrote:I said excluding the 2005 post. The ones in 2006 you were a mod in each. SB.com is down for me right now, so I'm not going to pressing any issues since I can't double check.
And then you quoted the 2005 post when I was talking about it and said "You were definitely a mod at that time.".
That link was to a 2006 post. I'm pretty sure of that.
The Overman incident happened in July 2006. You were the tech board mod only then. And it would shock me that no one reported that.
Whoops, that was July. And I am quite sure I never got a report on that as Overman would have immediately been banned for that. I like Leo1 and I've banned him twice for those same violations. I've banned or warned Overman before as well for violations in the Tech Forum. Had I seen that or had someone reported it I would have dealt with it. As it stands I didn't see it. And since that occurred in July, I was currently out of a job with only occasional internet access at the time. You see, I was fired on July 3rd just 25 minutes from the end of my shift and with that my source of income and ability to pay frivolous bills such as the internet ceased to exist. I didn't get a new job until the very end of August. So excuse me for missing some things.
Ok then.
Sure many did, but many didn't. Plus new blood.
Those that remained ceased debating like they once did. STvsSW was predominant prior to ICS and since then it has fallen behind significantly.
And I wonder why it degraded so much...

Anyways, this has ceased being a meaningful debate, so I'm calling it quits. For those who may be following, I'll let you guys make your own conclusions.

User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Post by Praeothmin » Fri Mar 02, 2007 12:56 pm

I have only one question for Alyeska:
I like Leo1
Why do you like him?
Of all the Pro-Wars debaters on SB.com, I prefer Apoc, who IMO is the most honest debater there.
And, contrary to Leo1, doesn't always wank Wars, doesn't ignore the lower showings at his conveniance, doesn't ignore facts that can change the argument in favor of other SF.

Just look at the "Samus Aran vs Anakin Skywalker" for example.
Leo!'s position can be resumed as "Force Choke for tha instant winzzzz!", even though it was never shown to work instantly.
He's abrasive, and when you don't agree with his reasoning, he automatically resorts to flaming.
So again, why do you like him?
I'm honestly curious, and don't really want ot turn this into a debate, so a PMed answer would do just fine, and I don't intend to put it on the boards afterwards (I know you might be a little edgy after the last PM exchange you had).

GStone
Starship Captain
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:16 am
Location: Undercover in Culture space

Post by GStone » Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:24 pm

Is BY even involved in this stuff any more?

Alyeska
Bridge Officer
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:00 am

Post by Alyeska » Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:02 am

Praeothmin wrote:I have only one question for Alyeska:
I like Leo1
Why do you like him?
Of all the Pro-Wars debaters on SB.com, I prefer Apoc, who IMO is the most honest debater there.
And, contrary to Leo1, doesn't always wank Wars, doesn't ignore the lower showings at his conveniance, doesn't ignore facts that can change the argument in favor of other SF.

Just look at the "Samus Aran vs Anakin Skywalker" for example.
Leo!'s position can be resumed as "Force Choke for tha instant winzzzz!", even though it was never shown to work instantly.
He's abrasive, and when you don't agree with his reasoning, he automatically resorts to flaming.
So again, why do you like him?
I'm honestly curious, and don't really want ot turn this into a debate, so a PMed answer would do just fine, and I don't intend to put it on the boards afterwards (I know you might be a little edgy after the last PM exchange you had).
Because when he isn't blustering and swearing, and when he is outside of the VS he is a very nice guy.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:53 am

Alyeska wrote:
Praeothmin wrote:I have only one question for Alyeska:
I like Leo1
Why do you like him?
Of all the Pro-Wars debaters on SB.com, I prefer Apoc, who IMO is the most honest debater there.
And, contrary to Leo1, doesn't always wank Wars, doesn't ignore the lower showings at his conveniance, doesn't ignore facts that can change the argument in favor of other SF.

Just look at the "Samus Aran vs Anakin Skywalker" for example.
Leo!'s position can be resumed as "Force Choke for tha instant winzzzz!", even though it was never shown to work instantly.
He's abrasive, and when you don't agree with his reasoning, he automatically resorts to flaming.
So again, why do you like him?
I'm honestly curious, and don't really want ot turn this into a debate, so a PMed answer would do just fine, and I don't intend to put it on the boards afterwards (I know you might be a little edgy after the last PM exchange you had).
Because when he isn't blustering and swearing, and when he is outside of the VS he is a very nice guy.
Obviously.

User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Post by Praeothmin » Sat Mar 03, 2007 2:17 am

Obviously.
I'm pretty sure this was sarcasm, which really ins't warranted IMO (and if it isn't, then I apologize).
I know for a fact that many nice people change into rabid wolves the moment you start debating with them, no matter on what subject (I know a few personaly).

Idon't know Leo1 except from the vs forums at SB.com, so I was truly curious as to why he was liked.

And I thank you Alyeska for answering my question.

Alyeska
Bridge Officer
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:00 am

Post by Alyeska » Sat Mar 03, 2007 2:34 am

Praeothmin wrote:
Obviously.
I'm pretty sure this was sarcasm, which really ins't warranted IMO (and if it isn't, then I apologize).
I know for a fact that many nice people change into rabid wolves the moment you start debating with them, no matter on what subject (I know a few personaly).

Idon't know Leo1 except from the vs forums at SB.com, so I was truly curious as to why he was liked.

And I thank you Alyeska for answering my question.
My pleasure.

Post Reply