A Possible Change In The Rules - RatSkep tangent

[LaMont Cranston]

Durro, I did not say that you cannot be a member of two forums. Quite obviously, you and other people can and are doing that. I did make some reference to "no man can serve two masters," because I couldn't resist the Biblical reference, but I quickly added that this whole thing proves that you can be a member of two or more forums.

What I don't get is why you and some of the others take this shit so seriously. By me, this has been the most hilarious thread that's come down the pike in awhile, and if some people can't see the humor in it, they are comedically challenged. There's a long and honored tradition in comedy (i.e. Marx Bros., Laurel and Hardy, etc.) where people who take themselves oh-so-seriously are the butt of jokes, and, by me, that's what has happened here.

It has been said by some of us, including myself, that at least some of the mods at ratskep take their self-importance, their heaviousity , their limited power and some other things an inflated, uptight manner. Once again, people who act like that must feel weak. Thanks to all of those who have helped illustrate that point.

PS: Those sunglasses in your avatar really don't do all that much for you. You might consider getting rid of those and going for some that are more happening.

The Shadow knows...

[LaMont Cranston]

Durro, (Are you still here? Ah, yes, I see that you're checking in to see what's being said about you, so here goes...)

Dude, If you really want to show what you're made of, how about taking a stand against the injustices and arrogant conduct that has been perpetuated against former members of ratskep? It takes a brave guy to pick up the mantle in the face of others who are uptight, weak and rigid, but, if you could handle Saudi Arabia and come out smiling, you're up to this task. For starters, how about making a sincere apology to Kiki, one of the nices people I've met on any of these forums. Look, I know I can be an arrogant asshole who comes up in people's faces, but Kiki? That should be a clue to some of y'all just how out of line you are.

OK, after you apologize to Kiki, how about coming out for "all sins being forgiven" and welcoming all of the banned and suspended members back to ratskep? We'll be good, Durro, we promise. Give us just one more chance...

[maiforpeace]

Everyone involved in this thread should take a long, hard look at themself.

"Themself?"

Some should take a long hard look at their grammar.

Indeed CH, we can all learn something from this discussion. Since this is a thread about issues with moderation, I certainly hope to learn from it.

What I don't get is why you and some of the others take this shit so seriously.

Maybe because they care? I would attribute that characteristic to most of the people who participated on this thread. Though you may not have solicited it, there's a few people who cared enough about you to come to your defense because they felt you were treated unfairly. Seems like that would be something to be appreciative of rather than laugh at.

[irretating]

Yes please. I'm not being facetious, I'm just not entirely sure what you mean.

I mean that Ratz lurve drama. Ratz lurved anti-RDF drama sooooo much.... and now, to get their fix, they are on the methadone program of anti-RatSkep drama. It's a little bit pathetic really.

And, yet, here you are.

Indeed. Oh, indeed.

[LaMont Cranston]

maiforpeace, From what I can tell, some of us laugh "with" each other, and it's very nice to have people to share laughs with. There are also people that some of us laugh "at," and those oh-so-serious types have a long history of being the brunt of comedic humor because of the way they behave. I am extremely grateful, not just for those people who supported my point of view, but for those people who support the freedom of expression, the ambiance, the silliness and the nonsense that are some of the best parts of rationalia.

We all care about the issues that have been discussed here however much we do. Whenever I hear somebody who has put themselves in a position of power on one of these forums carrying on about how they are simply upholding the FUAs, I start to smell somebody who is justifying treating others in a mean-spirited way.
Yes, the FUAs are important, but how people are treated is much more important. As somebody said, "It's nice to be important, but it's even more important to be nice." From what I can tell, many of us feel that some people who were quickly given the hook at ratskep by those who assumed power were treated in a shabby and unfair manner. I do not know anything about Seth, but I know that Kiki and Gallstones are good people who are not afraid to tell it like it is. In my opinion, Kiki was treated in an ungentlemanly manner by one of the ratskep members who freely chose to come over and present his side of the story on this thread. Yes, I do count myself among those people who were treated unfairly, and I think that those people who were treated in the shabby, mean-spirited and unfair manner of which I speak should receive apologies and have their memberships restored at ratskep.

Before you start pointing out some of my transgressions, maiforpeace, I am fully aware that I can be an arrogant asshole, and maybe it's because I come from a bad part of town, but if somebody comes up in my face, I usually come up in theirs. I believe that you have good intentions, and I most certainly respect your right to express your viewpoints, but that doesn't mean that I'm compelled to agree with what you have said about this manner. I don't.

[Gallstones]

I'm rather upset that people are hinting I am in the thick of this drama. If nothing else, my drama is rip roaringly good fun carried off with incredible panache and flamboyance. Comparing my drama to this thread is like comparing a film noir to the terminator, although I must give Starr full marks for diving in beautifully.

You'd be a lot more fun if you did Kabuki.

Just sayin'

[maiforpeace]

maiforpeace, From what I can tell, some of us laugh "with" each other, and it's very nice to have people to share laughs with. There are also people that some of us laugh "at," and those oh-so-serious types have a long history of being the brunt of comedic humor because of the way they behave. I am extremely grateful, not just for those people who supported my point of view, but for those people who support the freedom of expression, the ambiance, the silliness and the nonsense that are some of the best parts of rationalia.

We all care about the issues that have been discussed here however much we do. Whenever I hear somebody who has put themselves in a position of power on one of these forums carrying on about how they are simply upholding the FUAs, I start to smell somebody who is justifying treating others in a mean-spirited way.
Yes, the FUAs are important, but how people are treated is much more important. As somebody said, "It's nice to be important, but it's even more important to be nice." From what I can tell, many of us feel that some people who were quickly given the hook at ratskep by those who assumed power were treated in a shabby and unfair manner. I do not know anything about Seth, but I know that Kiki and Gallstones are good people who are not afraid to tell it like it is. In my opinion, Kiki was treated in an ungentlemanly manner by one of the ratskep members who freely chose to come over and present his side of the story on this thread. Yes, I do count myself among those people who were treated unfairly, and I think that those people who were treated in the shabby, mean-spirited and unfair manner of which I speak should receive apologies and have their memberships restored at ratskep.

Before you start pointing out some of my transgressions, maiforpeace, I am fully aware that I can be an arrogant asshole, and maybe it's because I come from a bad part of town, but if somebody comes up in my face, I usually come up in theirs. I believe that you have good intentions, and I most certainly respect your right to express your viewpoints, but that doesn't mean that I'm compelled to agree with what you have said about this manner. I don't.

Sorry Lamont. I hadn't read your second post (I must have been composing mine at the same time) because I would have understood better. When I wrote what I did in my post I was thinking specifically of Kiki, who had defended you, and your flippant answer in your first post seemed to make light of her serious response in defending you. My bad.

I have no idea what went on at RS. What I do know is it upset and hurt a number of people, you included. It sucks to feel like you have been treated unfairly, and to be banned from a community you felt a part of. I truly empathize. What this thread started off as was a place for those who were hurt to find a little comfort, sorry it didn't turn out that way. While it probably won't result in any apologies or being reinstated over at RS, maybe something was learned.

And, you still have us.

[LaMont Cranston]

maiforpeace, Thank you! I like it here!

[charlou]

In response to the person/people who asked for evidence of post deletions at RatSkep, I don't have any. The claim was based on two things: hearsay and my own belief that RatSkep staff are running that forum the same way the RDF forum was run. I concede that I may have been wrong on that point so I withdraw it. If RatSkep staff don't delete, remove or edit posts, or otherwise fiddle about with posting history, that's a point in their favour.

I've found many elements of this discussion quite disappointing. There have been a number of emotive, inaccurate and inflammatory statements made by people on both sides of some imaginary fence constructed between Ratz and Ratskep. The two forums should be allies, bonded in their goals to propagate reason and rationalism, while having some fun with friends along the way. But because of statements made by some Ratz and some Ratskep people, there is an increasing wedge between the two and people like me with dual membership are placed in an uncomfortable position.

I'm not going to resign my membership of either forum, as I like both forums. I have friends in each, enjoy spending time in both and I reject LaMont Cranston's premise that I cannot be a member of both. But I am desisting from posting in this thread. I have said my piece, set the record straight about some Ratskep issues and kept calm in the face of some unsavoury inferences and jibes. I don't think that it is worth helping to perpetuate this discussion, which frankly is now going nowhere.

I do sincerely thank the people that did try to call for calm and reasoned debate and contributed to this thread meaningfully. See you guys around the forums.

Durro

[sifaka]

[Bella Fortuna]

Just have to say that Durro =



As you were.

[Warren Dew]

In response to the person/people who asked for evidence of post deletions at RatSkep, I don't have any. The claim was based on two things: hearsay and my own belief that RatSkep staff are running that forum the same way the RDF forum was run.

I don't remember post deletion being used as a purposeful moderation technique on Rational Skepticism, but I don't remember it on the Richard Dawkins Forums, either. A couple of my posts have been deleted from Rational Skepticism in thread splits, but they were posts that were made moot by the splits anyway. I don't know whether those deletions were purposeful or accidental, but I personally don't see it as part of the problem there.

[Hermit]

In response to the person/people who asked for evidence of post deletions at RatSkep, I don't have any. The claim was based on two things: hearsay and my own belief that RatSkep staff are running that forum the same way the RDF forum was run.

I don't remember post deletion being used as a purposeful moderation technique on Rational Skepticism, but I don't remember it on the Richard Dawkins Forums, either. A couple of my posts have been deleted from Rational Skepticism in thread splits, but they were posts that were made moot by the splits anyway. I don't know whether those deletions were purposeful or accidental, but I personally don't see it as part of the problem there.

I think the policy at RDFI to move posts that were deemed unacceptable into an area of the forum that was visible only to moderators and administrators, constitutes de facto deletion. Then there was the mass culling of the 'feral' off topic and veterans' sections.

I don't know if anything like that happens at RDFII because I don't look at that forum a lot. Most of the time I find myself reading stuff in there after clicking on some link to it in other places.

[pErvinalia]

...there are a number of members here who almost have an immediate orgasm from the sheer excitement of it all.

Please don't get too excited now. rEvolutionist and cohort had things well and truly in hand for quite a while before you joined the discussion, though apparently any solution is yet to come.

Bit of a nerve to describe us as orgasmically excited about Ratskep drama when this thread was foisted on us via derailment of another - funnily enough concerning exploration for a rule change in this forum - thread by a former RDF MarkI /RDF MarkII moderator. Before we knew it, Ratzkep members who have not posted here for months piled in to douse Gallstones' little fire with petrol, and now you are adding ethanol by accusing us of - what exactly? Having to rely on Ratzkep for our dose of drama? Get real! We have Gertie, Lozzer and many others to supply us with the home grown stuff.

Why don't all of you who seem to only post here when someone from Ratskep imports an issue to Rationalia emulate Made of Stars and ozewiezeloose, and simply confine your postings to the forums you are more comfortable with? You'd be surprised how small this - now almost 700 post-long - derail would have been by the time it petered out. rEvolutionist's absence alone would have probably cut it down by a quarter.

[pErvinalia]

In response to the person/people who asked for evidence of post deletions at RatSkep, I don't have any. The claim was based on two things: hearsay and my own belief that RatSkep staff are running that forum the same way the RDF forum was run. I concede that I may have been wrong on that point so I withdraw it. If RatSkep staff don't delete, remove or edit posts, or otherwise fiddle about with posting history, that's a point in their favour.

Thank you finally for someone having the guts to come out and admit that some of their assertions are baseless. Now if the rest of the mudslingers would come over to ratskep and see how things are really run, then we might get some more honesty in this thread.