What I Mean by "Curse"
ren
I only mean that it is my sincere prayer that this website be exposed
for what it is, full of cat torturing, self-mutilating kids who think
they are 5th generation half-vampire-werewolf Wiccans or Other -- an
unfair moderator mess, and that people lose interest in the website
and fall away.
Today I helped a person without site descend the stares. I hope that
this pleases my gods and that my gods grant me this wish for Yule.
I hope that wiccantogether.com fails completely and that people stop
visiting the site.
seckond
> I do not mean the harm of any members of wiccantogether.com
>
> I only mean that it is my sincere prayer that this website be exposed
> for what it is, full of cat torturing, self-mutilating kids who think
> they are 5th generation half-vampire-werewolf Wiccans or Other -- an
> unfair moderator mess, and that people lose interest in the website
> and fall away.
> visiting the site.
Hmm forgetting that you were a major part of the chaos and drama over
there huh?
Lady Azure, Baroness of the North Pole.
> I do not mean the harm of any members of wiccantogether.com
>
> I only mean that it is my sincere prayer that this website be exposed
> for what it is, full of cat torturing, self-mutilating kids who think
> they are 5th generation half-vampire-werewolf Wiccans or Other -- an
> unfair moderator mess, and that people lose interest in the website
> and fall away.
So you want the Pussy Cats to win?
Nasty little things "Spraying" the whole place with their foul stench.
ren
> Hmm forgetting that you were a major part of the chaos and drama over
> there huh?
As are you, my new friend.
Since I am unable to participate in wiccantogether.com anymore, I
shall port discussions that interest me to this newsgroup.
The gods have guided me down the stairs. I am blind no more.
Beorc Kano
No. Just a dumb plagiarizer. I wonder how long your pity-party over
here will last?
Your ego has guided you. You are still blind. All you have to do is
remove the blindfold you've put there yourself. I simply don't think
you're capable.
Oh, I'm not a mod over here. I don't have to be polite. Or civil. I
can actually speak my mind... imagine that.
Evergreen
> I do not mean the harm of any members of wiccantogether.com
Another lie. You would if you could.
You can't harm anyone with the theatrical woo-woo you call 'magick'.
> I only mean that it is my sincere prayer that this website be exposed
> for what it is, full of cat torturing, self-mutilating kids who think
> they are 5th generation half-vampire-werewolf Wiccans or Other -- an
> unfair moderator mess, and that people lose interest in the website
> and fall away.
He can't curse them, so he has to resort to vicious gossip.
As usual.
I don't believe a word of it.
>
> Today I helped a person without site descend the stares.
ROTFL!
This is what chronic lying does to your mind.
> I hope that
> this pleases my gods and that my gods grant me this wish for Yule.
Your gods are as creepy as you are. And just as phony.
>
> I hope that wiccantogether.com fails completely and that people stop
> visiting the site.
Above you said you didn't want to harm them....
If they had the sense to kick your malicious and dishonest ass
out, they will do just fine.
If _you_ had any sense you wouldn't have brought up this
subject at all and just taken the lumps you earned. I had
no idea this was happenning until your posts on the subect
appeared here, and I'm sure that applies to most of the
people who read this group.
Sid
--
Sidney Lambe
Wiccan Priest and Apprentice Magician
http://tinyurl.com/7vs9zb
usenet4444 (at) gmail (dot) com
s�r`ch�sm
>
[snip ironically unmoderated stuff that can easily be reread upthread]
>
>Oh, I'm not a mod over here.
>
Obviously, since an unmoderated newsgroup doesn't have a "mod", by
definition. Your grasp of the abysmally-obvious is daunting.
>
>I don't have to be polite.
>
No one does. True strength of character is in choosing to be; not in
getting censored into it.
>
>Or civil.
>
Nor civil, should you choose to be or, act like a nun recently escaped from
a nunnery who has just 'discovered' sex for the first time.
>
>I can actually speak my mind... imagine that.
>
It must be like some relieving sense of freedom to be able to actually say
what you wish without restriction. How you choose to use that freedom
remains where it has lain dormant all along.
ren
> Oh, I'm not a mod over here. I don't have to be polite. Or civil. I
> can actually speak my mind... imagine that.
Feels pretty good, doesn't it.
Beorc Kano
> It must be like some relieving sense of freedom to be able to actually say
> what you wish without restriction. How you choose to use that freedom
> remains where it has lain dormant all along.
It's quite liberating, really. It's more akin to being at work, in a
position of authority, then changing jobs, and running into someone
you thought was utter trash while at the mall, and not having to hold
your tongue because of workplace obligations.
seckond
I'd rather you did not port any of MY words here Ren. Copyright and
all y'know. Nor would I appreciate seeing my words tainted.
I guess now that I mentioned this you are going to post something of
me?
s�r`ch�sm
>
>It's quite liberating, really. It's more akin to being at work, in a
>position of authority, then changing jobs, and running into someone
>you thought was utter trash while at the mall, and not having to hold
>your tongue because of workplace obligations.
>
In other words, such feigned 'civility' is but a thin patina of hypocrisy.
Thanks for clearing that up, it'll go far in accounting for future
inconsistencies that may arise.
s�r`ch�sm
> "ren" <ren1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Since I am unable to participate in wiccantogether.com anymore, I
> shall port discussions that interest me to this newsgroup.
>
>I'd rather you did not port any of MY words here Ren. Copyright and
>all y'know.
>
That response brings to mind a curious observation; since ren is unable to
participate any longer in the discussions of a closed forum, the only
discussions he can port over are ones previous to his banning. It may be
that you are 'pre-objecting' to quoting your wt posts, (in part or, in
whole), in another forum, quoting them out of context or, some other
objection altogether.
>
>Nor would I appreciate seeing my words tainted.
>
Ah, this is likely the real objection and directly implies the negative
connotations of a predisposition. It's unclear at this point whether the
intention is to 'moderate' an unmoderated forum by pre-emptively hinting at
copyright 'violations' or, whether ren is baiting you. In either case, it
won't matter if you post your own words here, in this unmoderated forum, and
cause the copyright point to be moot. Have an untainted solstice,
regardless.
Beorc Kano
>
> In other words, such feigned 'civility' is but a thin patina of hypocrisy.
> Thanks for clearing that up, it'll go far in accounting for future
> inconsistencies that may arise.
Actually, in other words, such civility is a necessity of station.
It's my ability to hold my tongue and action due to a position that
was offered to me by my peers. In an 'official' capacity, I can't
afford to discredit the authority that can deal with such idiocy as
the drama-mongering that Ren was indulging in. Therefore, I had to
stick to the rules despite my desire to rip into him.
Here, there are no such strictures, and no such capacities to fill.
Here, it is only a discussion forum, without a hierarchy, and thus
without someone telling me to be nice. If someone is, in my opinion,
deserving of harsh words because of something stupid they wrote, I can
actually deliver it here.
Thanks for displaying your innately snarky nature. it will go far in
helping me disregard your observations in the future.
Lady Azure, Baroness o de North Pole
Hadn't caught that one, but then hadn't encountered "Snarky" in a Long Time.
�ｿｽ
s�r`ch�sm
> "s�r`ch�sm" <s�r`ch�s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [in regards to "not having to hold your tongue"]:
>
> In other words, such feigned 'civility' is but a thin patina of hypocrisy.
> Thanks for clearing that up, it'll go far in accounting for future
> inconsistencies that may arise.
>
>Actually, in other words, such civility is a necessity of station.
>
The ability to feign civility is a necessity of station? The reason the
term "feigned" was used derives from your statements regarding what you'd
like to say, were it not for the constrictions imposed by the censorship of
moderation, (including self-censorship). In other, more accurate words,
it's inherently dishonest.
>
>In an 'official' capacity, I can't afford to discredit the authority
>
By indicating that you've reigned in your incivility by feigning civility in
another forum, you've 'discredited' that position by demonstrating an
inherent dishonesty.
>
>Therefore, I had to stick to the rules despite my desire to rip into him.
>
That's the hypocritical and feigned part which you ineptly attempted to
dodge.
>
>Here, there are no such strictures, and no such capacities to fill.
>Here, it is only a discussion forum, without a hierarchy, and thus
>without someone telling me to be nice.
>
Exactly; in an unmoderated forum, no one forces such a choice. That's
somewhat more honest in this context. Whereas in a moderated forum, you've
admitted that moderation constricts what you'd prefer to say and thus
results in a feigned civility. That's dishonest. You then respond with
'justifications' for being dishonest, which continues the trend you are
demonstrating. You equivocate poorly and may have been reading too many
sidiot posts.
>
>If someone is, in my opinion, deserving of harsh words because
>of something stupid they wrote, I can actually deliver it here.
>
Yes, you can. Just as has been done with something stupid you've just
posted here. You can argue in defense of the stupidity of your statements
if you wish or, not, as you wish.
>
>Thanks for displaying your innately snarky nature.
>
Your annoyance is irrelevant to the fact that you dishonestly feign
civility, depending upon the forum, and are inherently hypocritical.
>
>it will go far in helping me disregard your observations in the future.
>
If it's easier on your fragile psyche for you to hide from your own
dishonesty and delude yourself further, proceed at will.
Beorc Kano
> The ability to feign civility is a necessity of station? The reason the
> term "feigned" was used derives from your statements regarding what you'd
> like to say, were it not for the constrictions imposed by the censorship of
> moderation, (including self-censorship). In other, more accurate words,
> it's inherently dishonest.
So, let me get this straight... Holding one's tongue for the benefit
of others is inherently dishonest
> By indicating that you've reigned in your incivility by feigning civility in
> another forum, you've 'discredited' that position by demonstrating an
> inherent dishonesty.
No, by displaying self control, I've demonstrated the ability to set a
moral standing above my base instincts.
> >Therefore, I had to stick to the rules despite my desire to rip into him.
>
> That's the hypocritical and feigned part which you ineptly attempted to
> dodge.
Inept according to someone who feels that the following of a greater
code is inherently dishonest.
> Exactly; in an unmoderated forum, no one forces such a choice. That's
> somewhat more honest in this context. Whereas in a moderated forum, you've
> admitted that moderation constricts what you'd prefer to say and thus
> results in a feigned civility. That's dishonest. You then respond with
> 'justifications' for being dishonest, which continues the trend you are
> demonstrating. You equivocate poorly and may have been reading too many
> sidiot posts.
Methinks you're hung up on comparing people, painting everythng with
the same brush. I never made a secret my personal feelings, but I
curbed my tongue for the sake of the rules set forth by the community.
Much the same way that I would prefer to beat people like Ren (and
you) down with a stick for their annoying and illogical faux-
reasoning. Unfortunately, in all countries that I can think of,
assault is illegal, and, logically, I know this is good. I put a
greater code above my base urges.
My word, how very dishonest of me. I'm such a bad man.
> >If someone is, in my opinion, deserving of harsh words because
> >of something stupid they wrote, I can actually deliver it here.
>
> Yes, you can. Just as has been done with something stupid you've just
> posted here. You can argue in defense of the stupidity of your statements
> if you wish or, not, as you wish.
Apparently, you choose to defend your stupid statements as well. Looks
like we're going to be swimming about in circles for a while.
> >Thanks for displaying your innately snarky nature.
>
> Your annoyance is irrelevant to the fact that you dishonestly feign
> civility, depending upon the forum, and are inherently hypocritical.
Not really annoyed. Somewhat disappointed. I was hoping that someone
with the appearance of intellect would follow through. Unfortunately.
I was mistaken.
> >it will go far in helping me disregard your observations in the future.
>
> If it's easier on your fragile psyche for you to hide from your own
> dishonesty and delude yourself further, proceed at will.
No, a fragile psyche would capitulate to the words of some faceless
bundle of angsty words over the internet who decided to tie their
knickers in a knot about something said online. I'd rather just read,
respond, chuckle, and move on, secure in the fact that nothing I say
will change your mind, and nothing you say will change mine.
Sometimes, one must simply write off lost causes.
Oh, feel free to try and prove yourself right again. I'm sure your ego
is due for another stroking shortly. If you think that what you say
might this time have an effect, please refer to the paragraph above.
s�r`ch�sm
> "s�r`ch�sm" <s�r`ch�s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The ability to feign civility is a necessity of station? The reason the
> term "feigned" was used derives from your statements regarding what you'd
> like to say, were it not for the constrictions imposed by the censorship
> of
> moderation, (including self-censorship). In other, more accurate words,
> it's inherently dishonest.
>
>So, let me get this straight... Holding one's tongue for the benefit
>of others is inherently dishonest
>
Yes. No mention of whether such dishonesty benefited others arose until
your mention of it. Even so, it's still dishonest and that was the context
of the point made.
>
> By indicating that you've reigned in your incivility by feigning civility
> in
> another forum, you've 'discredited' that position by demonstrating an
> inherent dishonesty.
>
>No, by displaying self control, I've demonstrated the ability to set a
>moral standing above my base instincts.
>
No, by censoring your 'honest' opinion by feigning civility, you've
demonstrated an inherent dishonesty which sets a signnificantly lower 'moral
standing' than you're claiming. This merely extends the baseline of the
dishonest trend you are demonstrating now.
>
> >Therefore, I had to stick to the rules despite my desire to rip into him.
>
> That's the hypocritical and feigned part which you ineptly attempted to
> dodge.
>
>Inept according to someone who feels that the following of a greater
>code is inherently dishonest.
>
Since feigning something is not honest and is therefore not demonstrative of
a "greater code", then yes, your attempts to dodge this have been inept
thusfar.
>
> Exactly; in an unmoderated forum, no one forces such a choice. That's
> somewhat more honest in this context. Whereas in a moderated forum, you've
> admitted that moderation constricts what you'd prefer to say and thus
> results in a feigned civility. That's dishonest. You then respond with
> 'justifications' for being dishonest, which continues the trend you are
> demonstrating. You equivocate poorly and may have been reading too many
> sidiot posts.
>
>Methinks
>
This has not been adaquately established but, there's always hope for the
future.
>
>you're hung up on comparing people, painting everythng with the
>same brush.
>
You generalize inaccurately. The mention of another person who equivocates
was made to emphasize your equivocations. No comparisons with others has
been made.
>
>I never made a secret my personal feelings, but I
>curbed my tongue for the sake of the rules set forth by the community.
>
Either you curbed your tongue, (censored your postings), and your personal
feelings remained known only to you or, you didn't do so outside of the
environment of the moderated forum, (i.e., you covertly made your "secret"
feelings known off-site in yet another substantiation of your inherent
dishonesty).
>
>Much the same way that I would prefer to beat people like Ren (and
>you) down with a stick for their annoying and illogical faux-
>reasoning.
>
Since no such faux-reasoning has been employed by me, (unless you can
indicate, logically, where this has occurred), your assessment is false.
This is quite in line with the baseline of dishonesty you're broadening
here. The fact that you'd prefer to resort to violence rather than
reasoning further belies your assertion and continues to detract from your
claims of "moral standing" and "greater codes".
>
>Unfortunately, in all countries that I can think of,
>assault is illegal, and, logically, I know this is good. I put a
>greater code above my base urges.
>
Fear of consequences is no substitute for actually having a code of honor.
You haven't missed the underlying point regarding "base urges" at all.
Don't consider it deeply, (or, shallowly).
>
>My word, how very dishonest of me. I'm such a bad man.
>
Continue to equivocate and deny your own words, that's much safer for you
than being facetious, (albeit still dishonest, in a self-deluded way).
>
> >If someone is, in my opinion, deserving of harsh words because
> >of something stupid they wrote, I can actually deliver it here.
>
> Yes, you can. Just as has been done with something stupid you've just
> posted here. You can argue in defense of the stupidity of your statements
> if you wish or, not, as you wish.
>
>Apparently, you choose to defend your stupid statements as well.
>
Since I've made no stupid statements, except in the dubious opinion of a
dishonest person, such an assessment can be disregarded as inaccurate.
>
>Looks like we're going to be swimming about in circles for a while.
>
In that regard, you're swimming alone and whine when you run into the reef
of actual reasoning, (as opposed to the flimsy substitute you've employed so
far).
>
> >Thanks for displaying your innately snarky nature.
>
> Your annoyance is irrelevant to the fact that you dishonestly feign
> civility, depending upon the forum, and are inherently hypocritical.
>
>Not really annoyed.
>
Then you are dim of wit as well; "snarky" and annoy are synonymous and we've
already established that you don't say what you mean, (cf., your feigning).
>
>Somewhat disappointed. I was hoping that someone
>with the appearance of intellect would follow through. Unfortunately.
>I was mistaken.
>
You are mistaken regarding the "appearance" since mine is no thin
affectation as you are demonstrating yours to be.
>
> >it will go far in helping me disregard your observations in the future.
>
> If it's easier on your fragile psyche for you to hide from your own
> dishonesty and delude yourself further, proceed at will.
>
>No, a fragile psyche would capitulate
>
On the contrary, a fragile psyche would dodge, equivocate and do nearly
anything to avoid taking responsibility except concede their weakness. Much
as you've done thusfar.
>
>I'd rather just read, respond, chuckle, and move on, secure in
>the fact that nothing I say will change your mind
>
Of course you would - anything else strains your limited capacity. As for
logical persuasions; you haven't presented anything substantial enough to
cause reconsideration.
>
>and nothing you say will change mine.
>
I see; although I can remain open to solid new information, you are
insinuating that you are not. This is good as it would do no good for you
to learn something new and there is absolutely no intention of even
accidentally teaching you anything. Just to be clear.
>
>Sometimes, one must simply write off lost causes.
>
Indeed, especially if you are as closed-minded as you present yourself to be
and are not indirectly conceding your own errors.
>
>Oh, feel free to try and prove yourself right again.
>
It isn't so much a matter of "proving" myself right as it is demonstrating
that you're dishonest and that your attempted justifications for your own
dishonesty fail moreso than your lame forays into the territory of reason,
which is quite apparently unfamilar to you.
>
>If you think that what you say
>might this time have an effect, please refer to the paragraph above.
>
There's no need since you indicated that your mind is closed and I indicated
that there is no intention to affect your closed-mindedness. Feel free to
speculate on the actual intention or, not as this is an unmoderated forum,
(not the restrictive, feigned civility place of dishonesty you are
accustomed to).
seckond
Actually no. He is still able to view the site, he just can't
participate. In the very end, he can access it from a different
computer.
Finally you seem to have the amusing habit of interpreting one's posts
according to your own twisted sense of understanding as well as focus
on miniscule "errors" rather than seeing the actual meaning of the
posts.
I didn't exactly mean copyright as even in such a case I'd be more or
less unable to press any charges. I am aware of the lack of moderation
of this group but that was not the point of my post. To explain
plainly: I don't want to see my words and posts used by Ren. It's
actually that simple. If he does use them I can't do anything nor can
I stop him from using them. However, neither case bars me from
expressing my opinion.
Evergreen
> On Dec 21, 11:20=A0pm, "s=E2r`ch=E2sm"
> <s=E2r`ch=E2s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
[delete]
>
> Finally you seem to have the amusing habit of interpreting
> one's posts according to your own twisted sense of
> understanding as well as focus on miniscule "errors" rather
> than seeing the actual meaning of the posts.
This is why almost everyone killfiles the creep.
I almost killfiled you without even reading your post
just for feeding this troll. Assuming that you were
one of his sockpuppets or a truly clueless traveler.
[delete]
Eruandil
Surprisingly, it will bring a majority of the fail in this argument
crashing down.
sâr`châsm : ""snarky" and annoy are synonymous"
Snarky and annoy are not synonymous. First, snarky is an adjective,
annoy is a verb. This precludes synonymy.
Secondly, Snarky is defined as "1. Rudely sarcastic or disrespectful;
snide. 2. Irritable or short-tempered; irascible." The closest
adjective in the word family you might be looking for is "annoying,"
but annoying simply means "Causing vexation or irritation;
troublesome:" This word entirely lacks the nuances and sophistication
of the term "snarky."
Please, be sure you understand basic language before attempting to
correct other people on it.
(Definitions taken from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ for source
reference, even though most basic English such as these terms are
already in the vocabulary of most people who study it.)
~Eruandil
s�r`ch�sm
>
> >I'd rather you did not port any of MY words here Ren. Copyright and
> >all y'know.
>
> That response brings to mind a curious observation; since ren is unable to
> participate any longer in the discussions of a closed forum, the only
> discussions he can port over are ones previous to his banning. It may be
> that you are 'pre-objecting' to quoting your wt posts, (in part or, in
> whole), in another forum, quoting them out of context or, some other
> objection altogether.
>
>Actually no. He is still able to view the site, he just can't
>participate. In the very end, he can access it from a different
>computer.
>
So, your main objection is to his porting your words from wt to arw?
>
>Finally you seem to have the amusing habit of interpreting one's posts
>according to your own twisted sense of understanding as well as focus
>on miniscule "errors" rather than seeing the actual meaning of the posts.
>
What a coincidence, so do you! What are the odds?
>
>I didn't exactly mean copyright as even in such a case I'd be more or
>less unable to press any charges.
>
Yet, you specifically used the term "copyright" in your objection. There's
no interpretation involved as your post was quoted in reply. Therefore, you
seem to have the unamusing habit of fabrication in lieu of honesty. Is this
a prerequisite of wt or, just a habit of two of you there?
>
>I am aware of the lack of moderation
>of this group but that was not the point of my post.
>
Neither was it the main point of my reply since your objections stemmed from
your lack of desire to have your words ported to another forum by someone
whom you are unable to moderate/censor here. The relevant point being that
such moderation isn't applicable to arw and expressing your preference to
effectively moderate someone on an unmoderated group is ineffectual.
>
>To explain plainly: I don't want to see my words and posts used by Ren.
>
The explanation is unnecessary since anyone reading your first complaint
here caught that. To reiterate, the original observation concerned implied
copyright infringements which you've now retracted.
>
>If he does use them I can't do anything nor can I stop him from using them.
>
No, however, you can choose to elaborate upon them should he port them out
of context or, it's dubiously deemed that he "have the amusing habit of
interpreting one's posts".
>
>However, neither case bars me from expressing my opinion.
>
True, unlike the constricted, moderated forum from whence you sprung. As
one of your cohorts remarked, it can be liberating.
Beorc Kano
> [snip] (load of dithering foolishness and presumptuous arrogance)
Ah, once again, statements that following the set rules is a
dishonest, hypocritical weakness...
You don't learn swiftly, do you? Nor are you very imaginative. I see
the same thing, over and over again...
Keep stroking. I'm certain your ego will shortly ejaculate all over
the screen again. I must say, though, you're getting rather
predictable. I have no doubt that there will be a comment concerning
my inability to argue, hence my snipping and disregarding of all of
your well thought out arguments as to your detection of my very
deepest weaknesses... over an unmoderated internet forum, mostly over
a difference of philosophy.
Well done. You should be a government profiler. So very correct. So
very precise.
Besides. You're quite the hypocrite yourself. Feigning the ability to
correctly reason. Keep hiding behind your pseudo power on the
internet... I'm certain you have a small following of trained monkeys
that will leap and hoot at your every post, patting you on the back
and telling you how smart you are. Weak minded people who lack self
control often crave such a thing, so I suppose you can't be blamed for
indulging in it. It does fit you nicely, after all.
Well, since neither of us can be assed to post anything substantial
enough to make the other reconsider, as you are just as bullheaded and
close-minded as you accuse me of being, what say I leave you now to
your impotent mutterings and moanings.
I hope your self-inflation holds out for you, I really do. I'd hate to
be near when THAT bloated cow bursts. Quite messy indeed. Ah well, the
world is full of culls. I suppose all we can do is identify them, and
then ignore them when they try to drag us down to their depths. Have
fun with the attempt, though. I guess you have to have SOMETHING in
life to look forward to.
I'm done with you now.
You are dismissed.
s�r`ch�sm
>
>I'm just going to address one thing.
>Surprisingly, it will bring a majority of the fail in this argument
>crashing down.
>
Unsurprisingly, it does not.
>
>s�r`ch�sm : ""snarky" and annoy are synonymous"
>Snarky and annoy are not synonymous. First, snarky is an adjective,
>annoy is a verb. This precludes synonymy.
>
The meanings are synonymous since the definition of snarky contains the
descriptive verb, "annoy":
'snarky'-
Function: adjective
Etymology: dial. snark to annoy, perhaps alteration of nark to irritate
Date: 1906 - Mirriam-Webster online
>
>Please, be sure you understand basic language before attempting to
>correct other people on it.
>
The use was contextually correct in that usage was indicated as being
interchangeable. Dictionary hair-splitting aside, your attempt to divert
from the context of the post to which you picked a nit fail. Your pal has
adaquately demonstrated a propensity for dishonesty which you choose to
elude on some lame flanking maneuver. That type of diversionary crap may
work over on wt, it doesn't really fly well here.
s�r`ch�sm
>
> This is why almost everyone killfiles the creep.
>
This is why you two may get on well; the sidiot likes to pretend he can
moderate an unmoderated NG and that he speaks for "almost everyone".
s�r`ch�sm
>
[snip of bullshit dodging what the cowardly "beorc kano" is too stupid and
fearful to answer]
Which leaves ... nothing. That's a shocker.
s�r`ch�sm
forum:
>
>You are dismissed.
>
You are delusional if you think you can bring that moderating dodge over
here. Your intellectual capacity is dismissed, however.
Beorc Kano
> "Beorc Kano" <brandoncornw...@gmail.com> tried moderating an unmoderated
Aww, he thinks changing the action tags when he quotes me is effective
as a method of discrediting me!
How cute! It's like watching a retarded kitten try to eat a rock!
You're reaching pretty far if you think that was an attempt at
moderation. It was the dismissal of you and your ever growing mountain
of fail. It was funny how you responded to me once, then again. I can
almost see you, sitting in your computer chair, typing furiously,
sweat beading on your brow, then you triumphantly hit SEND!.... Aww,
shit, you realized you forgot to deal with your dismissal! HEY WAIT!
You think you might be able to use that to your advantage! I MUST POST
AN AMENDMENT!
Too bad the amendment failed as badly as the initial post. Way to copy
my words, though. I might have been mistaken. Maybe you DO learn by
example. Next time, try not to whitewash them with the taint of your
own lack of ability. I maybe proving (in your eyes) how dishonest and
hypocritical I am, but you're simply proving your own inadequacies
over and over again. Keep clinging to the thought that I'm proving my
own dishonesty, and continue to blind yourself to everything else.
Bravo. *golf claps*
... Oh, wow, I got that all into one post.
Your turn! :D
ren
enough for the readers here to judge all of our characters and make
determinations as to just what happened.
In summary, they lied to get me kicked off the website by saying I
deleted a post and caused trouble. It is clear to see that all of them
are couples and roommates who conspired together and enjoy causing
trouble themselves.
Beorc has no business being a moderator because he is a biased,
censoring, power hungry, threatening twit.
Beorc Kano
*laughs*
Couples and roommates. That are spread all over the globe. Because
Lady of the Graveyard, living in England, is totally my roommate in
Missouri. As is Angantyr, in Australia.
I must have a huge house!
Eruandil was my roommate. No longer is, but he lived on my land, and
yes, Julica is my wife. But, see, Julica only said one thing (a
clarification of the rules... that you broke), and then more or less
stayed out of it all. Such a conspirator, indeed.
Yes. Characters have been defined here. Looks like yours was judged
long before I showed up, Ren.
Eruandil
THERE IS NO ONE ELSE WHO COULD HAVE DELETED IT.
Also, going from "we're friends" to "main critic" in just a couple of
posts is laughable.
And I'm not your main critic. :D
Evergreen
> On Dec 22, 9:14=A0am, ren <ren1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> s=E2r`ch=E2sm interviewed my moderator and my main critic
>> quite well. Wel=
>
> l
>
>> enough for the readers here to judge all of our characters and
>> make determinations as to just what happened.
>>
>> In summary, they lied to get me kicked off the website by
>> saying I deleted a post and caused trouble. It is clear to
>> see that all of them are couples and roommates who conspired
>> together and enjoy causing trouble themselves.
>>
>> Beorc has no business being a moderator because he is a
>> biased, censoring, power hungry, threatening twit.
>
> THERE IS NO ONE ELSE WHO COULD HAVE DELETED IT. Also, going
> from "we're friends" to "main critic" in just a couple of posts
> is laughable. And I'm not your main critic. :D
:-))
I think I can claim that dubious honor. I've been crucifying
him with his own articles for over a year now, and he just
keeps on keeping on, pretending that nothing happenned and
that everyone thinks he's a globally respected magickal
adept.
There is no end to his clueless vanity and egotism.
He actually posts un-solicited autobiographical essays that
contradict each other.
s�r`ch�sm
> "s�r`ch�sm" wrote:
> > "Beorc Kano" tried moderating an unmoderated forum:
>
> >You are dismissed.
>
> You are delusional if you think you can bring that moderating dodge over
> here. Your intellectual capacity is dismissed, however.
>
>Aww, he thinks changing the action tags when he quotes me is effective
>as a method of discrediting me!
>
It took minimal prompting for you to discredit yourself. It will take
little more for you to shoot yourself in your other foot.
>
>You're reaching pretty far if you think that was an attempt at
>moderation. It was the dismissal of you
>
Since you are unable to ban posts in this forum, you have resorted to faux
condescension in order to evade honestly accounting for your dishonesty in
feigning civility in another forum. That's weak and dishonorable of you and
your haughty dismissals are rendered as meaningless.
>
>It was funny how you responded to me once, then again.
>You think you might be able to use that to your advantage!
>
That may be the sort of crap ya'll pull over in wt, however, the purpose of
responding to different portions of your post in separate posts was to
separately emphasize different points. Being the dishonest person you are,
you will naturally project your own dishonesty and assume others lie as
profusely as you do.
>
>Too bad the amendment failed as badly as the initial post.
>
Merely asserted it did does not mean it did, especially when such an
assertion is an empty claim. It may be that you are widening your baseline
of basic dishonesty by the addition of making empty claims. We'll see.
>
>I maybe
>
That's "may be", in context.
>
>proving (in your eyes)
>
You are being assisted in providing 'proof', in more eyes than mine, and
with little effort.
>
>how dishonest and hypocritical I am
>
By now, you've provided sufficient examples which demonstrate your hypocrisy
and dishonesty. Others may wonder if those characteristics of yours extend
to other matters, and quite naturally so.
>
>Keep clinging to the thought that I'm proving my own dishonesty
>
The dishonorable nature of your hypocrisy and dishonesty is what clings to
you. It'll still be with you, long after you slink away from this forum and
back to another small puddle when you can delude yourself into believing you
are a 'big fish'. Wallow in your self-delusions. Embrace them. That
should take you far on any esoteric path you believe you're on.
s�r`ch�sm
>
> I ... just keeps on keeping on, pretending that nothing happenned
> and that everyone thinks he's a globally respected magickal adept.
>
> There is no end to his clueless vanity and egotism.
>
> He actually posts un-solicited autobiographical essays that
> contradict each other.
>
> Sid
>
Remember the time when sidiot decided to go through the motions to declare
himself a 'wiccan priest' overnight? That was a hoot and the post can be
cited if not recalled.
Beorc Kano
> [wank wank wank wank wank]
> and continue to blind yourself to everything else.
No, I don't think I'll follow your example. You're guilty, in your own
posts, of most of the atrocities you're accusing me of. If this is
what this newsgroup has to offer, no wonder it is laughed at all about
the net. Or maybe they're just laughing at you.
s�r`ch�sm
>
>No, I don't think I'll follow your example.
>
That's because you are unable to employ reason and cannot.
>
>You're guilty, in your own posts, of most of the atrocities you're accusing
>me of.
>
Incorrect. You, however, continue to make empty assertions that you are
unable to substantiate.
>
>If this is what this newsgroup has to offer, no wonder it is laughed at all
>about
>the net.
>
That assertion is another of your empty claims which merely illuminates your
own character, (or rather, lack thereof).
>
>Or maybe they're just laughing at you.
>
Maybe they're just pitying you since I probably grossly over-estimated your
capacity for cognition.
Beorc Kano
> "Beorc Kano" <brandoncornw...@gmail.com> fabricated nonsense:
>
>
>
> >No, I don't think I'll follow your example.
>
> That's because you are unable to employ reason and cannot.
>
>
>
> >You're guilty, in your own posts, of most of the atrocities you're accusing
> >me of.
>
> Incorrect. You, however, continue to make empty assertions that you are
> unable to substantiate.
>
>
>
> >If this is what this newsgroup has to offer, no wonder it is laughed at all
> >about
> >the net.
>
> That assertion is another of your empty claims which merely illuminates your
> own character, (or rather, lack thereof).
You speak of unsubstantiated empty claims... as you make them.
Hypocrite.
s�r`ch�sm
To reiterate; you claimed that I am guilty of some unspecified "atrocities"
which you further assert are the same as the ones you've committed. You
merely assert this, with no substantiation, which makes them empty claims.
By pointing this failure of yours out, my assertion that you make empty
claims is substantiated. Further, you fabricate false claims as there are
no posts where I've accused you of "atrocities". That makes you a common
troll, which likely explains some of your presence here. Does wt also stand
for "witless troll"?
Hypocrite.
Beorc Kano
> To reiterate; you claimed that I am guilty of some unspecified "atrocities"
> which you further assert are the same as the ones you've committed
Read and comprehend please. Never said I'd committed. I said I'd been
accused. And all you've done is taken words, repeated them, and drawn
unconnected and convoluted conclusions that no sane mind could follow.
And then you say that I make baseless claims, and call me a troll.
Unfortunately, the populace already thinks that of you. Stop arguing
with the mirror, please, I'm over here.
Keep on responding, please. It's still mildly amusing, watching you
wallow in your own misguided, delusional reasoning.
Beorc Kano
just loony, or you're purposefully being this whacked out, I noticed
that you used my words above to substantiate and prove your point, at
least to your own deluded, arrogant point of view, so I think that
I'll try the same here.
> To reiterate; you claimed that I am guilty of some unspecified "atrocities" which you further assert are the same as the ones you've committed. You merely assert this, with no substantiation, which makes them empty claims.
So, since you used that line of reasoning, I'ma borrow from it real
quick, mmkay? You said, right there, that I had committed atrocities.
Here, I know, this is moving a little quick for your slow mind, so let
me zoom in on it for you.
> ...which you further assert are the same as the ones you've committed.
Didi you get it that time? By the gods, I hope so. Seeing as how I
didn't ever say that I had committed any atrocities, that's YOUR
statement. Therefore, you're projecting your statements onto me. As
shown above. If that is the running trend, then al of your statements
of dishonestly, hypocrisy, all coming from the same source, also point
directly back at you.
That's more or less what I can see as your path o' logic.
Oh, yes, feel free to tell me I'm wrong, and try to ret-con your
point. Failure is amusing to observe, after all.
s�r`ch�sm
> >
> >You're guilty, in your own posts, of most of the atrocities you're
> >accusing
> >me of.
>
That's your empty assertion, upthread.
>
> To reiterate; you claimed that I am guilty of some unspecified
> "atrocities"
> which you further assert are the same as the ones you've committed
>Read and comprehend please. Never said I'd committed.
>
Read for comprehension yourself; it was stated that you've demonstrated that
you feign civility and are therefore dishonest in that regard. You then
vaguely implied that I've done the same thing and failed to substantiate
that claim.
>
>I said I'd been accused.
>
Yes and that accusation has been substantiated by your own words. It moves
from an accusation to an established fact. You then tried to accuse me with
empty assertions and those remain unsubstantiated allegations. The
difference isn't that subtle, unless you're an idiot.
>
>And all you've done is taken words, repeated them, and drawn
>unconnected and convoluted conclusions that no sane mind could follow.
>
Yet another false assertion on your part, which merely validates your
propensity for making empty claims. Responses which have followed your
empty assertions have been directly connected to them and the conclusions
stemmed directly, without convolutions. You're inability to follow such
simple things is not my problem.
>
>And then you say that I make baseless claims, and call me a troll.
>
No, then I use your posted words to show where you make baseless claims and
empty assertions. You are trolling because such methods are often
characteristic of trolls. Albeit, with the trolling, this is more
circumstantial speculation whereas regarding your empty claims, you've made
several of those and substantiated my claim that you make empty claims.
>
>Keep on responding, please.
>
Despite your ineffectual 'dismissal'?
>
>It's still mildly amusing, watching you
>wallow in your own misguided, delusional reasoning.
>
That's funny, I was just considering much the same thing about your utter
lack of reasoning abilities. The difference is, your assertions have
consistently been empty and can be disregarded.
s�r`ch�sm
>
> Yaknow, on second thought,
>
You haven't established that you have coherent first thoughts, let alone
second ones.
>
> I noticed that you used my words above to substantiate and prove your
> point,
>
Yep, which pretty much ends it there, except your ego won't permit you to
cease whining about it.
>
> so I think that I'll try the same here.
>
Your attempt fails, unless you are trying to assert uncommitted
"atrocities".
>
>> To reiterate; you claimed that I am guilty of some unspecified
>> "atrocities" which you further assert are the same as the ones you've
>> committed. You merely assert this, with no substantiation, which makes
>> them empty claims.
>
> So, since you used that line of reasoning, I'ma borrow from it real
> quick, mmkay? You said, right there, that I had committed atrocities.
>
No, I said that you were accusing me of much the same "atrocities" as I've
allegedly accused you of, (without specification), and now you're implying
that these are uncommitted "atrocities".
>
> Seeing as how I didn't ever say that I had committed any atrocities,
> that's YOUR
> statement.
>
You initially used the word "atrocities" in your post asserting "You're
guilty, in your own
posts, of most of the atrocities you're accusing me of." Either your
short-term memory is defective or, you lie poorly. Which is it?
>
>
> That's more or less what I can see as your path o' logic.
>
You are free to believe you are employing "logic" in your illogical
diabtribes, however, that insinuation is as false as your feigning civility
is in wt.
>
>
> Oh, yes, feel free to tell me I'm wrong
>
Better yet, to demonstrate that you are incorrect and somewhat of an idiot
by your own words continues to substantiate my assertions.
>
>Failure is amusing to observe, after all.
>
I disagree; your various failures may be amusing to others however.
s�r`ch�sm
> "ren" <ren1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> In summary, they lied to get me kicked off the website by saying I
> deleted a post and caused trouble.
>
>
Although the point is moot by now, isn't deletion of posts a functional
option of moderation, (as with the deletions which followed the banning)?
Beorc Kano
Deletion of posts is a functional option of the moderators in a forum.
However, the deletion of single posts is the option of a user.
However, I was simply a group moderator, not a WT-wide moderator. I
couldn't delete his profile. That had to be someone else. I don't have
a track record of deleting threads... in fact, I've been known to save
the threads of those suspected of deleting them, and I put them back
up afterwords. That's quite easily provable.
Although, I'm a liar and a hypocrite, and that's likely just another
baseless assertion. I probably did that just to make myself less
suspect when I tyrannically reached out to single out Ren and delete
his post. Right?
Beorc Kano
> >Failure is amusing to observe, after all.
>
> I disagree; your various failures may be amusing to others however.
Wait, what? Didn't you just say...
>>It's still mildly amusing, watching you
>>wallow in your own misguided, delusional reasoning.
>That's funny, I was just considering much the same thing about your utter
>lack of reasoning abilities.
Inconsistent. Tsk tsk tsk.
Although, I do grow tired of your circular, self-supporting, innately
flawed reasoning. One can only put up with so much ineffective,
arrogant circle jerking before the comedy that comes from such an
observation loses it's luster.
Here's the problem. You're entire argument (and subsequent assertions
and 'proofs') are based on one statement, by you, that is a matter of
opinion and philosophy. You say that acting in a civil manner when one
doesn't desire to do so makes one dishonest, whereas I feel that to do
such a thing is to show understanding that there is a greater code to
adhere to than one of gut reaction. I follow that code because I feel
that it is what is right to do. You, apparently, feel that one must
obey one's gut reactions to not be a dishonest hypocrite. If that's
how you feel, then I really have nothing else to say to one rules
entirely by base urges. To be such is to be an animal. I'd rather
recognize that there is a proper, greater code of conduct than that,
and hold myself to it. Humanity is flawed. ALL humanity is flawed.
I have my flaws. One of these flaws is wrath. I generally sidestep
that by acknowledging logical and moral codes, and adhering to them.
It was bruited about that here, those codes don't exist. I've sampled
this way, and it has reaffirmed why those codes are superior. This
whole conversation has achieved nothing worth achieving, and has been
a waste of time.
At this point, I hold myself to be morally, philosophically, and
logically superior to you. You hold yourself to be the same over me.
That's fine. This place doesn't suit me anyhow... not enough
intellectual conversation to keep me interested enough to sift through
the cesspool of ankle biting little mongrel curs.
Have fun being the chief stick that stirs the compost heap. It's a
shitty job, but I guess someone has to do it.
ren
> Couples and roommates. That are spread all over the globe. Because
> Lady of the Graveyard, living in England, is totally my roommate in
> Missouri. As is Angantyr, in Australia.
So you admit working with the administrator to get me kicked off the
website. That is not what you suggested before. You lied.
Oh, that dumb kid Angantyr, the one espousing animal sacrifice openly
in a country where it is illegal.
> I must have a huge house!
Actually, according to your own words, you're moving and looking for
work, aren't you? You are just projecting frustration about your own
life on to me.
> Eruandil was my roommate. No longer is, but he lived on my land, and
> yes, Julica is my wife. But, see, Julica only said one thing (a
> clarification of the rules... that you broke), and then more or less
> stayed out of it all. Such a conspirator, indeed.
It only takes 3 people for a conspiracy. But there are many more
according to your own words. You conspired with the site administrator
to have me kicked off the website. On trumped up charges. Now I've
called internal affairs, you're all self-defensive. For good reason.
You planned to have me removed from the site after reading my first
post.
> Yes. Characters have been defined here. Looks like yours was judged
> long before I showed up, Ren.
Looks like you're looking for an enemy -- any enemy to take your
frustrations out on because of the work and home situation.
It is my wish that you find a good job and a good home for your family.
ren
> THERE IS NO ONE ELSE WHO COULD HAVE DELETED IT.
What makes you think that?
> Also, going from "we're friends" to "main critic" in just a couple of
> posts is laughable.
> And I'm not your main critic. :D
I was talking about the Greek, not you.
ren
> No, I don't think I'll follow your example. You're guilty, in your own
> posts, of most of the atrocities you're accusing me of. If this is
> what this newsgroup has to offer, no wonder it is laughed at all about
> the net. Or maybe they're just laughing at you.
I ask the readers on this newsgroup -- would you want Beorc as your
moderator?
ren
> troll, which likely explains some of your presence here. Does wt also stand
> for "witless troll"?
> Hypocrite.
Apparently, wiccantogether.com should be renamed,
wiccanWitlessTrollTogether.com
ren
> Although the point is moot by now, isn't deletion of posts a functional
> option of moderation, (as with the deletions which followed the banning)?
I believe it is. Beorc was my moderator. My posts were gone from the
group after he banned me.
My posts contained no physical threats or profanity. Beorc stated that
he banned me for causing drama and deleting my post. I say that I
didn't delete the post.
I have deleted other posts on that forum. Posts about a criminal case
I am speculating about.
Eruandil, you took a screen shot of my post and Beorc deleted it,
right? Then you posted the screen shot accusing me of deleting it.
Gee, you're dumb.
ren
> Although, I'm a liar and a hypocrite, and that's likely just another
> baseless assertion. I probably did that just to make myself less
> suspect when I tyrannically reached out to single out Ren and delete
> his post. Right?
Beorc, you are a terrible liar. We already know that it was
LadyOfTheGraveyard that deleted my profile and that you were working
with her because she posted to the thread where I was suspected of
deleting a post. Furthermore, it isn't against the forum AUP to delete
a thread or YOU wouldn't be able to delete mine. She suspended my
account because of drama, the drama that all of you were dishing out
to me as well. So why isn't your account deleted?
Your post above is what you are really thinking inside. You just
admitted out of guilt what you did. This is what witchcraft is about.
YOU singled me out!
YOU made yourself look less suspect.
YOU deleting my post and then said I did it.
Now you are foolishly trying to defend yourself here and letting the
truth slip out of your corrupt moderating mouth. That filthy mouth of
yours.
ren
> I have my flaws. One of these flaws is wrath. I generally sidestep
> that by acknowledging logical and moral codes, and adhering to them.
Don't forget 'Dishonesty'. That is a major flaw in your character. You
don't adhere to your own ethical codes. You have absolutely no
business running a group.
> It was bruited about that here, those codes don't exist. I've sampled
> this way, and it has reaffirmed why those codes are superior. This
> whole conversation has achieved nothing worth achieving, and has been
> a waste of time.
You should have remained silent. You might have gotten away with
kicking me off the group and forum. You certainly have no ethics.
> At this point, I hold myself to be morally, philosophically, and
> logically superior to you. You hold yourself to be the same over me.
That will be your downfall.
> That's fine. This place doesn't suit me anyhow... not enough
> intellectual conversation to keep me interested enough to sift through
> the cesspool of ankle biting little mongrel curs.
Interesting use of the word 'mongrel'. It just further demonstrates
your character and those with whom you associate.
> Have fun being the chief stick that stirs the compost heap. It's a
> shitty job, but I guess someone has to do it.
At least alt.religion.wicca has activity. I've been looking at the
"True Witches" group. Ummm. No activity.
Lady Azure, Baroness o de North Pole
> On Dec 21, 11:20 pm, "s�r`ch�sm" <s�r`ch�s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > "seckond" <tailmo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > "ren" <ren1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Since I am unable to participate in wiccantogether.com anymore, I
> > > shall port discussions that interest me to this newsgroup.
> >
> > >I'd rather you did not port any of MY words here Ren. Copyright and
> > >all y'know.
> >
> > That response brings to mind a curious observation; since ren is unable to
> > participate any longer in the discussions of a closed forum, the only
> > discussions he can port over are ones previous to his banning.� It may be
> > that you are 'pre-objecting' to quoting your wt posts, (in part or, in
> > whole), in another forum, quoting them out of context or, some other
> > objection altogether.
> >
> >
> >
> > >Nor would I appreciate seeing my words tainted.
> >
> > Ah, this is likely the real objection and directly implies the negative
> > connotations of a predisposition.� It's unclear at this point whether the
> > intention is to 'moderate' an unmoderated forum by pre-emptively hinting at
> > copyright 'violations' or, whether ren is baiting you.� In either case, it
> > won't matter if you post your own words here, in this unmoderated forum, and
> > cause the copyright point to be moot.� Have an untainted solstice,
> > regardless.
>
> Actually no. He is still able to view the site, he just can't
> participate. In the very end, he can access it from a different
> computer.
Which is my Point, Hackers destroy the Fellowship around here.
So laugh at their Joke.
Ignore the Assault on the Public, go for it.
Or get your ass's up and Stop these Anal Retentive, "Self Made Ex Spurts", who
think they have Right and License to "Tell YOU, what to Think"!!!!!!!!!!
Lady Azure, Baroness o de North Pole
> On Dec 23, 7:52 am, Beorc Kano <brandoncornw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Although, I'm a liar and a hypocrite, and that's likely just another
> > baseless assertion. I probably did that just to make myself less
> > suspect when I tyrannically reached out to single out Ren and delete
> > his post. Right?
>
> Beorc, you are a terrible liar. We already know that it was
> LadyOfTheGraveyard
Wasn't ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ren
> Or get your ass's up and Stop these Anal Retentive, "Self Made Ex Spurts", who
> think they have Right and License to "Tell YOU, what to Think"!!!!!!!!!!
Amen Lady!
Evergreen
> On Dec 23, 8:11=A0am, Beorc Kano <brandoncornw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have my flaws. One of these flaws is wrath. I generally sidestep
>> that by acknowledging logical and moral codes, and adhering to them.
>
> Don't forget 'Dishonesty'. That is a major flaw in your character.
What a joke. The only thing ren's words mean is that he felt
like typing them.
I trust him less than anyone else in the world.
As does anyone who knows him.
Evergreen
>
>> Although, I'm a liar and a hypocrite, and that's likely just another
>> baseless assertion. I probably did that just to make myself less
>> suspect when I tyrannically reached out to single out Ren and delete
>> his post. Right?
>
> Beorc, you are a terrible liar.
Says a pathological liar.
Do you know how to tell when ren is lying?
He's typing something on his computer.
[delete]
s�r`ch�sm
>
> >Failure is amusing to observe, after all.
>
> I disagree; your various failures may be amusing to others however.
>
>Wait, what? Didn't you just say...
>>It's still mildly amusing, watching you
>>wallow in your own misguided, delusional reasoning.
>
No, ye of little cognitive ability, you posted that. I replied with the
'much the same thing' comment below.
>That's funny, I was just considering much the same thing about your utter
>lack of reasoning abilities.
>
>Inconsistent. Tsk tsk tsk.
>
There is no inconsistency since the context of my reply specifically
emphasized your lack of reasoning abilities, (which you continue to
substantiate, as if you had unlimited feet to shoot yourself in).
>
>Although, I do grow tired of your circular,
>
No circular arguements have been presented in my posts; that cannot be said
of yours without lying, (which you appear to employ in lieu of reasoning).
>
>self-supporting,
>
If you mean that I substantiate my assertions in this context whereas, you
continue to fail in yours, then you mean supportive substantiation instead.
If not, you're just flinging out your, (by now), usual unsupported claims
again and unreasonably expecting them to be accepted at face value - which
is nil.
>
>innately flawed reasoning.
>
You have been unable to support such assertions so far and there is no
expectation that you are capable of doing so now. Your unsupported
assertions are rejected by a process unfamilar to you; actual reasoning,
(not the pseudo-sophistry which you are trying to palm off as a forgery of
logic).
>
>One can only put up with so much ineffective,
>arrogant circle jerking before the comedy that comes from such an
>observation loses it's luster.
>
True, some have advised me that I've been incredibly patient with your
arrogant circle-jerking evasions thusfar. What can I say, it's the solstice
season.
>
>Here's the problem. You're entire argument
>
The initial problem is that the correct usage would be "your", not "you're".
>
>(and subsequent assertions
>and 'proofs') are based on one statement, by you, that is a matter of
>opinion and philosophy. You say that acting in a civil manner
>
No, that's your misinterpretation of what was actually posted, which was
that your _feigning_ civility was and is inherently dishonest because
feigning anything means faking it. There's no philosophical opinion
involved; faking it is faking it - ask the last woman you had sex with,
(unless that hasn't occurred or, occurred far too long ago for you to recall
... given your demonstrated lack of short-term memory, the latter can be
estimated). The remainder of the exchanges involved your attempts to evade
taking responsibility for feigning civility while repressing your first
violent inclinations. The point is that, no matter _why_ you are being
dishonest and feigning something, (civility, in your instance), the fact
remains that the feigning is the dishonest part, not your rationalisations
for being dishonest.
>
>I have my flaws.
>
You have many more flaws than you are consciously aware of. The predominant
ones you are displaying here are dishonesty, lack of integrity and a
penchant for poorly-constructed lies.
>
>One of these flaws is wrath.
>
If you are referring to your having a short or, quick temper, this is not a
great surprise.
>
>This whole conversation has achieved nothing worth achieving, and has been
>a waste of time.
>
On the contrary, what appears to be a waste of time to your fragile and
cowardly psyche has served as a demonstration of your inner character to
your cohorts and others. While such a demonstration has undoubtedly not
been flattering to you, nor extended any rudimentary self-awareness you may
happen to possess, it has been of use.
>
>At this point, I hold myself to be morally, philosophically, and
>logically superior to you.
>
Yet, you have absolutely no basis whatsoever for holding such unsupported
positions, (except within your own deluded opinion).
>
>You hold yourself to be the same over me.
>
So far, it has only logical "superiority" over your excuse for logic has
been demonstrated. The moral implications were your main refutation of
something which was a consequence of the contextual point, (that of your
initial dishonesty in feigning civility and your subsequent dishonest
evasions and total lack of substantiation for your empty assertions), rather
than your pseudo-rationalisations. These exchanges haven't impinged much
upon philosophies, other than peripherally.
>
>That's fine. This place doesn't suit me anyhow...
>
That's not too surprising; it's not like arw hasn't seen trolls breeze
through here and overestimate their trolling abilities.
>
> ... not enough intellectual conversation to keep me interested
>
If you are capable of intellectual conversation, you've managed to conceal
this latent capacity well.
>
s�r`ch�sm
> "s�r`ch�sm" <s�r`ch�s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > "Eruandil" <eruandilky...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > "ren" <ren1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > In summary, they lied to get me kicked off the website by saying I
> > > deleted a post and caused trouble.
>
> >THERE IS NO ONE ELSE WHO COULD HAVE DELETED IT.
>
> Although the point is moot by now, isn't deletion of posts a functional
> option of moderation, (as with the deletions which followed the banning)?
>
>Deletion of posts is a functional option of the moderators in a forum.
>
Yet, the moderators are unable to determine the manner in which a post was
deleted or, who deleted it?
>
>However, the deletion of single posts is the option of a user.
>
If you are asserting that the user has the option of deleting only one their
own posts, how is it determined who actually deleted the post, (in lieu of
both the moderator and the user/poster accussing and counter-accussing)?
>
>Although, I'm a liar and a hypocrite, and that's likely just another
>baseless assertion.
>
Copping to something you didn't do to attempt to obscure responsibility for
being a hypocritical liar who fabricates baseless assertions is deceitful.
There's no expectation that you will cease doing so, just pointing out that
you are significantly less clever than you deceive yourself as being.
s�r`ch�sm
> No, I don't think I'll follow your example.
>
>I ask the readers on this newsgroup -- would you want Beorc as your
>moderator?
>
The question is rhetorical. Imagine that the answer is too.
Beorc Kano
responding to you here. I'm not going to bother quoting anything, as
that doesn't seem to phase you, and you always manage to twist
something out of my words besides what I mean, and then use the
twisted meanings to further discredit and deface me. My current
thoughts are that you'll turn that statement about to say that you're
not twisting my words, merely exposing my true meaning, or you'll
react to the statement just written and purposefully go in another
direction to once again make me look bad. That's fine. Do what you
must. But lets try to grow up and sidestep the mudslinging for a
moment, though I have no doubt that you will assert that you haven't
been mudslinging, and thus have no need to sidestep.
Yes, I have flaws. You do too, whether you choose to admit to them or
not. My flaws are more than the example I gave earlier... Note I said
'one of them is wrath.' This means that 'one of several' or 'one of
many' of my flaws was wrath. So, I'm sorry, your assertion that I
don't take responsibility for my flaws is baseless. You can argue that
all you like, but, in the end, you really don't know me, and I really
don't know you. Any conclusions you draw on that front are simply
speculative.
Right now, yes, I am furious. I want to, in my base self, fight and
spit and curse and insult and in general act in a very uncivil manner.
I see you as exhibiting more trollish traits (antagonism, word
twisting, insulting my sex life) than I have as of yet, as much as I
would like to. However, logically, I know that this would do no good,
and would only serve to further discredit me by sinking to levels that
I personally think are worthy of reproach. I also realize, logically,
that you think that you are right and entirely justified in what
you've been saying and doing.
Let me outline the original scenario, and attempt to use better terms
that maybe, just maybe, you will grasp my meaning and understand what
I am saying, instead of clinging to technicalities and twisting my
words away from what I mean. I am not the most eloquent person in the
world... I've never claimed to be. But I do my best. I'm not as
practiced as you apparently are at tearing people's posts to shreds.
A user appeared on a group I was elected to moderate by the users of
the group and the group creator herself. He posted several
antagonizing posts, which he admitted to posting to start drama. He
asserted that it was to 'toughen up' the community. It was pointed out
that this was against the spirit of the group's desires, and shortly
thereafter, the thread was deleted. The only people capable of
deleting the post were the site creator, the site administrators, the
group creadot, the group moderator (myself) and the poster himself.
The site creator and administrators had no interest in the group. The
group creator strongly opposed the deletion of posts, as it has caused
much drama in the past on the group. That left myself and the original
poster, Ren. I have been known to replace posts of those who deleted
them, if I have enough warning that this is a trend. I assert now that
I did not delete the thread. Ren, on the other hand, has a history of
his threads disappearing when he starts to look bad. All evidence
pointed to the thread being deleted by him. I issued a warning, and he
went on the offensive.
He started posting that he had contacts in the FBI and was now
monitoring the group. He started bullying the other members, and I
started receiving complaints about him. I issued another warning based
on his misconduct. I was annoyed with him, and I wanted to be rude and
tell him off publicly, but that was against our group AUP, which I had
personally written and submitted to the group for approval. The AUP
was passed unanimously, so, I found it to be a greater code to adhere
to in that situation than my own personal urges. I replaced my
personal reactions with the civility demanded by the AUP, in contrast
to his own malicious postings.
Maybe I phrased it wrong in my earlier posts. One can, in my
experience, feign something that you don't want to do, but know that
you must. I can feign politeness to an unruly customer, when I really
want to just grab them by the scruff of the neck and toss them out the
front door. That would result in the loss of my job, and likely, a
lawsuit. Since you have such an objection to the term 'feign,' I'll
instead refer to it as resorting to civility. Perhaps that will convey
my meaning better. In my experience, it is better to obey a more
logical and morally superior code than it is to obey gut urges.
So, I kept my head about me as much as I could. The group creator
urged me to take care of Ren, and remove him from the group. She
offered to do it herself, then and there. I am more tech savvy than
she is, and I know the site mechanics better, so, knowing that she
didn't like the thought of banning someone from the group, I told her
that I would handle it. I gave Ren several more chances over the next
twenty four hours to adhere to the AUP. He refused, and so, rather
than turn all of my words into baseless bluffs, I did what i told him
I would do, and banned him from the group.
Wiccan Together is a huge site, with nearly 30,000 members, maybe
more. There are tousands and thousands of groups... He was simply
banned from participating in the group that he was banned from. None
of his posts were deleted, his threads were left intact, and to me,
the matter was done. Several says later, I find out from someone else
that he had been banished from the site altogether. This was done
without my knowledge or my input. That was not my aim, but, hey. If
it's something he earned by breaking more rules, as he had shown a
trend of doing, then I wasn't going to lose any sleep over it.
Then I hear that he's here, posting my personal contact information by
reproducing the group AUP, complete with my MSN, AIM, and email
contacts at the bottom. So I came to see what all he was saying about
me. Many of the things he was posting were flat out lies, and this
offended me. I decided to attempt to clear up some of the
misinformation he was spreading about, and posted my input on the
matter. I admit, I posted a bit hastily, before knowing the atmosphere
and rules (or lack thereof) for this group, which is bad internet
etiquette.
But then, you jump down my throat, and my words are twisted into
pretzels. Unaccustomed to this, I retort, to have my retort twisted. I
got caught up in that, and my wrath and ego wouldn't let me let it go.
I'm not a dishonest person, I despise hypocrisy, and I eliminate it in
myself whenever I discover it. I've seen that my devolving attitude
here has been dipping my toes into the vat of trolldom, and that is
something I shall remedy. However, I maintain that, while I am not
perfect, at heart, I am not a dishonest person, I am not a hypocrite,
and I am very well aware of my faults and failings, moreso than I care
to get into, for personal reasons.
As for my personal life, I am a married father of four, and my wife is
pregnant with my fifth daughter. My sex life is none of your business.
I am a fighter, in a very base sense of the word. I grew up in a rough
neighborhood, I had an abusive father, and I learned to fight at a
young age. I have been involved in martial arts for much of my life,
and one of my hobbies is to spar with my friends and record video of
it. This leads to a very combative outlook on life. Sometimes this
bleeds over and overshadows logical debate when I feel I am being
provoked. Here, I don't have the support network I have on the other
site, to get advice from before I make a decision or make a post. Here
I'm on my own, and yes, I make mistakes. My first mistake was to react
harshly and abruptly. My second was to continue down that path without
bothering to indulge in a little introspective. My third mistake was
to allow myself to be goaded. There are likely more, but these are the
primary ones to my perception.
Make of this whatever you will. If your opinion stays the same, then,
I have failed as a communicator. If my attempt to quell my anger and
properly convey my point of view succeeds, then, thanks for listening.
Beorc Kano
> "Beorc Kano" <brandoncornw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "sâr`châsm" <sâr`châs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > "Eruandil" <eruandilky...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > "ren" <ren1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In summary, they lied to get me kicked off the website by saying I
> > > > deleted a post and caused trouble.
>
> > >THERE IS NO ONE ELSE WHO COULD HAVE DELETED IT.
>
> > Although the point is moot by now, isn't deletion of posts a functional
> > option of moderation, (as with the deletions which followed the banning)?
>
> >Deletion of posts is a functional option of the moderators in a forum.
>
> Yet, the moderators are unable to determine the manner in which a post was
> deleted or, who deleted it?
Unfortunately, group creators and group moderators are not notified
when someone deletes a post, no. There really is no way but character
and pattern analysis to determine if someone deleted a post, aside
from someone admitting to doing so.
> If you are asserting that the user has the option of deleting only one their
> own posts, how is it determined who actually deleted the post, (in lieu of
> both the moderator and the user/poster accussing and counter-accussing)?
The user has the option of deleting their single posts in the thread
style forum. This includes the initial topic-post. When the initial
post is deleted, so is the entire thread, as if it hadn't ever been
there. This upsets many people who put their time into discussing
matters of spirituality or philosophy, only to have their words and
recorded thoughts deleted. This is not against the site AUP, but, just
as states can make stricter laws than the country, the groups can
impose stricter rules in their respective AUPs, if they decide to
write them. In the event of a user deleting a thread in the non-group
oriented forums, the Site Administrators are not notified. If one of
the administrators delete a thread, that administrator and the
community creator receive a notification. In the event that the
community creator deletes a discussion thread, both administrators are
notified.
In the even that a discussion thread that a user replied to is
deleted, the user still retains the notifications on his or her user
profile that they replied to the thread. If they attempt to visit the
thread by the permalink in the notification, they receive a 404 error,
page not found.
In the event of a user having a dispute with a moderator, with
accusation and counter accusation, then generally, a third party
moderator or administrator steps in, and an investigation is mounted.
In the investigation that spurred all of this, I checked with the site
administrator I could meet with, and she said she had received no such
notifications, but with a little character investigation, several
other users admitted to having issues with him for deleting threads.
After I concluded my investigation, I found that it was proven
reasonably that the most likely one to delete the thread, out of those
with the ability, was Ren. He was asked not to repeat such behavior,
and he became abusive. The request was strengthened to a warning. He
stated a desire to be banned, and then proceeded to break evey one of
the simple rules of the AUP, so, I gave him what he wanted, and banned
him.
That's pretty much how the situation went.
ren
> I did not delete the thread. Ren, on the other hand, has a history of
> his threads disappearing when he starts to look bad. All evidence
> pointed to the thread being deleted by him. I issued a warning, and he
> went on the offensive.
Not true. I rarely delete posts here unless they are duplicates. On
the website, I deleted a series of posts about a case I was working on
because it could have tipped off people who may be involved in it.
> on his misconduct. I was annoyed with him, and I wanted to be rude and
> tell him off publicly, but that was against our group AUP, which I had
No. You did tell me off publicly. Those comments would have still been
there if you had not gotten LadyOfTheGraveYard to suspend my account.
> personally written and submitted to the group for approval. The AUP
> was passed unanimously, so, I found it to be a greater code to adhere
There was no vote. You took over Blair's group and then you posted
that ridiculous set of rules basely contracting the mission statement
of the group. That mission was to have open and uncensored discussion.
> to in that situation than my own personal urges. I replaced my
> personal reactions with the civility demanded by the AUP, in contrast
> to his own malicious postings.
My maliciousness was a reaction to your own.
> Maybe I phrased it wrong in my earlier posts. One can, in my
> experience, feign something that you don't want to do, but know that
> you must. I can feign politeness to an unruly customer, when I really
Basically what you are saying is that you are a compulsive liar who is
lying to yourself.
> want to just grab them by the scruff of the neck and toss them out the
> front door. That would result in the loss of my job, and likely, a
> lawsuit. Since you have such an objection to the term 'feign,' I'll
Yes. I noticed you commented that you were in the process of moving
and looking for work. I suspect this is the real reason you are taking
your frustrations out on me. If not me, then another.
> So, I kept my head about me as much as I could. The group creator
> urged me to take care of Ren, and remove him from the group. She
> offered to do it herself, then and there. I am more tech savvy than
Blair should have. I wouldn't have fussed as much if it was her.
> she is, and I know the site mechanics better, so, knowing that she
So. You wrestled her group away from her. You could have taught her to
be more savvy. Instead, you planned it all along with the few others
with whom I disagree with. You took over moderation to get me banned.
> didn't like the thought of banning someone from the group, I told her
> that I would handle it. I gave Ren several more chances over the next
> twenty four hours to adhere to the AUP. He refused, and so, rather
No. I taunted you to ban me for speaking my mind. I used no profanity.
I made no death threats. And yes, that newsgroup is already being
watched by the FBI. I noticed you have a family and I noticed you made
no reference to the sterilization of the blade. I was trying to help
you.
Listen very carefuly, Beorc. Keep in mind that there are still minors
reading that group. You can not post pictures of you cutting yourself
without people who are more retentive than I am taking notice and
looking into your life. LISTEN. I'M TRYING TO HELP YOU HERE. Just ask
other people right on this newsgroup if there haven't been arrests
made in the past of posters who threatened actors and president's
lives in addition to commenting about other illegal things. I'm
telling you to be smart for your family. No joke. The FBI is
monitoring this newsgroup and they are monitoring wiccantogether.com.
WATCH WHAT YOU TEACH. Consider your family.
> than turn all of my words into baseless bluffs, I did what i told him
> I would do, and banned him from the group.
I would have been fine with that. But you asked LadyOfTheGraveyard to
suspend me from the website. Don't lie about it. I know what happened.
I was informed.
> the matter was done. Several says later, I find out from someone else
> that he had been banished from the site altogether. This was done
> without my knowledge or my input. That was not my aim, but, hey. If
Liar. You just said that you spoke with two site moderators. You named
them. Are you brain damaged? Can you not keep your story straight
because you have a short memory?
>
> Then I hear that he's here, posting my personal contact information by
> reproducing the group AUP, complete with my MSN, AIM, and email
It isn't personal if you post it publicly.
> perfect, at heart, I am not a dishonest person, I am not a hypocrite,
Yes you are.
> As for my personal life, I am a married father of four, and my wife is
> pregnant with my fifth daughter. My sex life is none of your business.
You need to keep your private life private. People will use it against
you.
> I am a fighter, in a very base sense of the word. I grew up in a rough
> neighborhood, I had an abusive father, and I learned to fight at a
> young age. I have been involved in martial arts for much of my life,
> and one of my hobbies is to spar with my friends and record video of
> it. This leads to a very combative outlook on life. Sometimes this
I can tell by your pot belly that you're a slow fighter.
Let me tell you a bit about my background.
...
> Make of this whatever you will. If your opinion stays the same, then,
> I have failed as a communicator. If my attempt to quell my anger and
> properly convey my point of view succeeds, then, thanks for listening.
You have failed to defend yourself magically. You have abused the
power you stole from Blair. You are a wholly dishonorable snake.
But I forgive you and I send you on your way. Are you able to leave
this place? If so, that is confirmation of forgiveness.
Beorc Kano
> Not true. I rarely delete posts here unless they are duplicates. On
> the website, I deleted a series of posts about a case I was working on
> because it could have tipped off people who may be involved in it.
I was talking about WT, not here. Focus, please.
> No. You did tell me off publicly. Those comments would have still been
> there if you had not gotten LadyOfTheGraveYard to suspend my account.
I actually asked her no such thing. I asked if she could tell if you
had deleted the thread. She told me that she could affirm that is
wasn't her nor BrianK.
> There was no vote. You took over Blair's group and then you posted
> that ridiculous set of rules basely contracting the mission statement
> of the group. That mission was to have open and uncensored discussion.
Thread for my election, which was initiated at my request, rather than
having me arbitrarily appointed;
http://www.wiccantogether.com/group/truewitches/forum/topics/1070680:Topic:1483069
Thread for acceptance of the AUP:
http://www.wiccantogether.com/group/truewitches/forum/topics/true-witches-aup-acceptable
Oh, I'm sorry. Those must not really exist.
> > want to just grab them by the scruff of the neck and toss them out the
> > front door. That would result in the loss of my job, and likely, a
> > lawsuit. Since you have such an objection to the term 'feign,' I'll
>
> Yes. I noticed you commented that you were in the process of moving
> and looking for work. I suspect this is the real reason you are taking
> your frustrations out on me. If not me, then another.
No, your stupidity is sufficient a reason to be harsh with you. I've
been out of work since June, only working odd jobs to keep paying my
bills. It's not a recent development. I'm moving to find a better
economy (found one) with better housing and job markets (found one and
found one). Sorry, wrong again.
> > So, I kept my head about me as much as I could. The group creator
> > urged me to take care of Ren, and remove him from the group. She
> > offered to do it herself, then and there. I am more tech savvy than
>
> Blair should have. I wouldn't have fussed as much if it was her.
She likely should have, but she was hesitant and I like her. So I
agreed to her request, and I took out the trash.
> > she is, and I know the site mechanics better, so, knowing that she
>
> So. You wrestled her group away from her. You could have taught her to
> be more savvy. Instead, you planned it all along with the few others
> with whom I disagree with. You took over moderation to get me banned.
Yeah, just ignore the following part where I said she didn't like the
idea of banning someone. Since you're all about technicalities, she
did post on the top of the group that she would never delete (ban)
anyone. But she didn't say anything about me. Though that would be a
loophole you'd appreciate. I'll talk to her about closing it.
> > didn't like the thought of banning someone from the group, I told her
> > that I would handle it. I gave Ren several more chances over the next
> > twenty four hours to adhere to the AUP. He refused, and so, rather
>
> No. I taunted you to ban me for speaking my mind. I used no profanity.
> I made no death threats. And yes, that newsgroup is already being
> watched by the FBI. I noticed you have a family and I noticed you made
> no reference to the sterilization of the blade. I was trying to help
> you.
>
> Listen very carefuly, Beorc. Keep in mind that there are still minors
> reading that group. You can not post pictures of you cutting yourself
> without people who are more retentive than I am taking notice and
> looking into your life. LISTEN. I'M TRYING TO HELP YOU HERE. Just ask
> other people right on this newsgroup if there haven't been arrests
> made in the past of posters who threatened actors and president's
> lives in addition to commenting about other illegal things. I'm
> telling you to be smart for your family. No joke. The FBI is
> monitoring this newsgroup and they are monitoring wiccantogether.com.
> WATCH WHAT YOU TEACH. Consider your family.
Don't speak about my family with your filthy mouth. If you have
contacts through the FBI, then I challenge you to contact me. Just...
get my home phone number. Give me a call. Or, better yet, find my
address, and e-mail it to me. Otherwise, I will call you a liar.
Come on. Those two bits of information should be easy to come by. One
doesn't even have to have FBI contacts to get them. But if you do get
them, then I'll believe you. Until then, you're again, a liar.
> > than turn all of my words into baseless bluffs, I did what i told him
> > I would do, and banned him from the group.
>
> I would have been fine with that. But you asked LadyOfTheGraveyard to
> suspend me from the website. Don't lie about it. I know what happened.
> I was informed.
By who? I can promise you now, they gave you bad information.
> > the matter was done. Several says later, I find out from someone else
> > that he had been banished from the site altogether. This was done
> > without my knowledge or my input. That was not my aim, but, hey. If
>
> Liar. You just said that you spoke with two site moderators. You named
> them. Are you brain damaged? Can you not keep your story straight
> because you have a short memory?
Maybe you shouldn't have skipped kindergarten. I only mentioned the
one moderator, Lady of the Graveyard. I named her. That's one. Can you
show me where I named the other, and said I spoke with her? Because I
didn't.
> > Then I hear that he's here, posting my personal contact information by
> > reproducing the group AUP, complete with my MSN, AIM, and email
>
> It isn't personal if you post it publicly.
Fair enough.
> > perfect, at heart, I am not a dishonest person, I am not a hypocrite,
>
> Yes you are.
I'm sorry, I'm not five. I'm not going to indulge you in a "Yuh-huh!"
"Nuh-uh!" argument. That would just be even more lame than all of this
already is.
> > As for my personal life, I am a married father of four, and my wife is
> > pregnant with my fifth daughter. My sex life is none of your business.
>
> You need to keep your private life private. People will use it against
> you.
I did. It was brought up as negative with untruths.
> > I am a fighter, in a very base sense of the word. I grew up in a rough
> > neighborhood, I had an abusive father, and I learned to fight at a
> > young age. I have been involved in martial arts for much of my life,
> > and one of my hobbies is to spar with my friends and record video of
> > it. This leads to a very combative outlook on life. Sometimes this
>
> I can tell by your pot belly that you're a slow fighter.
Then you haven't watched any of the videos, and you're a poor judge of
combatant capabilities. Never underestimate the big guys... They're
seldom as slow as they look. Never underestimate the scrawny guys,
they're seldom as weak as they look. Pretty basic stuff, really.
> > Make of this whatever you will. If your opinion stays the same, then,
> > I have failed as a communicator. If my attempt to quell my anger and
> > properly convey my point of view succeeds, then, thanks for listening.
>
> You have failed to defend yourself magically. You have abused the
> power you stole from Blair. You are a wholly dishonorable snake.
There was no magical attack. You couldn't magic your way through a
card trick. If I'm wrong, then really, attack me. I welcome it. Come
on, do it. You don't have the ability. You are a liar, and a magical
weakling lacking the ability to reach out through the energies and
ether to strike me down because you don't know anything, and you're as
able as a retarded dog.
> But I forgive you and I send you on your way. Are you able to leave
> this place? If so, that is confirmation of forgiveness.
I'll leave when I'm done here. I don't want your forgiveness, because
I haven't wronged you. You know where you can shove your forgiveness.
s�r`ch�sm
> "s�r`ch�sm" wrote:
> > "Beorc Kano" wrote:
>
> >Deletion of posts is a functional option of the moderators in a forum.
>
> Yet, the moderators are unable to determine the manner in which a post was
> deleted or, who deleted it?
>
>Unfortunately, group creators and group moderators are not notified
>when someone deletes a post, no. There really is no way but character
>and pattern analysis to determine if someone deleted a post, aside
>from someone admitting to doing so.
>
Then, if the methods and process involved in such pattern and character
analysis are faulty, a conclusion drawn from the analysis is likely to be
incorrect. Unless that process is described, there is no way to determine
whether or not the process of analysis is flawed. Merely asserting that an
analysis was made doesn't cut it unless the judgement of the one analyzing
is assumed.
>
>When the initial post is deleted, so is the entire thread, as if it hadn't
>ever been there. This upsets many people who put their time into
>discussing matters of spirituality or philosophy, only to have their
>words and recorded thoughts deleted.
>
That attitude is understandable, however, I believe you indicated it was
possible to restore a deleted thread should that happen. Is this correct?
>
>This is not against the site AUP, but, just as states can make
>stricter laws than the country, the groups can impose stricter
>rules in their respective AUPs, if they decide to write them.
>
To clarify that point; are you suggesting that a subgroup's AUP contained
strict rules regarding post deletions and that "ren" was aware of those
restrictions prior to the deletion events in question? I'm not asking
whether someone became aware of specific restrictions during the course of
events but, prior to the deletions.
>
> [...]
>
>In the investigation that spurred all of this, I checked with the site
>administrator I could meet with, and she said she had received no such
>notifications, but with a little character investigation, several
>other users admitted to having issues with him for deleting threads.
>
At this juncture, it is being directly implied that "ren" had previously
deleted threads and that he was, (presumably?), aware of subgroup AUPs
restricting this activity? Additionally, this aspect of your
"investigation" consisted of complaints regarding the deletion of threads,
(which appears to insinuate that who deleted those threads was known, not
assumed). Further, given your posts and others from wt in this regard, the
underlying 'reason' for the objections related to some unspecified "drama",
(which may or, may not been related to thread deletions).
>
>After I concluded my investigation, I found that it was proven
>reasonably that the most likely one to delete the thread, out of those
>with the ability, was Ren.
>
From an outside perspective, such a conclusion is not beyond reasonable
doubt and while my remarks should not be construed as an interrogatory on
behalf of some sort of 'usenet appeal', it would seem reasonable remains.
You made a judgement call, based upon circumstantial inferrences and not
upon irrefutable 'evidence'. That's within your perrogotative as a subgroup
moderator, however, you may perceive why someone might object to it and have
the same sort of emotional response to being banned as those who objected to
thread deletions had. Maybe you wouldn't see this, who knows?
>
>He was asked not to repeat such behavior, and he became abusive.
>
Did he repeat the behaviour after being asked not to? In what manner was
his reaction "abusive"? Since that is often a matter of perspective, the
question seems relevant.
>
>The request was strengthened to a warning.
>
This suggests that the request was not complied with and that thread
deletions continued, which resulted in a warning - correct? Did the thread
deletions continue after the warning or, did the matter transition into an
arguement over who deleted what, (or something else)?
>
>He stated a desire to be banned, and then proceeded to break evey one of
>the simple rules of the AUP, so, I gave him what he wanted, and banned him.
>
Whether or not he was 'martyring' himself to make a point, "ren's" initial
objection was not to being banned but, that the events leading up to that
banning were questionable. That part is over now, he's banned but, can
still read your site, true?
>
>That's pretty much how the situation went.
>
"Pretty much", from your perspective, (and quite possibly the perspectives
of other, ticked-off, members of your site). Are you able to post the
various applicable AUPs here?
s�r`ch�sm
>
> Alright then, Sar Chasm, against my better judgment, I am still
> responding to you here.
>
Why then?
>
> I'm not going to bother quoting anything, as that doesn't seem to
> phase you
>
Quoting often provides context, in case of tangents being taken to obscure
that context. Other than that, feel free to use any posting format wished.
>
> ...and you always manage to twist something out of my words
> besides what I mean ...
>
Words mean what they do, according to the strictures of the language
employed. No twisting is required to determine that feigning something
means faking it.
>
> ...and then use the twisted meanings to further discredit and deface me.
>
Since the meanings are not being twisted, your assessment is invalid. As
for discrediting or defacing, (defacing?), you, your own position and words
are what incriminate you.
>
> My current thoughts are that you'll turn that statement about to say
> that you're not twisting my words, merely exposing my true meaning
>
On the contrary, your latter words exposed the underlying meaning of your
previous words. You apparently disapprove of that and proceed into
attempting to compute probable responses to your comments, as if that
somehow negates any responses. Such attempts at preempting are, as your lot
enjoys repeating, an "epic fail".
>
> But lets try to grow up and sidestep the mudslinging for a
> moment, though I have no doubt that you will assert that you haven't
> been mudslinging, and thus have no need to sidestep.
>
If pointing out your prior hypocrisy and dishonesty regarding feigning
civility is considered to be "mudslinging", then the basis for your lack of
doubt in that regard is seen for what it is - personal bias. Naturally, you
have a vested interest in engaging in such ego-defensive behavior.
>
> Yes, I have flaws. You do too, whether you choose to admit to them or
> not. My flaws are more than the example I gave earlier... Note I said
> 'one of them is wrath.' This means that 'one of several' or 'one of
> many' of my flaws was wrath. So, I'm sorry, your assertion that I
> don't take responsibility for my flaws is baseless.
>
That does not follow since the specific assertion was and is that you
continue to avoid taking responsibility for feigning civility, not for
various unspecified flaws unrelated to that.
>
> You can argue that all you like, but, in the end, you really don't know
> me,
> and I really don't know you. Any conclusions you draw on that front are
> simply
> speculative.
>
Since the conclusions drawn in the specific context of feigning are based
entirely on a series of posted exchanges relating to that matter, it is
unnecessary to "know" you to determine the meaning of those posts.
Motivations, rationales, excuses aside.
>
> Right now, yes, I am furious. I want to, in my base self, fight and
> spit and curse and insult and in general act in a very uncivil manner.
>
So, you are again, feigning civility now and continuing to make my point for
me.
>
> I see you as exhibiting more trollish traits (antagonism,
>
Your own reaction, (that of being antagonized), is your reaction and you are
inherently assuming that the intent was to antagonize. That assumption
varies with the intent of my posts, (i.e., your speculations are off the
mark - guess again).
>
> ...word twisting
>
It's already been shown up-post that there is no reason to "twist" your
words when your own words adaquately support my assertions.
>
> ...insulting my sex life)
>
Asking whether or not you are able to accurrately determine if something
else feigned was relevant to the context of the discussion. No assumptions
were made in advance concerning your ability to make such a determination,
however, another example could have been chosen in lieu of the one selected.
>
> [...]
> I also realize, logically,
> that you think that you are right and entirely justified in what
> you've been saying and doing.
>
Actually, I do not engage in discussions thinking that I am "right", (or
'wrong') in advance. I engage in them to discover what lies behind
appearances, both interanlly and externally.
> [...]
>
> A user appeared on a group I was elected to moderate by the users of
> the group and the group creator herself. He posted several
> antagonizing posts, which he admitted to posting to start drama.
>
The terms "antagonizing posts" and "drama" are open to interpretation. Can
you specify by example?
>
> He asserted that it was to 'toughen up' the community.
>
That's as may be, given the propensity for dabblers or 'fluff-bunnies'
extant, however, objections to such a process are understandable.
>
> It was pointed out that this was against the spirit of the group's
> desires ...
>
Vague as that is, was it also against the group's AUP?
>
> ...and shortly thereafter, the thread was deleted.
>
So, the subsequently opposing contentions regard who it was that deleted the
thread and the a priori reasons for it regard prior attitudes which do not
violate the AUPs but, what might be termed as the "spirit of the rules",
rather than the "letter of the rules"?
>
>[...]
>
> Ren, on the other hand, has a history of
> his threads disappearing when he starts to look bad.
>
Here's where it gets iffy. You are contending that there is a history of
thread deletions which you insinuate directly were deleted by "ren". There
is currently no way of knowing that objectively without the presentation of
something to support that contention. It may or, may not be what happened,
however, the statement made that "...his threads disappearing when he starts
to look bad" indicates an inherently biased conclusion, (i.e., in general
that someone was presumably being 'made to look bad' and thus, intentionally
antagonized which was part of the basis of the arguement used against that
poster).
>
>All evidence pointed to the thread being deleted by him.
>
If such "evidence" has consisted of what's been presented so far, that
"evidence" is circumstantial and there exists a margin for reasonable doubt.
>
>[...]
>
> I was annoyed with him, and I wanted to be rude and
> tell him off publicly, but that was against our group AUP, which I had
> personally written and submitted to the group for approval.
>
So, you feigned civility, as you've established repeatedly, for the
'reasons' you've also reiterated.
>
> I replaced my
> personal reactions with the civility demanded by the AUP, in contrast
> to his own malicious postings.
>
There is no need to reiterate that you've feigned civility, that's been well
established by now. Discussions as to why you did so are post hoc.
>
> Maybe I phrased it wrong in my earlier posts.
>
No, you expressed your feigning of civility sufficiently well enough to make
the meaning clear.
>
> One can, in my experience, feign something that you don't want to do,
> but know that you must.
>
That's probably true, however, it's still feigning/faking it and that's been
the context at the core of discussion all along, (whether you want to
discuss it or, not).
>
> I can feign politeness to an unruly customer, when I really
> want to just grab them by the scruff of the neck and toss them out the
> front door.
>
No doubt, you can. It's still feigning something you don't honestly feel.
Instead of looking at that as 'the polite thing to do', consider looking at
the underlying nature of the divergence between the reasons for those
feelings, (yep, feelings have 'reasons'), and feigning alternatives. I'm
not advocating acting upon those unfeigned emotions, I'm advocating
lessening the divergence. Given that many people will not be able to tell
the difference between feigned and unfeigned, you may think it doesn't
matter, however, there are those that can tell. To them, it may matter.
>
> That would result in the loss of my job, and likely, a lawsuit.
>
Your statement directly implies that the feigning is employed for fear of
consequences if not employed. Not because of a moral or ethical standard.
>
> Since you have such an objection to the term 'feign,' I'll
> instead refer to it as resorting to civility. Perhaps that will convey
> my meaning better.
>
You can refer to feigning as resorting if wished but, it's still faking a
civility you've admitted that you don't feel is applicable.
>
> In my experience, it is better to obey a more
> logical and morally superior code than it is to obey gut urges.
>
Again, if you are feigning such a thing, you are apparently doing so to
avoid negative consequences, not due to adherence to a morally superior code
of conduct. Honor consists of having honor, despite the consequences and
even while no one is looking.
>
>[...]
>
> Then I hear that he's here, posting my personal contact information by
> reproducing the group AUP, complete with my MSN, AIM, and email
> contacts at the bottom.
>
Email is easily filtered. What was the objection to posting the group's
AUP, (which I must have missed along the way)?
>
> So I came to see what all he was saying about
> me. Many of the things he was posting were flat out lies, and this
> offended me.
>
Presumably, the contentions concerning who deleted what and what those
motivations were are the flat out lies, (unless you refer to other, unknown,
flat out lies)?
>
> I decided to attempt to clear up some of the
> misinformation he was spreading about, and posted my input on the
> matter. I admit, I posted a bit hastily, before knowing the atmosphere
> and rules (or lack thereof) for this group, which is bad internet
> etiquette.
>
What is archived on arw is that you indicated that you feigned civility and
then initially denied doing, eventually admitted doing so and are now trying
to 'save face', as it were.
>
> But then, you jump down my throat, and my words are twisted into
> pretzels.
>
While such a self-serving 'twist' on what is archived may be of importance
to you, the archived posts show what actually happened. These are available
for reference so, your insistance upon 'reinterpreting' them is somewhat
futile. What is archived on arw is that you indicated that you feigned
civility and then initially denied doing, eventually admitted doing so and
are now trying to 'save face', as it were.
>
> Unaccustomed to this, I retort, to have my retort twisted.
>
Rather, being unaccustomed to reasoning, you retorted with sophistry, (this
is all archived), and no twisting of your retorts was necessary.
>
> I got caught up in that, and my wrath and ego wouldn't let me let it go.
>
It is said that it is better to drive one's emotions than to be driven by
them; much as it is better to ride the horse than have the horse ride you.
>
> I'm not a dishonest person,
>
You may believe that, however, feigning something is inherently dishonest.
>
> I despise hypocrisy, and I eliminate it in myself whenever I discover it.
>
That's good. Have you eliminated it in this instance?
>
> I've seen that my devolving attitude
> here has been dipping my toes into the vat of trolldom, and that is
> something I shall remedy.
>
To reciprocate that gesture, I'll admit to occassionally trolling your
trollings in the course of establishing that feigning is faking it, (albeit
the latter seemed obvious from the start).
>
> However, I maintain that, while I am not
> perfect, at heart, I am not a dishonest person,
>
Perhaps not, and while honesty might be something you strive for, feigning
civility is inherently dishonest. That this presents a moral dilemma does
not go unnoticed. Where does it end, where does it begin?
>
> [...]
>
> I have been involved in martial arts for much of my life,
> and one of my hobbies is to spar with my friends and record video of
> it. This leads to a very combative outlook on life. Sometimes this
> bleeds over and overshadows logical debate when I feel I am being
> provoked.
>
You weren't initially provoked, you came here with your contentions. One
might conclude that this contentious arrival was a provocation.
>
> Here, I don't have the support network I have on the other
> site, to get advice from before I make a decision or make a post. Here
> I'm on my own, and yes, I make mistakes. My first mistake was to react
> harshly and abruptly. My second was to continue down that path without
> bothering to indulge in a little introspective. My third mistake was
> to allow myself to be goaded. There are likely more, but these are the
> primary ones to my perception.
>
If you are making these introspections, then it seems that posting to an
unmoderated forum has at least nominally increased some aspects of
awareness, (despite a previous insistance that no good can come of it).
>
> Make of this whatever you will. If your opinion stays the same, then,
> I have failed as a communicator. If my attempt to quell my anger and
> properly convey my point of view succeeds, then, thanks for listening.
>
My reply indicates what I made of your post. Should you continue to post
or, decide not to no restrictions can be imposed here that are not
self-imposed. Interestingly enough, that was the whole point of this.
Beorc Kano
> >When the initial post is deleted, so is the entire thread, as if it hadn't
> >ever been there. This upsets many people who put their time into
> >discussing matters of spirituality or philosophy, only to have their
> >words and recorded thoughts deleted.
>
> That attitude is understandable, however, I believe you indicated it was
> possible to restore a deleted thread should that happen. Is this correct?
The only way I can restore a deleted thread is when I get an inkling
that someone has the tendencies to do so, and I save the web page onto
my computer. Then, I have to screenshot the page and upload the images
onto WT, assembling the thread in an identical manner to the original.
I didn't have time with Ren. I did manage to save one of his threads,
but after he got banned from the site, I saw little point to putting
it back. Here is a link to the thread that I had previously
reconstructed:http://www.wiccantogether.com/group/truewitches/forum/
topics/spirit-orbs-or-energy-orbs
> >This is not against the site AUP, but, just as states can make
> >stricter laws than the country, the groups can impose stricter
> >rules in their respective AUPs, if they decide to write them.
>
> To clarify that point; are you suggesting that a subgroup's AUP contained
> strict rules regarding post deletions and that "ren" was aware of those
> restrictions prior to the deletion events in question? I'm not asking
> whether someone became aware of specific restrictions during the course of
> events but, prior to the deletions.
The AUP is posted directly on the subgroup's homepage. There is a
statement right there above it, reading "Please read the Acceptable
User Policy of True Witches before posting on this group. By joining
True Witches, you are agreeing to adhere to our rules." Since he was
present when the AUP was written, and witnessed (and commented) on
someone else who was warned (but not banned) for deleting a thread, I
feel it is safe to assume he was aware.
The link to the AUP is here;
http://www.wiccantogether.com/group/truewitches/forum/topics/true-witches-acceptable-user
> > [...]
>
> >In the investigation that spurred all of this, I checked with the site
> >administrator I could meet with, and she said she had received no such
> >notifications, but with a little character investigation, several
> >other users admitted to having issues with him for deleting threads.
>
> At this juncture, it is being directly implied that "ren" had previously
> deleted threads and that he was, (presumably?), aware of subgroup AUPs
> restricting this activity? Additionally, this aspect of your
> "investigation" consisted of complaints regarding the deletion of threads,
> (which appears to insinuate that who deleted those threads was known, not
> assumed). Further, given your posts and others from wt in this regard, the
> underlying 'reason' for the objections related to some unspecified "drama",
> (which may or, may not been related to thread deletions).
Whether it was against other subgroup AUPs to delete threads once they
had been replied to, I do not know. However, the sources I spoke with
confirmed that his threads had a nasty habit of disappearing when
opposition was made to his points, but not when his points were met
with praise or agreement. The sources I spoke with stated that they
had received numerous complaints on the matter (consisting of, more or
less, "Hey, the thread started by Ren about [topic] is gone, and all
my posts with it!"), but since it was not against the site AUP, no
disciplinarian action could be taken. I feel these statements worked
as character definitions, establishing a pattern of behavior that
would lead one to the conclusion that it was not unlikely that Ren had
indeed deleted his posts. Prior to this investigation, I had no pre-
conceived feelings towards Ren. I was neutral.
The 'drama' was Ren making veiled threats and statements, such as some
of the ones I have seen here "I have contacts in the FBI, and will be
monitoring this group. You have been warned," and following around
certain other members that had opposed his viewpoints, heckling them
and in general making a nuisance of himself.
> >After I concluded my investigation, I found that it was proven
> >reasonably that the most likely one to delete the thread, out of those
> >with the ability, was Ren.
>
> From an outside perspective, such a conclusion is not beyond reasonable
> doubt and while my remarks should not be construed as an interrogatory on
> behalf of some sort of 'usenet appeal', it would seem reasonable remains.
> You made a judgement call, based upon circumstantial inferrences and not
> upon irrefutable 'evidence'. That's within your perrogotative as a subgroup
> moderator, however, you may perceive why someone might object to it and have
> the same sort of emotional response to being banned as those who objected to
> thread deletions had. Maybe you wouldn't see this, who knows?
Irrefutable evidence for that particular situation (a log stating
username, IP#, and date of action) was not available, so, as with any
other investigation, I had to make do with what I had. Everyone
involved (myself, the group creator, and one of the site
administrators) felt it was enough to serve at least a warning. I
requested that a simple 'cease and desist' request be made, and was
granted that boon. After the request was made, he proceeded to
purposefully break the other rules of the AUP. This sort of character
was the straw that broke the camels back, for me. It proved to me that
he had no regard for the AUP of the subgroup, and, with all prior
evidence gathered, made me feel it was reasonable to believe that he
had deleted the thread. Another of his threads (the one I managed to
save) disappeared, and so I issued one warning, then another for more
of his aggressive activities. Upon his initiation of namecalling, he
received his third warning, which was his final strike, and he was
banned. The ban was going to stay in place for one month, and then be
lifted. However, from what I have been told since, he threatened the
family members of one of the administrators of the site at large, and
was banned for that.
> >He was asked not to repeat such behavior, and he became abusive.
>
> Did he repeat the behaviour after being asked not to? In what manner was
> his reaction "abusive"? Since that is often a matter of perspective, the
> question seems relevant.
Abusive is defined as phrasing his objections in rude, obnoxious, or
purposefully antagonistic manners, following certain members about the
site, singling them out and targeting them and their posts for
ridicule, derailing their threads, and indulging in smear campaigns,
much as he has been doing here since his ban.
> >The request was strengthened to a warning.
>
> This suggests that the request was not complied with and that thread
> deletions continued, which resulted in a warning - correct? Did the thread
> deletions continue after the warning or, did the matter transition into an
> arguement over who deleted what, (or something else)?
As stated above, the request was not complied with, and the infraction
was repeated.
> >He stated a desire to be banned, and then proceeded to break evey one of
> >the simple rules of the AUP, so, I gave him what he wanted, and banned him.
>
> Whether or not he was 'martyring' himself to make a point, "ren's" initial
> objection was not to being banned but, that the events leading up to that
> banning were questionable. That part is over now, he's banned but, can
> still read your site, true?
He can still read the site, but he cannot log into his account, nor
create an account from his IP#, nor log into an account created
elsewhere from is IP#, nor create an account on a different IP# with
his email address. That's if I understand the terms of his ban
properly. I didn't initiate it, so I don't know the severity.
> >That's pretty much how the situation went.
>
> "Pretty much", from your perspective, (and quite possibly the perspectives
> of other, ticked-off, members of your site). Are you able to post the
> various applicable AUPs here?
I have posted the AUP of the subgroup above. The AUP of WiccanTogether
is as follows;
• The website and the chatroom are all 17+ ONLY.•
(anyone found on site under the required age limit will be removed)
• No sexual chat, or talk of illegal activities.
• Absolutely no adult content
• No cussing or being crass
• Please use basic chatroom etiquette
• Please respect the mods
• Please do not spam or use the chatroom as a means of advertising.
Thank you
Synsual and Lady of the Graveyard (Moderators)
And of course thank you from Brian K Site Creator)
Beorc Kano
is. The definition of the word 'feign,' and it's usage.
This is the definition you are using, the modern one;
feign
–verb (used with object)
1. to represent fictitiously; put on an appearance of: to feign
sickness.
2. to invent fictitiously or deceptively, as a story or an excuse.
3. to imitate deceptively: to feign another's voice.
–verb (used without object)
4. to make believe; pretend: She's only feigning, she isn't really
ill.
While I have always used the word in context of it's archaic origins,
perhaps thus incorrectly.
feign
1300, from O.Fr. feign-, pres. stem of feindre "pretend, shirk," from
L. fingere "devise, fabricate," originally "to shape, invent, to
form," from PIE base *dheigh- "to form, shape."
Courtesy of Dictionary.com.
To devise/fabricate/shape/form civility in a context where it did not
previously exist. That was the meaning of the word as I used it. The
difference in definition is the source of my confusion.
That's what I get for reading archaic and archaically based texts, and
using the words in that context.
However, my understanding of the word feign, in the modern, proper
usage, and in the proper context, is more or less as follows;
To feign civility, that is, to present a civil attitude to one towards
whom you do not feel civilly towards, is not an inherant dishonesty,
but a recognition that civility in the situation would be more
beneficial to the parties involved. To make it a dishonesty, one would
need to assert that one did not think in an uncivil manner about said
individual while acting civilly and feeling uncivilly. However, a
civil front can be presented without misrepresenting the truth. For
example, while I would react civilly to Ren's posts, I did not make
secret that I was thinking more and more ill of him. However, the
civil front that the AUP called for was maintained to keep things on
that level, at least where the administration was concerned.
Administrative duties did not call for emotional reactions, rather,
called for emotions to be left out. Thus, emotional reactions were
replaced by civil ones.
I also assert that, while you may not believe me, I did not discuss my
personal feelings about Ren with anyone but my wife, who is also my
confidant. Even then, I ended my statements with, "But I likely
shouldn't be complaining like this." This, the civil front was
maintained in all public and most private settings. However, when I
came here and saw what was being said about me, the lies being spread
(the reason he says he was banned, the timelines he presented, the
actions of those involved, all changed to make him look innocent), and
the insults being cast ("Beorc Kano is a power hungry corrupt mod,
abusing his role as a moderator, having stolen the group from
Blair!"), I lost my temper, and slipping into my perceptions of the
accepted norm here, where one was not required to hold one's tongue.
That was a shortcoming on my part. In the future, I will do my best to
not let Ren, or those of a similar caliber, provoke me to that point
again. It only lowers me.
I suppose this much of it was a learning experience. I don't think I
will thank you for it, Sar Chasm, but I can't blame you for it. I've
been told more than once that I am unduly blunt in my presentations of
opposition. I still disagree with many of your proofs and deductions,
because I know myself (what can be known of myself, in any case), and
these traits are not as prevalent as they were made out to be.
One final thing... I am not concerned about saving face. I don't plan
on frequenting this forum much any how, and I am familiar with how
internet reputations work. This conversation has branded me in this
circle, and that's fine. There are, after all, other circles.
ren
> been out of work since June, only working odd jobs to keep paying my
> bills. It's not a recent development. I'm moving to find a better
> economy (found one) with better housing and job markets (found one and
> found one). Sorry, wrong again.
I'm happy for you.
> She likely should have, but she was hesitant and I like her. So I
> agreed to her request, and I took out the trash.
That is not what she told me.
> Yeah, just ignore the following part where I said she didn't like the
> idea of banning someone. Since you're all about technicalities, she
That is why you insisted taking over.
> did post on the top of the group that she would never delete (ban)
> anyone. But she didn't say anything about me. Though that would be a
> loophole you'd appreciate. I'll talk to her about closing it.
Yes. I'm sure you'll strong arm her again.
> Don't speak about my family with your filthy mouth. If you have
> contacts through the FBI, then I challenge you to contact me. Just...
> get my home phone number. Give me a call. Or, better yet, find my
> address, and e-mail it to me. Otherwise, I will call you a liar.
You are a fool. You have no idea who I am or who I know. Why would you
risk being wrong? It is your family we are talking about here. Don't
be a fool. Post responsibly.
> Come on. Those two bits of information should be easy to come by. One
> doesn't even have to have FBI contacts to get them. But if you do get
> them, then I'll believe you. Until then, you're again, a liar.
What a stupid game you're playing. If you must know, the game has
already started. The purpose is not to get you arrested.
> By who? I can promise you now, they gave you bad information.
Your promises mean nothing.
> Maybe you shouldn't have skipped kindergarten. I only mentioned the
> one moderator, Lady of the Graveyard. I named her. That's one. Can you
> show me where I named the other, and said I spoke with her? Because I
> didn't.
You have a short memory. You should review all your posts here to this
newsgroup. There aren't many.
You mentioned 2 moderators. Not 1.
> > It isn't personal if you post it publicly.
>
> Fair enough.
> > > As for my personal life, I am a married father of four, and my wife is
> > > pregnant with my fifth daughter. My sex life is none of your business.
>
> > You need to keep your private life private. People will use it against
> > you.
>
> I did. It was brought up as negative with untruths.
No you didn't. Look at your first comment above. You posted about your
private life. That is dumb.
> Then you haven't watched any of the videos, and you're a poor judge of
> combatant capabilities. Never underestimate the big guys... They're
> seldom as slow as they look. Never underestimate the scrawny guys,
> they're seldom as weak as they look. Pretty basic stuff, really.
I've seen other pictures of you. You're out of shape.
> There was no magical attack. You couldn't magic your way through a
> card trick. If I'm wrong, then really, attack me. I welcome it. Come
Channeling Sidney Lambe are ye!?! (a note to the person that bet me)
> on, do it. You don't have the ability. You are a liar, and a magical
> weakling lacking the ability to reach out through the energies and
> ether to strike me down because you don't know anything, and you're as
> able as a retarded dog.
You're a reTARD!
> I'll leave when I'm done here. I don't want your forgiveness, because
> I haven't wronged you. You know where you can shove your forgiveness.
Nope. You haven't wronged me. Uh huh.
aine
>
> > I'll leave when I'm done here. I don't want your forgiveness, because
> > I haven't wronged you. You know where you can shove your forgiveness.
>
> Nope. You haven't wronged me. Uh huh.
So you bring it to arw where idiots are known to support people based
on not knowing any details, facts or the sequence of things.. oh look
wow..why yes..I see you have the defense lawyer as your shadow now.
The kind that put crazed killers back on the streets while they pat
their backs and sleep well at night because they think they are so
damn clever.
One thing for them to have followed you. Your own fault for bringing
it here if it just makes you and your followers look stupid. You, I
get. People who jump in and fight for causes they have not followed or
know true facts on are as dumb as they come.
aine
> Alright then, Sar Chasm, against my better judgment, I am still
> responding to you here. I'm not going to bother quoting anything, as
> that doesn't seem to phase you, and you always manage to twist
> something out of my words besides what I mean, and then use the
> twisted meanings to further discredit and deface me. My current
> thoughts are that you'll turn that statement about to say that you're
> not twisting my words, merely exposing my true meaning, or you'll
> react to the statement just written and purposefully go in another
> direction to once again make me look bad. <
Bingo..he thinks he is clever. The only one, maybe two that do not get
he does this. As I posted earlier, he never knows facts, sequence of
things or even followed the posts where the problems were. Just picks
a side and posts with big words he hopes will make him look smart
and .....right. The "supposed" victim then clings on to him with
praises because he is at least on their side.
Funnier still, most times he bad mouths the people he suddenly is
being defense lawyer for. Me thinks it is for the limelight. I will
stick with Einstein who could not tie his shoes, brush his hair and
talked in layman terms because he wanted the whole world to understand
him and not pretend to be an elite.
Beorc Kano
> > Maybe you shouldn't have skipped kindergarten. I only mentioned the
> > one moderator, Lady of the Graveyard. I named her. That's one. Can you
> > show me where I named the other, and said I spoke with her? Because I
> > didn't.
>
> You have a short memory. You should review all your posts here to this
> newsgroup. There aren't many.
>
> You mentioned 2 moderators. Not 1.
I just went through every single post I made on here. Never once did I
say that I spoke to both moderators. Only that I spoke with ONE
moderator, Lady of the Graveyard. I don't have a particularly close
relationship with the other, so I don't go through her.
Sorry, wrong again.
s�r`ch�sm
>
> Nope. You haven't wronged me. Uh huh.
>
>So you bring it to arw where idiots are known to support
>people based on not knowing any details, facts or the sequence
>of things..
>
An attempt is at least being made to acquire relevant details in the course
of commenting on subject matters which occurred outside of the arw venue,
which is far more than can be said for certain others who merely hurl flames
such as "idiots" - much as any common troll can do.
>
>oh look wow..why yes..I see you have the defense lawyer
>
No defense is being presented and there are no "defense lawyers" present
because no one is on trial here; arw is not a court, (although some post to
attempt to sway what they may see as a 'court of public opinion' by posting
nominally snide/petty remarks such as "defense lawyer", in this context).
>
>People who jump in and fight for causes they have not followed or
>know true facts on are as dumb as they come.
>
People who appear to be talking to themselves are either on the cellphones,
nuts or, posting biographically, as above.
s�r`ch�sm
>
>Also, I think I have pinpointed where the primary source of
>conflict is. The definition of the word 'feign,' and it's usage.
>This is the definition you are using, the modern one;
>feign
-verb (used with object)
1. to represent fictitiously; put on an appearance of: to feign
sickness.
2. to invent fictitiously or deceptively, as a story or an excuse.
3. to imitate deceptively: to feign another's voice.
-verb (used without object)
4. to make believe; pretend
>
Yes, and applied to its object, "civility", it becomes fictitiosuly
representing civility, fictitiously invent civility, to invent civility
deceptively, to pretend civility.
>
>While I have always used the word in context of it's archaic origins,
>perhaps thus incorrectly.
feign
1300, from O.Fr. feign-, pres. stem of feindre "pretend, shirk," from
L. fingere "devise, fabricate," originally "to shape, invent, to
form," from PIE base *dheigh- "to form, shape."
Courtesy of Dictionary.com.
>
>To devise/fabricate/shape/form civility in a context where it did not
>previously exist. That was the meaning of the word as I used it. The
>difference in definition is the source of my confusion.
>
The descriptor, "pretend" is present in both definitions of usage, however,
the modern definition directly stems from the sense of meaning of the
archaic one.
>
>That's what I get for reading archaic and archaically based texts, and
>using the words in that context.
>However, my understanding of the word feign, in the modern, proper
>usage, and in the proper context, is more or less as follows;
>To feign civility, that is, to present a civil attitude to one towards
>whom you do not feel civilly towards, is not an inherant dishonesty,
>but a recognition that civility in the situation would be more
>beneficial to the parties involved.
>
Alright, sometimes it's necessary to separate before recombining, (like an
alchemical process). In that vein, the phrase "feign civility" means to
fake civility or, pretend to be civil while maintaining an alternately
uncivil attitude. Separately, we've been over "feign" so, on to "civil".
Dictionary definitions could be bandied about but, essentally, the word is
deemed to mean "politeness". Would you agree that there exists a difference
between being polite and pretending to be polite, even if another person may
or, may not be able to tell the difference?
>
>To make it a dishonesty, one would
>need to assert that one did not think in an uncivil manner about said
>individual while acting civilly and feeling uncivilly.
>
That assertion contains an ambiguity since thinking in an uncivil manner
while pretending to act/speak in a civil manner is deceptive and therefore,
feigning - any way you slice it. Thinking in a civil manner while
pretending to be civil wouldn't make any sense since the need to pretend
would not exist.
>
>However, a civil front can be presented without misrepresenting
>the truth.
>
I agree and yet, such a "front" would still be pretending to be civil, as
opposed to being honestly civil. The difference may be subtle to some, it
isn't to a sense of honor.
>
>For example, while I would react civilly to Ren's posts,
>I did not make secret that I was thinking more and more ill of him.
>However, the civil front that the AUP called for was maintained to
>keep things on that level, at least where the administration was concerned.
>
While much of the contention depends upon interpretations of what is "civil"
or, polite, the meaning of feigning has been reiterated and hair-split down
to the subatomic level by now. So, the same could be done with "civil" or,
"polite" but, that tangent is addressed in another post.
>
>Administrative duties did not call for emotional reactions, rather,
>called for emotions to be left out. Thus, emotional reactions were
>replaced by civil ones.
>
Such reactions aren't truly civil if the civility is feigned, are they?
>
> [...]
>
>However, when I came here and saw what was being said about
>me, the lies being spread (the reason he says he was banned, the
>timelines he presented, the actions of those involved, all changed
>to make him look innocent), and the insults being cast ("Beorc
>Kano is a power hungry corrupt mod, abusing his role as a moderator,
>having stolen the group from Blair!"),
>
All that you mention is understandable, (and even has precedent here). It's
also quite possible that someone who was banned from one forum due to their
actions and/or the actions of others would have an emotionally-based
response which prompted them to haul the mess onto another forum,
(especially if the banned party felt the situation was unresolved, unfair or
even unamerican). Be that as it may, I wasn't there and can make nothing
other than general observations on the banning process involved in this
specific instance. Either the person banned was banned for overt or
probable cause or, they were not. That's basically it. My participation in
these discussions has largely hinged upon the feigning aspect, (which, it
has been observed on arw, "ren" engages in as well), as it regards and
affects mundane and esoteric processes.
>
>I lost my temper, and slipping
>into my perceptions of the accepted norm here, where one was not
>required to hold one's tongue.
>
A poster may not be _required_ to hold something back but, who is the
stronger; one who is constrained from without and thus resorts to pretense
or, one who is constrained from within by no pretenses?
>
>That was a shortcoming on my part. In the future, I will do my best to
>not let Ren, or those of a similar caliber, provoke me to that point
>again. It only lowers me.
>
To reciprocate in kind, I admit to, in effect, doggedly following a
bloodscent long after the horses have returned to the stables. In other
words, we both seem to be bull-headed. Cheers.
>
>I suppose this much of it was a learning experience. I don't think I
>will thank you for it, Sar Chasm, but I can't blame you for it.
>
No thanks were expected nor, needed since any experience of learning was
unintentional. No pretense of teaching was extant, the intent was merely to
pierce the 'fog of war'.
>
>I've been told more than once that I am unduly blunt in my
>presentations of opposition.
>
A blunt presentation is one thing; an unsupported assertion is somewhat of
another.
>
>I still disagree with many of your proofs and deductions,
>because I know myself (what can be known of myself, in any case), and
>these traits are not as prevalent as they were made out to be.
>
Your disagreement is fine by me, however, it's no substitute for valid
refutation. I can be refuted - I know, I've seen it happen before.
>
>One final thing... I am not concerned about saving face. I don't plan
>on frequenting this forum much any how, and I am familiar with how
>internet reputations work. This conversation has branded me in this
>circle, and that's fine. There are, after all, other circles.
>
The face-saving remarks were made in direct response to the form of your
replies, however, I looked upon them as more tangential to the context under
discussion than something you had a high probability of engaging in. As for
reputations, (those vary, depending upon whose point of view is doing the
viewing) and perceptions, (ditto), or circles, (arw is composed of a
fluidity of individual posters and, while this can be said of any 'group',
none of this stuff brands you). Yep, believe it or not, the 'reasons' many
have for feigning something have been understood along and were never the
point of contention.
s�r`ch�sm
> "s�r`ch�sm" wrote:
>"Beorc Kano" wrote:
>
>that someone has the tendencies to do so, and I save the web page onto
>my computer.
>
As I am unfamiliar with the process involved in the wt forum, I'm left
wondering if a subscriber to that forum has the option to go to the website
to read/post or, whether an option to receive posts in the subscriber's
email exists.
>
> [...]
>
>The AUP is posted directly on the subgroup's homepage. By joining
>True Witches, you are agreeing to adhere to our rules." Since he was
>present when the AUP was written, and witnessed (and commented) on
>someone else who was warned (but not banned) for deleting a thread, I
>feel it is safe to assume he was aware.
>
Thank you for answering these inquiries. You are under no obligation to do
so, (even a 'civil' one). Despite a few pre-existent vengeance-driven
character slams from the arw poster "aine", the reason I ask questions is
because I'm previously unaware of the answers to those questions and
endeavor to arrive at as an objective as possible assessment regarding the
subject matter. In this instance, it would be nominally safe to 'assume',
(argh), that those desiring to interact/post on that subpage, (or wt in
general), are aware of the appropriate AUPs. However, since that is an
assumption, I'll ask if a subscriber must click on a link to view an AUP or,
if it's posted in full, where there's no way to miss it before engaging in
posting to the (sub)group(s)?
>
The link to the AUP is here;
http://www.wiccantogether.com/group/truewitches/forum/topics/true-witches-acceptable-user
>
I've reviewed the AUP listed above and, while no 'exhibits' of "ren's" posts
have submitted here, (as yet), it is noted that the AUP contains various
terms which are nominally subjective ones. Since the terms in question are
directly relevant to the discussion and are not 'private posts', I trust
that there is no objection to mentioning them and proceed to do so. Some of
those terms are "harassment", "hate campaigns", "drama", "mudslinging", and
"rudeness".
Each of the foregoing terminologies rests upon subjective perceptions as
much as they do upon intersubjectively agreed upon perceptions. For
example, the term "harassment" encompasses meanings ranging from social to
legal definitions and while there is some overlap, the two are not intended
in the same way. While different forms of criminal harassment are more
strictly legally-defined, application of those strictures is ultimately left
to the judicial system. Social harassment is a bit more vaguely determined
since, unless it is egregious, it is often a subjective perception which
varies with the perceiver. Such perception works both ways in that one
party might perceive no harassment while another involved party might insist
that such 'social harassment' did occur. These hypothetical parties might
even disagree as to the event in question being 'egregious', (or, flagrant,
blatant, etc.). In such an instance, there is sometimes a larger consensus
of several subjective perceptions, (other people), who can either point to
similar precedents and adjudge that the questionable event was considered to
be social harassment. Alternatively, such a consensus may not conclude that
social harassment occurred. In either case, a consensus was making that
judgment call, not one person, (as in the instance of criminal harassment
or, say, individual internet moderators). Even though it may be
theoretically possible for one or, a few to make such judgment calls
accurately, they are, after all, human. Some problems inherent with a few
people making such calls are 'group-think', underlying agendas,
group-socialization processes, (which are not restricted to individuals
wanting to be part of a larger group/tribe), and 'abuses' of authority.
These are not all-inclusive, however, this is running long. Suffice it to
summarize the point; subjective perceptions are subject to errors in
judgments due to incomplete data*, (*there you go, "aine"), faulty
assessment processes and letting one's emotions drive one, (instead of the
other way around). These observations apply to each of the terms drawn from
the AUP mentioned. While the terms themselves are not interchangeable, each
one encompasses a preconceived notion of what they mean to
individuals/collective groups, (whether that consensus stems from
dictionaries, it is often filtered and perceived by individuals in
individual ways). One person's "fuck you" is another person's "buy me
dinner first" or, harassment - depending upon predispositions and point of
view.
>
> > [...]
>
> Further, given your posts and others from wt in this regard, the
> underlying 'reason' for the objections related to some unspecified
> "drama",
> (which may or, may not been related to thread deletions).
>
> [...]
>
>The 'drama' was Ren making veiled threats and statements, such as some
>of the ones I have seen here "I have contacts in the FBI, and will be
>monitoring this group. You have been warned," and following around
>certain other members that had opposed his viewpoints, heckling them
>and in general making a nuisance of himself.
>
In the example presented above, "ren" implied consequences without overtly
stating specific ones. There may be other, more specific examples not
presented as yet. Having stated this, "ren" has posted similar remarks in
arw and, while they can be perceived as "threats", (and have been, by those
who have a vested interest in viewing them in that manner or, have
interpreted an open-ended insinuation as 'threatening'). In order for it to
be considered a threat, the remark would nominally have to contain some
mention of consequential action(s), rather than having those implied or,
assumed. For instance, it is not a threat to advise a bank robber that, if
he robs a bank, he risks arrest and incarceration. It is a threat to remark
that, if someone 'insults' another person, the one _feeling_ that they have
been insulted will punch the one who did so in the eye. It is a "veiled"
threat to 'imply' consequences and even that's usually open to
interpretation.
Determining that someone is "making a nuisance of himself" is open to
interpretation as well but, not as much as causing "drama", (in the slang
sense of the word), would be.
"Drama" is a slang term used within various fandoms, referring to
unnecessary and often immature emotional turmoil, such as that created
through negative social interactions or gossip. Another slang definition of
drama refers to an ongoing conflict between two or more people, such as a
continuing exchange of insults or slanderous activity against the
person(s)." - http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Drama
As you can see, various terms which are widely open to individual
interpretation are encompassed by the slang usage of "drama"
> [...]
>
>Irrefutable evidence for that particular situation (a log stating
>username, IP#, and date of action) was not available, so, as with any
>other investigation, I had to make do with what I had.
>
This involved making unspecified assumptions and judgment calls, did it not?
>
> [...]
>
> >He was asked not to repeat such behavior, and he became abusive.
>
> Did he repeat the behavior after being asked not to? In what manner was
> his reaction "abusive"? Since that is often a matter of perspective, the
> question seems relevant.
>
>Abusive is defined as phrasing his objections in rude,
>
Interpreted as being "rude" or, unambiguously rude?
>obnoxious,
>
Interpreted as being "obnoxious" or, unambiguously obnoxious?
>
>or purposefully antagonistic manners,
>
Interpreted as exhibiting "purposefully antagonistic manners" or,
"purposefully" exhibiting "antagonistic manners"? The reason these
questions are being asked is not rhetorical nor, facetious.
>
>following certain members about the site, singling them out and
>targeting them and their posts for ridicule, derailing their threads,
>and indulging in smear campaigns, much as he has been doing here
>since his ban.
>
Given the archived record of the posts here, "ren" hasn't been the only one
engaging in the activities listed above. Be that as it may, the lack of
_apparent_ consequences in one venue does not remove any responsibility for
one engaging in such activities. Merely stating acceptance of
responsibility isn't a release from consequences either. Since many are
aware that there's more to it than that, it'll be left at that for now.
>
> [...]
>
>He can still read the site, but he cannot log into his account, nor
>create an account from his IP#, nor log into an account created
>elsewhere from is IP#, nor create an account on a different IP# with
>his email address.
>
So, as I understand it from a few objections posted here, he can
cut-and-paste what he reads in that venue and post it here. Such activity
is not specifically prohibited by the AUPs of the wt site, is it? Even if
added post hoc, they wouldn't apply in any enforceable 'grandfathering
clause' in this venue. That said, of course any polite/civil requests made
in objection to such an activity can be acceded to or, not as any personal
code/choice mandates.
>
>I have posted the AUP of the subgroup above. The AUP of WiccanTogether
>is as follows;
>"The website and the chatroom are all 17+ ONLY..
>(anyone found on site under the required age limit will be removed)
>. No sexual chat, or talk of illegal activities.
>. Absolutely no adult content
>. No cussing or being crass
>. Please use basic chatroom etiquette
>. Please respect the mods
>. Please do not spam or use the chatroom as a means of advertising.
>Thank you
>Synsual and Lady of the Graveyard (Moderators)
>And of course thank you from Brian K Site Creator)"
>
Again, as I understand it from a few objections posted here, he can
cut-and-paste what he reads in that venue and post it here. Such activity
is not specifically prohibited by any the AUPs of the wt site currently, is
it?
ren
> I just went through every single post I made on here. Never once did I
> say that I spoke to both moderators. Only that I spoke with ONE
> moderator, Lady of the Graveyard. I don't have a particularly close
> relationship with the other, so I don't go through her.
>
> Sorry, wrong again.
I'm just confirming what you did and who you went through.
Beorc Kano
start a new thread with my post in it... I think it may be an issue of
how I typed it or formatting. I can respond to other threads, just not
with the post I typed up to respond to this one.
I'm e-mailing it to you, Sar Chasm.
Beorc Kano
why it isn't working...
Beorc Kano
Click here;
Should be able to read my response there.
s�r`ch�sm
The difficulty might be related to posting through google and length of post
limits, if any.
s�r`ch�sm
Don't take this offensively, Brandon but, I rarely click on links which are
not google links. Maybe you could try pasting the content from that link to
this post or, someone else can?
Beorc Kano
> Don't take this offensively, Brandon but, I rarely click on links which are
> not google links. Maybe you could try pasting the content from that link to
> this post or, someone else can?
That's fine. However, I tried cutting it in half, and it still
wouldn't accept the first half, so I didn't bother trying with the
second. I'll try again. Copied directly from the page it was saved on;
Nope, didn't work. So, what I'll try to do is post less and less of
the post, until I find a bit that WILL send, and then, I will have
closed in on the apparent formatting error. I'll address that, and see
if I can get it done in two parts.
> Thank you for answering these inquiries. You are under no obligation to do
> so, (even a 'civil' one). Despite a few pre-existent vengeance-driven
> character slams from the arw poster "aine", the reason I ask questions is
> because I'm previously unaware of the answers to those questions and
> endeavor to arrive at as an objective as possible assessment regarding the
> subject matter. In this instance, it would be nominally safe to 'assume',
> (argh), that those desiring to interact/post on that subpage, (or wt in
> general), are aware of the appropriate AUPs. However, since that is an
> assumption, I'll ask if a subscriber must click on a link to view an AUP or,
> if it's posted in full, where there's no way to miss it before engaging in
> posting to the (sub)group(s)?
At the very top of the group page, visible when one follows the link
to GET to the group page, is the statement that all users are held to
the AUP, and then a link to the AUP, so as to save space on the front
page and make the homepage more reader-friendly. This method is
employed by many websites that I have participated in, and has always
served them well, so I imitated it. It's much the same as the little
check box at the bottom of most submission forms, stating "I have read
and agree to follow the [hyperlinked 'TERMS OF USE"]." It is
considered an acceptable way of posting the Acceptable User Policy or
Terms of Use in such an internet setting.
I understand your points above about the subjective qualities of such
terms, however, for a bit of background info, the True Witches
subgroup is such a lax and laid back group that the AUP is seldom even
referred to. When someone comes to me with a grievance (which really
has only happened over two members, the first of which is still a
member, and I am on speaking terms with), then I listen to both
parties, and attempt to strike up a progressive dialogue, much like a
councilor. I take advice from the group creator, the site
administrator that I am on friendly terms with, and those about whose
opinions I trust. In general, no warning is issued, and both parties
gain a greater understanding of each other. The injured party gets a
thicker skin, and the injuring party mellows their words a bit. A
compromise is found, and group harmony returns.
This is the basic overview of a normal disagreement, and is usually
sufficient to handle any dispute. Only when one party refuses to
accept or understand or acknowledge the other person's point of view,
do we have a problem. In that case, the whole thing is looked over not
from a councilor's viewpoint, but from an administrative viewpoint.
Sometimes people are told to chill out or they will receive
administrative action, such as when they doggedly attempt to change
someone's viewpoint on philosophical matters. Other times, people are
told to not be quite so sensitive, such as when a politely phrased
disagreement sends them up into an emotional fit. We define harassment
as following a user about, posting snide, insulting, or sarcastic
responses to a user's posts or threads, leaving snide, insulting, or
sarcastic comments on a user's homepage, or sending snide, insulting,
or sarcastic private messages to a user's inbox.
Hate campaigns are defined much the way as a hate campaign is defined
when about a certain demographic or minority (homosexuals, ethnic
groups, males/females, etc..), but extended to include the individual.
Posting threads about what a bad person such and such user is,
replying to comments about said user with little or no input besides
what a bad person such and such user is, etc.. over an extended period
of time. We haven't had any such issues yet. The issues we've had are
termed 'mudslinging.' Mudslinging is defined much the same as the
actions of a political mudslinging campaign, and are generally single-
event, toned-down actions of a hate campaign.
Drama is defined as unnecessary influx of emotional turmoil in an
academic, informational, philosophical, or opinion/experience based
discussion.
Rudeness is defined as anything not adhering to the rules of
civility... more or less, use your manners.
> [...] It is a "veiled"
> threat to 'imply' consequences and even that's usually open to
> interpretation.
In the example that I gave, many of the members of the group felt
threatened by the posted thread, and, while nothing illegal was
occurring or has occurred, it was considered as much of a thread as if
someone had told a dog owner that they had contacts in PETA and other
animal rights groups, and were watching said owner, even if said owner
was not mistreating the dog at all. Nobody likes to be threatened with
'Big Brother.'
> [definitions of drama]
>
> As you can see, various terms which are widely open to individual
> interpretation are encompassed by the slang usage of "drama"
Agreed, which is why I defined the understanding and applicable
definition of drama as according to the true Witches subgroup.
> >Irrefutable evidence for that particular situation (a log stating
> >username, IP#, and date of action) was not available, so, as with any
> >other investigation, I had to make do with what I had.
>
> This involved making unspecified assumptions and judgment calls, did it not?
Unspecified judgment calls, yes, since these judgment calls were made
in an as-they-were-needed basis, and all assumptions were made with as
much informational input as possible, but still assumptions. Most
judgment calls are made on at least some bit of an assumption, else no
judgment call would be needed... at that point, it would merely
require an administrative decision based on facts. In this case, facts
were gathered (the thread was deleted, no logs existed showing that it
was deleted by the accessible administrative staff, a number of Ren's
threads had been reported as deleted to the administrative staff in
the past, and he had shown no desire to adhere to the rules to that
point), and the holes filled in (lack of positive identification of
who actually deleted the thread) with a logical judgment call (It was
not unreasonable to assume that he had deleted a thread gone sour).
However, in the face of that judgment call, a more lenient recourse
was taken, and a request was issued, rather than a warning. Since the
action was subsequently repeated, it further defined the pattern that
was associated with Ren's account, and was incriminating enough to
issue a warning.
For example...
If a man lives with a woman, and the woman leaves him, complaining
that he beat her and then kept her at home until she healed to hide
this evidence, and the same thing happens with his next girlfriend,
and his next girlfriend, and again and again, is it not same to assume
that this pattern is proof enough that the man is a woman beater?
> Interpreted as being "rude" or, unambiguously rude?
Overtly rude. Sarcastic and insulting.
> Interpreted as being "obnoxious" or, unambiguously obnoxious?
Overly obnoxious, mocking posters and disrupting discussion.
> Interpreted as exhibiting "purposefully antagonistic manners" or,
> "purposefully" exhibiting "antagonistic manners"? The reason these
> questions are being asked is not rhetorical nor, facetious.
Interpreted as goading, insulting, and designed to elicit a negative
reaction.
> Given the archived record of the posts here, "ren" hasn't been the only one
> engaging in the activities listed above. Be that as it may, the lack of
> _apparent_ consequences in one venue does not remove any responsibility for
> one engaging in such activities. Merely stating acceptance of
> responsibility isn't a release from consequences either. Since many are
> aware that there's more to it than that, it'll be left at that for now.
Fair enough. I've been staying out of threads here that have nothing
to do with me as of late, due to recognition of this.
> So, as I understand it from a few objections posted here, he can
> cut-and-paste what he reads in that venue and post it here. Such activity
> is not specifically prohibited by the AUPs of the wt site, is it? Even if
> added post hoc, they wouldn't apply in any enforceable 'grandfathering
> clause' in this venue. That said, of course any polite/civil requests made
> in objection to such an activity can be acceded to or, not as any personal
> code/choice mandates.
I personally have no real qualms with him copying and pasting works
from WT or the true witches subgroup. Imitation is a form of flattery,
after all. It irks me that he then mocks us where we can't see, as
that strikes me as a severe form of cowardice, and cowardice offends
me.
> Again, as I understand it from a few objections posted here, he can
> cut-and-paste what he reads in that venue and post it here. Such activity
> is not specifically prohibited by any the AUPs of the wt site currently, is
> it?
It is not, which is why I have not made issue of it. My only qualm was
that my contact information, displayed for the sole purpose of
moderation-related activities, was trucked over to an unfamiliar and
potentially malicious site. I've had accounts hacked before, and it's
obnoxious. It has since been noted that if I wanted to avoid that
entirely, don't post my contact information publicly. Fair enough. It
can't be avoided in this particular capacity.
I am aware that I don't have to answer any of these questions, but I
do so anyhow so as to promote civil conversation and perhaps impart a
greater understanding of the overall picture. Like it or not, the
world cannot be painted with a black and white brush. Emotions DO come
into play, as do differences in philosophy, judgment, and
interpretation. Understanding is key to successful coexistence, I feel.
Beorc Kano
paragraphs or so. Here is a retyping of what was said... The actual
quotes can be referenced by looking at the applicable archived texts.
SarChasm asked if there was a way for a user to receive the forum
entries via email
Unfortunately not. It would certainly make backing up posts much
easier. However, there is an option to subscribe to a thread, and
receive email notifications when there are replies to said thread. The
only thing that the emails contain are a notification line with a link
that takes you directly to the post in question.
Beorc Kano
quoted from SarChasm... Odd...
s�r`ch�sm
>
>I tried cutting it in half, and it still
>wouldn't accept the first half, so I didn't bother trying with the
>second. I'll try again. Copied directly from the page it was saved on;
>Nope, didn't work. So, what I'll try to do is post less and less of
>the post, until I find a bit that WILL send, and then, I will have
>closed in on the apparent formatting error. I'll address that, and see
>if I can get it done in two parts.
>
> quoted from SarChasm... Odd...
>
> "s�r`ch�sm" wrote:
>
> In this instance, it would be nominally safe to 'assume',
> (argh), that those desiring to interact/post on that subpage, (or wt in
> general), are aware of the appropriate AUPs. However, since that is an
> assumption, I'll ask if a subscriber must click on a link to view an AUP
> or,
> if it's posted in full, where there's no way to miss it before engaging in
> posting to the (sub)group(s)?
>
>At the very top of the group page, visible when one follows the link
>to GET to the group page, is the statement that all users are held to
>the AUP, and then a link to the AUP, so as to save space on the front
>page and make the homepage more reader-friendly.
>
Okay, so the user-member must click a link to the AUP in order to read that
AUP but, if they do not do so, they are still able to post. An assumption
is being made that the user/poster has read the AUP and that users have not
only read it but, have tacitly agreed to comply with it, correct?
>
>It's much the same as the little check box at the bottom of
>most submission forms, stating "I have read and agree to
>follow the [hyperlinked 'TERMS OF USE"]." It is considered
>an acceptable way of posting the Acceptable User Policy or
>Terms of Use in such an internet setting.
>
It may be much the same, however, is there a check box for the AUP link
which the user must click to confirm that they have read the AUP and agree
to those terms?
>
>I understand your points above about the subjective qualities of such
>terms, however, for a bit of background info, the True Witches
>subgroup is such a lax and laid back group that the AUP is seldom even
>referred to.
>
Understood. If the matter rarely arises, opportunities to discovery any
flaws inherent in the process are rare.
>
>In general, no warning is issued, and both parties
>gain a greater understanding of each other. The injured party gets a
>thicker skin, and the injuring party mellows their words a bit. A
>compromise is found, and group harmony returns.
>
Obviously, this was not the case in the instance which incited these
converations.
>
>Only when one party refuses to accept or understand or
>acknowledge the other person's point of view, do we have a problem.
>
Are you implicitly suggesting that this occurred as the root of the problem
which lead to all the rest?
>
>Sometimes people are told to chill out or they will receive
>administrative action, such as when they doggedly attempt to change
>someone's viewpoint on philosophical matters.
>
Hold on a moment ... administrative action is 'threatened' as a consequence
of tenacious expression of opposition to a viewpoint or, philosophical
matter? Either this is not what was meant or, there's a basis for some
blatant censorship right there.
>
>Other times, people are told to not be quite so sensitive,
>such as when a politely phrased disagreement sends them up
>into an emotional fit.
>
"Politely phrased", huh? So, does such 'politeness' rest upon a subjective
consensus of what is "polite" and what is not or, upon the moderator's
subjective perception of those things?
>
>We define harassment as following a user about, posting snide,
>
Are others to presume that it is the moderator(s) or, the 'followed user'
who gets to _decide_ whether or not a post is "snide"?
>
>insulting,
>
Are others to presume that it is the moderator(s) or, the 'followed user'
who gets to _decide_ whether or not a post is "insulting"?
>
>or sarcastic responses to a user's posts or threads,
>
Are others to presume that it is the moderator(s) or, the 'followed user'
who gets to _decide_ whether or not a post constitutes "sarcastic
responses"?
>
>leaving [...] sarcastic comments [...] sending sarcastic private messages
>to a user's inbox.
>
As an aside, the designation of sarcasm as being "harassment" is not only
sardonic, it is also indicative of the variable perceptions involved in
accurately making such a determination. For example, there have been a few
instances of sarcasm in these exchanges, however, designating them as
"harassment" would be more of that subjective basis previously mentioned.
>
>The issues we've had are termed 'mudslinging.' Mudslinging is
>defined much the same as the actions of a political mudslinging
>campaign, and are generally single-event, toned-down actions
>of a hate campaign.
>
And if opposing replies do not constitute "the practice of making
unscrupulous, malicious attacks against an opponent", but are inaccurately
designated as "mudslinging", then is such a designation itself deceptive?
>
>Drama is defined as unnecessary influx of emotional turmoil in an
>academic, informational, philosophical, or opinion/experience based
>discussion.
>
"Emotional turmoil", is it? There's a vague phrase in that it's usage is as
suspectible to subjective perception as the term "drama" can be. Is there
ever a 'necessary' "influx of emotional turmoil" involved in that context?
>
>Rudeness is defined as anything not adhering to the rules of
>civility... more or less, use your manners.
>
"Anything"? Then, if it were perceived that anything whatsoever was "rude"
to one person, that would be a violation of the AUP under discussion?
Further, that the determination of whether or not a comment is "rude" is
made by consensus or, individual judgement calls? Does it boil down to one,
(or more), getting to decide what is considered to be "rude" when the author
of a post in question may not agree with the basis of such a decision?
>
> [...]
>
>In the example that I gave, many of the members of the group felt
>threatened by the posted thread, and, while nothing illegal was
>occurring or has occurred, it was considered as much of a thread
>[sic, "threat"] as if someone had told a dog owner that they had
>contacts in PETA and other animal rights groups, and were
>watching said owner, even if said owner was not mistreating the
>dog at all. Nobody likes to be threatened with 'Big Brother.'
>
If the dog owner, (or wt poster), were doing nothing illegal or against an
AUP, indicating potential observation isn't much of a threat. In fact, it's
not even a threat to privacy unless that observation crosses the boundaries
of public domain.
>
> [definitions of drama]
>
> As you can see, various terms which are widely open to individual
> interpretation are encompassed by the slang usage of "drama"
>
>Agreed, which is why I defined the understanding and applicable
>definition of drama as according to the true Witches subgroup.
>
So, the basis for such definitions stems from a consensus of perceptions or,
ultimately the subjective perceptions of a moderator(s)?
>
> >Irrefutable evidence for that particular situation (a log stating
> >username, IP#, and date of action) was not available, so, as with any
> >other investigation, I had to make do with what I had.
>
> This involved making unspecified assumptions and judgment calls, did it
> not?
>Unspecified judgment calls, yes,
>
Have these unspecified judgement calls been addressed thusfar or, have some
been omitted from discussion?
>
>since these judgment calls were made in an
>as-they-were-needed basis, and all assumptions were made
>with as much informational input as possible, but still assumptions.
>
Given the nature of these assumptions, (i.e., insufficient data, as
indicated), isn't it possible that some the assumptions made did not
accurately reflect the situation?
>
>Most judgment calls are made on at least some bit of an assumption,
>else no judgment call would be needed.
>
One might even go so far as to assert that all judgement calls have aspects
of assumptions inherent in them.
>
>... at that point, it would merely require an administrative
>decision based on facts.
>
But, it was just asserted that judgement calls which contained assumptions
were made, not that a decision was made based upon facts, (since assumptions
are not inherently factual).
>
>In this case, facts were gathered (the thread was deleted,
>no logs existed showing that it was deleted by the accessible
>administrative staff, a number of Ren's threads had been
>reported as deleted to the administrative staff in the past,
>and he had shown no desire to adhere to the rules to that
>point), and the holes filled in (lack of positive identification of
>who actually deleted the thread) with a logical judgment call (It was
>not unreasonable to assume that he had deleted a thread gone sour).
>
While the conclusion arrived at may be an accurate one, it's basis was
circumstantial, rather than definitive. That happens often, since I'd
venture to estimate that a large number of decisions are based upon
insufficient information requiring some judgement call.
>
> [...]
> [re: ambigious use of the word "rude"]:
>
> Interpreted as being "rude" or, unambiguously rude?
>
>Overtly rude. Sarcastic and insulting.
>
> Interpreted as being "obnoxious" or, unambiguously obnoxious?
>
>Overly obnoxious, mocking posters and disrupting discussion.
>
> Interpreted as exhibiting "purposefully antagonistic manners" or,
> "purposefully" exhibiting "antagonistic manners"? The reason these
> questions are being asked is not rhetorical nor, facetious.
>
>Interpreted as goading, insulting, and designed to elicit a negative
>reaction.
>
By now, it can be seen that such adjectives are open to interpretation in
the difference in subjective perceptions. Sometimes, things are just as
they would seem to be and other times, they aren't. That's where judgement
calls come into play and whether the basis of making those calls is
reasonable or emotional.
>
> [...]
> [context of reply referencing "activities" omitted by "Beorc Kano"]:
>
> Given the archived record of the posts here, "ren" hasn't been the only
> one
> engaging in the activities listed above. Be that as it may, the lack of
> _apparent_ consequences in one venue does not remove any responsibility
> for
> one engaging in such activities. Merely stating acceptance of
> responsibility isn't a release from consequences either. Since many are
> aware that there's more to it than that, it'll be left at that for now.
>
>Fair enough. I've been staying out of threads here that have nothing
>to do with me as of late, due to recognition of this.
>
Would omitting relevant context when replying to a post be considered as
"rude", "snide" or some other judgement call?
>
> [...]
>
>I personally have no real qualms with him copying and pasting works
>from WT or the true witches subgroup. Imitation is a form of flattery,
>after all. It irks me that he then mocks us where we can't see, as
>that strikes me as a severe form of cowardice, and cowardice offends
>me.
>
His public posts on arw cannot be seen or, is it being suggested that "ren"
makes such comments elsewhere?
>
> Again, as I understand it from a few objections posted here, he can
> cut-and-paste what he reads in that venue and post it here. Such activity
> is not specifically prohibited by any of the AUPs of the wt site
> currently,
> is it?
>
>It is not, which is why I have not made issue of it.
>
I see. The objections of others in this regard seem to stem from other
other concerns than the AUP as well.
>
> [...]
>
>I am aware that I don't have to answer any of these questions, but I
>do so anyhow so as to promote civil conversation and perhaps impart a
>greater understanding of the overall picture.
>
Is such a promotion to be considered at face value or, by chance, as
feigned?
>
>Like it or not, the world cannot be painted with a black
>and white brush.
>
That's a valid premise, however, neither is the default to disregard reason
applied to making judgement calls.
>
>Emotions DO come into play, as do differences in philosophy, judgment, and
>interpretation. Understanding is key to successful coexistence, I feel.
>
Yes, emotions do come into play, as well as those differences in
interpretation emphasized by the responses in the course of discussion here.
As far as understanding goes, that is what is sought by continuing these
discussions.
Beorc Kano
> "Beorc Kano" <brandoncornw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I tried cutting it in half, and it still
> >wouldn't accept the first half, so I didn't bother trying with the
> >second. I'll try again. Copied directly from the page it was saved on;
> >Nope, didn't work. So, what I'll try to do is post less and less of
> >the post, until I find a bit that WILL send, and then, I will have
> >closed in on the apparent formatting error. I'll address that, and see
> >if I can get it done in two parts.
>
> > It would seem that the error lay in the first paragraph that was
> > quoted from SarChasm... Odd...
>
>
> > In this instance, it would be nominally safe to 'assume',
> > (argh), that those desiring to interact/post on that subpage, (or wt in
> > general), are aware of the appropriate AUPs. However, since that is an
> > assumption, I'll ask if a subscriber must click on a link to view an AUP
> > or,
> > if it's posted in full, where there's no way to miss it before engaging in
> > posting to the (sub)group(s)?
>
> >At the very top of the group page, visible when one follows the link
> >to GET to the group page, is the statement that all users are held to
> >the AUP, and then a link to the AUP, so as to save space on the front
> >page and make the homepage more reader-friendly.
>
> Okay, so the user-member must click a link to the AUP in order to read that
> AUP but, if they do not do so, they are still able to post. An assumption
> is being made that the user/poster has read the AUP and that users have not
> only read it but, have tacitly agreed to comply with it, correct?
>
>
>
> >It's much the same as the little check box at the bottom of
> >most submission forms, stating "I have read and agree to
> >follow the [hyperlinked 'TERMS OF USE"]." It is considered
> >an acceptable way of posting the Acceptable User Policy or
> >Terms of Use in such an internet setting.
>
> It may be much the same, however, is there a check box for the AUP link
> which the user must click to confirm that they have read the AUP and agree
> to those terms?
No there is not. As I noted, it is a manner I have seen other sites
pos their AUPs in the past, so I imitated it.
> >I understand your points above about the subjective qualities of such
> >terms, however, for a bit of background info, the True Witches
> >subgroup is such a lax and laid back group that the AUP is seldom even
> >referred to.
>
> Understood. If the matter rarely arises, opportunities to discovery any
> flaws inherent in the process are rare.
Fair enough.
> >In general, no warning is issued, and both parties
> >gain a greater understanding of each other. The injured party gets a
> >thicker skin, and the injuring party mellows their words a bit. A
> >compromise is found, and group harmony returns.
>
> Obviously, this was not the case in the instance which incited these
> converations.
>
>
>
> >Only when one party refuses to accept or understand or
> >acknowledge the other person's point of view, do we have a problem.
>
> Are you implicitly suggesting that this occurred as the root of the problem
> which lead to all the rest?
I really am not entirely certain as to what triggered this whole mess.
I thought the discussion was going well enough, different opinions
were being stated, and then the discussion was deleted. I've stated
the rest as it followed.
> >Sometimes people are told to chill out or they will receive
> >administrative action, such as when they doggedly attempt to change
> >someone's viewpoint on philosophical matters.
>
> Hold on a moment ... administrative action is 'threatened' as a consequence
> of tenacious expression of opposition to a viewpoint or, philosophical
> matter? Either this is not what was meant or, there's a basis for some
> blatant censorship right there.
That is not what was meant. Honestly, we've had only two instances
where anyone needed to step in at all, this one and one other. The
first one was dealt with in such a manner that both parties were told
to calm their tempers or the discussion would be locked.
> >Other times, people are told to not be quite so sensitive,
> >such as when a politely phrased disagreement sends them up
> >into an emotional fit.
>
> "Politely phrased", huh? So, does such 'politeness' rest upon a subjective
> consensus of what is "polite" and what is not or, upon the moderator's
> subjective perception of those things?
Politely phrased would be along the lines of "I disagree with you, and
[reason why]" as opposed to "You're a fucking idiot. [this point] is
fact, not your drivel."
> >We define harassment as following a user about, posting snide,
>
> Are others to presume that it is the moderator(s) or, the 'followed user'
> who gets to _decide_ whether or not a post is "snide"?
There are general common sense guidelines as to what constitutes
snide.
> >insulting,
>
> Are others to presume that it is the moderator(s) or, the 'followed user'
> who gets to _decide_ whether or not a post is "insulting"?
There are general common sense guidelines as to what constitutes
insulting.
> >or sarcastic responses to a user's posts or threads,
>
> Are others to presume that it is the moderator(s) or, the 'followed user'
> who gets to _decide_ whether or not a post constitutes "sarcastic
> responses"?
There are general common sense guidelines as to what constitutes
sarcastic.
> >leaving [...] sarcastic comments [...] sending sarcastic private messages
> >to a user's inbox.
>
> As an aside, the designation of sarcasm as being "harassment" is not only
> sardonic, it is also indicative of the variable perceptions involved in
> accurately making such a determination. For example, there have been a few
> instances of sarcasm in these exchanges, however, designating them as
> "harassment" would be more of that subjective basis previously mentioned.
It is quite subjective, as are most personal definitions. If I dislike
being called 'Brandybuns Cornhole', even if someone says it in an
effort to be jokingly affectionate, then I still have the right to not
be called by that name. It is up to me to inform said person in a
reasonable manner ("Hey, it's kinda irritating to be referred to like
that, could you cut it out?") but once informed of the boundaries,
that's when the definitions of sarcastic, snide, insulting, etc..
apply. What might be insulting to me might not be insulting to others.
I might be able to walk up to a buddy of mine and say, "My nigga!
Wassup!" and he'd fire right back, "Not much, you pale cracker
motherfucker!" without a lick of insult, because we're familiar with
each other. But someone else calling my friend a 'nigga' might send
him over the edge. It all depends on each person's level of comfort.
More or less, if someone is uncomfortable with something, and they
request that it stops as it applies to them, then hey, cut it out.
Don't keep doing it. That's just being an ass.
> >The issues we've had are termed 'mudslinging.' Mudslinging is
> >defined much the same as the actions of a political mudslinging
> >campaign, and are generally single-event, toned-down actions
> >of a hate campaign.
>
> And if opposing replies do not constitute "the practice of making
> unscrupulous, malicious attacks against an opponent", but are inaccurately
> designated as "mudslinging", then is such a designation itself deceptive?
Any inaccurate designation is deceptive, no matter the context. If
opposing replies are stated, and stated in a civil manner, then
they're just that; opposing replies. That's fine. That's the basis of
debate. It's when those replies seek to discredit or deface the holder
of the opposing opinon ("Only wife beating Nazi's would hold the
belief of Racial Purity!") rather than argue the topic at hand ("How
can you claim that the Aryans are the Supreme Race? Most of the
greatest athletes and scientists aren't Aryan! [list sources here].")
> >Drama is defined as unnecessary influx of emotional turmoil in an
> >academic, informational, philosophical, or opinion/experience based
> >discussion.
>
> "Emotional turmoil", is it? There's a vague phrase in that it's usage is as
> suspectible to subjective perception as the term "drama" can be. Is there
> ever a 'necessary' "influx of emotional turmoil" involved in that context?
Not really, no. Thus, the unnecessary part was more to further define
the fact that Emotional Turmoil was unneeded and unwanted.
> >Rudeness is defined as anything not adhering to the rules of
> >civility... more or less, use your manners.
>
> "Anything"? Then, if it were perceived that anything whatsoever was "rude"
> to one person, that would be a violation of the AUP under discussion?
> Further, that the determination of whether or not a comment is "rude" is
> made by consensus or, individual judgement calls? Does it boil down to one,
> (or more), getting to decide what is considered to be "rude" when the author
> of a post in question may not agree with the basis of such a decision?
Generally, something is considered rude if it offends someone and is
repeated after such offense is noted. This definition fits the general
consensus of the group. Most members of the group have the common
sense to divine what is rude and what is not. Also, we've only had two
members of this group actually need to spoken to about their behavior.
As we've shown, it takes someone pretty aggressive and blatant in
their disregard for others to warrant action of any sort.
> > [...]
>
> >In the example that I gave, many of the members of the group felt
> >threatened by the posted thread, and, while nothing illegal was
> >occurring or has occurred, it was considered as much of a thread
> >[sic, "threat"] as if someone had told a dog owner that they had
> >contacts in PETA and other animal rights groups, and were
> >watching said owner, even if said owner was not mistreating the
> >dog at all. Nobody likes to be threatened with 'Big Brother.'
>
> If the dog owner, (or wt poster), were doing nothing illegal or against an
> AUP, indicating potential observation isn't much of a threat. In fact, it's
> not even a threat to privacy unless that observation crosses the boundaries
> of public domain.
It is still offensive and it is still bothersome. It sets many people
on edge, even if it logically shouldn't.
> > [definitions of drama]
>
> > As you can see, various terms which are widely open to individual
> > interpretation are encompassed by the slang usage of "drama"
>
> >Agreed, which is why I defined the understanding and applicable
> >definition of drama as according to the true Witches subgroup.
>
> So, the basis for such definitions stems from a consensus of perceptions or,
> ultimately the subjective perceptions of a moderator(s)?
A census of perceptions. I've not made a single lay-down-the-law
ruling on anything, nor has our founder.
> > >Irrefutable evidence for that particular situation (a log stating
> > >username, IP#, and date of action) was not available, so, as with any
> > >other investigation, I had to make do with what I had.
>
> > This involved making unspecified assumptions and judgment calls, did it
> > not?
> >Unspecified judgment calls, yes,
>
> Have these unspecified judgement calls been addressed thusfar or, have some
> been omitted from discussion?
The judgment calls in this particular case have been presented, as far
as I can remember them. i didn't record my thought process during the
entirety of it. I stayed in communication with the group founder and
the site administrator. They knew my actions, and they knew what I
knew. I didn't think I was going to have to lay them bare for a third
party inspection.
> >since these judgment calls were made in an
> >as-they-were-needed basis, and all assumptions were made
> >with as much informational input as possible, but still assumptions.
>
> Given the nature of these assumptions, (i.e., insufficient data, as
> indicated), isn't it possible that some the assumptions made did not
> accurately reflect the situation?
I do not feel that that was the case, but, as with any assumption,
there is a margin of error.
> >Most judgment calls are made on at least some bit of an assumption,
> >else no judgment call would be needed.
>
> One might even go so far as to assert that all judgement calls have aspects
> of assumptions inherent in them.
One might indeed.
> >... at that point, it would merely require an administrative
> >decision based on facts.
>
> But, it was just asserted that judgement calls which contained assumptions
> were made, not that a decision was made based upon facts, (since assumptions
> are not inherently factual).
That was a hypothetical 'in that case' sort of statement.
> >In this case, facts were gathered (the thread was deleted,
> >no logs existed showing that it was deleted by the accessible
> >administrative staff, a number of Ren's threads had been
> >reported as deleted to the administrative staff in the past,
> >and he had shown no desire to adhere to the rules to that
> >point), and the holes filled in (lack of positive identification of
> >who actually deleted the thread) with a logical judgment call (It was
> >not unreasonable to assume that he had deleted a thread gone sour).
>
> While the conclusion arrived at may be an accurate one, it's basis was
> circumstantial, rather than definitive. That happens often, since I'd
> venture to estimate that a large number of decisions are based upon
> insufficient information requiring some judgement call.
Seeing as how this is the first case of any real sort of action being
taken, it doesn't happen often. Most disputes are settled easily by
those involved. However, in the situation under discussion, yes, the
basis was circumstantial. That's all we had to work with.
> > [...]
> > [re: ambigious use of the word "rude"]:
>
> > Interpreted as being "rude" or, unambiguously rude?
>
> >Overtly rude. Sarcastic and insulting.
>
> > Interpreted as being "obnoxious" or, unambiguously obnoxious?
>
> >Overly obnoxious, mocking posters and disrupting discussion.
>
> > Interpreted as exhibiting "purposefully antagonistic manners" or,
> > "purposefully" exhibiting "antagonistic manners"? The reason these
> > questions are being asked is not rhetorical nor, facetious.
>
> >Interpreted as goading, insulting, and designed to elicit a negative
> >reaction.
>
> By now, it can be seen that such adjectives are open to interpretation in
> the difference in subjective perceptions. Sometimes, things are just as
> they would seem to be and other times, they aren't. That's where judgement
> calls come into play and whether the basis of making those calls is
> reasonable or emotional.
When overlooking a matter that would require a judgment call, I
disconnect from the situation emotionally and evaluate the situation
logically. I ask opinions of others who are in positions of authority
over or alongside me, and I weigh all the input before making a
decision or suggestion.
> > [...]
> > [context of reply referencing "activities" omitted by "Beorc Kano"]:
>
> > Given the archived record of the posts here, "ren" hasn't been the only
> > one
> > engaging in the activities listed above. Be that as it may, the lack of
> > _apparent_ consequences in one venue does not remove any responsibility
> > for
> > one engaging in such activities. Merely stating acceptance of
> > responsibility isn't a release from consequences either. Since many are
> > aware that there's more to it than that, it'll be left at that for now.
>
> >Fair enough. I've been staying out of threads here that have nothing
> >to do with me as of late, due to recognition of this.
>
> Would omitting relevant context when replying to a post be considered as
> "rude", "snide" or some other judgement call?
I don't recall snipping that bit. I was trying to keep it down to a
reasonable size, and was taking out old material that was no longer
being discussed currently. Likely, I selected and deleted too much. I
don't even remember what was cut out.
> > [...]
>
> >I personally have no real qualms with him copying and pasting works
> >from WT or the true witches subgroup. Imitation is a form of flattery,
> >after all. It irks me that he then mocks us where we can't see, as
> >that strikes me as a severe form of cowardice, and cowardice offends
> >me.
>
> His public posts on arw cannot be seen or, is it being suggested that "ren"
> makes such comments elsewhere?
The fact that he went immediately to another board and posted work
from Wiccan Together without the knowledge of those who he was copying
and mocking is what I was referring to. They are visible, yes, but not
'to the faces' of those he mocks. I was informed of what he was saying
about me by someone else. I didn't find it on my own.
> > Again, as I understand it from a few objections posted here, he can
> > cut-and-paste what he reads in that venue and post it here. Such activity
> > is not specifically prohibited by any of the AUPs of the wt site
> > currently,
> > is it?
>
> >It is not, which is why I have not made issue of it.
>
> I see. The objections of others in this regard seem to stem from other
> other concerns than the AUP as well.
They would stem from personal concerns or interpretations of
intellectual property laws.
> > [...]
>
> >I am aware that I don't have to answer any of these questions, but I
> >do so anyhow so as to promote civil conversation and perhaps impart a
> >greater understanding of the overall picture.
>
> Is such a promotion to be considered at face value or, by chance, as
> feigned?
If I didn't want to, I wouldn't. Consider it however you wish.
> >Like it or not, the world cannot be painted with a black
> >and white brush.
>
> That's a valid premise, however, neither is the default to disregard reason
> applied to making judgement calls.
Never did I say that reason should be disregarded when making a
judgment call... on the contrary, I thought I had made it clear that
it mas my personal opinion that all possible data should be gathered,
reviewed, and interpreted before making a judgment call, so as to make
as correct/logical a judgment as possible.
> >Emotions DO come into play, as do differences in philosophy, judgment, and
> >interpretation. Understanding is key to successful coexistence, I feel.
>
> Yes, emotions do come into play, as well as those differences in
> interpretation emphasized by the responses in the course of discussion here.
> As far as understanding goes, that is what is sought by continuing these
> discussions.
Precisely.
s�r`ch�sm
>
> [...]
>
> >At the very top of the group page, visible when one follows the link
> >to GET to the group page, is the statement that all users are held to
> >the AUP, and then a link to the AUP, so as to save space on the front
> >page and make the homepage more reader-friendly.
>
> >most submission forms, stating "I have read and agree to
> >follow the [hyperlinked 'TERMS OF USE"]."
>
> Okay, so the user-member must click a link to the AUP in order to read
> that
> AUP but, if they do not do so, they are still able to post. An assumption
> is being made that the user/poster has read the AUP and that users have
> not
> only read it but, have tacitly agreed to comply with it, correct?
> It may be much the same, however, is there a check box for the AUP link
> which the user must click to confirm that they have read the AUP and agree
> to those terms?
>
>No there is not.
>
Alright, then it remains possible for a wt poster to have not clicked on the
AUP link nor, have read the AUP before posting, doesn't it?
> [...]
>
> >Only when one party refuses to accept or understand or
> >acknowledge the other person's point of view, do we have a problem.
>
> Are you implicitly suggesting that this occurred as the root of the
> problem
> which lead to all the rest?
>
>I really am not entirely certain as to what triggered this whole mess.
>I thought the discussion was going well enough, different opinions
>were being stated, and then the discussion was deleted. I've stated
>the rest as it followed.
>
Yes, you relayed that the deletions followed something implied as applicable
to the context under discussion; such as "when one party refuses to accept
or understand or acknowledge the other person's point of view ...". Your
subsequent statement indicating uncertainity as to root causes did not
preface prior speculations as to cause so, I inquired here. I could
speculate in this regard too, however, such speculations might be of a
general nature and not of specific application, (I wasn't there at the time
and would to armchair quarterbacking the play).
> [...]
>
> >Sometimes people are told to chill out or they will receive
> >administrative action, such as when they doggedly attempt to change
> >someone's viewpoint on philosophical matters.
>
> Hold on a moment ... administrative action is 'threatened' as a
> consequence
> of tenacious expression of opposition to a viewpoint or, philosophical
> matter? Either this is not what was meant or, there's a basis for some
> blatant censorship right there.
>
>That is not what was meant.
>
It may be that the phrase, "... told to chill out or they will receive
administrative action" was not intended to alter the behaviour given as
example in "such as when they doggedly attempt to change someone's viewpoint
on philosophical matters", however, that is not a commonly-held consensus of
perception. What was specifically meant by the statement?
> [...]
>
>Politely phrased would be along the lines of "I disagree with you, and
>[reason why]" as opposed to "You're a fucking idiot. [this point] is
>fact, not your drivel."
>
Given your example, would any of my replies, (for instance), be deemed of
such an impolite nature so as to garner a rudeness warning on wt?
>
> >We define harassment as following a user about, posting snide,
>
> Are others to presume that it is the moderator(s) or, the 'followed user'
> who gets to _decide_ whether or not a post is "snide"?
>
>There are general common sense guidelines as to what constitutes
>snide.
>
That's somewhat vague. Are you implying that such general common sense
guidelines are always in consensual agreement or, overlooking the
potentiality of sometimes being at odds?
>
> >insulting,
>
> Are others to presume that it is the moderator(s) or, the 'followed user'
> who gets to _decide_ whether or not a post is "insulting"?
>
>There are general common sense guidelines as to what constitutes
>insulting.
>
Your own example emphasizes interpretative grey areas in that vague
consensus; "What might be insulting to me might not be insulting to others.
I might be able to walk up to a buddy of mine and say, "My nigga! Wassup!"
and he'd fire right back, "Not much, you pale cracker motherfucker!" without
a lick of insult, because we're familiar with each other."
Specifically, your own assertion that, "What might be insulting to me might
not be insulting to others", is agreed with and makes my point.
>
> >or sarcastic responses to a user's posts or threads,
>
> Are others to presume that it is the moderator(s) or, the 'followed user'
> who gets to _decide_ whether or not a post constitutes "sarcastic
> responses"?
>
>There are general common sense guidelines as to what constitutes
>sarcastic.
>
I disagree since there are varying degrees of sarcasm ranging from the
bluntly-obvious to the subtle shadings of phrase which can go unnoticed to
an unwary eye.
>
> >leaving [...] sarcastic comments [...] sending sarcastic private messages
> >to a user's inbox.
>
> As an aside, the designation of sarcasm as being "harassment" is not only
> sardonic, it is also indicative of the variable perceptions involved in
> accurately making such a determination. For example, there have been a few
> instances of sarcasm in these exchanges, however, designating them as
> "harassment" would be more of that subjective basis previously mentioned.
>
>It is quite subjective, as are most personal definitions.
>
Exactly, and yet "harassment" was included among the interpretive terms
"rude", "snide", and "insulting" quoted above as falling under general
commonsense guidelines. Given that personal, (subjective), definitions are
not equivalent to a more general consensus, ("Bob sees a bright red apple,
Chloe sees a brownish-red apple and Bin Su sees a golden apple yet, they are
all looking at the same bit of fruit"), it may be that such general
commonsense guidelines are more assumed in advance and agreed-upon post hoc
>
>If I dislike being called 'Brandybuns Cornhole', even if someone
>says it in an effort to be jokingly affectionate, then I still have the
>right to not be called by that name. It is up to me to inform said
>person in a reasonable manner ("Hey, it's kinda irritating to be
>referred to like that, could you cut it out?") but once informed
>of the boundaries, that's when the definitions of sarcastic, snide,
>insulting, etc.. apply. What might be insulting to me might not be
>insulting to others.
>
The reference is in regards to application of assumed consensual definitions
after the fact. As you indicate, what might be insulting to one person
isn't always perceived as insulting to another, (contextually or,
otherwise). The cognizant point at this juncture is the imposition of
what's _interpreted_ to be "sarcastic, rude, snide, insulting, etc." and
whether or not such interpretations are valid or, are unsupported opinions.
>
>I might be able to walk up to a buddy of mine and say, "My nigga!
>Wassup!" and he'd fire right back, "Not much, you pale cracker
>motherfucker!" without a lick of insult, because we're familiar with
>each other. But someone else calling my friend a 'nigga' might send
>him over the edge. It all depends on each person's level of comfort.
>
As previously indicated, your example tends to support my assertions in this
regard. If that's the case, I'm not paying you near enough to support my
contentions.
>
>More or less, if someone is uncomfortable with something, and they
>request that it stops as it applies to them, then hey, cut it out.
>Don't keep doing it. That's just being an ass.
>
Extrapolating from the above statements; a person who believes themselves to
be insulted, subjected to snide remarks or rudeness merely has but to make
such an allegation and obtain a consensus agreement for the allegation to
stand? Or, do they even need the consensus part, initially? These are not
rhetorical questions since it is entirely possible, (i.e., has occurred
before), for one party to call a "rudeness penalty" on another when they are
losing ground in an arguement and not because an instance of rudeness
occurred, for example. At that point, the mod/"referee" reviews the play,
(sans instant replay in some cases), and makes the judgement call. If, in
such an example, the evidence is mainly circumstantial or, open to
interpretation, it seems reasonable to uncover the processes by which the
call was made.
>
> >The issues we've had are termed 'mudslinging.' Mudslinging is
> >defined much the same as the actions of a political mudslinging
> >campaign, and are generally single-event, toned-down actions
> >of a hate campaign.
>
> And if opposing replies do not constitute "the practice of making
> unscrupulous, malicious attacks against an opponent", but are inaccurately
> designated as "mudslinging", then is such a designation itself deceptive?
>
>Any inaccurate designation is deceptive, no matter the context.
>
Agreed. To continue long those lines; if an inaccurate designation of
'mudslinging' is applied, (in a situation where no mudslinging occurred),
then a judgement call made using such a designation would be based upon an
error of premise.
>
>If opposing replies are stated, and stated in a civil manner, then
>they're just that; opposing replies. That's fine. That's the basis of
>debate.
>
Beyond the inherent interpretative nature of the phrase, "civil manner";
agreed.
>
>It's when those replies seek to discredit or deface the holder
>of the opposing opinon ("Only wife beating Nazi's would hold the
>belief of Racial Purity!") rather than argue the topic at hand ("How
>can you claim that the Aryans are the Supreme Race? Most of the
>greatest athletes and scientists aren't Aryan! [list sources here].")
>
Despite the obvious nature of the examples employed, the assessment that
replies "seek to discredit or deface the holder of the opposing opinon" are
wide open to interpretations, (especially within the context of any vested
interests of the opposing points of view). It is the far less black and
white remarks, (a grey area you raised within these exchanges), which call
subjective interpretations into action.
>
> >Drama is defined as unnecessary influx of emotional turmoil in an
> >academic, informational, philosophical, or opinion/experience based
> >discussion.
>
> "Emotional turmoil", is it? There's a vague phrase in that it's usage is
> as
> suspectible to subjective perception as the term "drama" can be. Is there
> ever a 'necessary' "influx of emotional turmoil" involved in that context?
>
>Not really, no. Thus, the unnecessary part was more to further define
>the fact that Emotional Turmoil was unneeded and unwanted.
>
This remains unclear since "emotional turmoil" could easily be interpreted
as anything whatsoever which appears to cause some kind of emotional
distress, (i.e., one party becomes "irritated" with another's disagrement
with the first party's opinion. The first party could then claim, upon a
purely subjective emotional basis that the second party is 'causing' them
emotional distress/inciting "drama" just because the first party got pissed
off and not because the second's party's intent or reply content was to
create "drama").
>
> >Rudeness is defined as anything not adhering to the rules of
> >civility... more or less, use your manners.
>
> "Anything"? Then, if it were perceived that anything whatsoever was "rude"
> to one person, that would be a violation of the AUP under discussion?
> Further, that the determination of whether or not a comment is "rude" is
> made by consensus or, individual judgement calls? Does it boil down to
> one,
> (or more), getting to decide what is considered to be "rude" when the
> author
> of a post in question may not agree with the basis of such a decision?
>
>Generally, something is considered rude if it offends someone and is
>repeated after such offense is noted.
>
In that case, I could take offense at the repetition of phrase, "general
common sense guidelines" since I might maintain that it insults my
intelligence while dodging substantive response. Note the word, "could",
within my remarks.
>
>This definition fits the general consensus of the group.
>
The consensus definition is vague then. Many nominally innocous remarks
could constitute being offensive or, rude.
>
>Most members of the group have the common sense to
>divine what is rude and what is not.
>
Are any of those members now posting to arw and willing to give their
opinion-assessments on divining whether any portion of these exchanges fall
under the "rudeness" consensus?
>
>As we've shown, it takes someone pretty aggressive and blatant in
>their disregard for others to warrant action of any sort.
>
Ah, then subtlety may slip through the grey area shadows.
>
> > [...]
>
> >In the example that I gave, many of the members of the group felt
> >threatened by the posted thread, and, while nothing illegal was
> >occurring or has occurred, it was considered as much of a thread
> >[sic, "threat"] as if someone had told a dog owner that they had
> >contacts in PETA and other animal rights groups, and were
> >watching said owner, even if said owner was not mistreating the
> >dog at all. Nobody likes to be threatened with 'Big Brother.'
>
> If the dog owner, (or wt poster), were doing nothing illegal or against an
> AUP, indicating potential observation isn't much of a threat. In fact,
> it's
> not even a threat to privacy unless that observation crosses the
> boundaries
> of public domain.
>
>It is still offensive and it is still bothersome. It sets many people
>on edge, even if it logically shouldn't.
>
They may indeed feel offended and bothered but, not by being threatened if
there was no threat. If, for instance, I were to subscribe to wt, (I
haven't - no need to search), and became offended or bothered by some
perceived stupidity expressed, should I presume that this will get the other
person(s) banned for offending me or, would they have to so offend more than
one person?
>
> > [re: definitions of drama]
>
> > As you can see, various terms which are widely open to individual
> > interpretation are encompassed by the slang usage of "drama"
>
> >Agreed, which is why I defined the understanding and applicable
> >definition of drama as according to the true Witches subgroup.
>
> So, the basis for such definitions stems from a consensus of perceptions
> or,
> ultimately the subjective perceptions of a moderator(s)?
>
>A census of perceptions. I've not made a single lay-down-the-law
>ruling on anything, nor has our founder.
>
Do you mean that some full or partial census is taken to form a consensus of
perception-opinions?
> [...]
>
>The judgment calls in this particular case have been presented, as far
>as I can remember them. I didn't think I was going to have to lay them
>bare for a third party inspection.
>
Okay, let's see of they can be summarized at this point. Discussion
regarding some unspecified topic(s) ensued on a moderated venue. These
discussions are presumed to have become 'heated' in that opposing points of
view became interpreted as either "rude", "offensive" or otherwise
derrogatory in a blatant manner tangential to the context of the
discussion(s). During the course of this process, the originating post of a
thread(s) was deleted, which caused the entire thread(s) to be deleted as a
result of a preprogrammed function of the venue. After the issuance of
warnings, a combination of circumstantial evidence and judgement calls was
used as the basis of a banning. After the ban was imposed by a moderator,
the banned party took their contentions to an unmoderated forum, whereupon
discussion as to the nature of certain aspects of the incident ensued. Is
this a generally inclusive summary of events?
>
> >since these judgment calls were made in an
> >as-they-were-needed basis, and all assumptions were made
> >with as much informational input as possible, but still assumptions.
>
> Given the nature of these assumptions, (i.e., insufficient data, as
> indicated), isn't it possible that some the assumptions made did not
> accurately reflect the situation?
>
>I do not feel that that was the case, but, as with any assumption,
>there is a margin of error.
>
Agreed, assumptions inherent contain at least some margin for error, (to
either a lesser or greater degree, depending upon the form of the
assumptions).
>
> >Most judgment calls are made on at least some bit of an assumption,
> >else no judgment call would be needed.
>
> One might even go so far as to assert that all judgement calls have
> aspects
> of assumptions inherent in them.
>
>One might indeed.
>
Given that you agree, (at least in the implied principle of the premise),
then it becomes possible that a judgement call based upon assumptions
contains at least some degree or margin of error. One key to arriving at a
correct judgement call is reducing that margin as far is possible. In
regards to reducing that margin, it would seem reasonable to reduce the
number or scope of any assumptions made in the process as far as possible
and to reduce, (or at least recognise), any impact emotions may have on such
a process. After all, many decisions are made on the basis of
misperceptions, foggy interpretations and emotions so, it would assist in
the efficacy of a judgement call to examine which aspects might be inherent
in that process.
>
> >... at that point, it would merely require an administrative
> >decision based on facts.
>
> But, it was just asserted that judgement calls which contained assumptions
> were made, not that a decision was made based upon facts, (since
> assumptions
> are not inherently factual).
>
>That was a hypothetical 'in that case' sort of statement.
>
It was? But, the context of the remark was, "Most judgment calls are made
on at least some bit of an assumption, else no judgment call would be
needed... at that point, it would merely require an administrative decision
based on facts." That context was directly within that of making a
judgement call which, as you've previously indicated, was what occurred in
the instance under discussion, (rather than a more general, hypothetical
instance).
> [...]
>
> >(It was not unreasonable to assume that he had deleted a thread gone
> >sour).
>
> While the conclusion arrived at may be an accurate one, it's basis was
> circumstantial, rather than definitive. Since that happens often, I'd
> venture to estimate that a large number of decisions are based upon
> insufficient information requiring some judgement call.
>
>Seeing as how this is the first case of any real sort of action being
>taken, it doesn't happen often.
>
That vagueness was my fault; I meant that arriving at conclusions drawn from
circumstantial evidence, (and, inherent assumptions), happens elsewhere and
often.
>
>Most disputes are settled easily by those involved. However,
>in the situation under discussion, yes, the basis was circumstantial.
>That's all we had to work with.
>
Alright, given that the basis for the decision was circumstantial and that a
circumstantial basis contains assumptions, (which, in turn, contain an
inherent margin of error), then such a basis also inherently contains some
doubt. Whether or not the degree of doubt is "reasonable" or not wouldn't
be moot if this were some sort of appeals process, (it is not an appeal).
What's more relevant after the fact of the banning is the general nature of
moderation and those aspects of interpretive perceptions involved in any
interactions. It would seem that, as long as everyone is getting along just
fine, there are is no incentive to examine the basis of a process beyond a
superficial glance. It's when some people don't get along that such an
examination of process becomes relevant.
>
> > [...]
> > [re: ambigious use of the word "rude"]:
>
> > Interpreted as being "rude" or, unambiguously rude?
>
> >Overtly rude. Sarcastic and insulting.
>
> > Interpreted as being "obnoxious" or, unambiguously obnoxious?
>
> >Overly obnoxious, mocking posters and disrupting discussion.
>
> > Interpreted as exhibiting "purposefully antagonistic manners" or,
> > "purposefully" exhibiting "antagonistic manners"? The reason these
> > questions are being asked is not rhetorical nor, facetious.
>
> >Interpreted as goading, insulting, and designed to elicit a negative
> >reaction.
>
> By now, it can be seen that such adjectives are open to interpretation in
> the difference in subjective perceptions. Sometimes, things are just as
> they would seem to be and other times, they aren't. That's where judgement
> calls come into play and whether the basis of making those calls is
> reasonable or emotional.
>
>When overlooking a matter that would require a judgment call, I
>disconnect from the situation emotionally and evaluate the situation
>logically.
>
Indeed. Are you absolutely sure that your own emotions did not color or
sway any ambiguities involved in making a judgement call? If you are, how
do you know and if you are not sure, (no attempt to instill doubt is being
made; just examining the process), are you aware of the extent to which any
such emotional basis may have affected the judgement call?
>
>I ask opinions of others who are in positions of authority
>over or alongside me, and I weigh all the input before making a
>decision or suggestion.
>
Would it be accurate to presume that any emotionally-based input is also
weighed in such a process?
>
> > [...]
> > [context of reply referencing "activities" omitted by "Beorc Kano"]:
>
> > Given the archived record of the posts here, "ren" hasn't been the only
> > one engaging in the activities listed above. Be that as it may, the lack
> > of
> > _apparent_ consequences in one venue does not remove any responsibility
> > for one engaging in such activities. Merely stating acceptance of
> > responsibility isn't a release from consequences either. Since many are
> > aware that there's more to it than that, it'll be left at that for now.
>
> >Fair enough. I've been staying out of threads here that have nothing
> >to do with me as of late, due to recognition of this.
>
> Would omitting relevant context when replying to a post be considered as
> "rude", "snide" or some other judgement call?
>
>I don't recall snipping that bit. I was trying to keep it down to a
>reasonable size, and was taking out old material that was no longer
>being discussed currently. Likely, I selected and deleted too much. I
>don't even remember what was cut out.
>
This particular exchange is growing long-in-the-tooth, however, in this
instance context was snipped which rendered the subsequent replies as
somehat out of context, (without having to go back to a prior post to
reference them). That context was:
"Abusive is defined as phrasing his objections in rude, obnoxious, or
purposefully antagonistic manners, following certain members about the
site, singling them out and targeting them and their posts for
ridicule, derailing their threads, and indulging in smear campaigns ...
Interpreted as goading, insulting, and designed to elicit a negative
reaction."
>
In this regard, the snipping is claimed to not be intentionally rude, snide
or, to elicit a negative reaction. That intention is accepted on the
provisional basis that the length of this discussion does require snipping
repetitious bits while retaining the context of replies. No doubt that some
additional content can be snipped without loss of context as with th...
> > [...]
>
> >I personally have no real qualms with him copying and pasting works
> >from WT or the true witches subgroup. Imitation is a form of flattery,
> >after all. It irks me that he then mocks us where we can't see, as
> >that strikes me as a severe form of cowardice, and cowardice offends
> >me.
>
> His public posts on arw cannot be seen or, is it being suggested that
> "ren"
> makes such comments elsewhere?
>
>The fact that he went immediately to another board and posted work
>from Wiccan Together without the knowledge of those who he was
>copying and mocking is what I was referring to. They are visible, yes,
>but not 'to the faces' of those he mocks. I was informed of what he
>was saying about me by someone else. I didn't find it on my own.
>
The public newsgroup, (arw), is one of the venues "ren" posts to. Posts
made to a public, unmoderated NG are not 'behind the backs' of others,
despite the lack of awareness of the existance of such venues. No doubt
there are many venues of which many people are unaware and much that would
be posted to such venues which could be considered as 'behind the back.'
I've heard others call such a thing, "data mining" and the like.
Regardless, I believe you posted here that "ren" had mentioned arw in his wt
posts.
>
> [...]
>
> The objections of others in this regard seem to stem from other
> other concerns than the AUP as well.
>
>They would stem from personal concerns or interpretations of
>intellectual property laws.
>
That's cool. I could suggest that they look into such subjects as implicit
copyrite, international copyrite and US copyrite laws or, consult a copyrite
attorney.
>
> > [...]
>
> >Like it or not, the world cannot be painted with a black
> >and white brush.
>
> That's a valid premise, however, neither is the default to disregard
> reason
> applied to making judgement calls.
>
>Never did I say that reason should be disregarded when making a
>judgment call... on the contrary, I thought I had made it clear that
>it mas my personal opinion that all possible data should be gathered,
>reviewed, and interpreted before making a judgment call, so as to make
>as correct/logical a judgment as possible.
>
Yet, we've also discussed some of the nature of assumptions and an inherent
margin of error involved in making judgement calls. True, we've merely
touched upon the logical basis for them. Should we proceed more indepth
into that basis?
>
Beorc Kano
> "Beorc Kano" <brandoncornw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "s r`ch sm" wrote:
> > >"Beorc Kano" wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> > >At the very top of the group page, visible when one follows the link
> > >to GET to the group page, is the statement that all users are held to
> > >the AUP, and then a link to the AUP, so as to save space on the front
> > >page and make the homepage more reader-friendly.
>
> > >It's much the same as the little check box at the bottom of
> > >most submission forms, stating "I have read and agree to
> > >follow the [hyperlinked 'TERMS OF USE"]."
>
> > Okay, so the user-member must click a link to the AUP in order to read
> > that
> > AUP but, if they do not do so, they are still able to post. An assumption
> > is being made that the user/poster has read the AUP and that users have
> > not
> > only read it but, have tacitly agreed to comply with it, correct?
> > It may be much the same, however, is there a check box for the AUP link
> > which the user must click to confirm that they have read the AUP and agree
> > to those terms?
>
> >No there is not.
>
> Alright, then it remains possible for a wt poster to have not clicked on the
> AUP link nor, have read the AUP before posting, doesn't it?
It does remain possible, but it is considered foolish to post to a
moderated group without knowing the rules, when one of the first lines
you see in the group is that posting to the group is an agreement to
adhere to said rules.
> > [...]
>
> > >Only when one party refuses to accept or understand or
> > >acknowledge the other person's point of view, do we have a problem.
>
> > Are you implicitly suggesting that this occurred as the root of the
> > problem
> > which lead to all the rest?
>
> >I really am not entirely certain as to what triggered this whole mess.
> >I thought the discussion was going well enough, different opinions
> >were being stated, and then the discussion was deleted. I've stated
> >the rest as it followed.
>
> Yes, you relayed that the deletions followed something implied as applicable
> to the context under discussion; such as "when one party refuses to accept
> or understand or acknowledge the other person's point of view ...". Your
> subsequent statement indicating uncertainity as to root causes did not
> preface prior speculations as to cause so, I inquired here. I could
> speculate in this regard too, however, such speculations might be of a
> general nature and not of specific application, (I wasn't there at the time
> and would to armchair quarterbacking the play).
To clarify; I am not entirely certain as to why the thread was deleted
in the first place.
> > [...]
>
> > >Sometimes people are told to chill out or they will receive
> > >administrative action, such as when they doggedly attempt to change
> > >someone's viewpoint on philosophical matters.
>
> > Hold on a moment ... administrative action is 'threatened' as a
> > consequence
> > of tenacious expression of opposition to a viewpoint or, philosophical
> > matter? Either this is not what was meant or, there's a basis for some
> > blatant censorship right there.
>
> >That is not what was meant.
>
> It may be that the phrase, "... told to chill out or they will receive
> administrative action" was not intended to alter the behaviour given as
> example in "such as when they doggedly attempt to change someone's viewpoint
> on philosophical matters", however, that is not a commonly-held consensus of
> perception. What was specifically meant by the statement?
A tenacious expression of of opposition to a viewpoint or
philosophical matter is not barred, rather, it is welcomed. However,
when tenacious opposition turns aggressive or offensive is when the
'chill out or else' would take place. Generally, the 'or else' would
involve a temporary/permanent closure of the thread. It would still
exists for reading/researching purposes, but that particular thread
would no longer allow replies.
> > [...]
>
> >Politely phrased would be along the lines of "I disagree with you, and
> >[reason why]" as opposed to "You're a fucking idiot. [this point] is
> >fact, not your drivel."
>
> Given your example, would any of my replies, (for instance), be deemed of
> such an impolite nature so as to garner a rudeness warning on wt?
Only the parts where you admitted to dipping into trollish behavior.
Several of mine would have garnered a warning as well.
> > >We define harassment as following a user about, posting snide,
>
> > Are others to presume that it is the moderator(s) or, the 'followed user'
> > who gets to _decide_ whether or not a post is "snide"?
>
> >There are general common sense guidelines as to what constitutes
> >snide.
>
> That's somewhat vague. Are you implying that such general common sense
> guidelines are always in consensual agreement or, overlooking the
> potentiality of sometimes being at odds?
I am stating that if something is necessary to define, generally, it
is defined by the reactions of those involved in the debate. The
members of True Witches tend to not hold their tongues if they
perceive an injustice.
> > >insulting,
>
> > Are others to presume that it is the moderator(s) or, the 'followed user'
> > who gets to _decide_ whether or not a post is "insulting"?
>
> >There are general common sense guidelines as to what constitutes
> >insulting.
>
> Your own example emphasizes interpretative grey areas in that vague
> consensus; "What might be insulting to me might not be insulting to others.
> I might be able to walk up to a buddy of mine and say, "My nigga! Wassup!"
> and he'd fire right back, "Not much, you pale cracker motherfucker!" without
> a lick of insult, because we're familiar with each other."
>
> Specifically, your own assertion that, "What might be insulting to me might
> not be insulting to others", is agreed with and makes my point.
With anything that involves interpretation of terminology, there is an
inherent 'gray zone.' Statements that fall within this gray zone are
generally dealt with by the two involved. They define the gray zone
and the black and white zones on either side, and come to an
agreement. Sometimes this is "I don't talk to you, you don't talk to
me." Other times it's "I'll cut you more slack, you don't act as
familiar with/aggressive towards me." Only when something falls
definitely into the 'black,' as it were, does a moderator need to step
in. Now, if the statement falls into the gray zone of the one stating
it, but into the black of everyone he was stating it to ("You're all a
bunch of posers if you don't follow my way."), then doesn't it stand
to reason that something needs to change? That was the group
consensus.
> > >or sarcastic responses to a user's posts or threads,
>
> > Are others to presume that it is the moderator(s) or, the 'followed user'
> > who gets to _decide_ whether or not a post constitutes "sarcastic
> > responses"?
>
> >There are general common sense guidelines as to what constitutes
> >sarcastic.
>
> I disagree since there are varying degrees of sarcasm ranging from the
> bluntly-obvious to the subtle shadings of phrase which can go unnoticed to
> an unwary eye.
Subtlety is fine. It's the bluntly obvious ones that are under fire
here.
> > >leaving [...] sarcastic comments [...] sending sarcastic private messages
> > >to a user's inbox.
>
> > As an aside, the designation of sarcasm as being "harassment" is not only
> > sardonic, it is also indicative of the variable perceptions involved in
> > accurately making such a determination. For example, there have been a few
> > instances of sarcasm in these exchanges, however, designating them as
> > "harassment" would be more of that subjective basis previously mentioned.
>
> >It is quite subjective, as are most personal definitions.
>
> Exactly, and yet "harassment" was included among the interpretive terms
> "rude", "snide", and "insulting" quoted above as falling under general
> commonsense guidelines. Given that personal, (subjective), definitions are
> not equivalent to a more general consensus, ("Bob sees a bright red apple,
> Chloe sees a brownish-red apple and Bin Su sees a golden apple yet, they are
> all looking at the same bit of fruit"), it may be that such general
> commonsense guidelines are more assumed in advance and agreed-upon post hoc
They are assumed upon in advance and defined as per each situation.
> >If I dislike being called 'Brandybuns Cornhole', even if someone
> >says it in an effort to be jokingly affectionate, then I still have the
> >right to not be called by that name. It is up to me to inform said
> >person in a reasonable manner ("Hey, it's kinda irritating to be
> >referred to like that, could you cut it out?") but once informed
> >of the boundaries, that's when the definitions of sarcastic, snide,
> >insulting, etc.. apply. What might be insulting to me might not be
> >insulting to others.
>
> The reference is in regards to application of assumed consensual definitions
> after the fact. As you indicate, what might be insulting to one person
> isn't always perceived as insulting to another, (contextually or,
> otherwise). The cognizant point at this juncture is the imposition of
> what's _interpreted_ to be "sarcastic, rude, snide, insulting, etc." and
> whether or not such interpretations are valid or, are unsupported opinions.
Such things are defined at the point of necessity, rather than before
hand. Members of True Witches are expected to be adults about things
such as behavior and conversational tone.
> >I might be able to walk up to a buddy of mine and say, "My nigga!
> >Wassup!" and he'd fire right back, "Not much, you pale cracker
> >motherfucker!" without a lick of insult, because we're familiar with
> >each other. But someone else calling my friend a 'nigga' might send
> >him over the edge. It all depends on each person's level of comfort.
>
> As previously indicated, your example tends to support my assertions in this
> regard. If that's the case, I'm not paying you near enough to support my
> contentions.
If you mean supporting the fact that there is a gray zone, correct. If
you mean supporting the opinion that gray zones are inherently bad and
should be defined to the atom, I disagree.
> >More or less, if someone is uncomfortable with something, and they
> >request that it stops as it applies to them, then hey, cut it out.
> >Don't keep doing it. That's just being an ass.
>
> Extrapolating from the above statements; a person who believes themselves to
> be insulted, subjected to snide remarks or rudeness merely has but to make
> such an allegation and obtain a consensus agreement for the allegation to
> stand? Or, do they even need the consensus part, initially? These are not
> rhetorical questions since it is entirely possible, (i.e., has occurred
> before), for one party to call a "rudeness penalty" on another when they are
> losing ground in an arguement and not because an instance of rudeness
> occurred, for example. At that point, the mod/"referee" reviews the play,
> (sans instant replay in some cases), and makes the judgement call. If, in
> such an example, the evidence is mainly circumstantial or, open to
> interpretation, it seems reasonable to uncover the processes by which the
> call was made.
If someone were to whine and cry about someone being mean to them, and
the thread were to be reviewed, and no rudeness were seen, then it
would be recommended to the whining party to grow up. That's never
been the case yet. If rude statements were found, then it would be
requested of the offending party to keep it to polite discussion.
That's only happened twice. The first time, the offending party
remedied their actions. The second time, they didn't. Hence, Ren's
banning.
> > >The issues we've had are termed 'mudslinging.' Mudslinging is
> > >defined much the same as the actions of a political mudslinging
> > >campaign, and are generally single-event, toned-down actions
> > >of a hate campaign.
>
> > And if opposing replies do not constitute "the practice of making
> > unscrupulous, malicious attacks against an opponent", but are inaccurately
> > designated as "mudslinging", then is such a designation itself deceptive?
>
> >Any inaccurate designation is deceptive, no matter the context.
>
> Agreed. To continue long those lines; if an inaccurate designation of
> 'mudslinging' is applied, (in a situation where no mudslinging occurred),
> then a judgement call made using such a designation would be based upon an
> error of premise.
The goal is to not apply a designation of mudslinging outside of
actual mudslinging. Much the way that it is the court's aim to not
imprison or discipline innocent people.
> >If opposing replies are stated, and stated in a civil manner, then
> >they're just that; opposing replies. That's fine. That's the basis of
> >debate.
>
> Beyond the inherent interpretative nature of the phrase, "civil manner";
> agreed.
>
>
>
> >It's when those replies seek to discredit or deface the holder
> >of the opposing opinon ("Only wife beating Nazi's would hold the
> >belief of Racial Purity!") rather than argue the topic at hand ("How
> >can you claim that the Aryans are the Supreme Race? Most of the
> >greatest athletes and scientists aren't Aryan! [list sources here].")
>
> Despite the obvious nature of the examples employed, the assessment that
> replies "seek to discredit or deface the holder of the opposing opinon" are
> wide open to interpretations, (especially within the context of any vested
> interests of the opposing points of view). It is the far less black and
> white remarks, (a grey area you raised within these exchanges), which call
> subjective interpretations into action.
Yes, they are open to interpretations. I do not mean to sound
arrogant, but I was asked to be a moderator to interpret sais
situations. It was felt that I had judgment that was fair and
impartial, so suited for the position.
> > >Drama is defined as unnecessary influx of emotional turmoil in an
> > >academic, informational, philosophical, or opinion/experience based
> > >discussion.
>
> > "Emotional turmoil", is it? There's a vague phrase in that it's usage is
> > as
> > suspectible to subjective perception as the term "drama" can be. Is there
> > ever a 'necessary' "influx of emotional turmoil" involved in that context?
>
> >Not really, no. Thus, the unnecessary part was more to further define
> >the fact that Emotional Turmoil was unneeded and unwanted.
>
> This remains unclear since "emotional turmoil" could easily be interpreted
> as anything whatsoever which appears to cause some kind of emotional
> distress, (i.e., one party becomes "irritated" with another's disagrement
> with the first party's opinion. The first party could then claim, upon a
> purely subjective emotional basis that the second party is 'causing' them
> emotional distress/inciting "drama" just because the first party got pissed
> off and not because the second's party's intent or reply content was to
> create "drama").
In such a situation where someone losing ground in an argument becomes
irritated, generally, they would be the ones to begin being rude
first. If the posts are reviewed and no rude statements found, then,
as stated before, it is suggested that the whining party grow up.
Maybe not in those words (each situation is handled individually and
according to the mood and temper of those involved), but with the same
spirit.
> > >Rudeness is defined as anything not adhering to the rules of
> > >civility... more or less, use your manners.
>
> > "Anything"? Then, if it were perceived that anything whatsoever was "rude"
> > to one person, that would be a violation of the AUP under discussion?
> > Further, that the determination of whether or not a comment is "rude" is
> > made by consensus or, individual judgement calls? Does it boil down to
> > one,
> > (or more), getting to decide what is considered to be "rude" when the
> > author
> > of a post in question may not agree with the basis of such a decision?
>
> >Generally, something is considered rude if it offends someone and is
> >repeated after such offense is noted.
>
> In that case, I could take offense at the repetition of phrase, "general
> common sense guidelines" since I might maintain that it insults my
> intelligence while dodging substantive response. Note the word, "could",
> within my remarks.
You could. And, in a moderated forum, a moderator would weigh those
claims. Hopefully, the moderator was elected by the userbase for their
superior judgment.
> >This definition fits the general consensus of the group.
>
> The consensus definition is vague then. Many nominally innocous remarks
> could constitute being offensive or, rude.
It is vague, so as to allow room for individuality, rather than force
everyone into a mold.
> >Most members of the group have the common sense to
> >divine what is rude and what is not.
>
> Are any of those members now posting to arw and willing to give their
> opinion-assessments on divining whether any portion of these exchanges fall
> under the "rudeness" consensus?
None that I know of. I could port the link to this discussion over and
ask for testimony, but I don't know how much attention it would
garner. Members of True Witches that are present on these forums are
Seckond, Eruandil, Chanel, and Summerpuppy (I think that is his
username).
> >As we've shown, it takes someone pretty aggressive and blatant in
> >their disregard for others to warrant action of any sort.
>
> Ah, then subtlety may slip through the grey area shadows.
Yes. Subtlety is fine.
> > > [...]
>
> > >In the example that I gave, many of the members of the group felt
> > >threatened by the posted thread, and, while nothing illegal was
> > >occurring or has occurred, it was considered as much of a thread
> > >[sic, "threat"] as if someone had told a dog owner that they had
> > >contacts in PETA and other animal rights groups, and were
> > >watching said owner, even if said owner was not mistreating the
> > >dog at all. Nobody likes to be threatened with 'Big Brother.'
>
> > If the dog owner, (or wt poster), were doing nothing illegal or against an
> > AUP, indicating potential observation isn't much of a threat. In fact,
> > it's
> > not even a threat to privacy unless that observation crosses the
> > boundaries
> > of public domain.
>
> >It is still offensive and it is still bothersome. It sets many people
> >on edge, even if it logically shouldn't.
>
> They may indeed feel offended and bothered but, not by being threatened if
> there was no threat. If, for instance, I were to subscribe to wt, (I
> haven't - no need to search), and became offended or bothered by some
> perceived stupidity expressed, should I presume that this will get the other
> person(s) banned for offending me or, would they have to so offend more than
> one person?
I don't know precisely what it would take to get banned from Wiccan
Together as a whole. In True Witches, if you were to get offended by
one persons perceived stupidity, then, you would be asked to overlook
said person and ignore their presence. If that persons stupidity
became directed at either one or many, they would be asked to stop by
administration. If they persisted in activities that they were asked
to cease, then they would be warned. Three warnings in swift
succession would validate a ban for a short period. A probationary
period would be put in place upon their return (if they chose to
return). Subsequent offenses would result in a permanent ban.
> > > [re: definitions of drama]
>
> > > As you can see, various terms which are widely open to individual
> > > interpretation are encompassed by the slang usage of "drama"
>
> > >Agreed, which is why I defined the understanding and applicable
> > >definition of drama as according to the true Witches subgroup.
>
> > So, the basis for such definitions stems from a consensus of perceptions
> > or,
> > ultimately the subjective perceptions of a moderator(s)?
>
> >A census of perceptions. I've not made a single lay-down-the-law
> >ruling on anything, nor has our founder.
>
> Do you mean that some full or partial census is taken to form a consensus of
> perception-opinions?
Pardon. Meant to type consensus. From the perceived reactions of those
who responded to discussions that involved statements deemed to be
rude by the vast majority of those responding.
> > [...]
>
> >The judgment calls in this particular case have been presented, as far
> >as I can remember them. I didn't think I was going to have to lay them
> >bare for a third party inspection.
>
> Okay, let's see of they can be summarized at this point. Discussion
> regarding some unspecified topic(s) ensued on a moderated venue. These
> discussions are presumed to have become 'heated' in that opposing points of
> view became interpreted as either "rude", "offensive" or otherwise
> derrogatory in a blatant manner tangential to the context of the
> discussion(s). During the course of this process, the originating post of a
> thread(s) was deleted, which caused the entire thread(s) to be deleted as a
> result of a preprogrammed function of the venue. After the issuance of
> warnings, a combination of circumstantial evidence and judgement calls was
> used as the basis of a banning. After the ban was imposed by a moderator,
> the banned party took their contentions to an unmoderated forum, whereupon
> discussion as to the nature of certain aspects of the incident ensued. Is
> this a generally inclusive summary of events?
Discussion regarding the validity of the paths of the members of True
Witches ensued in a moderated venue. Members of True Witches responded
in a manner that indicated that they felt their paths were valid even
if conflicting with the Original Poster's statements. Original Poster
became insulting and aggressive, attempting to invalidate the paths
and practices of others, using mocking statements. Discussion
continued, and thread was summarily deleted. Those involved were
upset, and asked who deleted the thread. I investigated, and requested
that the action not be repeated. The action was repeated. A warning
was issued. The warned party indicated a desire to be banned, and
proceeded to attempt to break all the tenets of the AUP. I allowed tow
more warnings without action. Normally, three warnings would result in
a ban. I allowed three without a ban, to show leniency. Upon the
fourth infraction, I issued the ban. The original posted then carried
the dispute to this forum and proceeded to misrepresent the facts,
which I felt was unethical and sought to remedy. Discussion as to the
fine points of the process ensued.
So your summary is correct. I simply specified more in depth in my
response here.
> > >since these judgment calls were made in an
> > >as-they-were-needed basis, and all assumptions were made
> > >with as much informational input as possible, but still assumptions.
>
> > Given the nature of these assumptions, (i.e., insufficient data, as
> > indicated), isn't it possible that some the assumptions made did not
> > accurately reflect the situation?
>
> >I do not feel that that was the case, but, as with any assumption,
> >there is a margin of error.
>
> Agreed, assumptions inherent contain at least some margin for error, (to
> either a lesser or greater degree, depending upon the form of the
> assumptions).
As always, the goal is a lesser margin of error.
> > >Most judgment calls are made on at least some bit of an assumption,
> > >else no judgment call would be needed.
>
> > One might even go so far as to assert that all judgement calls have
> > aspects
> > of assumptions inherent in them.
>
> >One might indeed.
>
> Given that you agree, (at least in the implied principle of the premise),
> then it becomes possible that a judgement call based upon assumptions
> contains at least some degree or margin of error. One key to arriving at a
> correct judgement call is reducing that margin as far is possible.
Agreed.
> In
> regards to reducing that margin, it would seem reasonable to reduce the
> number or scope of any assumptions made in the process as far as possible
> and to reduce, (or at least recognise), any impact emotions may have on such
> a process. After all, many decisions are made on the basis of
> misperceptions, foggy interpretations and emotions so, it would assist in
> the efficacy of a judgement call to examine which aspects might be inherent
> in that process.
Again, agreed.
> > >... at that point, it would merely require an administrative
> > >decision based on facts.
>
> > But, it was just asserted that judgement calls which contained assumptions
> > were made, not that a decision was made based upon facts, (since
> > assumptions
> > are not inherently factual).
>
> >That was a hypothetical 'in that case' sort of statement.
>
> It was? But, the context of the remark was, "Most judgment calls are made
> on at least some bit of an assumption, else no judgment call would be
> needed... at that point, it would merely require an administrative decision
> based on facts." That context was directly within that of making a
> judgement call which, as you've previously indicated, was what occurred in
> the instance under discussion, (rather than a more general, hypothetical
> instance).
Allow me to rephrase the statement to further clarify it.
"Most judgment calls are made on at least some bit of an assumption,
else no judgment call would be needed. In the case that no assumption
were necessary and all questions were answered by factual
documentation, the situation would merely require an administrative
decision based on facts. That was not the case, unfortunately, thus a
judgment call was necessary."
> > [...]
>
> > >(It was not unreasonable to assume that he had deleted a thread gone
> > >sour).
>
> > While the conclusion arrived at may be an accurate one, it's basis was
> > circumstantial, rather than definitive. Since that happens often, I'd
> > venture to estimate that a large number of decisions are based upon
> > insufficient information requiring some judgement call.
>
> >Seeing as how this is the first case of any real sort of action being
> >taken, it doesn't happen often.
>
> That vagueness was my fault; I meant that arriving at conclusions drawn from
> circumstantial evidence, (and, inherent assumptions), happens elsewhere and
> often.
Fair enough.
> >Most disputes are settled easily by those involved. However,
> >in the situation under discussion, yes, the basis was circumstantial.
> >That's all we had to work with.
>
> Alright, given that the basis for the decision was circumstantial and that a
> circumstantial basis contains assumptions, (which, in turn, contain an
> inherent margin of error), then such a basis also inherently contains some
> doubt. Whether or not the degree of doubt is "reasonable" or not wouldn't
> be moot if this were some sort of appeals process, (it is not an appeal).
> What's more relevant after the fact of the banning is the general nature of
> moderation and those aspects of interpretive perceptions involved in any
> interactions. It would seem that, as long as everyone is getting along just
> fine, there are is no incentive to examine the basis of a process beyond a
> superficial glance. It's when some people don't get along that such an
> examination of process becomes relevant.
And what an examination this is, most certainly.
> > > [...]
> > > [re: ambigious use of the word "rude"]:
>
> > > Interpreted as being "rude" or, unambiguously rude?
>
> > >Overtly rude. Sarcastic and insulting.
>
> > > Interpreted as being "obnoxious" or, unambiguously obnoxious?
>
> > >Overly obnoxious, mocking posters and disrupting discussion.
>
> > > Interpreted as exhibiting "purposefully antagonistic manners" or,
> > > "purposefully" exhibiting "antagonistic manners"? The reason these
> > > questions are being asked is not rhetorical nor, facetious.
>
> > >Interpreted as goading, insulting, and designed to elicit a negative
> > >reaction.
>
> > By now, it can be seen that such adjectives are open to interpretation in
> > the difference in subjective perceptions. Sometimes, things are just as
> > they would seem to be and other times, they aren't. That's where judgement
> > calls come into play and whether the basis of making those calls is
> > reasonable or emotional.
>
> >When overlooking a matter that would require a judgment call, I
> >disconnect from the situation emotionally and evaluate the situation
> >logically.
>
> Indeed. Are you absolutely sure that your own emotions did not color or
> sway any ambiguities involved in making a judgement call? If you are, how
> do you know and if you are not sure, (no attempt to instill doubt is being
> made; just examining the process), are you aware of the extent to which any
> such emotional basis may have affected the judgement call?
I am absolutely sure that my own emotions were entirely set aside. I
have been noted for my ability to disconnect from situations that
would normally incite emotion. To do this, I look at all parties as if
I had never met them before, and examine only the information
presented. It's much the same as analyzing a spreadsheet. Some of the
values on the spreadsheet are variables, such as the personalities and
emotions of those involved, but those can still be examined
objectively.
> >I ask opinions of others who are in positions of authority
> >over or alongside me, and I weigh all the input before making a
> >decision or suggestion.
>
> Would it be accurate to presume that any emotionally-based input is also
> weighed in such a process?
Their emotions were weighed in the fact of how it colored their
responses to my inquiries.
Okay. That made me chuckle. Also, I believe I get your point, and I
agree. In such a moderated forum as True Witches, such an action would
be reviewed and interpreted by the administrative staff.
> > > [...]
>
> > >I personally have no real qualms with him copying and pasting works
> > >from WT or the true witches subgroup. Imitation is a form of flattery,
> > >after all. It irks me that he then mocks us where we can't see, as
> > >that strikes me as a severe form of cowardice, and cowardice offends
> > >me.
>
> > His public posts on arw cannot be seen or, is it being suggested that
> > "ren"
> > makes such comments elsewhere?
>
> >The fact that he went immediately to another board and posted work
> >from Wiccan Together without the knowledge of those who he was
> >copying and mocking is what I was referring to. They are visible, yes,
> >but not 'to the faces' of those he mocks. I was informed of what he
> >was saying about me by someone else. I didn't find it on my own.
>
> The public newsgroup, (arw), is one of the venues "ren" posts to. Posts
> made to a public, unmoderated NG are not 'behind the backs' of others,
> despite the lack of awareness of the existance of such venues. No doubt
> there are many venues of which many people are unaware and much that would
> be posted to such venues which could be considered as 'behind the back.'
> I've heard others call such a thing, "data mining" and the like.
> Regardless, I believe you posted here that "ren" had mentioned arw in his wt
> posts.
That was a personal statement. I feel it was cowardly to talk about
issues occurring on one forum in a negative on another forum while
misconstruing the facts and not inviting the ones being spoken about
to defend themselves. Also, I don't remember saying that Ren had
mentioned ARW ever on True Witches. I found out about this newsgroup
via other users that go to both forums.
> > [...]
>
> > The objections of others in this regard seem to stem from other
> > other concerns than the AUP as well.
>
> >They would stem from personal concerns or interpretations of
> >intellectual property laws.
>
> That's cool. I could suggest that they look into such subjects as implicit
> copyrite, international copyrite and US copyrite laws or, consult a copyrite
> attorney.
A decent suggestion.
> > > [...]
>
> > >Like it or not, the world cannot be painted with a black
> > >and white brush.
>
> > That's a valid premise, however, neither is the default to disregard
> > reason
> > applied to making judgement calls.
>
> >Never did I say that reason should be disregarded when making a
> >judgment call... on the contrary, I thought I had made it clear that
> >it mas my personal opinion that all possible data should be gathered,
> >reviewed, and interpreted before making a judgment call, so as to make
> >as correct/logical a judgment as possible.
>
> Yet, we've also discussed some of the nature of assumptions and an inherent
> margin of error involved in making judgement calls. True, we've merely
> touched upon the logical basis for them. Should we proceed more indepth
> into that basis?
I think anything more in depth would be proceeding to the subatomic
level. The purpose of the AUP being left not entirely defined was to
allow room for individuality within the ranges of acceptable behavior.
To completely and utterly define everything makes for an environment
similar to Victorian Society. We're looking for something a little
closer to Hippy Society.
s�r`ch�sm
> > "s r`ch sm" wrote:
> > >"Beorc Kano" wrote:
>
> > >At the very top of the group page, visible when one follows the link
> > >to GET to the group page, is the statement that all users are held to
>
> [...]
>
> Alright, then it remains possible for a wt poster to have not clicked on
> the
> AUP link nor, have read the AUP before posting, doesn't it?
>
>It does remain possible, but it is considered foolish to post to a
>moderated group without knowing the rules, when one of the first lines
>you see in the group is that posting to the group is an agreement to
>adhere to said rules.
>
Foolish behaviour is always possible. In this instance, if the wt poster
contributed directly to discussion regarding the subgroup AUP, they cannot
reasonably claim to be unaware of the content of that AUP. The general
conclusion is that it is possible, (foolish or not), to post without reading
the AUP. The specific conclusion is that ambiguity is reduced in the
assumption that the subgroup's AUP was read, (although "ren" has done many
foolish things prior to joining wt and his not reading the AUP while
debating it remains possible).
>
> > [...]
>
>To clarify; I am not entirely certain as to why the thread was deleted
>in the first place.
>
No doubt that this is why speculations ensued; to establish motive and
opportunity?
>
> > [...]
>
> > >Sometimes people are told to chill out or they will receive
> > >administrative action, such as when they doggedly attempt to change
> > >someone's viewpoint on philosophical matters.
>
> > Hold on a moment ... administrative action is 'threatened' as a
> > consequence of tenacious expression of opposition to a
> > viewpoint or, philosophical matter? Either this is not what
> > was meant or, there's a basis for some blatant censorship right
> > there.
>
> >That is not what was meant.
>
> It may be that the phrase, "... told to chill out or they will receive
> administrative action" was not intended to alter the behaviour given as
> example in "such as when they doggedly attempt to change someone's
> viewpoint
> on philosophical matters", however, that is not a commonly-held consensus
> of
> perception. What was specifically meant by the statement?
>
>A tenacious expression of of opposition to a viewpoint or
>philosophical matter is not barred, rather, it is welcomed. However,
>when tenacious opposition turns aggressive or offensive is when the
>'chill out or else' would take place.
>
By now it should be fairly clear that the contentions involved various
interpretations; in this instance, regarding what is deemed as "aggressive"
or "offensive". It's been previously established that what is offensive to
one may not be considered to be offensive to another, (which can be
extrapolated to apply to 'aggressive opposition' as well). No doubt there
are some who would read these exchanges and interpret some portions of them
as either 'aggressive' or even 'offensive' opposition of viewpoints, (in
spite of several points of agreement occurring in the course of discussion).
>
>Generally, the 'or else' would involve a temporary/permanent
>closure of the thread. It would still exists for reading/researching
>purposes, but that particular thread would no longer allow replies.
>
Yet, the 'or else' remains a threat of censorship within the contraints of
ambigiuous interpretation of the assumed basis for the 'threat'. That is,
if the content is not "offensive", (but is vaguely deemed to be), such an
interpretation is 'enforced' by the 'or else'. Such a practice tends to
support more of a "because-I-said-so" position than being justified by
accurate context. Presumably, those holding the opposing points of view
contend that their interpretations are correct, (even if mutually
exclusive). While supported contentions will carry more weight than
unsupported ones, it is entirely possible that some interpretations are
based upon factors which are more vague than substantial supportive
reasoning. Such essentially unsupported premises may 'borrow' weight from
position rather than from substance. It it not being suggested that this is
what occurred in this particular instance, however, such a thing has
occurred elsewhere often enough to make it a possibility within the same
general circumstances.
>
> > [...]
>
> >Politely phrased would be along the lines of "I disagree with you, and
> >[reason why]" as opposed to "You're a fucking idiot. [this point] is
> >fact, not your drivel."
>
> Given your example, would any of my replies, (for instance), be deemed of
> such an impolite nature so as to garner a rudeness warning on wt?
>
>Only the parts where you admitted to dipping into trollish behavior.
>
As recalled, those instances were where I suggested that I was trolling your
trollings, which you confirm by your following estimate:
>
>Several of mine would have garnered a warning as well.
>
You would have issued a warning to yourself or, would another moderator have
to step in?
>
> > >We define harassment as following a user about, posting snide,
>
> > Are others to presume that it is the moderator(s) or, the 'followed
> > user'
> > who gets to _decide_ whether or not a post is "snide"?
>
> >There are general common sense guidelines as to what constitutes
> >snide.
>
> That's somewhat vague. Are you implying that such general common sense
> guidelines are always in consensual agreement or, overlooking the
> potentiality of sometimes being at odds?
>
>I am stating that if something is necessary to define, generally, it
>is defined by the reactions of those involved in the debate.
>
What happens when the interpretations defining something being debated are
in opposition? That is, how are opposing definitions, (interpretations),
resolved?
>
>The members of True Witches tend to not hold their tongues if
>they perceive an injustice.
>
They aren't the only ones but, that's commendable of them.
> [...]
>
> >There are general common sense guidelines as to what constitutes
> >insulting.
>
> Your own example emphasizes interpretative grey areas in that vague
> consensus; "What might be insulting to me might not be insulting to
> others.
> I might be able to walk up to a buddy of mine and say, "My nigga! Wassup!"
> and he'd fire right back, "Not much, you pale cracker motherfucker!"
> without
> a lick of insult, because we're familiar with each other."
>
> Specifically, your own assertion that, "What might be insulting to me
> might
> not be insulting to others", is agreed with and makes my point.
>
>With anything that involves interpretation of terminology, there is an
>inherent 'gray zone.'
>
Agreed.
>
>Statements that fall within this gray zone are generally dealt
>with by the two involved. They define the gray zone and the
>black and white zones on either side, and come to an agreement.
>
Generally, that may be how it has gone before, however, I'm fairly sure
we're discussing instances of resolving opposing interpretations for which
there is little or no agreement, (at least, initially), and apparently
moving into compromise.
>
>Sometimes this is "I don't talk to you, you don't talk to
>me." Other times it's "I'll cut you more slack, you don't act as
>familiar with/aggressive towards me."
>
A negotiated 'cease-fire' is sometimes the only compromise possible.
>
>Only when something falls definitely into the 'black,' as it were,
>does a moderator need to step in.
>
Yet, the determination of 'black' and 'white' is still not always
unambigious. It would seem that moderators step in when the content is
ambigious as well.
>
>Now, if the statement falls into the gray zone of the one
>stating it, but into the black of everyone he was stating it to
>("You're all a bunch of posers if you don't follow my way."),
>then doesn't it stand to reason that something needs to
>change? That was the group consensus.
>
Surely it must occur to those involved in such situations that it remains
possible to ignore or, disregard such improprieties as they perceive, (given
a recent post by one of the tw members posting to arw to the effect of
ignoring someone on arw who they could've potentially ignored on other
venues).
> [...]
>
> > As an aside, the designation of sarcasm as being "harassment" is not
> > only
> > sardonic, it is also indicative of the variable perceptions involved in
> > accurately making such a determination. For example, there have been a
> > few
> > instances of sarcasm in these exchanges, however, designating them as
> > "harassment" would be more of that subjective basis previously
> > mentioned.
>
> >It is quite subjective, as are most personal definitions.
>
> Exactly, and yet "harassment" was included among the interpretive terms
> "rude", "snide", and "insulting" quoted above as falling under general
> commonsense guidelines. Given that personal, (subjective), definitions are
> not equivalent to a more general consensus, ("Bob sees a bright red apple,
> Chloe sees a brownish-red apple and Bin Su sees a golden apple yet, they
> are
> all looking at the same bit of fruit"), it may be that such general
> commonsense
> guidelines are more assumed in advance and agreed-upon post hoc.
>
>They are assumed upon in advance and defined as per each situation.
>
>
> The reference is in regards to application of assumed consensual
> definitions
> after the fact. As you indicate, what might be insulting to one person
> isn't always perceived as insulting to another, (contextually or,
> otherwise). The cognizant point at this juncture is the imposition of
> what's _interpreted_ to be "sarcastic, rude, snide, insulting, etc." and
> whether or not such interpretations are valid or, are unsupported
> opinions.
>
>Such things are defined at the point of necessity, rather than beforehand.
>
This contention is contrary to the previous one wherein preconceived notions
were directly implied by "They are assumed upon in advance and defined as
per each situation", (which contains an admixture of prior assumptions and
situational determinations - in other words, a common operational
procedure). The point is that such things are, at least partially,
determined in advance.
>
>Members of True Witches are expected to be adults about things
>such as behavior and conversational tone.
>
Sometimes expectations are reasonable and other times, they are not.
>
> [...]
>
> As previously indicated, your example tends to support my assertions in
> this
> regard. If that's the case, I'm not paying you near enough to support my
> contentions.
>
>If you mean supporting the fact that there is a gray zone, correct.
>
No, I was referring to your assertion that "What might be insulting to me
might not be insulting to others" indicates support for my prior contentions
concerning variable points of view upon the same occurrance.
>
>If you mean supporting the opinion that gray zones are inherently bad and
>should be defined to the atom, I disagree.
>
There has been no contention that gray areas are "bad", merely that there
are, (by definition), ambigious. An ambigious situation can either be
clarified as much as necessary to convey meaning or, not.
> [...]
>
>If someone were to whine and cry about someone being mean to
>them, and the thread were to be reviewed, and no rudeness were
>seen, then it would be recommended to the whining party to grow
>up. That's never been the case yet.
>
This suggests that the reviewer is making a determination as to what
constitutes "rudeness". The basis of such a determination is what is being
discussed now. If the determination is made summarily, there has been no
consensual agreement as to what constitutes 'ambigious' insinuation of
rudeness.
>
>If rude statements were found, then it would be
>requested of the offending party to keep it to polite discussion.
>
Yes, and if rude statements were found, even where no rude statements
existed, the same recommendation would no doubt be made.
>
> [...]
>
>The goal is to not apply a designation of mudslinging outside of
>actual mudslinging. Much the way that it is the court's aim to not
>imprison or discipline innocent people.
>
Since such determinations can rest upon interpretations of an ambigious
nature, (or circumstantial evidence, as with a court ruling which results in
assigning guilt to an innocent party), the aim may not coincide with the
result.
> [...]
>
> Despite the obvious nature of the examples employed, the assessment that
> replies "seek to discredit or deface the holder of the opposing opinon"
> are
> wide open to interpretations, (especially within the context of any vested
> interests of the opposing points of view). It is the far less black and
> white remarks, (a grey area you raised within these exchanges), which call
> subjective interpretations into action.
>
>Yes, they are open to interpretations.
>
Then we are agreed upon this supporting point.
>
>I do not mean to sound arrogant, but I was asked to be
>a moderator to interpret sais situations. It was felt that I had
>judgment that was fair and impartial, so suited for the position.
>
It is understood that a moderator must make such judgment calls which, from
time to time, rely upon summarily interpreting ambigious situations.
Striving to be fair and impartial is a commendable goal, albeit one which
may not always be acheived. I've been 'worng' before, haven't you?
> [...]
>
> This remains unclear since "emotional turmoil" could easily be interpreted
> as anything whatsoever which appears to cause some kind of emotional
> distress, (i.e., one party becomes "irritated" with another's disagrement
> with the first party's opinion. The first party could then claim, upon a
> purely subjective emotional basis that the second party is 'causing' them
> emotional distress/inciting "drama" just because the first party got
> pissed
> off and not because the second's party's intent or reply content was to
> create "drama").
>
>In such a situation where someone losing ground in an argument
>becomes irritated, generally, they would be the ones to begin being
>rude first.
>
Generally agreed, however, the contention was within the context of the
party losing ground accusing the other of 'creating drama', rather than who
was rude first.
> [...]
>
> >Generally, something is considered rude if it offends someone and is
> >repeated after such offense is noted.
>
> In that case, I could take offense at the repetition of phrase, "general
> common sense guidelines" since I might maintain that it insults my
> intelligence while dodging substantive response. Note the word, "could",
> within my remarks.
>
>You could. And, in a moderated forum, a moderator would weigh those
>claims. Hopefully, the moderator was elected by the userbase for their
>superior judgment.
>
Your reply is ambigious; are you implying that a moderator with "superior
judgment" would not determine that your comments were considered to be rude
or, that they would be?
>
> >This definition fits the general consensus of the group.
>
> The consensus definition is vague then. Many nominally innocous remarks
> could constitute being offensive or, rude.
>
>It is vague, so as to allow room for individuality, rather than force
>everyone into a mold.
>
That's admirable, however, it also allows for misinterpretations, false
accusations or general misunderstandings altogether. It is the manner in
which the latter are resolved which illuminates the underlying differences
between moderated and unmoderated forums.
>
> >Most members of the group have the common sense to
> >divine what is rude and what is not.
>
> Are any of those members now posting to arw and willing to give their
> opinion-assessments on divining whether any portion of these exchanges
> fall
> under the "rudeness" consensus?
>
>None that I know of. I could port the link to this discussion over
>and ask for testimony, but I don't know how much attention it would
>garner.
>
That's unnecessary since, as you point out below, there are three or four
members of the moderated forum already posting to arw.
>
>Members of True Witches that are present on these forums are
>Seckond, Eruandil, Chanel, and Summerpuppy (I think that is his
>username).
>
Then it may be that any one of them will choose to comment in this regard
without further prompting.
>
> > > [...]
>
>I don't know precisely what it would take to get banned from Wiccan
>Together as a whole.
>
As a guess, violating one or more of the wt AUP?
>
>In True Witches, if you were to get offended by one persons
>perceived stupidity, then, you would be asked to overlook
>said person and ignore their presence.
>
Would the same suggestion be given to another who perceived some other
offense?
>
>If that persons stupidity became directed at either one or many,
>they would be asked to stop by administration.
>
Would such a request by administration, (moderators?), be preceded by a
determination of stupidity or, presumed?
> [...]
>
> > So, the basis for such definitions stems from a consensus of perceptions
> > or, ultimately the subjective perceptions of a moderator(s)?
>
> >A census of perceptions. I've not made a single lay-down-the-law
> >ruling on anything, nor has our founder.
>
> Do you mean that some full or partial census is taken to form a consensus
> of
> perception-opinions?
>
>Pardon. Meant to type consensus.
>
No problem.
>
>From the perceived reactions of those
>who responded to discussions that involved statements deemed to be
>rude by the vast majority of those responding.
>
In that instance, the possiblity of a 'lynch-mob' mentality exists at least
potentially.
>
> > [...]
>
> Okay, let's see of they can be summarized at this point. Discussion
> regarding some unspecified topic(s) ensued on a moderated venue. These
> discussions are presumed to have become 'heated' in that opposing points
> of
> view became interpreted as either "rude", "offensive" or otherwise
> derrogatory in a blatant manner tangential to the context of the
> discussion(s). During the course of this process, the originating post of
> a
> thread(s) was deleted, which caused the entire thread(s) to be deleted as
> a
> result of a preprogrammed function of the venue. After the issuance of
> warnings, a combination of circumstantial evidence and judgement calls was
> used as the basis of a banning. After the ban was imposed by a moderator,
> the banned party took their contentions to an unmoderated forum, whereupon
> discussion as to the nature of certain aspects of the incident ensued. Is
> this a generally inclusive summary of events?
>
>Discussion regarding the validity of the paths of the members of True
>Witches ensued in a moderated venue.
>
Was that what this was all about, questioning validity?
>
>Members of True Witches responded in a manner that indicated
>that they felt their paths were valid even if conflicting with the
>Original Poster's statements.
>
Essentially, they disagreed and the form of that disagreement lead to some
impositions of interpretations.
>
>Original Poster became insulting and aggressive, attempting to
>invalidate the paths and practices of others, using mocking statements.
>
While that is how the events were perceived by some/most of the parties
involved, the descriptors "insulting", "aggressive" and "mocking" indicate
interpretations of events which are currently under discussion.
>
>Discussion continued, and thread was summarily deleted. Those involved
>were upset, and asked who deleted the thread. I investigated, and
>requested that the action not be repeated. The action was repeated.
>A warning was issued. The warned party indicated a desire to be banned,
>and proceeded to attempt to break all the tenets of the AUP. I allowed
>tow more warnings without action. Normally, three warnings would result
>in a ban. I allowed three without a ban, to show leniency. Upon the
>fourth infraction, I issued the ban. The original posted then carried
>the dispute to this forum and proceeded to misrepresent the facts,
>which I felt was unethical and sought to remedy. Discussion as to the
>fine points of the process ensued.
>
>So your summary is correct. I simply specified more in depth in my
>response here.
>
Additional comments appended to your summary may result in a different
summarization.
>
> [...]
>
> > > ... all assumptions were made
> > >with as much informational input as possible, but still assumptions.
>
> > Given the nature of these assumptions, (i.e., insufficient data, as
> > indicated), isn't it possible that some the assumptions made did not
> > accurately reflect the situation?
>
> >I do not feel that that was the case, but, as with any assumption,
> >there is a margin of error.
>
> Agreed, assumptions inherent[ly] contain at least some margin for
> error, (to either a lesser or greater degree, depending upon the form
> of the assumptions).
>
>As always, the goal is a lesser margin of error.
>
Indeed, acheiving such a goal seems to rest upon the accuracy of the process
used to reach it.
> [... prior portions in which there was agreement ...]
>
> > >... at that point, it would merely require an administrative
> > >decision based on facts.
>
> > But, it was just asserted that judgement calls which contained
> > assumptions
> > were made, not that a decision was made based upon facts, (since
> > assumptions
> > are not inherently factual).
>
> >That was a hypothetical 'in that case' sort of statement.
>
> It was? But, the context of the remark was, "Most judgment calls are made
> on at least some bit of an assumption, else no judgment call would be
> needed... at that point, it would merely require an administrative
> decision
> based on facts." That context was directly within that of making a
> judgement call which, as you've previously indicated, was what occurred in
> the instance under discussion, (rather than a more general, hypothetical
> instance).
>
>Allow me to rephrase the statement to further clarify it.
>"Most judgment calls are made on at least some bit of an assumption,
>else no judgment call would be needed. In the case that no assumption
>were necessary and all questions were answered by factual
>documentation, the situation would merely require an administrative
>decision based on facts. That was not the case, unfortunately, thus a
>judgment call was necessary."
>
Thank you, that does clarify a previous ambiguity.
>
> > [...]
>
> >However, in the situation under discussion, yes, the
> > basis was circumstantial. That's all we had to work with.
>
> Alright, given that the basis for the decision was circumstantial and that
> a
> circumstantial basis contains assumptions, (which, in turn, contain an
> inherent margin of error), then such a basis also inherently contains some
> doubt. Whether or not the degree of doubt is "reasonable" [...] wouldn't
> be moot if this were some sort of appeals process, (it is not an appeal).
> What's more relevant after the fact of the banning is the general nature
> of
> moderation and those aspects of interpretive perceptions involved in any
> interactions. It would seem that, as long as everyone is getting along
> just
> fine, there are is no incentive to examine the basis of a process beyond a
> superficial glance. It's when some people don't get along that such an
> examination of process becomes relevant.
>
>And what an examination this is, most certainly.
>
Blame it on too much time available during some sort of holiday or
something.
>
> > [...]
>
> Are you absolutely sure that your own emotions did not color or
> sway any ambiguities involved in making a judgement call? If you are, how
> do you know and if you are not sure, (no attempt to instill doubt is being
> made; just examining the process), are you aware of the extent to which
> any
> such emotional basis may have affected the judgement call?
>
>I am absolutely sure that my own emotions were entirely set aside.
>
Yet, you previously specified that you found it necessary to feign civility
during the course of events which lead up to the juncture of setting your
previous emotions aside. Those underlying emotional responses were
sucessfully surpressed?
>
>I have been noted for my ability to disconnect from situations that
>would normally incite emotion. To do this, I look at all parties as if
>I had never met them before, and examine only the information
>presented. It's much the same as analyzing a spreadsheet. Some of the
>values on the spreadsheet are variables, such as the personalities and
>emotions of those involved, but those can still be examined
>objectively.
>
While objectively can be approached, (more closely in some instances than in
others), there's an inherent amount of subjectivity involved nonetheless.
>
> >I ask opinions of others who are in positions of authority
> >over or alongside me, and I weigh all the input before making a
> >decision or suggestion.
>
> Would it be accurate to presume that any emotionally-based input is also
> weighed in such a process?
>
>Their emotions were weighed in the fact of how it colored their
>responses to my inquiries.
>
Then emotionally-based input was an aspect of the inquiries, (even if there
was an attempt to limit the influence these emotions may have had upon
decisions made during the process).
>
> > [...]
>
> In this regard, the snipping is claimed to not be intentionally rude,
> snide
> or, to elicit a negative reaction. That intention is accepted on the
> provisional basis that the length of this discussion does require snipping
> repetitious bits while retaining the context of replies. No doubt that
> some
> additional content can be snipped without loss of context as with th...
>
>Okay. That made me chuckle. Also, I believe I get your point, and I
>agree. In such a moderated forum as True Witches, such an action would
>be reviewed and interpreted by the administrative staff.
>
Trimming posts gets reviewed for potential moderation in tw or, wt? Is this
a violation of one or more AUPs?
If "ren" could read but, not post to the moderated forum in which such
invitations could be made, (had that been an option after the banning, not
before), such invitations would have only been possible in advance of the
banning. Regardless, four or five members of the moderated forum are now
posting to arw and have at least "ren's" extraneous invitation after the
fact.
>
> > > [...]
>
> > >Like it or not, the world cannot be painted with a black
> > >and white brush.
>
> > That's a valid premise, however, neither is the default to disregard
> > reason applied to making judgement calls.
>
> >Never did I say that reason should be disregarded when making a
> >judgment call... on the contrary, I thought I had made it clear that
> >it mas my personal opinion that all possible data should be gathered,
> >reviewed, and interpreted before making a judgment call, so as to make
> >as correct/logical a judgment as possible.
>
> Yet, we've also discussed some of the nature of assumptions and an
> inherent
> margin of error involved in making judgement calls. True, we've merely
> touched upon the logical basis for them. Should we proceed more indepth
> into that basis?
>
>I think anything more in depth would be proceeding to the
>subatomic level.
>
Sometimes that's what's necessary when there is underlying ambiguity and
sometimes such a degree of insight into splitting can lose sight of the
hair.
>
>The purpose of the AUP being left not entirely defined was to
>allow room for individuality within the ranges of acceptable behavior.
>
Would the members not have such freedom with or, without a vague AUP?
>
>To completely and utterly define everything makes for an environment
>similar to Victorian Society. We're looking for something a little
>closer to Hippy Society.
>
It would seem that nothing is ever completely defined, however, the pursuit
of meaning would appear to lead to more knowledge and awareness. Not
pursuing it in regards to assumptions does not seem to be conducive to those
goals.
ren
> I really am not entirely certain as to what triggered this whole mess.
> I thought the discussion was going well enough, different opinions
> were being stated, and then the discussion was deleted. I've stated
> the rest as it followed.
Nor am I. However, I did see a post of a screen-shot of my supposedly
deleted thread before I discovered that the thread was gone.
Your explanation of just how this person got the screen-shot is
unsatisfactory. It is still suspicious.
There was no motive for me to delete the thread. It was either a
malfunction of the website or someone deleted my post and accused me
of it.
It doesn't have to be a moderator either. An account on Ning could be
easy to hack. Don't ask me to prove it to you, just Google for other
testimonies.
My intention was to get you to ban me from that pretentious sub-group,
not to get me suspended from the website.
Never the less, I will make the best of things and take the extra time
required to port my responses from that newsgroup here.
For you and your WT TW Crew, this could be beneficial as well. You
check this website from time to time and take a jab at me un-
moderated. It will help you all to relieve that pent up stress you
need to get out.
If you chose not to participate here, it is no big deal. I'll keep
posting my outlandish views of Wicca, Paganism and Magick with a 'K'
unchallenged. Therefore, I will rule. This newsgroup has a lot of
lurking readers. There are USENET statistics to show this.
Beorc Kano
> "Beorc Kano" <brandoncornw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "s r`ch sm" wrote:
> > "B rc K n" wrote:
> > > "s r`ch sm" wrote:
> > > >"Beorc Kano" wrote:
>
> > > >At the very top of the group page, visible when one follows the link
> > > >to GET to the group page, is the statement that all users are held to
> > > >the AUP, and then a link to the AUP ...
>
> > [...]
>
> > Alright, then it remains possible for a wt poster to have not clicked on
> > the
> > AUP link nor, have read the AUP before posting, doesn't it?
>
> >It does remain possible, but it is considered foolish to post to a
> >moderated group without knowing the rules, when one of the first lines
> >you see in the group is that posting to the group is an agreement to
> >adhere to said rules.
>
> Foolish behaviour is always possible. In this instance, if the wt poster
> contributed directly to discussion regarding the subgroup AUP, they cannot
> reasonably claim to be unaware of the content of that AUP. The general
> conclusion is that it is possible, (foolish or not), to post without reading
> the AUP. The specific conclusion is that ambiguity is reduced in the
> assumption that the subgroup's AUP was read, (although "ren" has done many
> foolish things prior to joining wt and his not reading the AUP while
> debating it remains possible).
Yes, Foolish behavior IS possible, and generally is subject to the
consequences thereof. In this case, being subjected to rules that you
have agreed to and not become familiar with.
> > > [...]
>
> >To clarify; I am not entirely certain as to why the thread was deleted
> >in the first place.
>
> No doubt that this is why speculations ensued; to establish motive and
> opportunity?
Yes.
In light of that statement, would you call separating two fighting
children censorship? The children may be arguing simply for the sake
of arguing, but should they be allowed to continue?
> > > [...]
>
> > >Politely phrased would be along the lines of "I disagree with you, and
> > >[reason why]" as opposed to "You're a fucking idiot. [this point] is
> > >fact, not your drivel."
>
> > Given your example, would any of my replies, (for instance), be deemed of
> > such an impolite nature so as to garner a rudeness warning on wt?
>
> >Only the parts where you admitted to dipping into trollish behavior.
>
> As recalled, those instances were where I suggested that I was trolling your
> trollings, which you confirm by your following estimate:
>
>
>
> >Several of mine would have garnered a warning as well.
>
> You would have issued a warning to yourself or, would another moderator have
> to step in?
Seeing as how I am not a moderator in this situation, that was a
variable I was taking into account. Were I a member and not a
moderator, in this situation, a moderator would have likely given me a
warning. Were I a moderator and involved in this manner of discussion,
I would likely be disciplined more severely than you, perhaps losing
my moderator status.
> > [snip for length and completion of debate process]
>
> > [snip for agreement]
>
>
>
> >Statements that fall within this gray zone are generally dealt
> >with by the two involved. They define the gray zone and the
> >black and white zones on either side, and come to an agreement.
>
> Generally, that may be how it has gone before, however, I'm fairly sure
> we're discussing instances of resolving opposing interpretations for which
> there is little or no agreement, (at least, initially), and apparently
> moving into compromise.
In cases where there is no agreement, that is when a moderator must
step in and make a judgment call. It help when a moderator is involved
in the forum, and has a good sense of the public opinions, and thus
can make properly informed decisions.
> >Sometimes this is "I don't talk to you, you don't talk to
> >me." Other times it's "I'll cut you more slack, you don't act as
> >familiar with/aggressive towards me."
>
> A negotiated 'cease-fire' is sometimes the only compromise possible.
Agreed. When one cannot negotiate a cease fire, sometimes it has to be
enforced. Hence the closing of the thread temporarily/permanently.
> >Only when something falls definitely into the 'black,' as it were,
> >does a moderator need to step in.
>
> Yet, the determination of 'black' and 'white' is still not always
> unambigious. It would seem that moderators step in when the content is
> ambigious as well.
True. I stand corrected.
> >Now, if the statement falls into the gray zone of the one
> >stating it, but into the black of everyone he was stating it to
> >("You're all a bunch of posers if you don't follow my way."),
> >then doesn't it stand to reason that something needs to
> >change? That was the group consensus.
>
> Surely it must occur to those involved in such situations that it remains
> possible to ignore or, disregard such improprieties as they perceive, (given
> a recent post by one of the tw members posting to arw to the effect of
> ignoring someone on arw who they could've potentially ignored on other
> venues).
One would think so. I am an advocate of that sort of thing in most
cases... as I've noted, some of my actions here were failings on my
part.
Preconceived ambiguities can be defined at the point of necessity into
something useful and definite. Much like when I store silver wire to
be defined into saw cut silver rings that are useful for jewelry and
definite in shape. The base concept/form is still there. It just needs
to be defined further.
> >Members of True Witches are expected to be adults about things
> >such as behavior and conversational tone.
>
> Sometimes expectations are reasonable and other times, they are not.
I tend to find it reasonable that adults behave as adults.
> > [...]
>
> > As previously indicated, your example tends to support my assertions in
> > this
> > regard. If that's the case, I'm not paying you near enough to support my
> > contentions.
>
> >If you mean supporting the fact that there is a gray zone, correct.
>
> No, I was referring to your assertion that "What might be insulting to me
> might not be insulting to others" indicates support for my prior contentions
> concerning variable points of view upon the same occurrance.
Fair enough. However, someone specifically asking to not be called a
certain nickname, and reminding said person that they are in fact male
and not female, then the offending party calls them by that nickname
and refers to them as female... That's pretty cut and dry, yes?
> >If you mean supporting the opinion that gray zones are inherently bad and
> >should be defined to the atom, I disagree.
>
> There has been no contention that gray areas are "bad", merely that there
> are, (by definition), ambigious. An ambigious situation can either be
> clarified as much as necessary to convey meaning or, not.
Fair enough.
> > [...]
>
> >If someone were to whine and cry about someone being mean to
> >them, and the thread were to be reviewed, and no rudeness were
> >seen, then it would be recommended to the whining party to grow
> >up. That's never been the case yet.
>
> This suggests that the reviewer is making a determination as to what
> constitutes "rudeness". The basis of such a determination is what is being
> discussed now. If the determination is made summarily, there has been no
> consensual agreement as to what constitutes 'ambigious' insinuation of
> rudeness.
As has been stated before, the moderators are generally elected for
superior judgment in matters such as these. It is generally trusted
that they will make just decisions based on the common consensus of
the approximate definitions of said terms.
> >If rude statements were found, then it would be
> >requested of the offending party to keep it to polite discussion.
>
> Yes, and if rude statements were found, even where no rude statements
> existed, the same recommendation would no doubt be made.
And then the offending party would have the option to comply with the
public desires or find a new venue of discussion.
> > [...]
>
> >The goal is to not apply a designation of mudslinging outside of
> >actual mudslinging. Much the way that it is the court's aim to not
> >imprison or discipline innocent people.
>
> Since such determinations can rest upon interpretations of an ambigious
> nature, (or circumstantial evidence, as with a court ruling which results in
> assigning guilt to an innocent party), the aim may not coincide with the
> result.
True. We can but try.
> > [...]
>
> > Despite the obvious nature of the examples employed, the assessment that
> > replies "seek to discredit or deface the holder of the opposing opinon"
> > are
> > wide open to interpretations, (especially within the context of any vested
> > interests of the opposing points of view). It is the far less black and
> > white remarks, (a grey area you raised within these exchanges), which call
> > subjective interpretations into action.
>
> >Yes, they are open to interpretations.
>
> Then we are agreed upon this supporting point.
Agreed.
> >I do not mean to sound arrogant, but I was asked to be
> >a moderator to interpret sais situations. It was felt that I had
> >judgment that was fair and impartial, so suited for the position.
>
> It is understood that a moderator must make such judgment calls which, from
> time to time, rely upon summarily interpreting ambigious situations.
> Striving to be fair and impartial is a commendable goal, albeit one which
> may not always be acheived. I've been 'worng' before, haven't you?
I've admitted as much in this discussion.
> > [...]
>
> > This remains unclear since "emotional turmoil" could easily be interpreted
> > as anything whatsoever which appears to cause some kind of emotional
> > distress, (i.e., one party becomes "irritated" with another's disagrement
> > with the first party's opinion. The first party could then claim, upon a
> > purely subjective emotional basis that the second party is 'causing' them
> > emotional distress/inciting "drama" just because the first party got
> > pissed
> > off and not because the second's party's intent or reply content was to
> > create "drama").
>
> >In such a situation where someone losing ground in an argument
> >becomes irritated, generally, they would be the ones to begin being
> >rude first.
>
> Generally agreed, however, the contention was within the context of the
> party losing ground accusing the other of 'creating drama', rather than who
> was rude first.
Yes, and thus they would likely be found to be creating drama
themselves. A wonderful little backfire.
> > [...]
>
> > >Generally, something is considered rude if it offends someone and is
> > >repeated after such offense is noted.
>
> > In that case, I could take offense at the repetition of phrase, "general
> > common sense guidelines" since I might maintain that it insults my
> > intelligence while dodging substantive response. Note the word, "could",
> > within my remarks.
>
> >You could. And, in a moderated forum, a moderator would weigh those
> >claims. Hopefully, the moderator was elected by the userbase for their
> >superior judgment.
>
> Your reply is ambigious; are you implying that a moderator with "superior
> judgment" would not determine that your comments were considered to be rude
> or, that they would be?
Neither. I am saying that hopefully my comments would be reviewed by a
moderator with superior judgment, who would in turn make a just
judgment call.
> > >This definition fits the general consensus of the group.
>
> > The consensus definition is vague then. Many nominally innocous remarks
> > could constitute being offensive or, rude.
>
> >It is vague, so as to allow room for individuality, rather than force
> >everyone into a mold.
>
> That's admirable, however, it also allows for misinterpretations, false
> accusations or general misunderstandings altogether. It is the manner in
> which the latter are resolved which illuminates the underlying differences
> between moderated and unmoderated forums.
Aye. I will note that we don't have an abundance of 'sidiots' or
(anymore) 'rens' on the board, who continue to post antagonizing posts
or disagree with others in a disrespectful or aggressive manner. True
Witches is actually entirely devoid of such people now.
> [snip for topic completion]
> >I don't know precisely what it would take to get banned from Wiccan
> >Together as a whole.
>
> As a guess, violating one or more of the wt AUP?
Aye, but there have been AUP violation in the past that have gone
undisciplined, due to the accepting attitude of the founder of the
site and the moderators. Then, there have been others summarily
removed for reasons relating to local and federal laws, such as
supporting anarchist activities.
> >In True Witches, if you were to get offended by one persons
> >perceived stupidity, then, you would be asked to overlook
> >said person and ignore their presence.
>
> Would the same suggestion be given to another who perceived some other
> offense?
Initially, yes.
> >If that persons stupidity became directed at either one or many,
> >they would be asked to stop by administration.
>
> Would such a request by administration, (moderators?), be preceded by a
> determination of stupidity or, presumed?
If it were only over their stupidity (or ignorance) then they would be
asked to not be so aggressive in spreading their personal views. If it
was just the blathering on of their idiocy, it would be recommended
again that they be ignored.
> > [...]
>
> > > So, the basis for such definitions stems from a consensus of perceptions
> > > or, ultimately the subjective perceptions of a moderator(s)?
>
> > >A census of perceptions. I've not made a single lay-down-the-law
> > >ruling on anything, nor has our founder.
>
> > Do you mean that some full or partial census is taken to form a consensus
> > of
> > perception-opinions?
>
> >Pardon. Meant to type consensus.
>
> No problem.
Thank you.
> >From the perceived reactions of those
> >who responded to discussions that involved statements deemed to be
> >rude by the vast majority of those responding.
>
> In that instance, the possiblity of a 'lynch-mob' mentality exists at least
> potentially.
Yes, but I wouldn't moderate such a forum where the 'lynch mob'
mentality was dominant. I would find another venue, as that is a
tactic I disagree with.
> > > [...]
>
> > Okay, let's see of they can be summarized at this point. Discussion
> > regarding some unspecified topic(s) ensued on a moderated venue. These
> > discussions are presumed to have become 'heated' in that opposing points
> > of
> > view became interpreted as either "rude", "offensive" or otherwise
> > derrogatory in a blatant manner tangential to the context of the
> > discussion(s). During the course of this process, the originating post of
> > a
> > thread(s) was deleted, which caused the entire thread(s) to be deleted as
> > a
> > result of a preprogrammed function of the venue. After the issuance of
> > warnings, a combination of circumstantial evidence and judgement calls was
> > used as the basis of a banning. After the ban was imposed by a moderator,
> > the banned party took their contentions to an unmoderated forum, whereupon
> > discussion as to the nature of certain aspects of the incident ensued. Is
> > this a generally inclusive summary of events?
>
> >Discussion regarding the validity of the paths of the members of True
> >Witches ensued in a moderated venue.
>
> Was that what this was all about, questioning validity?
More attempting to impress invalidity.
> >Members of True Witches responded in a manner that indicated
> >that they felt their paths were valid even if conflicting with the
> >Original Poster's statements.
>
> Essentially, they disagreed and the form of that disagreement lead to some
> impositions of interpretations.
They disagreed that their paths were invalid, and were subsequently
insulted for said belief.
> >Original Poster became insulting and aggressive, attempting to
> >invalidate the paths and practices of others, using mocking statements.
>
> While that is how the events were perceived by some/most of the parties
> involved, the descriptors "insulting", "aggressive" and "mocking" indicate
> interpretations of events which are currently under discussion.
Statements such as 'with that foolish mindset, you'll never achieve
enlightenment,' 'your stated beliefs are utter trash,' 'I'm certain
that those beliefs are valid in your little fantasy world,' and the
like are generally seen as aggressive insulting, and mocking.
> >Discussion continued, and thread was summarily deleted. Those involved
> >were upset, and asked who deleted the thread. I investigated, and
> >requested that the action not be repeated. The action was repeated.
> >A warning was issued. The warned party indicated a desire to be banned,
> >and proceeded to attempt to break all the tenets of the AUP. I allowed
> >tow more warnings without action. Normally, three warnings would result
> >in a ban. I allowed three without a ban, to show leniency. Upon the
> >fourth infraction, I issued the ban. The original posted then carried
> >the dispute to this forum and proceeded to misrepresent the facts,
> >which I felt was unethical and sought to remedy. Discussion as to the
> >fine points of the process ensued.
>
> >So your summary is correct. I simply specified more in depth in my
> >response here.
>
> Additional comments appended to your summary may result in a different
> summarization.
Or they may not when answered as they have been above.
> > [...]
>
> > > > ... all assumptions were made
> > > >with as much informational input as possible, but still assumptions.
>
> > > Given the nature of these assumptions, (i.e., insufficient data, as
> > > indicated), isn't it possible that some the assumptions made did not
> > > accurately reflect the situation?
>
> > >I do not feel that that was the case, but, as with any assumption,
> > >there is a margin of error.
>
> > Agreed, assumptions inherent[ly] contain at least some margin for
> > error, (to either a lesser or greater degree, depending upon the form
> > of the assumptions).
>
> >As always, the goal is a lesser margin of error.
>
> Indeed, acheiving such a goal seems to rest upon the accuracy of the process
> used to reach it.
Which is why said process was made as accurate and impartial as
possible.
You're welcome. I'm glad I could clear that up.
> > > [...]
>
> > >However, in the situation under discussion, yes, the
> > > basis was circumstantial. That's all we had to work with.
>
> > Alright, given that the basis for the decision was circumstantial and that
> > a
> > circumstantial basis contains assumptions, (which, in turn, contain an
> > inherent margin of error), then such a basis also inherently contains some
> > doubt. Whether or not the degree of doubt is "reasonable" [...] wouldn't
> > be moot if this were some sort of appeals process, (it is not an appeal).
> > What's more relevant after the fact of the banning is the general nature
> > of
> > moderation and those aspects of interpretive perceptions involved in any
> > interactions. It would seem that, as long as everyone is getting along
> > just
> > fine, there are is no incentive to examine the basis of a process beyond a
> > superficial glance. It's when some people don't get along that such an
> > examination of process becomes relevant.
>
> >And what an examination this is, most certainly.
>
> Blame it on too much time available during some sort of holiday or
> something.
Doubly so. One can blame my earlier vehemence on a lack of cigarettes
(going on three weeks without) and a bloody cold house (no
insulation... hence the coming move).
> > > [...]
>
> > Are you absolutely sure that your own emotions did not color or
> > sway any ambiguities involved in making a judgement call? If you are, how
> > do you know and if you are not sure, (no attempt to instill doubt is being
> > made; just examining the process), are you aware of the extent to which
> > any
> > such emotional basis may have affected the judgement call?
>
> >I am absolutely sure that my own emotions were entirely set aside.
>
> Yet, you previously specified that you found it necessary to feign civility
> during the course of events which lead up to the juncture of setting your
> previous emotions aside. Those underlying emotional responses were
> sucessfully surpressed?
Actually, via review of my postings, I wasn't the one who termed my
civility 'feigned'. It was a phrasing that I locked on to and missed
the source of. I indicated feeling irritated by the offending party.
However, yes, I do believe that I successfully supressed any emotional
swaying that may have been present.
> >I have been noted for my ability to disconnect from situations that
> >would normally incite emotion. To do this, I look at all parties as if
> >I had never met them before, and examine only the information
> >presented. It's much the same as analyzing a spreadsheet. Some of the
> >values on the spreadsheet are variables, such as the personalities and
> >emotions of those involved, but those can still be examined
> >objectively.
>
> While objectively can be approached, (more closely in some instances than in
> others), there's an inherent amount of subjectivity involved nonetheless.
The same could be stated about your motives in this examination of a
process unrelated to you. What drives you in this? It would seem that
your questions have a goal of some sort... whether it be simply to be
the Devil's Advocate and argue the opposing side, or if there are some
ideals that differ between us, and thus are spurring this debate as a
method of 'proving' said ideals against their opposition.
> > >I ask opinions of others who are in positions of authority
> > >over or alongside me, and I weigh all the input before making a
> > >decision or suggestion.
>
> > Would it be accurate to presume that any emotionally-based input is also
> > weighed in such a process?
>
> >Their emotions were weighed in the fact of how it colored their
> >responses to my inquiries.
>
> Then emotionally-based input was an aspect of the inquiries, (even if there
> was an attempt to limit the influence these emotions may have had upon
> decisions made during the process).
In one case, it was. In another, it wasn't. The contrast between the
two was also taken into account.
> > > [...]
>
> > In this regard, the snipping is claimed to not be intentionally rude,
> > snide
> > or, to elicit a negative reaction. That intention is accepted on the
> > provisional basis that the length of this discussion does require snipping
> > repetitious bits while retaining the context of replies. No doubt that
> > some
> > additional content can be snipped without loss of context as with th...
>
> >Okay. That made me chuckle. Also, I believe I get your point, and I
> >agree. In such a moderated forum as True Witches, such an action would
> >be reviewed and interpreted by the administrative staff.
>
> Trimming posts gets reviewed for potential moderation in tw or, wt? Is this
> a violation of one or more AUPs?
In this case, this really is not comparable. Wiccan Together does not
have a 'quote' feature. But, in the circumstance that existed here,
where the trimming of quoted text became a (possible) issue, were this
circumstance to exist hypothetically on Wiccan Together, and such a
claim were to be made, it would be examined for the possibility of
being for the purpose of misconstruing the context of another's words,
thus sowing confusion, and thus, drama.
Fair enough. I still don't have to like it, and I still think Ren is a
coward. Were I to get banned from a forum (this hasn't ever happened
yet), I might complain about it privately to my friends, but I would
not make a spectacle of it on a different forum.
> > > > [...]
>
> > > >Like it or not, the world cannot be painted with a black
> > > >and white brush.
>
> > > That's a valid premise, however, neither is the default to disregard
> > > reason applied to making judgement calls.
>
> > >Never did I say that reason should be disregarded when making a
> > >judgment call... on the contrary, I thought I had made it clear that
> > >it mas my personal opinion that all possible data should be gathered,
> > >reviewed, and interpreted before making a judgment call, so as to make
> > >as correct/logical a judgment as possible.
>
> > Yet, we've also discussed some of the nature of assumptions and an
> > inherent
> > margin of error involved in making judgement calls. True, we've merely
> > touched upon the logical basis for them. Should we proceed more indepth
> > into that basis?
>
> >I think anything more in depth would be proceeding to the
> >subatomic level.
>
> Sometimes that's what's necessary when there is underlying ambiguity and
> sometimes such a degree of insight into splitting can lose sight of the
> hair.
Was it a hair or a hare we've been splitting" If it was a hair, I
think it's likely been sliced into powder. If it were a hare, well,
doc, we have a nice country dinner ready to be cooked here, because
THAT bunny rabbit has been eviscerated.
> >The purpose of the AUP being left not entirely defined was to
> >allow room for individuality within the ranges of acceptable behavior.
>
> Would the members not have such freedom with or, without a vague AUP?
They would have freedom, yes, but then, people like Ren would be free
to troll and make as much trouble as they like. Just as if certain
laws in the United States were not in place, it would give people much
more freedom. However, it would also allow for many people to take
advantage of others, in potentially hazardous ways. The effect is
downplayed on an internet forum, but it is still present.
> >To completely and utterly define everything makes for an environment
> >similar to Victorian Society. We're looking for something a little
> >closer to Hippy Society.
>
> It would seem that nothing is ever completely defined, however, the pursuit
> of meaning would appear to lead to more knowledge and awareness. Not
> pursuing it in regards to assumptions does not seem to be conducive to those
> goals.
It does appear that supreme and complete definition is not entirely a
feasibility. We are not, after all, machines that need every '0' and
'1' in it's proper place, else we malfunction. Besides the
'0' (negative) and '1' (positive) we as people also have '2', '3',
'4', and even more. The values for these are shifting, and need to be
accommodated as best as possible. Thus the open ended interpretations.
s�r`ch�sm
>
>Yes, Foolish behavior IS possible, and generally is subject to the
>consequences thereof. In this case, being subjected to rules that you
>have agreed to and not become familiar with.
>
Yes, there often are consequences to foolish behavour, (not always, which is
why some skate by or, even count on skating by). However, it remains at
least hypothetically possible in this instance that the AUP(s) were
sufficiently vague, (open to interprettive leeway), that a new user tested
their limits.
>
> > [...]
>
> >To clarify; I am not entirely certain as to why the thread was deleted
> >in the first place.
>
> No doubt that this is why speculations ensued; to establish motive and
> opportunity?
>
>Yes.
>
Yet, motive and opportunity were not unamibiously established which
necessitated making a judgement call on the basis of circumstantial
'evidence'?
>
> > > [...]
>
> >A tenacious expression of of opposition to a viewpoint or
> >philosophical matter is not barred, rather, it is welcomed. However,
> >when tenacious opposition turns aggressive or offensive is when the
> >'chill out or else' would take place.
>
> By now it should be fairly clear that the contentions involved various
> interpretations; in this instance, regarding what is deemed as
> "aggressive"
> or "offensive". It's been previously established that what is offensive to
> one may not be considered to be offensive to another, (which can be
> extrapolated to apply to 'aggressive opposition' as well). No doubt there
> are some who would read these exchanges and interpret some portions of
> them
> as either 'aggressive' or even 'offensive' opposition of viewpoints, (in
> spite of several points of agreement occurring in the course of
> discussion).
>
To summarize the point at this juncture; the basis of such judgement calls
is primarily derived from consensus perceptions which may or, may not be
shared by the adjudicated party. The process is not without flaws and
relies upon both the 'sense of fairness' of the adjudicator and trusting
that such consensual perceptions will not adduce a 'mob mentality lynch
mobbing'. It is not being suggested that the latter occurred, only that
there is precedence in other venues.
>
> >Generally, the 'or else' would involve a temporary/permanent
> >closure of the thread. It would still exists for reading/researching
> >purposes, but that particular thread would no longer allow replies.
>
> Yet, the 'or else' remains a threat of censorship within the contraints of
> ambigiuous interpretation of the assumed basis for the 'threat'. That is,
> if the content is not "offensive", (but is vaguely deemed to be), such an
> interpretation is 'enforced' by the 'or else'. Such a practice tends to
> support more of a "because-I-said-so" position than being justified by
> accurate context. Presumably, those holding the opposing points of view
> contend that their interpretations are correct, (even if mutually
> exclusive). While supported contentions will carry more weight than
> unsupported ones, it is entirely possible that some interpretations are
> based upon factors which are more vague than substantial supportive
> reasoning. Such essentially unsupported premises may 'borrow' weight from
> position rather than from substance. It it not being suggested that this
> is
> what occurred in this particular instance, however, such a thing has
> occurred elsewhere often enough to make it a possibility within the same
> general circumstances.
>
>In light of that statement, would you call separating two fighting
>children censorship? The children may be arguing simply for the sake
>of arguing, but should they be allowed to continue?
>
The form both the preceding warnings and the one-sided separation took can
be considered to be censorous, (although not, manifestly, by the parties
uncensored or the censor). As for arguing for the sake of arguing, I take
it this was not a parallel example of the particular incident and was
hypothetical? In either instance, establishing that this assessment was
accurate, (rather than an a priori assumption), would nominally precede
solution options. If the assessment is inadaquately substantiated, a
'cease-fire' warning to all involved parties would seem appropriate. If the
assessment is sufficiently substantiated so as to preclude as much of any
ambiguities present as is possible, then a decision should be rendered on
that basis, (indeed, the censored entity may insist upon the former while
the censoring entity may insist upon the latter, however, it remains
incumbent upon the claimant to sufficiently substantiate their claim).
>
> > > [...]
>
> > >Politely phrased would be along the lines of "I disagree with you, and
> > >[reason why]" as opposed to "You're a fucking idiot. [this point] is
> > >fact, not your drivel."
>
> > Given your example, would any of my replies, (for instance), be deemed
> > of
> > such an impolite nature so as to garner a rudeness warning on wt?
>
> >Only the parts where you admitted to dipping into trollish behavior.
>
> As recalled, those instances were where I suggested that I was trolling
> your
> trollings, which you confirm by your following estimate:
>
> >Several of mine would have garnered a warning as well.
>
> You would have issued a warning to yourself or, would another moderator
> have
> to step in?
>
>Were I a moderator and involved in this manner of discussion,
>I would likely be disciplined more severely than you, perhaps losing
>my moderator status.
>
To clarify; are you directly suggesting that this particular discussion
would have resulted in moderated action applied to both of us, were it to
have taken place on wt?
>
> > [snip for length and completion of debate process]
>
> > [...]
>
> >Statements that fall within this gray zone are generally dealt
> >with by the two involved. They define the gray zone and the
> >black and white zones on either side, and come to an agreement.
>
> Generally, that may be how it has gone before, however, I'm fairly sure
> we're discussing instances of resolving opposing interpretations for which
> there is little or no agreement, (at least, initially), and apparently
> moving into compromise.
>
>In cases where there is no agreement, that is when a moderator must
>step in and make a judgment call.
>
Indeed, that is one function of a moderator, however, it does not preclude
errors in judgement in the process of making such a call, (especially within
those instances containing ambiguities or, predispositions), and neither
does it mean that the judgement call was necessarily in error. In
particular foregone instance, the point is moot but, may form an aspect of
the basis for future judgement calls. Or, not.
>
>It help when a moderator is involved
>in the forum, and has a good sense of the public opinions, and thus
>can make properly informed decisions.
>
This indicates an implication of a somewhat 'representational' position of
the moderator of the presumed consensus. While that may or may not be so,
new members to the moderated forum, (or, any who were not involved in the
election process), are being tacitly 'represented' rather than explicitly.
That situation also occurs outside of moderated, (and even unmoderated),
forums. The tacit basis being that a participant is presumed to agree with
interpretively-based moderation by posting to such a group. If they do not
tacitly agree, they can either leave or, be banned for interpreted
violations of intentionally-vague AUPs.
>
> >Sometimes this is "I don't talk to you, you don't talk to
> >me." Other times it's "I'll cut you more slack, you don't act as
> >familiar with/aggressive towards me."
>
> A negotiated 'cease-fire' is sometimes the only compromise possible.
>
>Agreed. When one cannot negotiate a cease fire, sometimes it has to be
>enforced. Hence the closing of the thread temporarily/permanently.
>
Was the cease fire warning issued to only one participant or, to all parties
involved in the conflict?
>
> >Only when something falls definitely into the 'black,' as it were,
> >does a moderator need to step in.
>
> Yet, the determination of 'black' and 'white' is still not always
> unambigious. It would seem that moderators step in when the content is
> ambigious as well.
>
>True. I stand corrected.
>
Then in instances of ambiguities inherent in assumptions and circumstantial
'evidence', there may be reasonable doubt, (although in the particular
instance under general discussion, some decision had to be made to at least
resolve that incidence).
>
> >Now, if the statement falls into the gray zone of the one
> >stating it, but into the black of everyone he was stating it to
> >("You're all a bunch of posers if you don't follow my way."),
> >then doesn't it stand to reason that something needs to
> >change? That was the group consensus.
>
> Surely it must occur to those involved in such situations that it remains
> possible to ignore or, disregard such improprieties as they perceive,
> (given
> a recent post by one of the tw members posting to arw to the effect of
> ignoring someone on arw who they could've potentially ignored on other
> venues).
>
>One would think so. I am an advocate of that sort of thing in most cases...
>
If you were to speculate on the matter, why weren't these perceived
provocations ignored on tw?
>
> > [...]
>
>Preconceived ambiguities can be defined at the point of necessity
>into something useful and definite. Much like when I store silver
>wire to be defined into saw cut silver rings that are useful for jewelry
>and definite in shape. The base concept/form is still there. It just needs
>to be defined further.
>
Preconceived ambiguities can also lead to errors in judgement. If the
silver were to contain impurities of a nature and/or ratio of which the
silversmith is unaware, (or had assumed were not present), certain problems
could arise in the process of shaping and defining the resultant jewelry.
Sometimes, such ambiguities are apparent during the forging process and
other times, not until after the fact. The smith either observes any
resultant imperfections in the finished piece or, they go unnoticed until
such time as they may manifest in the quality of the piece.
>
> >Members of True Witches are expected to be adults about things
> >such as behavior and conversational tone.
>
> Sometimes expectations are reasonable and other times, they are not.
>
>I tend to find it reasonable that adults behave as adults.
>
Yet, you are probably aware that adults can and do act unreasonably at
times.
>
> > [...]
>
> > As previously indicated, your example tends to support my assertions in
> > this regard. If that's the case, I'm not paying you near enough to
> > support
> > my contentions.
>
> >If you mean supporting the fact that there is a gray zone, correct.
>
> No, I was referring to your assertion that "What might be insulting to me
> might not be insulting to others" indicates support for my prior
> contentions
> concerning variable points of view upon the same occurrance.
>
>Fair enough. However, someone specifically asking to not be called a
>certain nickname, and reminding said person that they are in fact male
>and not female, then the offending party calls them by that nickname
>and refers to them as female... That's pretty cut and dry, yes?
>
By and large, 'name-calling' tends to be cut and dried, however, there are
instances of insinuation, innuendo and oblique implications that form the
shadows of gray areas as well. In the example you cite above, it is
presumed that the nickname was perceived to be derogatory by the 'injured'
party and that the other party continued to use the term after a request to
knock it off was made. That part is nominally cut and dried, yes.
>
> > [...]
>
> >If someone were to whine and cry about someone being mean to
> >them, and the thread were to be reviewed, and no rudeness were
> >seen, then it would be recommended to the whining party to grow
> >up. That's never been the case yet.
>
> This suggests that the reviewer is making a determination as to what
> constitutes "rudeness". The basis of such a determination is what is being
> discussed now. If the determination is made summarily, there has been no
> consensual agreement as to what constitutes 'ambigious' insinuation of
> rudeness.
>
>As has been stated before, the moderators are generally elected for
>superior judgment in matters such as these.
>
How is such "superior judgement" assessed, prior to election as moderators?
>
>It is generally trusted that they will make just decisions based on the
>common consensus of the approximate definitions of said terms.
>
How is trust earned, prior to election or, post election, (in the view of
new members not involved in those elections)?
>
> >If rude statements were found, then it would be
> >requested of the offending party to keep it to polite discussion.
>
> Yes, and if rude statements were found, even where no rude statements
> existed, the same recommendation would no doubt be made.
>
>And then the offending party would have the option to comply with the
>public desires or find a new venue of discussion.
>
This becomes a "you don't like it, leave or be banned" situation rather than
one of inducing trust in superior judgement.
>
> > [...]
>
> >The goal is to not apply a designation of mudslinging outside of
> >actual mudslinging. Much the way that it is the court's aim to not
> >imprison or discipline innocent people.
>
> Since such determinations can rest upon interpretations of an ambigious
> nature, (or circumstantial evidence, as with a court ruling which results
> in
> assigning guilt to an innocent party), the aim may not coincide with the
> result.
>
>True. We can but try.
>
That's essentially all we can do, (besides not trying at all), however,
there is a spectrum of 'trying' ranging from minimal to above-and-beyond.
>
> > [...]
>
> > Despite the obvious nature of the examples employed, the assessment that
> > replies "seek to discredit or deface the holder of the opposing opinon"
> > are wide open to interpretations, (especially within the context of any
> > vested interests of the opposing points of view). It is the far less
> > black and
> > white remarks, (a grey area you raised within these exchanges), which
> > call
> > subjective interpretations into action.
>
> >Yes, they are open to interpretations.
>
> Then we are agreed upon this supporting point.
>
>Agreed.
>
In that case, such interpretations may garner reasonable doubt,
(alternatively, they may not), especially where predispositions are
involved.
>
> >I do not mean to sound arrogant, but I was asked to be
> >a moderator to interpret sais situations. It was felt that I had
> >judgment that was fair and impartial, so suited for the position.
>
> It is understood that a moderator must make such judgment calls which,
> from time to time, rely upon summarily interpreting ambigious situations.
> Striving to be fair and impartial is a commendable goal, albeit one which
> may not always be achieved. I've been 'worng' before, haven't you?
>
>I've admitted as much in this discussion.
>
In the instance being generally discussed, you don't perceive any reasonable
doubt was apparent during the process and your mind is made up that the
decisions taken weren't 'wrong', correct?
>
> > [...]
>
> > This remains unclear since "emotional turmoil" could easily be
> > interpreted
> > as anything whatsoever which appears to cause some kind of emotional
> > distress, (i.e., one party becomes "irritated" with another's
> > disagrement
> > with the first party's opinion. The first party could then claim, upon a
> > purely subjective emotional basis that the second party is 'causing'
> > them
> > emotional distress/inciting "drama" just because the first party got
> > pissed off and not because the second's party's intent or reply content
> > was to create "drama").
>
> >In such a situation where someone losing ground in an argument
> >becomes irritated, generally, they would be the ones to begin being
> >rude first.
>
> Generally agreed, however, the contention was within the context of the
> party losing ground accusing the other of 'creating drama', rather than
> who
> was rude first.
>
>Yes, and thus they would likely be found to be creating drama
>themselves. A wonderful little backfire.
>
Would not a vague accusation of another creating drama constitute creating
drama on the part of the accuser? If this was the case in the particular
instance which occurred, was only one party admonished regarding drama or,
more? If this was not the case, is it assumed that the accusation is not
spurious?
>
> > [...]
>
> > >Generally, something is considered rude if it offends someone and is
> > >repeated after such offense is noted.
>
> > In that case, I could take offense at the repetition of phrase, "general
> > common sense guidelines" since I might maintain that it insults my
> > intelligence while dodging substantive response. Note the word, "could",
> > within my remarks.
>
> >You could. And, in a moderated forum, a moderator would weigh those
> >claims. Hopefully, the moderator was elected by the userbase for their
> >superior judgment.
>
> Your reply is ambigious; are you implying that a moderator with "superior
> judgment" would not determine that your comments were considered to be
> rude
> or, that they would be?
>
>Neither. I am saying that hopefully my comments would be reviewed by a
>moderator with superior judgment, who would in turn make a just
>judgment call.
>
And if that judgement call deemed that some of your hypothetical comments
were 'rude', you would accept that determination without question or
disagreement? (even suppressed disagreement while complying with the AUPs?)
>
> > >This definition fits the general consensus of the group.
>
> > The consensus definition is vague then. Many nominally innocous remarks
> > could constitute being offensive or, rude.
>
> >It is vague, so as to allow room for individuality, rather than force
> >everyone into a mold.
>
> That's admirable, however, it also allows for misinterpretations, false
> accusations or general misunderstandings altogether. It is the manner in
> which the latter are resolved which illuminates the underlying differences
> between moderated and unmoderated forums.
>
>Aye. I will note that we don't have an abundance of 'sidiots' or
>(anymore) 'rens' on the board, who continue to post antagonizing posts
>or disagree with others in a disrespectful or aggressive manner.
>
While that does not preclude a reoccurrance of the event, nor future 'rens &
sidiots', I will note that at least a few tw/wt members have come to arw to
reveal such traits within themselves. ;>
>
>True Witches is actually entirely devoid of such people now.
>
Possibly so.
>
> [...]
>
>... there have been AUP violation in the past that have gone
>undisciplined, due to the accepting attitude of the founder of the
>site and the moderators.
>
So, there are precedents for AUP violations going unmoderated, depending
upon some vague "accepting attitude" which was not always applied?
>
> >In True Witches, if you were to get offended by one persons
> >perceived stupidity, then, you would be asked to overlook
> >said person and ignore their presence.
>
> Would the same suggestion be given to another who perceived some other
> offense?
>
>Initially, yes.
>
Is this what occurred in the particular instance under general discussion?
>
> >If that persons stupidity became directed at either one or many,
> >they would be asked to stop by administration.
>
> Would such a request by administration, (moderators?), be preceded by a
> determination of stupidity or, presumed?
>
>If it were only over their stupidity (or ignorance) then they would be
>asked to not be so aggressive in spreading their personal views.
>
Sometimes stupidity or ignorance, (the two are not quite the same), can be
espoused unaggressively. Therefore, is it being implied that unaggressive
expression of stupidity, (or ignorance), would garner no warning - even if
others were to be offended by it?
>
>If it was just the blathering on of their idiocy, it would be recommended
>again that they be ignored.
>
So, the blatherer can continue blathering idiocy but, if that idiocy is
challenged, would such challenges be admonished because it was not ignored?
>
> > [...]
>
> >From the perceived reactions of those
> >who responded to discussions that involved statements deemed to be
> >rude by the vast majority of those responding.
>
> In that instance, the possiblity of a 'lynch-mob' mentality exists at
> least
> potentially.
>
>Yes, but I wouldn't moderate such a forum where the 'lynch mob'
>mentality was dominant. I would find another venue, as that is a
>tactic I disagree with.
>
I take it you aren't insinuating that a forum containing a 'lynch mob'
mentality as a minority of the membership is any more acceptable?
>
> > > [...]
>
> > Okay, let's see of they can be summarized at this point. Discussion
> > regarding some unspecified topic(s) ensued on a moderated venue. These
> > discussions are presumed to have become 'heated' in that opposing points
> > of view became interpreted as either "rude", "offensive" or otherwise
> > derrogatory in a blatant manner tangential to the context of the
> > discussion(s). During the course of this process, the originating post
> > of
> > a thread(s) was deleted, which caused the entire thread(s) to be deleted
> > as a result of a preprogrammed function of the venue. After the issuance
> > of
> > warnings, a combination of circumstantial evidence and judgement calls
> > was
> > used as the basis of a banning. After the ban was imposed by a
> > moderator,
> > the banned party took their contentions to an unmoderated forum,
> > whereupon
> > discussion as to the nature of certain aspects of the incident ensued.
> > Is this a
> > generally inclusive summary of events?
>
> >Discussion regarding the validity of the paths of the members of True
> >Witches ensued in a moderated venue.
>
> Was that what this was all about, questioning validity?
>
>More attempting to impress invalidity.
>
Were such impressions expressed with or without providing substantiating
premises?
>
> >Members of True Witches responded in a manner that indicated
> >that they felt their paths were valid even if conflicting with the
> >Original Poster's statements.
>
> Essentially, they disagreed and the form of that disagreement lead to some
> impositions of interpretations.
>
>They disagreed that their paths were invalid, and were subsequently
>insulted for said belief.
>
So, insults were used in lieu of substantiations or, the contentions were
formed in an insulting manner?
>
> >Original Poster became insulting and aggressive, attempting to
> >invalidate the paths and practices of others, using mocking statements.
>
> While that is how the events were perceived by some/most of the parties
> involved, the descriptors "insulting", "aggressive" and "mocking" indicate
> interpretations of events which are currently under discussion.
>
>Statements such as 'with that foolish mindset, you'll never achieve
>enlightenment,'
>
That particular form of goading is inherently derogatory and has been
employed when trolling by both "ren" and 'sidiot' in other venues.
>
>'your stated beliefs are utter trash,'
>
Without supportive substantiation, such an assertion is an empty one and as
such, generally considered to be a mere 'flame'.
>
>'I'm certain that those beliefs are valid in your little fantasy world,'
>and the
>like are generally seen as aggressive insulting, and mocking.
>
Taken in isolation from context, (and more especially if they were isolated
in context), that the form of type of trolling is nominally intended to
incite an emotional response. It happens on arw and other unmoderated
forums with enough frequency that one either develops a 'thicker skin', an
insight into their own emotional responses or, a cloistered thinner skin.
It does not go unnoticed that moderated forums exist, at least partially, to
avoid trolling and flaming as much as possible.
>
> > [...]
>
> > > > ... all assumptions were made
> > > >with as much informational input as possible, but still assumptions.
>
> > > Given the nature of these assumptions, (i.e., insufficient data, as
> > > indicated), isn't it possible that some the assumptions made did not
> > > accurately reflect the situation?
>
> > >I do not feel that that was the case, but, as with any assumption,
> > >there is a margin of error.
>
> > Agreed, assumptions inherent[ly] contain at least some margin for
> > error, (to either a lesser or greater degree, depending upon the form
> > of the assumptions).
>
> >As always, the goal is a lesser margin of error.
>
> Indeed, acheiving such a goal seems to rest upon the accuracy of the
> process
> used to reach it.
>
>Which is why said process was made as accurate and impartial as
>possible.
>
Which is not to impute that such a process lacks inaccuracies or
impartialies, (as with inherent errors involved in making assumptions or, in
selective accepting attitudes).
>
> > [... prior portions in which there was agreement ...]
>
However, you isolated and restricted the influence of those factors in
regards to moderation decisions made during that timeframe, correct?
>
> > > [...]
>
> > Are you absolutely sure that your own emotions did not color or
> > sway any ambiguities involved in making a judgement call? If you are,
> > how
> > do you know and if you are not sure, (no attempt to instill doubt is
> > being
> > made; just examining the process), are you aware of the extent to which
> > any
> > such emotional basis may have affected the judgement call?
>
> >I am absolutely sure that my own emotions were entirely set aside.
>
> Yet, you previously specified that you found it necessary to feign
> civility
> during the course of events which lead up to the juncture of setting your
> previous emotions aside. Those underlying emotional responses were
> sucessfully surpressed?
>
>Actually, via review of my postings, I wasn't the one who termed my
>civility 'feigned'.
>
True, you construed it as otherwise, however, during the course of that part
of the discussion, you revealed suppressed emotions which were contrary to
civility which then confirmed that such civility was feigned. I'd thought
we previously established that and you had conceded it, no?
>
>It was a phrasing that I locked on to and missed the source of.
>
Both the archaic and modern meanings contained the definitive descriptor,
"pretend", which conveyed the meaning of the phrase consensually.
>
>I indicated feeling irritated by the offending party.
>
Yes, those feelings were the basis of the feigning of civility in the
initial instance of it.
>
>However, yes, I do believe that I successfully supressed any emotional
>swaying that may have been present.
>
That would be an internal assessment, difficult to substantiate externally
given the outcome but, not necessarily invalid. I'll chose to take your word
for that without feigning civility. ;>
>
> >I have been noted for my ability to disconnect from situations that
> >would normally incite emotion. To do this, I look at all parties as if
> >I had never met them before, and examine only the information
> >presented. It's much the same as analyzing a spreadsheet. Some of the
> >values on the spreadsheet are variables, such as the personalities and
> >emotions of those involved, but those can still be examined
> >objectively.
>
> While objectivity can be approached, (more closely in some instances than
> in
> others), there's an inherent amount of subjectivity involved nonetheless.
>
>The same could be stated about your motives in this examination of a
>process unrelated to you. What drives you in this?
>
Everyone's views are colored by some degree of subjectivity as well as
varying degrees of approach to objectivity. In this instance, you are
making an assumption that the process under discussion is unrelated to me,
which is not the case. While I was not involved in the particular incident
being discussed, I had been involved in the process of moderation in other
moderated forums prior to this discussion. A pattern of similarities
emerged which prompted this examination in an unmoderated venue.
>
>It would seem that your questions have a goal of some sort...
>
Indeed. One of my goals was to gain insights into the processes involved in
order to gain a greater understanding of them.
>
>...whether it be simply to be the Devil's Advocate and argue the
>opposing side ...
>
If you've been following this debate thusfar, you've no doubt seen that,
rather than primarily arguing as a Devil's Advocate, an attempt has been
made to expandan understanding of the aspects of the processes involved. If
you've not seen that during the course of these discussions, it may have
been too subtle to detect.
>
>...or if there are some ideals that differ between us, and
>thus are spurring this debate as a method of 'proving' said
>ideals against their opposition.
>
Ideals? There was only a demonstration of certain aspects of logic as they
applied to the situation, however, if logic is an "ideal", this debate
constitutes it's own 'proof'.
>
> > >I ask opinions of others who are in positions of authority
> > >over or alongside me, and I weigh all the input before making a
> > >decision or suggestion.
>
> > Would it be accurate to presume that any emotionally-based input is also
> > weighed in such a process?
>
> >Their emotions were weighed in the fact of how it colored their
> >responses to my inquiries.
>
> Then emotionally-based input was an aspect of the inquiries, (even if
> there
> was an attempt to limit the influence these emotions may have had upon
> decisions made during the process).
>
>In one case, it was. In another, it wasn't. The contrast between the
>two was also taken into account.
>
Emotionally-based opinions were contrasted and taken into account, how?
>
> > > [...]
>
>Wiccan Together does not have a 'quote' feature.
>
I see. So, even though an individual poster's posted reply stands alone,
there delete feature deletes the entire thread if the originating post is
deleted?
>
>But, in the circumstance that existed here,
>where the trimming of quoted text became a (possible) issue, were this
>circumstance to exist hypothetically on Wiccan Together, and such a
>claim were to be made, it would be examined for the possibility of
>being for the purpose of misconstruing the context of another's words,
>thus sowing confusion, and thus, drama.
>
It is possible, even within the structure of wt, for someone replying to a
post to quote thecontext which they are responding to within that post,
correct?
>
> > > > [re: crossposting]:
>
>Fair enough. I still don't have to like it, and I still think Ren is a
>coward. Were I to get banned from a forum (this hasn't ever happened
>yet), I might complain about it privately to my friends, but I would not
>make a spectacle of it on a different forum.
>
You state that this hasn't happened to you as yet and are estimating a
probable response in advance.
>
> > > > [...]
>
> > > >Like it or not, the world cannot be painted with a black
> > > >and white brush.
>
> > > That's a valid premise, however, neither is the default to disregard
> > > reason applied to making judgement calls.
>
> > >Never did I say that reason should be disregarded when making a
> > >judgment call... on the contrary, I thought I had made it clear that
> > >it mas my personal opinion that all possible data should be gathered,
> > >reviewed, and interpreted before making a judgment call, so as to make
> > >as correct/logical a judgment as possible.
>
> > Yet, we've also discussed some of the nature of assumptions and an
> > inherent
> > margin of error involved in making judgement calls. True, we've merely
> > touched upon the logical basis for them. Should we proceed more indepth
> > into that basis?
>
> >I think anything more in depth would be proceeding to the
> >subatomic level.
>
> Sometimes that's what's necessary when there is underlying ambiguity and
> sometimes such a degree of insight into splitting can lose sight of the
> hair.
>
>Was it a hair or a hare we've been splitting" If it was a hair, I
>think it's likely been sliced into powder.
>
It's been like a barbershop at bootcamp around here at times but, at least
some ambiguities have been shaved down to an almost phrenological level.
>
>If it were a hare, well, doc, we have a nice country dinner ready
>to be cooked here, because THAT bunny rabbit has been eviscerated.
>
Maybe so but, I'd estimate that we'd still be spitting out bunny buckshot
until the stew was done.
> [...]
>
> >The purpose of the AUP being left not entirely defined was to
> >allow room for individuality within the ranges of acceptable behavior.
>
> Would the members not have such freedom with or, without a vague AUP?
>
>They would have freedom, yes, but then, people like Ren would be
>free to troll and make as much trouble as they like. Just as if certain
>laws in the United States were not in place, it would give people much
>more freedom. However, it would also allow for many people to take
>advantage of others, in potentially hazardous ways. The effect is
>downplayed on an internet forum, but it is still present.
>
They'd have some freedoms, within the constraints of interpreted AUPs, (just
as laws are intended constrain but, these are not the same constraints to
freedom of expression ... albeit, there is some general overlap).
>
> >To completely and utterly define everything makes for an environment
> >similar to Victorian Society. We're looking for something a little
> >closer to Hippy Society.
>
> It would seem that nothing is ever completely defined, however, the
> pursuit
> of meaning would appear to lead to more knowledge and awareness. Not
> pursuing it in regards to assumptions does not seem to be conducive to
> those
> goals.
>
>It does appear that supreme and complete definition is not entirely a
>feasibility. We are not, after all, machines that need every '0' and
>'1' in it's proper place, else we malfunction.
>
In that case, there remains room for ambiguity, interpretation, error and
even potential insight due to those leeways.
>
>Besides the '0' (negative) and '1' (positive) we as people also have '2',
>'3',
>'4', and even more. The values for these are shifting, and need to be
>accommodated as best as possible. Thus the open ended interpretations.
>
And thus, some of the advantages and disadvantages of moderated &
unmoderated forums are debated in order to make such processes more
transparent than they may have previously been.
Lady Azure, Baroness O de North Pole
> On Dec 27, 3:05 pm, Beorc Kano <brandoncornw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I really am not entirely certain as to what triggered this whole mess.
> > I thought the discussion was going well enough, different opinions
> > were being stated, and then the discussion was deleted. I've stated
> > the rest as it followed.
>
> Nor am I. However, I did see a post of a screen-shot of my supposedly
> deleted thread before I discovered that the thread was gone.
NG Server Threads don't "Disappear" unless the Black Hats get to them.
Beorc Kano
> "B rc K n " <br nd nc rn w...@gmail.com> wrote :
>
> > "s r`ch sm" <s r`ch s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > [...]
>
> >Yes, Foolish behavior IS possible, and generally is subject to the
> >consequences thereof. In this case, being subjected to rules that you
> >have agreed to and not become familiar with.
>
> Yes, there often are consequences to foolish behavour, (not always, which is
> why some skate by or, even count on skating by). However, it remains at
> least hypothetically possible in this instance that the AUP(s) were
> sufficiently vague, (open to interprettive leeway), that a new user tested
> their limits.
Perhaps. If this is the case, said user certainly found said limits,
no?
> > > [...]
>
> > >To clarify; I am not entirely certain as to why the thread was deleted
> > >in the first place.
>
> > No doubt that this is why speculations ensued; to establish motive and
> > opportunity?
>
> >Yes.
>
> Yet, motive and opportunity were not unamibiously established which
> necessitated making a judgement call on the basis of circumstantial
> 'evidence'?
Actually, motive and opportunity WERE established in his case. He had
the motive to delete the thread (he was shown to be quite insulting,
with his posts being left up as evidence) and the opportunity to do so
(he was one of six people who had the ability to do so, and was the
only one with the motive).
> > > > [...]
>
> > >A tenacious expression of of opposition to a viewpoint or
> > >philosophical matter is not barred, rather, it is welcomed. However,
> > >when tenacious opposition turns aggressive or offensive is when the
> > >'chill out or else' would take place.
>
> > By now it should be fairly clear that the contentions involved various
> > interpretations; in this instance, regarding what is deemed as
> > "aggressive"
> > or "offensive". It's been previously established that what is offensive to
> > one may not be considered to be offensive to another, (which can be
> > extrapolated to apply to 'aggressive opposition' as well). No doubt there
> > are some who would read these exchanges and interpret some portions of
> > them
> > as either 'aggressive' or even 'offensive' opposition of viewpoints, (in
> > spite of several points of agreement occurring in the course of
> > discussion).
>
> To summarize the point at this juncture; the basis of such judgement calls
> is primarily derived from consensus perceptions which may or, may not be
> shared by the adjudicated party. The process is not without flaws and
> relies upon both the 'sense of fairness' of the adjudicator and trusting
> that such consensual perceptions will not adduce a 'mob mentality lynch
> mobbing'. It is not being suggested that the latter occurred, only that
> there is precedence in other venues.
Agreed.
It was a hypothetical situation comparison.
> In either instance, establishing that this assessment was
> accurate, (rather than an a priori assumption), would nominally precede
> solution options. If the assessment is inadaquately substantiated, a
> 'cease-fire' warning to all involved parties would seem appropriate. If the
> assessment is sufficiently substantiated so as to preclude as much of any
> ambiguities present as is possible, then a decision should be rendered on
> that basis, (indeed, the censored entity may insist upon the former while
> the censoring entity may insist upon the latter, however, it remains
> incumbent upon the claimant to sufficiently substantiate their claim).
Agreed.
> > > > [...]
>
> > > >Politely phrased would be along the lines of "I disagree with you, and
> > > >[reason why]" as opposed to "You're a fucking idiot. [this point] is
> > > >fact, not your drivel."
>
> > > Given your example, would any of my replies, (for instance), be deemed
> > > of
> > > such an impolite nature so as to garner a rudeness warning on wt?
>
> > >Only the parts where you admitted to dipping into trollish behavior.
>
> > As recalled, those instances were where I suggested that I was trolling
> > your
> > trollings, which you confirm by your following estimate:
>
> > >Several of mine would have garnered a warning as well.
>
> > You would have issued a warning to yourself or, would another moderator
> > have
> > to step in?
>
> >Were I a moderator and involved in this manner of discussion,
> >I would likely be disciplined more severely than you, perhaps losing
> >my moderator status.
>
> To clarify; are you directly suggesting that this particular discussion
> would have resulted in moderated action applied to both of us, were it to
> have taken place on wt?
If it had been allowed to continue for this long, it is quite
possible. It all depends on how closely the moderators were watching.
> > > [snip for length and completion of debate process]
>
> > > [...]
>
> > >Statements that fall within this gray zone are generally dealt
> > >with by the two involved. They define the gray zone and the
> > >black and white zones on either side, and come to an agreement.
>
> > Generally, that may be how it has gone before, however, I'm fairly sure
> > we're discussing instances of resolving opposing interpretations for which
> > there is little or no agreement, (at least, initially), and apparently
> > moving into compromise.
>
> >In cases where there is no agreement, that is when a moderator must
> >step in and make a judgment call.
>
> Indeed, that is one function of a moderator, however, it does not preclude
> errors in judgement in the process of making such a call, (especially within
> those instances containing ambiguities or, predispositions), and neither
> does it mean that the judgement call was necessarily in error. In
> particular foregone instance, the point is moot but, may form an aspect of
> the basis for future judgement calls. Or, not.
Well, every experience in life is a learning experience. If one fails
to assimilate and learn from ones experiences, then it is certainly
that; a failing.
> >It help when a moderator is involved
> >in the forum, and has a good sense of the public opinions, and thus
> >can make properly informed decisions.
>
> This indicates an implication of a somewhat 'representational' position of
> the moderator of the presumed consensus. While that may or may not be so,
> new members to the moderated forum, (or, any who were not involved in the
> election process), are being tacitly 'represented' rather than explicitly.
> That situation also occurs outside of moderated, (and even unmoderated),
> forums. The tacit basis being that a participant is presumed to agree with
> interpretively-based moderation by posting to such a group. If they do not
> tacitly agree, they can either leave or, be banned for interpreted
> violations of intentionally-vague AUPs.
They could also show an honest desire to not break the AUP, in which
case, leniency is shown. As was the case with every other offender,
before the one that DID get banned. And yes, honest desire is
interpreted by the administration.
> > >Sometimes this is "I don't talk to you, you don't talk to
> > >me." Other times it's "I'll cut you more slack, you don't act as
> > >familiar with/aggressive towards me."
>
> > A negotiated 'cease-fire' is sometimes the only compromise possible.
>
> >Agreed. When one cannot negotiate a cease fire, sometimes it has to be
> >enforced. Hence the closing of the thread temporarily/permanently.
>
> Was the cease fire warning issued to only one participant or, to all parties
> involved in the conflict?
The cease fire was a general "Nobody is changing anyone's minds here,
behave yourselves," to all involved in the thread. Which was
subsequently deleted.
> > >Only when something falls definitely into the 'black,' as it were,
> > >does a moderator need to step in.
>
> > Yet, the determination of 'black' and 'white' is still not always
> > unambigious. It would seem that moderators step in when the content is
> > ambigious as well.
>
> >True. I stand corrected.
>
> Then in instances of ambiguities inherent in assumptions and circumstantial
> 'evidence', there may be reasonable doubt, (although in the particular
> instance under general discussion, some decision had to be made to at least
> resolve that incidence).
Perhaps. I don't feel that this was the case in this situation.
> > >Now, if the statement falls into the gray zone of the one
> > >stating it, but into the black of everyone he was stating it to
> > >("You're all a bunch of posers if you don't follow my way."),
> > >then doesn't it stand to reason that something needs to
> > >change? That was the group consensus.
>
> > Surely it must occur to those involved in such situations that it remains
> > possible to ignore or, disregard such improprieties as they perceive,
> > (given
> > a recent post by one of the tw members posting to arw to the effect of
> > ignoring someone on arw who they could've potentially ignored on other
> > venues).
>
> >One would think so. I am an advocate of that sort of thing in most cases...
>
> If you were to speculate on the matter, why weren't these perceived
> provocations ignored on tw?
My speculation would be that they were phrased in quite directly
targeting manners, aimed at the group True Witches at large, and then
down to the individuals within. After a while of ignoring the jabs,
one tends to lose patience. Patience is required in good measure to
ignore such directed jabs.
> > > [...]
>
> >Preconceived ambiguities can be defined at the point of necessity
> >into something useful and definite. Much like when I store silver
> >wire to be defined into saw cut silver rings that are useful for jewelry
> >and definite in shape. The base concept/form is still there. It just needs
> >to be defined further.
>
> Preconceived ambiguities can also lead to errors in judgement. If the
> silver were to contain impurities of a nature and/or ratio of which the
> silversmith is unaware, (or had assumed were not present), certain problems
> could arise in the process of shaping and defining the resultant jewelry.
> Sometimes, such ambiguities are apparent during the forging process and
> other times, not until after the fact. The smith either observes any
> resultant imperfections in the finished piece or, they go unnoticed until
> such time as they may manifest in the quality of the piece.
In this analogy, the imperfections or impurities would manifest
themselves during the working of the wire, while defining it into
rings for chainwork. (I am a chainsmith, hence the analogy). Finding
them in the raw wire is difficult at best, impossible at worst.
Generally, it is considered easier/more worth it to discover such
impurities in the working of the wire, and either work around it, or
discard the impure section.
> > >Members of True Witches are expected to be adults about things
> > >such as behavior and conversational tone.
>
> > Sometimes expectations are reasonable and other times, they are not.
>
> >I tend to find it reasonable that adults behave as adults.
>
> Yet, you are probably aware that adults can and do act unreasonably at
> times.
Yes. Referred to, often, as 'acting like children,' as opposed to
'acting like adults.'
> > > [...]
>
> > > As previously indicated, your example tends to support my assertions in
> > > this regard. If that's the case, I'm not paying you near enough to
> > > support
> > > my contentions.
>
> > >If you mean supporting the fact that there is a gray zone, correct.
>
> > No, I was referring to your assertion that "What might be insulting to me
> > might not be insulting to others" indicates support for my prior
> > contentions
> > concerning variable points of view upon the same occurrance.
>
> >Fair enough. However, someone specifically asking to not be called a
> >certain nickname, and reminding said person that they are in fact male
> >and not female, then the offending party calls them by that nickname
> >and refers to them as female... That's pretty cut and dry, yes?
>
> By and large, 'name-calling' tends to be cut and dried, however, there are
> instances of insinuation, innuendo and oblique implications that form the
> shadows of gray areas as well. In the example you cite above, it is
> presumed that the nickname was perceived to be derogatory by the 'injured'
> party and that the other party continued to use the term after a request to
> knock it off was made. That part is nominally cut and dried, yes.
Agreed.
> > > [...]
>
> > >If someone were to whine and cry about someone being mean to
> > >them, and the thread were to be reviewed, and no rudeness were
> > >seen, then it would be recommended to the whining party to grow
> > >up. That's never been the case yet.
>
> > This suggests that the reviewer is making a determination as to what
> > constitutes "rudeness". The basis of such a determination is what is being
> > discussed now. If the determination is made summarily, there has been no
> > consensual agreement as to what constitutes 'ambigious' insinuation of
> > rudeness.
>
> >As has been stated before, the moderators are generally elected for
> >superior judgment in matters such as these.
>
> How is such "superior judgement" assessed, prior to election as moderators?
In this case, I don't entirely know. Likely, the exhibition of what is
deemed superior logic via participation in the forum discussions.
> >It is generally trusted that they will make just decisions based on the
> >common consensus of the approximate definitions of said terms.
>
> How is trust earned, prior to election or, post election, (in the view of
> new members not involved in those elections)?
By fair and impartial actions.
> > >If rude statements were found, then it would be
> > >requested of the offending party to keep it to polite discussion.
>
> > Yes, and if rude statements were found, even where no rude statements
> > existed, the same recommendation would no doubt be made.
>
> >And then the offending party would have the option to comply with the
> >public desires or find a new venue of discussion.
>
> This becomes a "you don't like it, leave or be banned" situation rather than
> one of inducing trust in superior judgement.
Which is why one strives to not make such decisions in error. It is
possible that it can happen, but, as comparison, does one completely
outlaw hunting because of Cheney's hunting accident? (presuming it was
an accident)
> > > [...]
>
> > >The goal is to not apply a designation of mudslinging outside of
> > >actual mudslinging. Much the way that it is the court's aim to not
> > >imprison or discipline innocent people.
>
> > Since such determinations can rest upon interpretations of an ambigious
> > nature, (or circumstantial evidence, as with a court ruling which results
> > in
> > assigning guilt to an innocent party), the aim may not coincide with the
> > result.
>
> >True. We can but try.
>
> That's essentially all we can do, (besides not trying at all), however,
> there is a spectrum of 'trying' ranging from minimal to above-and-beyond.
I do my best, and I generally try to err on the side of caution. :) Of
course, I try first and foremost not to err.
> > > [...]
>
> > > Despite the obvious nature of the examples employed, the assessment that
> > > replies "seek to discredit or deface the holder of the opposing opinon"
> > > are wide open to interpretations, (especially within the context of any
> > > vested interests of the opposing points of view). It is the far less
> > > black and
> > > white remarks, (a grey area you raised within these exchanges), which
> > > call
> > > subjective interpretations into action.
>
> > >Yes, they are open to interpretations.
>
> > Then we are agreed upon this supporting point.
>
> >Agreed.
>
> In that case, such interpretations may garner reasonable doubt,
> (alternatively, they may not), especially where predispositions are
> involved.
Which is why predispositions are set aside as much as possible, if not
entirely.
> > >I do not mean to sound arrogant, but I was asked to be
> > >a moderator to interpret sais situations. It was felt that I had
> > >judgment that was fair and impartial, so suited for the position.
>
> > It is understood that a moderator must make such judgment calls which,
> > from time to time, rely upon summarily interpreting ambigious situations.
> > Striving to be fair and impartial is a commendable goal, albeit one which
> > may not always be achieved. I've been 'worng' before, haven't you?
>
> >I've admitted as much in this discussion.
>
> In the instance being generally discussed, you don't perceive any reasonable
> doubt was apparent during the process and your mind is made up that the
> decisions taken weren't 'wrong', correct?
I perceive that reasonable doubt was present at the beginning, then
diminished through the course of the investigation, leading me to a
decision that I feel was correct.
Generally, the accusation of causing drama doesn't occur. I haven't
had to moderate such a situation yet.
> > > [...]
>
> > > >Generally, something is considered rude if it offends someone and is
> > > >repeated after such offense is noted.
>
> > > In that case, I could take offense at the repetition of phrase, "general
> > > common sense guidelines" since I might maintain that it insults my
> > > intelligence while dodging substantive response. Note the word, "could",
> > > within my remarks.
>
> > >You could. And, in a moderated forum, a moderator would weigh those
> > >claims. Hopefully, the moderator was elected by the userbase for their
> > >superior judgment.
>
> > Your reply is ambigious; are you implying that a moderator with "superior
> > judgment" would not determine that your comments were considered to be
> > rude
> > or, that they would be?
>
> >Neither. I am saying that hopefully my comments would be reviewed by a
> >moderator with superior judgment, who would in turn make a just
> >judgment call.
>
> And if that judgement call deemed that some of your hypothetical comments
> were 'rude', you would accept that determination without question or
> disagreement? (even suppressed disagreement while complying with the AUPs?)
I would disagree, and follow the set forth guidelines for an appeal
(as stated at the bottom of the AUP). If that failed, and it bothered
me enough, I'd relocate to a different venue. I wouldn't want to
frequent a forum that I felt was unjust.
> > > >This definition fits the general consensus of the group.
>
> > > The consensus definition is vague then. Many nominally innocous remarks
> > > could constitute being offensive or, rude.
>
> > >It is vague, so as to allow room for individuality, rather than force
> > >everyone into a mold.
>
> > That's admirable, however, it also allows for misinterpretations, false
> > accusations or general misunderstandings altogether. It is the manner in
> > which the latter are resolved which illuminates the underlying differences
> > between moderated and unmoderated forums.
>
> >Aye. I will note that we don't have an abundance of 'sidiots' or
> >(anymore) 'rens' on the board, who continue to post antagonizing posts
> >or disagree with others in a disrespectful or aggressive manner.
>
> While that does not preclude a reoccurrance of the event, nor future 'rens &
> sidiots', I will note that at least a few tw/wt members have come to arw to
> reveal such traits within themselves. ;>
Fair enough. I will also admit to revealing such traits when I allowed
my self control to slip. The fact that it was in retaliation to
similar actions is no defense.
> >True Witches is actually entirely devoid of such people now.
>
> Possibly so.
To my perceptions, at least.
> > [...]
>
> >... there have been AUP violation in the past that have gone
> >undisciplined, due to the accepting attitude of the founder of the
> >site and the moderators.
>
> So, there are precedents for AUP violations going unmoderated, depending
> upon some vague "accepting attitude" which was not always applied?
Basically, if someone screws up, but stays 'under the radar,' they can
get away with it. However, if they make a spectacle of themselves,
they are swiftly dealt with. If the subtle matters are brought to the
attention of the moderators, and they are first time offenders, it may
be brushed off, it may not be, depending upon the infraction. If one
violates the age restriction, for instance, one is removed
immediately. If one curses in chat once or twice (letting slip the f-
bomb or somesuch) one is told to not repeat such an offense.
> > >In True Witches, if you were to get offended by one persons
> > >perceived stupidity, then, you would be asked to overlook
> > >said person and ignore their presence.
>
> > Would the same suggestion be given to another who perceived some other
> > offense?
>
> >Initially, yes.
>
> Is this what occurred in the particular instance under general discussion?
In this case, it wasn't perceived stupidity, but perceived aggression
and insults.
> > >If that persons stupidity became directed at either one or many,
> > >they would be asked to stop by administration.
>
> > Would such a request by administration, (moderators?), be preceded by a
> > determination of stupidity or, presumed?
>
> >If it were only over their stupidity (or ignorance) then they would be
> >asked to not be so aggressive in spreading their personal views.
>
> Sometimes stupidity or ignorance, (the two are not quite the same), can be
> espoused unaggressively. Therefore, is it being implied that unaggressive
> expression of stupidity, (or ignorance), would garner no warning - even if
> others were to be offended by it?
Likely. Those being offended would likely be asked to ignore said
individual.
> >If it was just the blathering on of their idiocy, it would be recommended
> >again that they be ignored.
>
> So, the blatherer can continue blathering idiocy but, if that idiocy is
> challenged, would such challenges be admonished because it was not ignored?
No, such challenges, as long as they remained civil, would be
acceptable (but likely deemed futile)
> > > [...]
>
> > >From the perceived reactions of those
> > >who responded to discussions that involved statements deemed to be
> > >rude by the vast majority of those responding.
>
> > In that instance, the possiblity of a 'lynch-mob' mentality exists at
> > least
> > potentially.
>
> >Yes, but I wouldn't moderate such a forum where the 'lynch mob'
> >mentality was dominant. I would find another venue, as that is a
> >tactic I disagree with.
>
> I take it you aren't insinuating that a forum containing a 'lynch mob'
> mentality as a minority of the membership is any more acceptable?
I would prefer a venue with a zero-lynch mob mentality, where people
can make their own decisions.
They were presented with insults as substantiations. "You're a
dipshit, therefore, your path is invalid." Not in those words, but
more or less. I can't quote a deleted thread.
> > >Members of True Witches responded in a manner that indicated
> > >that they felt their paths were valid even if conflicting with the
> > >Original Poster's statements.
>
> > Essentially, they disagreed and the form of that disagreement lead to some
> > impositions of interpretations.
>
> >They disagreed that their paths were invalid, and were subsequently
> >insulted for said belief.
>
> So, insults were used in lieu of substantiations or, the contentions were
> formed in an insulting manner?
Both occurred, actually.
> > >Original Poster became insulting and aggressive, attempting to
> > >invalidate the paths and practices of others, using mocking statements.
>
> > While that is how the events were perceived by some/most of the parties
> > involved, the descriptors "insulting", "aggressive" and "mocking" indicate
> > interpretations of events which are currently under discussion.
>
> >Statements such as 'with that foolish mindset, you'll never achieve
> >enlightenment,'
>
> That particular form of goading is inherently derogatory and has been
> employed when trolling by both "ren" and 'sidiot' in other venues.
That wouldn't surprise me. I've seen two venues of such for ren, only
one for Evergreen.
> >'your stated beliefs are utter trash,'
>
> Without supportive substantiation, such an assertion is an empty one and as
> such, generally considered to be a mere 'flame'.
Aye.
> >'I'm certain that those beliefs are valid in your little fantasy world,'
> >and the
> >like are generally seen as aggressive insulting, and mocking.
>
> Taken in isolation from context, (and more especially if they were isolated
> in context), that the form of type of trolling is nominally intended to
> incite an emotional response. It happens on arw and other unmoderated
> forums with enough frequency that one either develops a 'thicker skin', an
> insight into their own emotional responses or, a cloistered thinner skin.
> It does not go unnoticed that moderated forums exist, at least partially, to
> avoid trolling and flaming as much as possible.
The reduction/elimination of such was indeed our aim.
> > > [...]
>
> > > > > ... all assumptions were made
> > > > >with as much informational input as possible, but still assumptions.
>
> > > > Given the nature of these assumptions, (i.e., insufficient data, as
> > > > indicated), isn't it possible that some the assumptions made did not
> > > > accurately reflect the situation?
>
> > > >I do not feel that that was the case, but, as with any assumption,
> > > >there is a margin of error.
>
> > > Agreed, assumptions inherent[ly] contain at least some margin for
> > > error, (to either a lesser or greater degree, depending upon the form
> > > of the assumptions).
>
> > >As always, the goal is a lesser margin of error.
>
> > Indeed, acheiving such a goal seems to rest upon the accuracy of the
> > process
> > used to reach it.
>
> >Which is why said process was made as accurate and impartial as
> >possible.
>
> Which is not to impute that such a process lacks inaccuracies or
> impartialies, (as with inherent errors involved in making assumptions or, in
> selective accepting attitudes).
Not at all. However, all perceived partialities and such were
eradicated.
They weren't a factor at the time. I had cigarettes and the weather
was fairer, leading to warmer house temperature. :)
> > > > [...]
>
> > > Are you absolutely sure that your own emotions did not color or
> > > sway any ambiguities involved in making a judgement call? If you are,
> > > how
> > > do you know and if you are not sure, (no attempt to instill doubt is
> > > being
> > > made; just examining the process), are you aware of the extent to which
> > > any
> > > such emotional basis may have affected the judgement call?
>
> > >I am absolutely sure that my own emotions were entirely set aside.
>
> > Yet, you previously specified that you found it necessary to feign
> > civility
> > during the course of events which lead up to the juncture of setting your
> > previous emotions aside. Those underlying emotional responses were
> > sucessfully surpressed?
>
> >Actually, via review of my postings, I wasn't the one who termed my
> >civility 'feigned'.
>
> True, you construed it as otherwise, however, during the course of that part
> of the discussion, you revealed suppressed emotions which were contrary to
> civility which then confirmed that such civility was feigned. I'd thought
> we previously established that and you had conceded it, no?
Had I? I felt that I had conveyed that I had a differing opinion on
the nature of what I had dune, inputting civility in the place of
incivility, following the more applicable archaic definition of 'to
invent/create' or whatever the applicable term was. I can't be assed
to look back, as my dialup connection is slow.
> >It was a phrasing that I locked on to and missed the source of.
>
> Both the archaic and modern meanings contained the definitive descriptor,
> "pretend", which conveyed the meaning of the phrase consensually.
Fair enough. In that case, I contend that it wasn't feigned, it was
manufactured.
> >I indicated feeling irritated by the offending party.
>
> Yes, those feelings were the basis of the feigning of civility in the
> initial instance of it.
a.k.a. manufacturing civility.
> >However, yes, I do believe that I successfully supressed any emotional
> >swaying that may have been present.
>
> That would be an internal assessment, difficult to substantiate externally
> given the outcome but, not necessarily invalid. I'll chose to take your word
> for that without feigning civility. ;>
I appreciate that.
> > >I have been noted for my ability to disconnect from situations that
> > >would normally incite emotion. To do this, I look at all parties as if
> > >I had never met them before, and examine only the information
> > >presented. It's much the same as analyzing a spreadsheet. Some of the
> > >values on the spreadsheet are variables, such as the personalities and
> > >emotions of those involved, but those can still be examined
> > >objectively.
>
> > While objectivity can be approached, (more closely in some instances than
> > in
> > others), there's an inherent amount of subjectivity involved nonetheless.
>
> >The same could be stated about your motives in this examination of a
> >process unrelated to you. What drives you in this?
>
> Everyone's views are colored by some degree of subjectivity as well as
> varying degrees of approach to objectivity. In this instance, you are
> making an assumption that the process under discussion is unrelated to me,
> which is not the case. While I was not involved in the particular incident
> being discussed, I had been involved in the process of moderation in other
> moderated forums prior to this discussion. A pattern of similarities
> emerged which prompted this examination in an unmoderated venue.
Fair enough.
> >It would seem that your questions have a goal of some sort...
>
> Indeed. One of my goals was to gain insights into the processes involved in
> order to gain a greater understanding of them.
Again, fair enough.
> >...whether it be simply to be the Devil's Advocate and argue the
> >opposing side ...
>
> If you've been following this debate thusfar, you've no doubt seen that,
> rather than primarily arguing as a Devil's Advocate, an attempt has been
> made to expandan understanding of the aspects of the processes involved. If
> you've not seen that during the course of these discussions, it may have
> been too subtle to detect.
Once a civil ground was reached, yes, the discussion has been
progressive. I have been quite pleased with that.
> >...or if there are some ideals that differ between us, and
> >thus are spurring this debate as a method of 'proving' said
> >ideals against their opposition.
>
> Ideals? There was only a demonstration of certain aspects of logic as they
> applied to the situation, however, if logic is an "ideal", this debate
> constitutes it's own 'proof'.
Perhaps I used the wrong word. In that case, the proper one escapes me
at the moment.
> > > >I ask opinions of others who are in positions of authority
> > > >over or alongside me, and I weigh all the input before making a
> > > >decision or suggestion.
>
> > > Would it be accurate to presume that any emotionally-based input is also
> > > weighed in such a process?
>
> > >Their emotions were weighed in the fact of how it colored their
> > >responses to my inquiries.
>
> > Then emotionally-based input was an aspect of the inquiries, (even if
> > there
> > was an attempt to limit the influence these emotions may have had upon
> > decisions made during the process).
>
> >In one case, it was. In another, it wasn't. The contrast between the
> >two was also taken into account.
>
> Emotionally-based opinions were contrasted and taken into account, how?
SInce these were people I knew well enough to respect their opinions,
I knew what their emotional norm was, how balanced they were as
individuals, how easy they were to spark, etc... and use their
reactions as a sort of scratchplate, to test the severity of the
infractions. Then, weighing out the different inputs against my own
thoughts on the matter, I came to a decision.
> > > > [...]
>
> >Wiccan Together does not have a 'quote' feature.
>
> I see. So, even though an individual poster's posted reply stands alone,
> there delete feature deletes the entire thread if the originating post is
> deleted?
The thread preaks into multiple 'minithreads', with each reply
threading out from the post that was replied to. Like breaking it down
to how many posts removed each reply was from the original post. It's
kind of hard for me to describe.
> >But, in the circumstance that existed here,
> >where the trimming of quoted text became a (possible) issue, were this
> >circumstance to exist hypothetically on Wiccan Together, and such a
> >claim were to be made, it would be examined for the possibility of
> >being for the purpose of misconstruing the context of another's words,
> >thus sowing confusion, and thus, drama.
>
> It is possible, even within the structure of wt, for someone replying to a
> post to quote thecontext which they are responding to within that post,
> correct?
The general method is to highlight the desired text, copy it, and
paste it with quotations or italics.
> > > > > [re: crossposting]:
>
> >Fair enough. I still don't have to like it, and I still think Ren is a
> >coward. Were I to get banned from a forum (this hasn't ever happened
> >yet), I might complain about it privately to my friends, but I would not
> >make a spectacle of it on a different forum.
>
> You state that this hasn't happened to you as yet and are estimating a
> probable response in advance.
Correct.
> > > > > [...]
>
> > > > >Like it or not, the world cannot be painted with a black
> > > > >and white brush.
>
> > > > That's a valid premise, however, neither is the default to disregard
> > > > reason applied to making judgement calls.
>
> > > >Never did I say that reason should be disregarded when making a
> > > >judgment call... on the contrary, I thought I had made it clear that
> > > >it mas my personal opinion that all possible data should be gathered,
> > > >reviewed, and interpreted before making a judgment call, so as to make
> > > >as correct/logical a judgment as possible.
>
> > > Yet, we've also discussed some of the nature of assumptions and an
> > > inherent
> > > margin of error involved in making judgement calls. True, we've merely
> > > touched upon the logical basis for them. Should we proceed more indepth
> > > into that basis?
>
> > >I think anything more in depth would be proceeding to the
> > >subatomic level.
>
> > Sometimes that's what's necessary when there is underlying ambiguity and
> > sometimes such a degree of insight into splitting can lose sight of the
> > hair.
>
> >Was it a hair or a hare we've been splitting" If it was a hair, I
> >think it's likely been sliced into powder.
>
> It's been like a barbershop at bootcamp around here at times but, at least
> some ambiguities have been shaved down to an almost phrenological level.
It's funny you should mention that. I've been considering shaving my
head recently. Too many split ends.
> >If it were a hare, well, doc, we have a nice country dinner ready
> >to be cooked here, because THAT bunny rabbit has been eviscerated.
>
> Maybe so but, I'd estimate that we'd still be spitting out bunny buckshot
> until the stew was done.
Mmm... lead... yum...
> > [...]
>
> > >The purpose of the AUP being left not entirely defined was to
> > >allow room for individuality within the ranges of acceptable behavior.
>
> > Would the members not have such freedom with or, without a vague AUP?
>
> >They would have freedom, yes, but then, people like Ren would be
> >free to troll and make as much trouble as they like. Just as if certain
> >laws in the United States were not in place, it would give people much
> >more freedom. However, it would also allow for many people to take
> >advantage of others, in potentially hazardous ways. The effect is
> >downplayed on an internet forum, but it is still present.
>
> They'd have some freedoms, within the constraints of interpreted AUPs, (just
> as laws are intended constrain but, these are not the same constraints to
> freedom of expression ... albeit, there is some general overlap).
Correct. As many as possible while still keeping the trolls at bay. In
order to keep up a defense, one must build walls. Or use a shield.
This is the difference between a fortified town and a militia
encampment. A fortified town keeps people within the walls, for their
defense (moderated forum), while the militia encampment expects each
man to fend for himself (unmoderated forum).
> > >To completely and utterly define everything makes for an environment
> > >similar to Victorian Society. We're looking for something a little
> > >closer to Hippy Society.
>
> > It would seem that nothing is ever completely defined, however, the
> > pursuit
> > of meaning would appear to lead to more knowledge and awareness. Not
> > pursuing it in regards to assumptions does not seem to be conducive to
> > those
> > goals.
>
> >It does appear that supreme and complete definition is not entirely a
> >feasibility. We are not, after all, machines that need every '0' and
> >'1' in it's proper place, else we malfunction.
>
> In that case, there remains room for ambiguity, interpretation, error and
> even potential insight due to those leeways.
Such is humanity, no?
> >Besides the '0' (negative) and '1' (positive) we as people also have '2',
> >'3',
> >'4', and even more. The values for these are shifting, and need to be
> >accommodated as best as possible. Thus the open ended interpretations.
>
> And thus, some of the advantages and disadvantages of moderated &
> unmoderated forums are debated in order to make such processes more
> transparent than they may have previously been.
Transparent, or evaporated?
s�r`ch�sm
> which is why some skate by or, even count on skating by).
> However, it remains at least hypothetically possible in this instance
> that a new user tested their limits.
>
>Perhaps. If this is the case, said user certainly found said limits, no?
>
Only if the discovery revealed as much about those limits as the limitations
of the user.
>
> > > [...]
>
>Actually, motive and opportunity WERE established in his case. He had
>the motive to delete the thread (he was shown to be quite insulting,
>with his posts being left up as evidence) and the opportunity to do so
>(he was one of six people who had the ability to do so, and was the
>only one with the motive).
>
Given prior discussion relevant to the situation, it would seem
circumstantial aspects of that situation lead to the judgment call being
made.
>
> > > [...]
>
> > Yet, the 'or else' remains a threat of censorship within the constraints
> > of ambiguous interpretation of the assumed basis for the 'threat'.
> > That is, if the content is not "offensive", (but is vaguely deemed to
> > be),
> > such an interpretation is 'enforced' by the 'or else'. Such a practice
> > tends
> > to support more of a "because-I-said-so" position than being justified
> > by
> > accurate context. Presumably, those holding the opposing points of view
> > contend that their interpretations are correct, (even if mutually
> > exclusive). While supported contentions will carry more weight than
> > unsupported ones, it is entirely possible that some interpretations are
> > based upon factors which are more vague than substantial supportive
> > reasoning. Such essentially unsupported premises may 'borrow' weight
> > from position rather than from substance. It is not being suggested that
> > this is what occurred in this particular instance, however, such a thing
> > has
> > occurred elsewhere often enough to make it a possibility within the same
> > general circumstances.
>
> >In light of that statement, would you call separating two fighting
> >children censorship? The children may be arguing simply for the sake
> >of arguing, but should they be allowed to continue?
>
> The form both the preceding warnings and the one-sided separation took can
> be considered to be censorious, (although not, manifestly, by the parties
> uncensored or the censor). As for arguing for the sake of arguing, I take
> it this was not a parallel example of the particular incident and was
> hypothetical?
It was a hypothetical situation comparison.
> In either instance, establishing that this assessment was
> accurate, (rather than an a priori assumption), would nominally precede
> solution options. If the assessment is inadequately substantiated, a
> 'cease-fire' warning to all involved parties would seem appropriate.
> If the assessment is sufficiently substantiated so as to preclude as much
> of any ambiguities present as is possible, then a decision should be
> rendered
> on that basis, (indeed, the censored entity may insist upon the former
> while
> the censoring entity may insist upon the latter, however, it remains
> incumbent upon the claimant to sufficiently substantiate their claim).
>
>Agreed.
>
Then essentially, a judgment call was made based upon circumstance, rather
than sufficiently substantiation which precluded the inherent ambiguities of
the situation. A best informed guess, as it were.
>
> > [...]
>
> To clarify; are you directly suggesting that this particular discussion
> would have resulted in moderated action applied to both of us, were it to
> have taken place on wt?
>
>If it had been allowed to continue for this long, it is quite possible.
>
Why?
>
>It all depends on how closely the moderators were watching.
>
Or, presumably, to the point where a hypothetical appeal to the moderators
was made?
>
> > > [...]
>
> >In cases where there is no agreement, that is when a moderator must
> >step in and make a judgment call.
>
> Indeed, that is one function of a moderator, however, it does not preclude
> errors in judgment in the process of making such a call, (especially
> within
> those instances containing ambiguities or, predispositions), and neither
> does it mean that the judgment call was necessarily in error. In [the]
> particular foregone instance, the point is moot but, may form an aspect of
> the basis for future judgment calls. Or, not.
>
>Well, every experience in life is a learning experience.
>
They can be, in theory.
>
>If one fails to assimilate and learn from ones experiences, then it
>is certainly that; a failing.
>
Depending upon what is learned, it may still not be a successful experience.
>
> >It help when a moderator is involved
> >in the forum, and has a good sense of the public opinions, and thus
> >can make properly informed decisions.
>
> This indicates an implication of a somewhat 'representational' position of
> the moderator of the presumed consensus. While that may or may not be so,
> new members to the moderated forum, (or, any who were not involved in the
> election process), are being tacitly 'represented' rather than explicitly.
> That situation also occurs outside of moderated, (and even unmoderated),
> forums. The tacit basis being that a participant is presumed to agree with
> interpretively-based moderation by posting to such a group. If they do not
> tacitly agree, they can either leave or, be banned for interpreted
> violations of intentionally-vague AUPs.
>
>They could also show an honest desire to not break the AUP, in which
>case, leniency is shown. As was the case with every other offender,
>before the one that DID get banned. And yes, honest desire is
>interpreted by the administration.
>
The interpretation of desire, (or, intent), can be tricky and often is.
>
> [...]
>
> > >Only when something falls definitely into the 'black,' as it were,
> > >does a moderator need to step in.
>
> > Yet, the determination of 'black' and 'white' is still not always
> > unambiguous. It would seem that moderators step in when the content is
> > ambiguous as well.
>
> >True. I stand corrected.
>
> Then in instances of ambiguities inherent in assumptions and
> circumstantial 'evidence', there may be reasonable doubt,
> (although in the particular instance under general discussion,
> some decision had to be made to at least resolve that incidence).
>
>Perhaps. I don't feel that this was the case in this situation.
>
It is understood that you do not feel that reasonable doubt persisted
despite instances of ambiguities inherent in assumptions and circumstantial
'evidence' and that some decision had to be made to at least resolve that
incidence.
> [...]
>
> If you were to speculate on the matter, why weren't these perceived
> provocations ignored on tw?
>
>My speculation would be that they were phrased in quite directly
>targeting manners, aimed at the group True Witches at large, and then
>down to the individuals within. After a while of ignoring the jabs,
>one tends to lose patience. Patience is required in good measure to
>ignore such directed jabs.
>
So, remarks perceived as provocations were initially ignored, prior to the
loss of patience?
>
> > [...]
>
> >Preconceived ambiguities can be defined at the point of necessity
> >into something useful and definite. Much like when I store silver
> >wire to be defined into saw cut silver rings that are useful for jewelry
> >and definite in shape. The base concept/form is still there. It just
> >needs
> >to be defined further.
>
> Preconceived ambiguities can also lead to errors in judgment. If the
> silver were to contain impurities of a nature and/or ratio of which the
> silversmith is unaware, (or had assumed were not present), certain
> problems could arise in the process of shaping and defining the resultant
> jewelry. Sometimes, such ambiguities are apparent during the forging
> process and other times, not until after the fact. The smith either
> observes
> any resultant imperfections in the finished piece or, they go unnoticed
> until
> such time as they may manifest in the quality of the piece.
>
>In this analogy, the imperfections or impurities would manifest
>themselves during the working of the wire, while defining it into
>rings for chainwork. (I am a chainsmith, hence the analogy). Finding
>them in the raw wire is difficult at best, impossible at worst.
>Generally, it is considered easier/more worth it to discover such
>impurities in the working of the wire, and either work around it, or
>discard the impure section.
>
Even though analogies often fail when pushed beyond their limitations, I'd
generally agree with the discovery-in-process portion related. However, it
can also be noted, (in general), that sometimes such 'imperfections' are
what separates craftsmanship and art from a merely technically-perfect
piece. The distinction may be subtle but, can be made regardless.
> > [...]
>
>
> >As has been stated before, the moderators are generally elected for
> >superior judgment in matters such as these.
>
> How is such "superior judgment" assessed, prior to election as
> moderators?
>
>In this case, I don't entirely know. Likely, the exhibition of what is
>deemed superior logic via participation in the forum discussions.
>
Interesting.
>
> >It is generally trusted that they will make just decisions based on the
> >common consensus of the approximate definitions of said terms.
>
> How is trust earned, prior to election or, post election, (in the view of
> new members not involved in those elections)?
>
>By fair and impartial actions.
>
Very subjective.
>
> > >If rude statements were found, then it would be
> > >requested of the offending party to keep it to polite discussion.
>
> > Yes, and if rude statements were found, even where no rude statements
> > existed, the same recommendation would no doubt be made.
>
> >And then the offending party would have the option to comply with the
> >public desires or find a new venue of discussion.
>
> This becomes a "you don't like it, leave or be banned" situation rather
> than one of inducing trust in superior judgment.
>
>Which is why one strives to not make such decisions in error.
>
True however, one can try and succeed or, try and fail.
>
>It is possible that it can happen, but, as comparison, does one
>completely outlaw hunting because of Cheney's hunting accident?
>(presuming it was an accident)
>
No but, it is an unlikely comparison since poor decision-making processes
themselves cannot be 'outlawed'.
>
> > [...]
>
> > >The goal is to not apply a designation of mudslinging outside of
> > >actual mudslinging. Much the way that it is the court's aim to not
> > >imprison or discipline innocent people.
>
> > Since such determinations can rest upon interpretations of an ambiguous
> > nature, (or circumstantial evidence, as with a court ruling which
> > results
> > in assigning guilt to an innocent party), the aim may not coincide with
> > the
> > result.
>
> >True. We can but try.
>
> That's essentially all we can do, (besides not trying at all), however,
> there is a spectrum of 'trying' ranging from minimal to above-and-beyond.
>
>I do my best, and I generally try to err on the side of caution. :) Of
>course, I try first and foremost not to err.
>
Of course. It is, however, not always possible to avoid unintentional
error.
>
> > [...]
>
> In that case, such interpretations may garner reasonable doubt,
> (alternatively, they may not), especially where predispositions are
> involved.
>
>Which is why predispositions are set aside as much as possible,
>if not entirely.
>
Is it possible to support such an assertion?
> [...]
>
>I perceive that reasonable doubt was present at the beginning, then
>diminished through the course of the investigation, leading me to a
>decision that I feel was correct.
>
Although the potentiality that some inherent ambiguities were sufficiently
reduced enough to diminish reasonable doubt, the decision was made and
things proceeded from that point.
>
> > [...]
>
> Would not a vague accusation of another creating drama constitute creating
> drama on the part of the accuser? If this was the case in the particular
> instance which occurred, was only one party admonished regarding drama or,
> more? If this was not the case, is it assumed that the accusation is not
> spurious?
>
>Generally, the accusation of causing drama doesn't occur. I haven't
>had to moderate such a situation yet.
>
Perhaps subsequent comments directly related to perceptions of drama from a
few members of tw/wt posting to arw were misinterpreted then, (cf., other
threads in which those members participated and archived on arw recently).
>
> > > [...]
>
> >I am saying that hopefully my comments would be reviewed by a
> >moderator with superior judgment, who would in turn make a just
> >judgment call.
>
> And if that judgment call deemed that some of your hypothetical comments
> were 'rude', you would accept that determination without question or
> disagreement? (even suppressed disagreement while complying with the
> AUPs?)
>
>I would disagree, and follow the set forth guidelines for an appeal
>(as stated at the bottom of the AUP). If that failed, and it bothered
>me enough, I'd relocate to a different venue. I wouldn't want to
>frequent a forum that I felt was unjust.
>
I wasn't previously aware of such guidelines for appeal. Can they be cut
and pasted here?
> [...]
>
> >Aye. I will note that we don't have an abundance of 'sidiots' or
> >(anymore) 'rens' on the board, who continue to post antagonizing posts
> >or disagree with others in a disrespectful or aggressive manner.
>
> While that does not preclude a reoccurrence of the event, nor future
> 'rens & sidiots', I will note that at least a few tw/wt members have come
> to arw to reveal such traits within themselves. ;>
>
>Fair enough. I will also admit to revealing such traits when I allowed
>my self control to slip. The fact that it was in retaliation to
>similar actions is no defense.
>
As to this slippage of self-control you mention; has such a thing occurred
before?
>
> > [...]
>
> >... there have been AUP violation in the past that have gone
> >undisciplined, due to the accepting attitude of the founder of the
> >site and the moderators.
>
> So, there are precedents for AUP violations going unmoderated, depending
> upon some vague "accepting attitude" which was not always applied?
>
>Basically, if someone screws up, but stays 'under the radar,' they can
>get away with it. However, if they make a spectacle of themselves,
>they are swiftly dealt with.
>
Supposedly then, such a situation perceived to be a "spectacle" would be
entirely independent upon cutting some slack to a known participant, (which
may not necessarily be extended to a largely unknown one - benefit of the
doubt-wise)?
>
>If the subtle matters are brought to the attention of the moderators,
>and they are first time offenders, it may be brushed off, it may not be,
>depending upon the infraction.
>
If it needed to be brought to the attention of moderators, (not due to any
lack of attention on their part), and was indeed subtle, then any assessment
would be much more of an interpretative matter than some more
straight-forward infraction.
> [...]
>
> > >In True Witches, if you were to get offended by one persons
> > >perceived stupidity, then, you would be asked to overlook
> > >said person and ignore their presence.
>
> > Would the same suggestion be given to another who perceived some other
> > offense?
>
> >Initially, yes.
>
> Is this what occurred in the particular instance under general discussion?
>
>In this case, it wasn't perceived stupidity, but perceived aggression
>and insults.
>
Yes, we're both aware of that. The example was a parallel one using
perceived stupidity as the basis for inquiring as to whether or not it was
suggested that others ignore other perceived offenses, (to which you
indicated that they initially would). Out of curiosity, I then asked
whether such a suggestion was made in the instance under discussion. This
question gets partially answered in your next reply.
>
>Likely. Those being offended would likely be asked to ignore said
>individual.
>
Okay, to reiterate; were the participants asked to ignore said individual in
this circumstance?
>
> >If it was just the blathering on of their idiocy, it would be recommended
> >again that they be ignored.
>
> So, the blatherer can continue blathering idiocy but, if that idiocy is
> challenged, would such challenges be admonished because it was not
> ignored?
>
>No, such challenges, as long as they remained civil, would be
>acceptable (but likely deemed futile).
>
Why would they be deemed as futile in a moderated venue where such a
challenge could be referred to a moderator who may, (or may not), decide to
back it up with moderation?
>
> > [...]
>
>I would prefer a venue with a zero-lynch mob mentality, where people
>can make their own decisions.
>
That would be preferable to a venue where such a mentality is hypothetically
enabled, (or potentially induced), by the very existence of the moderation
process. That is, it remains possible to 'manipulate' moderation's
strictures in such a way as to use them as 'weapons'. It is not being
suggested that this has occurred in this particular instance, only that such
a thing has occurred on other moderated venues.
>
> > > [...]
>
> > >Discussion regarding the validity of the paths of the members of True
> > >Witches ensued in a moderated venue.
>
> > Was that what this was all about, questioning validity?
>
> >More attempting to impress invalidity.
>
> Were such impressions expressed with or without providing substantiating
> premises?
>
>They were presented with insults as substantiations. "You're a
>dipshit, therefore, your path is invalid." Not in those words, but
>more or less. I can't quote a deleted thread.
>
Within the realization that the example was not a direct quote, it is still
asked whether or not an interpretation, (or subsequent impression), of what
was actually said is being presented here. I.e., roughly those words or,
words containing direct derogatory remarks like "dipshit"?
>
> > >Members of True Witches responded in a manner that indicated
> > >that they felt their paths were valid even if conflicting with the
> > >Original Poster's statements.
>
> > Essentially, they disagreed and the form of that disagreement lead to
> > some
> > impositions of interpretations.
>
> >They disagreed that their paths were invalid, and were subsequently
> >insulted for said belief.
>
> So, insults were used in lieu of substantiations or, the contentions were
> formed in an insulting manner?
>
>Both occurred, actually.
>
I see. And what form of disagreement did the responses take?
>
> > >Original Poster became insulting and aggressive, attempting to
> > >invalidate the paths and practices of others, using mocking statements.
>
> > While that is how the events were perceived by some/most of the parties
> > involved, the descriptors "insulting", "aggressive" and "mocking"
> > indicate
> > interpretations of events which are currently under discussion.
>
> >Statements such as 'with that foolish mindset, you'll never achieve
> >enlightenment,'
>
> That particular form of goading is inherently derogatory and has been
> employed when trolling by both "ren" and 'sidiot' in other venues.
>
>That wouldn't surprise me. I've seen two venues of such for ren, only
>one for Evergreen.
>
Both may post on more than one or two forums. Generally, "ren" tends to
post as "ren", (possibly not always). The poster "evergreen", however,
masks much of his posting history under other 'nyms so as to troll other
venues under such 'cover'.
> [...]
>
> It does not go unnoticed that moderated forums exist, at least partially,
> to avoid trolling and flaming as much as possible.
>
>The reduction/elimination of such was indeed our aim.
>
Understood. The point at this juncture was that, what's sometimes perceived
as 'trolling', isn't always a trolling, (and conversely, on rarer occasions,
the trolling is sufficient subtle that it can be perceived as
indistinguishable from not-trolling).
>
> > [...]
>
> >Which is why said process was made as accurate and impartial as
> >possible.
>
> Which is not to impute that such a process lacks inaccuracies or
> impartialies, (as with inherent errors involved in making assumptions
> or, in selective accepting attitudes).
>
>Not at all. However, all perceived partialities and such were
>eradicated.
>
I'm sure you'll understand a certain contention regarding such an
unsupported assertion without taking offense. It is, after all, a stated
claim.
>
> > > [...]
>
> >One can blame my earlier vehemence on a lack of cigarettes
> >(going on three weeks without) and a bloody cold house (no
> >insulation... hence the coming move).
>
> However, you isolated and restricted the influence of those factors in
> regards to moderation decisions made during that timeframe, correct?
>
>They weren't a factor at the time. I had cigarettes and the weather
>was fairer, leading to warmer house temperature. :)
>
My error of assumption then, for which I apologize. I had inferred that the
three week timeframe referred to contained the timeframe of the event being
discussed. This event actually occurred prior to the beginning of December
then?
>
> > > [...]
>
> >Actually, via review of my postings, I wasn't the one who termed my
> >civility 'feigned'.
>
> True, you construed it as otherwise, however, during the course of
> that part of the discussion, you revealed suppressed emotions which
> were contrary to civility which then confirmed that such civility was
> feigned. I'd thought we previously established that and you had
> conceded it, no?
>
>Had I? I felt that I had conveyed that I had a differing opinion on
>the nature of what I had dune, inputting civility in the place of
>incivility, following the more applicable archaic definition of 'to
>invent/create' or whatever the applicable term was. I can't be assed
>to look back, as my dialup connection is slow.
>
Indeed, you later mentioned application of an archaic definition, (which
included the terms "invent, create" and "pretend". None of those terms
negate the meaning of "feign" so, it was deduced that you had acceded to the
essential meaning and 'created', 'invented', 'pretended' civility. In any
case, a degree of, (possibly unintentional), bias was revealed which may
have influenced the process beyond maintaining impartiality.
>
> >It was a phrasing that I locked on to and missed the source of.
>
> Both the archaic and modern meanings contained the definitive descriptor,
> "pretend", which conveyed the meaning of the phrase consensually.
>
>Fair enough. In that case, I contend that it wasn't feigned, it was
>manufactured.
>
In this context, a 'manufactured civility' conveys the same meaning as
'created', 'invented', 'pretended' or, 'feigned' civility since it is not
equivalent to an unmanufactured civility. The contention supports my
assertion, rather than yours. Be that as it may, there
>
> >I indicated feeling irritated by the offending party.
>
> Yes, those feelings were the basis of the feigning of civility in the
> initial instance of it.
>
>a.k.a. manufacturing civility.
>
What's the contended difference?
>
> >However, yes, I do believe that I successfully supressed any emotional
> >swaying that may have been present.
>
> That would be an internal assessment, difficult to substantiate externally
> given the outcome but, not necessarily invalid. I'll chose to take your
> word for that without feigning civility. ;>
>
>I appreciate that.
>
No problem, however, it may require manufacturing at a later time, depending
upon replies. ;>
>
> > >I have been noted for my ability to disconnect from situations that
> > >would normally incite emotion. To do this, I look at all parties as if
> > >I had never met them before, and examine only the information
> > >presented. It's much the same as analyzing a spreadsheet. Some of the
> > >values on the spreadsheet are variables, such as the personalities and
> > >emotions of those involved, but those can still be examined
> > >objectively.
>
> > While objectivity can be approached, (more closely in some instances
> > than in others), there's an inherent amount of subjectivity involved
> > nonetheless.
>
> >The same could be stated about your motives in this examination of a
> >process unrelated to you. What drives you in this?
>
> Everyone's views are colored by some degree of subjectivity as well as
> varying degrees of approach to objectivity. In this instance, you are
> making an assumption that the process under discussion is unrelated to me,
> which is not the case. While I was not involved in the particular incident
> being discussed, I had been involved in the process of moderation in other
> moderated forums prior to this discussion. A pattern of similarities
> emerged which prompted this examination in an unmoderated venue.
>
>Fair enough.
>
You may want to consider extrapolating such a tentative agreement to a prior
situation or, not.
> [...]
>
>Once a civil ground was reached, yes, the discussion has been
>progressive. I have been quite pleased with that.
>
Yes, there has been considerable progression.
>
> >...or if there are some ideals that differ between us, and
> >thus are spurring this debate as a method of 'proving' said
> >ideals against their opposition.
>
> Ideals? There was only a demonstration of certain aspects of logic as they
> applied to the situation, however, if logic is an "ideal", this debate
> constitutes it's own 'proof'.
>
>Perhaps I used the wrong word. In that case, the proper one escapes me
>at the moment.
>
Differing perspectives?
> [...]
>
> Emotionally-based opinions were contrasted and taken into account, how?
>
>SInce these were people I knew well enough to respect their opinions,
>I knew what their emotional norm was, how balanced they were as
>individuals, how easy they were to spark, etc... and use their
>reactions as a sort of scratchplate, to test the severity of the
>infractions. Then, weighing out the different inputs against my own
>thoughts on the matter, I came to a decision.
>
This is all very subjective in nature and processing, however, the same
process could not be applied to "ren" since he was not known as well as
others are contended to be?
>
> > > [...]
>
> >Wiccan Together does not have a 'quote' feature.
>
> It is possible, even within the structure of wt, for someone replying to a
> post to quote the context which they are responding to within that post,
> correct?
>
>The general method is to highlight the desired text, copy it, and
>paste it with quotations or italics.
>
Alright, so it is at least technically possible to quote the context which
is being responded to in a separate post from the quoted one and use that
response as the basis for a new thread, or not?
>
> > [re: crossposting]:
>
> >Fair enough. I still don't have to like it, and I still think Ren is a
> >coward. Were I to get banned from a forum (this hasn't ever happened
> >yet), I might complain about it privately to my friends, but I would not
> >make a spectacle of it on a different forum.
>
> You state that this hasn't happened to you as yet and are estimating a
> probable response in advance.
>
>Correct.
>
In that case, the actual response may, (or may not), vary once such
artillery were incoming.
>
> > [...]
>
> > Sometimes that's what's necessary when there is underlying ambiguity and
> > sometimes such a degree of insight into splitting can lose sight of the
> > hair.
>
> >Was it a hair or a hare we've been splitting" If it was a hair, I
> >think it's likely been sliced into powder.
>
> It's been like a barbershop at bootcamp around here at times but, at least
> some ambiguities have been shaved down to an almost phrenological level.
>
>It's funny you should mention that. I've been considering shaving my
>head recently. Too many split ends.
>
Funny or, coincidental?
>
> >If it were a hare, well, doc, we have a nice country dinner ready
> >to be cooked here, because THAT bunny rabbit has been eviscerated.
>
> Maybe so but, I'd estimate that we'd still be spitting out bunny buckshot
> until the stew was done.
>
>Mmm... lead... yum...
>
Did I say done? I may have actually meant, overcooked. ;>
>
> > [...]
>
>In order to keep up a defense, one must build walls. Or use a shield.
>This is the difference between a fortified town and a militia
>encampment. A fortified town keeps people within the walls, for their
>defense (moderated forum), while the militia encampment expects each
>man to fend for himself (unmoderated forum).
>
Upon reflection, I decided not to pick apart the analogy offered, (although
an interesting one relating to tactics and strategies). Maybe another
conversation.
> [...]
>
> >It does appear that supreme and complete definition is not entirely a
> >feasibility. We are not, after all, machines that need every '0' and
> >'1' in it's proper place, else we malfunction.
>
> In that case, there remains room for ambiguity, interpretation, error and
> even potential insight due to those leeways.
Such is humanity, no?
> >Besides the '0' (negative) and '1' (positive) we as people also have '2',
> >'3',
> >'4', and even more. The values for these are shifting, and need to be
> >accommodated as best as possible. Thus the open ended interpretations.
>
> And thus, some of the advantages and disadvantages of moderated &
> unmoderated forums are debated in order to make such processes more
> transparent than they may have previously been.
>
>Transparent, or evaporated?
>
It must indicate transparency more than evaporation since debating such
processes takes nothing from them and may instead, add insights into them.
Beorc Kano
> "Beorc Kano" <brandoncornw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "s r`ch sm" <s r`ch s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, there often are consequences to foolish behavior, (not always,
> > which is why some skate by or, even count on skating by).
> > However, it remains at least hypothetically possible in this instance
> > that the AUP(s) were sufficiently vague, (open to interpretive leeway),
> > that a new user tested their limits.
>
> >Perhaps. If this is the case, said user certainly found said limits, no?
>
> Only if the discovery revealed as much about those limits as the limitations
> of the user.
I think it has, and not in a bad way.
> > > > [...]
>
> >Actually, motive and opportunity WERE established in his case. He had
> >the motive to delete the thread (he was shown to be quite insulting,
> >with his posts being left up as evidence) and the opportunity to do so
> >(he was one of six people who had the ability to do so, and was the
> >only one with the motive).
>
> Given prior discussion relevant to the situation, it would seem
> circumstantial aspects of that situation lead to the judgment call being
> made.
True. However, given prior discussion, it would seem that
circumstantial evidence was the only source available.
The word guess I think detracts from the process a bit, but no other
word as accurately describes the situation. I'd like to call it a
deduction, but I'm not sure that word is entirely accurate either.
I'll concede this point.
> > > [...]
>
> > To clarify; are you directly suggesting that this particular discussion
> > would have resulted in moderated action applied to both of us, were it to
> > have taken place on wt?
>
> >If it had been allowed to continue for this long, it is quite possible.
>
> Why?
Because of the point where we both devolved to petty insults and
personal strikes that would have been interpreted (at least by myself
and more than likely other moderators that I know) as rude and
irrelevant to the topic. Not to say that off-topic posts are against
the AUP, but they do tend to detract from the discussion in a negative
way.
> >It all depends on how closely the moderators were watching.
>
> Or, presumably, to the point where a hypothetical appeal to the moderators
> was made?
Presumably, yes.
> [snip section where sufficient agreement was reached]
> >If one fails to assimilate and learn from ones experiences, then it
> >is certainly that; a failing.
>
> Depending upon what is learned, it may still not be a successful experience.
Such is one of the hazards of life.
> > >It help when a moderator is involved
> > >in the forum, and has a good sense of the public opinions, and thus
> > >can make properly informed decisions.
>
> > This indicates an implication of a somewhat 'representational' position of
> > the moderator of the presumed consensus. While that may or may not be so,
> > new members to the moderated forum, (or, any who were not involved in the
> > election process), are being tacitly 'represented' rather than explicitly.
> > That situation also occurs outside of moderated, (and even unmoderated),
> > forums. The tacit basis being that a participant is presumed to agree with
> > interpretively-based moderation by posting to such a group. If they do not
> > tacitly agree, they can either leave or, be banned for interpreted
> > violations of intentionally-vague AUPs.
>
> >They could also show an honest desire to not break the AUP, in which
> >case, leniency is shown. As was the case with every other offender,
> >before the one that DID get banned. And yes, honest desire is
> >interpreted by the administration.
>
> The interpretation of desire, (or, intent), can be tricky and often is.
True. Many moderational decisions are based on interpretation.
> [snip portion where understanding was reached]
> > [...]
>
> > If you were to speculate on the matter, why weren't these perceived
> > provocations ignored on tw?
>
> >My speculation would be that they were phrased in quite directly
> >targeting manners, aimed at the group True Witches at large, and then
> >down to the individuals within. After a while of ignoring the jabs,
> >one tends to lose patience. Patience is required in good measure to
> >ignore such directed jabs.
>
> So, remarks perceived as provocations were initially ignored, prior to the
> loss of patience?
Ignored isn't precisely the correct word. Tolerated works better.
Agreed. I would like to consider myself a craftsman in the arena of my
chainwork. I suppose that distinction would be up to those who would
be purchasing/reviewing my work. The same applies to the quality of my
performance as a moderator.
> > > [...]
>
> > >As has been stated before, the moderators are generally elected for
> > >superior judgment in matters such as these.
>
> > How is such "superior judgment" assessed, prior to election as
> > moderators?
>
> >In this case, I don't entirely know. Likely, the exhibition of what is
> >deemed superior logic via participation in the forum discussions.
>
> Interesting.
Perhaps. If you wish to review the reasons/replies given prior to my
appointment as Moderator, I posted the link to the thread in which I
was elected, I believe, earlier in this thread. If not in this thread,
then in one of the others. I'll repost it here for examination.
http://www.wiccantogether.com/group/truewitches/forum/topics/1070680:Topic:1483069
> > >It is generally trusted that they will make just decisions based on the
> > >common consensus of the approximate definitions of said terms.
>
> > How is trust earned, prior to election or, post election, (in the view of
> > new members not involved in those elections)?
>
> >By fair and impartial actions.
>
> Very subjective.
Many things are, it would appear.
> > > >If rude statements were found, then it would be
> > > >requested of the offending party to keep it to polite discussion.
>
> > > Yes, and if rude statements were found, even where no rude statements
> > > existed, the same recommendation would no doubt be made.
>
> > >And then the offending party would have the option to comply with the
> > >public desires or find a new venue of discussion.
>
> > This becomes a "you don't like it, leave or be banned" situation rather
> > than one of inducing trust in superior judgment.
>
> >Which is why one strives to not make such decisions in error.
>
> True however, one can try and succeed or, try and fail.
Agreed. That statement can be applied to any effort put forth by
humanity.
> >It is possible that it can happen, but, as comparison, does one
> >completely outlaw hunting because of Cheney's hunting accident?
> >(presuming it was an accident)
>
> No but, it is an unlikely comparison since poor decision-making processes
> themselves cannot be 'outlawed'.
Fair enough. As has been stated, analogies can only be applicable to a
certain point. My main point on that one was thus; does one damn the
process for one failing? Not to say that I feel there was a failing in
the process under examination (beyond the ones by the user who got
banned).
> > > [...]
>
> > > >The goal is to not apply a designation of mudslinging outside of
> > > >actual mudslinging. Much the way that it is the court's aim to not
> > > >imprison or discipline innocent people.
>
> > > Since such determinations can rest upon interpretations of an ambiguous
> > > nature, (or circumstantial evidence, as with a court ruling which
> > > results
> > > in assigning guilt to an innocent party), the aim may not coincide with
> > > the
> > > result.
>
> > >True. We can but try.
>
> > That's essentially all we can do, (besides not trying at all), however,
> > there is a spectrum of 'trying' ranging from minimal to above-and-beyond.
>
> >I do my best, and I generally try to err on the side of caution. :) Of
> >course, I try first and foremost not to err.
>
> Of course. It is, however, not always possible to avoid unintentional
> error.
True. I suppose it boils down to what one would interpret as error in
this situation, no?
> > > [...]
>
> > In that case, such interpretations may garner reasonable doubt,
> > (alternatively, they may not), especially where predispositions are
> > involved.
>
> >Which is why predispositions are set aside as much as possible,
> >if not entirely.
>
> Is it possible to support such an assertion?
Unless you are psychic, and can read my mind to examine my prior
thoughts, I doubt that it is.
> > [...]
>
> >I perceive that reasonable doubt was present at the beginning, then
> >diminished through the course of the investigation, leading me to a
> >decision that I feel was correct.
>
> Although the potentiality that some inherent ambiguities were sufficiently
> reduced enough to diminish reasonable doubt, the decision was made and
> things proceeded from that point.
Aye.
> > > [...]
>
> > Would not a vague accusation of another creating drama constitute creating
> > drama on the part of the accuser? If this was the case in the particular
> > instance which occurred, was only one party admonished regarding drama or,
> > more? If this was not the case, is it assumed that the accusation is not
> > spurious?
>
> >Generally, the accusation of causing drama doesn't occur. I haven't
> >had to moderate such a situation yet.
>
> Perhaps subsequent comments directly related to perceptions of drama from a
> few members of tw/wt posting to arw were misinterpreted then, (cf., other
> threads in which those members participated and archived on arw recently).
Perhaps.
> > > > [...]
>
> > >I am saying that hopefully my comments would be reviewed by a
> > >moderator with superior judgment, who would in turn make a just
> > >judgment call.
>
> > And if that judgment call deemed that some of your hypothetical comments
> > were 'rude', you would accept that determination without question or
> > disagreement? (even suppressed disagreement while complying with the
> > AUPs?)
>
> >I would disagree, and follow the set forth guidelines for an appeal
> >(as stated at the bottom of the AUP). If that failed, and it bothered
> >me enough, I'd relocate to a different venue. I wouldn't want to
> >frequent a forum that I felt was unjust.
>
> I wasn't previously aware of such guidelines for appeal. Can they be cut
> and pasted here?
Yes, in fact, they can.
"4) Complaints can be submitted to the administrators of the group via
Private Message or Instant Messenger. Administrative decisions can be
put up for review by submitting your appeal to an administrator. All
appeals, complaints, and requests will be processed in the order
received.
Administrators can be contacted by sending them a private message on
this site, or as follows;
Beorc Kano (Brandon Cornwell)
(contact information here)"
> > [...]
>
> > >Aye. I will note that we don't have an abundance of 'sidiots' or
> > >(anymore) 'rens' on the board, who continue to post antagonizing posts
> > >or disagree with others in a disrespectful or aggressive manner.
>
> > While that does not preclude a reoccurrence of the event, nor future
> > 'rens & sidiots', I will note that at least a few tw/wt members have come
> > to arw to reveal such traits within themselves. ;>
>
> >Fair enough. I will also admit to revealing such traits when I allowed
> >my self control to slip. The fact that it was in retaliation to
> >similar actions is no defense.
>
> As to this slippage of self-control you mention; has such a thing occurred
> before?
Not recently, and not during any position of authority I have held. I
was the supervisor of a second shift crew for a period, and my
judgment and self control was praised by my employers for that period.
Even when I was forced to fire someone for sexual harassment, and my
actions were reviewed at the request of the fired party, I was found
to not be at fault, and my actions were commended, i.e. I didn't beat
the everloving ratshit out of the kid who was describing potential
anal sex with a female coworker after the hypothetical event of her
ingesting a large amount of shattered safety glass, nor did I use
abusive or disrespectful language. My conduct was seen as professional
and proper.
> > > [...]
>
> > >... there have been AUP violation in the past that have gone
> > >undisciplined, due to the accepting attitude of the founder of the
> > >site and the moderators.
>
> > So, there are precedents for AUP violations going unmoderated, depending
> > upon some vague "accepting attitude" which was not always applied?
>
> >Basically, if someone screws up, but stays 'under the radar,' they can
> >get away with it. However, if they make a spectacle of themselves,
> >they are swiftly dealt with.
>
> Supposedly then, such a situation perceived to be a "spectacle" would be
> entirely independent upon cutting some slack to a known participant, (which
> may not necessarily be extended to a largely unknown one - benefit of the
> doubt-wise)?
No, a spectacle would be defined dependent upon the actions of the
offending party, such as a thread that was being promoted (by the
offending party or the offending party's associates) that violated one
or more AUP statutes. Also, it is all dependent upon the severity of
the violations. It can be compared to someone driving at 70 MPH on a
65 MPH speed limit highway, as opposed to doing 70 MPH in a 20 MPH
school zone.
> >If the subtle matters are brought to the attention of the moderators,
> >and they are first time offenders, it may be brushed off, it may not be,
> >depending upon the infraction.
>
> If it needed to be brought to the attention of moderators, (not due to any
> lack of attention on their part), and was indeed subtle, then any assessment
> would be much more of an interpretative matter than some more
> straight-forward infraction.
True.
> > [...]
>
> > > >In True Witches, if you were to get offended by one persons
> > > >perceived stupidity, then, you would be asked to overlook
> > > >said person and ignore their presence.
>
> > > Would the same suggestion be given to another who perceived some other
> > > offense?
>
> > >Initially, yes.
>
> > Is this what occurred in the particular instance under general discussion?
>
> >In this case, it wasn't perceived stupidity, but perceived aggression
> >and insults.
>
> Yes, we're both aware of that. The example was a parallel one using
> perceived stupidity as the basis for inquiring as to whether or not it was
> suggested that others ignore other perceived offenses, (to which you
> indicated that they initially would). Out of curiosity, I then asked
> whether such a suggestion was made in the instance under discussion. This
> question gets partially answered in your next reply.
> >Likely. Those being offended would likely be asked to ignore said
> >individual.
>
> Okay, to reiterate; were the participants asked to ignore said individual in
> this circumstance?
It was suggested that differences in path and opinion be set aside by
all parties.
> > >If it was just the blathering on of their idiocy, it would be recommended
> > >again that they be ignored.
>
> > So, the blatherer can continue blathering idiocy but, if that idiocy is
> > challenged, would such challenges be admonished because it was not
> > ignored?
>
> >No, such challenges, as long as they remained civil, would be
> >acceptable (but likely deemed futile).
>
> Why would they be deemed as futile in a moderated venue where such a
> challenge could be referred to a moderator who may, (or may not), decide to
> back it up with moderation?
The futility is applicable to the aims of the posts of the challenging
parties to successfully argue the points under contention, not so much
any aims of getting a moderator involved.
> > > [...]
>
> >I would prefer a venue with a zero-lynch mob mentality, where people
> >can make their own decisions.
>
> That would be preferable to a venue where such a mentality is hypothetically
> enabled, (or potentially induced), by the very existence of the moderation
> process. That is, it remains possible to 'manipulate' moderation's
> strictures in such a way as to use them as 'weapons'. It is not being
> suggested that this has occurred in this particular instance, only that such
> a thing has occurred on other moderated venues.
Manipulation is an unfortunate aspect to much of human social
existence. One can only seek to minimize the manipulation one is
subjected to, especially when one is in a position of authority. I
feel that I made a decision that was devoid of outside manipulation.
> > > > [...]
>
> > > >Discussion regarding the validity of the paths of the members of True
> > > >Witches ensued in a moderated venue.
>
> > > Was that what this was all about, questioning validity?
>
> > >More attempting to impress invalidity.
>
> > Were such impressions expressed with or without providing substantiating
> > premises?
>
> >They were presented with insults as substantiations. "You're a
> >dipshit, therefore, your path is invalid." Not in those words, but
> >more or less. I can't quote a deleted thread.
>
> Within the realization that the example was not a direct quote, it is still
> asked whether or not an interpretation, (or subsequent impression), of what
> was actually said is being presented here. I.e., roughly those words or,
> words containing direct derogatory remarks like "dipshit"?
The posts contained direct derogatory remarks.
> > > >Members of True Witches responded in a manner that indicated
> > > >that they felt their paths were valid even if conflicting with the
> > > >Original Poster's statements.
>
> > > Essentially, they disagreed and the form of that disagreement lead to
> > > some
> > > impositions of interpretations.
>
> > >They disagreed that their paths were invalid, and were subsequently
> > >insulted for said belief.
>
> > So, insults were used in lieu of substantiations or, the contentions were
> > formed in an insulting manner?
>
> >Both occurred, actually.
>
> I see. And what form of disagreement did the responses take?
The responses took the form of those under fire contending the
offending party's right to attempt to invalidate their chosen paths
and methods.
> > > >Original Poster became insulting and aggressive, attempting to
> > > >invalidate the paths and practices of others, using mocking statements.
>
> > > While that is how the events were perceived by some/most of the parties
> > > involved, the descriptors "insulting", "aggressive" and "mocking"
> > > indicate
> > > interpretations of events which are currently under discussion.
>
> > >Statements such as 'with that foolish mindset, you'll never achieve
> > >enlightenment,'
>
> > That particular form of goading is inherently derogatory and has been
> > employed when trolling by both "ren" and 'sidiot' in other venues.
>
> >That wouldn't surprise me. I've seen two venues of such for ren, only
> >one for Evergreen.
>
> Both may post on more than one or two forums. Generally, "ren" tends to
> post as "ren", (possibly not always). The poster "evergreen", however,
> masks much of his posting history under other 'nyms so as to troll other
> venues under such 'cover'.
Likely. I don't have any such direct knowledge or experience with them
on venues other than the ones stated myself.
> > [...]
>
> > It does not go unnoticed that moderated forums exist, at least partially,
> > to avoid trolling and flaming as much as possible.
>
> >The reduction/elimination of such was indeed our aim.
>
> Understood. The point at this juncture was that, what's sometimes perceived
> as 'trolling', isn't always a trolling, (and conversely, on rarer occasions,
> the trolling is sufficient subtle that it can be perceived as
> indistinguishable from not-trolling).
I agree that that is the case, but I do not feel that it was in this
case. The posts were far too blatant.
> > > [...]
>
> > >Which is why said process was made as accurate and impartial as
> > >possible.
>
> > Which is not to impute that such a process lacks inaccuracies or
> > impartialies, (as with inherent errors involved in making assumptions
> > or, in selective accepting attitudes).
>
> >Not at all. However, all perceived partialities and such were
> >eradicated.
>
> I'm sure you'll understand a certain contention regarding such an
> unsupported assertion without taking offense. It is, after all, a stated
> claim.
Agreed. It is a personal assertion with no possible substantiation
outside of you taking my word or reading my mind.
> > > > [...]
>
> > >One can blame my earlier vehemence on a lack of cigarettes
> > >(going on three weeks without) and a bloody cold house (no
> > >insulation... hence the coming move).
>
> > However, you isolated and restricted the influence of those factors in
> > regards to moderation decisions made during that timeframe, correct?
>
> >They weren't a factor at the time. I had cigarettes and the weather
> >was fairer, leading to warmer house temperature. :)
>
> My error of assumption then, for which I apologize. I had inferred that the
> three week timeframe referred to contained the timeframe of the event being
> discussed. This event actually occurred prior to the beginning of December
> then?
No, it was close to the fifteenth. I likely overestimated the
timeframe. It felt like longer, which I am certain that others who
smoke would sympathize with. A week and a half, then. Going on two
weeks. I have cigarettes now, so all is well in the world.
*puffpuff* :P
> > > > [...]
>
> > >Actually, via review of my postings, I wasn't the one who termed my
> > >civility 'feigned'.
>
> > True, you construed it as otherwise, however, during the course of
> > that part of the discussion, you revealed suppressed emotions which
> > were contrary to civility which then confirmed that such civility was
> > feigned. I'd thought we previously established that and you had
> > conceded it, no?
>
> >Had I? I felt that I had conveyed that I had a differing opinion on
> >the nature of what I had dune, inputting civility in the place of
> >incivility, following the more applicable archaic definition of 'to
> >invent/create' or whatever the applicable term was. I can't be assed
> >to look back, as my dialup connection is slow.
>
> Indeed, you later mentioned application of an archaic definition, (which
> included the terms "invent, create" and "pretend". None of those terms
> negate the meaning of "feign" so, it was deduced that you had acceded to the
> essential meaning and 'created', 'invented', 'pretended' civility. In any
> case, a degree of, (possibly unintentional), bias was revealed which may
> have influenced the process beyond maintaining impartiality.
Much (if not all) of the bias was induced after the decision for
moderated action was made, and was based on the reactions of the
offending party.
> > >It was a phrasing that I locked on to and missed the source of.
>
> > Both the archaic and modern meanings contained the definitive descriptor,
> > "pretend", which conveyed the meaning of the phrase consensually.
>
> >Fair enough. In that case, I contend that it wasn't feigned, it was
> >manufactured.
>
> In this context, a 'manufactured civility' conveys the same meaning as
> 'created', 'invented', 'pretended' or, 'feigned' civility since it is not
> equivalent to an unmanufactured civility. The contention supports my
> assertion, rather than yours. Be that as it may, there
Was some of your post here lost? In any case, what I see here is that
there is a difference in interpretation of my actions between you and
I. That fits nicely with your statements that most things are open to
personal interpretation, where one can see offense in places where
others do not (faked civility as opposed to created civility). Using
an example from earlier in this thread, we'll apply said concepts to
an orgasm. A faked orgasm didn't really occur, and thus was 'fake'.
However, certain other people know how to create an orgasm where one
wasn't otherwise coming (no pun intended), and thus, an orgasm occurs,
which is not fake. The orgasm (or in this case, civility) was really
there.
> > >I indicated feeling irritated by the offending party.
>
> > Yes, those feelings were the basis of the feigning of civility in the
> > initial instance of it.
>
> >a.k.a. manufacturing civility.
>
> What's the contended difference?
This question is answered in detail above.
> > >However, yes, I do believe that I successfully supressed any emotional
> > >swaying that may have been present.
>
> > That would be an internal assessment, difficult to substantiate externally
> > given the outcome but, not necessarily invalid. I'll chose to take your
> > word for that without feigning civility. ;>
>
> >I appreciate that.
>
> No problem, however, it may require manufacturing at a later time, depending
> upon replies. ;>
Lets hope that that is not the case. I'll do my best not to spur any
such feigning.
> > > >I have been noted for my ability to disconnect from situations that
> > > >would normally incite emotion. To do this, I look at all parties as if
> > > >I had never met them before, and examine only the information
> > > >presented. It's much the same as analyzing a spreadsheet. Some of the
> > > >values on the spreadsheet are variables, such as the personalities and
> > > >emotions of those involved, but those can still be examined
> > > >objectively.
>
> > > While objectivity can be approached, (more closely in some instances
> > > than in others), there's an inherent amount of subjectivity involved
> > > nonetheless.
>
> > >The same could be stated about your motives in this examination of a
> > >process unrelated to you. What drives you in this?
>
> > Everyone's views are colored by some degree of subjectivity as well as
> > varying degrees of approach to objectivity. In this instance, you are
> > making an assumption that the process under discussion is unrelated to me,
> > which is not the case. While I was not involved in the particular incident
> > being discussed, I had been involved in the process of moderation in other
> > moderated forums prior to this discussion. A pattern of similarities
> > emerged which prompted this examination in an unmoderated venue.
>
> >Fair enough.
>
> You may want to consider extrapolating such a tentative agreement to a prior
> situation or, not.
Perhaps.
> [snip for topic completion]
> > >...or if there are some ideals that differ between us, and
> > >thus are spurring this debate as a method of 'proving' said
> > >ideals against their opposition.
>
> > Ideals? There was only a demonstration of certain aspects of logic as they
> > applied to the situation, however, if logic is an "ideal", this debate
> > constitutes it's own 'proof'.
>
> >Perhaps I used the wrong word. In that case, the proper one escapes me
> >at the moment.
>
> Differing perspectives?
That's the one. Thank you.
> > [...]
>
> > Emotionally-based opinions were contrasted and taken into account, how?
>
> >SInce these were people I knew well enough to respect their opinions,
> >I knew what their emotional norm was, how balanced they were as
> >individuals, how easy they were to spark, etc... and use their
> >reactions as a sort of scratchplate, to test the severity of the
> >infractions. Then, weighing out the different inputs against my own
> >thoughts on the matter, I came to a decision.
>
> This is all very subjective in nature and processing, however, the same
> process could not be applied to "ren" since he was not known as well as
> others are contended to be?
He had actually been a member of WT for quite some time, and I was
familiar with him and his posts, as were much of the site-wide
administrative staff. He has also indicated that he had been removed
from at least one other group in another thread on a.r.w. This would
indicate a pattern for his removal from groups. I feel it is a safer
assessment to consider the possibility of fault within the user as
opposed to conspiracy against.
> > > > [...]
>
> > >Wiccan Together does not have a 'quote' feature.
>
> > It is possible, even within the structure of wt, for someone replying to a
> > post to quote the context which they are responding to within that post,
> > correct?
>
> >The general method is to highlight the desired text, copy it, and
> >paste it with quotations or italics.
>
> Alright, so it is at least technically possible to quote the context which
> is being responded to in a separate post from the quoted one and use that
> response as the basis for a new thread, or not?
Yes, it is technically possible, but not inherently programmed.
> > > [re: crossposting]:
>
> > >Fair enough. I still don't have to like it, and I still think Ren is a
> > >coward. Were I to get banned from a forum (this hasn't ever happened
> > >yet), I might complain about it privately to my friends, but I would not
> > >make a spectacle of it on a different forum.
>
> > You state that this hasn't happened to you as yet and are estimating a
> > probable response in advance.
>
> >Correct.
>
> In that case, the actual response may, (or may not), vary once such
> artillery were incoming.
That is a possibility, however, it is my personal goal to not be as
inconsistent with my goals and statements as that. I would rather hold
to my code than devolve from it. However, as has been stated, as I
have not been subjected to said occurrence, I can only speculate on my
actions based on my personal ideals (there's that word again...).
> > > [...]
>
> > > Sometimes that's what's necessary when there is underlying ambiguity and
> > > sometimes such a degree of insight into splitting can lose sight of the
> > > hair.
>
> > >Was it a hair or a hare we've been splitting" If it was a hair, I
> > >think it's likely been sliced into powder.
>
> > It's been like a barbershop at bootcamp around here at times but, at least
> > some ambiguities have been shaved down to an almost phrenological level.
>
> >It's funny you should mention that. I've been considering shaving my
> >head recently. Too many split ends.
>
> Funny or, coincidental?
More the fact that my life situation has made it difficult for me to
care for long, norse-descended hair, and thus it has been abused and
looks poor in my opinion. That, and I don't look bad with a shaved
head.
> > >If it were a hare, well, doc, we have a nice country dinner ready
> > >to be cooked here, because THAT bunny rabbit has been eviscerated.
>
> > Maybe so but, I'd estimate that we'd still be spitting out bunny buckshot
> > until the stew was done.
>
> >Mmm... lead... yum...
>
> Did I say done? I may have actually meant, overcooked. ;>
I couldn't tell the difference. Too many paint chips dipped in
turpentine as a kid.
> > > [...]
>
> >In order to keep up a defense, one must build walls. Or use a shield.
> >This is the difference between a fortified town and a militia
> >encampment. A fortified town keeps people within the walls, for their
> >defense (moderated forum), while the militia encampment expects each
> >man to fend for himself (unmoderated forum).
>
> Upon reflection, I decided not to pick apart the analogy offered, (although
> an interesting one relating to tactics and strategies). Maybe another
> conversation.
As has been stated, analogies tend to lose applicability when cross
examined too far.
> > [...]
>
> > >It does appear that supreme and complete definition is not entirely a
> > >feasibility. We are not, after all, machines that need every '0' and
> > >'1' in it's proper place, else we malfunction.
>
> > In that case, there remains room for ambiguity, interpretation, error and
> > even potential insight due to those leeways.
>
> Such is humanity, no?
>
> > >Besides the '0' (negative) and '1' (positive) we as people also have '2',
> > >'3',
> > >'4', and even more. The values for these are shifting, and need to be
> > >accommodated as best as possible. Thus the open ended interpretations.
>
> > And thus, some of the advantages and disadvantages of moderated &
> > unmoderated forums are debated in order to make such processes more
> > transparent than they may have previously been.
>
> >Transparent, or evaporated?
>
> It must indicate transparency more than evaporation since debating such
> processes takes nothing from them and may instead, add insights into them.
Quite true. However, in one process of distillation, one must
evaporate the fluid and then condense it. Thus, impurities are
removed. As a side musing, I wonder if that analogy applies...
ren
wrote:
> Actually, motive and opportunity WERE established in his case. He had
> the motive to delete the thread (he was shown to be quite insulting,
> with his posts being left up as evidence) and the opportunity to do so
> (he was one of six people who had the ability to do so, and was the
> only one with the motive).
That is where this lie breaks down. Those who have been reading my
posts for years, know that I don't delete my posts out of
embarrassment or frustration.
If I am 1 of 6 people who could possibly delete my own post, then you
have made a wild assumption as to who is guilty of deleting the post.
Beorc Kano
A wild assumption means that I just randomly picked a guilty party.
That was not the case.
I didn't delete it.
Blair didn't delete it.
Lady of the Graveyard asserted that she had received no notices of
BrianK deleting it.
She also asserted that she hadn't deleted it.
Synsual had no reason to delete it.
That leaves one. Sorry, Ren. You got the short straw.
Evergreen
wrote:
> On Jan 2, 5:37=A0am, ren <ren1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 30 2009, 11:55=A0am, Beorc Kano
>> <brandoncornw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Actually, motive and opportunity WERE established in his
>> > case. He had the motive to delete the thread (he was shown
>> > to be quite insulting, with his posts being left up as
>> > evidence) and the opportunity to do so (he was one of six
>> > people who had the ability to do so, and was the only one
>> > with the motive).
>>
>> That is where this lie breaks down. Those who have been
>> reading my posts for years, know that I don't delete my posts
>> out of embarrassment or frustration.
>>
>> If I am 1 of 6 people who could possibly delete my own post,
>> then you have made a wild assumption as to who is guilty of
>> deleting the post.
>
> A wild assumption means that I just randomly picked a guilty .
> party That was not the case .
>
> I didn't delete it. Blair didn't delete it. Lady of the
> Graveyard asserted that she had received no notices of BrianK
> deleting it. She also asserted that she hadn't deleted it.
> Synsual had no reason to delete it.
>
> That leaves one. Sorry, Ren. You got the short straw.
I suspect that he may not have deleted the post. This was
just an easy way of getting rid of him without adversely affecting
WiccanTogether's repution.
Can't say I blame you for wanting to get rid of the vicious bully
and pathological liar, and if my suspicions are true, I am not at
all surprised by the cowardice and dishonesty revealed by your
chosen method.
Sid
--
Sidney Lambe
Apprentice Magician
http://tinyurl.com/7vs9zb
usenet4444 (at) gmail (dot) com
aine
> On alt.religion.wicca, Beorc Kano <brandoncornw...@gmail.com>
Why would you assume deleting a post would get "rid" of ren or
anybody? It was not the act that blocked him was it? The arguement
the occurred about deleting the post was.
>
> Can't say I blame you for wanting to get rid of the vicious bully
> and pathological liar, and if my suspicions are true, I am not at
> all surprised by the cowardice and dishonesty revealed by your
> chosen method.<
(cough coughyourflyisdownachoo cough sniffle) Aine saunters off
pulling her pants Barney Fife style mubblin dude has gone Mayberry
brain.
zayton
Yet, as ren says; I have never known him to delete a post, for any reason;
least of all out of embarassment. ren simply doesn't embarass.
I suppose that it is theoreticaly possible that he might, if he thought that
the results would be amusing; but he seems to have a consideable reluctance
about doing so.
About your chain of logic above:
1. Is there compelling reason that the Lady of the Graveyard _would_
receive notices of BrianK deleting it?
2. Don't you meen Synsual had no reason _you know of_ to delete it?