I’m not allowed to reply to MagsJ without getting banned because of the board warning.
So she gets to say all the shit in the world about me with arguments that I can easily crush and destroy, but I’m not allowed to… even in the rant section …
I just recently heard this version for the first time by Disturbed. It took me a few listens before it grew on me. I love Paul Simon’s version. I think that in a way they are both equal and profound but for different reasons. Quite “disturbing” but in a way that makes much sense. Sometimes truth does need to be shouted out and screamed out to the world though some think that a whisper can be heard better.
Anyway, not to derail the thread but I thought of The Sounds of Silence here. The words have always been so poignant and “real” ~~ to me. A hundred years from now they will probably still be.
I do think that Disturbed version is awesome too, so forceful …
And look at this post, it refutes her world veiw of me as a man, so she responds right below with just an lol.
That’s trolling.
Also, notice in this exact thread that MagsJ avoided the proof of ban baiting by referring to interactions before the board warning. She ignores the substance of my posts and just makes one sided arguments without offering her own proofs, or even arguments.
The question is… was your warning warranted or not. That is the only thing up for question… everything else is your petty human gripes that you choose to cling on to, which is of no-one else’s’ concern.
Have you submitted all your evidence? Are you done? Any further attempt for discussion will be ignored.
No. I’m sincere as fuck. I have actual arguments that evolve, not only as axioms, but as derivatives of those axioms. So, when i post, it is always new content. Eventually that content will die out and the threads will die and that will be it. Show me one instance where I refused to let a thread die.
Now compare me to iambiguous to that regard.
I think you are a coward for not letting threads run their course in the appropriate forums.
Verbally warned about the use of this / this word countless times, when any debate on the matter became an accusation towards all males and a one-sided rant on his part… a concern which was also voiced by others, but continued to be ignored by him.
This thread was moved to Rant and earned Ecmandu a warning, as it was simply flood-posting old content, when he should have carried on debate in existing threads, and not created a new thread in the guise of Religion.
So, on the question of litigating your claims, I think you’re not doing a great job. You’re alleging specific bad acts and a pattern of behavior which are allegedly present in public posts. But the links you’ve provided are mostly to your own posts, which aren’t particularly relevant or probative of someone else’s behavior. To look at the evidence you’ve provided, you’re telling a story about how awesome your philosophy is, and how dare Mags not see that; but you initially framed it as a story of how bad Mags’ behavior is, and how dare she behave so badly.
Of the 9 links you provide in support of your argument, I’d say you provide 2 that offer direct evidence in support of your claims. The post of Mags’ where she calls you a “pervert”, and the post of yours that is followed by Mags’ single-word reply, “Lol”.
And I say it’s evidence in support of your claims in that it’s not the highest ideal of philosophy, and maybe beneath the lofty standards to which I might wish for a moderator to hold herself. But it is also weak evidence, because I’m not sure it isn’t in line with the ideal of an online discussion forum, or that it’s beneath reasonable standard for moderators who are nonetheless community members, in their interactions in the Community forums (and in Rant House in particular). Your argument would be stronger had these comments been made in your threads that Mags had moved to Rant, but they were made in a third thread, started by someone else, in Rant, and presumably intended for not-so-serious conversation of a tone like the one Mags takes in those posts. And further, your allegations are much broader than two data points; certainly the pattern of behavior alleged is compatible with them, but it is not well established by them.
I also think you missed at least one post that I found more troubling: ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi … 2#p2737612 - MagsJ
The apparent threat, “tell me about myself and see what happens,” seems dangerously like a threat to use her power as a moderator as retaliation for being “[told] about [herself]”. As is often the case, neither the threatened action nor the conduct that would prompt the threatened action are clearly stated, and I am wary of misinterpreting them. In the context of the thread, where, in commenting on women and their capacities for consent, and so implicitly telling Mags about herself, maybe the threat is a warning about how women will respond. Or maybe it is a threat of moderator action, and telling women about themselves means being overtly and specifically ad hominem. There are legitimate interpretations. But there are also illegitimate ones.
And the illegitimate interpretations call into question other actions taken thereafter. Even exercises of moderator power that would be legitimate become tainted by a threat that suggest an illegitimate use of power. Especially at ILP, where the rules are intentionally vague, a reasonable justification for an ostensibly legitimate moderator action can often be found by anyone clever and motivated. A threat to pay careful attention to everything a user does, and to take every opportunity to use legitimate moderator power to police board standards, would be a threat to abuse moderator power, even if each act would be reasonable considered separately.
In the present case, moving the threads in question to Rant seems reasonable. The first was poorly and tersely articulated argument, which does not have nearly the delicacy appropriate to the topics it covers; it fails by the fourth word to balance sensitivity of topic with care in expression. And the second does seem to be an attempt, following the removal of the first, to continue the conversation in a similar tone, and thus to circumvent the original move. In that case, moving it is appropriate, and issuing a board warning is justified.
So there is only the question of whether, so justified, they are meta-justified, i.e. are they justified acts taken towards an unjust end, and thus in abuse of a position of trust? And that question is only raised because, in a series of back-and-forths that spanned days and threads (7, by your count), and was often heated and even personal, upon disengaging from a conversation that implicitly impugned her full agency, she used a turn of phrase that reads like a threat. But for that turn of phrase, I don’t think there would be a question. If she were targeting you for moderation and banning, she had more opportunities than she took advantage of. If she were attempting to bait you, she wouldn’t have left conversations where you were most easily baited. What you allege is at odds with her apparent forbearance, and make the threat seem more like a misinterpretation that did not inform actions nor reveal intent.
I don’t think Mags actually abused her power. Moving your threads and warning you were warranted. Those in positions of power should strive to be above reproach, and I don’t think Mags is entirely above the possibility of reproach here. But I don’t offer her reproach. Being a moderator and remaining a user is an inherent tension, neither fully compatible nor fully separable. Your allegations here demonstrate the ways in which a philosophical disconnect can feel like part and parcel of an act of moderation. And surely it can flow both ways, such that perceiving someone to be unreasonable in one context makes their acts elsewhere seem that much more obviously and egregiously unreasonable. A moderator can apply a healthy dose of self-doubt to mitigate that, and err on the side of inaction, can let things slide and forbear. But we also know that if you watch anyone closely enough, if you look for wrongdoing and you are motivated to find it, you can find it. Mags is among our most prolific users, and among the dozens of pages I was asked to review for this complaint, I found one sentence that gave me pause.
Mags is not a “troll moderator”. She’s a user who disagrees with you, and a moderator who is empowered to enforce the standards of the boards such as they exist. She did both here.
Unlocking the thread for any responses. I’ll lock it again in a day or two.
1.) I could have easily debated her, but the nature of the board warning sent a clear message that even in rant, I’d be banned if I did.
2.) the nature of the board warning has thrown any mention of my topic out of the public forums in perpetuity.
MagsJ defines rant as a one sided argument:
It’s doesn’t get more one sided than what she’s doing in her part.
My language always improves.
You failed, carleas, to mention that I rely on (as an axiom) my proof of human sexuality to make deeper arguments (namely that it’s the primary cause for destruction of the ecosystem and also is an argument against god and Buddha)
I offer that I have a standing thread in creative writing with these concepts.