Lassus: - 21 February 2012 08:13 PM

J. Lowenstein Apathy Club - 21 February 2012 07:43 PM

I definitely don’t think that, and I back Dan 10,000%, have been there and done much worse than he has. You guys have no comprehension at all that you’re being dealt with incredibly leniently.

Wait, what?  Which guys, and leniently for what?

I would have bled you out by now, personally.

All of you.

Now, you are asking me to somehow address your hurt feelings. I don’t get involved in those types of issues. There are literally thousands of members of the site and I neither have the time or desire to get involved in the personal interactions between users. As I said, that’s between you and Dan. If you too can find some common ground to work out your differences, that’s great for you and Dan, but it doesn’t really concern me *as long as the two of you let it go and don’t bother other users by continuing to snipe at each other in other threads on the site.* If that happens, however, I will take addition steps.

You might start by stopping blaming me for your thin skin.

Your pointless belittling of posters, including myself, only prolongs this.

Of course, I’ve asked nothing of the sort of you, yet you continue to whine at me as though speaking my piece, once, in post 140, for what across the internet is considered egregious action by any moderator, and including Dan’s blatantly false blaming of veer bender and others—in this thread—was out of line.

I didn’t ask you to do anything, as you perfectly well know. I pointed out that your snide remarks about the behavior of well-intentioned people following up the deletion of 8000 posts representing some excellent thought and interesting research, with all of 100+ posts on the matter, wasn’t your best move. The thread is entitled “Piecing Together the Starlin Castro thread deletion”, and that’s exactly what people were doing.

Jim, since this is hardly the first time that this has happened, wouldn’t one obvious way of ensuring that it won’t happen again be to take the shutdown button out of Dan’s hands?  Or at the very least, require him to get your permission to shut down a thread?  Why is someone who’s repeatedly abused his power given the power to do it even one more time?

Yes, and it’s precisely what I objected to in my only post in 24 hours following Dan’s apology. 

but it doesn’t really concern me *as long as the two of you let it go and don’t bother other users by continuing to snipe at each other in other threads on the site.* If that happens, however, I will take addition steps.

That’s a marvelously inane thing to say, Jim. Scarcely veiled threats about nonexistent behavior? What you’re describing isn’t my m.o., although it was Dan’s in the deleted thread—but your continuing pattern of simply making up counterproductive attitudes and conjuring imaginary threats to the site’s peace, while addressing obliquely what actually happened in the thread—and claiming to be shocked, shocked! that other threads have been deleted, is a tired and obvious attempt to deflect from the issues at hand.

I have no idea why you think it’s in your interest to keep this going, but be assured as long as you continue to impute to me attitudes and behaviors I don’t hold, claim I’m making request I haven’t made, and issue vague threats—far better addressed solely to Dan—I’ll continue to point that out.

Otherwise, I’m happy to stop whenever you are.

Lassus: - 21 February 2012 08:13 PM

J. Lowenstein Apathy Club - 21 February 2012 07:43 PM

I definitely don’t think that, and I back Dan 10,000%, have been there and done much worse than he has. You guys have no comprehension at all that you’re being dealt with incredibly leniently.

Wait, what?  Which guys, and leniently for what?

Everyone who fills up half the Mainland threads with recapitulations of their eternal boring-ass political arguments and pathetic personal flamewar. And no, I don’t mean the occasional political discussion. Sorry; “you guys” was not very specific, I grant you.

“what across the internet is considered egregious action by any moderator”

Oh that’s good.

I note that veer bender typically drops into political threads to throw hand grenades and then leaves.  His “Who, me?” act, both in the other thread and now here, is really, really weak.

I didn’t see the final ramp-up to the thread deletion, but I did see veer bender’s initial post.  If I’m recalling it correctly, it crossed a line in two ways:

1.  “Say it to my wife’s face.”  Everyone understands that “say it to my face” is an invitation to come over and get one’s ass kicked, and, thus, is a threat.  In this case it was “say it to my wife’s face,” but unless veer bender’s wife is a blackbelt or something, the threat is essentially the same:  “Say it to my wife’s face, and then I’ll kick your ass.”  In any event, while no physical violence was going to take place, at its core it’s a suggestion that Dan needs to get his ass kicked for holding his opinions on education. 

2.  The naming by veer bender of Dan’s employer, accompanied with threats not to read Dan’s work for that employer specifically because of Dan’s views on education, which views were of course painted as loony.  It is simply a low blow for veer bender to bring Dan’s employer into the fray like that.  If someone over there checked the thread and saw that someone was so unhappy with Dan’s expressed views on education that he wasn’t going to read Dan’s work anymore, then he might well figure that Dan and his “loony” views were bad for readership and bad for business and bad for the site’s reputation.  Naming Dan’s employer in that thread, in that context, was wrong.  That is the other threat I saw.  And it was really low, especially coming from someone posting anonymously while calling Dan’s real world employer out by name.

Following all of this, veer bender then pretended he couldn’t imagine just what, oh what, he could have possibly done to deserve Dan’s response.  Then veer bender claimed to be taking the high road while simultaneously traveling still on the low one. 

It was BS, and the usual high-fivers closed ranks and swarmed in to defend him, while painting Dan as crazy for perceiving a threat.

The thread was unfair to Dan because veer bender crossed the line. 

RayDiPerna - 22 February 2012 12:18 AM

It was BS, and the usual high-fivers closed ranks and swarmed in to defend him, while painting Dan as crazy for perceiving a threat.

Ray, you’re entitled to your interpretation about what went on while you were away, but the reaction against the deletion went well beyond “the usual high-fivers”, and in fact pretty much encompassed everyone who was taking part in the thread, including Joe Kehoskie and C-Bird, whose views are usually quite sympathetic to Dan’s.

RayDiPerna - 22 February 2012 12:18 AM

It was BS, and the usual high-fivers closed ranks and swarmed in to defend him, while painting Dan as crazy for perceiving a threat.

I’ll have you know, I wasn’t involved in that thread. I merely painted Dan as crazy because, before his second-day apology, he was acting like a ####### nutjob in this thread. That this moderator finds himself intimately involved in these thread bombings seems like it should be a cause for concern, but I guess Jim finds it okeedokee.

Could you summarize what veerbender said that was so scary? What I’ve seen attributed so far hasn’t seem terribly threatening, but I’d like to see the synopsis from the other side of the fight.

SoSHially Unacceptable - 22 February 2012 01:23 AM

I’ll have you know, I wasn’t involved in that thread. I merely painted Dan as crazy because, before his second-day apology, he was acting like a ####### nutjob in this thread. That this moderator finds himself intimately involved in these thread bombings seems like it should be a cause for concern, but I guess Jim finds it okeedokee.

Could you summarize what veerbender said that was so scary? What I’ve seen attributed so far hasn’t seem terribly threatening, but I’d like to see the synopsis from the other side of the fight.

@SoSHially Unacceptable, this type of comment is precisely why I stay out of this stuff. I have recommended that Dan not get involved in political threads. I don’t participate in them and also don’t engage in the naval-gazing of personal squabbles that usually ensues. Dan apologized. There is no need for a public flogging in the BBTF public square or the application of a scarlet M to his profile. It’s apparent that some of you won’t be satisfied until one of those things takes place. I am sorry to tell you it isn’t going to happen. It’s not the way I deal with individual members of the site; it’s not the way I deal with the moderators.

@Something Other, whatever dude. Just know that if your interaction with me is representative of the way you interact with others on the site, your participation on the site will prove vexing to you. And before you say it…it’s not a threat, it’s advice based on years of administrating the site.

I am satisfied that this issue has been resolved so I am closing this thread.