Appeal to Administrator Regarding a Moderator Decision
« on: September 28, 2018, 02:21:54 PM »
Edit: Link fix

This topic was moved to Angry Ranting with the justification "Complaints about how you totally don't like FET don't belong in the upper."

I do not consider this a proper justification. I pondered how to present this challenge to the Bishop Experiment, both wanting to highlight my own observational testing experience in contradiction and asking for more detail on how to replicate a observation test that appears in the TFES wiki.

I request a review of the moderating decision and an appeal to have the topic moved back to the Flat Earth Theory topic board.

I've been told by another moderator that the S&C forum is where to air these types of grievances, but if this is not the proper means to submit a request such as this, please let me know the correct avenue.

« Last Edit: September 28, 2018, 02:36:19 PM by Bobby Shafto »

*

Online junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8017
  • Boom
    • View Profile
Re: Appeal to Administrator Regarding a Moderator Decision
« Reply #1 on: September 28, 2018, 02:34:34 PM »
This is the right place to make such an appeal. Your link is broken, but I presume this is the thread you are referring to:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10864.0

Will need to wait for Parsifal to review since he is the only currently active admin.
Please make sure to check out these resources to ensure that your time at tfes.org is enjoyable and productive.

1. The Rules

2. The FAQ

3. The Wiki

You're doing God's work, junker.

*

Offline Parsifal

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5030
  • A couple of bums
    • View Profile
Re: Appeal to Administrator Regarding a Moderator Decision
« Reply #2 on: September 28, 2018, 03:30:39 PM »
Hi Bobby,

I've had a look at the thread and talked to Pete about the decision. While there is clearly contributive content in your thread, it is preceded by a substantial amount of text which does not contribute to the key point, which is why it was moved.

Pete made the suggestion of creating a new thread in Flat Earth Theory on the subject of your experiment, without the questionably relevant introductory text. Does that sound like a fair resolution to you?
How the hell am I supposed to be a moron if I keep educating myself?  >:(

Re: Appeal to Administrator Regarding a Moderator Decision
« Reply #3 on: September 28, 2018, 04:56:42 PM »
Hi Bobby,

I've had a look at the thread and talked to Pete about the decision. While there is clearly contributive content in your thread, it is preceded by a substantial amount of text which does not contribute to the key point, which is why it was moved.

Pete made the suggestion of creating a new thread in Flat Earth Theory on the subject of your experiment, without the questionably relevant introductory text. Does that sound like a fair resolution to you?

Is that why it was moved? Not because "Complaints about how you totally don't like FET don't belong in the upper."

There are several explicit keys to that post.

1. Criticism of the Bishop Experiment as it stands now and has stood for years (apparently) as an example of experimental evidence.
2. Contrast of the acceptance of the unverified and unsubstantiated Bishop Experiment with (welcome) criticism and challenges of my experimental observations that are more rigorous or more documented.
3. Issuance of a challenge and offer to duplicate the Bishop Experiment.

Nowhere was it stated or implied that I "totally don't like FET."

If use of satire as a rhetorical technique for making my opening argument is verboten, then say so and I'll add that to the listen of unwritten local rules that are selectively applied by your moderators. 

The post was meant to be provocative, highlighting the disparity in standards between what passes as experimental evidence for a flat earth and what is challenged as experimental evidence for a globe earth. The Bishop Experiment has been criticized many times. Prompted by Tom Bishop's "contribution" in another topic, I chose to resurrect that criticism in light of his (and TFES's, apparently) contradictory stance on what constitutes "evidence"  but also within the context of my own observational efforts; and also offering to take the initiative and expend the effort to either validat or debunk the claim vice simply resorting to rhetoric.

But to classify it as angry ranting or that I just want to say "I don't like Flat Earth Theory" under the protective umbrella of board moderation is insincere. If a moderator feels provoked by a challenging post, he or she should be able to parse his flat earth advocacy from his moderating duties.

Knowing that my critique would be provocative, I took extra care to be sure I violated no rules, which themselves are often applied capriciously and selectively. I felt the manner in which I framed the post was appropriate, measured and lacking in any superfluous rhetoric. I've recently been indoctrinated not to parse out my message in a sequence of posts but to get to the point in the opening post. So that is what I did. After the fact, and after I appealed, the moderator now claims the reason was 'snark' but that's an editorial dislike of style and not, as he (with snark, mind you) claimed initially. Is it biting? Yes. It's intended to be. I don't see anywhere that that rhetorical technique is against the rules.

But if editing that is what it would take to reach a compromise and allow re-posting in the Flat Earth Theory forum, then yes. I will agree to that.

Re: Appeal to Administrator Regarding a Moderator Decision
« Reply #4 on: September 28, 2018, 11:23:20 PM »
I accepted the offer, revised the language, reposted. But he did it again.

Explain to me precisely -- Parsifal, not Svarrior -- what needs to be edited to be acceptable and I'll edit it.

If you want to run me off, fine. I'll leave. But this pretense of board moderation is a farce. I already refuse to engage Svarrior in regular discussion due to his tactics.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2018, 11:41:27 PM by Bobby Shafto »

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8118
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Appeal to Administrator Regarding a Moderator Decision
« Reply #5 on: September 29, 2018, 10:56:29 AM »
If you want to run me off, fine. I'll leave.
No one's trying to run you offline. Last time you got a short ban you quickly started to behave. This shows us that you clearly know how to behave. The problem is that you like to test the waters, see how far you can take things, and once you find the limit, you try to push past it by claiming to be outraged.

It won't work. Behave and enjoy the forum. When starting a thread, make sure it has a single, coherent point, and that it doesn't simply aim to insult your opposition. It's really that simple.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Appeal to Administrator Regarding a Moderator Decision
« Reply #6 on: September 29, 2018, 02:32:43 PM »
Excerpt from Angry Ranting:
Quote
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. 

Quote
- disregarding our agreement,

Response: I specifically did NOT disregard any agreement. I abided by the agreement you (Parsifal) offered, but the rules keep changing.

Quote
- 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).

Quote
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.

Quote
- 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.

Quote
- 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?


*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8118
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Appeal to Administrator Regarding a Moderator Decision
« Reply #7 on: September 29, 2018, 03:14:46 PM »
I am not interesting in debating this. I'm sorry that you disagree, but we'll continue to enforce the rules and keep this place tidy - even if you call me a big bad meanie.

I provided you with guidance regarding how to cover your content while remaining compliant. It is possible to express your complaint without spewing non-sequiturs left and right and insulting your opponents - ergo, it is not the substance of your argument that's a problem here.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2018, 03:24:38 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Appeal to Administrator Regarding a Moderator Decision
« Reply #8 on: September 29, 2018, 03:40:00 PM »
I'm not interested in debating this with any moderator. My grievance is against the moderator and for the attention of an administrator.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8118
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Appeal to Administrator Regarding a Moderator Decision
« Reply #9 on: September 29, 2018, 03:47:08 PM »
I'm not interested in debating this with any moderator.
That much is evident. A shame, but I guess I can't force you to learn.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Re: Appeal to Administrator Regarding a Moderator Decision
« Reply #10 on: September 29, 2018, 04:01:35 PM »
FAO administrator...

The moderator: "I am not interesting in debating this."
The plaintiff: "I'm not interested in debating this with any moderator. "
The moderator: "That much is evident. A shame, but I guess I can't force you to learn."

See what we (select) have to put up with? Does this make any sense? And is snark permitted in the upper fora or not? Or is that a privilege of a "do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do" moderator?

I've resigned to pursue my desired discussion on the Angry Ranting board, where we all know it won't be visible to the eyes of any guests. I consider that unsatisfactory, but I'll concede the matter resolved. My complaint about the moderation stands, for whatever that's worth.