Bickering and Banning | Split From: New kid on the block.

[AnimatedDirt]

I think it might be a good idea tO lock this before someone says something they will regret.

Yes, lock it and HAF will continue with the status quo.

[Recusant]

As you observed, AnimatedDirt, there really isn't a good place for this sort of discussion here. I also agree that this thread doesn't belong in the "Dump Pile" sub-section.

I think that having a place which invites feedback and discussion is worth while, despite the "barracks lawyer" issue. This is not RDF, nor is it any of the other large fora which have had problems with obstreperous shit-disturbers.

For now, I've moved this thread to a sub-section with a less negative name, though I think that a sub-section devoted to discussions such as this one is a good idea. I also think that such discussions are healthy. This isn't a democracy, but neither is it a police state.

[AnimatedDirt]

As you observed, AnimatedDirt, there really isn't a good place for this sort of discussion here. I also agree that this thread doesn't belong in the "Dump Pile" sub-section.

I think that having a place which invites feedback and discussion is worth while, despite the "barracks lawyer" issue. This is not RDF, nor is it any of the other large fora which have had problems with obstreperous shit-disturbers.

For now, I've moved this thread to a sub-section with a less negative name, though I think that a sub-section devoted to discussions such as this one is a good idea. I also think that such discussions are healthy. This isn't a democracy, but neither is it a police state.

Thank you.  Appreciated. 

[DeterminedJuliet]

For the most part, i think some atheists can be rude only because we are fucking sick of religion being shoved into our face by law and pamphlets.

So when theists behave badly it's the fault of religion and when atheists behave badly...it's also the fault of religion.

More like the fault of annoying ass people.

I'll reformulate: When religious people act badly, it's the fault of religion and when atheists act badly it's the fault of religious people.

If we are being open and honest, hopefully without the threat of the ban hammer being swung on ourselves, I would have to say that the above was certainly not warning worthy, we all call each other out on contradictions or try to reword something based on how we understood something to "mean". I understand it can appear obnoxious but everyone has a different style, some people have high EQ like Ali and DeterminedJuliet whom always come across as very nice pleasant people (whom you want to have conversation with) others may come across as too blunt, too grating, people with low EQ like myself 
I don't think it is a moderator's place to change people, to make them into high EQ. Sometimes blunt and to the point is necessary, sometimes it is not, but people are who they are. As long as we aren't getting personal, calling names, being racist, sexist or insensitive to people's situation then just let people be please.
SD was fine, I don't think she was overly worried about ER's comment. I can understand ER's over the top response if he felt unreasonably treated by the threat of the mod hammer.

Thanks for the complement.

I have no problem with bluntness, and I think members should be allowed to challenge each other's ideas, so long as it doesn't get too personal. Last going off, En_Route and I had pretty civilized disagreements in the "lying to children" thread, actually. So maybe there could have been some progress there, I dunno.

With regard to SD, as I said before, I didn't really consider what ER said to be bullying, per se, though, like AD, he tends to hide his "challenges" in cryptic, dance-around-it talk rather than a more direct approach. It can come across as intentionally passive-aggressive. Despite this, as much as I love SD, she does make some sweeping generalizations sometimes and I think it should be okay to challenge them.

[AnimatedDirt]

For the most part, i think some atheists can be rude only because we are fucking sick of religion being shoved into our face by law and pamphlets.

So when theists behave badly it's the fault of religion and when atheists behave badly...it's also the fault of religion.

More like the fault of annoying ass people.

I'll reformulate: When religious people act badly, it's the fault of religion and when atheists act badly it's the fault of religious people.

If we are being open and honest, hopefully without the threat of the ban hammer being swung on ourselves, I would have to say that the above was certainly not warning worthy, we all call each other out on contradictions or try to reword something based on how we understood something to "mean". I understand it can appear obnoxious but everyone has a different style, some people have high EQ like Ali and DeterminedJuliet whom always come across as very nice pleasant people (whom you want to have conversation with) others may come across as too blunt, too grating, people with low EQ like myself 
I don't think it is a moderator's place to change people, to make them into high EQ. Sometimes blunt and to the point is necessary, sometimes it is not, but people are who they are. As long as we aren't getting personal, calling names, being racist, sexist or insensitive to people's situation then just let people be please.
SD was fine, I don't think she was overly worried about ER's comment. I can understand ER's over the top response if he felt unreasonably treated by the threat of the mod hammer.

Thanks for the complement.

I have no problem with bluntness, and I think members should be allowed to challenge each other's ideas, so long as it doesn't get too personal. Last going off, En_Route and I had pretty civilized disagreements in the "lying to children" thread, actually. So maybe there could have been some progress there, I dunno.

With regard to SD, as I said before, I didn't really consider what ER said to be bullying, per se, though, like AD, he tends to hide his "challenges" in cryptic, dance-around-it talk rather than a more direct approach. It can come across as intentionally passive-aggressive. Despite this, as much as I love SD, she does make some sweeping generalizations sometimes and I think it should be okay to challenge them.

It sounds, DJ, that you'd rather a person be blunt and assume the worst and REACT to that instead of asking a question for clarification?  It seems to me that had he done this, the outcome would've been the same or worse.  The problem, as Stevil mentions and I agree, is that this was not even warning-worthy, much less a permaban.

[Ali]

For the most part, i think some atheists can be rude only because we are fucking sick of religion being shoved into our face by law and pamphlets.

So when theists behave badly it's the fault of religion and when atheists behave badly...it's also the fault of religion.

More like the fault of annoying ass people.

I'll reformulate: When religious people act badly, it's the fault of religion and when atheists act badly it's the fault of religious people.

If we are being open and honest, hopefully without the threat of the ban hammer being swung on ourselves, I would have to say that the above was certainly not warning worthy, we all call each other out on contradictions or try to reword something based on how we understood something to "mean". I understand it can appear obnoxious but everyone has a different style, some people have high EQ like Ali and DeterminedJuliet whom always come across as very nice pleasant people (whom you want to have conversation with) others may come across as too blunt, too grating, people with low EQ like myself 
I don't think it is a moderator's place to change people, to make them into high EQ. Sometimes blunt and to the point is necessary, sometimes it is not, but people are who they are. As long as we aren't getting personal, calling names, being racist, sexist or insensitive to people's situation then just let people be please.
SD was fine, I don't think she was overly worried about ER's comment. I can understand ER's over the top response if he felt unreasonably treated by the threat of the mod hammer.

Thanks for the complement.

I have no problem with bluntness, and I think members should be allowed to challenge each other's ideas, so long as it doesn't get too personal. Last going off, En_Route and I had pretty civilized disagreements in the "lying to children" thread, actually. So maybe there could have been some progress there, I dunno.

With regard to SD, as I said before, I didn't really consider what ER said to be bullying, per se, though, like AD, he tends to hide his "challenges" in cryptic, dance-around-it talk rather than a more direct approach. It can come across as intentionally passive-aggressive. Despite this, as much as I love SD, she does make some sweeping generalizations sometimes and I think it should be okay to challenge them.

Agreed.

[Stevil]

It sounds, DJ, that you'd rather a person be blunt and assume the worst and REACT to that instead of asking a question for clarification?

Tank does a great job for the most part. He does it out of love and passion for this community. I seriously don't think he gets paid.
So much effort from him especially and the other mods, this is a fantasic place because of this.

Sometimes mods get caught up in the emotion too, they are not robots, and sometimes they act imperectly, they are not "Jesus" or Mr Perfect (for those oldies that used to watch WWF).
On the whole Tank is superb.

Many people aren't cut out to be mods, it is only a special few that can do such a great job.

[AnimatedDirt]

It sounds, DJ, that you'd rather a person be blunt and assume the worst and REACT to that instead of asking a question for clarification?

Tank does a great job for the most part. He does it out of love and passion for this community. I seriously don't think he gets paid.
So much effort from him especially and the other mods, this is a fantasic place because of this.

Agreed.  I've mentioned many times that I love this place too.  It has a bunch of people that frankly I wouldn't mind spending time with IRL. 

Sometimes mods get caught up in the emotion too, they are not robots, and sometimes they act imperectly, they are not "Jesus" or Mr Perfect (for those oldies that used to watch WWF).
On the whole Tank is superb.

Many people aren't cut out to be mods, it is only a special few that can do such a great job.

I respect your opinion.

[DeterminedJuliet]

It sounds, DJ, that you'd rather a person be blunt and assume the worst and REACT to that instead of asking a question for clarification?

Nope, I'd just rather, if you're trying to "get at" something that you just say it rather than dance around it. If you dance around it and someone is already annoyed, then they assume the worst anyway. If ER felt like SD was setting a double standard, it would have been better, I think, if he had directly said, "when you say ________ it sounds like a double standard to me." Then she can either defend her position or agree and apologize. If you pose a bunch of round-about loaded questions, it's frustrating, not clear as to what you're trying to get at and someone's more likely to take it personally. Clarification is always good, but I think it'd be better if posters expressed their thoughts in a way that required as little clarification as possible.  

EDIT: I was talking about the person posting originally being blunt, not the mod or whoever being blunt. Is that what you meant? haha, see, I'm not even sure who the "person" you're referring to is upon a second read.

[Crow]

I thought I would just take the time to clarify a few points as I think Tank (and others) might have taken what I wrote as an attack against him. That was not what I was trying to convey I was purely challenging a decision that I disagreed with, a style of moderation that I had a problem with, and in my opinion was a bad decision that needed clarifying and appeared (still does in my honest opinion) to have been swayed by personal opinions rather than an objective decision.

I appreciate all the work Tank puts into this site and is understandable that he and others might get a bit personally involved but if I think something is wrong I am not going to keep quite, from the look of it I wasn't the only one that had a problem with recent mod decisions, I would have normally taken my grievances to the person in question in private but seeing as that doesn't actually achieve anything, as I found out you just get a my decision was right and I am the mod you are not and this was more of the same behavior I thought it was worth bringing up to be discussed.

If you can't challenge a mod on there personal opinions without them either stonewalling you (which I have seen others been banned for in my brief time here) or reverting into mod mode then whats the point of the mod being involved in a debate in the first place? A mod should be warned the same just as other members, maybe they were but unless its to do with "official business" why not do it in public like the others?

[AnimatedDirt]

It sounds, DJ, that you'd rather a person be blunt and assume the worst and REACT to that instead of asking a question for clarification?

Nope, I'd just rather, if you're trying to "get at" something that you just say it rather than dance around it. If you dance around it and someone is already annoyed, then they assume the worst anyway. If ER felt like SD was setting a double standard, it would have been better, I think, if he had directly said, "when you say ________ it sounds like a double standard to me." Then she can either defend her position or agree and apologize. If you pose a bunch of round-about loaded questions, it's frustrating, not clear as to what you're trying to get at and someone's more likely to take it personally. Clarification is always good, but I think it'd be better if posters expressed their thoughts in a way that required as little clarification as possible.

To me it did seem blunt and getting 'right to it' by going to the logical conclusion in a question form.  But I'm prone to being wrong.

[DeterminedJuliet]

It sounds, DJ, that you'd rather a person be blunt and assume the worst and REACT to that instead of asking a question for clarification?

Nope, I'd just rather, if you're trying to "get at" something that you just say it rather than dance around it. If you dance around it and someone is already annoyed, then they assume the worst anyway. If ER felt like SD was setting a double standard, it would have been better, I think, if he had directly said, "when you say ________ it sounds like a double standard to me." Then she can either defend her position or agree and apologize. If you pose a bunch of round-about loaded questions, it's frustrating, not clear as to what you're trying to get at and someone's more likely to take it personally. Clarification is always good, but I think it'd be better if posters expressed their thoughts in a way that required as little clarification as possible.

To me it did seem blunt and getting 'right to it' by going to the logical conclusion in a question form.  But I'm prone to being wrong.

The Socratic method isn't exactly known for its directness.

[Velma]

It sounds, DJ, that you'd rather a person be blunt and assume the worst and REACT to that instead of asking a question for clarification?

Tank does a great job for the most part. He does it out of love and passion for this community. I seriously don't think he gets paid.
So much effort from him especially and the other mods, this is a fantasic place because of this.

Sometimes mods get caught up in the emotion too, they are not robots, and sometimes they act imperectly, they are not "Jesus" or Mr Perfect (for those oldies that used to watch WWF).
On the whole Tank is superb.

Many people aren't cut out to be mods, it is only a special few that can do such a great job.

.
This.  Tank you have always done a great job as a staff member no matter where that has been.  You always have the welfare of the community as a whole in mind.  I appreciate what you bring to this community and the time and effort you put into it.  *hugs*

[Firebird]

I know I may be beating a dead horse here, but the more I read this, the more Tank's accusation of bullying bothers me. Was ER really bullying SD? Yes, perhaps being a bit blunt and argumentative, but I have seen worse on this forum and not considered it report-worthy. His response to Tank was ban-worthy, certainly. I find this whole thing unfortunate. Just my two cents.

[technolud]

Gosh, take a few weeks off to be with my flame-boy civic friends (trying to get my car track ready) and you all really get into it.

I've read this thread in the last two days front to back and concluded:

1)  I'm impressed with you all as a community.  Well thought out.

2)  Tank is a good moderator and acted within the limits of his authority/responsibility, considering the best interest of the forum.

3)  En_Route got what he asked for, although he definitely was a contributor here.

4)  (My opinion) Sometimes giving some one a "third" chance works out.

My two cents.