General Warning Tally for users...

For technical issues, problems, bugs, suggestions on improving these forums, discussion of the rules, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
mojo
Starship Captain
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by mojo » Sun May 20, 2012 10:16 am

Mike DiCenso wrote:
mojo wrote:
Mike DiCenso wrote:No such thing. Give it a rest, Mojo. I would also point out that demanding a concession from someone is a violation of the rules JMS set forth, and that is precisely what you are doing here.
-Mike
i can't believe you were able to type that without being struck by lightning.

so seriously, this is how you're going to do this? you're going to wait me out until you can ban me, never answering any of my posts? don't you think that's a bit cowardly? WHAT IS THE PROBLEM, MIKE? would responding to my posts waste so much of your time that jasonb would take over the forum in your absence?

i will not 'give it a rest'. it's not against board policy to repeat a question until you get an answer, and in this case i've been repeating it for at least a year. if you want me to 'give it a rest', JUST ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ALREADY.
I have given you your answering, and I would point out that ignoring an answer is what got SWST in trouble. Maybe you didn't like the answer? Or maybe as Sonofccn puts it, you need to clarify your question.
-Mike
once again, if you have indeed addressed my questions, perhaps you could show me where this happened? do you really think i would just continue to ask you for explanations for years at a time if you had already answered them?
unless by 'giving me my answering', you mean things like admitting that you broke board policy by invoking emergency powers to ban me for half a year because you were angry, and how you didn't care what anyone thought of this? maybe you define 'answering' as 'continuing to claim something over and over without ever addressing questions about the validity of the claim'?
again you claim you have answered me already. where? i honestly have no recollection of this.
also, you can stop pointing out possible justifications for a future dishonest permban. we get it already. doing things that break the rules will eventually get you banned, unless you happen to be in control of the site. why you bother with the swst example is beyond me, considering the fact that the closer i come to acting exactly like him, the safer i am from any effective moderation by you, anyway.
and the claim that i need to clarify my question is pure shit. click back about five pages and start reading. my questions and my claims are crystal clear.
why don't you just link me to your 'answering' and shut me up?

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

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sun May 20, 2012 3:01 pm

Trinoya wrote:To answer how I got the position: As Mike put it, I asked JMS for the position as I could see there were several incidents that could require more than one moderator. Since I can pretty much log in at least once a day no problem I can help keep the spam bots down, and more importantly I can provide moderation to topics where Mike is involved, or another moderator to discuss issues with.

As I learn the position I shall see where it all ends up, for right now I doubt I'm going to be jumping on the ban everyone wagon... but I'm also not going to shrug the forum rules, I didn't do it with SWST, and I was the biggest on giving him a chance.

That said: SWST is gone, it's time to move on imho.
Thank you for the clarification.
Therefore, as far as I am concerned, most of the important eluding pieces that kept me wondering have now been sufficiently removed.

The next phase this board will be going through, I guess, involves a clean up of the rules and a real effort for transparency.
I suggested a couple of things in the posts above, and there are other procedural issues which also need to be addressed.

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1644
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by sonofccn » Sun May 20, 2012 5:52 pm

Mojo wrote:no. i don't think i really have to argue that anymore. even YOU admit that my ban was not kosher.
I admited Mike may have overreacted not that he went beyond the bounds of his modhood or that you didn't give him just cause. There is a difference.
1. i created a joke thread in which i asked the question, who would fin in a fight, mike or light yagami with his death note.
2. i claimed that light yagami would not only win, instantaneously, but that he would also be capable of controlling mike's actions from the moment he wrote mike's name in the note until his inevitable death, which is a perfectly valid statement.
3. i suggested the possibility that light yagami, pissed off, would likely choose to utilize this ability to humiliate mike, and then further suggested that he might do this by forcing mike to act as if he were a furry and a virgin or something like that.
4. this debate goes on for two or three days, and actually becomes interesting.
5. mike finds the thread and flips the fuck out, totally missing the fact that i did not imply that mike WAS a furry or whatever, only that the death note is capable of forcing anyone to act in any way desired by it's owner, and that it would be perfectly in character for light yagami to amuse himself by forcing this on mike.
6. mike, apparently dissatisfied by the board's policies regarding warnings and bans, invokes emergency powers and bans me for six months although i sat at exactly one warning.
7. he proceeds to petition jms to permban me, and then when airlocke submits a list of questions and statements for me, he ignores them, his only response an admission that my lengthy ban was basically the result of a temper tantrum and that my only recourse was to appeal to jms myself.
8. a few days later, jms complains that he has already pointed out the fact that he no longer wished to moderate the site in any way, and had given control to mike. at this point, mike was fully aware that he possessed the power to permban at will.
9. strangely, mike apparently decides that my post was not worthy of permban after all
given the fact that he does not do so.
10. he does, however, leave me banned for months. questioned on this point, mike literally states himself that he had banned me because i was irritating him, and then states that he doesn't care what anyone thinks about this blatant disregard of board policy.
Or in otherwords you broke the rules blatantly, after being warned not to, deliberatly continued actions to aggrevate the sole mod and are apparently upset that he decided not to go full permaban on you. That isn't abuse on Mike's part, thats being forced into a bad situation by you trying to get a reaction from him. For it to be abusing his power you would need a situation where you were not breaking the rules and he punished you.
i have proven that my ban was unjustified, at the very least in length
You have alleged and stated this, you have not provided any actual evidence to support it. Conversely considering the seriousness of what you did and your refusal to call its quits when Mike warned your punishment of ten weeks while extreme is justifiable. At best you could only petition Triyonia to review his moderation but as I said before you really don't have a case.
mike doesn't even bother to respond, preferring to instead ignore me, lie, lie about lying, lie about having already answered me, and then return to ignoring me again
He has responded to you. You may not like his answers but he has responded. So far at best you have proven that there is disagreement between you and him on certain matters but you have far and away not proved he was lying much less lying about not lying.
you yourself know that invoking emergency powers in order to ban someone for pissing you off is a goddamn textbook example of abusing your power.
Not when "pissing you off" involves breaking the rules which you did. Repeatedly even after being warned. Furthermore considering he was the sole mod at the time and the directed, personal nature of your antics I think he actually showed some restraint in the matter.
so no, i in no way concede anything of the sort.
Well I'm glad to continue discussing it with you through I'm curious why you appeared to drop this argument and from tone and words imply you always been arguging that your problem was that Mike lied about being distracted by you.
board policy requires very specific conditions for a permban, including official warnings and bans of increasing length. go back and look through this thread, and show me where ksw has been given four official warnings and is informed that his next infraction will result in permban.
KSW repeatedly created puppet accounts in blatant violation of the rules in which he used to circumvent bannings. Mike tolerated this far a fairly long time, so there goes your Hardass Mike argument, until at least on like KSW tenth puppet after becoming abusive, which is in violation of the rules, Mike disposed of him. To be blunt KSW had already supplied the rope to hang himself and it required only for the moderators, in this case Mike, to decide to be ride of him. So no dice.

I also feel the need to point out you have changed your argument from KSW wasn't trolling when he was banned to Mike merely didn't follow proper procedure when he banned him.
do not repeat the extremely dishonest claim that i previously supported such action. in the quote you provided which you gave as evidence that i did indeed support that sort of thing, you somehow managed to snip out the part where i am clearly pushing for moderator freedom in giving official warnings. i have never, never argued that the warning system should be circumvented.
Actually I pointed to your give mods free reign sthick about your complaint Mike used grevious board violations which he'd allowed to sit idle to "justify" bannings incurred for minor infractions. Which is exactly the sort of behavior you encouraged, do anything required to achieve ones ends, as I showed.
although that's a hell of an exaggeration, the basic idea is sound.
So Mike is a hard ass smashing down all disdent and he's also a Mod who allows major infractions to pile up such as in KSW case? The same Mike who has created threads to house our remarks and responses to the peramanning of both KSW and SWST?
look through the posts of the past few months. you'll find requests for transparency long before my ban ended. oragahn specifically has made some good arguments. you'll find these requests ignored, as per usual mike dicenso style.
It is your argument please provide the supporting evidence.
mike has accepted the reins of sfj. he is the lead moderator and holds all admin powers. he is also a human being with a life outside the internet. so if mike knew he would often be gone for days at a time and that he somehow has trouble keeping up with the ten posts a day this forum produces, i would think finding new mods and tweaking the rules would be a pretty goddamn high priority. so why did it take a month to bring in trinoya when the board elected him in a poll?
Well an addition of a second Mod is a good thing but that is hardly an argument that his priorities are all askewed, doubly so since this was on the subject of him going after KSW instead of SWST, but if you want to go down that road he compares far better than you who, knowing he is human with Rl obligations, chose to act childish on the boards with your screeds. Also didn't Donner win the poll?
how the fuck could i 'concede' an obvious fact? for christ's sake. mike permanned ksw and then totally failed to permban swst.
Correction. It is a fact that KSW was banned before SWST. However it is not a fact but personal opinion that the banning of KSW before SWST was due to an inherent failure of priorities. Further more since you imply you are still arguing this I would recall your attention to this:
Mojo Fri May 18, 2012 11:43 pm wrote:he thinks my whole problem is his moderation (lack thereof) of swst. i don't care about that, i haven't cared about swst in ages. in fact, i PRAISED his moderation toward the end of that debacle. my problem is his repeated insistence that I am responsible for his inadequate moderation there. all i'm asking for is admission that he used me as a scapegoat and continues to do so.
As taken here where you clearly state you haven't had a problem with the moderation of SWST in ages, that your solely upset because you feel Mike lied about being distracted by your antics. While Conversely here:
Mojo Sat May 05, 2012 8:00 pm wrote:the fact that ksw was banned before swst is an absolute travesty, and the fact that mike went after ksw AND THEN STILL refused to go after swst shows that priorities are so far out of wack i don't know why i even bother to continue typing.
You clearly make mention of the skewed priorities of Mike's moderation habits.
trinoya had to do it, because mike simply refused to, for whatever reason.
Actually without Mike Trinoya couldn't have gotten the permaban in when he did, as Mike has pointed out. And the "killing blow" involved a insult post directed at Mike which he couldn't really act upon and maintain imparitality so he couldn't use it no matter how much he wanted to be rid of the guy. Not without risking becoming what you accuse him of, and if I may be so bold had he done so you almost certainly would have created a thread and complained of him going rogue for that as well.
to sum up, i concede nothing
That is your right but I feel I must point out your arguments tend to mutually exclusive. Mike can not both be a hard ass who crushes all dissident to his will and someone who lets blatent violations slide such as with KSW or with you where he first tolerated and then warned you about your insulting threads before at last banning you. Simiarly you can't argue that you are only concerned about him lying about being distracted, that you have no other issue and have been repeating this sole issue which he has ignored when in fact you have argued half a dozen disparate things over the last couple of weeks.
i offer as evidence strengthening my claims the fact that mike continues to refuse to address them.
Not liking Mike's answer is not the same as not addressing them. You may disagree on the verdict of your ban but Mike stated his reasonings. You may disagree on KSW being banned before SWSt but Mike gave reasons for that in the thread in which he was permabanned. Ect.
but i have come to the point of realizing i need to pick my battles, and the one that bothers me the most is the blatant 'lying'.
So you are at least drawing from debate of the other points? Your choice.

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

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sun May 20, 2012 10:56 pm

sonofccn wrote:
trinoya had to do it, because mike simply refused to, for whatever reason.
Actually without Mike Trinoya couldn't have gotten the permaban in when he did, as Mike has pointed out. And the "killing blow" involved a insult post directed at Mike which he couldn't really act upon and maintain imparitality so he couldn't use it no matter how much he wanted to be rid of the guy. Not without risking becoming what you accuse him of, and if I may be so bold had he done so you almost certainly would have created a thread and complained of him going rogue for that as well.
I think Mike could easily do it. At that time, I had reported around five posts from SWST, wherein among other things he rebooted topics which we knew he already got involved in before denying evidence and restarting the "discussion" elsewhere with more baiting. The only problem was that to moderate such infractions properly, it required Mike remembering all relevant past strikes of dishonesty, notably all documented ones.

The insult directed at Mike, however, was probably easier to deal with but with Mike being both the target and a mod, if he preferred not to act in reaction to the libel, then we could consider the timely arrival of Trinoya to have made things more simple, all for good. Now SWST/SciFi Fan is exiled, and we're not bothered by KSW's endless sockpuppets (their existence of which I was reminded).

The biggest problem perhaps being one of communication, with Mike not exposing clearly enough why he couldn't ban SWST once more. Was there a lack of evidence? I don't think so, and I really doubt that insult could have been the real turning point (but then again, spotting insults is faster and easier than doing the harassing job of keeping an archive of a troll's usual mischief). Anyway even if I am rather displeased with the way SWST's case was managed (the reasons behind the odd decisions most likely finding a source in emotion than reason), in the end we did get what we all (minus JMS) wanted.

I'm still convinced that a lot of trouble happened because the rules weren't fit for the situation. The fourth ban being a final and permanent one would have easily solved the problem. Three bans for someone who really wants to stay here and enjoy debating is far more than enough considering that a certain amount of warnings need to be amassed before being subject to sanction. However it's also strong enough so that anyone foolish enough to want to take his chance with the moderation will surely be met with proper and firm discipline.

User avatar
mojo
Starship Captain
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by mojo » Mon May 21, 2012 2:02 am

sonofccn wrote:
Mojo wrote:no. i don't think i really have to argue that anymore. even YOU admit that my ban was not kosher.
I admited Mike may have overreacted not that he went beyond the bounds of his modhood or that you didn't give him just cause. There is a difference.
1. i created a joke thread in which i asked the question, who would fin in a fight, mike or light yagami with his death note.
2. i claimed that light yagami would not only win, instantaneously, but that he would also be capable of controlling mike's actions from the moment he wrote mike's name in the note until his inevitable death, which is a perfectly valid statement.
3. i suggested the possibility that light yagami, pissed off, would likely choose to utilize this ability to humiliate mike, and then further suggested that he might do this by forcing mike to act as if he were a furry and a virgin or something like that.
4. this debate goes on for two or three days, and actually becomes interesting.
5. mike finds the thread and flips the fuck out, totally missing the fact that i did not imply that mike WAS a furry or whatever, only that the death note is capable of forcing anyone to act in any way desired by it's owner, and that it would be perfectly in character for light yagami to amuse himself by forcing this on mike.
6. mike, apparently dissatisfied by the board's policies regarding warnings and bans, invokes emergency powers and bans me for six months although i sat at exactly one warning.
7. he proceeds to petition jms to permban me, and then when airlocke submits a list of questions and statements for me, he ignores them, his only response an admission that my lengthy ban was basically the result of a temper tantrum and that my only recourse was to appeal to jms myself.
8. a few days later, jms complains that he has already pointed out the fact that he no longer wished to moderate the site in any way, and had given control to mike. at this point, mike was fully aware that he possessed the power to permban at will.
9. strangely, mike apparently decides that my post was not worthy of permban after all
given the fact that he does not do so.
10. he does, however, leave me banned for months. questioned on this point, mike literally states himself that he had banned me because i was irritating him, and then states that he doesn't care what anyone thinks about this blatant disregard of board policy.
Or in otherwords you broke the rules blatantly, after being warned not to, deliberatly continued actions to aggrevate the sole mod and are apparently upset that he decided not to go full permaban on you. That isn't abuse on Mike's part, thats being forced into a bad situation by you trying to get a reaction from him. For it to be abusing his power you would need a situation where you were not breaking the rules and he punished you.
i have proven that my ban was unjustified, at the very least in length
You have alleged and stated this, you have not provided any actual evidence to support it. Conversely considering the seriousness of what you did and your refusal to call its quits when Mike warned your punishment of ten weeks while extreme is justifiable. At best you could only petition Triyonia to review his moderation but as I said before you really don't have a case.
mike doesn't even bother to respond, preferring to instead ignore me, lie, lie about lying, lie about having already answered me, and then return to ignoring me again
He has responded to you. You may not like his answers but he has responded. So far at best you have proven that there is disagreement between you and him on certain matters but you have far and away not proved he was lying much less lying about not lying.
you yourself know that invoking emergency powers in order to ban someone for pissing you off is a goddamn textbook example of abusing your power.
Not when "pissing you off" involves breaking the rules which you did. Repeatedly even after being warned. Furthermore considering he was the sole mod at the time and the directed, personal nature of your antics I think he actually showed some restraint in the matter.
so no, i in no way concede anything of the sort.
Well I'm glad to continue discussing it with you through I'm curious why you appeared to drop this argument and from tone and words imply you always been arguging that your problem was that Mike lied about being distracted by you.
board policy requires very specific conditions for a permban, including official warnings and bans of increasing length. go back and look through this thread, and show me where ksw has been given four official warnings and is informed that his next infraction will result in permban.
KSW repeatedly created puppet accounts in blatant violation of the rules in which he used to circumvent bannings. Mike tolerated this far a fairly long time, so there goes your Hardass Mike argument, until at least on like KSW tenth puppet after becoming abusive, which is in violation of the rules, Mike disposed of him. To be blunt KSW had already supplied the rope to hang himself and it required only for the moderators, in this case Mike, to decide to be ride of him. So no dice.

I also feel the need to point out you have changed your argument from KSW wasn't trolling when he was banned to Mike merely didn't follow proper procedure when he banned him.
do not repeat the extremely dishonest claim that i previously supported such action. in the quote you provided which you gave as evidence that i did indeed support that sort of thing, you somehow managed to snip out the part where i am clearly pushing for moderator freedom in giving official warnings. i have never, never argued that the warning system should be circumvented.
Actually I pointed to your give mods free reign sthick about your complaint Mike used grevious board violations which he'd allowed to sit idle to "justify" bannings incurred for minor infractions. Which is exactly the sort of behavior you encouraged, do anything required to achieve ones ends, as I showed.
although that's a hell of an exaggeration, the basic idea is sound.
So Mike is a hard ass smashing down all disdent and he's also a Mod who allows major infractions to pile up such as in KSW case? The same Mike who has created threads to house our remarks and responses to the peramanning of both KSW and SWST?
look through the posts of the past few months. you'll find requests for transparency long before my ban ended. oragahn specifically has made some good arguments. you'll find these requests ignored, as per usual mike dicenso style.
It is your argument please provide the supporting evidence.
mike has accepted the reins of sfj. he is the lead moderator and holds all admin powers. he is also a human being with a life outside the internet. so if mike knew he would often be gone for days at a time and that he somehow has trouble keeping up with the ten posts a day this forum produces, i would think finding new mods and tweaking the rules would be a pretty goddamn high priority. so why did it take a month to bring in trinoya when the board elected him in a poll?
Well an addition of a second Mod is a good thing but that is hardly an argument that his priorities are all askewed, doubly so since this was on the subject of him going after KSW instead of SWST, but if you want to go down that road he compares far better than you who, knowing he is human with Rl obligations, chose to act childish on the boards with your screeds. Also didn't Donner win the poll?
how the fuck could i 'concede' an obvious fact? for christ's sake. mike permanned ksw and then totally failed to permban swst.
Correction. It is a fact that KSW was banned before SWST. However it is not a fact but personal opinion that the banning of KSW before SWST was due to an inherent failure of priorities. Further more since you imply you are still arguing this I would recall your attention to this:
Mojo Fri May 18, 2012 11:43 pm wrote:he thinks my whole problem is his moderation (lack thereof) of swst. i don't care about that, i haven't cared about swst in ages. in fact, i PRAISED his moderation toward the end of that debacle. my problem is his repeated insistence that I am responsible for his inadequate moderation there. all i'm asking for is admission that he used me as a scapegoat and continues to do so.
As taken here where you clearly state you haven't had a problem with the moderation of SWST in ages, that your solely upset because you feel Mike lied about being distracted by your antics. While Conversely here:
Mojo Sat May 05, 2012 8:00 pm wrote:the fact that ksw was banned before swst is an absolute travesty, and the fact that mike went after ksw AND THEN STILL refused to go after swst shows that priorities are so far out of wack i don't know why i even bother to continue typing.
You clearly make mention of the skewed priorities of Mike's moderation habits.
trinoya had to do it, because mike simply refused to, for whatever reason.
Actually without Mike Trinoya couldn't have gotten the permaban in when he did, as Mike has pointed out. And the "killing blow" involved a insult post directed at Mike which he couldn't really act upon and maintain imparitality so he couldn't use it no matter how much he wanted to be rid of the guy. Not without risking becoming what you accuse him of, and if I may be so bold had he done so you almost certainly would have created a thread and complained of him going rogue for that as well.
to sum up, i concede nothing
That is your right but I feel I must point out your arguments tend to mutually exclusive. Mike can not both be a hard ass who crushes all dissident to his will and someone who lets blatent violations slide such as with KSW or with you where he first tolerated and then warned you about your insulting threads before at last banning you. Simiarly you can't argue that you are only concerned about him lying about being distracted, that you have no other issue and have been repeating this sole issue which he has ignored when in fact you have argued half a dozen disparate things over the last couple of weeks.
i offer as evidence strengthening my claims the fact that mike continues to refuse to address them.
Not liking Mike's answer is not the same as not addressing them. You may disagree on the verdict of your ban but Mike stated his reasonings. You may disagree on KSW being banned before SWSt but Mike gave reasons for that in the thread in which he was permabanned. Ect.
but i have come to the point of realizing i need to pick my battles, and the one that bothers me the most is the blatant 'lying'.
So you are at least drawing from debate of the other points? Your choice.
my kneejerk reaction is to continue, but i believe you're not only wrong on every single point you've made here, i believe you're making them dishonestly, with full knowledge that you're wrong in order to gain favor with staff. this makes it pointless, as you're not going to admit anything. what's more, it doesn't matter, because i don't care what YOU think. the only reason i've continued with you up to this point was in the obviously vain hope that mike would respond to the points i made, which he clearly has no intention of doing. everything i have said stands unless mike decides to actually answer me, rather than pretending that he already did and allowing you to also pretend that he already did. it's interesting that you both keep claiming this, yet refuse to provide a link to the imaginary responses.
Last edited by mojo on Mon May 21, 2012 2:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
mojo
Starship Captain
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by mojo » Mon May 21, 2012 2:05 am

mike, asking you to answer my questions is not demanding concession. stating that refusal to acknowledge questions is implicit concession is not against the rules, just plain fact. what IS against the rules is, again, refusal to acknowledge evidence, as you keep telling me. if you have already answered, please show me where this happened, otherwise, concede.
use that as you will, it would be very interesting, i'm sure, to the community at large, if i were banned for demanding that staff answer to claims of dishonest moderation or drop the denial of said dishonest moderation.

User avatar
Trinoya
Security Officer
Posts: 654
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 6:35 am

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by Trinoya » Mon May 21, 2012 7:33 am

Mojo, I've been reviewing your complaint against Mike.

As it stands Mojo, this thing between you and Mike needs to end. Now. Your complaints have been noted by me, and the entire rest of the board, and I'm going to be going through and reviewing the entire thing from beginning to end... but this constant posting about it is going to stop. This is no longer a general complaint about moderation, this is becoming a vendetta, and is getting absurdly close to stalking just because you want an answer from him.

Since I'm going to be reviewing all the relevant posts if any action needs to be taken it will be, but consider this a friendly suggestion to drop it now, since it seems to be quickly heading less in the direction of 'if' and more in the direction of 'must.' In short, this harassment of Mike needs to stop, and you need to learn to let things go. As I said though, I'm going to review the relevant posts and information, and if any moderation is required upon anyone, then it will be taken care of then.

Till that point occurs it would be advisable that you simply reconcile this with Mike and let bygones be bygones, because right now I'm seeing a lot of obsession with this, and I'm only seeing it from one person.

User avatar
mojo
Starship Captain
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by mojo » Mon May 21, 2012 12:00 pm

Trinoya wrote:Mojo, I've been reviewing your complaint against Mike.

As it stands Mojo, this thing between you and Mike needs to end. Now. Your complaints have been noted by me, and the entire rest of the board, and I'm going to be going through and reviewing the entire thing from beginning to end... but this constant posting about it is going to stop. This is no longer a general complaint about moderation, this is becoming a vendetta, and is getting absurdly close to stalking just because you want an answer from him.

Since I'm going to be reviewing all the relevant posts if any action needs to be taken it will be, but consider this a friendly suggestion to drop it now, since it seems to be quickly heading less in the direction of 'if' and more in the direction of 'must.' In short, this harassment of Mike needs to stop, and you need to learn to let things go. As I said though, I'm going to review the relevant posts and information, and if any moderation is required upon anyone, then it will be taken care of then.

Till that point occurs it would be advisable that you simply reconcile this with Mike and let bygones be bygones, because right now I'm seeing a lot of obsession with this, and I'm only seeing it from one person.
how exactly am i supposed to reconcile a disagreement with someone who refuses to admit there is any basis to the disagreement in the first place? also, i would imagine this will be a pretty goddamn short investigation given the fact that i've laid out my side of the case umpteenth times and mike hasn't even bothered to deny the truth of what i'm saying, much less actually make a case himself.
please don't lecture me on 'letting things go'. the claim that i fucked his ability to moderate swst has not been dropped by mike, he used it once again a couple pages back in this very thread.
go ahead and moderate however you see fit. if you want to throw ultimatums at me for trying to stop mike dicenso from lying about me, that's your prerogative. personally i have literally zero faith in my ability to get a fair hearing here, and if i can get warned and banned here for demanding someone explain the reasoning behind claims i somehow stopped mike from doing his job, then i'm not sure i care anyway. you will inevitably come to the conclusion that all my claims and arguments are baseless, and then you will start adding up warnings when i don't simply accept that conclusion. therefore, as i have explained before, my only recourse is to continue to ask questions until either someone bans me or mike answers me.
what's more, your investigation is largely pointless. i have not only claimed that mike invoked emergency powers to ban me without fulfilling the requirements necessary to ban someone, i have claimed that doing so is against the rules, and you do not have the authority to mod mike for breaking those rules, even if i were somehow able to convince you i'm right. you couldn't even appeal to jms to do so, as he has expressed his wish to be left alone. mike is in total control of the board, and were you to see my point of view, he would simply deny it and continue about his business. this is why i'm going to the source rather than appealing to you.
finally, it would be interesting to hear how asking for a response to a very serious accusation once per day is somehow stalking and harassment. not to mention the fact that the VAST majority of these posts are direct responses in an ongoing (yet admittedly hostile) conversation with mike himself.
i will cease and desist until you come back with a conclusion. this whole thing is leaving a bad taste in my mouth, anyway. but, in the end, i will do what i have to do, same as you. i cannot just 'let it go' when he continues to make the insulting claim over and over again. i cannot reconcile with someone who has no intention of reconciling. i cannot count on fair moderation when the final say belongs to the person i'm making claims against. i cannot depend on a mod working for mike to acknowledge that mike is wrong. i can only continue to try to work it out myself. if these things are banworthy, then, by all means, ban.

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1644
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by sonofccn » Mon May 21, 2012 12:37 pm

Mojo wrote:my kneejerk reaction is to continue, but i believe you're not only wrong on every single point you've made here, i believe you're making them dishonestly, with full knowledge that you're wrong in order to gain favor with staff.
That's fine, in the end one can't control how others percieve them. I'm only sorry you appear to see only the cynical in those around you.
what's more, it doesn't matter, because i don't care what YOU think.
Which does take the pressure off.
it's interesting that you both keep claiming this, yet refuse to provide a link to the imaginary responses.
here and here for KSW.

here and here for your latest ban.

Here, here, here,here,here and here for your first ban showing that while one may disagree with how effectively Mike spent his time it took more than five minutes for him to "clean up" afterwards.

As an additional I couldn't find where you asked Mike directly about the above in this thread. If you know where its hidden at I'd be much obliged.

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1644
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by sonofccn » Mon May 21, 2012 12:48 pm

Mr. Oragahn wrote:
sonofccn wrote:
trinoya had to do it, because mike simply refused to, for whatever reason.
Actually without Mike Trinoya couldn't have gotten the permaban in when he did, as Mike has pointed out. And the "killing blow" involved a insult post directed at Mike which he couldn't really act upon and maintain imparitality so he couldn't use it no matter how much he wanted to be rid of the guy. Not without risking becoming what you accuse him of, and if I may be so bold had he done so you almost certainly would have created a thread and complained of him going rogue for that as well.
I think Mike could easily do it. At that time, I had reported around five posts from SWST, wherein among other things he rebooted topics which we knew he already got involved in before denying evidence and restarting the "discussion" elsewhere with more baiting. The only problem was that to moderate such infractions properly, it required Mike remembering all relevant past strikes of dishonesty, notably all documented ones.

The insult directed at Mike, however, was probably easier to deal with but with Mike being both the target and a mod, if he preferred not to act in reaction to the libel, then we could consider the timely arrival of Trinoya to have made things more simple, all for good. Now SWST/SciFi Fan is exiled, and we're not bothered by KSW's endless sockpuppets (their existence of which I was reminded).

The biggest problem perhaps being one of communication, with Mike not exposing clearly enough why he couldn't ban SWST once more. Was there a lack of evidence? I don't think so, and I really doubt that insult could have been the real turning point (but then again, spotting insults is faster and easier than doing the harassing job of keeping an archive of a troll's usual mischief). Anyway even if I am rather displeased with the way SWST's case was managed (the reasons behind the odd decisions most likely finding a source in emotion than reason), in the end we did get what we all (minus JMS) wanted.

I'm still convinced that a lot of trouble happened because the rules weren't fit for the situation. The fourth ban being a final and permanent one would have easily solved the problem. Three bans for someone who really wants to stay here and enjoy debating is far more than enough considering that a certain amount of warnings need to be amassed before being subject to sanction. However it's also strong enough so that anyone foolish enough to want to take his chance with the moderation will surely be met with proper and firm discipline.
Pretty much agree with the above. I also PMed SWST "forgeting" evidence and the like and I'm sure others did as well. But like you say he's gone now so at least we have that going for us right? :)

User avatar
Trinoya
Security Officer
Posts: 654
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 6:35 am

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by Trinoya » Mon May 21, 2012 5:55 pm

I've been going over the posts made by both Mojo and Mike in regards to all of this, and they date back quite a bit.

First and foremost, in regards to Mojos ban and the validity there of:
mojo wrote: were my actions against forum rules?
YES.

were my actions productive toward dealing with swst?
NO.

did i deserve the ban i received?
YES.

have i ALWAYS admitted these things?
YES.
By Mojos own admission the ban was valid, so I'm largely going to avoid dealing with that.

Next:

Mike made an assertion that Mojo had negatively impacted his ability to moderate the site in some way. The nature of this impact is not made clear.

For Mojo he believes this statement to be a lie, and one that Mike has refused to acknowledge.

However; digging back through the forum I have discovered that this is by no means a recent claim of Mikes. This dates back to last year in fact. Mike was, from all the evidence I can see, busy building and gathering evidence to take action against SWST, he was being patient with that, and heavily encouraging others to be patient and do the same as well. He was doing this on his on his own free time when he wasn't at work. I can't claim to know how much free time that is, but it is clear that your antics were impacting that amount of time as far back as last May, and Mike certainly wasn't appreciative of it.

Now, the short of it is Mojo, you can't prove that Mikes statement is false. You can't provide any evidence as to the impact your antics had upon his ability to moderate the forum, considering you are unaware of the exact moderation he was attempting at the time, although it implies that it was largely built around evidence gathering and communication with JMS. Furthermore, I wasn't a moderator then, I am not privy to the discussions that had occurred, nor the type of moderation that was occurring. I can only operate off of what I can see.

So, knowing that is what I am left with I can see that your antics reached a point where you had to be banned based on your own belief and your own posts. You were showing a disregard for basic respect to another individual, even though people repeatedly asked you to tone it down, and in fact JMS at one point intervened on the matter. I have an incredible amount of posting history in which you have targeted mike repeatedly and it doesn't do anything to support you in this matter.

Now then... As I said earlier, this stops. Mike has done nothing to you specifically to warrant this level of effort or attention on your part simply because you feel slighted or that he has been dishonest. It's getting absurd, sniping single sentences of his posts and dragging entire threads down, diverting their topics, and otherwise being disruptive to them.

Still, I'm not going to issue a warning, or a ban. I don't need to do that because this has not (yet) gotten that far. You seem seem concerned that this could have happened, and as you put it you don't feel you can get 'fair' treatment, especially because I am 'under mike.' While I certainly don't appriciate the assertion that I'm incapable of being impartial I'm more concerned with how you feel that you are at risk of being banned to make this issue go away. I don't need to do that, and I'm hoping to avoid it. I recognize you're apparently upset over all of this, but continuing down the road you're going isn't going to get you any resolution... it isn't going to make you a martyr for this boards policies, and it isn't going to get you any of the closure, or results, that you are seeking... all it may do is ultimately force my hand, and that is a path I really would prefer to avoid.

Now, having stated that, if you want to formally talk to me about this in PM, if you want me to contact JMS or Mike and get more information on how it all went down, that's fine. You can discuss it with me at length, and I will give it my undivided attention. Beyond that, I don't want to hear about it, from you or anyone else, even Mike, on the open forum. I want this to stop clogging up threads, and being anymore of an issue then it has already become. Consider that a blanket warning to everyone.

Finally, regardless of if you feel that any fair moderation is going to come of it I want you to PM me with your specific grievances. You can take it or leave it... but this is now in my hands, and that's the best option you're going to get.

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

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Mon May 21, 2012 10:09 pm

Trinoya wrote:Consider that a blanket warning to everyone.
Image

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

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Mon May 21, 2012 10:35 pm

Dear Mojo, if only you knew about Starfleet's Regulation 619...

User avatar
mojo
Starship Captain
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by mojo » Tue May 22, 2012 3:19 am

no worries. don't bother with whatever the fuck you were going to do, trinoya. i didn't read your message, but it doesn't matter. i concede completely. apologies to mike.

TheRainKing777
Bridge Officer
Posts: 131
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: General Warning Tally for users...

Post by TheRainKing777 » Wed May 23, 2012 3:22 am

Good lord. How did a general tally for users become a witch hunt?

Post Reply