Consistency
« on: February 04, 2019, 09:59:22 AM »
So, this post:

Quote
All y’all have fallen for Tom’s trolling again. His argument is the logical equivalent of saying we don’t know the exact value of pi and that it’s an embarrassing failure of mathematics. Technically true, (apart from the failure bit, it’s an irrational number, by definition the exact value can’t be known), but the value is known more than well enough for all practical purposes.
A model of the solar system doesn’t have to be perfect to be useful. The models we have are good enough to make predictions which are then bourne out by observations. I’d like to see Tom use the Saros cycles and flat earth map and model to tell us when and, more importantly exactly where future solar eclipses will be viewable from. The models we have of the globe earth and the solar system seem to be doing that rather well.

Was deemed worthy of a warning. A final warning, no less. Because:

Quote
If you want to call people trolls, do so in AR. Rule 1. If you can't figure out how not to attack others, well, we'll help you out.

When I asked why this was worthy of a warning when Pete and Tom have both called other posters liars or accused them of dishonesty/deception in the upper fora the reply was:

You've answered your own question. If someone's lying, it's only sensible to point it out to others, and to warn them against that individual. Dismissing someone's logic as "trolling" is a cheap cop-out, and you will avoid it in the upper. One way or another ;)

I'm not understanding the difference here. Lying and Trolling are similar in that there has to be intent. It is my opinion that Tom was trolling in that thread, but I may be wrong. Pete has often opined that people are lying and he has often been wrong - I know this because I have been the target of those accusations on several occasions and I haven't been lying. Only I know whether I was because only I know my intent.

And if there is a difference, why in this thread:
 
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11254.0

Is Pete allowed to say:

Quote
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this thread is nothing short of a cheap troll. I'm going to lock it now.

And he then locks the thread thus giving me no further right of reply.

Neither thread is in AR.
Why is Pete allowed to accuse me of trolling in one thread and then warn me for opining that Tom is trolling in another?
« Last Edit: February 04, 2019, 10:02:06 AM by AllAroundTheWorld »
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8738
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Consistency
« Reply #1 on: February 04, 2019, 01:36:37 PM »
A final warning, no less.
Yes, you're sitting on three recent warnings. I ignored old warnings, because they're old. Posting patterns, remember?

Because:
I solemnly promise that I will not entertain another "AATW doesn't understand that warnings aren't issued for singular posts" debacle. Further posts in which you pretend not to comprehend this will be considered as off-topic here.

Why is Pete allowed to accuse me of trolling in one thread and then warn me for opining that Tom is trolling in another?
Because it's my job to decide if threads need locking. I made the call, and I explained why. Yes, explaining moderator action is usually not on topic for the thread at hand. That, to most, should be blindingly obvious.

You should keep your "opining" to the relevant boards. If you become a mod, you will not only be allowed, but indeed expected, to explain your actions as you perform them. And yes, that would often involve acting on your assessment of the situation, and stating that assessment. Until then, you'll just have to accept that the "I was moderating the forum" excuse won't apply to your own off-topic posting.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2019, 01:44:47 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: Consistency
« Reply #2 on: February 04, 2019, 02:25:50 PM »
Thanks for your reply.

As you modified your post, I'll edit mine to add one additional thought. When you and Tom "opine" that people are lying or being deceitful you are not explaining a moderator action - Tom, certainly isn't, he isn't a mod. So the question remains why you are both allowed to opine that people are lying - and it IS just your opinion, only they know their intent - and I am not allowed to opine that Tom is trolling.

I look forward to Parsifal's thoughts, from what I understand this section is to be used partly to refer mod decisions to the Admin.
We've both had our say. Over to you, ref.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2019, 10:57:10 PM by AllAroundTheWorld »
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.