[The Final Dakar]

As always, the fount of my unending genius has been swallowed by the quagmire of the dregs of this forum.

(Teehee)

[Doofy]

I'll stick my neck out for who I believe to be honourable and what I believe to be the truth, thanks Lat.

And the phrase "stick your neck out" makes it seem like we're in some sort of danger for stating an opinion? Weak.

[ghporter]

Doofy, if "defying moderation" is your idea of fascism, then how do you feel about standard shoe sizes? The defying infraction is there for members who insist on doing things they have been asked and instructed (2 steps, usually more than that) by a staff member.

Our rules say that the Mods are ultimately responsible for the way the forums run, and the ownership of MacNN has repeatedly recognized our staff for keeping things orderly, (relatively) civil, and generally without the kind of drama that sometimes comes with active and broad-based boards.

Personality conflicts aside, I'll remind participants of this thread that they do not see other communication, particularly PMs but not limited to them, that have been of concern of late. We have to make decisions based on a lot of factors, many of which most members will never have any contact with, and this is such a case. I'll go so far as to call the above exchange "icing on the cake," and leave it at that.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Doofy, if "defying moderation" is your idea of fascism, then how do you feel about standard shoe sizes?

How do these two things even figure in the same thread, let alone sentence? Are you on a herbal high today or something Glenn?

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Personality conflicts aside, I'll remind participants of this thread that they do not see other communication, particularly PMs

You're under the illusion that none of us speak to each other outside the NN? If that's what it takes to make you think you're right, knock yourself out.

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Mods and administrators have the right to run these forums in the way that is seen fit to them, not to the users. It's not a democracy, and, luckily for MacNN, the leadership here is generally very well-balanced. I think that people get used to having fair moderators and admins and see that as a basis for freaking out when something doesn't go their way.

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Edit: And now that we know that RR received two infractions before the ban, Lateralus' response does make more sense.

Thanks (whoa)

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I'll stick my neck out for who I believe to be honourable and what I believe to be the truth, thanks Lat.

Stand up for whoever you wish, but RR hardly portrays situations as they actually occurred. If you're going to side with somebody who is almost constantly at odds with one staff member or another (I'm new to the party) then so be it.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

And the phrase "stick your neck out" makes it seem like we're in some sort of danger for stating an opinion? Weak.

I've had little in the way of exchanges with you as a member and the few I have had have been favorable. So in light of that, your interpretation of my words can only be explained by your proximity to RR. Take a step back.

[turtle777]

Lateralus,

First off, I actually agree with your position on Rob, so that's not the issue.
(And in that regard, I disagree with RR.)

You are right, we don't see infractions, so RR seems to have been warned enough. He should have known better than continuing a fight with you.

What's baffling to me is that RR posted 3 times, and he's got a warning, then infraction and then 2nd infraction. So basically, as soon as he posted, he was immediately pursued. Seems heavy-handed.

-t

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Lateralus 

I've had little in the way of exchanges with you as a member and the few I have had have been favorable. So in light of that, your interpretation of my words can only be explained by your proximity to RR.

No Lat. In English, "stick your neck out" means there's a risk it may be knocked off for your having done so. There's no other way to interpret that phrase.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

How do these two things even figure in the same thread, let alone sentence? Are you on a herbal high today or something Glenn?



You're under the illusion that none of us speak to each other outside the NN? If that's what it takes to make you think you're right, knock yourself out.

Defying moderation is an infraction used when members don't take either suggestion or instruction to step back. It's just an infraction, "demerit points," if you will, not any sort of megalomaniacal oppressive tactic. If a member has accumulated a number of points already, any infraction, including one for content-free, "+1" posts can run the point total up to an automatic temporary ban. So how are fascism and standard shoe sizes related? About as well as defying moderation infractions and fascism. I had thought of using the old "fish without a bicycle" analogy (a particularly handy one at times) but I thought I'd go just a little more abstract.

As for "thinking members do not communicate outside the forums," I expect that many members are also in contact elsewhere. But the regular membership is not privy to the complaints and reports the staff sees, and we communicate with each other as well. That is particularly what I was referring to.

In any case, this thread seems to have come back to life for the unique purpose of getting people upset at each other. Sort of Rob's stuff happening by remote control. Too bad.

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Lateralus,

First off, I actually agree with your position on Rob, so that's not the issue.
(And in that regard, I disagree with RR.)

You are right, we don't see infractions, so RR seems to have been warned enough. He should have known better than continuing a fight with you.

What's baffling to me is that RR posted 3 times, and he's got a warning, then infraction and then 2nd infraction. So basically, as soon as he posted, he was immediately pursued. Seems heavy-handed.

-t

The way things actually went was; RR angrily posted after my last thread reply to him, in which I told him to stop escalating. So I issued a defiance of moderation Infraction along with its private warning. Several minutes later, after receiving/reading the infraction, he posted another baiting message which he received another infraction for.

At this point, the infraction points only counted about as much as magic beans; 'points' that would soon expire and documented warnings.

But he persisted, and eventually the cumulative total of the points (atop the one he's picked up from another mod in the past week for two separate incidents) passed the mark for an automatic system ban.

If I acted quickly, there's two reasons: 1) It's Sunday evening 2) RR's course of action had... precedent.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No Lat. In English, "stick your neck out" means there's a risk it may be knocked off for your having done so. There's no other way to interpret that phrase.

My use of it as an ominous warning was unintentional. I think its usage has become so common that much of its intended meaning has been diluted.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Lateralus 

My use of it as an ominous warning was unintentional. I think its usage has become so common that much of its intended meaning has been diluted.

Fair enough.

[ghporter]

I'm going to close this thread. It has descended into something it was never originally about, and been a stage for rude behavior and unfortunately public misbehavior. I might have at one point said "why is this thread being ruined by off topic posts?" but it's beyond that now.

I'll close by reiterating that an automatic ban is intentionally not something any one mod can "just make happen" whether a mod wanted to or not. A member that accumulates enough points gets banned automatically, no moderator intervention needed. It is supposed to make the infraction system immune to abuse, and I think it works. But since infractions are not visible to other members, sometimes an automatic ban can look suspiciously like a moderator took a disagreement personally and took action. That simply cannot happen with the way our system is built.