*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Inconsistent mod actions
« on: April 13, 2019, 06:42:11 PM »
Sup FEers,

I’ve recently received some attention from Pete, who seems to take issue with my posting activity.

As far as I can tell, my posting activities haven’t changed in the recent past. So what could be going on?

Well, recently I posted an AR joke at Pete, giving him a hard time. Oddly, just after this, I began receiving warnings in my inbox and moved replies (all from him).

Is it condoned and acceptable on the FE websites for mods to use their authority to air personal grievances?

I ask because this seems like pretty obvious retaliation. I have kept a record of all the relevant documentation, including dates, etc.

Who would I contact to review this evidence, and seek a third party to provide an objective assessment?

I’d just like to close by saying that I like Pete - I always enjoy what he writes (we have the same sarcastic humor), so its a bit unfortunate that this has happened.
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8696
    • View Profile
Re: Inconsistent mod actions
« Reply #1 on: April 13, 2019, 09:28:50 PM »
I'd suggest posting links/evidence and asking Parsifal to review. He is the only currently active administrator.
Wait, is Thork gay or does he just have a thing for lipstick?

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Inconsistent mod actions
« Reply #2 on: April 13, 2019, 09:44:44 PM »
I'd suggest posting links/evidence and asking Parsifal to review. He is the only currently active administrator.

Thank you for the advice. Should I just post them here? I want to be mindful of not publicly raking Pete across the coals. Posting a complaint is one thing, but airing dirty laundry may make this more shame-based than would be appropriate?
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8696
    • View Profile
Re: Inconsistent mod actions
« Reply #3 on: April 13, 2019, 10:07:30 PM »
I'd suggest posting links/evidence and asking Parsifal to review. He is the only currently active administrator.

Thank you for the advice. Should I just post them here? I want to be mindful of not publicly raking Pete across the coals. Posting a complaint is one thing, but airing dirty laundry may make this more shame-based than would be appropriate?

It's usually suggested to make your case publicly in the name of transparency. You can be critical of moderatation as long as it isn't insulting.
Wait, is Thork gay or does he just have a thing for lipstick?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9700
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Inconsistent mod actions
« Reply #4 on: April 14, 2019, 01:06:45 PM »
In the spirit of transparency, let's start by explaining that we will not be "letting anything run under the bridge"

Hello Pete,

I have been noodling through what to do about this. As you have no doubt discovered, I posted a concern regarding your mod action, and was invited to publicly display the case.

I appreciate the websites promotion of transparency in appeal efforts. What I am not particularly fond of doing is participating in an effort  that may result in shame-based group dynamics. I don’t think you deserve that.

So heres what’s going to happen. I’m going to let this run under the bridge. You’ve no doubt given me a pass before on a mistake, and it would be unclassy of me to not return it.

I am going to expect, however, that in the future if you have some problem with me chiding you in AR or my “scientist credentials”, then you take that up with me in PM. I’ll respond in good faith, and not personally.

There is merit in the FE movement, and I intend to help it gain credibility. Nothing productive is gained through overflexing personal feelings.

Best,
QED

Your warning PM included a link to the post in question. As we can see, that post has also received a response with further clarification, as most others would:

If you don't have anything relevant to say, consider not saying anything. Warned

I took your side when you were permabanned, suggesting that you may be reformable. When you came back, you PM'd me with a pseudo-apology, which I shared with the mod/admin team. We've agreed not to put much stock in the apology and to simply watch and see if anything has changed.

After a while, I sent you the following PM:

I just wanted to offer a sincere apology for my past behavior on this website.
That didn't last long, not that anyone is surprised. It looks like you're back to repeatedly stating how much of a scientist you are, derailing threads, and making backhanded accusations.

Please be mindful of the subtle line between making your point and imposing yourself to the point of stifling discussion. We won't tolerate it much longer.

This received no response, and your behaviour (as you rightly point out!) has not changed. We were treating you leniently to see what would happen, and now we know. Of course, you will note that I contacted you via PM prior to your request, and prior to your AR thread. Unless you claim I have some privileged access to future events, I don't think it's very likely that I was retaliating.

We gave you a fair number of chances, and the vast majority of your warnings have not been issued by me. Whether you'd like to become a contributive member is entirely your prerogative, but further attempts at disrupting discussion here will be treated with very little tolerance.

I don't have much more to say on the matter.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2019, 01:14:13 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Inconsistent mod actions
« Reply #5 on: April 14, 2019, 03:11:27 PM »
In the spirit of transparency, let's start by explaining that we will not be "letting anything run under the bridge"

Hello Pete,

I have been noodling through what to do about this. As you have no doubt discovered, I posted a concern regarding your mod action, and was invited to publicly display the case.

I appreciate the websites promotion of transparency in appeal efforts. What I am not particularly fond of doing is participating in an effort  that may result in shame-based group dynamics. I don’t think you deserve that.

So heres what’s going to happen. I’m going to let this run under the bridge. You’ve no doubt given me a pass before on a mistake, and it would be unclassy of me to not return it.

I am going to expect, however, that in the future if you have some problem with me chiding you in AR or my “scientist credentials”, then you take that up with me in PM. I’ll respond in good faith, and not personally.

There is merit in the FE movement, and I intend to help it gain credibility. Nothing productive is gained through overflexing personal feelings.

Best,
QED

Your warning PM included a link to the post in question. As we can see, that post has also received a response with further clarification, as most others would:

If you don't have anything relevant to say, consider not saying anything. Warned

I took your side when you were permabanned, suggesting that you may be reformable. When you came back, you PM'd me with a pseudo-apology, which I shared with the mod/admin team. We've agreed not to put much stock in the apology and to simply watch and see if anything has changed.

After a while, I sent you the following PM:

I just wanted to offer a sincere apology for my past behavior on this website.
That didn't last long, not that anyone is surprised. It looks like you're back to repeatedly stating how much of a scientist you are, derailing threads, and making backhanded accusations.

Please be mindful of the subtle line between making your point and imposing yourself to the point of stifling discussion. We won't tolerate it much longer.

This received no response, and your behaviour (as you rightly point out!) has not changed. We were treating you leniently to see what would happen, and now we know. Of course, you will note that I contacted you via PM prior to your request, and prior to your AR thread. Unless you claim I have some privileged access to future events, I don't think it's very likely that I was retaliating.

We gave you a fair number of chances, and the vast majority of your warnings have not been issued by me. Whether you'd like to become a contributive member is entirely your prerogative, but further attempts at disrupting discussion here will be treated with very little tolerance.

I don't have much more to say on the matter.

Hi Pete,

Nice initiative on trying to set the narrative. You have included a subset of the correspondence that provides your point of view, and omits the portions that suggest retaliation.

I did not happen to read your PM prior to seeing your warning in the fora, so did not notice it until the fora warning prompted me to check my inbox. It is of course my responsibility to check my inbox - I am merely clearing up the chronology a bit.

I didn’t see a link to the post in question, and will review it.

My recent PM to you still stands, and there is a standard of behaviour on these pages which apply to you as well as me. And although mistakes can happen, as we are human, taking responsibility for them is an important indicator of integrity.

Applying fora rules equitably to all members is likewise a critical function to maintaining compliance. Seeing unequal application would engender miscomprehension and needless conflict about them.

As I trust you know.
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9700
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Inconsistent mod actions
« Reply #6 on: April 14, 2019, 08:33:37 PM »
Certainly. Now, I hope you understood the message and will behave from now on. I would hate to treat you equitably now that your grace period has expired.

But, since you insist, here is the sole piece of correspondence I've omitted (since I believe it's been duplicated in your public message):

Oh Pete,

Why don’t you provide some examples of this spamming?

I haven’t changed my posting behaviour recently, but I did make fun of you in AR.

It sounds like you’re just using your mod authority to get back at me.

That’s pretty sad if true.

But if I’m mistaken, then why don’t you reference which replies you  think are spamming. That’s what a mod would do. An honest one anyway. 

Which, again, happened *after* my initial PM warning :)
« Last Edit: April 14, 2019, 08:40:37 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*