*

Offline Toddler Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 3075
  • I am Toddler Thork. Hear me roar!
    • View Profile
Re: #justiceforRonJ
« Reply #20 on: September 18, 2020, 08:19:55 PM »
Thork, nobody is going to be impressed by your ability to predict that people will disagree with you when you pretty much only ever act disagreeable. RonJ is not worth all of this trouble, frankly I'm kind of surprised he hasn't been permabanned yet. He's being afforded a lot of leeway.



I don't even know who Ronj is.

But when someone gets banned for 5 weeks for a personal attack in AR, that's not right. However, this transcends right and wrong.

The community have said 'we are not happy with this decision'. I mean read the thread. Not one forum user thought it was a fair ban. Then all the mods disagreed as one. So what we really have is a power struggle. The community want the site to be run one way, and the mods a different way. And it begs the question ... who shapes the future of The Flat Earth Society? The mods or its userbase? When the userbase demand a course of action and the mods refuse, the mods are exerting power and using it in an unpopular way.

This won't be the end of this. A simple end would have been Pete saying 2 days ago "yeah ok, maybe I had too much to drink, I had an itchy mouse finger and I blew Ronj away. I made his ban one day, he served that ... lets move on". That's the simple smart way to have dealt with it. No one else would have a dog in the race. But now it's the mods vs the users in a battle of will as to who this site is for. And that's a blister that will get popped another day.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2020, 08:23:07 PM by Toddler Thork »
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

Re: #justiceforRonJ
« Reply #21 on: September 18, 2020, 08:29:42 PM »
The community have said 'we are not happy with this decision'. I mean read the thread. Not one forum user thought it was a fair ban.

your sample is biased. it disproportionately draws from users who are a) upset about the decision, and b) upset enough to post about it. it absolutely does not represent "the community."

most users — like myself — don't give a shit either way. i think it's a fair ban, i just don't care enough to add anything to that thread. assuming that i must agree with your position because i am silent is silly.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
Re: #justiceforRonJ
« Reply #22 on: September 18, 2020, 08:46:17 PM »
I really wasn't upset about it, I would just prefer if the rules were applied equally and fairly. I don't think they were here. I'm sorry, but the letter of the law is important, it's why they tend to be so exacting. If a rule specifically says something must happen for it to be broken, you shouldn't ban someone if that thing didn't happen.

Tom never asked RonJ to stop being mean to him. So if you want to apply it that broadly take out the part that says a complaint must be made by the person harassed to the offended party, and make it clear that a mod can define harassment however he wishes. It's still draconian but at least you'd be making the way you seem to be implementing the rule clearer.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2020, 08:48:27 PM by Roundy »
Electro-Theologist, Poet, Philosopher, Musician, Etymologist, Egyptologist, Astro-Theologist, Geocentrist, Flat Earther, and Collector of Rare Books.

*

Offline Toddler Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 3075
  • I am Toddler Thork. Hear me roar!
    • View Profile
Re: #justiceforRonJ
« Reply #23 on: September 18, 2020, 08:49:06 PM »
So if you want to apply it that broadly take out the part that says a complaint must be made by the person harassed to the offended party, and make it clear that a mod can define harassment however he wishes. It's still draconian but at least you'd be making the way you implement the rule clearer.
Why do they get to decide how the rules are interpreted? Again, is this site run for the pleasure of its mods ... or its userbase? How do the people who use the site wish to be moderated? We made that clear already. We don't want to be banned for 5 weeks for taking a pop at Tom Bishop in AR.
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 2270
    • View Profile
Re: #justiceforRonJ
« Reply #24 on: September 18, 2020, 08:53:17 PM »
So if you want to apply it that broadly take out the part that says a complaint must be made by the person harassed to the offended party, and make it clear that a mod can define harassment however he wishes. It's still draconian but at least you'd be making the way you implement the rule clearer.
Why do they get to decide how the rules are interpreted? Again, is this site run for the pleasure of its mods ... or its userbase? How do the people who use the site wish to be moderated? We made that clear already. We don't want to be banned for 5 weeks for taking a pop at Tom Bishop in AR.

What are you gonna do, Thork, go on strike?  ::)
Electro-Theologist, Poet, Philosopher, Musician, Etymologist, Egyptologist, Astro-Theologist, Geocentrist, Flat Earther, and Collector of Rare Books.

Re: #justiceforRonJ
« Reply #25 on: September 18, 2020, 10:05:01 PM »
We've had an entire thread harassing Tom, which specifically featured RonJ as one of the most prolific contributors.

Right, hang on. You’re talking about the thread about things Tom doesn’t understand, right?
So I had a look through it just now and RonJ was indeed posting in it plenty in its first couple of pages. After that, not so much.
His last post in the thread that I could see (unless he has an alt?) was on page 10, his post was in May 2019. Tom’s post about how we were all being meanies wasn’t till May 2020. Not long after that, and after a few more posts, none by RonJ, the thread got locked.

So using that thread as part of a basis for banning RonJ is pretty spurious.

If you feel there’s been a more recent pattern of behaviour from him then you may be on to something but Tom’s complaint about the thread came a year after RonJ’s last post in the thread (again, unless he was posting with a different account), so you can’t sensibly claim Tom’s complaint about how horrid we all were included RonJ.

So yeah, RonJ broke Rule 1 which doesn’t apply in AR, so a ban was unwarranted.

All that said, I do buy the argument that he’d probably have got banned for something else soon anyway so is he really worth defending. But we are getting a bit “Minority Report” if we are going to ban someone for something they’re probably going to do.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7237
    • View Profile
Re: #justiceforRonJ
« Reply #26 on: September 19, 2020, 01:56:55 AM »
I really wasn't upset about it, I would just prefer if the rules were applied equally and fairly. I don't think they were here. I'm sorry, but the letter of the law is important, it's why they tend to be so exacting. If a rule specifically says something must happen for it to be broken, you shouldn't ban someone if that thing didn't happen.

Tom never asked RonJ to stop being mean to him. So if you want to apply it that broadly take out the part that says a complaint must be made by the person harassed to the offended party, and make it clear that a mod can define harassment however he wishes. It's still draconian but at least you'd be making the way you seem to be implementing the rule clearer.

The rules aren't, and shouldn't be, read like they're legal rights in a court of law.

*

Offline Toddler Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 3075
  • I am Toddler Thork. Hear me roar!
    • View Profile
Re: #justiceforRonJ
« Reply #27 on: September 19, 2020, 07:31:18 AM »
The rules aren't, and shouldn't be, read like they're legal rights in a court of law.
Interesting. How should they be read?
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 6665
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: #justiceforRonJ
« Reply #28 on: September 19, 2020, 12:08:59 PM »
The rules aren't, and shouldn't be, read like they're legal rights in a court of law.
Interesting. How should they be read?

Like they are rules on an Internet forum moderated by the finest minds of this subnet.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7237
    • View Profile
Re: #justiceforRonJ
« Reply #29 on: September 19, 2020, 01:51:14 PM »
The rules aren't, and shouldn't be, read like they're legal rights in a court of law.
Interesting. How should they be read?

As typical guidelines for behavior subject to the interpretation of moderators and admins. Just because something isn't mentioned expressly in the rules doesn't mean it can't happen, likewise, just because strict wording of the rules might protect certain behavior doesn't mean a moderator can't just remove bad actors anyway. Ultimately this is a totalitarian dictatorship and we mods are police that are mad with power.

*

Offline Toddler Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 3075
  • I am Toddler Thork. Hear me roar!
    • View Profile
Re: #justiceforRonJ
« Reply #30 on: September 19, 2020, 03:59:02 PM »
In other words, despite moderators frequently asking users to familiarise themselves with the rules, that's actually a waste of time because they interpret, or one might say make them up on the fly, as they feel like on any given day. In fact, there isn't even any point in the rules because

something isn't mentioned expressly in the rules doesn't mean it can't happen, likewise, just because strict wording of the rules might protect certain behavior doesn't mean a moderator can't just remove bad actors anyway.

so rules are added and ignored by whoever feels like being a dick to the other users on the site. So this begs a new question ... if there aren't any rules ... why do we have mods? We'd be better off without you.


Now, I'd like to direct you to item 4 of the manifesto
Quote from: manifesto item 4
In all decisions, you shall defer to the rules as written rather than relying on your personal judgment.

Which is the exact opposite of
As typical guidelines for behavior subject to the interpretation of moderators and admins.

So you are supposed to use the rules and not your god awful personal judgement. And if you don't like that, please have a read of item 2 of the manifesto.
Quote from: manifesto item 2
At any time, you may revoke your agreement to this or any other version of the manifesto by resigning your position on the forum.

Follow the rules or resign. You can choose.  >:(


Now we know you are supposed to use the rules, back to Ronj ....
As has been stated numerous times in the past, bans are issued for patterns of behaviour, not isolated incidents. RonJ can either demonstrate good faith by improving his behaviour, or he can continue doing what he just did and keep getting banned for it. The choice is his.

Which is the exact opposite of
Quote from: manifesto item 5
You shall apply the same rules equivalently to all members on the forum, without invoking your personal opinion of a member, their posting history or any factor other than the rules and their behaviour in the situation at hand.


Unban Ronj. Your justifications have all been in contradiction to the manifesto which was put in place to prevent the mod team terrorising the user base via
a totalitarian dictatorship and we mods are police that are mad with power.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2020, 04:21:23 PM by Toddler Thork »
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11943
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: #justiceforRonJ
« Reply #31 on: September 19, 2020, 04:26:36 PM »
Now, I'd like to direct you to item 4 of the manifesto
Quote from: manifesto item 4
In all decisions, you shall defer to the rules as written rather than relying on your personal judgment.
You might want continue reading.

Thork, last night you openly admitted that this is nothing but another one of your trolling stunts. Deleting the post doesn't change that. Please take a break to clean up your underwear and come back when you're done dealing with whatever personal crap sent you on this mission.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline Toddler Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 3075
  • I am Toddler Thork. Hear me roar!
    • View Profile
Re: #justiceforRonJ
« Reply #32 on: September 19, 2020, 04:29:06 PM »
Fix the mess you made with Ronj. You gave him a 5 week ban because you and the mod team don't respect the rules of the forum or the manifesto.
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11943
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: #justiceforRonJ
« Reply #33 on: September 19, 2020, 04:30:14 PM »
I'm sorry to hear you feel that way. Of course, I know you actually don't. How you actually feel is something you already described for all of us.

Now, please stop trolling S&C.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline Toddler Thork

  • *
  • Posts: 3075
  • I am Toddler Thork. Hear me roar!
    • View Profile
Re: #justiceforRonJ
« Reply #34 on: September 19, 2020, 04:33:06 PM »
Stop derailing the thread with your nonsense about trolling. Deal with the subject matter. Your application of rule 2 when a user was well within their rights subject to rule 1. We've already established that the rules are more important that your useless personal judgement. That's why we have rules. Rules first, judgement second. Rules FIRST.
Rate this post.      👍 6     👎 1

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11943
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: #justiceforRonJ
« Reply #35 on: September 19, 2020, 04:36:31 PM »
Deal with the subject matter.
The subject matter has been dealt with. Every member of staff reviewed the issue individually, and the agreement reached was that the rules were executed properly, within a reasonable use of moderator discretion. You are perfectly entitled to dislike this, but ultimately, the site is run by its owners, not by you.

You claim to represent "the community" - I'll defer you to garygreen's comment in this thread. You represent nobody but yourself, and nobody is buying your holier-than-thou attitude. Roundy has made some interesting points about the letter vs. spirit of the rules, and I'll see if we can tighten the phrasing in some occasions. In the meantime, your "do as I say or else I'll keep shitting all over the forum" attitude has run its course.

You made yourself perfectly clear yesterday. You don't give a damn about this site or its users. What you care about is starting trouble and "winning", even if it comes at the cost of wrecking the place. We are not going to waste any more time on you or your concern-trolling.

Thread locked.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2020, 04:39:17 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!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice