This is topic The system only works... in forum General Comments at The Ornery American Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/9351.html

Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
...if you have connections.

Back at the ornery 8 incident, Pete was able to get in touch with the Cards, because he knew them, and have them look into the situation that was created when the moderator suspended 8 people.

I can't get in touch with the cards... I've tried several times to contact the administrators of this site, but I don't have OSC on speed dial, so I can't get through.

I detailed to javelin exactly how he violated the user agreement and the rules laid out by the Cards for moderation of this website, when he suspended me for actions taken off the ornery message board. I also wrote to the cards, through the ornery website, explaining why I thought they needed to look into javelins actions.

Whether or not they would have found his actions appropriate, I can't even find out... because I haven't received an email in response from ANYONE associated with the ornery.org website.

Its frustrating. I'd like to know whehter the people who pay for this site approve of the methods that javelin employed as moderator, but I can't get that information... because I don't know the Card family, as Pete does.

Too bad. I thought the Cards were better then that, or at least cared more then that. But I guess they don't. Once again, who you know is more important then everything else combined.

I'm not interested in debating whether javelin was right or wrong to suspend me... we did that debate on this board, when Paladine started his thread, and there's no reason to do it again. Everyone has their opinion, and will stick to it, in all liklihood.

It just frustrates me that your voice can only be heard if you have "connections."
 
Posted by Kent (Member # 832) on :
 
Javelin is one of the Mods? [Eek!]

No wonder he is so much more resposible in his postings lately.
 
Posted by Dave at Work (Member # 1906) on :
 
Everard,

I notice that OSC is posting frequently on the Hatrack site. Maybe you could contact him through there. He should be able to be contacted through Ornery, but since that seems to be failing you might try contacting him through Hatrack. At the very least you could confirm whether he is aware of the situation or not.
 
Posted by Kent (Member # 832) on :
 
Mods, please give me the number to your manager; I'd like to speak with him about your poor customer service.
 
Posted by LoverOfJoy (Member # 157) on :
 
He occasionally frequents the hatrack forum so I guess you could try there. *shrug* I doubt he'd do anything anyway. The moderators are there in part to keep him from having to deal with things like this. He's a busy man. If you had a lot of other people agreeing with you and also trying to contact him, maybe he'd be more inclined to take action. Maybe checking out all that happened is just a low priority thing on his to-do list that hasn't risen up the list yet.

I personally don't agree with you and I get the impression that the majority of others that DO agree that the mods made a wrong call don't feel it was a sufficiently wrong call to involve the Cards. I respect your right to disagree, though.

I have no idea how involved Card got during the Ornery 8 period but I got the impression that Card is even more hands-off now than he was then. Didn't the original Mod say something about him considering shutting the whole forum down at one point? I imagine even Pete or others who know Card would have a more difficult time getting Card to invest more time on this site.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
I don't want to bring an ornery "meta-topic" into the hatrack boards, but it might be worth it :-/
 
Posted by Kent (Member # 832) on :
 
Well don't do anything that would shut down this forum for the rest of us. Just be your regular light hearted, playful self and I'm sure you'll do fine.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
" imagine even Pete or others who know Card would have a more difficult time getting Card to invest more time on this site."

I agree. But he DID get involved with ornery 8, as far as I am aware. And he really only did so because he knew pete. But apparently no one who operates this website is willing to reply to emails... whether its OSC, his wife, kathryn janitor, or anyone else involved who I don't know about. Which leaves me with the impression that I don't get a response because I don't know OSC, unlike pete, who does. Does that mean my concerns are less important?

Apparently so. And THATS frustrating, and systematic in our society.
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
Some people find ways to put things behind them.
 
Posted by Dave at Work (Member # 1906) on :
 
Do they not have a way to PM members on Hatrack? I participate there even more sporadically than I do here?
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
And some of us take communities we've invested large amounts of time and energy in seriously.
 
Posted by LoverOfJoy (Member # 157) on :
 
quote:
Which leaves me with the impression that I don't get a response because I don't know OSC, unlike pete, who does. Does that mean my concerns are less important?

Apparently so. And THATS frustrating, and systematic in our society.

Or he just doesn't bother checking his Ornery email regularly anymore. *shrug*
 
Posted by LinuxFreakus (Member # 2395) on :
 
When did you get suspended? I didn't even notice... then again I don't post *that* much... I tend to go in cycles, where I post a lot in a short time and then I disappear for a while because I'm too busy or whatever.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
"Or he just doesn't bother checking his Ornery email regularly anymore. *shrug*"

He didn't at the time of the ornery 8, either.
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
Everard-

I understand your frustration, but I hope you can understand that Card (or anyone who may or may not have read your E-mail) may have felt the massive scale of the events involved in the Ornery 8 incident warranted his attention, while he may feel that events involving the suspension of one poster do not.

Congresscritters pay attention when 100,000 people E-mail them, not when one does.

Whatever contacts Pete may have, it's entirely possible that Card would have "ignored" him had he been the only one directly and immediatly affected.

I understand that you percieve an injustice to have occured, and I really don't have an opinion on whether or not one did. I completely get that it was a big deal to you, but it's not to me. Sorry, just the truth. Had you been banned I'd care enough to try to wade through the sequence of events and come up with an opinion.

Your problem may not be one of contacts, it may be one of scale and of severity. I'm not saying that you are wrong to feel that the events involved in your suspension warrant attention, but I hope that you can see that others may honestly disagree with you about the level of attention warranted.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
*Shrug* Maybe it IS the scale. But I honestly wonder... how many emails does the administrator get from ornery members?
 
Posted by LinuxFreakus (Member # 2395) on :
 
I doubt it is really *that* much... but who knows. I know I have sent one email to the admin since I've been a member, and it was answered within 24 hours.
 
Posted by Jesse (Member # 1860) on :
 
No idea.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
Maybe Jav is the ADMIN too?

[LOL]
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
And some of us take communities we've invested large amounts of time and energy in seriously.

I take this forum seriously also, and have invested significant time in it as well. Does taking something seriously require one to carry a grudge indefinitely?

What do you hope to gain?
 
Posted by LoverOfJoy (Member # 157) on :
 
quote:
Maybe Jav is the ADMIN too?
Don't you remember when I confessed that I, and most of the others here, are all characters created by Orson Scott Card? We're ALL the ADMIN...and Owner to boot! [Smile]
 
Posted by Liberal (Member # 2888) on :
 
I'd just like to point out I was the first one to realize javelin was a mod when he blatantly used the mod position and email to harass me and then lie about it in this thread where you can see both him and the mod mocking me and pretending all was well.

I say he loses mod status and gets banned from the site, this is ridiculous.


Oh yeah, and everyone who posted on that thread that I was overreacting and that there was no proof that javelin was the mod needs to apologize [Razz] [Wink]

[ October 26, 2006, 09:04 PM: Message edited by: Liberal ]
 
Posted by Kent (Member # 832) on :
 
I hate everyone! Ban them!
 
Posted by LoverOfJoy (Member # 157) on :
 
quote:
I'd just like to point out I was the first one to realize javelin was a mod when he ...
Well, not that it matters or that I care but technically I realized it before then. I just kept relatively quiet about it.

He accidentally responded to me once under the OrneryMod username. He later fixed the mistake but you can see my realization still here.

He confirmed it when he said "True. [Frown] " although he did get rid of the rest of the evidence so I think few others if anyone knew what we were talking about.
 
Posted by LoverOfJoy (Member # 157) on :
 
quote:
I hate everyone! Ban them!
Everyone includes blacks and jews. Kent's a racist and antisemite! Ban him! [Exploding]
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
I have a suggestion for you Jav, if you get around to reading this thread...

Just dispense with using OrneryMod handle, and change the status under your "Javelin" screen name from "Member" to "Moderator."

Your cover is WAY blown, so don't even try to use it anymore...
 
Posted by LoverOfJoy (Member # 157) on :
 
quote:
Just dispense with using OrneryMod handle, and change the status under your "Javelin" screen name from "Member" to "Moderator."

Your cover is WAY blown, so don't even try to use it anymore...

Nah. Most people knew msquared was OrneryMod for a long time. I thought it was still useful to use that username when he was speaking "officially" versus just regular debating.
 
Posted by Liberal (Member # 2888) on :
 
or maybe give it up? It's obvious he lied when he was called on pretending not to be it, and that he used his power for a personal vendetta against someone at the board (me).

Anyone who finds himself trounced in an argument and then uses their moderator powers to try to "silence" someone doesn't deserve that power.

This is also another demonstration of the added effects of anonymous moderating. Did I not say ahead of time when the switch was made that the anonymous aspect would result in power abuses?


Javelin, you might as well tell us who the other moderator is, hopefully if anything you have learned from this that this anonymous crap isn't working and allows people like you to abuse the system. Try to redeem yourself even a little and tell us who the other one is, since it is clear they don't have the honor to do it themselves.

[ October 26, 2006, 09:24 PM: Message edited by: Liberal ]
 
Posted by LoverOfJoy (Member # 157) on :
 
Besides, there is still another member who also uses the "OrneryMod" handle. I'm pretty sure that most people don't know who that is. This is partly why I didn't find Liberal's argument all that convincing even when I already knew jav was one of the moderators. Didn't they already say that if one of the moderators was involved or personally invested in a particular thread that the other would be the one to handle it? I'm pretty sure they said something to that effect when they first became moderators. I wouldn't be surprised at all if javelin was also told to back off and chill while the other ornerymod handled things from that point on although I can't remember the specific problem that was going on then anymore.
 
Posted by pickled shuttlecock (Member # 1093) on :
 
I get the feeling that this site is Orson Scott Card's Star Wars Holiday Special.
 
Posted by Liberal (Member # 2888) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LoverOfJoy:
Besides, there is still another member who also uses the "OrneryMod" handle. I'm pretty sure that most people don't know who that is. This is partly why I didn't find Liberal's argument all that convincing even when I already knew jav was one of the moderators. Didn't they already say that if one of the moderators was involved or personally invested in a particular thread that the other would be the one to handle it? I'm pretty sure they said something to that effect when they first became moderators. I wouldn't be surprised at all if javelin was also told to back off and chill while the other ornerymod handled things from that point on although I can't remember the specific problem that was going on then anymore.

And you trust them.....why?
Javelin was already proven to have lied about it multiple times. I never specifically accused him of being the mod who sent those emails to me, I even added the stipulation that maybe he wasn't even one of the mods, maybe he just knew them. The point is that I did say point blank that I thought he could be a mod and he denied it. What makes you think the other mod isn't a liar also? If they have nothing to hide about their actions then why remain anonymous? The only reason I can think to why they would want to remain anonymous after an incident like this is because they've done something similar and it will become obvious. I will say it again, even before this happened being anonymous was counterproductive, now there can be no claimed benefit to this forum for the other mod to stay anonymous.

[ October 26, 2006, 09:33 PM: Message edited by: Liberal ]
 
Posted by LoverOfJoy (Member # 157) on :
 
What is the benefit of knowing the other moderator's personal handle? So you can chew them out in their "real" name, too?

The sad thing is that when people disagree with a decision the moderators made, they always seem to take it personal as if the moderators have it out for them and are just generally bad people.

If someone is always fair and evenhanded and considerate in their everyday life then why forever hold it against them when one decision they made in their official capacity as moderator didn't seem like the right decision? It seems like quite a few people here can more easily ignore a thousand thoughtful, reasoned, fair posts and remember the one or two times when that person warned them to cool it.

Even the private emails that people received from the mods and posted here seemed to be totally calm, reasoned, and polite. Authoritative, perhaps. Maybe some decisions weren't up for debate. But they were always of the sort of, "we have decided these kind of comments are disruptive or antagonistic. We ask that you please stop or take it to private emails."
 
Posted by Liberal (Member # 2888) on :
 
LoJ, its not that people always take the moderating actions personally, but when there is a major discrepancy in judgment that only one member is arguing and then that same reasoning shows up with the mod and no one else, that is highly suspect.

Besides, in this case it was shown that the mod WAS abusing their power.

The purpose of knowing the other mod isn't to "chew them out," its to prevent another situation where there is even a SUSPICION of power abuse, especially now that we have had a bona fide case of it.

[ October 26, 2006, 10:46 PM: Message edited by: Liberal ]
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 2212) on :
 
quote:
Besides, in this case it was shown that the mod WAS abusing their power.
It was? By what definition of "shown"?
 
Posted by Kent (Member # 832) on :
 
I love Javelin, he will always be my Mod.
 
Posted by LoverOfJoy (Member # 157) on :
 
quote:
when there is a major discrepancy in judgment that only one member is arguing and then that same reasoning shows up with the mod and no one else, that is highly suspect.
So if I felt that someone was rude, offensive, and breaking the rules and I call them on it, explain why, and then email the mod with my explanation and then the mod jumps in and says, "yes, that was rude, offensive and broke the rules" and agrees with and reiterates my explanation, then that is "highly suspect" and evidence of wrongdoing? To me that sounds like the way things should be. If no one else jumps on the bandwagon of, "yeah, you were naughty!" I would consider that a GOOD thing, not evidence of wrongdoing. Even if everybody else explicitly disagreed that it was rude, offensive and against the rules I wouldn't take that as any serious evidence of power abuse. People can fairly make an unpopular decision without it being an abuse of power.

edited to add: and knowing a moderator's other username doesn't really prevent a moderator from abusing his powers. Remember, I knew who javelin was before your incident happened.

[ October 26, 2006, 11:08 PM: Message edited by: LoverOfJoy ]
 
Posted by pickled shuttlecock (Member # 1093) on :
 
Ah, but did the moderator know you knew?

I want to know what everyone knew, and when they knew it, and who knew that they knew it, and who knew that they knew that they knew it. Only then can we extricate ourselves from this tidy knot of deception.
 
Posted by Liberal (Member # 2888) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LoverOfJoy:
quote:
when there is a major discrepancy in judgment that only one member is arguing and then that same reasoning shows up with the mod and no one else, that is highly suspect.
So if I felt that someone was rude, offensive, and breaking the rules and I call them on it, explain why, and then email the mod with my explanation and then the mod jumps in and says, "yes, that was rude, offensive and broke the rules" and agrees with and reiterates my explanation, then that is "highly suspect" and evidence of wrongdoing? To me that sounds like the way things should be. If no one else jumps on the bandwagon of, "yeah, you were naughty!" I would consider that a GOOD thing, not evidence of wrongdoing. Even if everybody else explicitly disagreed that it was rude, offensive and against the rules I wouldn't take that as any serious evidence of power abuse. People can fairly make an unpopular decision without it being an abuse of power.

edited to add: and knowing a moderator's other user name doesn't really prevent a moderator from abusing his powers. Remember, I knew who javelin was before your incident happened.

No, more like: you are arguing with several people and one of them is the mod. Out of all the people only the disguised-mod argues a certain thing, then the official mod emails you about it echoing his sentiments EXACTLY.


Also, you kept his name quiet so it doesn't really have any effect on the situation. In a way, even though you saw what he was doing and how he was lying and harassing members, you kept quiet and just let it happen. And here I thought that was Edward Burke's standard for evil. [Razz]


Dagonee, it was shown when javelin point-blank lied in that thread, and when he had a problem with me and then subsequently used his mod powers to email me about it no less than a few minutes after that happened.

[ October 26, 2006, 11:16 PM: Message edited by: Liberal ]
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
Some pigs are more equal than others. I can almost garuntee you I'll be goaded into being gone soon.

It's a freaking Witch hunt.

Maybe I'll start a blog. People can't censure you or talk back to you on a blog can they?

KE
 
Posted by LoverOfJoy (Member # 157) on :
 
Don't leave KE. I won't tell them you're the other mod so you can continue abusing your powers. [Wink]

Seriously, though. Losing KE would be a loss for the forum. As would losing javelin. They are both valued posters in my eyes even though I find myself disagreeing with them sometimes.
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
Who's the "other" Mod? Dag or Red? I'd really like to know who I have to be careful whom I disagree with. (like that'll happen).

I have no power here, other than I've invested a lot of time here, come up with quite a few ideas that have made the forum better such as the MC thread and OWW, and quite a few people have said they enjoy my posts.

In fact on one poll on "Who is you favorite poster" I was several peoples favorite posters. I'm not saying this to brag, but when I'm goaded into being banned this place is going to be the choir singing to the choir.

KE
 
Posted by LoverOfJoy (Member # 157) on :
 
quote:
have no power here... but when I'm goaded into being banned ...
That IS your power. You can refuse to be goaded. You have the power to calm down, listen to the mod's request to change, or simply to walk away.
 
Posted by Liberal (Member # 2888) on :
 
LoJ, it would be nice if the mods gave us a choice of whether we accepted them as mods or not and then made our choice to stay here or not based on that-- especially given one of them is a proven liar and abused his power.

It is sort of unfair to ask us to walk away from a board we used to appreciate because we don't know whether we can trust the mods and because we don't know who both of them are. The answer for trust of javelin has been answered, he is untrustworthy. If he had lied as a normal posting member it wouldn't be so bad, but he used his power for personal desires and then lied about it and his identity. The default option if this situation doesn't get resolved is exactly what KE stated, people will leave.

[ October 26, 2006, 11:41 PM: Message edited by: Liberal ]
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
I would like to add that I have always liked Jav, and still do, even though I'm afraid I will be forced to force him to ban me soon because of certain posters inablility to discuss like gentlemen. (God knows that has nothing to do with age.) I'm just not happy about the way things seem to be going.

When M2 was Mod, apologizing like I did to Red, even though he insulted me (I responded too forcefully) M2 let the forum take care of itself.

KE
 
Posted by LoverOfJoy (Member # 157) on :
 
quote:
Who's the "other" Mod? Dag or Red?
Out of curiosity, why would you guess red? He was one of the more vocal people complaining about the new mods when everard got suspended.
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
Nice to see that Red still hasn't been big enough to accept my apology or explain why he insulted me. No matter how profusely I apologized for flying off the handle after he insulted me.

Some pigs are more equal.

KE
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
LOJ,

No guess. Those are just the two guys I have had problems with lately and I so I threw them out there. I have no idea who the other one is.

KE
 
Posted by Liberal (Member # 2888) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LoverOfJoy:
quote:
Who's the "other" Mod? Dag or Red?
Out of curiosity, why would you guess red? He was one of the more vocal people complaining about the new mods when everard got suspended.
As much as I despise Red for his openly-bigoted view of the Palestinians as a whole and his repeated call for their genocide, he was right to call for the mods to resign a while ago.

They need to resign NOW.
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
Just pointing out that if nobody knows who he is he can use his Mod like powers to punish or have Jav punish those he disagrees with.

Everybody makes mistakes, but no matter how much I apologized to Red I still got a reprimand. And if I get a reprimand after profusely apologizing, AFTER being insulted first, shouldn't Dag be suspended for insulting a member, twice now, and never having given the slightest hint that he might have done anything wrong.

KE
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
Hey, if I was OSC I'd want me gone too. I undermine everything he stands for. Making people who feel the same way he does Mods is a quick way of getting rid of those that he doesn't like.

So, LOJ, my POWER is I can knuckle under and be a good little boy? Stop talking bad about religion, and they'll let me stay?

Basically that's what my letter said; "Well the way you talk about Christianity you have to expect some people to insult you now and then" (paraphrased)

In the old days you could discuss and even insult organizations, but insulting members was against the rules. Apparently Christianity has taken own its own member standing.

See you in the bread line Rich, Ken, Liberal, Ev, Pete.

Then the choir can sing to the choir. I'm sure the music will be beautiful to their ears.

KE
 
Posted by LoverOfJoy (Member # 157) on :
 
quote:
In a way, even though you saw what he was doing and how he was lying and harassing members, you kept quiet and just let it happen.
I can't say I saw all you claim he did. I followed the thread for a bit but I can't say that I didn't miss anything said in it. I'm sure I miss new posts all the time. I certainly don't remember him denying he was a mod. Although, to be honest, even if he did, that wouldn't be enough to outrage me and "out" him. It seems like back when they first announced the new mods they made a comment, like, "guess all you like, but even if you guess right, we'll probably deny it." Having already warned us I wouldn't consider them liars exactly when they do as they said they would.

What I read of the thread really didn't seem like abuse of power or harrassment to me. Maybe I missed some of it. *shrug*

If anything, I'd say that javelin has lost his cool more times since his modship has been made known than before. I'm sure msquared picked him in part because he really wasn't one to lose his cool and often has shown that he's able to step back from a situation that's heating up and not take sides. Even more recently when I've seen a few times when he lost his cool a tad he QUICKLY apologized and either left the thread or changed his ways. That seems odd behavior coming from a lying power-hungry goading harrasser.
 
Posted by OrneryMod (Member # 977) on :
 
I am just logging in and need to correct a couple of misconceptions.

Liberal, in point of fact it was not javelin who was moderating on the day in question.

You were nasty and personal, and I emailed you to that effect. In fact, if I recall correctly, I did so without consulting or notifying the
other Mod, contrary to our usual practice. You may disagree with my assessment of your actions, but there certainly wasn't anything mysterious or conspiratorial about it. If we were the draconian ogres you seem to think we are, we'd never have tolerated the thread you mounted then, nor several others since then, including what this one has become, though Everard clearly stated his intent for this thread.

There has been no lying and certainly no mockery of you by any moderator on this board, and I can't object strongly enough to your statements to that effect.

Your descriptions and conclusions about the thread in question bear very
little resemblance to what actually occurred, in my opinion. Anyone wishing to draw their own conclusions may follow your link and review
the thread in question.

KE, you were not reprimanded for your exchange with Red, and I'm sorry that wasn't clear to you. You were contacted following a completely different exchange on the board yesterday. We mentioned your exchange with Red, and thanked you for your efforts to resolve the misunderstanding on the board. And I'm sure when Redskull logs in again, he'll respond to you appropriately.

I am, I must confess, somewhat flabbergasted by some of the needless spin being placed on events here.

edited because I'd hoped to fix the odd formatting, but can't seem to. Also as I am on the east coast, I am retiring. Persons wishing to comment or question can either email or post here and I will address their remarks in the morning.

[ October 27, 2006, 12:05 AM: Message edited by: OrneryMod ]
 
Posted by Liberal (Member # 2888) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by OrneryMod:
I am just logging in and need to correct a couple of misconceptions.

Liberal, in point of fact it was not javelin who was moderating on the day in question.

You were nasty and personal, and I emailed you to that effect. In fact, if I recall correctly, I did so without consulting or notifying the
other Mod, contrary to our usual practice. You may disagree with my assessment of your actions, but there certainly wasn't anything mysterious or conspiratorial about it. If we were the draconian ogres you seem to think we are, we'd never have tolerated the thread you mounted then, nor several others since then, including what this one has become, though Everard clearly stated his intent for this thread.

There has been no lying and certainly no mockery of you by any moderator on this board, and I can't object strongly enough to your statements to that effect.

Your descriptions and conclusions about the thread in question bear very
little resemblance to what actually occurred, in my opinion. Anyone wishing to draw their own conclusions may follow your link and review
the thread in question.

KE, you were not reprimanded for your exchange with Red, and I'm sorry that wasn't clear to you. You were contacted following a completely different exchange on the board yesterday. We mentioned your exchange with Red, and thanked you for your efforts to resolve the misunderstanding on the board. And I'm sure when Redskull logs in again, he'll respond to you appropriately.

I am, I must confess, somewhat flabbergasted by some of the needless spin being placed on events here.

...

What possible reason do we have to believe you are not javelin, or anything you say for that matter? You are quite wrong about that thread and your emails, and they are still posted here to prove it. The fact is is that javelin had a singular interpretation of my actions on that thread, and the only one to echo them was the ornery mod's nasty email in my inbox.
http://www.ornery.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=008921#000000

javelin was asked point blank whether he was a mod, he said no. That's called a lie. You can call it whatever you want. I tell you this, you are not inspiring any great trust. That post you made was rash, defensive, accusatory and emotional. You are losing it and you might as well unmask too.

[ October 27, 2006, 12:05 AM: Message edited by: Liberal ]
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
Ah, to run away from home, 10 years old, a knapsack or pillow case full of Really Important Stuff, the dilemma of delegating hamster care to those who are deemed no longer worthy to take care of oneself.

It is how we discover what home means to us.

And last we forget: you can't fire me! I QUIT!

Y'all have no idea how annoyingly meddlesome msquared was to me when I first entered the chamber of ornery. No, ms wasn't trying to be annoyingly meddlesome; that was just my subjective impression. I knew nothing of recent events before my entry (I believe The Ornery Eight had had finally settled down).

ms was putting out fires, or the sparks thereof, that ms percieved in me partly because he recognized a certain feistiness in me but also, I believe, because he'd been conditioned to anticipate trouble.

A few months later, ms let me swing a mackerel with only minor intervention.

Since then, the new mods, in their combined wisdom, have seen fit to admonish me privately twice or thrice. I have also thought I detected some reference to me in a few of their public adjustments, but subjective impressions are fallible.

Here's what I've seen in both the old monomodic mod, ms, and the new, polymodic mods, O&M. When the balance of personal affrontery far outweighs the substance of the topic about, or at last in which the disagreement was spawned (is TOO a nice word!), O&M or Mod of Yore would step in to remind us that it ain't about us nearly so much as about US: the chatter that is possibe only through there being a critical mass of posters who also have that Cheers thing. You know, you wanna go where everybody knows your name.

It ain't about being fair any more than our parents grabbing the first brat they could find, smacking them, and making it clear there were more smacks to be had if we didn't shut up and behave right then. Like Bill COsby said sow ell: "PArents don't care about justice. Parents care about peace and quiet."

Or, in the case of ornery, a steady hum of contended contention.

Anyway, YOU started it! So THERE!!!
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
I will state here and now that if the mob rules, and causes our current mod(s) to step down voluntarily or otherwise, I'm through here. Because what we'll have is an endless minority of contributors feeling slighted, pressing their case and harassing the Mod or Mods until they quit.

It is really simple to avoid running afoul of the Mods. Don't be an ass. Don't accuse others of being an ass. Don't ever use the words dirty, slimy, liar, asshole, cocksucker, or son-of-a-bitch to describe your fellow contributors. If someone does any of this to you, take the high ground and don't retaliate.

Out of one thousand ways to imply or state that your opponent is full of ****, nine-hundred ninety are acceptable. Take your warning like an adult when you hit the one in one hundred that freaks out the Mod Squad.

If you absolutely must call somebody a lying, cheating, son-of-a-whore who bathes irregularly and offer them psychological help at Le Centre du Lobotomie, or imply that they've already been a patient in that facility, exercise your right to send email through the board and save the rest of us from your tiresome whining.

Deserve's got nothing to do with it. If you're real mad about that, go on a hunger strike and post constantly on theornerymodsareabusingtheirpower.blogspot.com
 
Posted by LoverOfJoy (Member # 157) on :
 
quote:
So, LOJ, my POWER is I can knuckle under and be a good little boy? Stop talking bad about religion, and they'll let me stay?

Basically that's what my letter said; "Well the way you talk about Christianity you have to expect some people to insult you now and then" (paraphrased)

KE, I haven't read your letter but nearly everything I have seen has suggested that the mods are almost always warning people on the WAY they say things not the actual substance of the message. The only other type of warning I've heard of was when personal disputes start going back and forth. That kind of stuff is better taken off the board and resolved by email anyway.

That doesn't mean that you can't voice your frustration with aspects of christianity. You've done it for quite a while since the new mods were put in and I somehow doubt they've been sending you warnings all this time (only because if they had, you'd probably be banned by now). You are usually really good at qualifying your harsher statements so people don't think you're claiming it's true of every christian or things like that. If a mod asks you to make a similar qualification for another comment, does that make you a "good little boy" who knuckled under?

Again, I haven't read your email or know the circumstances under which it came so maybe the mods did go over the top. But every complaint I've seen so far has ended up seeming a bit less extreme when more details come out. It's possible that even if the mods really did come off sounding extreme that they didn't mean to come off that way and just weren't clear in how THEY worded themselves.

We all have times when what we say comes off sounding worse to SOMEONE than how we really meant it. I know I've definitely made some jokes that I later regretted because someone read it the wrong way.

I've also strongly stated my beliefs at times in a way that came across as condescending or obnoxious in one way or another. In every case I could have rephrased my beliefs in a way that would have improved the debate.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"javelin was asked point blank whether he was a mod, he said no. That's called a lie."

Where I come from (Terra) calling folks liars is a sure way to piss 'em off. DOn't know why; we're mostly a bunch of liars. Maybe that's why? Truth hurts?

But enough of this. Truth be told: I am M. seekingprometheus is O. And, as anyone can tell, seeking prometheus and I are one and the same. As Lester Young once said of Stan Getz: "He sounds more like me than I do."

Although the reverse is also true...
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
Mod,

I appreciate you clearing up the Red situation. Thank you.

However, in the Dag situation I still feel I am being punished for holding an unpopular view. "You insult Christianity so you have to expect to be insulted sometimes".

That's not right. I love baseball. But if somebody say poster X insulted baseball all the time it wouldn't give me the right to insult him persnally or question his ability to think logically.

KE
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
Damn I get tired of being wrong.

Seems I was here again. That's twice in one day. Not a record, but nothing I'm proud of.

Seems I misunderstood. I will refrain, though it is against my nature, from poppin off when someone insults me and give the Mods the chance to do their job.

I hope Red sees my mea culpa in the morning and is receptive, as he is one of my favorite posters to read here on OA.

KE
 
Posted by Liberal (Member # 2888) on :
 
The Drake is the other one (I've confirmed it from a fairly reliable source).
 
Posted by LoverOfJoy (Member # 157) on :
 
quote:
Deserve's got nothing to do with it. If you're real mad about that, go on a hunger strike and post constantly on theornerymodsareabusingtheirpower.blogspot.com
LOL I pasted that url in not really expecting it to work but just trying it out for the fun of it. I laughed so hard to see it was a real url!
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
The Drake

In the General Comments Forum

With a Verb

[ October 27, 2006, 12:32 AM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]
 
Posted by pickled shuttlecock (Member # 1093) on :
 
Maybe the moderators should stop sending private emails and just post on the threads in question to protect their good reputations.

Not that I'm calling KE a liar or anything, because he's not. But the only thing I see of emails from the mods are secondhand reports which usually make them out to be more draconian than they are. I'd probably "spin" things my way myself if it ever came up.
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
Hilarious Eric! [Big Grin] (Thanks LOJ, very funny)

KE
 
Posted by pickled shuttlecock (Member # 1093) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LoverOfJoy:
quote:
Deserve's got nothing to do with it. If you're real mad about that, go on a hunger strike and post constantly on theornerymodsareabusingtheirpower.blogspot.com
LOL I pasted that url in not really expecting it to work but just trying it out for the fun of it. I laughed so hard to see it was a real url!
Same here. I would have roflol, etc., except my wife is sleeping just a few feet away. Anyway:

[LOL]
 
Posted by Liberal (Member # 2888) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by pickled shuttlecock:
Maybe the moderators should stop sending private emails and just post on the threads in question to protect their good reputations.

Not that I'm calling KE a liar or anything, because he's not. But the only thing I see of emails from the mods are secondhand reports which usually make them out to be more draconian than they are. I'd probably "spin" things my way myself if it ever came up.

It's not spin when you post the exact email and they even agree that its unedited.
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
Pickle,

I agree. I think that if a member references a letter sent to them by the Mod then they automatically give permission to the Mods to post it on the forum if they see fit.

I doubt they will as I left out the part where Jav questioned my sexuality and the other Mod compared me to Hitler. [Wink]

KE
 
Posted by LoverOfJoy (Member # 157) on :
 
quote:
I doubt they will as I left out the part where Jav questioned my sexuality and the other Mod compared me to Hitler.
Of course. They wouldn't want to embarrass you with all the details they provided that proved those claims. [Wink]
 
Posted by canadian (Member # 1809) on :
 
The system only works when one ceases to whinge.
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
Details hell! They got pictures! (Although my lawyer insists I maintain they were doctored. Especially that one with the Donkey in Tijauna.)

KE
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"The system only works when one stops whinging."

Why are you talking with your fingers pinching your nose like that?
 
Posted by pickled shuttlecock (Member # 1093) on :
 
[LOL]

Honestly, Liberal, if you were wearing black leather pants, a plaid cotton shirt, and a pink feather boa, and someone told you your outfit was gaudy, you'd call them a liar.

Yeah. You're a bit quick on that "L" trigger. IMNSHO, of course. Gotta qualify that. Wouldn't want to be called a liar over a justifiable opinion or anything.

At any rate, since you posted the actual email, that particular situation wouldn't exactly fall in my universe of discourse, would it? If I only saw secondhand reports of mod emails - and no, I don't read every Ornery thread religiously - then I wasn't talking about your situation.
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
Liberal, you talk of "the new mods ruining a place you used to love."

Can you see why that statement rings a bit hollow?

I don't know if you or the mods are right about your dispute, but I do know that it was very soon after I first remember you posting here that I remember you complaining - with terrible affrontedness - about the mods. I lay in to people pretty good on ocassion, and the new mods have actually given me more passes than mark used to - and I always thought mark did a hell of a job.

And in case you wonder - I used to pen pals with OSC, but he ain't answere my emails since before the 2004 elections. So I sure as hell ain't getting by on that.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
"I take this forum seriously also, and have invested significant time in it as well. Does taking something seriously require one to carry a grudge indefinitely?

What do you hope to gain?"

I hope to understand the rules ornery operates under.

Since all the information given to us as members of ornery either explicitly or implicitly tells us that the moderators do not have the right to suspend us for off-ornery actions, and since I was, by the admission of the mods, suspended for off-ornery actions, I want to know whether this is ornery sanctioned rules changes, or whether javelin (and the other mod by implication, since the other mod backed him up) over-stepped his bounds.

If, as the user-agreement suggests, javelin over-stepped his bounds, I want an official source to tell him he did so, in order that he not do it again. And if he didn't over-step his bounds, I want the user-agreement changed to reflect the fact that what we do OFF of this forum can affect our status ON this forum.

And I want to be part of the process so I know the process is conducted with both sides of the story being visible.

[ October 27, 2006, 05:50 AM: Message edited by: Everard ]
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
What off-ornery action? If you're asking us to adjudicate in some way, we need the facts. Or was I sleeping again? <pulls woollen cap off head, revealing a thick mess of not much at all... [Frown] >
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
I was suspended for an email I sent to the mods, after they posted that the next person who posted the word "lie" would be suspended, in which I didn't very politely tell them what I thought of them making rules up on the spot...since until that point, lie had been an acceptable part of the ornery vocabulary.

Which brings me to drake's post on this page:

"Don't ever use the words dirty, slimy, liar, asshole, cocksucker, or son-of-a-bitch to describe your fellow contributors."

Or any other word that you may or may not know in advance is a "banned" word, regardless of its previous status as an acceptable word... because as it stands, javelin feels it is his right to change the rules of ornery in order to act "in the best interests of the forum,".... which is not the mandate given to him by what we, as ordinary memebrs, can see, from the information about how moderation is to occur on ornery.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
Oh dear Mods: we beseech thee. Wade with us in the ego-sodden muck here, and tell us if thou didst or didstn't do this horrible thing Everard claims.

Didst thou indeed do as Everard says? I seek to verify what is claimed here: "I was, by the admission of the mods, suspended for off-ornery actions".

Not that it would bother me if they did, mind you. Someone called me a liar on my private line, I'd probably use my connections with the police to gove them a bad day too. Dish it out, expect it back. DOn't expect folks to play 'fair' when you're pissing on their ankles.

Just because it's in private doesn't mean it isn't rude. Everard here adopts the sasme 'high ground' the Bush administration recently claimed by insisting that the definition of 'torture' be redefined, so they might know how much of a jerk they might be without being penalized. Those of us who claimed that a vague definition of torture would be more effective than a 'toe the line' precisiion seem to be vindicated here?
 
Posted by Redskullvw (Member # 188) on :
 
KE

I still don't know how I offended you. I am sorry if I did. And I am over whatever caused it.

Liberal

Not only do I not lump all Palestinians into a "sub-human" category worthy of genocide, but I strongly support harsh diplomatic solutions to solve the conflict before the window of opportunity to do so closes permanently. I would love a Palestinian state that is stable and peacefully prosperous. That is my goal, and I have offered multiple solutions that might assure this. However, I see that diplomacy seems to not be a Palestinian, or for that matter a general priority for Arab leadership. They instead have escalated, expanded, and supported state violence of such a progression that the end result will be a point where, short of using the threat of a nuclear weapon, Israel and Europe will become indefensible.

My argument is in real simple terms, give the Arab leaderships every peaceful advantage they want and need right now, or, we will find ourselves facing an Arab leadership willing to take whatever they want by force. If the later shall happen, our options are surrender to their violence, or use violence of our own. In my view, we would not be able to conduct 13 separate Iraq style conventional invasions and occupations, leaving essentially one option, nuclear threat.

So when I say just turn it into a glass parking lot, I'm being pessimistic and seeing that the end result may already be doomed upon us.

So lay off the Redskull is a racist genocidal monster crap. I am sick of it. Because when it comes to solutions, I think I have offered multiple possible futures where everyone is peaceful and happy, but my solutions take tough realistic and enforce diplomacy. Something that the diplomats of the world seem unwilling to do. Their failure to do so will lead to war.
 
Posted by Dave at Work (Member # 1906) on :
 
quote:
pickled shuttlecock said:
I get the feeling that this site is Orson Scott Card's Star Wars Holiday Special.

I remember seeing that back in '78 or '79 or whenever it was that it was originally aired. Talk about a blast from the past.

Now back to your regularly schedualed and often redirected thread.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
" a) I get the feeling that this site is Orson Scott Card's Star Wars Holiday Special.

b) I remember seeing that back in '78 or '79 or whenever it was that it was originally aired. Talk about a blast from the past."

Loved The Muppets-as-Buggers sing-along...
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:

Or any other word that you may or may not know in advance is a "banned" word, regardless of its previous status as an acceptable word... because as it stands, javelin feels it is his right to change the rules of ornery in order to act "in the best interests of the forum,".... which is not the mandate given to him by what we, as ordinary memebrs, can see, from the information about how moderation is to occur on ornery.

This reminds me very much of what the Corps of Cadets used to refer to as quibbling. What it sounds like you're hoping for, is to have an extremely precise definition. Presumably, so that you can walk as close to the edge as possible.

When simply by treating others with respect - or at a minimum, civility, the precipice can be avoided entirely.

When one chooses the most inflammatory language one can find, one diminishes the ability to conduct a meaningful discussion.


Isn't that better than...


Everard, stop lying about how the Mod has broken the rules. Check them here.

You'll see nothing that discusses suspension in the actual text. Suspension has always been at the sole discretion of the OrneryMod.

Oct 20 Post by OrneryMod

quote:
Here is the new standard I am going to try and hold to. One warning, by e-mail, and then on the second offense you are suspended for two weeks. Third offense is a month and the fourth is banning. What constitues an offense is up to my judgement. That is what I was asked to do when the Cards approached me to be the Mod, some one to judge when the line has been crossed. When you asked who appointed me judge, the Cards did.

So, quibbler, what leg would you like to stand on now that both of them have been knocked from under you?


And now I'm going to retire from this discussion before I get myself banned.
 
Posted by Kent (Member # 832) on :
 
Holy crap! Die stupid thread! DIE!

[ October 27, 2006, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: Kent ]
 
Posted by OrneryMod (Member # 977) on :
 
kenmeer:

Everard's login was suspended because he told us, via email, that he would continue a course of action on the board that he had been asked not to continue. As that course of action was in our opinion certain to escalate a dispute that we did not want to see escalate further, we took him at his word and prevented the action. This was not intended as "punishment," but as a preventative action. Later, when we were able to discuss things with Everard in more depth and arrive at somewhat better mutual understanding, we restored his login in advance of the originally planned restoration date.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
There IS a Mod! I kneeled and spoke in supplication. The heavens parted and a mighty voice wrote.

I go now to play my fiddle on the roof, and sing:

"...voood it spoil some vast etoinal plan...?"

a deedle deedi deedah...

Fiddling done, I ponder a further theological mystery: is there REALLY an Orson? I go now to meditate.

OMmmmmmmm..............
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:
The sad thing is that when people disagree with a decision the moderators made, they always seem to take it personal as if the moderators have it out for them and are just generally bad people.
Here's the thing: Javelin screwed up. He shouldn't've been engaging in a heated discussion as a moderator, period -- although that's just my opinion. What's not just my opinion, and what appears to be contrary to stated policy, is that he acted as moderator in his own defense; he felt insulted, and had his "mod" personality step in to shut up the other member. Unless of course the anonymous Mod who just posted wasn't lying, and that Mod had just reacted in defense of the other Mod's alter-ego, but naturally we have no way of knowing that, either, because we have no way to know or reason to trust the mods.

I'm not saying Liberal wasn't being rude. But by OM's own policies, jav should have reported this behavior to the other mod. But like OM observed in that thread, they work on different schedules; it's not always feasible. And jav was too hot-headed to wait for the other mod to take action.

And once he did take action, he exposed himself in a very embarassing situation and had to lie about it. The other mod stepped in to smooth it over, at which point he "apologized" to that other mod and hoped it would die.

All of these problems -- including my ability to spin this this way, even though what may be the other Mod says (and I believe) that he acted instead -- happen as a direct consequence of anonymous moderation.

Mods should not be treated like normal "regulars," period. It's a simple no-brainer. It's like a bartender who thinks he can just kick back with the guys and chug a few down, as long as he wears a mask when he's pouring.

[ October 27, 2006, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
Everyone insists that jav is O or M. It has become a dogmatic canard.

"And once he did take action, he exposed himself in a very embarassing situation and had to lie about it. The other mod stepped in to smooth it over, at which point he "apologized" to that other mod and hoped it would die."

It's become like one of those TV forensics detective shows. Groovy micro-images of sperm stains and blood samples and carpet fibers encased in Chanel # 5 ambergris residue...

...segue, per typical kenmeerian twist, to the idea that the search for the existence of God is to theology what forensics are to paternity cases.

We just KNOW that somewhere is a blue dress of sky with Yahweh's sperm stain on it. Gotta be.

(edited for poetic opportunity)

[ October 27, 2006, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
I haven't seen the posts in question, I haven't seen where jav "outed" himself as OM, I don't much care - but (putting on my seers cap) I foresee, in the not too distant future, a time where the pent-up animosity makes it impossible for OM to do its job.

I don't need a crystal ball to see how javelin has already been affected by the cloud he's travelling under. Short of both OMs outing themselves, and neither of them being jav...
 
Posted by javelin (Member # 1284) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
The sad thing is that when people disagree with a decision the moderators made, they always seem to take it personal as if the moderators have it out for them and are just generally bad people.
Here's the thing: Javelin screwed up. He shouldn't've been engaging in a heated discussion as a moderator, period -- although that's just my opinion. What's not just my opinion, and what appears to be contrary to stated policy, is that he acted as moderator in his own defense; he felt insulted, and had his "mod" personality step in to shut up the other member. Unless of course the anonymous Mod who just posted wasn't lying, and that Mod had just reacted in defense of the other Mod's alter-ego, but naturally we have no way of knowing that, either, because we have no way to know or reason to trust the mods.

I'm not saying Liberal wasn't being rude. But by OM's own policies, jav should have reported this behavior to the other mod. But like OM observed in that thread, they work on different schedules; it's not always feasible. And jav was too hot-headed to wait for the other mod to take action.

And once he did take action, he exposed himself in a very embarassing situation and had to lie about it. The other mod stepped in to smooth it over, at which point he "apologized" to that other mod and hoped it would die.

All of these problems -- including my ability to spin this this way, even though what may be the other Mod says (and I believe) that he acted instead -- happen as a direct consequence of anonymous moderation.

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.

On the issue of whether I have ever moderated a situation I have been involved in, I will categorically deny that right now. I have NEVER, in my time on this forum, done more than hit the report button and discuss the issue with the moderator (NOT ME) on any issue where I was involved.

I find the rumor that I've lied about my status here very upsetting, and the casual repeating of the rumor as if it were true even more upsetting.
While not everyone agrees with me on every issue, and it's true I've had my run-ins with other members, I do not think I've earned a reputation for being dishonest.

I am formally asking that the remarks that I've "denied being the moderator" stop unless someone can produce written evidence of it here.

Thanks.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
While kenmeer seconds jav's statement above, he can't help but recall Michael Keaton practicing his confession to the pretty blonde (Kim Basinger?), and walking around muttering to himself, "I'm Batman. I'm Batman."

As for Tom D's analogy, add Alfred bringing Bruce and Robin after-crime-fighting cocktils himself wearing a mask...
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
jav, I believe you about the "never done more than hit the report button" thing. The reason I posted what I did above -- and I think I made this pretty clear in that post, too -- is to point out one of the essential flaws with anonymous moderation: we have no way of knowing whether or not a Mod is trustworthy.

I freely concede that a non-anonymous Mod can't engage in conversation as freely -- but as we see in the above case, you already can't. That's part of the price. Once you become "special," you can't take it back.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
Jav - That's one of the best impressions of the classic Clintonian "that depends on the definition of what 'is' is..." [LOL]
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
Is is is?
 
Posted by Dave at Work (Member # 1906) on :
 
quote:
Is is is?
Is that even grammatically correct? It looks like it isn't, but when I think it through it seems to be.

In any case, I got a good laugh out of it.
 
Posted by Kent (Member # 832) on :
 
Is (Verb) is (subject) is (direct object)?
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
Does all this mean I can call jav: Jav Wilson-Plame?
And will Orson be impeached?
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
No, I think we'll just censure Orson...
 
Posted by pickled shuttlecock (Member # 1093) on :
 
He's probably self-flagellating as we speak.
 
Posted by ssci (Member # 1053) on :
 
Wow.

For the record, I don't support anonymous moderating because of the possibility of abuse. Apparently there is some history of that on Ornery. However, if the Cards and the moderators have agreed that the Ornery Mods are to be kept anonymous then the Mods have no choice but to lie or evade when asked for their identity directly. It stinks, but that's the way it is. I say stop asking.
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
Don't ask, don't tell, don't whine?

Ev - if you told them that you were going to continue doing something they were asking you not to, they were within their rights in suspending you, although I (having run many fora in my time) would have warned once again before that. Maybe "liar" didn't used to be forbidden, but the Mod has the right to decide that *henceforth* it will be. As long as there's fair warning and no retroactive application, it's fair.

I agree that the anonymity thing is not working. It's actually harder to flip on the Mods once you know who they are [Smile]

However, I will say that if Jav is indeed O or M, and I see little doubt as to this, then he has indeed not handled this episode very well. Some sort of admission of this fact would help, I think.

Then again, what do I care? Like I said, OM ain't crimped my style in a while. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by pickled shuttlecock (Member # 1093) on :
 
I've got it. Asking anyone whether he or she is an OM should be a bannable offense.

There. All fixed now.
 
Posted by LetterRip (Member # 310) on :
 
Jav,

quote:
As far as I know, I've never confirmed or denied whether or not I'm a mod.
well the OrneryMods statement of
quote:
Liberal, in point of fact it was not javelin who was moderating on the day in question.
could easily be interpreted as confirming you are part of the pair of Mods. Additionally LoJ confimed that you had posted using your name under the OrneryMod account, and then corrected it.

quote:
He accidentally responded to me once under the OrneryMod username. He later fixed the mistake but you can see my realization still here.

He confirmed it when he said "True. [Frown] " although he did get rid of the rest of the evidence so I think few others if anyone knew what we were talking about.

ssci,

Regarding Mod anonymity, I think that was agreed upon by the Mods and respected by the other decision makers, not a requirement of being Mod.

LetterRip
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
"Everard, stop lying about how the Mod has broken the rules. Check them here.

You'll see nothing that discusses suspension in the actual text. Suspension has always been at the sole discretion of the OrneryMod.

Oct 20 Post by OrneryMod


quote:
Here is the new standard I am going to try and hold to. One warning, by e-mail, and then on the second offense you are suspended for two weeks. Third offense is a month and the fourth is banning. What constitues an offense is up to my judgement. That is what I was asked to do when the Cards approached me to be the Mod, some one to judge when the line has been crossed. When you asked who appointed me judge, the Cards did.

So, quibbler, what leg would you like to stand on now that both of them have been knocked from under you?


And now I'm going to retire from this discussion before I get myself banned."

Neither leg has been knocked out from beneath me, Drake. Read the user agreement. Moderation is OF THE FORUM, not emails to the moderator. Read the rules. The moderator has power OVER THE FORUMS. Not emails to the moderator.

In fact, everywhere moderation is mentioned... it is mentioned in direct connection with posts on ornery. Not emails to the moderator.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 2212) on :
 
quote:
The moderator has power OVER THE FORUMS. Not emails to the moderator.
And the purpose of warnings, suspensions, and bans is to ensure compliance with forum rules. When it's clear the planned penalty won't ensure compliance, moving up in penalty is certainly warranted.

You were suspended for what you did on the forum, not for what you said on the email. The email was evidence that the warning had been ineffective.

What you did was the equivalent of tell the judge after he gave lowered your fine that you are going to speed on the way home from court. If the judge hasn't rendered final judgment, he can raise your fine.

OM isn't - and shouldn't be - bound by constitutional double jeopardy protections. If the restating is correct - that is, if you did say that you wouldn't heed the warning - then additional censure was appropriate.

OM only exercised his power over the forum. He relied on evidence from outside it, but the evidence was reliable and accurate.

[ October 27, 2006, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
"You were suspended for what you did on the forum, not for what you said on the email."

Nope. Thats not what I was told when I was suspended.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 2212) on :
 
quote:
Everard's login was suspended because he told us, via email, that he would continue a course of action on the board that he had been asked not to continue. As that course of action was in our opinion certain to escalate a dispute that we did not want to see escalate further, we took him at his word and prevented the action. This was not intended as "punishment," but as a preventative action.
Is this inaccurate, then?
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 2212) on :
 
That's not inconsistent with the Mod's post, but I'll amend my analysis with an "If this quote is accurate."
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
"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.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 2212) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
*shrug* I didn't, because the user agreement and rules specifically refer to "posts" being moderated.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 2212) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 2212) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Tom Curtis (Member # 2730) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 2212) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
"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]
 
Posted by Tom Curtis (Member # 2730) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
" 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 ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by LinuxFreakus (Member # 2395) on :
 
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).
 
Posted by LoverOfJoy (Member # 157) on :
 
quote:
but his interpretation of "best interests of teh board." A phrase so broad as to be useless.
Like general welfare. [Smile]
 
Posted by canadian (Member # 1809) on :
 
I love how we get to observe the inner workings of a public whine.

"Fruity, yet sharp..."
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by canadian (Member # 1809) on :
 
infected...diseased...festering and oozing malcontent like an eye full of rheum.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"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 ]
 
Posted by canadian (Member # 1809) on :
 
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...
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"Fruity, yet sharp..."

Farty, yet shrewd...
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"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?
 
Posted by canadian (Member # 1809) on :
 
Farthing, yet shilled
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
Frothing, yet sloshed...
 
Posted by canadian (Member # 1809) on :
 
Fjording, yet stalled
 
Posted by LoverOfJoy (Member # 157) on :
 
What is going on? Is this the new thread title poetry alternative?
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"*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...
 
Posted by canadian (Member # 1809) on :
 
iSth iSth E

newt h
read: tit

'le Poe'
try

Alter Native

?

[ October 28, 2006, 02:09 AM: Message edited by: canadian ]
 
Posted by pickled shuttlecock (Member # 1093) on :
 
Is hijacking a thread a bannable offense?
 
Posted by canadian (Member # 1809) on :
 
It is if we're such monkeys we make bananas of sense.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
Place 20 monkeys in a room full of type-bananas...
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
I go now. Kenmeer tired.
 
Posted by canadian (Member # 1809) on :
 
And stereo-types...need toons to create a mockery of monkery!
 
Posted by canadian (Member # 1809) on :
 
Canadian Wired
 
Posted by canadian (Member # 1809) on :
 
Ferry Isthmus to awl (and to wall) a Good Knight!

[ October 28, 2006, 02:18 AM: Message edited by: canadian ]
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
Think of them as the coolant or carbon rods in a nuclear reactor...
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"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 ]
 


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1