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, 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.
That's cool how you referenced a case.
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.
You get as many votes as your post count. I think that's fair to everyone within the clique.
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.
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?
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.