[Inappropriate Complaint]
- Okisites
- Posts: 1286
- Joined: April 20th, 2012, 7:53 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Nature
[Inappropriate Complaint]
I have noticed in the thread called "Why are there so few Nihilist", that something non-justifiable is going on, as to me it seems that the moderator "Spiral Out" had locked the topic because he is losing the grounds. And I do not see any other logic to lock this thread. If any moderator or administrator or contributor can come forward for the defense of this act of locking a thread, with some logical explanation, then I will accept it to be justifiable. Otherwise, it is clear misuse of power. And it is not good for the forum, I believe.
So I would like everybody to express their views about it, and if I am wrong, then express your view about my perception of it.
The thread is here, where it is locked :-
http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... 20#p211516
What is justification for this, by the moderators other than "Spiral Out".
At last I will ask for forgiveness for Spiral Out.
Reason: change title
- Spiral Out
- Posts: 5014
- Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am
Re:
I locked the topic in question in order to clean up the thread by removing off-topic personal attacks and in accordance with the forum rules. I only deleted the off-topic rule-breaking portions of the posts in question even though I could have deleted the entire post in accordance with the forum rules.
I am routinely accused of "abusing my moderator status" even when I'm merely arguing my philosophical position on any given topic as was the case in the thread in question. I have removed the off-topic portions of those posts only. I believe that was more than fair. Also, I only rarely issue warnings, and I did not issue any warnings in this case even though I could have in accordance with the forum rules.
As a moderator, everything I do in that capacity is logged and is available for review by the site administrator. I have never abused my moderator status and I don't plan to at any point. There's simply no reason for me to do so.
Everything I've done in my duties as moderator has been in accordance with the forum rules. I'm not perfect but I do my best to maintain consistency in adhering to the rules myself and holding others to those rules.
I will welcome the feedback of the other forum members, moderators and the site admin.
- Misty
- Premium Member
- Posts: 5934
- Joined: August 10th, 2011, 8:13 pm
- Location: United States of America
Re:
Okisites, You are completely right, and, Spiral did not monitor and delete his rule breakers on this topic. Also my link to the real meaning of nihilism on link http://www.iep.utm.edu/nihilism was disabled. Why? I guess the truth hurts some people. MistyOkisites wrote:Okisites wrote:Okay the question is for Scott Sir, (and everybody instead of Spiral Out )
I have noticed in the thread called "Why are there so few Nihilist", that something non-justifiable is going on, as to me it seems that the moderator "Spiral Out" had locked the topic because he is losing the grounds. And I do not see any other logic to lock this thread. If any moderator or administrator or contributor can come forward for the defense of this act of locking a thread, with some logical explanation, then I will accept it to be justifiable. Otherwise, it is clear misuse of power. And it is not good for the forum, I believe.
So I would like everybody to express their views about it, and if I am wrong, then express your view about my perception of it.
The thread is here, where it is locked :-
http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... 20#p211516
What is justification for this, by the moderators other than "Spiral Out".
At last I will ask for forgiveness for Spiral Out.
The eyes can only see what the mind has, is, or will be prepared to comprehend.
I am Lion, hear me ROAR! Meow.
- Spiral Out
- Posts: 5014
- Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am
Re:
I deleted only off-topic insults and personal attacks, nothing more. (FYI: the above is yet another personal attack (ad hom) in suggesting that I'm somehow abusing my moderator status) My arguments stand firmly on their own based on logic and reason.Misty wrote:Spiral, Is this the only way you can win a debate?
Her "agreement" with you was simply yet another personal attack contrary to rule A, specifically the rule to "Please keep discussion focused on the issues of the specific topics, and not on the character of those discussing the issues."Misty wrote:You "monitored me and Newme (even deleted her agreeing with me)
It is not, and has never been, against the forum rules to suggest that someone review the OP for clarification.Misty wrote:When did it become OK for you to tell others to "read" something?
That's quite an absurd claim. I have no such ability.Misty wrote:You also disabled my link to the meaning of nihilism.
I did not delete any definition of nihilism that you had posted. I only deleted off-topic personal attacks.Misty wrote:Just because YOU disagree with my interpretation and proof of nihilism, one that made you look bad, you delete it.
If you believe that I broke the forum rules then you should report it. I do not interfere with reports against me. The site admin handles those, and I have the warnings to prove it.Misty wrote:Spiral did not monitor and delete his rule breakers on this topic.
Out of fairness, I also did not delete your off-topic post (#86) in that thread that obviously is contrary to the rule that states: "Do not tell others they are violating the forum rules and especially do not quote rule-breaking posts. Simply use the report button (the exclamation point on the upper-right-hand side of the post you wish to report) to report the post and then ignore the reported post until a moderator closes the report or deletes the reported post."
I've sent a message to the site administrator to stop these false and irresponsible accusations. I will not stand for it.
**Note: Misty had posted the above statements and had then edited out some of her statements during the process of my responding to it (lest I now be accused of fabricating statements).
- Misty
- Premium Member
- Posts: 5934
- Joined: August 10th, 2011, 8:13 pm
- Location: United States of America
Re:
Spiral Out, The above sentence does not make sense to me. What statements? If I did edit my post is that against the rules? If I did edit my post while you were responding, how was I to know you were responding? Does one have the right to edit ones post? To change ones mind? To edit for the purpose of being more clear or for any reason? I am baffled, Spiral.Spiral Out wrote:I deleted only off-topic insults and personal attacks, nothing more. (FYI: the above is yet another personal attack (ad hom) in suggesting that I'm somehow abusing my moderator status) My arguments stand firmly on their own based on logic and reason.Misty wrote:Spiral, Is this the only way you can win a debate?
Her "agreement" with you was simply yet another personal attack contrary to rule A, specifically the rule to "Please keep discussion focused on the issues of the specific topics, and not on the character of those discussing the issues."Misty wrote:You "monitored me and Newme (even deleted her agreeing with me)
It is not, and has never been, against the forum rules to suggest that someone review the OP for clarification.Misty wrote:When did it become OK for you to tell others to "read" something?
That's quite an absurd claim. I have no such ability.Misty wrote:You also disabled my link to the meaning of nihilism.
I did not delete any definition of nihilism that you had posted. I only deleted off-topic personal attacks.Misty wrote:Just because YOU disagree with my interpretation and proof of nihilism, one that made you look bad, you delete it.
If you believe that I broke the forum rules then you should report it. I do not interfere with reports against me. The site admin handles those, and I have the warnings to prove it.Misty wrote:Spiral did not monitor and delete his rule breakers on this topic.
Out of fairness, I also did not delete your off-topic post (#86) in that thread that obviously is contrary to the rule that states: "Do not tell others they are violating the forum rules and especially do not quote rule-breaking posts. Simply use the report button (the exclamation point on the upper-right-hand side of the post you wish to report) to report the post and then ignore the reported post until a moderator closes the report or deletes the reported post."
I've sent a message to the site administrator to stop these false and irresponsible accusations. I will not stand for it.
**Note: Misty had posted the above statements and had then edited out some of her statements during the process of my responding to it.
When I logged onto PC today and tried to read my link http://www.iep.utm.edu/nihilism (several times) it came back as" not provided by this server." I thought it was disabled. Sometime later I tried it again and it worked. I am sorry if that hurt you Spiral Out, but it upset me. Misunderstandings are human and I don't think there is a person on this website that does not misunderstand or is misunderstood or that makes mistakes.
The eyes can only see what the mind has, is, or will be prepared to comprehend.
I am Lion, hear me ROAR! Meow.
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5765
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
Re:
This complaint is inappropriate.Okisites wrote:Okay the question is for Scott Sir, (and everybody instead of Spiral Out )
I have noticed in the thread called "Why are there so few Nihilist", that something non-justifiable is going on, as to me it seems that the moderator "Spiral Out" had locked the topic because he is losing the grounds. And I do not see any other logic to lock this thread. If any moderator or administrator or contributor can come forward for the defense of this act of locking a thread, with some logical explanation, then I will accept it to be justifiable. Otherwise, it is clear misuse of power. And it is not good for the forum, I believe.
So I would like everybody to express their views about it, and if I am wrong, then express your view about my perception of it.
The thread is here, where it is locked :-
http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... 20#p211516
What is justification for this, by the moderators other than "Spiral Out".
At last I will ask for forgiveness for Spiral Out.
If you have an issue with a moderator's decision to edit or delete your post, or to close a report without action on a post you think should have been edited or deleted, please post the exact content in question and I will determine whether or not I think it is rule-breaking and why or why not. The same goes if you disagree with my action; I will allow you to post about that particular action and we can discuss whether or not the exact post in question violated the forum rules or not.
I will NOT stand for broad complaints about a moderator, let alone personal attacks, to be expressed publicly for a variety of reasons.
You complain that the moderator in question locked a topic for moderation. That is standard procedure. I do it myself. It can take a lot of time to read through an entire topic and delete the rule-breaking posts, and while that is being done the topic often needs to be locked to prevent further rule-breaking posts being tacked onto a derailed topic. If you want to complain about the action, it isn't the locking that is in question but rather something specific that was deleted from the topic that you think was not rule-breaking and should have not have been deleted. You have not provided such a complaint.
Frankly, that's ridiculous. The link does not go to a working webpage (which may mean the administrators of that website deleted the page to which you are trying to link) or you copied the URL wrong. When I enter the URL in my browser, it returns a custom 404 message from the website in question. There is no way this website could cause that site to return a 404 error on that particular folder of their site. We cannot make a webpage on a different site not work. Spiral Out is a volunteer moderator and does a lot of work to help these forums. Please use more restraint before accusing him of such a thing--a request I am making to you kindly. At the very least, you could have asked, Spiral out, did you disable my link rather than just say he did it as if it is fact. More to the point, now I am asking you, did Spiral Out tell you he disabled your link? What made you think Spiral Out disabled your link so confidently that you went and publicly accused him of it as if it was fact not even merely a suspicion?Misty wrote:Also my link to the real meaning of nihilism on link http://www.iep.utm.edu/nihilism was disabled.
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
- Okisites
- Posts: 1286
- Joined: April 20th, 2012, 7:53 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Nature
Re: Re:
I think I made a mistake by reacting too fast to locking of thread, by seeing locked for moderation. I am sorry for that. I thought it is permanently locked as you sometimes locked a thread for quite a long time, which seemed to me as it is permanently locked. And you did so when there was extreme cases of frequent rule breaking and irrelevant posts, and not in general cases. I think you do ignore minor cases of rule breaking posts. I think this is the right way to simultaneously allow freedom, as well as place restrictions. I think being very scrupulous with rules, can hinder the freedom of expression with speech, as humans with emotions do. Humans talks in wrong way, and they needed to be given a freedom to do so, such that we can know their questions, otherwise we cannot know the questions that general people are concerned, that means we cannot answer their doubts, successfully. So being scrupulous is not a good thing, IMO.Scott wrote:This complaint is inappropriate.Okisites wrote:Okay the question is for Scott Sir, (and everybody instead of Spiral Out )
I have noticed in the thread called "Why are there so few Nihilist", that something non-justifiable is going on, as to me it seems that the moderator "Spiral Out" had locked the topic because he is losing the grounds. And I do not see any other logic to lock this thread. If any moderator or administrator or contributor can come forward for the defense of this act of locking a thread, with some logical explanation, then I will accept it to be justifiable. Otherwise, it is clear misuse of power. And it is not good for the forum, I believe.
So I would like everybody to express their views about it, and if I am wrong, then express your view about my perception of it.
The thread is here, where it is locked :-
http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... 20#p211516
What is justification for this, by the moderators other than "Spiral Out".
At last I will ask for forgiveness for Spiral Out.
If you have an issue with a moderator's decision to edit or delete your post, or to close a report without action on a post you think should have been edited or deleted, please post the exact content in question and I will determine whether or not I think it is rule-breaking and why or why not. The same goes if you disagree with my action; I will allow you to post about that particular action and we can discuss whether or not the exact post in question violated the forum rules or not.
I will NOT stand for broad complaints about a moderator, let alone personal attacks, to be expressed publicly for a variety of reasons.
You complain that the moderator in question locked a topic for moderation. That is standard procedure. I do it myself. It can take a lot of time to read through an entire topic and delete the rule-breaking posts, and while that is being done the topic often needs to be locked to prevent further rule-breaking posts being tacked onto a derailed topic. If you want to complain about the action, it isn't the locking that is in question but rather something specific that was deleted from the topic that you think was not rule-breaking and should have not have been deleted. You have not provided such a complaint.
Secondly imagine about you yourself participating in the thread, and pointing and deleting the allegations and ad hominem against you (made by others not willingly, but with ignorance), by yourself. Does that will look justified Sir? Especially when you do not seems to be concerned about similar things happening in other threads, in which you are not participating? I don’t think it will look justified, and I perfectly know that you cannot do this very same thing. I think this is the crux of the arousal of the feeling that something not justifiable is going on.
And I certainly know that being very scrupulous about rules will hamper the freedom of speech, and thereby hampering the understanding of the question at hand. So I will not support any actions in this direction, which is neither good for the speaker nor the listener, nor it is good for everybody as a whole.
I do not have any problem with deletion of posts, as you had done once with my post in the thread named “What is thinking”, claiming it to be not understandable or grammatical mistake or something alike.
I am sorry to pass the judgement too fast.
Thank you, Okisites.
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5765
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
Re: [Inappropriate Complaint]
I would agree IF--and this is a big if--the posts containing the "similar things happening in other threads" had been reported. IF the moderator's actions in dealing with those reports was not consistent with actions in the other topic (e.g. closing a report without deleting a post that contains the same rule-breaking for which the moderator noticed in a post that he did delete in a topic he was participating in and/or that happened to be directed at him), then there is a valid complaint to be made using the newly explained Procedure for Complaining about Moderator Actions, either in regard to the moderator incorrectly dealing with the report or the moderator incorrectly deleting the post in the topic noticed. However, IF he posts containing the "similar things happening in other threads" have NOT been reported, then such a complaint is unfair and ludacris. Of course the moderator notices rule-breaking in topics he happens to be reading and/or participating in while using the forum as a typical member does, but doesn't always happen to stumble upon the rule-breaking posts by chance in other topics in which he is not participating.Secondly imagine about you yourself participating in the thread, and pointing and deleting the allegations and ad hominem against you (made by others not willingly, but with ignorance), by yourself. Does that will look justified Sir? Especially when you do not seems to be concerned about similar things happening in other threads, in which you are not participating? I don’t think it will look justified, and I perfectly know that you cannot do this very same thing. I think this is the crux of the arousal of the feeling that something not justifiable is going on.
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
- Okisites
- Posts: 1286
- Joined: April 20th, 2012, 7:53 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Nature
Re: [Inappropriate Complaint]
I agree to all of you what you said, especially the above one.Scott wrote: Of course the moderator notices rule-breaking in topics he happens to be reading and/or participating in while using the forum as a typical member does, but doesn't always happen to stumble upon the rule-breaking posts by chance in other topics in which he is not participating.
But what about the Judge judging the case against himself?
Sorry if you didn;t liked the question
- Spiral Out
- Posts: 5014
- Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am
Re: [Inappropriate Complaint]
The judge is not "judging the case against himself". As I had said before, any reports against me are only handled by the site admin or another moderator. I do not interfere with those at all. As far as moderating threads where I am involved in the discussions, if there is an obvious infringement of the rules then I will make the appropriate changes.Okisites wrote:But what about the Judge judging the case against himself?
Do you have any specific examples of what you're talking about, as in any cases of unfair or improper biased moderation that we can verify?
To prevent such a situation from reoccurring, I will be comprehensively and exhaustively documenting (in addition to already-existing activity logging) any and all of my moderation activities going forward.
- Okisites
- Posts: 1286
- Joined: April 20th, 2012, 7:53 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Nature
Re: [Inappropriate Complaint]
Actually what I meant to say is that, the allegations in the thread are against you yourself, and that is why you cannot delete those allegations, imo, what you call as ad hominem, or arguing the person presenting the argument instead of arguing the question at hand.Spiral Out wrote:The judge is not "judging the case against himself". As I had said before, any reports against me are only handled by the site admin or another moderator. I do not interfere with those at all. As far as moderating threads where I am involved in the discussions, if there is an obvious infringement of the rules then I will make the appropriate changes.Okisites wrote:But what about the Judge judging the case against himself?
Do you have any specific examples of what you're talking about, as in any cases of unfair or improper biased moderation that we can verify?
To prevent such a situation from reoccurring, I will be comprehensively and exhaustively documenting (in addition to already-existing activity logging) any and all of my moderation activities going forward.
The allegations are against you(though not in the form of report or complaint), and this is why I think you should not apply your powers there. This I base on my common sense.
For example, the post#5 here clearly says that "You(you) have monitored me{Misty} and Newme". Why you monitored them only? You also deleted their mutual agreements, which you seen as ad hominem against you. Why?
You said that you did not delete Misty Mam's off-topic post#86, out of fairness, which is a very good move, but I think the quoted portion of your response in post#86, in that thread itself is rule-breaking, as it contains ad hominem( by saying that "I don't think you are capable of understanding the concept"). This is a ad hominem.
I am sorry if I am hurting you, but I feel that it is not right to indulge and show our powers when something is against us ourself. I may be wrong, and you can explain.
Thank You, Okisites.
- Spiral Out
- Posts: 5014
- Joined: June 26th, 2012, 10:22 am
Re: [Inappropriate Complaint]
The allegations were submitted in the on-topic section of the forums so in addition to being ad hominem personal attacks they were off-topic as well. If any allegations are presented in the proper forum and are in accordance with the guidelines set forth by the site administrator then of course I could not, and would not, delete them.Okisites wrote:Actually what I meant to say is that, the allegations in the thread are against you yourself, and that is why you cannot delete those allegations, imo, what you call as ad hominem, or arguing the person presenting the argument instead of arguing the question at hand.
I'm not trying to cover anything up, if that's what you're implying.
I'm a moderator. I am supposed to moderate the forums in accordance with the forum rules. If I am witness to off-topic and/or ad hominem posts then it is my duty to delete or edit them. I also regularly check the list of reported posts and address them accordingly as well.Okisites wrote:The allegations are against you(though not in the form of report or complaint), and this is why I think you should not apply your powers there. This I base on my common sense.
I don't "monitor" anyone specifically. I was involved in that part of the discussion so I was immediately aware of the off-topic comments. The "mutual agreement" was submitted in the form of an off-topic ad hominem personal attack. It's that simple.Okisites wrote:For example, the post#5 here clearly says that "You(you) have monitored me{Misty} and Newme". Why you monitored them only? You also deleted their mutual agreements, which you seen as ad hominem against you. Why?
I have suggested that the post be reported if it is thought to be a rule-breaking post. I do not interfere with reports made against me. What's fair is fair. I'm far from perfect and I accept full responsibility for any posts that I submit. I always have and I always will.Okisites wrote:You said that you did not delete Misty Mam's off-topic post#86, out of fairness, which is a very good move, but I think the quoted portion of your response in post#86, in that thread itself is rule-breaking, as it contains ad hominem( by saying that "I don't think you are capable of understanding the concept"). This is a ad hominem.
I understand your perspective and I appreciate your honesty and concern, Okisites. Thank you.Okisites wrote:I am sorry if I am hurting you, but I feel that it is not right to indulge and show our powers when something is against us ourself. I may be wrong, and you can explain.
- Okisites
- Posts: 1286
- Joined: April 20th, 2012, 7:53 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Nature
Re: [Inappropriate Complaint]
Thanks, have a good days, Okisites
- Newme
- Posts: 1401
- Joined: December 13th, 2011, 1:21 am
Re: [Inappropriate Complaint]
Spiral, I think for the most part you are fair & as mentioned, I admire how you think in many ways, but you're not perfect in your moderating. Nobody's perfect. The one thing imperfection hates the most is imperfection.
I suggest we all learn & do better, and move on.
- Okisites
- Posts: 1286
- Joined: April 20th, 2012, 7:53 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Nature
Re: [Inappropriate Complaint]
Thank You, Okisites.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023