Thread: Feedback from Darius' Suspension

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

@Darius: I've already warned you about snarky insults and referring to other members as "jackass," But let this be a public and open version of a warning to you and all: such snarky insults are not to be tolerated. This is a discussion forum and should you wish to participate in discussion here you must demonstrate an ability to express yourself in a civil and mature manner.

Darius, if you make one more snide, snarky or insulting comment of this nature, I will suspend your account for a minimum of 1-day.

Edit: for those that read the initial warning, after a couple snarky PMs from Darius I noticed a line in the post above that I ultimately took out of context. I'm correcting that with this edit. I still, however, would like the warning to remain public. Darius' account is temporarily suspended but not for my error above. Rather his overall snarky behavior in a previous post and PMs back to me when warned.

This is a discussion forum. We're here to have fun not cut each other down with insults. Darius has offered interesting discussion in the past and it is hoped he will do so when I lift his suspension tomorrow night.

I'm sorry, but I find it ridiculous that you would choose to ban a member (even if temporarily) for being snark-y. Pure insults are another thing, but sarcasm is a trait common to most all social human beings, and I can easily think of many other posters that are snark-y on a regular basis on this forum and have yet to be warned.

Ellatha, you can't know the contents of those PMs, or if SkinWalker understates them. Also, every forum has a characteristic tone that members find comfortable, and SW's responsible for maintaining this one.

Originally Posted by Pong

Ellatha, you can't know the contents of those PMs, or if SkinWalker understates them. Also, every forum has a characteristic tone that members find comfortable, and SW's responsible for maintaining this one.

Pong,
The personal messages themselves weren't what led to the overall ban, but the atmosphere created by Darius's posts (sarcastic, and not taking the theses made by the other posters too seriously [if at all]), namely the snark-y terminology. I find it very unlikely that it's any moderator's job to maintain a tone throughout a forum, mainly because this is dependent on the the poster's writing ability. Perhaps, what you meant to say was that it's a moderator's job to keep consistent insults out of a forum, but something as petty as being snark-y is not something that I'm convinced by.

Originally Posted by Ellatha

Originally Posted by Pong

Ellatha, you can't know the contents of those PMs, or if SkinWalker understates them. Also, every forum has a characteristic tone that members find comfortable, and SW's responsible for maintaining this one.

Pong,
The personal messages themselves weren't what led to the overall ban, but the atmosphere created by Darius's posts (sarcastic, and not taking the theses made by the other posters too seriously [if at all]), namely the snark-y terminology. I find it very unlikely that it's any moderator's job to maintain a tone throughout a forum, mainly because this is dependent on the the poster's writing ability. Perhaps, what you meant to say was that it's a moderator's job to keep consistent insults out of a forum, but something as petty as being snark-y is not something that I'm convinced by.

Ellatha, the place for feedback on moderator actions is the Site Feeback forum. You may start a discussion on this topic there if you wish.

Originally Posted by Ellatha

I'm sorry, but I find it ridiculous that you would choose to ban a member (even if temporarily) for being snark-y. Pure insults are another thing, but sarcasm is a trait common to most all social human beings, and I can easily think of many other posters that are snark-y on a regular basis on this forum and have yet to be warned.

As ridiculous as you find it, I don't. Calling someone a "jackass" in a discussion thread is a no-no. And rather than demonstrate a bit of humility or the understanding that it was too far, he chose instead to respond with equally snarky PMs.

And, his suspension is for one day. There is no ban. He was given the day off. If I ban someone, they don't come back. Ever.

But I do appreciate your concern and voicing it. Just do so in the Site Feedback forum in the future.

SkinWalker,
I agree that the "jackass" statement was uncalled for in a debate that was respectively carried out before hand (for the most part). Although, I was under the impression that you were willing to let that go given you gave a warning to it previously. My statement about Darius' getting "banned" referred to a temporary state, as this was what was written under his avatar. There seems to be no more need for debate in that case--I agree with your decision to simply make the ban for a day, and hopefully he'll return and we can continue to have productive philosophical discussion.

Originally Posted by Ellatha

SkinWalker,
I agree that the "jackass" statement was uncalled for in a debate that was respectively carried out before hand (for the most part). Although, I was under the impression that you were willing to let that go given you gave a warning to it previously.

He was, but Darius decided to send sarcastic PMs to Skin in response to the first warning. This is not the first time he has done this with a moderator or admin. It's quite possible to argue against a moderator decision without becoming aggressive, as you are quite ably demonstrating here with your own calm and reasonable post.

I feel I must make a brief comment that Darius returned from his one-day suspension and sent me a PM, which I won't reveal here except to say that it was very pleasant and acceptable. I hope he continues to post and participate in discussions.

I did not even know of this threads existence until now. Thank you for your defense, but there's little anyone can say in the face of someone with all the power. Sufficed to say, Skinwalker would never change his opinion on this matter, so it's wise not to try. Which is basically what I am doing.

What's interesting to note, is that Skinwalker said in a PM to take it to PM's if I feel the need to be personally insulting. The interesting part is he suspended me for doing so to him.

If you are interested, Eliatha, I have a sticky thread in Biology on my moderation standards and I do make it clear that snarking is not deisirable. In addition, if you do not like what some of the moderators are doing you can always appeal to the owner of the site, (In)Sanity. He has the final say in everything.

I'm sure reporting Stalin's generals to Stalin was a great way to get misbehavior corrected. Reporting authority figures to authority is like saving a cat by killing it. It makes no sense.

Originally Posted by Darius

I'm sure reporting Stalin's generals to Stalin was a great way to get misbehavior corrected. Reporting authority figures to authority is like saving a cat by killing it. It makes no sense.

That's assuming that our standards and (In)Sanity's standards are exactly the same. Which may or may not be true in a given circumstance.

Given how he is the one that picked you, I doubt he picked you because you all disagree with him in a unique way.

Originally Posted by Darius

Given how he is the one that picked you, I doubt he picked you because you all disagree with him in a unique way.

But he didn't. Moderation positions were put to a nomination process by the members. First person to get a certain number of nominations was offered a position. At least that's how I got my moderatorship.

Originally Posted by Darius

Given how he is the one that picked you, I doubt he picked you because you all disagree with him in a unique way.

We were all voted into our positions. (In)Sanity basically only gave the ok and did the honours.

A fake democracy is a fake democracy. When the choice is ultimately up to him, anyone that rubs him the wrong way is not going to be a moderator. It was never "up to" people to vote anyone in, all they did was show popular opinion so he could grab moderators without any dispute. Ultimately, he (not any of you) benefited from this.

Originally Posted by Darius

I'm sure reporting Stalin's generals to Stalin was a great way to get misbehavior corrected.

Talk about melodramatic and illogical to boot. I'm sure reporting Stalin's generals to Stalin was a great way to get misbehaviour (from Stalin's perspective) corrected. There's only a problem when the absolute authority's definition of misbehaviour is significantly out of alignment with the complainant's or when the authority simply doesn't care.

Don't even know where you're going with the cat thing... If you're so convinced that this place is a "fake democracy" policed by puppets then why on Earth do you bother posting here? Unlike a real democracy, opting out is trivial. There are plenty of other science forums.

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Originally Posted by Darius

I'm sure reporting Stalin's generals to Stalin was a great way to get misbehavior corrected.

Talk about melodramatic and illogical to boot. I'm sure reporting Stalin's generals to Stalin was a great way to get misbehaviour (from Stalin's perspective) corrected. There's only a problem when the absolute authority's definition of misbehaviour is significantly out of alignment with the complainant's or when the authority simply doesn't care.

And yet what I said still stands! You're in such a hurry to argue with me you didn't even disagree at all! *Bashes head on monitor*

Don't even know where you're going with the cat thing... If you're so convinced that this place is a "fake democracy" policed by puppets then why on Earth do you bother posting here?

Because you're such a friendly person.

Unlike a real democracy, opting out is trivial. There are plenty of other science forums.

In fact it's exactly like a democracy, only instead of a sham democracy you get here other forums offer admitted fascism. No thanks.

I never make any pretense that this forum is a democracy of any kind. It's more like a concerned monarchy. (In)Sanity, and the rest of the mod team, care about what the contributing members think and will take that into consideration when making decisions. But it's still his decision. And as Biologista said, there are lot of other ponds out there if you don't like the big fish in this one.

Originally Posted by Darius

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

Originally Posted by Darius

I'm sure reporting Stalin's generals to Stalin was a great way to get misbehavior corrected.

Talk about melodramatic and illogical to boot. I'm sure reporting Stalin's generals to Stalin was a great way to get misbehaviour (from Stalin's perspective) corrected. There's only a problem when the absolute authority's definition of misbehaviour is significantly out of alignment with the complainant's or when the authority simply doesn't care.

And yet what I said still stands! You're in such a hurry to argue with me you didn't even disagree at all! *Bashes head on monitor*

That was rather deliberate. I'm not interested in your point about John Galt. Maybe we should fork again... or do you mean the Stalin point stands? It doesn't. The implication that IS's definition of moderator misbehaviour would not resemble that of the average user is not valid. So the comparison to Stalin makes little sense.

Originally Posted by Darius

Don't even know where you're going with the cat thing... If you're so convinced that this place is a "fake democracy" policed by puppets then why on Earth do you bother posting here?

Because you're such a friendly person.

Try not to assume you have any idea what sort of person I am.

Originally Posted by Darius

Unlike a real democracy, opting out is trivial. There are plenty of other science forums.

In fact it's exactly like a democracy, only instead of a sham democracy you get here other forums offer admitted fascism. No thanks.

So what are you looking for? More democracy or more fascism? Or do you just see the compromise as a façade?