Another one?

1. Jul 11, 2005

BicycleTree

Another one??

Tom Mattson has issued another warning. He refrains in this one from saying "shut up BT" (as he has said earlier in the reason given for an earlier warning) and is more vocal this time. The problem? My quoting an imaginary person called "Phantom Moonbear" as saying something rather neutral in the following thread:
Note where I state the following when questioned in that thread about the quotation:

There is obviously no rule about anything like this; Tom Mattson's warning is based on no rule but his own. His stated reason:
Clearly, some of the mentors here have the intention of getting me banned and have no scruples about how they go about doing it. Further evidence, Tom's repeated intervention into a forum he does not moderate.

Last edited: Jul 11, 2005
2. Jul 11, 2005

dextercioby

She didn't like it. He didn't like it, either. You have no excuse.

Daniel.

3. Jul 11, 2005

AKG

Wow, how petty! And it's not even as though BT posted that in a science forum, it was GD. I can't say this action by the moderators surprises me though. On the forum that I moderate, I think there is objectivity in the moderating since we often strongly disagree with others. In my limited experience here, however, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that all the mentors will jump on the bandwagon and somehow all manage to agree that BT deserved a warning for this. The last time you posted a warning, I think there may have been some room for argument on the part of the mentors, because if I recall correctly, you had hit on some sensitive issue, and may have done so inappropriately (but I didn't look into it that much). This case, on the other hand, is just pathetic.

4. Jul 11, 2005

Tom Mattson

Staff Emeritus
You forgot to quote the next part.

This is why you still come off as disingenuous. You are still holding her to something that she did not say, by questioning her on what "Phantom Moonbear" said. Putting words in people's mouths is not only impolite, but also considered "strawman" argumentation, when it is done the way you did it.

That's not true, we do indeed have provisions for warnings for Generally Annoying Behavior. You should have learned that after my warning to you the other day.

Wrong. If you are on your way out of here, you will have done it all by yourself. You seem to lack the ability to interact with others amicably. When people tell you that you are getting on their nerves, and give good reason for it, for some reason you take that as an impetus to step up the annoying behavior, whereas more respectful people would take it as a cue to curtail it. It's too bad that you just don't get it.

Wrong again. Forum leaders take primary responsibility for their forums but in fact every Super Mentor moderates every forum. I can and have deleted and edited posts all over the site, particularly when the forum leader of record is not online.

Since I have the power to do it, it must mean that the owner of the site wants me to have that power. Given that that is the case, then to your objection about where and when I moderate I have to ask, "What's it to ya?"

And now I am going to join the long line of people who has told you to quit being annoying. Bicycle Tree, at the bottom of the warning message it clearly states that you are to handle disputes with warnings via Private Message, not by granstanding in the Feedback Forum.

Know for certain that you will receive another warning if you continue this in public.

5. Jul 11, 2005

BT, you are lucky. in other forums that i am in, you would have been banned for your recent behavior.

6. Jul 11, 2005

ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
There have been ENOUGH complaints lodged against your postings that it negates your whinning that some "mentors" have an axe to grind on you. Those would have been sufficient to ban you from PF.

Zz.

7. Jul 11, 2005

AKG

Uh, Moonbear said:

That's the small local paper for you. I stopped subscribing to our local paper for that reason. There'd be big news all around, and they'd have some cat up a tree story on the front page. It was really sad.

The above quote suggests that Moonbear thinks that local papers place importance on stupid things. Phantom Moonbear said:

People read local papers for local issues. That's no reason to criticize them. They just are for a different audience.

suggesting that Phantom Moonbear supports local papers, and thinks that the issues they cover are not pointless or "sad", just different. It seems to me more or less clear that Bicycle Tree's comment quoted above was in response to Moonbear's, not Phantom Moonbear's. Did you decide to warn him before actually reading what was written on that thread?
At first, I was thinking that I would agree with this, but when I've dealt with you guys in the past over PM, you've been exceedingly unreasonable. I would suspect that PM you guys is generally not a good recourse for anyone. So a public criticism of your moderating is the only recourse. Now public criticism can be done right and it can be done wrong. As far as I can tell, he has done nothing wrong. He hasn't flamed anyone, he hasn't seemed to exagerate or embellish. People should be made to feel that, if they can do so appropriately, they should be able to openly criticize you. You have the moderating powers to ensure that the criticism doesn't get out of hand, and turn into flame wars or clog up the forums, but you send the wrong message by barring it altogether.

You can either take the attitude that, "these are our forums, we don't have to rationalize any of our actions to our members," or you can treat the members like equals (which they are) and at least sometimes accept public requests for rationalizations. Or, at the very least, let people air their grievances, and ignore them (but don't close their threads or threaten them). I think that when I moderate, I try to be courteous, and try to encourage questions about my actions (although I may not always be able to do this). In fact, I draw on my experience with the mentors here and try to make sure that I'm not like that on the forum I moderate. And I would certainly never bark at them to "just shut up!"

8. Jul 11, 2005

Tom Mattson

Staff Emeritus
What on Earth does that have to do with anything?

Get a grip, AKG. Do you seriously mean to tell me that Paul would want to see people posting under making quotes by "Phantom Tecno Tut" and then holding the real Tecno to what was quoted? Do you really expect anyone to believe that any moderation staff wants to see that littering a serious message board? Do you think Paul would approve of someone creating a sock puppet just to be annoying, as Bicycle Tree has done?

We have strong disagreements too, just not usually in public. And as for objectivity, I honestly consider myself one of the most dispassionate members of the staff when it comes to doing my job. I do my best to go by the book. And in Bicycle Tree's case I took it easy last time. The warning I issued (for "Generally Annoying Behavior") is basically the warning that is reserved for annoying overuse of smilies, using all caps, or "chat room speak" (eg: "ur so l33t dude"). It is intended only as a little prod in the right direction. Surely that is not too harsh a punishment for putting words in someone's mouth, even if it is done in jest.

I think you didn't look into this one that much, either.

9. Jul 11, 2005

Tom Mattson

Staff Emeritus
It wasn't clear either to me or to the real Moonbear.

Yes, I did. I always decide to issue warnings from second hand reports. Sometimes I don't even wait for that, I just randomly pick a post and start warning.

You have never interacted with me via PM, so you wouldn't know how I would react. We are not the Borg.

He has made no attempt to dispute the warning through the proper channels. It's the second time he has done it, and I let both of them go without a warning.

The staff here routinely deals with public criticism about how it operates, and we agree to address it. It is simply not practical for every warning to be discussed in the open like this. If we allow it for Bicycle Tree, then we have to allow it for everyone. If anyone I have warned does not get satisfaction from me, then he or she should go to Greg (the owner) or to another staff member. Mentor decisions have been disagreed with and overturned before.

But going public should be a last resort, after other avenues of relief have turned up empty.

Good for you.

Well, sometimes it is both necessary and appropriate to say that. Needling people incessantly about a sensitive issue when they express a desire to be left alone to make sense of it is just one of those times, in my opinion. I would say it to anyone's face in real life, and I stand by the decision to say it online.

Last edited: Jul 11, 2005
10. Jul 11, 2005

hypatia

Thank you Tom, you did well.

11. Jul 11, 2005

Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
I also moderate at another forum.

I looked at the thread in question. I am alarmed by what I see!

Frankly, as a moderator, I would not tolerate the use (or misappropriation) of another userid. Moonbear's ID is very unique, and "Phantom Moonbear" does not exist at PF, AFAIK. In this case, the use of Moonbear caused her some alarm, and as I mentioned, me too.

I think Tom handled this situation appropriately, and I think given your recent behavior, Tom is being rather generous.

BT, as Moonbear mentioned, I don't know what bug you have, but KNOCK IT OFF! You seem to be deliberately provoking people for some unknown reason. :grumpy:

IIRC, Tom Mattson and selfAdjoint have been given authority by the PF Administration to wonder the entire forum - so he is well within his right to do what he did.

Last edited: Jul 11, 2005
12. Jul 11, 2005

Tom Mattson

Staff Emeritus
Alas , it is a userid at PF. Bicycle Tree created it.

The profile is the link I posted in Post #8 ("sock puppet").

13. Jul 11, 2005

Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Hmmm! That's grounds for banning from where I come.

Like I said, the PF staff are being generous in this case.

Multiple ID's came up in another situation in GD. However, it was amusing and did not involve the appropriation of another actual ID. Furthermore, there is not preceding quote or rather post by "Phantom Moonbear".

From what I can see, it appears to me to be a form of deliberate harrassment. Very uncool!

14. Jul 11, 2005

Tom Mattson

Staff Emeritus
It's also frowned upon at Philosophy Forums, where AKG is a moderator , and AKG knows bloody well that that is the case. I post there sometimes, and several months ago I approached the Admin (Paul) for advice on how to run our Philosophy section. He and I have a similar loathing of nonsense.

Last edited: Jul 11, 2005
15. Jul 11, 2005

Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
BTW - I have no personal axe to grind with BT.

I am simply reacting in this case to what I see is deliberate harassment of Moonbear. She's kind of like a younger sister, and as such, I take such harassment personally, as any older brother would. :grumpy:

16. Jul 11, 2005

dextercioby

It's not really fair to take it personally, unless you're the one directly involved. I honestly hope that Moonbear would be able to defend herself,if she was to enter a verbal conflict, even on the internet.

I could pretend to be BT's closest pal and defend him, but i don't do it. He's not my brother,this issue is not of my damn busine.

On the other hand, i strongly support Tom's attitude and decisions.

That's my opinion.

Daniel.

P.S. Integral and Nereid are also staff members whose names do not appear in the mods boxes on the right side on the froum's frontpage.

17. Jul 11, 2005

juvenal

I don't think there's any right or wrong answer here, but if the mods feel that someone is being extremely annoying, I have no problems with them taking action. And it doesn't have to be written down in some fine print somewhere in the website policies. Those are just guidelines and not meant to apply to every foreseeable situation.

As a general rule, if you don't want to be some social outcast either on the internet or in real life, don't be argumentative to the point where everyone around you is telling you to STFU. Make your point, and let it go.

18. Jul 11, 2005

BicycleTree

So this has turned into an actual conversation in my absence.

Actually, there is something to explain about the post. The quote of "Phantom Moonbear" was how I thought she would have responded had I, and not Pengwuino, been the OP. The reason I believe she would have responded in that manner is her impassioned defense of newspapers only reporting things that have "newsworthiness" in another discussion.

Most things I do, I do for a reason. In this case my post was making a definite point, in an oblique manner.

Last edited: Jul 11, 2005
19. Jul 11, 2005

BicycleTree

I see it the other way around from how you do. It started as and usually involves Moonbear arguing in a thread I created (as in recent incidents). I once asked her by PM whether she would like to cease fire, with neither of us engaging in discussion with the other because it never seems to be productive for either of us, and she has not replied to that or altered her attack pattern.

Here is the message I sent, on 06-04-2005:

Last edited: Jul 11, 2005
20. Jul 11, 2005

Staff: Mentor

It should be obvious why we cannot allow members to create "mock members" and make posts that we think another member would have posted. If we allow one member to do this, then we have to allow all members the same leeway. It wouldn't be long before this forum would be full of members using this as a way to mock each other. We need rules and guidelines to keep posting from getting out of control.

Moonbear has a right to post in any thread on this forum and I do not find her posts disrespectful. I have never received a complaint about her. If you do not wish to read her posts then I recommend you put her on your "ignore" list and move on.

21. Jul 11, 2005

BicycleTree

Last edited: Jul 11, 2005
22. Jul 11, 2005

Math Is Hard

Staff Emeritus
Oh, for the love of God, BT! Just let it go!!!

23. Jul 11, 2005

24. Jul 11, 2005

BicycleTree

They were both on me and I don't see how you can claim they weren't disrespectful...

MIH--I am not exaggerating in the above statement. Something like this is a bit too extensive to just "let go." I'll spend some time tomorrow finding more links (right now I must study).

Last edited: Jul 11, 2005
25. Jul 11, 2005