Thread: Mitch's terrible moderator behavior

Well, it looks like the inevitable happened. Mitch as turned religion into a warm and fuzzy group hug where you can't point out the shortcomings of anyone. Especially Mitch himself. In this thread is the result of commentary I made on his outright ludicrus new guidelines, which he then used as justification for REMOVING said criticism. Sound fascist enough for you yet?

Then there is this thread, where I point out the problem with another poster. I even admitted to being snide, but the second red mark is my simple reference to his person in the form of "Your problem [...]". Um, mitch? Do you even know what an ad hominem is? Me don't thinks you do.

So, lets just close down any sort of meaningful criticism. Lets all have one big group hug, smoke a few joints, and calm right the fuck down to the point where no comment about another persona can be made ever. Regardless of whether or not it actually ATTACKS the persona, or only makes a REFERENCE TO an entities logical problem (Oh mitch? That's what the "your problem" was. Yeah. Got it? Good).

So I'm going to outright defy his rules. MITCH has a personal problem, and that problem is with criticism. He refuses to take any of it from anyone he feels "inferior", and so far it seems like that's everyone else. This has gotten so bad it has affected his moderator judgement to the point where he is making rules against criticizing another person constructively. Is this someone you want in charge? REALLY? He doesn't even know what an ad hominem is, AND his implementation of his own rules selectively benefits him the most!

no - YOU have a personal problem with Mitch

having been on the receiving end of moderator-baiting i can tell you it's not a nice feeling, as it totally leaves the mod in a no-win situation

YOU are exploiting that situation to the full and i think it's time that someone told you to give it a rest : you're not doing the forum nor yourself a favour

Originally Posted by marnixR

no - YOU have a personal problem with Mitch

Wrong. I have a LOGICAL problem with his ILLOGICAL behavior.

having been on the receiving end of moderator-baiting i can tell you it's not a nice feeling, as it totally leaves the mod in a no-win situation

I am not baiting him. I am giving criticism in hopes of correcting his flaws. Clearly, though, this is not well received. I am in no way TROLLING, and once again I request you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet) for I do not match the criteria in any way.

What you mistake for personal vendetta is actually activism. I'm attempting to help the forum by pointing out FLAWS and logical fallacies. In my post against mitch's "changes" I even pointed out a weird combination of circular logic and appeal to authority (I'm religious so I'm immune to bias toward religion??).

YOU are exploiting that situation to the full and i think it's time that someone told you to give it a rest : you're not doing the forum nor yourself a favour

I think YOU are overly emotional on the issue. Yes, you HAVE been baited, but it's causing you to overreact to what is a real criticism. I'm not exploiting a situation, I'm using the situation to illustrate what Mitch is doing wrong.

I'm afraid I don't see the issue/problems you're claiming exist with Mitch's moderation. I'm rather pleased, actually, with his moderation of this particular forum.

It does, however, appear more and more as if you have a particular ax to grind as well as just too much time on your hands.

Mitch is a volunteer here and does, as far as I'm concerned, a bang-up job. I can appreciate that you've got some other ideas about how a religion subforum on a science board should be approached -I actually do myself. However, this particular subforum was in existence as is with pretty much the same standards as exist today from nearly the beginning and to restructure it now would require more than simply adding an additional moderator or even changing a moderator. Mitch is working with what we gave him and doing it well.

If you aren't pleased, that is your right. Indeed, we attempted to accomodate your position by creating a sticky thread to check the overall opinion of the members that visit the Religion subforum and the over-whelming majority appear to agree that Mitch's moderation is good and that there's no need for an additional moderator or a replacement.

With regard to criticism, if it's constructive and useful, feel free to post them here in the Site Feedback subforum, but I'm not going to tolerate any criticism of the moderators in their forums. I'll remove those posts/threads every time. I might move them here or the trash, depending on how constructive and civil the criticism is.

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

I'm afraid I don't see the issue/problems you're claiming exist with Mitch's moderation. I'm rather pleased, actually, with his moderation of this particular forum.

I keep hearing this, but nobody has done anything to even remotely rebuke my claims of illogical behavior OR my criticisms.

It does, however, appear more and more as if you have a particular ax to grind as well as just too much time on your hands.

Must everyone equate criticism with an "axe to grind"? I suppose it's beyond belief to think I'm emotionally neutral in this matter.

Mitch is a volunteer here and does, as far as I'm concerned, a bang-up job. I can appreciate that you've got some other ideas about how a religion subforum on a science board should be approached -I actually do myself. However, this particular subforum was in existence as is with pretty much the same standards as exist today from nearly the beginning and to restructure it now would require more than simply adding an additional moderator or even changing a moderator. Mitch is working with what we gave him and doing it well.

Prove it. Being a volunteer is completely unrelated to how well one does that job. I don't care if he was paying the owner for the job, he's still doing it poorly. Furthermore, just throwing up your hands and suggesting the forum CANNOT be changed is defeatist and specifically engineered to support Mitch's policy of "hugs and rainbows". Prove your stance if possible.

If you aren't pleased, that is your right. Indeed, we attempted to accomodate your position by creating a sticky thread to check the overall opinion of the members that visit the Religion subforum and the over-whelming majority appear to agree that Mitch's moderation is good and that there's no need for an additional moderator or a replacement.

No, the overwhelming majority agree that I'd make a bad moderator. Also? This is yet another http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Just because most agree that something is decent does not make it so.

With regard to criticism, if it's constructive and useful, feel free to post them here in the Site Feedback subforum, but I'm not going to tolerate any criticism of the moderators in their forums. I'll remove those posts/threads every time. I might move them here or the trash, depending on how constructive and civil the criticism is.

What's the matter? Afraid someone is right? You moderators seem to have a major problem with accepting the criticism or suggestions of a non-moderator. Volunteers or no, you DO have problems and they MUST be addressed. Criticisms serve that function, and silencing them or moving them is a totalitarian act.

To be quite honest, Darius, you're pissing me off.

We're not going to have the discussion about where to place site feedback and criticism. It belongs in the Site Feedback forum. Period. Post it anywhere else and it will be removed. Consider this a public and official warning. Therefore, posting site feedback and criticism elsewhere will be considered violation of the rules and standards of The Science Forum.

If you don't like Mitch's moderation or the way he handles the forum under his charge, please do not visit the Religion subforum.

I don't see that there is anything else to discuss, but feel free if you like.

You don't care that doing so removes any relevency to that criticism whatsoever? I posted the criticism in the same thread mitch posted his new rules, which is on topic and the right place to put it. Off topic criticism? Sure, I agree. On topic? Removing it for unproved charges of trolling is unacceptable.

I'm not going to roll over and ignore the problem. That's how most problems fester. That may be your philosophy, skinwalker, but it sure as hell isn't mine.

Originally Posted by Darius

What's the matter? Afraid someone is right? You moderators seem to have a major problem with accepting the criticism or suggestions of a non-moderator.

again : no

i have a problem with criticism where that criticism tackles the person and not the ball - have you considered that your criticisms might be accepted in more constructive spirit if you didn't feel the need to call everyone who disagrees with you a fucktard ?

I have done no such thing, and I always tackle the ball. I will, admittedly, sometimes be snide, but I always show restraint and only do so in the worst situations. If you don't like that, I'll show even MORE restraint, but realize I never avoid tackling the ball. In fact, this situation right here is me tackling said "ball" (to continue to use the metaphor). I am well within my rights to argue if someone is wrong (which is, in fact, the purpose of this forum).

Even more hilariously is that I put this criticism where Skinwalker says it belongs, because it isn't on topic anywhere else.

Darius, those snide remarks mean that any point you might have tends to get lost. You claim your main motivation is to point out logical fallacies and the like, but your methods mean that even if you are correct, nobody wants to hear it. You seem open to showing more restraint. I would suggest you take that as step one. You also need to be more patient with opinions which contradict yours. Sometimes you'll be right and sometimes not. But if you really want to stir up discussion rather than anger, that's the way to go. This way, if your arguments are sound, they'll get a much better hearing. And I think you'll feel a lot less exasperated by all of it because some of what you say may actually be acted upon, which is ultimately what you want.

I hope none of that sounds patronising. Just trying to be straight on this.

You are right, of course, and I have been adjusting my tactics accordingly. However, some situations warrant straightforwardness without such delicate padding. This, I believe, is one of them. I must point out to everyone else, though, that how you worded that proves my point. I may be snide, but I never avoid the topic (which means I never commit an ad hominem fallacy).

EDIT: http://thescienceforum.com/viewtopic...=189834#189834

In this post I list an example of an ad-hominem mitch did not moderate (last quote). Thus far, his moderations have been limited entirely to me. I most certainly have no axe to grind against mitch himself, only complaints of his efficiency, but it appears he's focusing almost entirely on me. He most certainly read the thread, as he even posts in it after dayton, but he does not do his job when it doesn't concern me.

This, I beleive, is yet further proof that Mitch is doing a bad job. He's letting his emotions get the better of him (again), and is missing obvious things. HE is targeting me.

EDIT: Okay, honestly, I'm willing to give Mitch a bit of a break. I like his moderator comment. However, this does not remove the totalitarian bullshit of removing criticism about moderator guidelines.

Sorry to reanimate an old, and perhaps unpleasant, conversation, but I had to laugh when I saw this thread. Darius was actually a moderator here at one time... under a different name.

Funny funny funny.

Darius was actually a moderator here at one time... under a different name.

What? Who? He's gone now, you can tell us.

I'm very skeptical of that. If it were true he would have thrown it in our faces long ago.

Darius was never a moderator on this board under any name.

I believe he was a mod. Somehow, he deleted his original account, so all his posts say "Guest" now. Kind of a shame really... as he had about 2000 or more posts from his previous identity. And he wasn't a mod for long. He was 'fired' after it became apparent that him being a mod was not a good idea (just imagine "Darius" as a mod...).

It was a few years ago, and there are many new faces here, so many would have never known him (Paralith, I think he was even before your time). And having a new username and IP is not difficult - especially considering that he was about the age to leave his parents home and start his adult life.

I first suspected that "Darius" was the other guy from the general tone and structure of his posts. Then I saw a few of his global warming posts - which very closely resemble another thread on another science forum where he still has his original name (the same one he had here a few years ago).

I suspect Darius didn't throw it in your faces that he was a mod because he didn't want people to know who he was. He was not exactly liked here.

And SkinWalker... if you reflect on past members, I think you may remember a particular crass young individual who was very passionate on certain things, and displayed little restraint when it came to calling someone 'stupid.' Shall I PM you his previous name?

Surely Ophiolite knows who Darius was (or at least, who I think he was).

Originally Posted by william

Surely Ophiolite knows who Darius was (or at least, who I think he was).

This was at the time when Megabrain was also made a mod, I think. You can't mean Megabrain since he was well liked by most of the members - I was pretty well unique in thinking him an asshole. Besides Mega was at the other end of the age spectrum. I can't remember the name of the other person who was briefly a mod then.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by william

Surely Ophiolite knows who Darius was (or at least, who I think he was).

This was at the time when Megabrain was also made a mod, I think. You can't mean Megabrain since he was well liked by most of the members - I was pretty well unique in thinking him an asshole. Besides Mega was at the other end of the age spectrum. I can't remember the name of the other person who was briefly a mod then.

Hi Ophiolite. Nice to see your posts again.

Yes, Mega was also a mod then. He is not who I'm thinking of. I liked Mega a lot. I will PM you the name.

Haha, I'm sorry william, but I find it simply laughable that Darius wouldn't tell us he used to be a mod here because this previous persona was unliked - Darius himself was highly unliked by many people and he was well aware of it and didn't care. If anything he seemed to take it as a badge of honor that people so clearly inferior as the contributing members of this forum disliked him, since such low caliber people were not worthy of respecting him. Perhaps this previous mod was before my time, but I became quite familiar with Darius' way of thinking while he was here, and with the way he constantly complained about how this forum was run, combined with his incredibly monstrous ego, he would without a doubt have proclaimed as often as he could how good the days had been when HE was a mod. I suppose Ophi and Skin can verify if you tell them this name you have in mind, but I would be willing to bet large sums of money it was not the same person.

If he was a mod, it must have been in a previous iteration of the forum. His IP address range has not been used by any other user names to date.

Originally Posted by paralith

Haha, I'm sorry william, but I find it simply laughable that Darius wouldn't tell us he used to be a mod here because this previous persona was unliked - Darius himself was highly unliked by many people and he was well aware of it and didn't care. If anything he seemed to take it as a badge of honor that people so clearly inferior as the contributing members of this forum disliked him, since such low caliber people were not worthy of respecting him. Perhaps this previous mod was before my time, but I became quite familiar with Darius' way of thinking while he was here, and with the way he constantly complained about how this forum was run, combined with his incredibly monstrous ego, he would without a doubt have proclaimed as often as he could how good the days had been when HE was a mod. I suppose Ophi and Skin can verify if you tell them this name you have in mind, but I would be willing to bet large sums of money it was not the same person.

Hi Paralith,
You just described the other guy to a T. Really. I couldn't have given a better description of the other guy. I will PM you his name, but it won't do much good since he somehow deleted his account and his posts show up as "Guest". You can still find the other guys posts, but only where you can find conversations where he was quoted (and thus, his name shows up). I would bet large sums of money that they are the same person.

He was a mod for only a short time. And he was fired. I wouldn't brag about it either if I was him.

Biologista,
I don't know about the IP address, but I would highly suspect it would be different. He was a kid getting his GED before, and I suspect he's in college now (or at least, moved out of his parent's home).

Except my description includes an inability to not talk about previously being a mod.......it's not something he would brag about, he would say things like "Clearly you people don't know what you're doing or you wouldn't have kicked me out" or "It's just because you all are pansies and refuse to follow logic that you took away my modship" etc etc. Darius would NOT be afraid to talk about it.

There's a lot of people on the internet with ridiculous egos, don't get me wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if there were other people on this forum in the past who had one. But you're describing someone who may have become sensitive about a hit to his ego; Darius doesn't see hits to his ego. He sees yet another way to justify how superior he is.

Ok. What the heck. I'll just post it.

I think Darius and Jeremyhfht are the same. Of course, finding Jeremyhfht's posts is almost impossible since he shows up as "Guest".



But here are a few I found. Judge for yourself.

First "Darius" on global warming:
http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...r=asc&start=15

More Darius on global warming:
http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...er=asc&start=0

Now Jeremyhfht on global warming (again, he shows up as guest, but you can see his name where he was quoted):
http://www.thescienceforum.com/Clima...ears-9268t.php

Here's jeremyhfht's global warming thread, under his name, on another forum:
http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/s...ad.php?t=30825



If they are not the same, at least you should be able to see the similarity and see why I might think they are....

Oh, no no. My time here overlapped with jeremy's for a decent chunk of time. The both of them were obnoxious a**holes but they're not the same person. jeremy was studying psychology and his posts reflected that as his specialty. Darius had no such special knowledge in that field. From what I remember, jeremy left of his own accord. (And, I would much prefer to have jeremy as a mod than Darius, if I was forced to choose.)

I think Darius and Jeremyhfht are the same.

Funny you should say that..... Was he a moderator?

Originally Posted by paralith

Oh, no no. My time here overlapped with jeremy's for a decent chunk of time. The both of them were obnoxious a**holes but they're not the same person. jeremy was studying psychology and his posts reflected that as his specialty. Darius had no such special knowledge in that field. From what I remember, jeremy left of his own accord. (And, I would much prefer to have jeremy as a mod than Darius, if I was forced to choose.)

Well, if Darius was worse than Jeremyhfht, then I'm speechless. I wouldn't have thought that possible.


But I still think they're the same. It would be interesting to see if Daytonturner and mitchelmckain think they're the same. Both of those guys debated both Darius and Jeremy.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

I think Darius and Jeremyhfht are the same.

Funny you should say that..... Was he a moderator?

Oh yes! It was hell. Funny... he got the job by complaining how bad the moderation was. Perhaps they made him a mod so he would shut his mouth.


Do you see the similarity between them?

Here is some more Jeremyhfht to refresh your memory. Again, he shows up as "Guest". I only post this because it's difficult to find him since we can't search his name. Note the striking similarities.

http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=5149

I actually suspected as much a while back and relayed my suspicions to the other mods. I know Darius's real name is not Jeremy though and I have to agree with paralith about Darius not showing much knowledge about psychology. I seem to recall that he was only studying psychology informally, though he had the title of "Forum Psychologist" when he left. Darius was into marshal arts and I think Jeremy was as well.

"Jeremy" was not hfht's real name either. Plus, he was just a kid that thought he knew about psychology - Paralith is giving him way too much credit.

Yes. I forgot about the martial arts.

And they both believe in telekinesis. I think that's as much evidence as I need. Finding two complete buttholes that have such striking similarities and both believe in telekinesis is beyond what is statistically significant. I'm reasonably convinced.

Darius on ESP:
http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=20298

Jeremyhfht on telekinesis (this is especially confusing, as both Jeremyhfht and Billco show up as "Guest"):
http://www.thescienceforum.com/Telek...-not-3902t.php




And the final nail in the coffin:
Jeremyhfht and TheoryofRelativity hated each other. Check out ToR's most recent post history. She disappeared on Aug. 30, 2008. In the meantime, on Jan. 17, 2009 Darius joins the forum. We hear nothing from ToR until when she comes back and posts on Mar. 13, 2009 - two months after Darius joins the forum. But Darius comments on her post on Mar. 26:

Originally Posted by Darius

My worst fear was ToR coming back. Shitfuck.

http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...hlight=#175449

Look at the dates. How could he even know her unless he knew her from before?

Busted.

I suppose we'll never know. I remain unconvinced.

Jeremyhfht is who I initially figured william was referring to, since he's one of the only moderators that left and never came back. And I remember Jeremyhfht somehow deleting his username. But I thought they were two separate personalities and dismissed it as unlikely.

Now, however, looking at the posts and the comparisons, I'd have to say its likely enough that I'll need to revise my previous statement in this thread.

Good detective work on William's part. I am reasonably convinced.

Darius is Jeremy, look at the style of conversation. Its almost always attack formation when he feels he has been insulted or slightly degraded (or thinks he has been)

Simple way of proving it.

I remember Jeremy coming online for a very brief period one year ago at the end of the year. I know because I had seen him enter the forum and not only that remembered him being on the total post list with his name still down (remember? I used to post a total post count for the top 20 every Christmas?), I posted something to him noting I had surpassed his post count (back when I was... you know). He did become active again for a short time I believe in 2008 did he not?

So seeing as Darius joined a couple of weeks after Jeremey was lurking, the sudden deletion of Jeremy and the behaviour of Jeremy likened to the same we have two conclusions

1: There is a high probability it is Jeremy.
2: We all have way too much spare time investigating if an old memeber is a newer member.

Either way, IS could do an IP trace as has been previously discussed and it should even if Jeremy has moved away, show a similar number as he could not have gone that far from his home town.

I'm guessing he has hermit like tendencies due to his expressive and defensive behaviour and as such would not gone too far from his home town, ergo the IP address will be quite similar and his signal should still be going to a larger hub whereabouts he lives.. the same main hub and will still have the same extended IP address. Just like post codes. By this I mean even isolated IP's are still transmitted by the larger servers therefore even if he moved a couple of towns away, even state or two, it would still be very similar.

IS could test this, or Skinwalker. I know that IS did similar methods to ascertain the identity of megabrain and selene, stream systems and the like.

No solid proof, still, logic points to Darius being Jeremy, and I think William Holmes over there pretty much laid it to bare....

Hey Jeremy! How long could you watch the Caramelldansen video for again? Come on, don't be shy...

PS. Browsing William's links I also noticed that WilliamMcCormick has been banned. Can't say that suprises me. :|

Bad Wolf,
I wouldn't be surprised if Darius/Jeremyhfht is in college. He was a 17 year old kid when I knew him, and now he would be college age. He could be far away form his original home. I might expect a totally different IP.

And you mention seeing Jeremyhfht near the end of the year... on Christmas break perhaps...? It sorta makes sense. Home from college for the break, checks out the forum, goes back to college and takes advantage of the new IP and creates "Darius."

Hey! Perhaps he's "Daring us"! Ha ha ha.

But I think what has us somewhat convinced is the general style and tone of both of their posts. When criminal profilers attempt to create a psychological profile of a serial offender, they must consider the serial offender's "signature" and not so much the modus operandi. The MO can be altered, but the signature can't.

I believe I see common things in both of their posts that suggest they have the same signature.

William Holmes

Hmf. I suspected it first.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

William Holmes

Hmf. I suspected it first.

Watson? Is that you?

Originally Posted by william

Originally Posted by KALSTER

William Holmes

Hmf. I suspected it first.

Watson? Is that you?

'Tis me, Bill. Now all we need is a confession from the devil himself!

*I call ye out in the name of this forum! Reveal thine self dark one! Reveal thine self!*

ok, i confess - what am i supposed to confess to ?

Originally Posted by marnixR

ok, i confess - what am i supposed to confess to ?

Darius is Jeremyhfht AND marnixR?

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Originally Posted by marnixR

ok, i confess - what am i supposed to confess to ?

Darius is Jeremyhfht AND marnixR?

Criminals always shift the guilt away from themselves! I never knew you KALSTER were Darius, Jeremy AND marnixR! Just exactly who else are you?!

Oh geez, I just landed myself in it there with my own words... note to Jeremy, I mean note to self... I mean....

oh boy...

imagine, someone with multiple personalities, or serious memory problems coming on a forum and talking with eachother/themselves, some of their personalities are moderators, others are mere members

some of the member personalities get banned, and make new handles only to have the other personalities discover that the new handles are the same personalities as the old handles, and then eventually discovering that ALL the handles are the same person...

epic twist

Originally Posted by marcusclayman

imagine, someone with multiple personalities, or serious memory problems coming on a forum and talking with eachother/themselves, some of their personalities are moderators, others are mere members

some of the member personalities get banned, and make new handles only to have the other personalities discover that the new handles are the same personalities as the old handles, and then eventually discovering that ALL the handles are the same person...

epic twist

Sounds like a Keanu Reeves-type movie. Or that Memento movie. Am I Dariushfht...? God I hope not.

some of the member personalities get banned, and make new handles only to have the other personalities discover that the new handles are the same personalities as the old handles, and then eventually discovering that ALL the handles are the same person...

...and so become one super being, capable of Conquering the World by stopping the middle eastern conflict and ushering in Armageddon!

What happened to Darius? Was he banned?

Also, I thought he was a moderator at one time as well...

I think if an Avatar name is clearly not doing anything reprehensible (worth banning him for), he should not be banned because the person is the same as the one that was banned (yes its a strange concept). You might have a low threshold of tolerance but if the comments are ok I dont see the problem off hand. .

( Personally I could not even try to pass off as a Moderator, Im an Exaggerator )

Im making progress, ive prevented myself to even look at the thread about Noas Ark and avoid the Military section as much as possible.

Originally Posted by mikepotter84

What happened to Darius? Was he banned?

No. Banned members names show up in color. You are looking at a thread from 2009. Most people don't hang around that long.

Originally Posted by icewendigo

I think if an Avatar name is clearly not doing anything reprehensible (worth banning him for), he should not be banned because the person is the same as the one that was banned (yes its a strange concept). You might have a low threshold of tolerance but if the comments are ok I dont see the problem off hand.

And consider that not every kid has his/her own computer (especially if they're financially strapped), so there's the one family/house computer, and just because a forum has banned someone's sibling/parent, such an action shouldn't punish the rest of the family.

I think one purpose of a science forum is to show beginners about scientific thinking, discussing, debating, etc — important facets of science that some science teachers may not have enough time to teach because they're too busy jamming facts into kids brains.