Now that I know there is a secret thread about me

[Pavlov's Dog]

Post it out here. Don't be fucking cowards.

[The 800# Gorilla]

PD. It is called The Great Woo Woo.

[Octavia]

Yep, there was a thread. The conclusion, as I recall, is that you weren't disruptive enough to warrant suspension or banning. Hence, we didn't do anything.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Yep, there was a thread. The conclusion, as I recall, is that you weren't disruptive enough to warrant suspension or banning.

I don't want just the conclusion. That is fairly obvious considering I wasn't suspended or banned. I was not disruptive at all. So, let's see the thread. You didn't seem to care that Mason's thread was exposed. Are you remotely ashamed of other things you said in private?

[RexT]

So why do you need to see the thread PD?

[Pavlov's Dog]

Why do you need to hide the thread RT? I think it is obvious you have mental issues.

[RexT]

Is that your answer?

ETA: knock off the personal insults

[Pavlov's Dog]

Is that your answer?

I want to see it to see which loser shitbags have a problem with me.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Is that your answer?

ETA: knock off the personal insults

You knock them off. Or are you saying that you get to do them in the private forum because you are a moderator? Let me into the private forum and will throw the personal insults around in there, like the rest of cool kidz do.

[Notta_skeptic]

Maybe we need a netdrama forum around here, too.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Maybe we need a netdrama forum around here, too.

There is one, but only staff have access.

[RexT]

Is that your answer?

I want to see it to see which loser shitbags have a problem with me.Then I see no reason to give you access to the thread in question.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Is that your answer?

I want to see it to see which loser shitbags have a problem with me.Then I see no reason to give you access to the thread in question.

Of course you don't. I don't want access to it. I want it out in the open, so everyone can see. What are you afraid of? If it is all on the up and up, then there shouldn't be any problems.

[ravenscape]

It's not going to happen tonight. As a community, we all can discuss how and when to make it happen.

In the meanwhile I ask everyone to please dial it back on the personal insults.

Thanks,

Raven

[lao tzu]

Is that your answer?

I want to see it to see which loser shitbags have a problem with me.

See, you can be charming when you try.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Let's dial back the personal insults in the sooper secrit cool kidz forum too. While we are at it.

[Octavia]

^Believe it or not, I actually think that is a fair comment. No-one should be saying things in the staff forum that they wouldn't say in public. That doesn't imply that all comments should be made public. We don't seem to have a working consensus on that yet.

While I do think there should be leeway to discuss motives in the staff forum (examples of this could be: "Is A trolling?" or "B seems to have spat the dummy; it's not like him. Anything going on with him lately?" or "C and D have the same IP address. Has C set up a sock, or is it his wife/girlfriend/flatmate"), that shouldn't extend into egregious personal insults for the sake of them.

[Pavlov's Dog]

^Believe it or not, I actually think that is a fair comment. No-one should be saying things in the staff forum that they wouldn't say in public.

That is not going to happen as long as it is a secret forum. Your staff cannot be trusted. I have seen some of them in the secret forum here, and the secret forum at IIDB.

[Pavlov's Dog]

So, back to the OP: Where is the thread about me? You can leave out who reported the post if they are too much of a coward to admit it. I am more concerned with what the staff is saying about me.

[lao tzu]

You're a fucking conspiracy nut looking for a fight, PD. Go be a dick on some other forum.

Is that "open" enough for you, Mr. Charm?

[Pavlov's Dog]

You're a fucking conspiracy nut looking for a fight, PD. Go be a dick on some other forum.

Is that "open" enough for you, Mr. Charm?

Fuck off. Let's dial back the personal insults. If there is nothing for me to be concerned about, then why not just post thread? If there is no conspiracy, then just post the thread? I have seen what they said about Mason in their secret forum, so I don't think I am being paranoid here.

[BWE]

If there is a secret thread about me ever, I wish to clearly state this now, please do not show it to me.

PD, Sorry bout the thread business. My advice is to forget it. You are kind of a dick sometimes. Why read a whole thread discussing it? You can be happy with or without the thread. Just pour yourself a nice glass of milk, sit down in front of a nice book, smoke a few joints, and you won't care at all.

[Garrett]

lao tzu
We don't want you here.
If this board really does want rational talk, then chronic jerks must be sent packing.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Let's have a vote, so the mob can ban me. But make it public.

I think some of your fellow posters are going to upset at the bullying that is going on this thread.

*Waits for Febble to white knight me*

[Occam's Aftershave]

Let's have a vote, so the mob can ban me. But make it public.

I think some of your fellow posters are going to upset at the bullying that is going on this thread.

*Waits for Febble to white knight me*
I think many more are already upset at your juvenile attempts to disrupt this forum the way you and a few other immature types did at RnR.

There wouldn't be a thread about you if you had behaved like an adult, ya know?

[Pavlov's Dog]

Let's have a vote, so the mob can ban me. But make it public.

I think some of your fellow posters are going to upset at the bullying that is going on this thread.

*Waits for Febble to white knight me*
I think many more are already upset at your juvenile attempts to disrupt this forum the way you and a few other immature types did at RnR.

There wouldn't be a thread about you if you had behaved like an adult, ya know?

Bullshit. Or are you telling me you know what the thread was about?

If you have something specific, then say it, but these blanket accusations are useless.

Wait, are you the guy who defended the cops who stripped that girl naked?

[rigorist]

*checking in*

[Worldtraveller]

In light of some of the posts in this thread, I think it's time to nail down our process for the members to recall mods/admins.

PD, I'm going to bed now, but I will try and get on tomorrow afternoon and put a poll up regarding this discussion and this thread (http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=1058).

I know you realize that this board is still trying to hash out how to handle conflicts of this kind. Your constructive input would be greatly appreciated, in the spirit of the forum (i.e. light moderation and a place for at least a modicum of civility).

[Rathpig]

Given the content of the exposed Mason thread, PD has a very valid point. I haven't participated in any of this drama because it was first of all not my concern and secondly it was embarrassing for so many people to be caught out of their element by Mason. He pushed your buttons and damned if everyone in an "official" position fell for it. An outside observer would think you guys were new to the internet.

But if a similar thread exists about PD, he has a right to see it. If he wants to post it then that should also be his right.



The closer this forum is edged toward IIDB tactics the less "rational" it will become. Secret mod forums are bad policy in light of the "community" aspect of this experiment. The bullshit spouted in the Mason thread was bad moderation and probably would have never happened if people thought they would be exposed. Some people can turn this into an us-versus-them with RnR, but that is just more bullshit that misses the point. IIDB fucked up because of a systematic failure. Too many people here were part of that system and bear some responsibility for it's bad parts as well as the good. Don't fuck up again.

I spoke out then, and I will speak out now.

[His Noodly Appendage]

I don't see how, piggeh. He was blatantly trolling, we don't tolerate trolling here, he got suspended.

How is that 'falling for it', and how is that getting caught out of our element?

The only thing I would have changed would have been much swifter action with much less fussing around over the finer points. There was never any doubt that he was only here for the lulz; I think we should simply have flicked the switch as soon as it was apparent. The idea of giving second chances and the benefit of the doubt to someone who doesn't value them in the slightest seems counterproductive.

I personally agree that moderation should be open; anything I say about anyone, I'll happily say to their face. If there are things you aren't happy for people to hear, I don't believe they should be said.

[Febble]

I don't see how, piggeh. He was blatantly trolling, we don't tolerate trolling here, he got suspended.

How is that 'falling for it', and how is that getting caught out of our element?

The only thing I would have changed would have been much swifter action with much less fussing around over the finer points. There was never any doubt that he was only here for the lulz; I think we should simply have flicked the switch as soon as it was apparent. The idea of giving second chances and the benefit of the doubt to someone who doesn't value them in the slightest seems counterproductive.

I personally agree that moderation should be open; anything I say about anyone, I'll happily say to their face. If there are things you aren't happy for people to hear, I don't believe they should be said.

Well, the reason I disagree is not because I think we shouldn't be, in principle, open, but because I think that things are not so cut and dried. It's easy enough to be open about open and shut decisions. But where context matters to a decision - even to a decision to make a decision - I'm not convinced that it is right or fair for that debate to be made in the full glare or public scrutiny.

But I'm all for opening any discussion about a poster open to that poster (as we now have done) and also giving the poster the option of having the discussion open to the general forum (if that's technically feasible). It's the discussion about whether action is even necessary that I think may often best be done non-publicly - and if it isn't officially, it will be so in practice, because people will resort to PMs.

I'd like to ask, out of interest, whether PD ever uses the PM system, and if so, why? And if not, then I applaud his consistency.

[RexT]

If there are things you aren't happy for people to hear, I don't believe they should be said.So you have a surprise gift for your wife. Well, no you wouldn't because that would mean keeping her in the dark and you don't want things to be private.

Suppose you're a doctor and a patient has a rather embarrassing problem. Just tell them in the presence of whoever happens to be in the room?

Attorney client priveledge; no?

Trade secrets; no?

Just where do you see a place for privacy?

Public sex? To each their own I guess.

This isn't about talking behind someone's back like school kid gossip. It's about being able to speak frankly to get a good range of honest opinion. That can't happen if everything is public. And having every word picked apart by the lawyers, screw that. If the whole things goes public about 99% of the staff goes elsewhere. No, I'm not speaking for others, they spoke for themselves in a poll. Can we get real here folks?

[Febble]

Let's have a vote, so the mob can ban me. But make it public.

I think some of your fellow posters are going to upset at the bullying that is going on this thread.

*Waits for Febble to white knight me*

Fat chance. I'm bloody furious with you, PD. I think you've been an utter jerk.

But I will agree with you that we should do (as we are going to do) and make discussions about "problem posters" open to the poster.

But I can see no reasonable alternative to keeping the at least some of the discussions that precede that process out of the public glare. That's because I think sensitivity and openness are sometimes at odds, and the requirements for each need to be balanced.

I want this to be a humane board. I don't think we can achieve this by running it as RnR is run, for example. While I like RnR (or did), I find the untrammelled cruelty I find there on occasions frankly disgusting.

[Febble]

Given the content of the exposed Mason thread, PD has a very valid point. I haven't participated in any of this drama because it was first of all not my concern and secondly it was embarrassing for so many people to be caught out of their element by Mason. He pushed your buttons and damned if everyone in an "official" position fell for it. An outside observer would think you guys were new to the internet.

But if a similar thread exists about PD, he has a right to see it. If he wants to post it then that should also be his right.



The closer this forum is edged toward IIDB tactics the less "rational" it will become. Secret mod forums are bad policy in light of the "community" aspect of this experiment. The bullshit spouted in the Mason thread was bad moderation and probably would have never happened if people thought they would be exposed. Some people can turn this into an us-versus-them with RnR, but that is just more bullshit that misses the point. IIDB fucked up because of a systematic failure. Too many people here were part of that system and bear some responsibility for it's bad parts as well as the good. Don't fuck up again.

I spoke out then, and I will speak out now.

Fair enough. But not all of us have the same analysis of what went wrong with IIDB. IMO, what was wrong was not the secrecy/confidentiality issues, but the non-accountability within the admininstrative structure, and the fact that the BoD were, effectively absentee landlords with interests at odds, and often in direct conflict, with that of their tenants.

IIDB was an oligarchy. RnR was set up as an anarchy. TR was set up as a republic. Both RnR and TR are alternatives to oligarchy. We may not know which works better for some time, and perhaps neither are viable in the long term.

But for now, I think there is a reasonable chance that the TR model can work better than both IIDB and RnR. I may be wrong. But I think the experiment is worth trying.

RnR is not without serious problems, IMO, though I'd rather have RnR's problems than those that eventually brought IIDB to its debacle.

ETA: and I should also mention the Heathen Hub model, which again was an attempt not to replicate a subset of the errors of IIDB, and the problems of which were what motivated Christina to start TR. I think benign dictatorships can work - DailyKos does - but a lot depends on the dictator. Daily Kos is an interesting model, actually.

[Barbarian]

But I will agree with you that we should do (as we are going to do) and make discussions about "problem posters" open to the poster.I'd recommend a fair and public trial thread, with admins, mods and the accused being able to post (so the accused can defend himself) and everyone else able to watch only.

[Febble]

But I will agree with you that we should do (as we are going to do) and make discussions about "problem posters" open to the poster.I'd recommend a fair and public trial thread, with admins, mods and the accused being able to post (so the accused can defend himself) and everyone else able to watch only.

Well, I'd want to leave it up to the "accused" whether s/he wanted a public trial or one in camera.

If it were me, I'd choose in camera. I don't think one size fits all, nor should. One person's transparency is another person's pillory.

[David B]

But I will agree with you that we should do (as we are going to do) and make discussions about "problem posters" open to the poster.I'd recommend a fair and public trial thread, with admins, mods and the accused being able to post (so the accused can defend himself) and everyone else able to watch only.

It looks good at first sight, Barbarian, but it's not without it's problems, IMV

I certainly wouldn't support it without the request of the accused, in any particular cases, for that degree of openness.

There is also - I speak generally here, not about any particular case - a potential for difficulties with the confidentiality of third parties.

It also has the potential to be something of a troll's charter, distracting from the normal course of discussion, and being generally divisive.

And more - but that will do for now.

David B

[DMB]

As I have posted on the other thread that overlaps with this, I dont see anything much wrong with what was apparently the discussion about dealing with Mason's behaviour. It was OTOH sympathetic to Mason, despite his behaviour. I think that sort of forum is necessary for staff ever to be able to act with any sort of consistency at all. I'm well aware of Dean's warning against elevating consistency too high, but on a lot of disciplinary matters it must be helpful to discuss approaches with colleagues doing the same job, and it is likely to be fairer to the person in trouble.

I think that what is important is that if a decision is made to suspend/ban someone (other than an obvious troll or spammer), then some details should be posted in TH giving the basic reasons. I don't know if it's technically feasible, but it would be helpful if someone under sentence could be allowed to post in that thread and that thread only. It should be open to friends/advocates to post on behalf of the person and also for those who have a grievance to come out publically with it. There should be a time limit on the thread. Derails should be firmly split out.

[RexT]

As I have posted on the other thread that overlaps with this, I dont see anything much wrong with what was apparently the discussion about dealing with Mason's behaviour. It was OTOH sympathetic to Mason, despite his behaviour. I think that sort of forum is necessary for staff ever to be able to act with any sort of consistency at all. I'm well aware of Dean's warning against elevating consistency too high, but on a lot of disciplinary matters it must be helpful to discuss approaches with colleagues doing the same job, and it is likely to be fairer to the person in trouble.

I think that what is important is that if a decision is made to suspend/ban someone (other than an obvious troll or spammer), then some details should be posted in TH giving the basic reasons. I don't know if it's technically feasible, but it would be helpful if someone under sentence could be allowed to post in that thread and that thread only. It should be open to friends/advocates to post on behalf of the person and also for those who have a grievance to come out publically with it. There should be a time limit on the thread. Derails should be firmly split out.Ask and you shall receive. The new "In Confidence" sub forum at the top of TH is slated to serve exactly the purpose you described. Or so I am given to believe.

[DMB]

Rex, I don't quite see how that would serve the purpose I had in mind. That looks more like a thread for complaining in confidence. Perhaps in conjunction with an ombudsman, it might work. But how are any of us to know that a thread is there?

I am thinking of the following situation:

Staff want to ban A

Admin start a visible thread in TH saying A is under threat of ban and is temporarily suspended from posting anywhere except in one thread. Presumably admin would give brief reasons. The bannee could argue about it and his her friends could defend and enemies bring up extra evidence if they want. Posts like "A is stupid troll and we don't want him here" would be disallowed. Arguments on either side would ideally be backed up with evidence from posting. A vote would be added near the end of the process and not at the beginning when no-one has read all the arguments.

[RexT]

Well, the idea is to give A the choice. If A wants the whole thing to be public, a highly modded thread is started by staff in TH. But if A wants it to be only A + staff, then A starts a thread in In Confidence. No one else can see the process.

[DMB]

Sure. I have no problem with the bannee's having the choice of public or private. Ultimately though, I am concerned that people shouldn't just disappear abruptly from the board with no-one knowing what heppened or where they went.

[RexT]

I share that concern too and I don't see that ever happening. With an exception for the spammers of course.

[Febble]

Sure. I have no problem with the bannee's having the choice of public or private. Ultimately though, I am concerned that people shouldn't just disappear abruptly from the board with no-one knowing what heppened or where they went.

Yes. That must never happen here. If I go missing, please come and find me!

[David M]

This isn't about talking behind someone's back like school kid gossip. It's about being able to speak frankly to get a good range of honest opinion. That can't happen if everything is public. And having every word picked apart by the lawyers, screw that. If the whole things goes public about 99% of the staff goes elsewhere. No, I'm not speaking for others, they spoke for themselves in a poll. Can we get real here folks?

I agree with this, its fine to have a private forum to allow mods to discuss disciplinary matters as long as the complaint and disciplinary outcome are published, what i'd want to see is comment by the community allowed on the results.

That allow transparency and accountability of the accusation and outcome.

This would lessen the chance of uneven treatment and maintain consistency.

[VoxRat]

I don't see how, piggeh. He was blatantly trolling, we don't tolerate trolling here, he got suspended.

How is that 'falling for it', and how is that getting caught out of our element?

The only thing I would have changed would have been much swifter action with much less fussing around over the finer points. There was never any doubt that he was only here for the lulz; I think we should simply have flicked the switch as soon as it was apparent.There's the answer to your question, right there.

And, this being a new operation, still trying to find its wings and all, let's hope this is a learning experience and not a precedent.

But - as Febble said - it's not always so cut and dried, is it?

Someone said "trolling is not tolerated here". Which is a good idea, in principle. But identifying "trolling" sort of involves figuring out the motives/intent of the troll in question, doesn't it? With Mason, it was more than clear enough. But - call me paranoid - I suspect there are still others who have registered in a spirit other than constructive. How are you going to deal with that? I got the sense from that whole "republic of freethought" bit that the idea was to find a path between "mob rule" (http://www.talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=23322&postcount=26) and star chambers.

The idea of giving second chances and the benefit of the doubt to someone who doesn't value them in the slightest seems counterproductive.

I personally agree that moderation should be open; anything I say about anyone, I'll happily say to their face. If there are things you aren't happy for people to hear don't want to take responsibility for saying, I don't believe they should be said.I'm guessing that's what you really meant to say.

[Febble]

This isn't about talking behind someone's back like school kid gossip. It's about being able to speak frankly to get a good range of honest opinion. That can't happen if everything is public. And having every word picked apart by the lawyers, screw that. If the whole things goes public about 99% of the staff goes elsewhere. No, I'm not speaking for others, they spoke for themselves in a poll. Can we get real here folks?

QFT

[Rathpig]

I don't see how, piggeh. He was blatantly trolling, we don't tolerate trolling here, he got suspended.

How is that 'falling for it', and how is that getting caught out of our element?


Let me revise my earlier statement then, HNA wasn't being fooled, but he is the rare exception.

My earlier comment centered around the mother hen and enturbulated mod responses about Mason which went to his home life, his mental condition, and other assumptions that should have never been part of the story. He was trolling and being well feed: END OF STORY. Were he not being successful in the thread then perhaps he wouldn't have kept rolling out the rather weak attempts at humor.

If such behavior, loosely trolling considering the source, was enough to piss of the staff then Mason should have been told to fuck off if he didn't stop it.

Personally I think it was a continuation of the E,B! trolling where so many got butthurt because it was proven that troll feeding was a modus of the forum and they were caught out. I read most of the Mason posts here, and it was the same weak shit, yet people became caught up in the responses.

It raises the philosophical question of what is "trolling" and what is parody.

(I understand how it may be respectful to take into account someone's recent mental state when they briefly fly off the handle. Fuck knows, I have flown off the handle myself on occasion. But this behavior from Mason was a long and obviously calculated effort to probe for weakness and exploit that for "teh funnah". If anything the mental condition of the respondents is the big story. Why are people so easily trolled?)

Now I don't give a shit if you ban Mason, lynch him, or give him a medal. The problem is the divisive way it was handled as if those with mod-console privileges are just a step above us proles (all half dozen of us). And as PD pointed out, the conversation seemed to be a bit clanish without even one person saying, "look guys, this is bullshit to act in this manner as if you are his momma or his shrink".



And in other news, RexT: you are just a bit full of yourself, captain. Ya may wanna dial that shit back a notch. You are becoming a parody of yourself. This isn't a long-term gig in Vegas with your own marquee. Moderation for the sake of moderation is akin to power-hungry masturbation. With the exception of Latinijral, I haven't seen a single reason for the Schutzstaffel to mobilize.

[Febble]

I don't see how, piggeh. He was blatantly trolling, we don't tolerate trolling here, he got suspended.

How is that 'falling for it', and how is that getting caught out of our element?

The only thing I would have changed would have been much swifter action with much less fussing around over the finer points. There was never any doubt that he was only here for the lulz; I think we should simply have flicked the switch as soon as it was apparent.There's the answer to your question, right there.

And, this being a new operation, still trying to find its wings and all, let's hope this is a learning experience and not a precedent.

But - as Febble said - it's not always so cut and dried, is it?

Someone said "trolling is not tolerated here". Which is a good idea, in principle. But identifying "trolling" sort of involves figuring out the motives/intent of the troll in question, doesn't it? With Mason, it was more than clear enough. But - call me paranoid - I suspect there are still others who have registered in a spirit other than constructive. How are you going to deal with that? I got the sense from that whole "republic of freethought" bit that the idea was to find a path between "mob rule" (http://www.talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=23322&postcount=26) and star chambers.

The idea of giving second chances and the benefit of the doubt to someone who doesn't value them in the slightest seems counterproductive.

I personally agree that moderation should be open; anything I say about anyone, I'll happily say to their face. If there are things you aren't happy for people to hear don't want to take responsibility for saying, I don't believe they should be said.I'm guessing that's what you really meant to say.

Yup.

But it's also a bit like Solomon and the baby. The kindlier party is also the weaker. We hesitated because Mason is a minor, because he may not have much support at home for his atheism (depending on how much of what he has posted in the past is true or not), and we wanted to Do No Harm. It seemed possible that TR might be a useful resource for him at some point.

Hesitation is the price we pay for caring, frankly. It's a price I'm at least sometimes willing to pay. Whether it's appreciated or not.

But I'll say here and now, as PD wants to know: if it there are ever grounds for voting to ban him, I shall have no qualms about voting yes.

[Rathpig]

TR was set up as a republic.

And if I could have a conversation with Thomas Jefferson, I would tell him not to be so naive in building a country. Republics can work, but the minute you allow people into power with behind-scenes-politics and assumptions of grandeur beyond the common citizen, you have merely built another form of oligarchy.

For a real life example look at the United States. It is a grand idea of Republic which is in reality a fascist bunch of fucks manipulating a semi-enslaved population - all because secrecy and paternalism took precedence over openness.


I think the attitude of needing secrecy to be "honest" is inherently dishonest.

I can call Mason a smartass little fucker to his face and present eveidence. Why is that so difficult for everyone else?

[Febble]

TR was set up as a republic.

And if I could have a conversation with Thomas Jefferson, I would tell him not to be so naive in building a country. Republics can work, but the minute you allow people into power with behind-scenes-politics and assumptions of grandeur beyond the common citizen, you have merely built another form of oligarchy.

For a real life example look at the United States. It is a grand idea of Republic which is in reality a fascist bunch of fucks manipulating a semi-enslaved population - all because secrecy and paternalism took precedence over openness.


I think the attitude of needing secrecy to be "honest" is inherently dishonest.

I can call Mason a smartass little fucker to his face and present eveidence. Why is that so difficult for everyone else?

I have no problem in calling Mason a smartass little fucker to his face (though it doesn't happen to be my style - I tend to be snarkier).

I do have problems in saying, in public - hang on a mo, he may be behaving like smartass little fucker, but some of his posts suggest that he has a hell of a time with his fundie folks, he's really smart, and these forums may be an important resource for him. Could we temper justice with mercy a bit more than usually, this time round, as he's still a kid?

People, maybe counter-intuitively, are a lot less inhibited about being rude to other people on the internet than they are about being tentative, nuanced, OTOH, perhaps-I'm-wrong-but...

Because the internet is public, and googlable, and people would rather be definite. Forcing definiteness before a mature decision is reached seems to me not to be a recipe for wise decisions.

Though I take your point about the dangers. On the other hand, I don't think America is fucked yet. There are semi-enslaved populations in the world, but on a scale of 1 to 10, I think the US is a long way from the bottom, and that may have at least something to do with the fact that it's a republic.

On the other hand our constitutional monarchy works fairly well.

What's wrong with the US in my foreigner's opinion is that it's effectively privately owned, which has nothing to do with Jefferson's vision, and is, ironically, one of the things that our monarchy is something of a bulwark against. Some stuff unalienly belongs to The Crown, i.e. us, through the sovereign.

[Preno]

^Believe it or not, I actually think that is a fair comment. No-one should be saying things in the staff forum that they wouldn't say in public. That doesn't imply that all comments should be made public. We don't seem to have a working consensus on that yet.

While I do think there should be leeway to discuss motives in the staff forum (examples of this could be: "Is A trolling?" or "B seems to have spat the dummy; it's not like him. Anything going on with him lately?" or "C and D have the same IP address. Has C set up a sock, or is it his wife/girlfriend/flatmate"), that shouldn't extend into egregious personal insults for the sake of them.Octavia wins, as usual.

Although I don't think it should be against the rules to discuss motives outside the staff forum. Is it currently? Because I'm pretty sure people have been doing this, for example in Evolution.

[Febble]

^Believe it or not, I actually think that is a fair comment. No-one should be saying things in the staff forum that they wouldn't say in public. That doesn't imply that all comments should be made public. We don't seem to have a working consensus on that yet.

While I do think there should be leeway to discuss motives in the staff forum (examples of this could be: "Is A trolling?" or "B seems to have spat the dummy; it's not like him. Anything going on with him lately?" or "C and D have the same IP address. Has C set up a sock, or is it his wife/girlfriend/flatmate"), that shouldn't extend into egregious personal insults for the sake of them.Octavia wins, as usual.

Although I don't think it should be against the rules to discuss motives outside the staff forum. Is it currently? Because I'm pretty sure people have been doing this, for example in Evolution.

No, I don't either, though it's a nuisance when they clutter up the thread.

Yeah, Octavia rocks.

[RexT]

And in other news, RexT: you are just a bit full of yourself, captain. Ya may wanna dial that shit back a notch. You are becoming a parody of yourself. This isn't a long-term gig in Vegas with your own marquee. Moderation for the sake of moderation is akin to power-hungry masturbation. With the exception of Latinijral, I haven't seen a single reason for the Schutzstaffel to mobilize.Speaking of being full of oneself Rathpig. You putting my name in the same paragraph with Latinijral just shot a whole buch of your credibility all to hell buddy. But that captin thing was pretty cute. Trying out for sports announcer?

Here's some news for you, Rathpig. You haven't lifted a finger to help this forum get off the ground, haven't offered your time or thoughts to helping solve the myriad problems that face a start up forum, let alone one trying a new approach. And too bad too, because you seem pretty bright. Instead you drag in here from Lulz-ville dumping your half-baked opinions on us like we we were looking too light, needed some more crap on this wagon. Well, shit Rathpig, hop on buddy, we'll carry your ass around too.

But hey, maybe we should hear you out. Ever run a forum like this one before, Rathpig. No, well of course you haven't because there isn't another like this one, despite Stoppers false comparison with us to IIDB. Not much different from your comparison with me to Latinijral.

Um, are you thinkng we're just a buch of dumbass, soooo stupid that if we would just shut up and listen to old Rathpig, this wagon would just roll on soooo smooth. Thanks for the vote of confidence there Rathboy. Hey, but if we need someone to second guess our every move and trash us up one side and down the other, you'll leave us your number, right?

Nice talking to ya Rath...

[mac_philo]

I want this to be a humane board. I don't think we can achieve this by running it as RnR is run, for example.

Nobody thinks that.

If you want to have a forum that makes good on IIDB's commitment to the community, you cannot replicate IIDB's structure. This has nothing to do with the qualifications or good intentions of the staff. Having a cabal of IIDB veterans convening in private to discuss the private lives and mental states of members is just indicative of the structural problems that will replicate the staff/community rift. That rift was NOT just caused by having a single dictator.

If you just want a vaguely community-friendly forum with private areas for kvetching, character analysis, team-building gossip, letting off steam, strategizing about whether you ought to give a poster enough rope to hang themselves, articulating cathartic disdain, impersonation of therapists, and the like, fine, but at least be explicit that this is another hierarchical club like IIDB, staffed by a relocated IIDB clique that has to make essentially no changes to their routine to function here.

Staff should be picked for their ability and commitment to split posts, sniff out socks, administer the forum, manage the server, apply rules impartially, and the like. All this extra-curricular stuff is laudatory, but doing it in private will create tension with the community. Further, the staff, qua staff, have no special qualifications that would justify engaging in these activities without the contributions of mere members.

[rigorist]

And in other news, RexT: you are just a bit full of yourself, captain. Ya may wanna dial that shit back a notch. You are becoming a parody of yourself. This isn't a long-term gig in Vegas with your own marquee. Moderation for the sake of moderation is akin to power-hungry masturbation. With the exception of Latinijral, I haven't seen a single reason for the Schutzstaffel to mobilize.Speaking of being full of oneself Rathpig. You putting my name in the same paragraph with Latinijral just shot a whole buch of your credibility all to hell buddy. But that captin thing was pretty cute. Trying out for sports announcer?

Here's a news for you, Rathpig. You haven't lifted a finger to help this forum get off the ground, haven't offered your time or thoughts to helping solve the myriad problems that face a start up forum, let alone one trying a new approach. And too bad too, because you seem pretty bright. Instead you drag in here from Lulz-ville dumping your half-baked opinions on us like we we were looking too light, needed some more crap on this wagon. Well, shit Rathpig, hop on buddy, we'll carry your ass around too.

But hey, maybe we should hear you out. Ever run a forum like this one before, Rathpig. No, well of course you haven't because there isn't another like this one, despite Stoppers false comparison with us to IIDB. Not much different from your comparison with me to Latinijral.

Um, are you thinkng we're just a buch of dumbass, soooo stupid that if we would just shut up and listen to old Rathpig, this wagon would just roll on soooo smooth. Thanks for the vote of confidence there Rathboy. Hey, but if we need someone to second guess our every move and trash us up one side and down the other, you'll leave us your number, right?

Nice talking to ya Rath...

I have usually found Rathpig to be pretty damned thoughtful and insightful. Ignore his critiques at your peril.

[RexT]

I have usually found Rathpig to be pretty damned thoughtful and insightful. Ignore his critiques at your peril.Yup, me too.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Heh. The main argument that I saw for not banning Mason at the outset was for form's sake - doing so would leave unclued bystanders perceiving us as even worse than Gurdur, and would have tilted our community in that direction. Those who go in for that sort of thing would have been attracted; those averse to it would have been repelled.

And of course, it would have been milked for every drop of drama that could have been squeezed from it, on that basis: "Look, they ban people for just saying hello and using some smilies!"

That would have been a noobish mistake indeed.

Giving Mason the benefit of the doubt struck me as foolish, but understandable for those that didn't interact with him much between II and TR. He's not the same person that joined II, by any means.

As for trying to look out for him - same answer. A lot of people knew him when he was a justifiable use of carbon, and can't be blamed for acting as though he were worth the effort, or would actually feel bad about getting banned here.

Making judgements based on his personal situation? Possibly a bit too much (though as you say, sensitivity for people having a bad day is a requirement), but hey. I can think of few things that would enrage mason more than being the target of compassion, and since he used the social contract for toilet paper, I for one am content to bask in schadenfreude without the slightest twinge of conscience.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Me three. Rathpig is one of the people whose opinion and expression I respect the most on all these forums, despite violently disagreeing on a very large proportion of actual issues. It's a shame we're so top-heavy already - you'd make an awesome addition to staff. Scary, but awesome.

[Preno]

Heh. The main argument that I saw for not banning Mason at the outset was for form's sake - doing so would leave unclued bystanders perceiving us as even worse than Gurdur, and would have tilted our community in that direction.That's one more reason for making the discussion public right there. You won't have to worry about pointless PR issues like this.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Preacher, meet choir :P

[Rathpig]

I can only reply that any assumption of "comparison" to Latinijral is merely a misreading of what I have written. I apologize for that because I do believe that communication is the responsibility of the writer.

I wrote:
With the exception of Latinijral, I haven't seen a single reason for the Schutzstaffel to mobilize.

Perhaps this was too nuanced, so let me restate the line:

I agree that a Schutzstaffel response was needed with Latinijral.

I made no comparison between the RexT and Latinijral. My intention was to downplay the current need for a militarist approach. And yes I violated Godwin's Law. Sue me in internet court.



As to the rest of your post, RexT, I ain't your enemy, but you did unfortunately make my point. When you place yourself in a position, such as you have, by taking an aggressive approach, people will call you on it. I think "courses for horses" is the colloquial term.

It isn't my personal responsibility to make this forum work. I don't volunteer. I don't join groups such as this for the very reason that I am criticizing this one. My independence of opinion is never wanted or appreciated, so I strive to stay on the outside where I will offend the least number of persons. I loathe power. At heart I am a libertine.

Just to state my position so that everyone is clear. I'm not PD's buddy. I am not Stopper's buddy. I'm not Mason's buddy. I am not here to promote an agenda, and anything I say can be easily ignored. I wish you guys the best, but some serious honesty needs injecting into this situation before you roll into the exact same problems that have happened elsewhere.

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you RexT. I said what was on my mind and I am sorry that I seem to have miscommunicated.

[mac_philo]

Heh. The main argument that I saw for not banning Mason at the outset was for form's sake - doing so would leave unclued bystanders perceiving us as even worse than Gurdur, and would have tilted our community in that direction. Those who go in for that sort of thing would have been attracted; those averse to it would have been repelled.

There's no finer way to differentiate one's mode of governance from both IIDB and Gurdur than to let the secular community view such a discussion so they can reach their own informed conclusions.

The more you wring your hands in private, the more it becomes a ridiculous echo chamber, the more community problems you'll have.

I think maybe you personally agree, this is not addressed to you.

[DMB]

I think Rex owes Rathpig an apology. As far as I can see, Rathpig is doing exactly what ths board was designed for: he is expressing forthright criticism in reasonable terms. No-one needs to agree with him, but insults don't help the discussion.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Fat chance. I'm bloody furious with you, PD. I think you've been an utter jerk.

I am fucking furious too. I think the whole group of you have been dishonest, gossipy jerks. Worst than a bunch of old ladies in a sewing circle. So, I don't really give a fuck how furious you are with me.

I would still point you to your previous posts about bullying and look what was going on here with lao tzu, Garrett, etc. I hope you are ashamed of them for their bullying ways.

[RexT]

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you RexT. I said what was on my mind and I am sorry that I seem to have miscommunicated.Apology accepted. I don't want to fight with you either, Rathpig.

[Pavlov's Dog]

And getting back to the actual OP, where the hell is the gossipy thread about me?

[Pavlov's Dog]

This isn't about talking behind someone's back like school kid gossip.

That is exactly what it was. Well, it was more like old lady gossip. But it was gossip.

It's about being able to speak frankly to get a good range of honest opinion. That can't happen if everything is public.

That can happen if you don't stock the staff full of dishonest cowards.

[dancer_rnb]

I really think Rathpig and Pavlov's Dog should be made mods.
Make them the ones people should send their compaints.
Then we can critisize THEM when they don't handle things to
everyone's satisfaction. I think they need some experience
in how doing the work that keeps volunteer groups functioning
can be a thankless task.

(I'm pisssed at a local group I do work for, in case you can't guess.)

[Pavlov's Dog]

I really think Rathpig and Pavlov's Dog should be made mods.
Make them the ones people should send their compaints.
Then we can critisize THEM when they don't handle things to
everyone's satisfaction. I think they need some experience
in how running volunteer groups can be a thankless task.

I have experience running volunteer groups. But thanks.

[Christina]

@dancer

People do learn a lot when they step up to the plate instead of sitting on the sidelines, but I've always been the activist type. Not everyone is willing to do that.

[Worldtraveller]

And in other news, RexT: you are just a bit full of yourself, captain. Ya may wanna dial that shit back a notch. You are becoming a parody of yourself. This isn't a long-term gig in Vegas with your own marquee. Moderation for the sake of moderation is akin to power-hungry masturbation. With the exception of Latinijral, I haven't seen a single reason for the Schutzstaffel to mobilize.Speaking of being full of oneself Rathpig. You putting my name in the same paragraph with Latinijral just shot a whole buch of your credibility all to hell buddy. But that captin thing was pretty cute. Trying out for sports announcer?

<snipped a bunch of unecessary verbiage>

Nice talking to ya Rath...
I think seeing your name in the same paragraph as latinijral's clouded your reading ability there, Rex. Go back and read it again. Rath makes good points, whether you like it or not.

Also, your post here is not very becoming of a moderator, or one within the spirit of this forum, which you ironically helped to found. This is not your personal playground, nor any of ours. It should be, at least ostensibly, everyone's, on as equal a basis as possible, with minimal moderation input required.

There are a number of current members here that appear to be posting with the sole intent, or primary intent, to disrupt the conversations, and push the limits before the rest of the board (and I'm including all the members, mods and admins here) have had a chance to really hash out where we think the limits should be.

They are trying, it seems, to force a trial by fire. They may get exactly what they asked for. I am with Febble that right now, if it comes to a vote, I will be on the side of voting for a ban (or suspension really) of PD.

However, based on your participation in this thread, Rex, and some others regarding the care of this board, if a member initiates a recall petition (which we haven't got procedures for either), I would also vote for you to be removed as a mod. I think you have a lot to contribute as a member, but i don't think at this point you are prepared to be a good mod. I'll be happy to explain why more if you are interested, either in public, or private.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Let's stop pretending like I would ever be a moderator here to make backhanded criticisms towards me, because it is just dumb. It is like criticizing me for not being the President of the US, and then daring to criticize the war in Iraq. It is a classic neo-con tactic.

"You guys have no idea how tough it is to be president! It is the toughest job in the world."

You people should be able to do better than that.

[dancer_rnb]

Fat chance. I'm bloody furious with you, PD. I think you've been an utter jerk.

I am fucking furious too. I think the whole group of you have been dishonest, gossipy jerks. Worst than a bunch of old ladies in a sewing circle. So, I don't really give a fuck how furious you are with me.

I would still point you to your previous posts about bullying and look what was going on here with lao tzu, Garrett, etc. I hope you are ashamed of them for their bullying ways.

Looked to me like they were not going to let you deny that bullying occured over at RnR. Kind of like how you don't let a batterer deny that was what he or she is doing.

[Pavlov's Dog]

There are a number of current members here that appear to be posting with the sole intent, or primary intent, to disrupt the conversations, and push the limits before the rest of the board (and I'm including all the members, mods and admins here) have had a chance to really hash out where we think the limits should be.

They are trying, it seems, to force a trial by fire. They may get exactly what they asked for. I am with Febble that right now, if it comes to a vote, I will be on the side of voting for a ban (or suspension really) of PD.

Of course you would. You have been wanting me to get banned since you were at IIDB. Don't forget, I saw how you behaved in your secret playground over there too. The fact that this place put you on staff says a lot, about whether users should trust the staff in a secret forum.

[laughing dog]

You people should be able to do better than that.
Absolutely right. In our collective defense, we are trying to be different than IIDB was. We are still arguing/discussing over how to deal with these types of situations in the fairest and most appropriate fashion. You'll notice we are not vetting these questions, and we are trying to deal with them. For now, that is the best we can offer. I wish it were more, and the hope is that it will be.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Fat chance. I'm bloody furious with you, PD. I think you've been an utter jerk.

I am fucking furious too. I think the whole group of you have been dishonest, gossipy jerks. Worst than a bunch of old ladies in a sewing circle. So, I don't really give a fuck how furious you are with me.

I would still point you to your previous posts about bullying and look what was going on here with lao tzu, Garrett, etc. I hope you are ashamed of them for their bullying ways.

Looked to me like they were not going to let you deny that bullying occured over at RnR. Kind of like how you don't let a batterer deny that was what he or she is doing.

This makes zero sense. Can a mod move this post to the charred remains?

[Pavlov's Dog]

You people should be able to do better than that.
Absolutely right. In our collective defense, we are trying to be different than IIDB was. We are still arguing/discussing over how to deal with these types of situations in the fairest and most appropriate fashion. You'll notice we are not vetting these questions, and we are trying to deal with them. For now, that is the best we can offer. I wish it were more, and the hope is that it will be.

For me, you can offer my secret thread, out in the open for everyone to see exactly how you are honestly trying and not just a bunch of old gossiping ladies. I can't believe that you won't just repost it. 99% of the members here will apologize for you guys no matter what you said about me in that thread. Or maybe it was because some of you defended me? You don't want to go on the record as defending me? Is that it? I am kind of shocked that you still want to keep it hidden.

[Gooch's dad]

Here's one more vote for reigning in the bullying trolls here at TR. I don't want to see this place turn into another RnR.

[Worldtraveller]

There are a number of current members here that appear to be posting with the sole intent, or primary intent, to disrupt the conversations, and push the limits before the rest of the board (and I'm including all the members, mods and admins here) have had a chance to really hash out where we think the limits should be.

They are trying, it seems, to force a trial by fire. They may get exactly what they asked for. I am with Febble that right now, if it comes to a vote, I will be on the side of voting for a ban (or suspension really) of PD.

Of course you would. You have been wanting me to get banned since you were at IIDB. Don't forget, I saw how you behaved in your secret playground over there too. The fact that this place put you on staff says a lot, about whether users should trust the staff in a secret forum.
It's ok PD, I don't really care what you think. I know you're wrong about this, and as much as you'd like to think you're good at reading people or something (I think you just like to cause shit, but I'm willing to let your behavior show me wrong.), you couldn't be further off base on this.

Don't forget I saw all your behavior too.

[dancer_rnb]

Here's one more vote for reigning in the bullying trolls here at TR. I don't want to see this place turn into another RnR.

I agree.
How many people remember newcomers being told at RnR that the forum
was set up to be what it was, and newcomers shouldn't immediately start
trying to change it? That if they didn't like what RnR was, they should leave.

I think the same should apply here.

[Pavlov's Dog]

It's ok PD, I don't really care what you think. I know you're wrong about this, and as much as you'd like to think you're good at reading people or something (I think you just like to cause shit, but I'm willing to let your behavior show me wrong.), you couldn't be further off base on this.

I read your words. I know I am right about this. You were ToM's kiss ass lackey for almost as long as anybody over there.

Don't forget I saw all your behavior too.

None of my behavior has been in private. I have nothing to hide.

[Garrett]

Pavlov's Dog
I would still point you to your previous posts about bullying and look what was going on here with lao tzu, Garrett, etc. I hope you are ashamed of them for their bullying ways.
Are you accusing me of bullying? When and where have I ever behaved like a bully?

In my experience, people like PD who disagree by being chronically abusive will, when opposed, merely ramp up the abuse. I think he figures that since I didn't wilt at his abuse therefore I'm a bully.

But maybe I'm wrong, and I've behaved badly. Does anyone else think I've been habitually cruel or overbearing, especially to smaller or weaker people?

[The 800# Gorilla]

Here's one more vote for reigning in the bullying trolls here at TR. I don't want to see this place turn into another RnR.I agree whole heartedly. I for one am very tired of seeing the shit stirrers come over here and try to impose themselves upon others.

[dancer_rnb]

I am fucking furious too. I think the whole group of you have been dishonest, gossipy jerks. Worst than a bunch of old ladies in a sewing circle. So, I don't really give a fuck how furious you are with me.

I would still point you to your previous posts about bullying and look what was going on here with lao tzu, Garrett, etc. I hope you are ashamed of them for their bullying ways.

Looked to me like they were not going to let you deny that bullying occured over at RnR. Kind of like how you don't let a batterer deny that was what he or she is doing.

This makes zero sense. Can a mod move this post to the charred remains?

That's ok with me. As long as they take the post I quoted also.

[Pavlov's Dog]

The mob has spoken. Ban me. I am a shit stirrer, troublemaker. I am even a chronic abuser. Dare I say, a gibbering jackanape? Where have I heard this all before?

[VoxRat]

Here's one more vote for reigning in the bullying trolls here at TR. I don't want to see this place turn into another RnR.I agree whole heartedly. I for one am very tired of seeing the shit stirrers come over here and try to impose themselves upon others.Yes...
but how to go about it. That's the question.
Who decides who's a shit stirrer?
How is that decision reached?
How public/private does it need to be?

All this procedural, parliamentary crap.

[Ray Moscow]

Now that I know there is a secret thread about me

Post it out here. Don't be fucking cowards.

Two questions:

1. How do you know this?

2. Why do you care?

There might be a dozen "secret threads" about me (though I doubt I merit even one), but why would I care?

[The 800# Gorilla]

Here's one more vote for reigning in the bullying trolls here at TR. I don't want to see this place turn into another RnR.I agree whole heartedly. I for one am very tired of seeing the shit stirrers come over here and try to impose themselves upon others.Yes...
but how to go about it. That's the question.
Who decides who's a shit stirrer?
How is that decision reached?
How public/private does it need to be?

All this procedural, parliamentary crap.Not my worry. I don't have Admin/Mod duties here.

[Pavlov's Dog]

E]

Two questions:

1. How do you know this?

I was told there was a thread about me by the staff.

2. Why do you care?

There might be a dozen "secret threads" about me (though I doubt I merit even one), but why would I care?

Personal preference. I like to be able to defend myself against accusations of, say, mental illnesses. I don't care if you don't care, so you shouldn't care if I care. Thanks for stopping in though. :wave:

[Ray Moscow]

Surely it's a forum management perogative to have private conversations about just about anything, though -- including members and their posts.

As far as disciplinary actions or whatever, I agree that those should be transparent to ensure fairness.

Surely in your work you've encountered those very same issues.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Surely it's a forum management perogative to have private conversations about just about anything, though -- including members and their posts.

As far as disciplinary actions or whatever, I agree that those should be transparent to ensure fairness.

Surely in your work you've encountered those very same issues.

Nope. In my work, people have the right to confront their accusers. If you file a complaint against somebody, it is public record in my line of work.

[Occam's Aftershave]

Then again, maybe you're not bright enough to figure out that childish actions can have negative consequences. :rolleyes:

No I understand perfectly.
Based on your continued off topic attempts at insults, it's apparent to all that you don't. :p

[nygreenguy]

Fuck off. Let's dial back the personal insults. If there is nothing for me to be concerned about, then why not just post thread? If there is no conspiracy, then just post the thread? I have seen what they said about Mason in their secret forum, so I don't think I am being paranoid here.

Sort of like how W wants to listen to all our phone calls.

Hey, we have nothing to hide, so why not let them listen?

Im no terrorist, come on in, search my home.

But in reality, every place like this needs a hierarchy. There needs to be people who watch posts, people who deal with the $$$, people who are the techies, etc... Now, most of us dont want to be, or need to be in every single one of those discussion. Its simply not our place.

Most of us dont go to our bosses and start making demands that we be included in all their dealing with company business. Sure, they even talk about employees and how they act. That STILL doesnt give us the right to demand inclusion.

Things will be said behind our backs. This is how the world works, and there is nothing wrong with that. If we let ourselves be paranoid over such trivial things, how can we ever expect to get anything else done?

I just dont get the problem here.

[Ray Moscow]

Nope. In my work, people have the right to confront their accusers. If you file a complaint against somebody, it is public record in my line of work.

As far as I've seen, no one from TR management has "accused" you of anything.

So, in your line of work, the police must contact all suspects to let them know that they are being investigated or considered for investigation and to show them everything they are doing or discussing about the case as they do it? And also invite the suspect or possible suspect to all internal discussions of the case?

That's got to be efficient.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Sort of like how W wants to listen to all our phone calls.

No, nothing like that. Are you really making this comparison?

Most of us dont go to our bosses and start making demands that we be included in all their dealing with company business. Sure, they even talk about employees and how they act. That STILL doesnt give us the right to demand inclusion.

They are not our bosses. Or at least they keep telling us that. If they are, then that is fine. They can fire me, but I am demanding to see the gossiping thread about me. And I would demand to see the gossiping emails about me from my boss.

I just dont get the problem here.

Fine. Then don't worry about it, and let us that get the problem handle it for you.

[Pavlov's Dog]

As far as I've seen, no one from TR management has "accused" you of anything.

Then maybe you should catch up, because you obviously are missing a lot of information.

So, in your line of work, the police must contact all suspects to let them know that they are being investigated or considered for investigation and to show them everything they are doing or discussing about the case as they do it? And also invite the suspect or possible suspect to all internal discussions of the case?

That's got to be efficient.

Yes. Everything is in the open. There is no secret police in the US. You are thinking of Soviet Russia, or maybe the old SS in Germany.

That being said, I didn't know that we were running a police operation on TR.

[VoxRat]

Surely it's a forum management perogative to have private conversations about just about anything, though -- including members and their posts.

As far as disciplinary actions or whatever, I agree that those should be transparent to ensure fairness.

Surely in your work you've encountered those very same issues.

Nope. In my work, people have the right to confront their accusers. If you file a complaint against somebody, it is public record in my line of work.What about dragging in all kinds of extraneous crap, without specifically referencing it?

Stuff like so-and-so being ToM's kiss-ass lackey (Oh take my word for it!)?
Meth-addicts accusation??
Defenders of police beatings???

What the hell does any of that have to do with anything?

In your line of work, is it standard procedure to have these public records full of facts not in evidence, with vague allusions, and general assumptions that anyone so clueless as to not know what you're on about is too "stupid and ill-informed" to bother with?

[The 800# Gorilla]

As far as I've seen, no one from TR management has "accused" you of anything.

Then maybe you should catch up, because you obviously are missing a lot of information.

So, in your line of work, the police must contact all suspects to let them know that they are being investigated or considered for investigation and to show them everything they are doing or discussing about the case as they do it? And also invite the suspect or possible suspect to all internal discussions of the case?

That's got to be efficient.

Yes. Everything is in the open. There is no secret police in the US. You are thinking of Soviet Russia, or maybe the old SS in Germany.

That being said, I didn't know that we were running a police operation on TR.What. Did they disband the Grand Jury?

[Jet Black]

There is no secret police in the US.


it's a bit of a side issue, but I am not entirely convinced, given the endless parallels drawn between george bush and george orwell.

[Jet Black]

As far as I've seen, no one from TR management has "accused" you of anything.

Then maybe you should catch up, because you obviously are missing a lot of information.

So, in your line of work, the police must contact all suspects to let them know that they are being investigated or considered for investigation and to show them everything they are doing or discussing about the case as they do it? And also invite the suspect or possible suspect to all internal discussions of the case?

That's got to be efficient.



Yes. Everything is in the open. There is no secret police in the US. You are thinking of Soviet Russia, or maybe the old SS in Germany.

That being said, I didn't know that we were running a police operation on TR.What. Did they disband the Grand Jury?

the NSA really does mean "No Such Agency"

[nygreenguy]

They are not our bosses.

No, but they are management.


Fine. Then don't worry about it, and let us that get the problem handle it for you.

Nope, i wont let this board turn to shit like others have.

[Occam's Aftershave]

As far as I've seen, no one from TR management has "accused" you of anything.

Then maybe you should catch up, because you obviously are missing a lot of information.

So, in your line of work, the police must contact all suspects to let them know that they are being investigated or considered for investigation and to show them everything they are doing or discussing about the case as they do it? And also invite the suspect or possible suspect to all internal discussions of the case?

That's got to be efficient.

Yes. Everything is in the open. There is no secret police in the US. You are thinking of Soviet Russia, or maybe the old SS in Germany.

That being said, I didn't know that we were running a police operation on TR.
LOL! So you finally agree that everyone accused of misconduct, even if it's the police themselves being accused, are entitled to due process under law and have a right to defend themselves. Funny you ignored that point when you and rest of the RnR kids were forming your lynch mob. What made you do the 180 on your position?

BTW, I'm sure you will be afforded every opportunity to defend yourself here at TR. The only thing being debated is if it will be in public or private. What won't happen is that you'll be allowed to drag TR down into the gutter like you and the other juvenile morons did at RnR.

[Febble]

Fat chance. I'm bloody furious with you, PD. I think you've been an utter jerk.

I am fucking furious too. I think the whole group of you have been dishonest, gossipy jerks. Worst than a bunch of old ladies in a sewing circle. So, I don't really give a fuck how furious you are with me.

Excellent. Looks like we are square.

I would still point you to your previous posts about bullying and look what was going on here with lao tzu, Garrett, etc. I hope you are ashamed of them for their bullying ways.

Dunno, haven't looked yet.

[Barbarian]

To all those who take this shit seriously: I expect PD would have gone any moment "LOL I can't believe you took this shit seriously" (would have gone: I expect my posting this has altered the probability of certain outcomes). Compare with cool kidz SOP over at RnR E,B and discussions pertaining to the same stuff on this board. After all, he is one of the cool kidz lol'ing at anyone who takes anything seriously on the internets, right?

Meta-troll well fed ITT.

[Pavlov's Dog]

What. Did they disband the Grand Jury?

Nope. But they really need to in its current form. It is unconstitutional.

[The 800# Gorilla]

What. Did they disband the Grand Jury?

Nope. But they really need to in its current form. It is unconstitutional.Proof?

[Pavlov's Dog]

What. Did they disband the Grand Jury?

Nope. But they really need to in its current form. It is unconstitutional.Proof?

Proof? Proof is for math. If you really want a discussion on the constitutionality of the grand jury system, start a new thread, and if I have time I will educate you. Or you can use google. It is your friend.

[Febble]

Personal preference. I like to be able to defend myself against accusations of, say, mental illnesses. I don't care if you don't care, so you shouldn't care if I care. Thanks for stopping in though. :wave:

Mental illness isn't a offense.

[The 800# Gorilla]

Nope. But they really need to in its current form. It is unconstitutional.Proof?

Proof? Proof is for math. If you really want a discussion on the constitutionality of the grand jury system, start a new thread, and if I have time I will educate you. Or you can use google. It is your friend.As usual you make a statement without providing evidence. And BTW, that wasn't even a good deflect

[Jet Black]

Nope. But they really need to in its current form. It is unconstitutional.Proof?

Proof? Proof is for math. If you really want a discussion on the constitutionality of the grand jury system, start a new thread, and if I have time I will educate you. Or you can use google. It is your friend.

but it's not totally open though?

[Christina]

How many people remember newcomers being told at RnR that the forum
was set up to be what it was, and newcomers shouldn't immediately start
trying to change it? That if they didn't like what RnR was, they should leave.


How come no one responded to this? I'd be interested in understanding the reasoning here too. I'm guessing that there is a reason, but I don't get it either.

[VoxRat]

To all those who take this shit seriously: I expect PD would have gone any moment "LOL I can't believe you took this shit seriously" (would have gone: I expect my posting this has altered the probability of certain outcomes). Compare with cool kidz SOP over at RnR E,B and discussions pertaining to the same stuff on this board. After all, he is one of the cool kidz lol'ing at anyone who takes anything seriously on the internets, right?

Meta-troll well fed ITT.Damn!
You're right!

D'oh!

[Pavlov's Dog]

Proof?

Proof? Proof is for math. If you really want a discussion on the constitutionality of the grand jury system, start a new thread, and if I have time I will educate you. Or you can use google. It is your friend.As usual you make a statement without providing evidence. And BTW, that wasn't even a good deflect

Start a thread on it, and we will see. The arguments over the constitutionality grand jury system in the US is fairly common knowledge. Maybe you are Canadian?

[Pavlov's Dog]

How many people remember newcomers being told at RnR that the forum
was set up to be what it was, and newcomers shouldn't immediately start
trying to change it? That if they didn't like what RnR was, they should leave.


How come no one responded to this? I'd be interested in understanding the reasoning here too. I'm guessing that there is a reason, but I don't get it either.

Probably because I am not a newcomer here and I have voiced my criticisms from the beginning. That should clear that up.

[The 800# Gorilla]

Proof? Proof is for math. If you really want a discussion on the constitutionality of the grand jury system, start a new thread, and if I have time I will educate you. Or you can use google. It is your friend.As usual you make a statement without providing evidence. And BTW, that wasn't even a good deflect

Start a thread on it, and we will see. The arguments over the constitutionality grand jury system in the US is fairly common knowledge. Maybe you are Canadian?No I am not Canadian. I am just showing all reading (and those that have never heard of you) how you come to a place, make accusations without any evidence.

[Pavlov's Dog]

As usual you make a statement without providing evidence. And BTW, that wasn't even a good deflect

Start a thread on it, and we will see. The arguments over the constitutionality grand jury system in the US is fairly common knowledge. Maybe you are Canadian?No I am not Canadian. I am just showing all reading (and those that have never heard of you) how you come to a place, make accusations without any evidence.

I see you are baiting me into providing argument, but there is honestly no need. You have me hooked. You would make a terrible fisherman. Just start the appropriate thread. Or I will start it later, when I am not busy with this situation. But since you have me so squarely on the ropes, why don't you bring in the knock out punch, and show that I am talking out of my ass? If you can.

[The 800# Gorilla]

I have no reason to bait you. I am just showing evidence.

[Pavlov's Dog]

I have no reason to bait you. I am just showing evidence.

No you are not. You are baiting me into providing evidence. There is no need for it though. You got me. Hook, line, and sinker. I am going to humor you, as soon as the thread is started (by your or me or anybody). Don't worry. Still, though, if I was you, I would hit me with the knock out punch right now. You obviously know a lot about the grand jury system, and the constitution and the history of our legal system, so why don't you just school me right here? Just drop your knowledge on me. Lay me out right here in front of all your cheerleaders? Man that would be so awesome of you.

[Barbarian]

I'd recommend a fair and public trial thread, with admins, mods and the accused being able to post (so the accused can defend himself) and everyone else able to watch only.Confession time: I made my proposal in order to make two points, not because I think that's how things should be done.

The lesser point was this: if we plan to pretend to be a republic, we should try to imitate the modus operandi of the institutions in a generic republic, including that of the judiciary. But what I really hoped to accomplish was to get people think about this futile attempt at modeling a republic, by seeing the futility of imitating public trials. It did not take long:It looks good at first sight, Barbarian, but it's not without it's problems, IMV

I certainly wouldn't support it without the request of the accused, in any particular cases, for that degree of openness.

There is also - I speak generally here, not about any particular case - a potential for difficulties with the confidentiality of third parties.

It also has the potential to be something of a troll's charter, distracting from the normal course of discussion, and being generally divisive.

And more - but that will do for now.

David BI agree with all those objections. Yes, my proposal is unworkable. Why?

This is the second, more important point: we can't turn a board into a republic and we should not waste time trying to. A board is created with a certain character in mind, e.g. to be a sanctuary from the evils of overmoderation, trolling or simple sanity. This can only be achieved by attracting the proper kind of posters and alienating the improper kind. The board owner would do it well to select the admins properly: they should agree with the purpose of the board and drive the poster selection process. However, having rules is kinda artificial in this respect; I think the mature way of doing things would be to tell X, Y and Z to just get lost because they don't fit into the profile of the board. Going through transparent contortionism in order to prove to X, Y, Z and anyone not agreeing with the purpose of the board that they were banned because they broke rules, and not simply because they are unwanted, is IMO completely unnecessary. Boards are dictatures (adminocracies, but I digress) but this is not as serious as real-life dictatures: after all, you can leave if you don't like it. Passive-aggressive approach FTW.

PD does the same to the admins here as Mason did to the E,B posters. Over there, several people had the "weakness" of being a compulsory responder to creotard, so Mason could pull off his trick. Here, admins have the "weakness" of wanting to look all legal and fair and whatnot, which allows PD to pull off his trick. You don't owe explanations or openness or anything to anyone. DNFTT, guys.To all those who take this shit seriously: I expect PD would have gone any moment "LOL I can't believe you took this shit seriously" (would have gone: I expect my posting this has altered the probability of certain outcomes). Compare with cool kidz SOP over at RnR E,B and discussions pertaining to the same stuff on this board. After all, he is one of the cool kidz lol'ing at anyone who takes anything seriously on the internets, right?

Meta-troll well fed ITT.Damn!
You're right!

D'oh!I don't share your optimism. Many people ITT do take this shit seriously.

[The 800# Gorilla]

I have no reason to bait you. I am just showing evidence.

No you are not. You are baiting me into providing evidence. You got me. Hook, line, and sinker. Still, though, if I was you, I would hit me with the knock out punch right now.You make the statement, Now that I know there is a secret thread about me. And as yet have given no evidence. To me it is a statement with no merit. And this is what you do. Make inflammatory statements.

Evidence....... http://www.talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=23131&postcount=1

[Pavlov's Dog]

You make the statement, Now that I know there is a secret thread about me. And as yet have given no evidence. To me it is a statement with no merit. And this is what you do. Make inflammatory statements.

Oh, I didn't know you were talking about evidence that there is a secret thread about me. I didn't know you were that clueless about what was actually going on. You seemed to have jumped in like you had all the facts. Okay, Laughing Dog and dug_down_deep told me there was one at RnR. It was confirmed over here by several more staff members. Octavia, ravenscape, worldtravellor, etc.

[The 800# Gorilla]

You make the statement, Now that I know there is a secret thread about me. And as yet have given no evidence. To me it is a statement with no merit. And this is what you do. Make inflammatory statements.

Oh, I didn't know you were talking about evidence that there is a secret thread about me. I didn't know you were that clueless about what was actually going on. You seemed to have jumped in like you had all the facts. Okay, Laughing Dog and dug_down_deep told me there was one at RnR. It was confirmed over here by several more staff members. Octavia, ravenscape, worldtravellor, etc.Well, all I can say about that is I did not have that knowledge. But what I would suggest is you deal with the Admin/Mods in private instead of spewing your venom in public. All it does is show how child like your emotions are.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Well, all I can say about that is I did not have that knowledge.

Hahahhahahaha.


But what I would suggest is you deal with the Admin/Mods in private instead of spewing your venom in public. All it does is show how child like your emotions are.

Your suggestion is noted and ignored. I like things dealt with out in the open. Otherwise you guys would never get to see how child like my emotions are.

[Rathpig]

Here's one more vote for reigning in the bullying trolls here at TR. I don't want to see this place turn into another RnR.

I stopped mid-thread to reply to this, so it may have been covered.

RnR was purposefully designed to be exactly like RnR now exists. It is exactly as it was envisioned. I know this is not what some people desire in a forum. Freedom can be damned scary and requires that the participants understand the concept. However, I am not an apologist for RnR. That forum has wildly successful and true to it's origins. It doesn't need defending, but let no one forget that TR is currently tied to RnR at the hip. So this sibling rivalry is ludicrous. No one is asking TR to adopt the RnR structure.

This us-versus-them shit is stupid. If people insist on raising the issue at every possible chance then expect me to respond.

[Febble]

You make the statement, Now that I know there is a secret thread about me. And as yet have given no evidence. To me it is a statement with no merit. And this is what you do. Make inflammatory statements.

Oh, I didn't know you were talking about evidence that there is a secret thread about me. I didn't know you were that clueless about what was actually going on. You seemed to have jumped in like you had all the facts. Okay, Laughing Dog and dug_down_deep told me there was one at RnR. It was confirmed over here by several more staff members. Octavia, ravenscape, worldtravellor, etc.

Yup, it's true. So it's not actually a secret at all. Well, not a secret that it's there. And I think you are right that in future, if things get beyond: "we seem to have had quite a few of PD's posts reported - should we think about taking some kind of action?" that we should let the member know and bring them in on it.

But I'd rather we discussed it first rather than have one person take unilateral action, especially as the response from others may be: "no, he's fine - he's just having an off day".

If people want a moderated forum, it's inevitable - and good - that there will be some kind of consensus and context gathering before anything gets to the stage of action. But I do think we need to involve the user beyond that point. We almost certainly have been letting thing go too long so far, which is why we have been discussing - and have now implemented - a more open system.

On the other hand if people DON'T want a moderated forum, then there's a very nice largely unmoderated forum with complete openness next door, on the same server. The even cooler things is that there's a large overlap between the two communities, and there is no bar to linking between the two (unlike the situation between IIDB and RnR), so it's not as though if someone leaves here (whether voluntarily or not) that they can't stay in touch.

What I can't understand is why such a dyed-in-the-wool libertarian as you seem to be have such a commitment to demanding that another group of people run things as you think best.

I thought we were supposed to be the net-nannies?

[Pavlov's Dog]

]But I'd rather we discussed it first rather than have one person take unilateral action, especially as the response from others may be: "no, he's fine - he's just having an off day".

I'd rather you discuss it with me, instead of gossiping behind my back.

What I can't understand is why such a dyed-in-the-wool libertarian as you seem to be have such a commitment to demanding that another group of people run things as you think best.

I am not even close to being a libertard.

[mac_philo]

On the other hand if people DON'T want a moderated forum, then there's a very nice largely unmoderated forum with complete openness next door, on the same server.

Is this a pure hypothetical that you present as a tangential thought, or do you think a single person here holds that view? If the latter, could you please cite a post?

[RexT]

What I can't understand is why such a dyed-in-the-wool libertarian as you seem to be have such a commitment to demanding that another group of people run things as you think best.

I thought we were supposed to be the net-nannies?Yep, you are right Lizzie. But what baffles me even more is why we haven't already banned PD. He is clearly to almost everyone in this thread (except his cronies) a blatant TROLL.

Sorry PD, don't mean to be inflammatory, but I know want to hear this to your face. So to your face PD, he has been repeatedly told by the members of TR that we do not want to be RnR-2 and we do not want TROLLS like PD at TR.

So it baffles me that PD is still hear. WTF happened to our rules people?

[Pavlov's Dog]

It baffles me too. I am obviously a gibbering jackanape. Why haven't I been banned, since I am an obvious troll? I mean, RexT said so, and he is really smart.... so?

[laughing dog]

So it baffles me that PD is still hear. WTF happened to our rules people? Well, one implicit rule is that this is not a monarchy. I guess I am little shaky on the definition of a troll, because I don't see persistent criticism or even persistent annoying posts as sufficient to conclude the poster is a troll.

[RexT]

ETA: if PD hasn'e been given enough rope at this point, then I guess he owns this place and we can just shut it down and all go back to RnR or wherever the fuck.

So I'd like for everyone in this thread, to PDs face, to express what we should do with this TROLL.

[Jet Black]

I'd rather you discuss it with me, instead of gossiping behind my back.


I think that before the staff approach anyone to discuss problems with them, the staff need to determine whether there is even an issue. Sometimes someone might pose an issue to the other staff thinking that it is of concern, but the majority of the rest of the staff disagree. This is basically what happened here.

I suppose in principle the staff member who has a concern could go to the member in question and say something, but ultimately they would still have to go back to the rest of the staff to see if they agree something needs doing.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Come on everybody! Show us what you do to gibbering jackanapes at TR!

[Pavlov's Dog]

I think that before the staff approach anyone to discuss problems with them, the staff need to determine whether there is even an issue. Sometimes someone might pose an issue to the other staff thinking that it is of concern, but the majority of the rest of the staff disagree. This is basically what happened here.

And the fact that some of the staff had a problem with me, obviously means there was an issue.

[RexT]

So it baffles me that PD is still hear. WTF happened to our rules people? Well, one implicit rule is that this is not a monarchy. I guess I am little shaky on the definition of a troll, because I don't see persistent criticism or even persistent annoying posts as sufficient to conclude the poster is a troll.Yeah, you lost me on the monarchy thing there LD. Where the fuck do you see that?

And Yeah, I think you are real fuzzie on the definition of a TROLL. But since you have already told us that PD is a real close and admired friend of yours, I can see where your difficulty in seeing this lies.

[laughing dog]

Come on everybody! Show us what you do to gibbering jackanapes at TR! You're a gibbering jackanape? Can I have your autograph?

[Febble]

Here's one more vote for reigning in the bullying trolls here at TR. I don't want to see this place turn into another RnR.

I stopped mid-thread to reply to this, so it may have been covered.

RnR was purposefully designed to be exactly like RnR now exists. It is exactly as it was envisioned. I know this is not what some people desire in a forum. Freedom can be damned scary and requires that the participants understand the concept. However, I am not an apologist for RnR. That forum has wildly successful and true to it's origins. It doesn't need defending, but let no one forget that TR is currently tied to RnR at the hip. So this sibling rivalry is ludicrous. No one is asking TR to adopt the RnR structure.

This us-versus-them shit is stupid. If people insist on raising the issue at every possible chance then expect me to respond.

I completely agree with much of this, and disagree a little with a couple of points.

TR is not tied to RnR at the hip. It is currently on the same server, because Matt very kindly agreed to host it, and as, at the last count, the extra traffic here was largely accounted by a decrease in traffic at RnR, it hasn't made much difference to the bandwidth. Also a number of contributors to RnR are regular posters here. But it was actually started not as an offshoot of RnR but as a response to events on the Heathen Hub, and the first people to get it moving were not regular RnR denizens at all, but Christina, and Rex and Pendaric IIRC. I am probably partly responsible for the big RnR showing, because I was a big recruiter. I think my referral rate is still top, and a lot of my recruiting was done amongst RnRers, because I wanted to keep the EB! community intact, although I also contacted a number of ex IIDBers who didn't ever hang around at RnR, and whom I thought might be happier here.

But it could perfectly easily move to a different server if it outgrows Matt's.

The other slight disagreement is that I don't think RnR has been as wildly successful as it was at first, and my own view is that that is partly because I don't think the RnR model is the best model for certain kinds of forums, including the Science forums. By chance, the Great EB! Invasion happened just as TR was starting up, which was just great for me (no-one knows Mason is my sock, right?) because cats have never been so easy to herd. It was as though I had pack of dogs yapping at that end, and a huge bowl of Whiskas at this.

I had no intention of emptying EB! I just thought that an alternative would be welcome for people who wanted a more moderated forum where more of the old gang might feel more comfortable, and where the more scatological derails would be discouraged.

But empty it is. It's like the Marie Celeste over there.

So, horses for courses. This forum is working fairly well right now under a different, and evolving, model. Some people won't like it, and some people won't fit. I can't imagine, at the moment, that anyone who likes it won't fit, but it could happen (it happened at IIDB) which is why we are trying to get some kind of accountability structure so that if the pilots go crazy they can be wrenched from the wheel (I still can't believe ToM is still at IIDB). Nothing's fool-proof but at least we don't have a BoD full of fools. We don't have a BoD at all.

[Pavlov's Dog]

And Yeah, I think you are real fuzzie on the definition of a TROLL. But since you have already told us that PD is a real close and admired friend of yours, I can see where your difficulty in seeing this lies.

Hahahahaha. This guy is great.

[Jet Black]

I don't agree that PD is a troll. He is objectionable, irascible and undoubtedly causes protest, however the justification I believe is that he holds strongly held positions that he is unafraid to voice. Whether others agree with those opinions or not is another matter. To my eye, trolling is posting just to piss people off, and that would necessarily mean arguing the toss whether or not the troll agrees with the position or not, or making posts purely to irritate.

[mac_philo]

Isn't it refreshing and totally unproblematic to have a debate about whether or not he is a troll in full view of the world? Jet Black says no, RexT says yes, others draw their own conclusions, and together a public consensus or compromise can be reached.

Now realize that there's nothing special whatsoever about PD, and do this with all posters who have the courage to post at the Republic of Freethought, where public criticism of your posts by civil freethinkers is simply to be expected.

[Jet Black]

And the fact that some of the staff had a problem with me, obviously means there was an issue.

at least with certain staff, but as it turns out, not the majority. Since there was no intention of any action being taken the thread more or less died there, so ultimately there wasn't an issue with enough of the staff to warrant any further action being taken.

[Febble]

And the fact that some of the staff had a problem with me, obviously means there was an issue.

at least with certain staff, but as it turns out, not the majority. Since there was no intention of any action being taken the thread more or less died there, so ultimately there wasn't an issue with enough of the staff to warrant any further action being taken.

Exactly. But if there ever is, mercy won't stay my hand.

[Pavlov's Dog]

And the fact that some of the staff had a problem with me, obviously means there was an issue.

at least with certain staff, but as it turns out, not the majority. Since there was no intention of any action being taken the thread more or less died there, so ultimately there wasn't an issue with enough of the staff to warrant any further action being taken.

So if 18 of the 54 staff members have a problem with me, then I don't have a right to know about it? That is bullshit.

[Notta_skeptic]

So if 18 of the 54 staff members have a problem with me, then I don't have a right to know about it? That is bullshit.
And that's not even counting those non-staff members who may have a problem with you.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Isn't it refreshing and totally unproblematic to have a debate about whether or not he is a troll in full view of the world? Jet Black says no, RexT says yes, others draw their own conclusions, and together a public consensus or compromise can be reached.

No, because Jet Black is just my crony cheerleader. It is obvious to everyone named RexT.

[Pavlov's Dog]

So if 18 of the 54 staff members have a problem with me, then I don't have a right to know about it? That is bullshit.
And that's not even counting those non-staff members who may have a problem with you.

A large chunk of the non staff members seem to have the balls to say something in the public. So that is not a problem.

[laughing dog]

So if 18 of the 54 staff members have a problem with me, then I don't have a right to know about it? I think you over-estimate the proportion. Surely you must realize by now that your inimitable style does not exactly resonate with everyone. BTW, I am still waiting for my autograph.

[Febble]

What I can't understand is why such a dyed-in-the-wool libertarian as you seem to be have such a commitment to demanding that another group of people run things as you think best.

I thought we were supposed to be the net-nannies?Yep, you are right Lizzie. But what baffles me even more is why we haven't already banned PD. He is clearly to almost everyone in this thread (except his cronies) a blatant TROLL.

Sorry PD, don't mean to be inflammatory, but I know want to hear this to your face. So to your face PD, he has been repeatedly told by the members of TR that we do not want to be RnR-2 and we do not want TROLLS like PD at TR.

So it baffles me that PD is still hear. WTF happened to our rules people?

Well, the one principle that I have been willing to defend here, is that people start with a clean slate, even though in practice one can't simply pretend that nobody brings any baggage.

PD's posts on THIS forum have not been trolling posts, AFAICT, although he's come pretty close, i.e. to posts that seem primarily designed to inflame rather than inform or entertain.

Where I am in a quandary is when PD posts about TR on RnR in a way in which, were he to do it here, would, IMO, be banworthy.

His behavior over there disgusts me. But he's been canny enough to stay the right side of the line here. I think. I don't go out of my way to look for his posts.

[Jet Black]

And the fact that some of the staff had a problem with me, obviously means there was an issue.

at least with certain staff, but as it turns out, not the majority. Since there was no intention of any action being taken the thread more or less died there, so ultimately there wasn't an issue with enough of the staff to warrant any further action being taken.

So if 18 of the 54 staff members have a problem with me, then I don't have a right to know about it? That is bullshit.

do remember I offered this as an option:

I suppose in principle the staff member who has a concern could go to the member in question and say something, but ultimately they would still have to go back to the rest of the staff to see if they agree something needs doing.

At the end of the day if there is a line drawn it will either be at 1,13 or 22. 1 just hits the option I suggested, 13 is a majority, which is all that is needed for action, and 22 is unanimity, which is pointless.

[laughing dog]

And Yeah, I think you are real fuzzie on the definition of a TROLL. I am fuzzie on the practical interpretation of a troll. Given that is a serious charge with serious (for the internet) consequences, I happen to think that the fuzzies should be eliminated. Apparently there is at least one other staff member who also does not think PD is a troll. Hmmmmm. What I am sure about is that one person's claim of trollness does not a troll make.

[Preno]

Isn't it refreshing and totally unproblematic to have a debate about whether or not he is a troll in full view of the world? Jet Black says no, RexT says yes, others draw their own conclusions, and together a public consensus or compromise can be reached.

Now realize that there's nothing special whatsoever about PD, and do this with all posters who have the courage to post at the Republic of Freethought, where public criticism of your posts by civil freethinkers is simply to be expected.QFT and emphasis

[Febble]

]But I'd rather we discussed it first rather than have one person take unilateral action, especially as the response from others may be: "no, he's fine - he's just having an off day".

I'd rather you discuss it with me, instead of gossiping behind my back.

Yeah, you probably would. BTW did you answer that question about PMs? I was curious to know whether you ever used the PM system, and, if so, why. If you don't, I was prepared to grant you at least the virtue of consistency.

What I can't understand is why such a dyed-in-the-wool libertarian as you seem to be have such a commitment to demanding that another group of people run things as you think best.

I am not even close to being a libertard.

OK. In that case, perhaps you could explain why you seem to think that there is only one way right way to run a DB? Seems a bit theist to me.

And if you don't like the way we are trying to do things here, why do you come here to post? To convert the heathen? Why not post at RnR where things are just as you like them, and most of the people who used to annoy you the most are now over here?

[DanB]

The closer this forum is edged toward IIDB tactics the less "rational" it will become. Secret mod forums are bad policy in light of the "community" aspect of this experiment. Agreed.