Da Schneib shows up late

[Schneibster]

You were reminded of the play nice rule when you implied that another mmber was a jackbooted thug

After they gamed the system against me. Which is what jackbooted thugs do. Sorry, I actually had the temerity to speak of reality. It's a shame you find that so threatening.

Also, we don't actually have a rule about gaming the system.

Considering a moderator told me I did and it was wrong, I suggest that you can't agree among yourselves what's against the rules and what's not. That's not my problem; my problem is figuring out what you actually think is wrong, as opposed to what you say you think is wrong. And that's not a problem I'm going to bother with trying to solve very much, sorry, you're not good enough for that to be worthwhile.

[Robert_S]

Implying that a member of this forum is a jackbooted thug is not nice. "Gaming the system" to do so while constantly bitching about others gaming the system sounds like hypocrisy.

And what is written in blue is not a message from the individual mod, but arrived at by consensus. So you can stop accusing the individual mod please kind sir.

[Schneibster]

Merely trolling is not against our rules.

I had the system gamed against me, and then got accused (ETA: by a member of the staff) of gaming the system for pointing it out, in apparent revenge for asking an inconvenient question.

Why do you keep trying to make this about me? Are my questions so scary?

I'm still trying to figure out what question you are talking about.

The first one is, you have a rule about personal attacks, but when it was applied, it apparently was applied for something that's not really a personal attack, and there's a corresponding point where something that you all agree is a personal attack cannot have it applied to it. I asked whether this was consistent, if not why not, and whether you collectively intended to do something about it. I have received answers on none of these things. I was promised an answer by a moderator who mistakenly assumed I was asking for immediate answers. This moderator asked for more time; I indicated there was no rush, and was told to expect something in a week. I saw nothing and made no comment, figuring perhaps she was busy.

Next, she posted a moderator warning for something that another moderator, posting on this thread, has just said is not against the rules.

Having had numerous bad experiences in the past, my interpretation of this is that I scared/irritated her by asking a question she couldn't answer, and she's sublimated this by giving me a moderator warning for something that other moderators don't believe is against the rules. So now, the second question is, is it against the rules or not, and the third is, why is this person giving out moderator warnings for things other moderators don't think are offenses? And the fourth question is, why is this person, and a couple of others who are getting aggressive apparently because they don't have any answers either, permitted a position of authority, when they are clearly abusing it?

And finally, does anyone here give a shit about your site's integrity, or anyone's perception thereof? Because I'm telling you, folks, it's shit as far as I'm concerned right now. You don't deserve any name containing the word "rational" unless it's preceded by the ir- prefix, commonly meaning "not."

[Robert_S]

I will consider the points in your post. Thank you for your patience.

[Schneibster]

Implying that a member of this forum is a jackbooted thug is not nice.

Sorry, I calls 'em like I sees 'em. Trolling someone isn't nice either. Gaming the system to shut them up means the system is weak, and avoiding answering questions about the system is deceptive, and deliberately so. Deception, also, particularly deliberate deception, is also not nice.

"Gaming the system" to do so while constantly bitching about others gaming the system sounds like hypocrisy.

But it's not against the rules, and I was told by a moderator it was. Make up your fucking minds.

And what is written in blue is not a message from the individual mod, but arrived at by consensus. So you can stop accusing the individual mod please kind sir.

Unfortunately the "consensus" doesn't agree with what you're saying. Make up your fucking minds.

[Robert_S]

Okay, I shall bring this matter to the rest of the staff.

Meanwhile you can decide whether you are threatening us with your abandonment because we do not meet your standards or whether we are pushing you away because... what motives are you accusing us of having again?

[Hermit]

You don't deserve any name containing the word "rational"

I suppose we could change the forum's name from rationalia to saturnalia. By Zeuss, we fully deserve that.

[Schneibster]

I will consider the points in your post. Thank you for your patience.

No hurry; but I gotta tell you, I'm not very impressed that it took this much effort, this much time, and a bunch of abuse from staff here, including saying things that are fucking obvious implying I'm stupid, before you got around to it.

I am not stupid, I am not a troll, and I already thought of the obvious answers and they weren't good enough. I asked the obvious questions, long ago, and got no response, and what I predicted has come to pass. You have holes in your system, and you're letting people game them. You (collectively) are not trustworthy. You can become so, but you have to make commitments and keep them. So far, one commitment has been made and not kept.

[Schneibster]

Meanwhile you can decide whether you are threatening us

C'mon, man.

Really?

After the fifteen times I said "this is not about me?" You're still trying?

Really?

[Schneibster]

You don't deserve any name containing the word "rational"

I suppose we could change the forum's name from rationalia to saturnalia.

Sure, but then I wouldn't expect to make posts debunking religion and anti-science. And I wouldn't have bothered coming here in the first place.

Not that there's anything wrong with a saturnalia, or that I don't like to participate in such, or even that I don't think it's OK with a site that does do the debunking thing. Just, if that's all this is, then I'm a lot less interested.

By Zeuss, we fully deserve that.

I think you got Dr. Seuss confused with the King of the Greek Gods, Zeus. It's an interesting piece of surrealism.

[Schneibster]

BTW, please consider the fact that you (corporate) have said that accusing someone of gaming the system is gaming the system. That was a bad mistake.

[Robert_S]

BTW, please consider the fact that you (corporate) have said that accusing someone of gaming the system is gaming the system. That was a bad mistake.

I don't believe we did. At least not on purpose.

But you calling it a mistake makes me suspicious. Are you trying to trick the moderation of this forum into making two or more logical inconsistencies?

[Magicziggy]

Welcome Schneibster.

[Schneibster]

BTW, please consider the fact that you (corporate) have said that accusing someone of gaming the system is gaming the system. That was a bad mistake.

I don't believe we did. At least not on purpose.

Well, now, I never said that was on purpose; I said you're ignoring it. It is an obvious logical inconsistency, and in fact, what she said was, accusing someone of gaming the system is gaming the system. I note that a) there is no discussion of the fact that this is a logical inconsistency, b) that it pretends that gaming the system by one person is not a hostile act, but gaming the system by another (me) is, and c) the only evidence presented that I "gamed the system" is that I accused someone else (who was obviously gaming the system and even exulted about having successfully done so at the end of the thread) of gaming the system.

That I should even need to discuss these points bothers me. It's like having a conversation about whether there's air or not. I don't mind having such a conversation with a child. Having it with an adult is disconcerting. We're not in second grade any more.

But you calling it a mistake makes me suspicious. Are you trying to trick the moderation of this forum into making two or more logical inconsistencies?

Sure, I want it to vanish in a cloud of evil smelling smoke because it's internally inconsistent.

More seriously, I think the three points I enumerated above show why it's a mistake.

This is why moderator judgment is crucial; no system can be constructed that is free from such inconsistencies. However, they can be shifted by smart people away from where they can do harm. In games, this is often expressed as "no harm, no foul."

[Schneibster]

Thank you, ziggy.