Excerpt from Angry Ranting:
There are multiple issues here.
- The post opens with a mocking reference to the Wiki...That, by itself, will get every post moved to AR
Response: The first version was satirical, which is a form of mocking. Didn't know it was against the rules to mock a wiki entry, but I revised it to retain the criticism without the parody and he still interprets that as mocking. This is a new rule and application, rationalized to use moderating powers to insulate the wiki from biting criticism.
- disregarding our agreement,
Response: I specifically did NOT disregard any agreement. I abided by the agreement you (Parsifal) offered, but the rules keep changing.
- the rules. If you have a point to make, make it. Don't wrap it around in mockery.
^Example. When did this become a rule? It's a perfect example of a moderator with a bug fabricating a reason to stifle commentary he doesn't like (especially when it comes to criticism of the Bishop Experiment or its inclusion in the wiki).
we do not need redundant threads on the same subject.
There are numerous threads about the Bishop Experiment and its deficiencies.
There is one long thread about my horizon level experiments (which breaks no rule to refer to as the Shafto Experiment.)
I deemed it would be objectionable to resurrect one of the previous, long-dormant Bishop Experiment criticism threads just to embark on a new criticism tact. If the board culture says bump old threads, I will do that from now on, but I don't think that's what is really wanted.
I did not even consider appending this topic to my old (also dormant) horizon thread since it's a new topic that merely references that.
- he has no business creating a new thread on the subject. Participate in an existing thread instead (if you have anything new to say, which is not the case here).
See above. This complaint is a fabrication to capriciously rationalize moderator action.
- This is a resolution we've proposed multiple times now, but Bobby is more interested in purposefully breaking it.
Response: A resolution was proposed once (above); not multiple times. And it lacked the specifics only now enumerated in Angry Ranting. I responded to the offer of resolution in good faith, interpreting what the "offense" was an correcting it, even though I disagreed that there was any rule broken to begin with. It was a compromise on my part. But then, in another display of what I can only see as capricious vendetta, I get hit with a "spamming" warning. How can I be purposefully breaking the rules when the rules are like Calvin Ball?
The contrast between my experiment (which was "mocked" by Bishop) and the Bishop experiment is the point. The offer to conduct the Bishop experiment with more documented rigor is sincere, but it is also provocative because I anticipated it would not likely be answered, viewed as the challenge it was meant to be. If The Flat Earth Society is sensitive about it's "experimental evidence" coming under scrutiny and critique, using moderator rationalization of "mockery" to censor the challenge, then it isn't the truth-seeking entity it pretends to be. Or is this "Shafto problem" just one moderator's pet peeve?