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 » The system only works... (Page 0)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: The system only works...
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, I believe it is.

I believe it is ex post facto justification, based on the emails I received from javelin at the time of my suspension, in which i was informed that I was suspended as a result of my email to him. This is, in part, due to javelin's statement in an email he sent me several days after suspending me that the suspension was believed to be in order because of the language in my email to him.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 2212

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's not inconsistent with the Mod's post, but I'll amend my analysis with an "If this quote is accurate."
Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
as I said earlier on this thread, dagonee, one acceptable outcome, to me, would be to see the user-agreement be amended to reflect the fact that our emails to the moderator are actionable in the same way that posts on the forums are actionable.

Do you think that is an unfair request, given that apparently emails to the moderators can be used as reason to take action against a poster?

My primary bone of contention with javelin (and one that I won't abandon after a lengthy conversation with him, in which he stopped responding when I documented to him how the user agreement, and other references to the power of the moderator do not allow for the action he took) is that he acts tyrannically... modifies rules as he sees fit in order to achieve an outcome he desires. A rule change from above javelin would at least put his actions within the written framework of what is acceptable to the people who actually pay for this forum.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"As far as I know, I've never confirmed or denied whether or not I'm a mod. I'd like to challenge everyone on this board making this assertion to show us the money quote. I will say this: I have certainly spoken of the OrneryMods in the third person - and if I'm a moderator, I can see why someone may be disturbed by this. I think that it's valid, however - regardless of whether I am one of the two moderators or not."

http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=009258;p=3&r=nfx#000113

"I don't think there are any rule violations here - but that's up to the OrneryMods - but there are no rules against it that I know of."

This comes very very close to saying you aren't the moderator. Its not EXACTLY doing it, but its close enough to say that you are misleading people.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 2212

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think it is a change of the rules. I'm sorry, but it should be obvious that giving an indication of intent to not comply would lead to suspension.

If you want a written rule, I don't see it hurting, but I thought it was fair game before I ever heard of this incident.

Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*shrug* I didn't, because the user agreement and rules specifically refer to "posts" being moderated.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 2212

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Technically, suspensions aren't "moderation" of posts that have been made. Deletion and editing moderate existing posts.

Suspensions are intended to moderate future posts based on an expectation that of future behavior.

Typically this expectation arises from past posts. In general, suspension is predicated on 1) past violative posting and 2) failure of a warning to work. This failure can be based on repeat bad posts or on other forms of communication. But it's the information given that the warning will not be followed which justifies the suspension, not the fact that it was a post on the board.

Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 2212

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I must admit, that if I hadn't been suffused in formal analysis of punishment and its intended effects for 6 months earlier this year, I wouldn't have naturally thought of board moderation in that way without lots of thought.

It still wouldn't have surprised me that an email to the mod could result in sanctions, though. *shrug*

Now we know.

Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes. We know. And, knowing, I would like to see that reflected in the actual rules.

I am definetely a believer in concrete rules. They prevent situations like this one, where I do not trust the moderators to do anything in the best interests of the board... rather, I expect them to be whimsical and tyrannical in their moderation. This is not based solely on this one episode, but several months of correspondence starting about 6 weeks prior to the event for which I was suspended.

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 
Taking this back to Ev's original post, it seems Ev's biggest problem is not the original suspension, but that he has no means to have that suspension looked at with a view to avoiding repeats of the situation either by modifying the rules, or modifying the way such a situation would be moderated in future. I think this is a reasonable concern.

Perhaps that concern could be alleviated if the Mods agreed would agree to review such situations themselves. They have already gone part of the route already. In relation to some issues they have invited discussion to determine how the community feels about the situation, and what ought to be done. What they have not done is followed up on that discussion.

What I suggest is that if a poster makes a serious complaint about the manner of moderation, or rules in any particular instance the moderators should reviews the policies that led to the moderation, either with or without community discussion. If they feel they acted in error, they should advise the person moderated of that fact and then get on with the job. If they feel they did not act in error, but that the principles they acted on could be revised to avoid the problem, they should clearly indicate their intention to revise those principles or not, and why. If there continues to be significant dissent (which means more than just one person with a grudge), they should themselves raise the issue with the Cards for adjudication. In that way people need not fear they cannot have the situation reviewed.

This does require some trust of the moderators, but for the most part I think they are doing a good job, and are trying to do so.

Everard, the moderators stated position is that their role is to keep discussion civil. In that light, short term suspensions should be viewed more like police "move on" powers than as judicial punishment. They are powers that must be used flexibly to a certain degree to work. This does open the risk of their being used tyrranically, but I do not think Javelin's(?) actions can be described that way. Some have been questionable, or even, in my view, mistaken; but they have been honest and rare mistakes. Given that, doesn't the issue really come down to proper review? And if so, would you consider my proposed review acceptable? In essence, would you trust the moderators to actually raise the issues with the Cards if a more informal review did not give you sastisfaction?

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


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No.

I don't trust javelin any further then I can throw him.

And since I don't know where he lives, I can't throw him.

Javelin lost, forever, any right to my trust when he stopped responding to my emails after I quoted to him the portions of the user agreement and the forum rules that I thought indicated he acted outside of his jurisdiction, and then when I emailed asking about a response two weeks later, he told me, essentially "I think we've reached an impasse."

Well, yes, we reached an impasse. I quoted to him the portions of the user agreement I thought he violated, and he had no response. So he was left hanging high and dry and without any argument to stand on, and instead of apologizing or saying "ok, we'll modify the user agreement," he ignored me.

Considering this was not the FIRST time I had been ignored by the mods (the first time being a simple request to know WHY I had been suspended, after all moderators involved had told me I hadn't broken any rules), I have absolutely no reason to believe that any review would be made in good faith.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 2212

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I am definetely a believer in concrete rules
You're probably not in a mood to appreciate this, but I'm thinking of our constitutional interpretation strategies and finding this a little ironic on both our parts.

Of course, I can easily reconcile both our views on both topics so neither of us is inconsistent in this regard, but the surface incongruity is amusing to me.

Posts: 2061 | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Of course, I can easily reconcile both our views on both topics so neither of us is inconsistent in this regard, but the surface incongruity is amusing to me."

I understand that [Smile]

As you said, there isn't really an inconsistency.

I'm not willing to explain why the apparent difference in view right now (mostly due to my frustration level) but I do think there are differences... many of them having to do with the supreme court, and the lack of review on ornery that is my primary complaint [Smile]

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 
Everard, I disagree with you as to whether Javelin would review in good faith, but I don't think that is the issue. My proposal is that the moderators review the issues and post their conclusions. In the particular case of your suspension, which has obviously caused some rancor, they would review their actions and the rules, either in communication with you, or in a dedicated thread. They would then post their conclusion. They might post that they agreed that the rules ought to explicitly reflect that private communications would be taken as evidence of future actions, and therefore may result in suspension - and add that to the rules. Alternatively, they might conclude that they acted in good faith in accordance with the rules as currently stated, and post that. In either case there would be a publicly accessible record of how they interpret the rules for future refference.

Now if you still disagreed with their decision, they would then bring the issue to the attention of the Cards for resolution. The question of trust comes down to this, would you trust Javelin to bring this to the attention of the Cards if he said he would? It doesn't matter whether Javelin carries out the review in a way that might change his mind. It matters that we be informed of the situation as it stands, and that if needed, the Cards can adjudicate the decision, even if that adjudication is just a rubber stamp (which is what I would normally expect).

Beyond that, it's Card's forum. It's our decision whether to post here. As long as both parties are reasonably informed of the conditions of doing so, any further problem comes down to our own pigheadedness.

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


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" As long as both parties are reasonably informed of the conditions of doing so,"

This is my problem.

As I tried, many times, to explain to javelin... he invented two rules in order to suspend me. We're not reasonably informed about the rules, and javelin has made it clear when communicating with me that it is not the rules that matter, but his interpretation of "best interests of teh board." A phrase so broad as to be useless.

"My proposal is that the moderators review the issues and post their conclusions."

Which requires that they actually review the issues. I don't think they have done so in this circumstance, despite several lengthy email exchanges with me.

"Now if you still disagreed with their decision, they would then bring the issue to the attention of the Cards for resolution. The question of trust comes down to this, would you trust Javelin to bring this to the attention of the Cards if he said he would?"

YEs, but I wouldn't expect him to present the manner to the cards in a way that assures a fair hearing.

[ October 27, 2006, 09:01 PM: Message edited by: Everard ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Javelin lost, forever, any right to my trust....
Ev, seriously, it's a web forum.
You know how silly Pete's accusations of blood libel and paranoid fears of anti-Pete cabals sound? Things like "Javelin has forever lost my trust..." based on an email exchange, while I know they're intended to convey some sense of the seriousness of the situation from your perspective, just make you seem really goofy.

[ October 27, 2006, 11:01 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LinuxFreakus
Member
Member # 2395

 - posted      Profile for LinuxFreakus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Javelin lost, forever, any right to my trust....
Ev, seriously, it's a web forum.
You know how silly Pete's accusations of blood libel and paranoid fears of anti-Pete cabals sound? Things like "Javelin has forever lost my trust..." based on an email exchange, while I know they're intended to convey some sense of the seriousness of the situation from your perspective, just make you seem really goofy.

Eh, I dunno, the more I read, the more this makes sense to me. At first, I didn't know many details.

I don't see why we can't just update the rules at the very least... it does seem a little unfair to be suspending people for things that they didn't have any reason to suspect would get them banned (even if only temporarily).

Posts: 1240 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  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:
but his interpretation of "best interests of teh board." A phrase so broad as to be useless.
Like general welfare. [Smile]
Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I love how we get to observe the inner workings of a public whine.

"Fruity, yet sharp..."

Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wow. And we were having some fun for awhile. Then we went back to taking this shyte seriously....

You get banned for a week or a month, whippee. Get over it. Hey, mod would you ban me? Please? I promise I'll do something really really bad.

Egos get bruised sometimes.

They heal if you stop picking at the injury... if not, it just gets worse.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
infected...diseased...festering and oozing malcontent like an eye full of rheum.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Hey you. Yeah. You with the twitchy eye. Stop picking. Better yet, go get a rheum awreddy."

[ October 28, 2006, 01:43 AM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As he shut the door, he saw the object of his desire in the mirror, a mote lodged in it's yearning creaminess. Slowly, tentatively, he extended a finger to probe the pussy area, hoping to finally find the mote in all the confusion, knowing that it would take everything to a whole new level....


---

Ah, beeer...

Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Fruity, yet sharp..."

Farty, yet shrewd...

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Ah, beeer..."

And why beholdest thou the Molson that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the Jim Beam that is in thine own eye?

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Farthing, yet shilled
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Frothing, yet sloshed...
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fjording, yet stalled
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 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 
What is going on? Is this the new thread title poetry alternative?
Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"*shrug* I didn't, because the user agreement and rules specifically refer to "posts" being moderated."

So, after being a jerk in public and being told to stop, you decided to be a jerk in private, in the process indicating you would continue being a jerk in public, and got sent off to jail.

But someone forgot to rad you your Miranda rights and you're back on the streets kicking up sand again.

And the prosecuting attorney decides that this time he'll make the case solid and nail you hard next time you offend.

Repeat offenders always blame the judge...

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
iSth iSth E

newt h
read: tit

'le Poe'
try

Alter Native

?

[ October 28, 2006, 02:09 AM: Message edited by: canadian ]

Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pickled shuttlecock
Member
Member # 1093

 - posted      Profile for pickled shuttlecock   Email pickled shuttlecock   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Is hijacking a thread a bannable offense?
Posts: 1392 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It is if we're such monkeys we make bananas of sense.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Place 20 monkeys in a room full of type-bananas...
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I go now. Kenmeer tired.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And stereo-types...need toons to create a mockery of monkery!
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Canadian Wired
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ferry Isthmus to awl (and to wall) a Good Knight!

[ October 28, 2006, 02:18 AM: Message edited by: canadian ]

Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Think of them as the coolant or carbon rods in a nuclear reactor...
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Coolant or carbon?"

Haven't heard *that* in a grocery store checkout lane in a while...

[ October 28, 2006, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

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