Thread derailment! Sound the alarms! Danger!

Post Reply New Topic

Nothing taken. You are one of the good people here, Joe!

You mean sans facts you refuse to acknowledge, such as the mod attention posts over the years. The bad behavior comes in the selective way the demands come in, but you seem to be claiming that litigating that is somehow a rule break.

It's not against the rules per say (unless Cornflake is serious about this vexatious reporting thing), but repeatedly using it as a way of shutting down discourse is bad form in my view.

Oh, so you're a mind-reader now? And you're insinuating malicious motives to my posts, literally the thing Cornflake is currently claiming is against the rules? Claiming to be the one who determines what is and is not bad behavior is just gravy at this point.

No I can read and recognize behavior for what it is.

I don’t need to insinuate.

What alleged unacknowledged “facts”? What alleged “demands”?

You seem to be making a lot of ungrounded claims, such as calling my thread-lock requests “bad behavior” when there is nothing “bad” about them. I make reports, not “demands”, and it is up to the mods how they respond, and whether or not they respond at all.

If I had as much influence over the mods as you give me credit for, there would be much tighter policing of the threads, and no one would get away with saying the things you say about the mods.

Which is only one reason why I will never be a moderator of this website.

Shutting down honest and polite discourse is bad (which is why I do not engage in such behavior), but when people are lying and insulting others, then I believe it is time to shut things down (if necessary) and clean things up (if possible).

Take this thread, for instance . . .

No, you can speculate and guess based on what you believe about human behavior, but that's a tricky business under normal circumstances, let alone on an autism board where people frequently diverge from normal thought processes and behaviors. That you think you know is illuminating though.



And yet you do anyway.

@Dox47: I'm so tired of these arguments going round and round and round - again.
All this confrontational ducking and weaving to try and score some sort of victory. It's just... tedious.

You'll know from your previous posts in this forum over the years on similar topics and accusations about moderation that the answers you seek are not available in the format and to the detail you demand.
This has been the case since late 2009 and it continues to be the case today.

Just to address one point -

Dear me, that was entirely predictable. Hook, line and sinker.

Several hundred reports made in the space of an hour or so - especially if they just happen focus on a certain member or two - are likely to be regarded with some suspicion as to the motive for making them; a raised eyebrow to say the least.

I'm sorry there's no rule stating the precise definition of "vexatious", including definitions of content and some time vs. quantity trigger point unambiguously marking them as vexatious - but that's often the way with moderated forums: the resolution or reaction to an event is often made at a moderator's discretion.

That we might consider a large quantity of reports in a short space of time as vexatious, as above, surely shouldn't come as much of a surprise. It's just the sort of thing a "generic troll" might do to stir up trouble for moderators (instead they tend to flood forums with crap but even so, the attack vector remains).

@Cornflake:

Here is an excellent example occurring right now of why I think a rule change is required for News and PPR:

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=407893&start=16#p9105610

The thread is about a teacher's shortage and the possible reasons for it, but someone made a comment on a semi-related issue that could easily come to dominate the thread (I'm not criticizing that poster BTW, just pointing out the exact inflection point in the thread). Should that comment and discussion be completely nipped in the bud? Allowed to run in the thread alongside the other discussion? Snipped out and made it's own thread? Personally, I think it's fine to leave it in there, if the thread wants to become more about the groomer controversy than the original teachers shortage, that's just the nature of discussion boards, threads shouldn't have to be straitjacketed by narrow parameters that might wildly differ from OP to OP.

It seems redundant to point out that this applies precisely to what you're doing with Fnord.

As above

All you need to do to make it stop is quit trying to stretch the rules in order to please difficult people. You know as well as I do that nothing I've posted in any of the contended threads rises to the level of a personal attack as defined on this board, this is all about placating certain annoying posters with stricter ideas of the rules who want some red meat on the table. I don't like wasting the better part of my day on these posts either, but I really don't like being power tripped and lied about.

Thanks, an example to inspect!

I don't like running around corralling threads to be within an inch of the topic - that's just not how conversation flows and there will always be a degree of topic drift which should be allowed.

The degree to which it should be permitted to drift before it becomes reasonable to call it a derailment is, unfortunately, best answered by "well, it depends".

In this specific instance I would be strongly guided by the actions of the OP, who is happily engaging with the drift, so in this instance I would simply say "leave it alone".

Ahh, but am I claiming that it's a personal attack on me needing to be moderated? (not just in a facetious way)

How about a thread set up or hijacked specifically to draw attention to one member or mod against whom many false accusations are subsequently made within that thread?

Again, that's your characterisation. I don't stretch rules to please anyone, but I might use my discretion when dealing with something which may result in a dilution of a rule.
One recent example, actually two - were with a newbie inviting people to check out his YouTube channel where he gave dating advice as an Aspie to Aspies - and lo! It wasn't stuffed with red pill/alpha males/misogynistic commentary so on balance, I thought it should be permitted - despite being something expressly forbidden or at least until a "substantial number" of posts were made. I also converted his text explanation (since he couldn't yet post links) into a link using the usual YouTube tags.

Another is a newbie seeking donations to (IIRC) his GoFundMe page, referenced only as a description of what to search for - which I've allowed for now, but I'll probably revisit it with fresh eyes and may make a different decision.

I would think Fnord might have something to say about being lied about... He's taken quite a hit in this thread, one way or another.