View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:20 am



Reply to topic  [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Mr. Oragahn and Mojo's warning's fair? 
Author Message
Starship Captain

Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Posts: 1636
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA
Reply with quote
Mojo wrote:
don't understand how you could conceivably have read the tidbits you quoted and NOT see that that is exactly the situation.
I don't, sorry. I see a vague rule that would be impossbile to impartially enforce which I read as an open ended appeal for good behavior and you want to use it to enforce the "general will".

Quote:
there are NO set in stone rules. there is only ONE rule, and then a few notes to help understand that ONE rule.
he calls them rules.

JMS wrote:
To this end, the following simple specific rules should be kept in mind and followed at all times:


No flaming. Insults, attacks, and rudeness all serve as obstacles to discourse; they will not be tolerated.
No spamming. Posts devoid of content are subject to deletion.
Stay on topic. If you must digress a great deal, create a new thread to deal with the digression. Discussion not suited to the forum being used should be brought to another forum.
Obey all rules specific to the forum section. Some forum sections have additional rules.
When in doubt, do what the moderation staff said to.
Act in good faith. Trolling, dishonesty, and other forms of insincere behavior may be penalized at our discretion.



Reads less like a few notes but an actual listing of rules that are actually based on actions commited. Evidence for your interpetation?

Quote:
please explain to me how i am misinterpreting this situation. explain how this can be thought of as a set of rules and conduct which can be used to moderate the forum WITHOUT the mods simply viewing every post while thinking, 'is this reasonable? is this polite? is this informative?'
here

JMS wrote:
The rules are not intended to insure that people offer good solid arguments. They are instead intended to insure that people can offer their arguments without getting side-tracked into personal attacks and vendettas - the idea is that with such impediments out of the way, the better argument will "win" - receive positive responses.


Barring a change of his mind I believe this invalidates your interpentation of the rule.


Sat Sep 17, 2011 10:07 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 2133
Reply with quote
Mr. Oragahn wrote:
Well then why doesn't he get banned once and for all?
I sent a detailed report of all his wrongdoings in this thread and all it ended with was me getting a warning for that "fool" thing. Geez.

Mike DiCenso wrote:
This is really the wrong thread to be asking that in, Oragahn. Had you not slipped up like that, SWST would be at 3 warnings, and you 0. If you have any further comments, take it up in the apporpriate Technical forum thread.
-Mike

Praeothmin wrote:
One comment here:
As Mike said, we warned SWST many times, and banned him as well for being a dishonest debater, but every single time our decision has been reversed by JMS.
If you're unhappy about this, whine about it to him, not to us...

That being said, SWST is at 3 warnings right now, and you only have 1, Mr. O, so why the frustration?

Could I get a clarification as to whether or not Mr. Oragahn's report resulted in a warning for SWST?

That somebody is rude while making a report / accusation doesn't excuse us from looking at whether or not the report is accurate.


Sat Sep 17, 2011 10:38 pm
Profile WWW
Starship Captain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am
Posts: 1162
Reply with quote
sonofccn, please, please stop wasting my time. if i wanted to debate points i would be in a debate thread. stop ignoring the part that says 'in truth this forum has one rule'. it's pretty obvious that the 'one rule' line makes my case for me.
i don't even know why we're arguing. i don't really care what you think. this is not a debate thread.

also, btw, thanks jms for ignoring my request for clarification and then immediately using the same word in your own post, showing that you read it and then simply chose not to answer.
mike? praeothmin? anybody?


Sun Sep 18, 2011 9:45 am
Profile
Admiral
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Posts: 6862
Location: Paradise Mountain
Reply with quote
Look, the stay on topic rule has been violated many times, even by Mike. There's a problem here. I think that threads should remain as clear as possible of any off topic material.
But when in a thread about a given thing, someone can't refrain from making a comment about how in Star Trek or Star Wars, this or that is better or worse, that's clearly not topical.
As I said, Mike's been doing it for quite some time, and other members also do it from time to time, which I don't condone.
I refrain from doing it because it just amounts to dick measuring and we have threads for that. When one makes a thread about Star Destroyers turbolasers, I don't see why we should even accept one member suddenly departing from the discussion by saying that in Trek it's done better or differently.
We don't care, it's not the topic. If you want to do that, mmm, do that elsewhere, in a proper VS thread.
See, there's the off topic that is obviously a natural drift of a thread, that you can hardly avoid, and then there's the off topic material that's clearly an intrusion out of the blue by something that doesn't have its place in a debate.
That in a thread about ST shields, you progressively start talking about ST shield design and may even cite examples from other shows to use as analogies, that's quite logical and accepted, even if frowned upon if it goes too far I guess. Eventually, mods soon begin to split threads anyway.
But when I'm talking about the ICS and SWST attempts to bait me with some with claims that Trek does it better, I find that problematic. You can read the last two or three pages of the ICS thread to find plenty of cases like that.
SWST has really pushed this trend so far as to keep reintroducing Star Trek into a discussion in replies to some posts of mine where I was precisely telling him, after quoting him, to stop doing it.

Example:
viewtopic.php?p=35443#p35443

I present a case about FTL drives in SW requiring constant powering.
SWST attacks my position and ends it with :

Quote:
Going by your [highly skeptical] theory, assuming a hyperspace travel of a day (even though Dauth Maul traveled to Tatooine in but a few hours), we are left with around e22 joules per second, three orders of magnitude higher than the upper end calculations for Star Trek.


What the heck does it have to do with SW or the topic at hand?
Now, as I said, Mike has also done it in the past, and generally it resulted into other members replying to Mike, making the thread a mess.
But SWST insists. In my following reply, I not only point out his useless baiting, but also ask him why he does that (bringing Trek).
He says it's normal because this board is about SWvST and that the anti-ICS thread is used in favour of ST anyway, and ends his post with another red herring about what type of civilization SW and ST are.
I told him that it didn't matter, since if a point had to be settled between SW and ST, one would make a thread for that and stop polluting the ICS one (which he has been doing in order to derail the topic following points he wasn't exactly having the upper hand on). I'll pass on calling me a Trekkie.
This is where I reported him. I told him to stop and he not only continued, but added another layer of it.
His reply to my point about the final line of his post was just stupid:

"Fine then. Ignore Trek being a type 1. So stop ignoring Wars being a type 2."

Geez. Red herring plus a reboot or a strawman, can't tell (since I for one didn't speak of any type in that thread as far as I can remember). And that, after knowing that I had reported him.

Basically, every single post of mine from page 18 is partly dedicated to chasing SWST through his argumentation fallacies and dishonesty. If mods actually read those pages, they won't have any trouble obtaining all the evidence they need.

This is just about the part of baiting people with red herrings consisting of absolutely wanting to compare two universes when this is absolutely not the topic at hand.


Last edited by Mr. Oragahn on Sun Sep 18, 2011 9:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Sun Sep 18, 2011 2:19 pm
Profile
Starship Captain

Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Posts: 1636
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA
Reply with quote
Mojo wrote:
sonofccn, please, please stop wasting my time. if i wanted to debate points i would be in a debate thread.


Quote:
stop ignoring the part that says 'in truth this forum has one rule'. it's pretty obvious that the 'one rule' line makes my case for me.


Make up your mind Mojo. You want to quit wasting time or you want to keep arguing this blasted point? You can't do both.


Sun Sep 18, 2011 7:04 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 2133
Reply with quote
mojo wrote:
also, btw, thanks jms for ignoring my request for clarification and then immediately using the same word in your own post, showing that you read it and then simply chose not to answer.

Mojo, that was actually a coincidence, using the same word. I'm reading through the entire thread now, and I apologize for overlooking your post. The omission was mine.

Now; to clarify what you asked for:

I see the "list of simple rules" as being all instances of the "one rule." As you said, it's a fairly broad and vague "single" rule; the list of more specific rules was as exhaustive as I felt seemed likely to be needed, but isn't necessarily complete.

The "stay on topic" rule is mostly meant as a housekeeping suggestion. Keeping posts on a single topic allows them to be better organized. However, in some cases, it can be a technique for trying to derail discussion.

I think it's actually more visible as a tactic when it isn't working, as is the case with Mr. Oragahn. I don't do a very good job of separating the issues of Saxtonite misrepresentation of Star Trek and Saxtonite misrepresentation of Star Wars; I like to tackle things at the "big picture" level at the top line of the debate and apply incredible levels of thoroughness in my arguments (which is one reason why I don't post very often), so when someone provides me an off-topic opening, I usually jump at it.

I know that Mr. Oragahn is really not much of a Trek fan. He's into StarGate. So when I reviewed the thread in question and see SWST running into a brick wall trying to argue that the discussion between the two of them is really all about Star Trek, it does come off as decidedly odd.

I will say that, reviewing the heated exchange between SWST and Mr. Oragahn at the end of the thread, I would issue a warning to both of them for their conduct; Mr. Oragahn, you did indeed lose your temper in there. Someone should have really stepped in earlier.

Reviewing the logs, I can see that Mike has issued a warning to SWST for this, and that SWST has been issued a ban (which leaves me a little confused about why there's as much complaint in this thread as there has been). The length of the ban is not indicated, although per policy it should be temporary and about double the length of his previous ban, whatever that was.

Now; I would like to take a moment to expand on the issue of moderation. It's nice to be missed; but I stepped back from moderation for a couple reasons. One is that my RL life had in general become much more busy. I simply didn't have the time to keep a close eye on the forums the way I had been, and when we went through the Serafina episode, which required a great deal of my attention, I realized how time-consuming it was when crap actually hit the fan.

This is still true. If we go back to me being the only moderator, I don't have the time to pay close attention; enforcement would mostly be happening on the basis of what gets brought to my attention, and would therefore be spotty. I would like it if our moderators were fairly aggressive in enforcing the rules and then occasionally overridden on appeals to me; I'd rather not be getting appeals saying that the moderators are not enforcing the rules rigorously enough.


Sun Sep 18, 2011 7:33 pm
Profile WWW
Jedi Master

Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm
Posts: 5730
Reply with quote
The length of SWST's ban should be 7 days (approx. 2x his last ban). I don't know how that got dropped out in the ban settings.

You going back to being the only mod would be a huge mistake. You've said it yourself, there is too much now for one person to handle, and we'll just have to except that this is going to be difficult to deal with on some occasions, especially where SWST and similar offenders are concerned.
-Mike


Sun Sep 18, 2011 11:46 pm
Profile
Starship Captain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am
Posts: 1162
Reply with quote
sonofccn wrote:
Mojo wrote:
sonofccn, please, please stop wasting my time. if i wanted to debate points i would be in a debate thread.


Quote:
stop ignoring the part that says 'in truth this forum has one rule'. it's pretty obvious that the 'one rule' line makes my case for me.


Make up your mind Mojo. You want to quit wasting time or you want to keep arguing this blasted point? You can't do both.


that's a moot point now that jms has given us clarification FINALLLLLLY


Mon Sep 19, 2011 5:55 am
Profile
Jedi Master

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Posts: 3879
Location: Quebec City
Reply with quote
JMS wrote:
I would like it if our moderators were fairly aggressive in enforcing the rules and then occasionally overridden on appeals to me; I'd rather not be getting appeals saying that the moderators are not enforcing the rules rigorously enough.


Ok, got it...
I will be more agressive on Moderation, and try to call everything...


Last edited by Praeothmin on Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Mon Sep 19, 2011 3:16 pm
Profile
Jedi Master

Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm
Posts: 5730
Reply with quote
I see no reason to change my policy of giving newcomers or people with little history of trouble making a "friendly" unoffical warning first off.
-Mike


Tue Sep 20, 2011 4:20 am
Profile
Starship Captain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am
Posts: 1162
Reply with quote
noone is arguing for big brother tactics here, mike, regardless of sonofccn's belief otherwise.
i can't imagine anyone caring if a n00b or reg steps out of line and gets a friendly warning instead of both barrels.

i personally could not be more bored of the whole swst debate. he is already fading into the distance, his average post count has been DRASTICALLY reduced in the last few months and there are multiple posts in which he very goddamn nearly concedes that he has lost the debate insofar as this board is concerned, or at least that he recognizes the futility of continuing using his chosen tactics. of course he uses language which makes him the LONE BRAVE HONEST WARRIOR SURROUNDED BY THE EVIL TREKKIE HORDE, but it's clear the point is sinking in. what bothers me now is the 'leaving with head held high and being welcomed back to sdn as a conquering hero' thing. i think there's a good chance of that happening. i know i shouldn't care, but i do.

praeothmin, thank you for saving my head from exploding in the fsm thread. i was close to full meltdown there. those members who would rather that i left with swst however have reason now to dislike you as well, as i'm pretty sure i'd have been banned again within the next few posts.

sonofccn, what bothered me about your post stating that my trolling is worse than swst's trolling is the idea that you can't distinguish the difference between inappropriately venting frustration in what was meant to be a humorous fashion and a long-term continuous malevolent trolling with intent to harm the board. i don't think we have to agree on political matters or religious matters or how the board is policed for it to be clear that i never intended to harm the board, or even to harm swst particularly. i never argued that what i did was right or that i was treated unfairly. i just hate that you thought that.

jms, thanks for clarifying the board rules. i think the truth was somewhere in the middle of the ideas sonofccn and i had, but leaned a lot closer to his side than mine. clearly i was mistaken on the matter of how much autonomy you meant the mods to use in defining what is reasonable, polite, and informative. a few months ago you said that you thought i had no idea what you were hoping to accomplish with the board. i'd have to admit that's probably true.

and in the end, breetai, oragahn, and i will have to admit that we became overly fixated on the whole thing and that things worked out pretty much as the staff told us they would from the beginning. he will disappear eventually, and probably before he's permabanned. he has not harmed the board in a permanent way, and he cannot do so. i think it's interesting that the people who got the most worked up over the trolling are the board's own trolls. maybe we felt more threatened in a territorial way. we should, because although his methods are actually pretty obvious and simple, he's been spectacularly successful in the short term, and he gives a terrible name to the word 'troll', which i have always maintained does NOT have to be a negative term.

i think this is almost over, one way or the other.


Tue Sep 20, 2011 6:20 am
Profile
Jedi Master

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Posts: 3879
Location: Quebec City
Reply with quote
Well, I don't see you, mojo, or Breetai, and certainly not Oragahn, as Trolls...
You are highly opiniated people (especially Oragahn :) ), but you are not Trolls...

And even if I don't find all your antics funny, mojo, I saw another side of you in the FSM thread, a side I liked...
You had good arguments, and you showed a lot more patience with SWST then I could have... :)


Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:31 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 57 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.