Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here  (Read 43410 times)

EarlCat

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2533
  • i'm in ur LSAT blowin' ur curve
    • AOL Instant Messenger - EarlCat78
    • View Profile
    • EarlDoesLSAT.com
Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« Reply #180 on: July 03, 2009, 02:25:21 AM »
Where is the evidence that people complain about -- that is, report to moderators, not simply gripe about -- people with whom they disagree or whom they find annoying?  As I said upthread, I think this is a canard.  The people in this thread seem to be posting out of a desire to prevent arbitrary bans, such as PILOFOLO's appeared to be, and are seeking additional warnings and notice for posters before their accounts are suspended, and temporary suspensions before posters are banned.  This is a sign of tolerance and concern for fellow posters, even ones they may not like, isn't it?

Cliff007 is probably not a great example of anything except, perhaps, EarlCat's favoritism or lack of objectivity.  (I certainly know that lots of "regulars" hated him or felt tormented by him.)  I wasn't hanging out in a lot of the threads where he posted, but the few times I saw him post, I thought he was terribly obnoxious (and I knew who his other identity was when I thought this).  I may have even complained about him myself.  In any case, I know that in at least one thread [it was less explicit than I remembered it, but you can find it here, quoted in Matthies' post: "Apparently, I have been annoying to some people."], cliff007 acknowledged that people had complained about him and that a moderator had contacted him about it.  That's really all we know for sure about what happened until EarlCat comments himself.

Cliff007 was interesting case for a number of reasons.  I am friends with cliff, I know who he really is, and I know why he was posting the way he was (which doesn't excuse it).  I got onto him a few times for being a tool, either on the board or personally, but more often than not I chose to ignore him. A few people in here take that as me being inconsistent or playing favorites.  That's fine, and I would agree if I were the only mod.  I'm not.  Typically a reported post gets dealt with by whichever of us sees it first.  But when I'm not sure a post is bad enough to warrant any action, especially if it wasn't in the LSAT board, I leave it alone and defer judgment to Burning Sands.  For cliff007, because I knew it would be hard to be objective, I did that for every reported post--I recused myself, so to speak.  Burning Sands didn't (doesn't?) know who cliff was, I don't recall ever talking to him about cliff, and I believe he therefore treated cliff's reported posts as he would any others that I hadn't beaten him to.  If cliff crossed the line, I trust Sands would have dealt with him adequately.

Miss P

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 21337
    • View Profile
Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« Reply #181 on: July 03, 2009, 02:35:47 AM »
Cliff007 was interesting case for a number of reasons.  I am friends with cliff, I know who he really is, and I know why he was posting the way he was (which doesn't excuse it).  I got onto him a few times for being a tool, either on the board or personally, but more often than not I chose to ignore him. A few people in here take that as me being inconsistent or playing favorites.  That's fine, and I would agree if I were the only mod.  I'm not.  Typically a reported post gets dealt with by whichever of us sees it first.  But when I'm not sure a post is bad enough to warrant any action, especially if it wasn't in the LSAT board, I leave it alone and defer judgment to Burning Sands.  For cliff007, because I knew it would be hard to be objective, so I did that for every reported post--I recused myself, so to speak.  Burning Sands didn't (doesn't?) know who cliff was, I don't recall ever talking to him about cliff, and I believe he therefore treated cliff's reported posts as he would any others that I hadn't beaten him to.  If cliff crossed the line, I trust Sands would have dealt with him adequately.

Thanks for the insight, EC.  I realize I may have jumped to conclusions in your role in the moderation (or lack thereof) of cliff's posts, and I'm sorry if anything I said (especially the post you quoted) was unfair.  I really just meant to say that cliff007 didn't manage to keep his account alive because regulars liked him (i.e., because of cliquishness/the power of a certain group of inside posters); rather, he kept his account (a) because he got a special pass since moderator(s) knew who he was or (b) for some other reason (such as not doing anything objectionable enough to be banned). 
That's cool how you referenced a case.

Quote from: archival
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.

Julie Fern

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 27216
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« Reply #182 on: July 03, 2009, 07:48:51 AM »
You get as many votes as your post count. I think that's fair to everyone within the clique.

genius!

ISUCKATTHIS

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 261
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« Reply #183 on: July 03, 2009, 08:23:43 PM »
Irrx,

You did actually come to the thread after Miss P posted a link to it in your SFLSD or whatever thread.  She complained that she was dealing with "idiots" etc. and you came running.  You posted exactly nothing on topic, instead all of your posts were directed at me and how supposedly foolish I was to disagree with Miss P.  Then you deleted the posts within 12 hours.

To all:

I am confident that anybody who reviews these threads and the threads in which these locals post will see exactly what I'm talking about.  Certain regulars are still actively reprimanding newcomers when their opinions differ (yes, I've been watching you do this over the last few days) and they're still reporting people to the mods to try and get them banned.

That's great that you people have found each other and can support each other. 

However, you've ruined this site for what seems to be its intended purpose.  It's funny that you actually wonder outloud why people aren't posting here any more.  Here's a hint:  law school applications are not down.  In fact, more people are attending law school than ever before.  The explanation you seek for why people have been abandoning this site may be a little closer to home.

You've stifled honest and intellectual discourse on this site and turned it into a social networking site for people who have enough time to post warm and fuzzies to each other 22 hours a day and to smack down anybody who dares disagree with any one of you.

Congratulations.


UnbiasedObserver

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2014
    • View Profile
Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« Reply #184 on: July 03, 2009, 08:59:30 PM »
Irrx,

You did actually come to the thread after Miss P posted a link to it in your SFLSD or whatever thread.  She complained that she was dealing with "idiots" etc. and you came running.  You posted exactly nothing on topic, instead all of your posts were directed at me and how supposedly foolish I was to disagree with Miss P.  Then you deleted the posts within 12 hours.

To all:

I am confident that anybody who reviews these threads and the threads in which these locals post will see exactly what I'm talking about.  Certain regulars are still actively reprimanding newcomers when their opinions differ (yes, I've been watching you do this over the last few days) and they're still reporting people to the mods to try and get them banned.

That's great that you people have found each other and can support each other. 

However, you've ruined this site for what seems to be its intended purpose.  It's funny that you actually wonder outloud why people aren't posting here any more.  Here's a hint:  law school applications are not down.  In fact, more people are attending law school than ever before.  The explanation you seek for why people have been abandoning this site may be a little closer to home.

You've stifled honest and intellectual discourse on this site and turned it into a social networking site for people who have enough time to post warm and fuzzies to each other 22 hours a day and to smack down anybody who dares disagree with any one of you.

Congratulations.



1) I don't necessarily disagree with you with respect to the Drake thread; people ganged up on you.  I think it's uncalled for, I've seen it happen to others such as myself, and it needs to stop. 

With that being said, this reminds me of a nasty divorce where both sides are at fault, yet each side is convinced that it is entirely the other fault's side. 

That couldn't be further from the truth.  I decided to peruse the Drake thread again, and your very first post betrayed your condescending tone.  When you set a tone such as this, you're only asking for trouble.  People aren't going to receive your subsequent posts kindly, even if you lose that tone (which I'm not conceding necessarily).  Respect is hard to gain, and easy to lose.  You know that. 

Your condescending tone also stifles good intellectual discourse--but you seem to be ignoring that.

2) Trying to figure out the precise reason(s) that this site is struggling (question: do we have "hard facts" wrt this?  People say this, but it's not safe to assume that it's any different than previous years.) is more complex than you're making it out to be.  Yes, you qualify your statement, but then you also say it in a matter-of-fact tone. 

3) I think you're exaggerating that the social networking of this site is bringing down the informative purpose of this site.  I've been frequenting MANY threads over the past few weeks, and so have many other regulars, giving advice about law school. 

Honestly, ISUCK, you and Miss P need to just let it go.  This would end if both of you would just admit that you're both partially at fault--and then let it go.  It's really sad that humans can't just admit that they've screwed up wrt each other and still have a meaningful relationship....

But I don't see that from either of you.  Agreeing to disagree often just leads to more problems. 

4) Lastly, where's you evidence that regulars are trying to get others banned, who do not have legitimate reasons to be banned?  If you're going to make drastic accusations, show the proof.  Otherwise, you're just saying it to make your argument stronger, without any basis.  That's not cool. 

5) Have a great July 4th holiday. 


ISUCKATTHIS

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 261
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« Reply #185 on: July 03, 2009, 09:54:03 PM »
I can be occasionally condescending and unreasonable, I admit that.  Sometimes I'm flat out wrong.  I've said things I regret.  When I do, I usually take them back and apologize.  I doubt that I'm the only one, but I'd be willing to bet serious cash that I'm one of the only ones here who would admit it. Certainly said regulars wouldn't.

What I don't do is get other people to back me when I know I'm out of line.  In fact, my good friends wouldn't do that.  Instead, they'd be honest with me and tell me when I was out of line.  Clearly that kind of friendship isn't operative here.

The evidence is as follows.  Miss P complained about PILOFOLO and he was banned shortly thereafter.  Now, granted, Sands said that PILOFOLO's sarcasm supposedly played a role in his banning in addition to Miss P's complaints.  However, PILOFOLO's sarcasm (please go back and read it) was hardly severe and certainly not abusive or out of line.  He did make fun of Sands a little, admittedly.  Yet, it is clear to me that the major cause of his banning was Miss P's complaining about him.  Sands, more or less admitted this and steadfastly refused to provide any offending or out-of-line posts by PILOFOLO.  I asked Sands to do this at least three times and I wasn't the only one.

What more do you need in the way of evidence?

UnbiasedObserver

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2014
    • View Profile
Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« Reply #186 on: July 03, 2009, 10:47:29 PM »
I can be occasionally condescending and unreasonable, I admit that.  Sometimes I'm flat out wrong.  I've said things I regret.  When I do, I usually take them back and apologize.  I doubt that I'm the only one, but I'd be willing to bet serious cash that I'm one of the only ones here who would admit it. Certainly said regulars wouldn't.

Well, I'm glad to hear that you can apologize IRL. 

And, I also will admit when I am wrong.  I'm a regular, and I've apologized to people online.  Sometimes they accept my apology; other times they don't.  So you're not alone, and there are many other great posters here who continue to make this place great.  Don't think that you're a martyr, my friend; there are others like you, and guess what: they're regulars! 


What I don't do is get other people to back me when I know I'm out of line.  In fact, my good friends wouldn't do that.  Instead, they'd be honest with me and tell me when I was out of line.  Clearly that kind of friendship isn't operative here.

I agree that it is wrong to back up someone when they're wrong, and that good friends won't do that.  Yet that's irrelevant to the fact that you also played a hand in this.

You want to simplify this by stressing the ganging up on you and the ban on Pilofilo, but it cuts deeper than that.  And you know it!  :)

The evidence is as follows.  Miss P complained about PILOFOLO and he was banned shortly thereafter.  Now, granted, Sands said that PILOFOLO's sarcasm supposedly played a role in his banning in addition to Miss P's complaints.  However, PILOFOLO's sarcasm (please go back and read it) was hardly severe and certainly not abusive or out of line.  He did make fun of Sands a little, admittedly.  Yet, it is clear to me that the major cause of his banning was Miss P's complaining about him.  Sands, more or less admitted this and steadfastly refused to provide any offending or out-of-line posts by PILOFOLO.  I asked Sands to do this at least three times and I wasn't the only one.

What more do you need in the way of evidence?

Do you have direct proof of this?  I really don't think so, and I really don't feel like reading the Drake thread yet again (as I just did) to see if it is true that Miss P wanted him/got him banned.

If you recall, I also said it was suspicious when Pilofilo was banned after Sands made that comment to him in reaction to Pilofilo's mocking of Sands.  Yet the evidence of Miss P getting him banned, let alone wanting him banned, is lacking.  You're making inferences, and that's a big allegation to make based on an inference.  If you can't substantiate it, it's not right to continue claiming. 

Without clear evidence, you're letting your emotions from your sparring with Miss P control your "logic."  Surely you can see that. 

I want both of you to continue to stay on this site and be good posters.  It's really silly to continue this "fight." 

Miss P

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 21337
    • View Profile
Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« Reply #187 on: July 04, 2009, 12:13:40 AM »
Honestly, ISUCK, you and Miss P need to just let it go.  This would end if both of you would just admit that you're both partially at fault--and then let it go.  It's really sad that humans can't just admit that they've screwed up wrt each other and still have a meaningful relationship....

But I don't see that from either of you.  Agreeing to disagree often just leads to more problems. 

I have already apologized for something I don't remember having done (calling ISUCKATTHIS dim), and I will reiterate that apology.  It's not nice to demean others' intelligence, and it doesn't contribute anything to the conversation.  It was, as I said, beneath me, and I will not do it again.

Also, if you or any other poster has constructive criticism for me, grounded in things I've actually done or said, I will be happy to hear you out and, where appropriate, reform my behavior, apologize, and/or otherwise make amends.  I can't promise to agree with your assessment, but I can promise to consider your criticism carefully and to offer a thoughtful and polite response.  I strive to be a good member of this community, and I will sincerely appreciate your taking the time to let me know how I misstepped -- even if it's unpleasant to read and think about at first.

I will not, however, ignore ISUCKATTHIS/Jake_MONDATTA's baseless accusations against me, and I will not admit to things I have not done for the sake of achieving some sort of false balance.  However under siege ISUCKATTHIS feels, perhaps even sincerely, I know that I neither attacked him nor encouraged others to attack him.  I am sorry that he feels the way he does, but I'll also admit that his hostility and smears have pushed me to the limits of my tolerance and concern for his feelings. 
That's cool how you referenced a case.

Quote from: archival
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.

UnbiasedObserver

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2014
    • View Profile
Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« Reply #188 on: July 04, 2009, 12:58:43 AM »

I have already apologized for something I don't remember having done (calling ISUCKATTHIS dim), and I will reiterate that apology.  It's not nice to demean others' intelligence, and it doesn't contribute anything to the conversation.  It was, as I said, beneath me, and I will not do it again.

I'm glad to hear that.

Also, if you or any other poster has constructive criticism for me, grounded in things I've actually done or said, I will be happy to hear you out and, where appropriate, reform my behavior, apologize, and/or otherwise make amends.  I can't promise to agree with your assessment, but I can promise to consider your criticism carefully and to offer a thoughtful and polite response.  I strive to be a good member of this community, and I will sincerely appreciate your taking the time to let me know how I misstepped -- even if it's unpleasant to read and think about at first.

I think you mean well, and I consider you a good poster here--I think I've made that clear in my numerous posts in these threads.   :) 

With that being said, I do think you jumped the gun in the Drake thread by claiming that ISUCK was being hysterical, and then complaining that all-of-a-sudden he decided to let bygones be bygones and leave the thread.  And you did seem to show a decent lack of empathy and sympathy from the start in the Drake thread.  (Please note that I agree with your assessment of the Drake scenario, in terms of what happened to that student(s).  But there are better ways to word our responses to show proper sympathy and empathy towards the students who were in that situation.  We've had similar problems in other threads, and we need to be careful about this.)

It seems that sometimes you let your emotions get the best of you--and then you start shooting off responses, without considering the import of your words.  I'd venture that most of us consider doing that at times, but we must remember that words can hurt on here just as they can hurt IRL; therefore, we should use the same caution online as we do IRL. 

And I mean that as constructively as possible.  I'm no saint either!  :P

I will not, however, ignore ISUCKATTHIS/Jake_MONDATTA's baseless accusations against me, and I will not admit to things I have not done for the sake of achieving some sort of false balance.  However under siege ISUCKATTHIS feels, perhaps even sincerely, I know that I neither attacked him nor encouraged others to attack him.  I am sorry that he feels the way he does, but I'll also admit that his hostility and smears have pushed me to the limits of my tolerance and concern for his feelings. 


I think that's fair that you deserve direct proof if he's going to make such accusations.  I don't really think that you encouraged  others to attack him; however, the fact is that people DID gang up on him.  It's happened more than once on here, and it needs to stop.  To be fair, a person can be defended by others if they're being unfairly treated, but there's been bad acts by both sides here.   

ISUCKATTHIS

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 261
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« Reply #189 on: July 04, 2009, 12:35:13 PM »
Irrx:

"The truth of the matter is that I very rarely go into the SFLSD thread, which any SFLSD regular can confirm."

LOL.  Dude, you're there all the time and you responded to the post with the link to the Drake thread.

Unbiased:

"'You want to simplify this by stressing the ganging up on you and the ban on Pilofilo, but it cuts deeper than that.  And you know it!"

I agree with that.  The above is only one of many good examples of what I'm talking about.  It's simply that latest one and the one that I observed most directly.

I don't get this business about Sand's saying that Miss P's complaints about PILOFOLO got him banned not being direct evidence.  Please explain why that's not direct and I'll try to address you explanation.  In my view, it's more or less an admission of what I'm talking about by the person who did the banning.  How do you see it?

Miss P:

You owe me no concern nor any respect.  Clearly we do not get along.  I don't blame you for that, it's a mutual thing.  All I ask is that you leave me alone.  I understand that all I can do is ask and that whether or not you do so is up to you.  So, I'll ask again.  Please leave me alone.