DaveDodo007... I mean... Rationalskepticism,lol.

[Mr.Samsa]

Wow that was perfect, aspire. I actually had to go back through the thread to check because I didn't remember Cito saying that.

[Fallible]

Samsa: what were you suspended for this time?

For "review of probationary membership". Um...OK then...

Yeah, I saw that in the temp suspension thread, but it tells us nothing. So I was more interested in what situation led to Samsa's temp suspension. But his reply is equally informative. You have to love the communication skills over at ratskep.

Reading between the lines, "review of probationary membership" says to me "discussing if he gets to stay a member". As to what prompted it, I can only assume it was his interactions with The_Metatron and Cito, or a combination of that with him starting a second feedback thread on the same topic when the first one was locked with a number of users still unclear on what the mod position was. Or they've just pegged him as a troll and this "review" is not directly relevant to anything he did immediately before the suspension - there is precedent for those viewed as trolls being banned without a specific incident being the culprit, but the posting pattern of the individual. But as you say, it could be made a lot clearer.

Do you really think that a reference to someone's 'probationary membership' does not include considering all the reasons why that membership is probationary in the first place.

Tell us about the "reasons", Cito. Tell us about the really-o truly-o Real Reasons. Bend a spoon.

Of course, you can assume your conclusion, namely, that every charge against poor ol' Samsa is trumped up nonsense, regardless of what lies there staring back at you from the pages of that forum.

Tell us what lies staring back at you from the pages of that forum, Cito. You have the scoop. Tell us what really-o truly-o lies staring back at you from the pages of that forum, the certified, approved, Really Real Story. Then explain how Cito the Exempt is not bending spoons.

The question of what to do about emotionally-volatile members who persist in attacking people instead of ideas is not an easy one.

Oh indeed, what shall we do? Tell us about the angst-ridden hand wringing with feeling, Cito.

Whatever else you can say about me, Fall, 'emotionally volatile' is not one of them.

What exactly do you think is at stake here, Cito, if I say things about you which are Not Really True?

[Fallible]

The question of what to do about emotionally-volatile members who persist in attacking people instead of ideas is not an easy one. Whatever else you can say about me, Fall, 'emotionally volatile' is not one of them.

I think you're clutching at straws if you're trying to label me as "emotionally volatile".. Unless having laughing fits at your incoherent nonsense is "emotionally volatile", and then yeah, sure.

That's part of it, of course, Samsa. But I see you're not denying the bits about attacking people instead of ideas. QED. Should you survive your judicial review, I hope you'll take that forward in interacting with me over there. The more personal attacks you make, the better. Sooner or later, it will add up.

Keep nursing those fee-fees, Cito.

[pErvinalia]

This is fun!

[Surendra Darathy]

I saw that in the temp suspension thread

Ratskep has a classification called temp suspension? Are the the people who came up with this tautology unaware that suspensions are temporary by definition, or is their objective to raise the rules to ever greater heights of Byzantine complexity and Kafkaesque absurdity?

It's easy-peasy if you think about it rationally, which might be a first for you. When a review of someone's membership privileges is desirable, don't you think that a static record of a members use of those privileges is also desirable? Particularly if said member has a recorded tendency to fly off the handle a bit?

For the life of me, I don't know why the mod staff didn't institute this a long time ago. I guess it wasn't necessary until this or that member began habitually to harass the mod staff with feedback threads about formal sanctions handed out in the past.

[pErvinalia]

Surrender: You still wake up sometimes, don't you, Cito? You wake up in the dark and hear the bending of the spoons.

Cito: Yes.

Surrender: And you think if you save poor Surrender, you could make them stop, don't you? You think if Surrender wibbles, you won't wake up in the dark ever again to that awful bending of the spoons.

Cito: I don't know. I don't know.

[pErvinalia]

I saw that in the temp suspension thread

Ratskep has a classification called temp suspension? Are the the people who came up with this tautology unaware that suspensions are temporary by definition, or is their objective to raise the rules to ever greater heights of Byzantine complexity and Kafkaesque absurdity?

It's easy-peasy if you think about it rationally, which might be a first for you. When a review of someone's membership privileges is desirable, don't you think that a static record of a members use of those privileges is also desirable? Particularly if said member has a recorded tendency to fly off the handle a bit?

For the life of me, I don't know why the mod staff didn't institute this a long time ago. I guess it wasn't necessary until this or that member began habitually to harass the mod staff with feedback threads about formal sanctions handed out in the past.

Cito cito. What did I say about attempting rational argumentation?! Stop before you embarrass yourself further.

[Mr.Samsa]

Do you really think that a reference to someone's 'probationary membership' does not include considering all the reasons why that membership is probationary in the first place.

Tell us about the "reasons", Cito. Tell us about the really-o truly-o Real Reasons. Bend a spoon.

Of course, you can assume your conclusion, namely, that every charge against poor ol' Samsa is trumped up nonsense, regardless of what lies there staring back at you from the pages of that forum.

Tell us what lies staring back at you from the pages of that forum, Cito. You have the scoop. Tell us what really-o truly-o lies staring back at you from the pages of that forum, the certified, approved, Really Real Story. Then explain how Cito the Exempt is not bending spoons.

The question of what to do about emotionally-volatile members who persist in attacking people instead of ideas is not an easy one.

Oh indeed, what shall we do? Tell us about the angst-ridden hand wringing with feeling, Cito.

Whatever else you can say about me, Fall, 'emotionally volatile' is not one of them.

What exactly do you think is at stake here, Cito, if I say things about you which are Not Really True?

It's like you've been possessed by Cito's soul and he is speaking through you...

the power of christ compels you, the power of christ compels you, the power of christ compels you

It's easy-peasy if you think about it rationally, which might be a first for you. When a review of someone's membership privileges is desirable, don't you think that a static record of a members use of those privileges is also desirable? Particularly if said member has a recorded tendency to fly off the handle a bit?

Except of course I have no such record of "flying off the handle". Unlike say, theropod or weaver, who spam threads demanding that people suck their dicks.

For the life of me, I don't know why the mod staff didn't institute this a long time ago. I guess it wasn't necessary until this or that member began habitually to harass the mod staff with feedback threads about formal sanctions handed out in the past.

Haha, criticism of mod decisions is "harassment" now? Yes, that makes perfect sense. Can't criticise the mods now, there's a good boy.

And I love how the blame is being placed on me for starting feedback threads. I've started a handful over the course of a few months and most of them have just been asking for them to clarify a position that should have been clarified in the first place. And that's not even counting the threads that other members asked me to start for them.

Go bend a spoon.

[Babel]

I saw that in the temp suspension thread

Ratskep has a classification called temp suspension? Are the the people who came up with this tautology unaware that suspensions are temporary by definition, or is their objective to raise the rules to ever greater heights of Byzantine complexity and Kafkaesque absurdity?

Oh, and hello Cito. I was hoping not to get reacquainted with your tortuously expressed verbosity signifying nothing since I had the misfortune to encounter some of them at, I think it was TR, but since you have decided to spread your public wanking to this forum once again, enjoy yourself. No harm done. Your jizz will dry up soon enough, and people will step over it without fearing the soles of their shoes will spread it all over the place.

There is indeed a sticky in feedback called 'temporary suspensions' where they announce who has been suspended.

[pErvinalia]

I'm proud to say that I was the first person on that forum to get the 24hr suspension. And in keeping with the inconsistency of that place, I got it before there was even a rule about it.

[Surendra Darathy]

Wow that was perfect, aspire

All the way to fucking up the quote tags.

[Mr.Samsa]

Wow that was perfect, aspire

All the way to fucking up the quote tags.

He didn't fuck up the quote tags. Check again.

[Fallible]

[Surendra Darathy]

Wow that was perfect, aspire

All the way to fucking up the quote tags.

He didn't fuck up the quote tags. Check again.

He also posted something I didn't write, the kind of shit that he can't get away with over at RatSkep; that's one reason so many of you wily reprobates like hanging out here sans moderation.

I didn't remember Cito saying that.

You've got the opposite problem to that of David McC, who thinks you've got stealth mod privileges and are going around monkeying with people's posts.

[pErvinalia]

Wow that was perfect, aspire

All the way to fucking up the quote tags.

My god, you have been drinking the cooking sherry! You're even an embarrassment to trolls.