Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Don't Piss Me Off (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: Don't Piss Me Off
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This thread is very difficult for me to write, so I hope you'll keep with me. I respect the fact that our moderators volunteer a tremendous amount of time and energy to our forum. I haven't found them to be unreasonable in my previous dealings with them, which makes me even less happy to have to write this.

But I have to, because they dropped the ball today. They were heavy-handed, unreasonable, and arbitrary, and it cost this forum one of its most valuable and prolific posters. Everard did not commit any violation of Ornery rules after he was given a public warning by the moderators. He didn't post a thing.

What he did do was contact the moderators saying that he believed Pete had lied about his position. He explained why, and said that he would continue to say that people were lying when he believed they were (whether or not I agree with this assessment is completely irrelevent). There is nothing about calling a lie a lie that violates Ornery rules. That is absolutely ALL Everard said he was going to do (whether or not he would have done that and only that, again, is irrelevent).

What is relevent is that the moderators, in response to his e-mail, banned him. They claim to have banned him because he said he was going to do something that violates Ornery rules (this despite the fact that saying that you're going to do something doesn't violate ANY rule and what Ev said he was going to do didn't even constitute a violation of ANY rule). What he seems to have done, which evidently is now a violation of "Ornery rules" painted on the side of a barn someplace, is piss OM off.

I appreciate the difficulties of OM's job and the maddening task moderating a Pete-Ev debate must be. But we need to have clear, consistent rules and standards. We shouldn't get banned for private e-mails, or for what we might possibly post. We shouldn't have a board where members are disciplined for actions which don't even occur on the bloody forum. We shouldn't have a forum where people disappear because they happen to have pissed the wrong person off.

Ev's ban is effective until Saturday. He's indicated to me that he doesn't intend to return thereafter, and it's my sincere hope that he changes his mind. I disagree with him vehemently on a broad range of issues, but he was one of Ornery's strongest voices. A voice which has now been silenced for no good reason....and that pisses me off.

Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Mods have dispelled any willingness on my part to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I move that one of them step aside or both.

They have been mercurial in judgments.

They have been almost obstinate in some communications that I am aware of personally.

And frankly, I am not sure what happened or why, but obviously this is pretty much a blindside banning.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OrneryMod
Administrator
Member # 977

 - posted      Profile for OrneryMod   Email OrneryMod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As often happens in this situation, the facts are not exactly as presented. After asking specifically that the rules of this forum not be violated, we were instead told that the particular action we requested to not be taken, would be. In response, we chose to ban Everard for one week instead of allowing said actions to effect this forum.

It's difficult to answer these charges in full, since they would require revealing a tremendous amount of private correspondence, but please understand the following:

1. Everard was banned because he chose to ignore a direct request to avoid violating a posted Ornery rule that has been discussed in detail, with him and others, in the past. The discussion included alternate ways of presenting their concerns without breaking said rules. This action had everything to do with behavior on this forum, and nothing to do with the content, tone, etc. of the personal exchange.

2. Banning someone is an action that the moderators do not take lightly. When members are acting inappropriately, we do not react by banning them, as many on this forum can attest. We instead contact them, via email (unless they don't respond, or the matter is urgent), and then discuss the issue with them. This is actually the first person that we have banned due to rule violations. I can understand why this would be a traumatic event, but the use of banning to enforce the rules of this forum is the only real power that moderators have - and when the rules are ignored, and then defiantly flouted, our only real recourse is to use that power.

3. When calling someone a liar, or calling their argument a lie, requires speculation of motive, then it's a clear violation of the rules of this forum. It can be argued that some people do not use the word "liar" to mean "to deceive with intent." However, we read this forum as much or more than everyone else here, and we've had private correspondence with Ev on this particular word choice before - and it's being used as "to deceive with intent", in our opinion. If Ev had responded that this was not his intention - that he wasn't pointing out that Pete's intent (aka motive) was to deceive with his arguments, we would have, as usual, had a discussion, suggested remedies, and the situation would have been resolved. Instead, we were told that, since Pete WAS lying (in Ev's opinion), it was therefore okay to say so.

We've attempted to clarify this point before, and I'll make another attempt: breaking the rules of this forum is still not allowed, even if you are correct about your speculation.

We are unhappy that this situation unfurled the way that it did. We hope that the members of this forum will choose to discuss the issues we bring up with them in the future, instead of choosing to tell us that they would be ignoring our requests.

Everard has been banned for one week, and that banning will be lifted next Saturday. It is our hopes he returns to the forum as well, and that if he does, he will choose to follow the rules, as laid out. If he does not, we also, will miss him greatly.

If we have not been clear or consistent in our enforcement of the Ornery rules, we would be glad to remedy the situation. If you have questions about the rules, you can always email us, or post the question on the forum, and we will discuss the issue and get back to you.

Posts: 1260 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am sure now after reading the thread.

And I re-affirm my call that the Mods should consider being replaced.

It has nothing to do with a personal fondness for Paul or Pete. Rather, the application of such a ban, is neither precedented, consistent, nor does it take into account that both sides were moving it off the thread and onto email, and their own private dispute thread which predates the current Mods by some time. Instead it appears a blanket remedy was applied upon an interpretation of a word.

Sorry Mods, but things were being moved off the board by the members themselves. Aside form acknowledging awareness of the issue, no other action was needed.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jav/OM-

quote:
As often happens in this situation, the facts are not exactly as presented. After asking specifically that the rules of this forum not be violated, we were instead told that the particular action we requested to not be taken, would be. In response, we chose to ban Everard for one week instead of allowing said actions to effect this forum.
No, sir. The facts are not exactly as presented, but you're the one misrepresenting here. You didn't ask that the rules of the forum not be violated. What you did do, and I'll refer you to your own bloody warning, was prohibit by fiat people from calling any statement a lie or any poster a liar. You made no exception for whether the post was a lie, whether the poster was a liar, or the intent behind the use of the word. None.

Everard committed no offense here. He declared an intention to use words you might not like. He did not speak to the context in which those words would be used and the meaning behind them. He never had a chance to. That's PRECISELY why it's incumbent upon you to WAIT UNTIL HE POSTS SOMETHING TO BAN HIM FOR IT. We don't discipline people for potentialities or intentions here. We do so for violations of clear, consistent rules which have been long established.

quote:
However, we read this forum as much or more than everyone else here, and we've had private correspondence with Ev on this particular word choice before - and it's being used as "to deceive with intent", in our opinion.
It's being used that way, huh? In a post that was never written? Do you understand that it's bloody impossible to say how a word was being used before it's even been used? You have the right to make judgments about things written in this forum. You do NOT have the right to make judgments about personal correspondence; you do NOT have the right to discipline people based upon their intentions, declared or not.

You've exceeded your authority here, and you need to either apologize and retract your ban or resign.

Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OrneryMod
Administrator
Member # 977

 - posted      Profile for OrneryMod   Email OrneryMod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Redskullvw, can you please explain how you feel the situation was being moved off the board? This information was not communicated to us by anyone involved. Since we specifically requested that it be moved off the forum, and due to the fact that the response from one of those involved was that it would not be resolved off the forum, we'd like to hear more.
Posts: 1260 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Boff.

If any of you had made this sort of stinko when the previous power that was banned me for six fracking weeks, for nothing more than bumping a bloody thread, I might treat your arguments here seriously.

On the other hand, look at the facts. One week is a bloody blink of the eye compared to the ridiculous suspensions that used to get flung around here. The fact that the OMS have reduced suspensions to 1 week is proof in itself that they are a massive improvement on their predecessor.

I hope Ev comes back. I'm not glad that he's gone or suspended for 3-6 weeks or any crap like what used to fly around here.

But if Red thinks this is a great injustice compared to sorts of suspensions that the previous OM pulled, and what Red himself engineered (Ornery 8), then he's smoking crack.

[ September 09, 2006, 06:09 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OrneryMod
Administrator
Member # 977

 - posted      Profile for OrneryMod   Email OrneryMod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Please do not bring up old history, with our former moderator. I appreciate the concern, Pete, but this is about our "new management", how we are doing our jobs, and what happened to Ev today - and how the job will be done in the future.

This thread cannot descend into personal conflicts.

Thank you.

Posts: 1260 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete-

Please do not derail this thread by getting into what happened to you or the 2 millionth debate on the Ornery 8. I hope you know that I hold you in great personal regard, but this thread isn't about you.

Red-

Please don't humor him with a response. This is one thread I'd rather not see derailed.

Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"But we need to have clear, consistent rules and standards."

Sure. The previous "clear consistent rule and standard" was, whatever happens, blame Pete." If I'd said what Ev said, and been suspended for a week, you two would not be starting threads to yell and howl for OM to be removed.

I got six weeks for bumping a thread.

hypocrisy.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This IS the old story. Derail a thread? Pal and Red are trying to railroad the moderators, who've done a hell of a better job than the one that you lay flat for. Who would you replace them with? You?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OrneryMod
Administrator
Member # 977

 - posted      Profile for OrneryMod   Email OrneryMod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You made no exception ... the intent behind the use of the word.
This is true. For that, I apologize. I should have been more clear in the original post, and indeed intended to follow up with further clarification. The original post was intended to defuse a hostile situation, and has clearly not succeeded.

quote:
Everard committed no offense here. He declared an intention to use words you might not like. He did not speak to the context in which those words would be used and the meaning behind them. He never had a chance to. That's PRECISELY why it's incumbent upon you to WAIT UNTIL HE POSTS SOMETHING TO BAN HIM FOR IT. We don't discipline people for potentialities or intentions here. We do so for violations of clear, consistent rules which have been long established.
Perhaps. However, it doesn't seem consistent to me to ignore a warning that someone is going to break the rules of the forum. I asked Everard to discuss the matter with me further. Had that effort been made, it's unlikely that Everard would be banned. When someone has announced their intentions to "misbehave", and it's my job to make sure that people are not misbehaving, I consider it my responsibility to do what I can to stop that action.

As I've told Everard, if he'd like to further discuss this situation, I'd be happy to do so. If the discussion goes well, and we don't end up in a situation where Everard is promising to break the rules of the forum, then I'm sure that the ban can be lifted.

quote:
It's being used that way, huh? In a post that was never written? Do you understand that it's bloody impossible to say how a word was being used before it's even been used? You have the right to make judgments about things written in this forum. You do NOT have the right to make judgments about personal correspondence; you do NOT have the right to discipline people based upon their intentions, declared or not.
The words were used. They are in the thread now. Everard told me specifically what he was planning to do, what his intent was. In that case, of course it's possible to guess what the intent was - the person holding that intent declared it.

quote:
You've exceeded your authority here, and you need to either apologize and retract your ban or resign.
I don't believe I've exceeded my authority here. I believe my authority requires me to contact members who are breaking forum rules, and attempt to work with them to make sure they stop. If they do not stop, then it is my responsibility to use my ability to force them to stop - and the only tool I have is that of banning.

I have apologized for not clarifying why "liar" and "lie" are dangerous, and in that case, shouldn't be used. The post I made was not clear, and that was most definitely a mistake.

I do not believe, at this point, that an apology or retraction is required for banning Everard. That doesn't mean that I'm not listening to see if that should be different. If my apology, retraction or resignation becomes necessary, please believe I will act on it.

[ September 09, 2006, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: OrneryMod ]

Posts: 1260 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not protecting you, OM. You know I have my disagreements with you, and I keep them private, precisely because they never rise to the level of what was before. I don't want to go back to having a handful of old timers own OM.

I outed the old OM after he did something absolutely dispicable and corrupt. Paladine, you disgust me for trying to do the same over a 1 week twaddle and brooha.

And with all the crap that went on under the old OM, I never got up and started some whiny thread about replacing OM, nor did I go over his head. You have no moral authority to go making calls like this, and the worst possible thing for Ornery would be to go replacing an OM just because a couple of oldies feel that they've lost their precious influence over how things worked.

I have no idea of whether OM is who you say he is, Paladine, and I like that system. No one has special ties and connections and holds over the new moderators. It's not like the old way where some folks new and some folks didn't until I blew the whistle.

[ September 09, 2006, 06:22 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I won't comment on the fairness of this specific banning because I don't know the details of the emails in question. As far as I know it's a he said she said thing. But in general I support the OrneryMod's power to ban if someone threatens to continue doing something they were warned about.

If the OrneryMod says, "Please don't do this as it is against the rules and will only start a fight," and the person responds, "Screw you, I'm gonna log on right now and do it again, even if it starts a fight." I won't hold it against the OM to ban them before they are able to post it.

I will again reiterate that I'm only talking generally and I don't know if that's anywhere near what happened in Everard's case.

Personally, I value Everard's posts even when (perhaps especially when) I don't agree with them. I hope he returns soon. Both Pete and Everard can lose their tempers from time to time but overall I think they bring a positive net impact on the forum.

Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Reasons why both mods should *stay*:

1. ONE week suspension rather than 3-6.

2. No one here has denied the OM's statement that Ev's offending email was a promise that he would *not* comply with with the ruling. Any judge in America would give a contempt charge if they issued a TPO and then the person they issued it said that he refused to keep the terms of the TPO. If it's true that Ev actually said that he would violate the order, then anyone who ays that he got suspended for a mere email is smoking crack. If he actually said that he would not follow OM's demand of no more "liar" accusations, then that's as good as a violation in any court in the land.

3. Unlike the predecessor, OM did NOT start a thread to gloat about the person who he just banned and to justify himself.

4. Unlike the predecessor, who always started his announcements with: don't bother me with the facts, I've made up my mind, and my decision is inviolate even if I'm mistaken, OM is saying, I'm willing to hear your arguments, and if I'm wrong, I'll change them. Under the previous regime, usually the first you heard from the OM was when he suspended you, and then it was "too late" to point out that he'd bungled. (Like when I got suspended for 6 weeks for bumping a stupid thread, and it was "too late" to reverse it because he'd already made his gloating announcement.)

5. Finally, like I said above, they kept their identities secret from everyone. None of this tell some folks they are mods and not other folks.

More time, more effort, more process, more humility, less cronyism.

I never talked to Scott about my problems with the old OM or with anyone on Ornery, but I will change that if I see one more call for either of the OMs to resign.

[ September 09, 2006, 06:49 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I actually think that suspensions should be even shorter (3 days), provided that the person makes clear that they understood what they did wrong specifically and promises not to commit the same violation again. The purpose is to keep the peace, not to punish offenders, and 3 days is good enough of a cooling off period.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
This is true. For that, I apologize. I should have been more clear in the original post, and indeed intended to follow up with further clarification. The original post was intended to defuse a hostile situation, and has clearly not succeeded.
Understood and appreciated.

quote:
Perhaps. However, it doesn't seem consistent to me to ignore a warning that someone is going to break the rules of the forum. I asked Everard to discuss the matter with me further. Had that effort been made, it's unlikely that Everard would be banned. When someone has announced their intentions to "misbehave", and it's my job to make sure that people are not misbehaving, I consider it my responsibility to do what I can to stop that action.
I'll repeat: he did not state that he intended to violate forum rules. What he said is that he would call people liars if they lied about his positions. I have the correspondence on file, and can post them here (sans vulgarity) if you and Everard consent (I'll ask him should you give permission).

But whether or not he intended to do this isn't really important to my central issue with your conduct here. The main point is that, intention or not, declaration or not, he didn't actually do it. That's important for a number of reasons.

Maybe he would've changed his mind. Maybe he wouldn't have used the word, or maybe he would've used it in acceptable context. Or maybe he would've done what you think he said he was going to do. We don't know that.

Also, your banning of people for private correspondence greatly diminishes the transparency with which this place should be run. Members have a right to know who is banned/suspended for saying what. We shouldn't have to take your word about the effectiveness of your job performance; we should be able to see it for ourselves.

Lastly, nowhere is it written that intent to perform a behavior is a suspendable/bannable offense. The whole point of having written rules is that we ALL are supposed to adhere to them. That goes for us, and it goes for you too. If you're going to say that what Everard did constitutes an offense of some sort, then you have to do it BEFORE you suspend him. You can't invent a new medium through which one can commit an offense and apply it ex post facto.

quote:
I don't believe I've exceeded my authority here. I believe my authority requires me to contact members who are breaking forum rules, and attempt to work with them to make sure they stop. If they do not stop, then it is my responsibility to use my ability to force them to stop - and the only tool I have is that of banning.
I can only say that I strongly disagree and implore you to consider the points I've made. If, after you contacted Everard, he called someone a liar in a way that violated Ornery rules, I'd be defending your right to ban him. But, for a multitude of reasons, I believe you needed to wait for that to happen here.

Edited to Add: Whoops. I do still disgust Pete, it seems. [Frown]

[ September 09, 2006, 07:09 PM: Message edited by: Paladine ]

Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I actually think that suspensions should be even shorter (3 days), provided that the person makes clear that they understood what they did wrong specifically and promises not to commit the same violation again.
If it's a first time offense and they do those things I think they shouldn't get ANY suspension. My impression is that that's the case with the OrneryMods. However, if they are a repeat offender, then 3 days (or even much more) may be appropriate depending on the severity and frequency of past offences.
Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pal, you and Red did both stand up for me, on occasion, and I do appreciate that.

But you never called for OM to be kicked out.

And there was a hell of a lot bigger problem in those cases.

In just one case out of many ridiculous overreactions, I got suspended 6 weeks for bumping a thread. Here, Ev's got 1 week suspension for this (text unedited, from 1 page of many):

quote:
Pal, you and Red did both stand up for me, on occasion, and I do appreciate that.
But you never called for OM to be kicked out.
And there was a hell of a lot bigger problem in those cases.
In just one case out of many ridiculous overreactions, I got suspended 6 weeks for bumping a thread. Here, Ev's got 1 week suspension for this (text unedited, from 1 page of many):
[QUOTE]Everard
Member Member # 104
posted September 09, 2006 03:08 PM
"Indeed not. Ev said that anyone who supports the FMA is an unamerican bigot."
Stop lying about what I said, Pete.
I said anyone who supports a particular wording (one that would even deny the ability of same sex couples to join in civil union or have any of the benefits of civil union) is a bigot. I've also said that support for the FMA is contrary to constitutional principles... I haven't said its "unamerican."
Edit: Hrm. I apparently turned the page. This is the last of three quick posts in succession, each of which points out a different area where pete is lying.
[ September 09, 2006, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: Everard ]
Posts: 14181 | Registered: Nov 2000 | IP: Logged |

Paladine
Member Member # 1932
posted September 09, 2006 03:46 PM
My earlier post wasn't intended to imply that Ev's beliefs are predicated upon a belief that those who oppose it are evil. Rather I intended to show that his statement gave reason to believe that those who oppose SSM oppose equality under the law and oppose the "tremendous good" of which he spoke, and that consequently a logical conclusion of his argument is that those of us who oppose SSM are (pretty close to) evil.
I don't necessarily believe that he made that conclusion or that it was a premise of his argument. I simply maintain that it's a logical conclusion one could reasonably draw from his remarks.
Posts: 1233 | Registered: Jul 2004 | IP: Logged |

Pete at Home
Member Member # 429
posted September 09, 2006 03:57 PM
Ev dodges the fact that he specifically said the word "bigot." He did not specifically say the word "unamerican," which is why I did not use quotes on the word, but he implied unamerican in a lot more obvious terms than the watered down statements he's offering here.

quote:
My earlier post wasn't intended to imply that Ev's beliefs are predicated upon a belief that those who oppose it are evil.

Exactly. Ev says horrid things, and when you call him on them, he tries to defend himself by saying that he doesn't really believe them. I don't care if he believes them. He should not say them.
Posts: 14933 | Registered: Jun 2001 | IP: Logged |

Everard
Member Member # 104
posted September 09, 2006 04:02 PM
"Ev dodges the fact that he specifically said the word "bigot.""
Don't lie about what I said, Pete. go back and reread my post at the top of this page, you liar. I did not dodge it all. I clarified the statement about who I consider to be a bigot.
Posts: 14181 | Registered: Nov 2000 | IP: Logged |

Pete at Home
Member Member # 429
posted September 09, 2006 04:04 PM
I said to Tom: "I made a similar comment at the time when you made it, and I'd said the same thing repeatedly about Andrew Sullivan when he made the same argument before you, back in the days before he became bitter and nasty, and adopted the Everard/Goodridge argument for ssm (because those who argue against it are evil)."
Ev/Godridge pro-ssm argument is "because those who argue against it are evil," In Goodridge terms, because the only reason to oppose ssm is animosity towards gays. Ev's defended the goodridge construction, and he takes it into further blood libels, saying that a defense of neutered marriage somehow magically increases hate crimes against gays.
Trying to bend the facts to twist what I said into a "lie," Ev pretends to think that "because" represents his motivation, rather than the argument. The sentence doesn't even make grammatical sense if you read it like that. Think harder, Ev.
Posts: 14933 | Registered: Jun 2001 | IP: Logged |

Everard
Member Member # 104
posted September 09, 2006 04:04 PM
" Ev says horrid things, and when you call him on them, he tries to defend himself by saying that he doesn't really believe them. I don't care if he believes them. He should not say them."
No. I do not defend them. I acknowledge what I've said. When I'm wrong, I apologize, unlike you. And when I've been misrepresented, I clarify, but, unlike what you claim I do, I do not "dodge." When the word usage is correct, I defend it.
In this case, Pete, you've lied repeatedly about what I've said, and I'm calling you on it.
Posts: 14181 | Registered: Nov 2000 | IP: Logged |

Pete at Home
Member Member # 429
posted September 09, 2006 04:08 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
I acknowledge what I've said. When I'm wrong, I apologize, unlike you.

You apologized to me once, and that was by email. And now you're back to the behavior you apologized for, like dog to vomit.
As for me never apologizing when I'm wrong ... I'll just hang that statement of yours around your head, in case anyone who knows me here see is not aware of how badly you twist things.
Posts: 14933 | Registered: Jun 2001 | IP: Logged |

Everard
Member Member # 104
posted September 09, 2006 04:08 PM
" In Goodridge terms, because the only reason to oppose ssm is animosity towards gays."
Stop lying about what the goodridge decision says.
There is NOTHING in there, and the language of goodridge contradicts your claim about it.
" Ev's defended the goodridge construction,"
Yes I have. Largely by pointing out that you don't have a clue what the goodridge decision actually says.
" and he takes it into further blood libels,"
Stop lying, Pete. There's no blood libel here, and you know it.
"Trying to bend the facts to twist what I said into a "lie," Ev pretends to think that "because" represents his motivation, rather than the argument. The sentence doesn't even make grammatical sense if you read it like that. Think harder, Ev."
No, Pete. I'm SPECIFICALLY talking about the argument. My argument is NOT, as you EXPLICITLY say, "SSM should be legal because those who oppose it are evil." It is "Because SSM would do a lot of good, and because it is required under my understanding of what equality before the law is, SSM should be legal."
Stop lying, Pete.
Posts: 14181 | Registered: Nov 2000 | IP: Logged |

Pete at Home
Member Member # 429
posted September 09, 2006 04:09 PM
That word springs too often to your lips, Wormtongue.
Posts: 14933 | Registered: Jun 2001 | IP: Logged |

Everard
Member Member # 104
posted September 09, 2006 04:12 PM
Well, you should stop lying then.

Take a good look at the behavior that you say is too saintly to warrant a 1 week suspension. Aren't you a little embarrassed?

If I did something like that, and was suspended for 1 week, without warning, I would not expect you or anyone to defend me for that, let alone attack OM. I would not defend it myself.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete-

You're missing the point. He wasn't banned for the behavior you cited. He was warned for that. He was banned for e-mails between himself and the OM. If OM had decided to ban either of you for your shenanangans on that thread, I wouldn't be going after him. Instead (to his credit), he warned both of you. What he did afterwards is what I take issue with.

Edited to Add: The record is almost always very clear with respect to what I said. Never did I say that banning Ev (or you) for what happened on that thread would be a miscarriage of justice. PLEASE do not misrepresent me.

[ September 09, 2006, 07:25 PM: Message edited by: Paladine ]

Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OrneryMod
Administrator
Member # 977

 - posted      Profile for OrneryMod   Email OrneryMod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'll repeat: he did not state that he intended to violate forum rules. What he said is that he would call people liars if they lied about his positions. I have the correspondence on file, and can post them here (sans vulgarity) if you and Everard consent (I'll ask him should you give permission).
If Everard gives you permission, that's fine. Based on what was said in that email, along with previous conversations, I felt that Ev was saying he intended to ignore my warning and continue accusing another member of lying, with intent. To explain myself once again, I responded that I was banning him to make sure he didn't do what he threatened, and that if he'd like to further discuss the issue, I'd be glad to do so. I assumed that it was implicit that further conversation (and a retraction of the threat) could and probably would end with me removing the banning. That's the last time, hopefully, I have to repeat that.

quote:
Maybe he would've changed his mind. Maybe he wouldn't have used the word, or maybe he would've used it in acceptable context. Or maybe he would've done what you think he said he was going to do. We don't know that.
He chose not to retract the threat. Maybe he wouldn't have posted, had I given him the chance? I can tell you for sure that I wasn't interested in banning him, given the opportunity. I can also tell you that when someone tells me they plan to do something, I generally believe them.

quote:
Also, your banning of people for private correspondence greatly diminishes the transparency with which this place should be run. Members have a right to know who is banned/suspended for saying what. We shouldn't have to take your word about the effectiveness of your job performance; we should be able to see it for ourselves.
It has not been the policy of the moderators of this forum, since it began, to announce that people have been banned (with specific exceptions not withstanding). I wasn't planning to announce Ev's banning, nor air any dirty laundry about the reasons. We have always attempted to make it clear that any questions about our actions would be met with honest responses. We've also repeatedly made it clear that our powers are limited, and that there is always the recourse to go to the forum adminstrator and/or the Cards, if people feel we are not living up to our responsibilities.

I do not know any way to communicate with the forum as a whole how effective or not effective we've been without posting each and every correspondance we've had with the many members of this forum. This exposes us to various members misrepresenting our communication with them, because we hold that personal correspondance is strictly confidential. In the cases where those members have chosen to share those correspondances, we've done our best to be honest and forthcoming with our view of the correspondance, while still respectful of the private nature.

If you have a good idea of how we can keep this forum a site focused on debate, instead of personal conflicts while posting all personal correspondance between members, with each other and the moderator, I'd be happy to discuss it.

Keep in mind, however, that the purpose of this forum is to debate about topics of interest. In my view, the rules of this forum are designed to assist in keeping these discussions from becoming personal.

quote:
I can only say that I strongly disagree and implore you to consider the points I've made. If, after you contacted Everard, he called someone a liar in a way that violated Ornery rules, I'd be defending your right to ban him. But, for a multitude of reasons, I believe you needed to wait for that to happen here.
I do understand that this is the crux of your concern - that I acted "preemptively". I believe it's clear from the email, and the thread in question, that I acted due to a likely violation of Ornery rules. My method to counteract the issue was to post publically, to hopefully stop the quick back and forth that was happening, and to follow up privately, to resolve the issue. Before I could email Ev, he emailed me, with what I again consider a threat. In response to the threat, and as a consequence of the initial rule violation, I used my power to stop the problem from escalating while I attempted to resolve the issue off the forum. I believe this to be a valid course of action. That I did not perform this action with enough clarity of communication with Everard is clear - I should have stated what I intended re: the banning statement.

I do think it's fair to ask someone not to post while we resolve a personal issue off the forum. When said person decides that they will continue to escalate issues on the forum, instead of working them out offline, it is, in my opinion, appropriate to take what started as a request, and make it a demand.

I will discuss the issue with the other moderator, when that moderator becomes available, and we'll let you know what we think. I'm not interested in making this forum an uncomfortable place for those who frequent it. I appreciate that fact that you are doing your best to make sure it does not become such a place.

One way or another, we will make a post clarifying whether it's appropriate it or not to stop someone from acting on their intent to break the forum rules, given the prior knowledge of said intent, once the decision has been finalized.

Posts: 1260 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
When Ev first emailed me he'd been suspended and that he was leaving, I felt bad and sent him a sympathetic note. I didn't know how short it was. I reckoned from his reaction that it was some 6 week thing.

2 things changed my point of view on this.

First, finding out that it was a mere week.

Second, seeing this little coup that he's put you up to.

Red and Paladine brought me from a state of sympathy to the most angry I have ever been with Ev.

Right now, I'm so disgusted with him that if I believed for one minute that he actually was going to keep his word and stay away, I'd be relieved.

Not glad.

To be honest, there was a third factor -- the fact that when I sent him a sympathetic let's mend fences note, that he responded by telling me that I realy was a liar, and repeated the word, as he always does.

Pal, I honestly don't remember saying that you "disgust" me or later editing the statement. But I believe you since my memory is bad when I'm angry, and since I'm very very angry. And also because as angry as I am with you and Red, I have I seen never you use the word liar casually, nor do I recall either of you ever lying to me or to anyone else. Maybe when I'm less angry I'll be able to understand how you two could, without hypocrisy, make this big of a deal over this little suspension for such a big offense.

I like you both. You both piss me off some times, but you're bright people trying to make a better world. I don't understand why you've done what you've done here but I think you owe OM an apology. What you've done here is insanely out of proportion to the problems that you've claimed.

Probably when I calm down, I'll see that I said a number of things to you that I regret, and maybe some you'll not forgive me for. My bad. I just hope that you'll likewise calm down and see that your little coup here was out of proportion to any possible offense.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete

The point is Paul was banned based on a preemptive strike. He had not committed the offense.

When you were banned for 6 weeks, it was at a time when everyone was stepping way over the line. Enough evidence was collected to validate that it involved many, not few, and multiple crossings, not one.

I read the thread. I understand both points each was making, and I do think you could be interpreted by Paul as not representing his argument accurately. The fact that you attempted to move the dispute off the Marriage thread, shows that at least one of you was following precedent and moving it to a thread specifically devoted to the two of you working out your disputes in private.

Pete, I certainly have gone to bat for you multiple times, and help resolve incidents in the past fairly. I think you will agree, that in cases of dispute on Ornery I have always been a fair arbiter of both the letter of the rules and their intent. I think you will also agree that prior to your 6 week ban there were multiple attempts at compromise and explanation. You were never banned on an issue that was not otherwise apparent to everyone including yourself.

What has happened here is two fold.

A person did not violate the letter of Ornery law, even if he may have been violating the intent.

A person who has largely abided by both the spirit and letter of Ornery rules, was banned not for what he did, but what he might do.

I have a real problem with that and you should to, because this is a case where banning should never have been used as a first option. Even you got the benefit of extensive consultation before you were banned, and of those banned almost all agreed that they had indeed contributed to a degradation and almost all expressed a willingness to better follow the spirit and letter of Ornery's rules.

Had the Mod felt that a ban was in order, then he should have waited until Paul re-iterated his complaint and directly called you a liar. Even then, calling someone a liar has never been a banning offense.

I remain convinced that the Mods are not capable of the duties they must perform.

Right now, I'd vote for Tom Davidson, because I seriously doubt he would have ever have committed such a rookie mistake.

The mistakes here are very simple. Paul was banned for something before he could even do it. No one else to my knowledge on Ornery has ever been banned in a likewise manner.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Paladine:
Pete-

You're missing the point. He wasn't banned for the behavior you cited. He was warned for that. He was banned for e-mails between himself and the OM.

Paladine, do you really believe that OM honestly banned Ev purely for the contents of the email? Or are you willing to concede the obvious here: that OM probably suspended him because OM inferred, from the email, that Ev was not going to keep the peace or abide by the terms of the order?

If I'm wrong, then you've attempted a coup over a technical glitch. If my inference is right then you've attempted a coup over nothing at all.

What interpretation would you have put on it, Paladine? If OM didn't act because the email made him think that Ev was defying his order, then why do you suppose he did it? Personal vendetta? That Ev insulted his mommy? What other possible reason?

Have you even *looked* at the email? Should you not have looked at the offending email before you started a coup?

I haven't seen it. But given the context, it seems pretty bloody obvious that he acted after Ev challenged the order. I see no other logical reason. Do you?

quote:
If OM had decided to ban either of you for your shenanangans on that thread, I wouldn't be going after him. Instead (to his credit), he warned both of you. What he did afterwards is what I take issue with.
Then what OM did was according to you what he could have done to begin with. So you've started a coup over a point of procedure, not a substantive injustice.

quote:
Edited to Add: The record is almost always very clear with respect to what I said. Never did I say that banning Ev (or you) for what happened on that thread would be a miscarriage of justice. PLEASE do not misrepresent me.
If I've misunderstood you, then I'm sorry; I don't see it. I don't see the substantive difference between what I said, and what you said. All I see is possible niggling point of procedure, and even that's unlikely. I repeat, do you really think that OM suspended Ev for any other reason than to stop the misbehavior on that thread?

[ September 09, 2006, 07:55 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JohnLocke
Member
Member # 68

 - posted      Profile for JohnLocke   Email JohnLocke   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just so everyone knows my opinion: Pete is definitely a habitual liar. I would gladly get banned to say so. With intent to deceive! What else is there to Pete's modus operandi? The key to conquering persecution is in having no fear of it; Pete, perhaps 3-6 months was far too short for you. It's not about old-timers, it's about your tired, tired methods.

Peace.

Posts: 663 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Redskullvw:
Pete

The point is Paul was banned based on a preemptive strike. He had not committed the offense.

When you were banned for 6 weeks, it was at a time when everyone was stepping way over the line. Enough evidence was collected to validate that it involved many, not few, and multiple crossings, not one.

I read the thread. I understand both points each was making, and I do think you could be interpreted by Paul as not representing his argument accurately.

It wasn't even Paul Enumclaw that misinterpreted it. It was Everard who complained on that thread. XOM suspended me before Paul Enumclaw had even seen the thread. And you brought Everard in on the decision of how to handle it. [Mad] Bad call, dude.

quote:
The fact that you attempted to move the dispute off the Marriage thread, shows that at least one of you was following precedent and moving it to a thread specifically devoted to the two of you working out your disputes in private.

Pete, I certainly have gone to bat for you multiple times,

The above is all true.

What comes below is all false, although you may believe it.

quote:
and help resolve incidents in the past fairly. I think you will agree, that in cases of dispute on Ornery I have always been a fair arbiter of both the letter of the rules and their intent. I think you will also agree that prior to your 6 week ban there were multiple attempts at compromise and explanation. You were never banned on an issue that was not otherwise apparent to everyone including yourself.
False false false false false. You tried to help resolve incidents in the past, but 6 week out of the blue sentences to set an example is not what I call fairly. I value your interpretation of the letter and the intent of the law, but do not consider you a fair arbiter. There were not any attempts of compromise and explanation prior to any of my 6 week bannings (there were more than 1). And after two of my bannings, some folks started "why the hell did Pete and not Ev get banned" threads, and XOM shut them down because they embarrassed him and because changing his ruling in light of the facts would embarrass him.

And that's not even counting the games XOM played with emails and changing the terms of demanded apologies, and refusing to ever admit he'd erred.

quote:
A person did not violate the letter of Ornery law, even if he may have been violating the intent.
You are wrong. See above. Ev's been warned specifically about the liar word. xOM even warned him (but only after I started to use it back on Ev). The rules have never been enforced on Ev before. That's all that changed. Ev violated letter of law, spirit of law, and violated clear warnings he'd had before this incident.

quote:
A person who has largely abided by both the spirit and letter of Ornery rules, was banned not for what he did, but what he might do.
One week suspension. That's less than some contempt orders.

quote:
I have a real problem with that and you should to, because this is a case where banning should never have been used as a first option.
Gee, that's a new principle. It never protected me.

quote:
Even you got the benefit of extensive consultation before you were banned
That's crap, Red. First and 2nd time I got suspended there were no warnings. And I don't recall xOM EVER telling me what specific rule I broke. He would get pissed off when I asked him.


quote:
and of those banned almost all agreed that they had indeed contributed to a degradation and almost all expressed a willingness to better follow the spirit and letter of Ornery's rules.

There were times when I got suspended that I helped degrade Ornery. But I was never the only one who had caused the problem, and I was always the only one to get singled out.


quote:
Even then, calling someone a liar has never been a banning offense.
Crap again. It was never an offense, except when I did it. xOM allowed it to go on for years, but when I used the term to refer to some of Ev's misrepresentations, xOM threatened to suspend me if I did it again.


quote:
The mistakes here are very simple. Paul was banned for something before he could even do it.
I got suspended for things I had not done, and for rules that were made up after I broke them, and I never saw you raise procedural concerns or called that xOM be replaced. X post facto enforcement of rules makes preemptive suspension look like nothing.

And as I showed above, this isn't even preemptive suspension. Have you even seen the offending email?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
First time I got suspended for deleting a thread that I'd started about Kwanzaa after Enumclaw and others filled it with personal attacks against me.

There was no rule against deleting a thread that you started.

Second time I got suspended for breaking the rule of putting someone's name in the title of a thread.

Have you heard of such a rule? No. XOM pulled it out of his ass. He'd even looked over the thread after the first batch of complaints from two folks that were attacking me and then said, this is a good thread, nothing wrong with it.

The next day, after more complaints, he changed his mind and suspended me for 3 weeks.

And you bitch about a "preemptive" suspension after what Ev did? Ev broke rules. I didn't break them, and got suspended. But you defend xOM and stage a coup against these ones.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Paladine, do you really believe that OM honestly banned Ev purely for the contents of the email? Or are you willing to concede the obvious here: that OM probably suspended him because OM inferred, from the email, that Ev was not going to keep the peace or abide by the terms of the order?
I believe that OM posted something in the thread he didn't mean. He's since confirmed that the ultimatum he issued in the thread was insufficiently clear and did not provide exceptions for uses of the word which were consistent with Ornery rules. It was, in short, an unlawful order. And that's fine.

But banning someone because they are probably not going to abide by the terms of an order you admit requires revision and clarification is unacceptable in my view. I'm calling that like I see it.

Banning someone for an offense which did not occur on the boards is absolutely unprecedented in the history of Ornery. It's unsupported by any rule. Consequently, in my view it constitutes an inappropriate use of power. It is a "technicality", but as a law student and a thoroughly principled person I hope you can understand my unwillingness to depart from technicalities and a system of established rules when doing so undermines my own protection.

quote:
If I'm wrong, then you've attempted a coup over a technical glitch. If my inference is right then you've attempted a coup over nothing at all.
I haven't attempted a coup at all. For someone with a remarkable ability to manipulate language and an extraordinarily high degree of sensitivity about the language applied to himself and his arguments, you show a STUNNING lack of respect for my feelings and the English language when you put forth arguments like this. Nothing I've said amounts to anything near a "coup".

If you're going to continue to insist that people be semantically precise and intellectually honest in their representations and refutations of your arguments, have a touch of bloody consistency and extend them reciprocal courtesies. Imagine if I used the kind of hyperbolic language to describe your arguments as you have to describe mine here. Shame on you.

quote:
Have you even *looked* at the email? Should you not have looked at the offending email before you started a coup?

I haven't seen it. But given the context, it seems pretty bloody obvious that he acted after Ev challenged the order. I see no other logical reason. Do you?

Yes, I have reviewed all pieces of correspondence related to this matter from both parties. I don't know why you'd imply that I didn't (particularly when I SAID that I did earlier).

quote:
If I've misunderstood you, then I'm sorry; I don't see it. I don't see the substantive difference between what I said, and what you said. All I see is possible niggling point of procedure, and even that's unlikely. I repeat, do you really think that OM suspended Ev for any other reason than to stop the misbehavior on that thread?
Niggling points of procedure are all there is to a system of laws, Pete. "You mean you're going to let that criminal get off with murdering that girl just because we tried him and he was found innocent the first time? We KNOW he did it; it's just this niggling point of procedure." Procedure MATTERS. And don't say that I'm trying to start a coup again. I'm far more patient than most people when it comes to offenses like that, but that patience has its limits and you're standing squarely on the edge.
Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OrneryMod
Administrator
Member # 977

 - posted      Profile for OrneryMod   Email OrneryMod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is the "other" OM. I have been unavailable since this morning, and am shocked to see how things have degenerated in my quick perusal of the thread(s) in question.

Regardless of whether anyone agrees with OM's decisions and whether or not we were sufficiently available to referee, there has been disgusting conduct on this forum today.

It is amazing to me that grown people need to be babysat in order not to call each other names.

As the OM indicated, we need to consult over the situation that occurred today, and I need to review the forum and the associated emails.

I would ask that people be responsible about their discussion of the situation and not add fuel to the flames. I do not wish to lock this thread or stifle productive discussion about the direction and content of this site, but I will not hesitate to shut the thread down if it becomes an excuse for playing out personal disagreements or engaging in excessive and inappropriate contentiousness.

I welcome responsible mail regarding opinions on this situation. Please understand that I will summarily disregard any mail that consists of profanity and vitriol.

Edit to clarify a point: The member in question has not been "banned." It is my understanding that the action taken was a week-long suspension, which is an action that has traditionally been taken when OM feels a member needs a "cooling off" break, or when a member's actions warrant a brief separation from active discussion in the forum.

[ September 09, 2006, 08:47 PM: Message edited by: OrneryMod ]

Posts: 1260 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
::waiting for OMs to confer and arrive at some decisions before commenting further on what they've said::
Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
msquared
Member
Member # 113

 - posted      Profile for msquared   Email msquared   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I will say this.

If Pete thinks I ever enjoyed anything I had to do concerning him, he is sadly mistaken. His comments that I gloated are more indicitive of Pete's mindset then anything I ever felt.

Remember this. Pete never forgets. Say one thing he takes offense at and he never forgets. And never forgives from what it looks like. 3 years is a long time to hold a grudge.

Look at common denominators. To me, it looks like most problems on the site are usualy Pete vs. [Insert name of almost any other member here].

msquared

edited to add I agree with Redskull. Pete and Ev are a toxic combo.

[ September 09, 2006, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: msquared ]

Posts: 4002 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just my thoughts for the OMs consideration:

1) I have been entirely happy with the way OMs have proceded in the short time I have been here.

2) I don't think Ev has been hard done by (except on one point) by the action OM took. Had I been a moderater, I would have handled it differently, but differently is not the same as better, and you need to accept a moderators judgement if you want a functioning group.

3) Reviewing the posts leading up to the incident, it is clear that Pete had been persistently misrepresenting Ev in almost every post up until the incident, over several days. On the second, Ev wrote:

quote:
And, no, I'm not taking the position that the only reason to oppose SSM is bigotry. The effect is bigoted, but thats not always the motivation.
That is a clear statement in direct contradiction of the view Pete repeatedly attributed to Ev over the following days, and to which Ev responded by saying Pete was lying about Ev's views.

I find it very difficult to believe Pete's misrepresentation was not deliberate, in view of the facts that he persistently ingored Ev's explanations of Ev's opinions, and that this is a repeated habit. In other words, I think Ev was fully justified in using the terms "lied" and "liar", based on the evidence.

If Ornery is to have a rule banning the use of the terms in the context in which Ev used them, then Ornery also needs a rule banning the sort of repeated misrepresentation that Pete likes to indulge in.

4) One feature of Pete's discourse is the use of comparison to historical of literary figures to convey a message. While Ev straightforwardly called Pete a liar, Pete called Ev "Wormtongue", a reference to Grima Wormtongue in the Lord of the Rings. By so doing he was suggesting that Ev was a deliberate and persistant liar (the chief notable feature of Wormtongue as literary figure). He elsewhere called Ev a member of the "Gang of four", with apparently similar intent.

If a ban on calling people a liar is to stand, then a ban on people indirectly calling people a liar should also stand. In view of that, I expect Pete to be suspended for a week on his next such allusion, just as Ev would have been for next calling Pete a "liar". Failure to do so would show the apparent concern about personal recriminations on Ornery to be concerned solely with style, not with substance.

Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I like and value Ev and Pete and I hope Ev comes back.

Red was responsible for the Ornery 8 thing? That was BS because some of us got absolutely no warning. Water under the bridge, but only because we've agreed because of that incident to at least warn members before suspending them. Which apparently Ev got. (Haven't been following things so can't comment on the current issue, other to say that it is unfortunate if not suprising. Pete vs Ev and all.)

Ev's a big boy. If he felt it was worth standing up for I'm sure he will take his medicine and come back.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This seems silly to me. All Everard needs to do is retract his threat (or explain that it wasn't meant as a threat) and I'd bet they'd reinstate him in a second. The OrneryMods obviously don't have a grudge against everard. It's obvious they aren't trigger happy and anxious to ban someone. If anything, the one OrneryMod was just worried about one of the members (and the forum in general) because Everard seemed to be saying he was ready to make another comment that would likely provoke that other member into an even worse flame war. Maybe he/she acted rashly in protecting the other member. Can you blame someone for acting rashly when threatened?

If I ever say something that comes across as hurtful, mean, or accusatory to someone and when confronted about it I say I'm going to do it again, I hereby give OrneryMod permission (and in fact ASK you) to suspend me until I can cool off. PLEASE do it. I may get angry at first but I'll appreciate it later and hopefully the person I might have hurt will appreciate it, too.

Also, if someone ever says something hurtful enough to me that I contact the OrneryMod about it (that's a high bar for me, I'm not inclined to do something like that) I hope the OrneryMod emails that person and asks them to stop it. If they promise to say that hurtful thing again to me, I hope the OrneryMod suspends their account until they promise to stop. I'd hope that no person on here would ever be so angry with me that they'd sooner leave ornery than to back down from some hurtful comment.

Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sigh... I can't believe I have actually been on this forum long enough to have some idea of what the heck everyone is blathering about. I miss Baldar. Now he knew how to get banned [Cool]
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I miss Baldar. Now he knew how to get banned
Shhh. Don't say that so loud. People will think you ARE Baldar. [Wink]
Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
TC quotes something Ev says, and then claims that I mispresented it. You must take his word for that. As you see in the page of Ev's repeated "lying" accusations, that's the same game that Ev plays. Same with JohnLocke above. The "liar liar pants on fire" argument. They just repeat the accusation ad over and over again, as per Goebbels recipe: accuse and accuse until your enemy's nerves collapse.

To correct Tom C's pitiful literary analysis: the Wormtongue line that I cited was not Gandalf's response to Wormtongue's lies, but to Wormtongue repeatedly calling people liars whenever those people presented facts that embarrassed Wormtongue.

to xOM, as oppsed to Msquared, who I have no quarrel with, unless he wants to make one. Maybe "gloated" is the wrong word. I don't know why you singled me out for ritual public humilliation. Maybe you really do believe in that crap you say, that if eight people are kicking one, that it must be the fault of the one, because he's in the "middle."

But you never did have the courage to admit your mistakes in public. You stayed silent while I got blamed for your screwups like the apology-thon, even though you admitted them privately. I don't forget? You stood by and said nothing while others rubbed that in my face for years on this board, knowing that it was your fault.

Then you were shocked and horrified that I question your integrity? You played favorites. You played games. You deleted threads and modified history to cover your ass when you'd made unfair calls, and you wrote me a nastygram when I bumped a thread that happened to contain things said by other people, that showed just how inconsistent and biased your rulings had been. I'm not making a motives inference there -- you actually told me you were furious at me for bumping a thread that made you look bad. You actually told me why you were deleting that thread. And you did tell me, repeatedly, that you felt no obligation to confine suspensions to anything remotely looking like a violation of written Ornery rules. Or even being "fair" in an abstract sense. If suspending someone who'd done nothing wrong in the instance would shut up a howling mob, then that's what you'd do. If Red doesn't want to hash through all this, then I advise him to stop waxing nostalgic about your regime in public. Personally, you're not a bad guy. But I hope that no one entrusts you with power over others again.

To Red -- you've made a much bigger whine and hue and cry than all of the Ornery 8 put together when they came out of their (gasp) 2 days of not being able to post on Ornery. And frankly, sir, you have less cause than they had. How can I trust your interpretation when you say absurd things like calling someone a liar is not a violation of Ornery rules? Ever hear of a motives inference? How dare you cry about poor little Ev's teeny suspension, over some supposed procedural issue, while justifying my suspensions or the Ornery 8. You say there was reason for inferring that "Paul" had been right. Pray tell, what actual Ornery Rule (Look them up if you've forgotten them) could I possibly have violated by bumping a thread for Enumclaw?
(especially after Enumclaw had challanged me to produce that thread on another thread, shortly before.)

What *rule* did I break by deleting my own thread when Enumclaw started making personal attacks on it?

What *rule* did I break by starting a non-mocking thread that included the name of the person whose musings that I was responding to?


Paladine:
Niggling points of procedure are all there is to a system of laws, Pete. "

I'm sorry, Paladine, but that's the most foolish thing I've heard said about law, ever. Anyone who understands law knows that there is substantive law and procedural law, and that substantive law is more important.

And Ornery has never been a system of laws. It's been closer to that under these OMs than under anyone else, because they actually enforce rules equally rather than wiping with them and then enforcing the whim of the loudest mob. But you're demanding procedural protections for Ev that have never been in place before, and that's not rule of law; that's cronyism, like we used to have.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What is "Ornery8"? Is that like the Fantastic 4 or the Magnificent 7?
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
At one point there were 8 people who got suspended at once. I'm not sure you want to hear much more than that (though you likely will).
Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OrneryMod
Administrator
Member # 977

 - posted      Profile for OrneryMod   Email OrneryMod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Guys...please.

We've asked that the past not be dragged up, that personal conflicts not be raised, and that the previous OM not be discussed. All of those things are now happening.

Pete, if you want to fight with Mark about his prior decisions as OM, please don't do it here on the board.

I don't want to lock a thread responsibly discussing moderation policies and interpretation of Ornery rules. I will lock a thread that degenerates or continues to blithely go where it's been expressly asked not to go.

Honestly, can we be any clearer? [Mad]

Posts: 1260 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1