Vicious, ego-based, fraud commits censorship: documented:

I have received the following viscous fraudulent and unethical private message, sent on behalf of the forum by the nutcase “MagsJ” (in appearance [so far as anyone can ascertain]: hired without meeting the unknown owners):

Objection, your honor. The defense was not informed of the evidence prior to the trial. Motion to strike the evidence from the record and select a new jury.

The hypocritical “defense” produced the “evidence”. Which was sent by private message (in order to hide it from the general awareness). Here the deranged character of the censors is made available to all.

Objection, your honor. The prosecution presents inculpatory evidence. Request to cross-examine the witness.

You’re claiming that it is not a real private message? Not sure how any proof could be offered. Ergo: the contemporary circumstances of civilization holus-bolus in magna-mini!

I find the communication on both sides utterly confusing. I am surprised either one of you can consider it a disagreement or fight or whatever you both seem to think it is.

But the ‘whatever it is’ is easy to avoid. So if you are not enjoying it or finding value in your tilting with Mags, just end it.

It’s easy. And no loss of honor or cowtowing involved.

youtube.com/watch?v=ZXvzzTICvJs

You are obviously not a fan of Art… recoil from it all you want because it grates on your sensibilities, so much so that you continued on in your same blinkered path to…? god knows where… Not a fan of being called out are you…

I never liked Realism… I must say, as I found it rather dull and uninspiring, as we are already drenched in reality, so why have it in our art, when it is already in our lives. That is not to say that there are not a few pieces/artworks that I like, but on the whole, no.

Moved to Meta. This, like the original removed thread, is not the grist of the Philosophy forum. It’s a complaint about board moderation practices, i.e. a post about the board, i.e. the grist of Meta.

To the complaint: Mags’ PM appears to have been sent in her capacity as a member, to discuss the ideas expressed elsewhere. There does not seem to be an express threat or warning of any moderator action (though of course everything a moderator does carries an implied threat).

The original thread was properly removed from Philosophy. It might have been better to move it to Meta, since here were are in any case, but a similar thread in response to a PM from another user would have been appropriately removed. The original thread, after all, was a complaint about a PM sent as user, so the thread airing distaste for such a PM was just taking a private disagreement public through personal attacks.

The dual role of moderators as both cops and citizens is complicating, and seems to explain a lot. Guide’s reaction was likely partly to the implicit threat of punishment, and Mags reaction in turn was likely partly driven by her role in policing abuse. Thus, a philosophical disagreement seems to have escalated unnecessarily.

Karpel Tunnel’s suggestion here is a wise one: if normal member-member interactions are impossible without escalating, avoid interactions. Don’t initiate interaction, and don’t respond to interactions. That should include indirect reference (e.g. preambles to threads which purport to exclude the other without naming but through clear implication), and also interaction in the course of duties.