Rationalskepiticism,lol.

[Seth]

That fucking Scot Dutchy has been a factor in just about all the drama this last year.

You cracked me up in that Feedback thread, by the way - after theropod posted the last of his rants, Scott1328 comes in with "Okay...so that happened..." then valiantly tries to get everyone back on topic.

Didn't do much good, though

Lord knows, I am not Mr. Samsa's bestest fan, but it gripes me when legitimate complaints are dismissed out of hand based on who made the complaint.

I think the problem is that the current mods, and obviously some ex mods, seem to view any criticism of their actions as an attack and "trolling". So why would they bother to take the query seriously, it's just trolling and they can disrupt the thread as much as they like.

The ridiculous thing is that half of the feedback threads I start are done on the request of other people. They don't want to deal with the backlash from the community for asking a question or get on the mods bad side for criticizing them so they ask me to argue it for them.

If that's how the average forum goer views the feedback forum, I think they have a bigger problem than my supposed "trolling". And that in itself is fucked up - you can love me or hate me but I'm clearly not a troll under any reasonable definition of the word.

I don't know why you have such a hard time understanding the motivations, aren't you a shrink?

It's incredibly simple: Power corrupts, and anybody who says anything that a Mod disagrees with is "trolling" because it upsets the mod, or some sycophant of the mod. I told you, it's a giant yes-man cluster fuck echo chamber where only the approved religious dogma and doctrine are acceptable. Anything the least bit controversial (from the point of view of the High Priests of the RatSkep religious hierarchy) is, quite literally, heresy, and heretics WILL be silenced, one way or another. It doesn't matter in the slightest if one is playing the role of Devil's Advocate to challenge the strengths of the congregation's logic and argumentation, merely espousing some heretical proposition, such as "fags are morally debauched and destined for hell" or "Richard Dawkins is a wanker" or "the global warming discussion is NOT over" is enough to get you burned at the stake, because the priesthood brooks no opposition or questioning of the Atheist religious doctrine.

Some psychologist could write a really good paper on the aberrant psychology of RatSkep...and should. Right before somebody else has the fuckwits committed to a mental institution.

[Mr.Samsa]

I don't know why you have such a hard time understanding the motivations, aren't you a shrink?

Nah not a shrink. Kind of related but just an experimental psychologist.

It's incredibly simple: Power corrupts, and anybody who says anything that a Mod disagrees with is "trolling" because it upsets the mod, or some sycophant of the mod.

Sort of agreed. I think the problem is a little more complex in that people who view being a mod of a small forum like RatSkep as "power" are more likely to come up with crazy ways to discount criticisms of their position.

I told you, it's a giant yes-man cluster fuck echo chamber where only the approved religious dogma and doctrine are acceptable. Anything the least bit controversial (from the point of view of the High Priests of the RatSkep religious hierarchy) is, quite literally, heresy, and heretics WILL be silenced, one way or another. It doesn't matter in the slightest if one is playing the role of Devil's Advocate to challenge the strengths of the congregation's logic and argumentation, merely espousing some heretical proposition, such as "fags are morally debauched and destined for hell" or "Richard Dawkins is a wanker" or "the global warming discussion is NOT over" is enough to get you burned at the stake, because the priesthood brooks no opposition or questioning of the Atheist religious doctrine.

I do agree that there is far too much circlejerking that occurs over there (for example, the resident christian, Mick, is being lambasted for daring to suggest that Galileo didn't get in trouble for his scientific views and science wasn't suppressed by the Church, despite that being the accepted historical account) but I think maybe you go a little far. If someone were to make homophobic remarks, or blatantly deny scientific conclusions like global warming, then I think any group based on rationality, skepticism, and science should react quite negatively towards that. The defence of their idols is a little cringeworthy though.

Some psychologist could write a really good paper on the aberrant psychology of RatSkep...and should. Right before somebody else has the fuckwits committed to a mental institution.

Meh, it's the same shit all over the internet. The problem is that people learn a little about a topic and then find a community that agrees with them, and then suddenly they don't need to question their assumptions any more and anyone who disagrees is simply an idiot and can be written off as a troll. I had a similar experience over at scienceforums.net (or whatever it is) where I was banned for pointing out that an anti-psychology crank who was a moderator was misrepresenting that state of research in depression. They were claiming that it is explained as being caused by a "chemical imbalance" and I pointed out, with references, that the "chemical imbalance" theory was never too readily accepted and has been dismissed for at least a couple of decades.

People just like it when others agree with them and if you get enough people together agreeing with each other then it becomes impossible to accept disagreement.

[Mr.Samsa]

So it seems like the ball is rolling now with the mods closing some of the reports from the latest drama thread and now might be the best time to start placing bets. But first, the facts:

- theropod went nuts, breaking multiple rules and did so knowingly with the explicit intention of forcing the mods to warn him.

- as far as I know, he's somehow escaped mod intervention before despite amassing many reports against him, so technically he has a clean slate.

- generally the mod response to the first time offence is to go with advice to stay out of trouble and re-read the rules, but this current batch of mods have routinely made exceptions to this rule (even with brand new members) when the offence is egregious enough. Importantly, theropod was also a mod and (as I've learnt from my past explanations of warnings) being an ex-mod means that you're held to a higher standard because you're expected to know the rules.

- Weaver purposefully broke the rules and also demanded a warning, the same point above also applies here with the addition of the fact that he does not have a clean slate. He was recently advised over his behavior, specifically in the feedback forum and specifically as part of a "flamewar" with Fallible.

- as far as I know, I didn't break any rule with the only possible exception of my supposed "revealing the contents of a PM", despite my error being fixed within minutes and the fact that it wasn't exactly a cryptic message anyway as the only reason the slipup occurred was because it was obvious that he was talking about rationalia and it is impossible for him to have been referring to any other site.

With all the facts above, what should happen is warnings for theropod and Weaver. But what will happen, in my opinion, is that the mods won't be very happy with having to sanction theropod and Weaver and nobody else so what they'll do is try to make it look like I was attacking or inflaming them in some way. Then they can give me a warning, and make it seem like 'yeah, they fucked up but it was only because they had been badgered into it' which means that they can justify only giving them advisories.

Any takers before the decision is made? Maybe Fallible will be permabanned as a troll like Weaver demanded? Maybe Scott# will be outed as my ingenious sockpuppet? Maybe the underground rebel group will rise up and take over RatSkep before any decision can be made?

You be the judge.

[FBM]

Sorry, I have a habit of calling people by girls' names whether they're girls or not. It amuses me. Ask Jennifer.

Thanks for clarifying that, Steve.

And yes, even with the latest Feedback dramaz, ratskep would be a relative haven of campfire-sitting, guitar-strumming, hand-holding kum-by-yahing bonhomie without Scot Dutchy. Imagine how boring!!

Pretty much all I do over there is post self-taken photos of wildlife and drop a pearl of wisdom into a philosophy thread from time to time, so to me reading that last part was equivalent to "blah blah Ginger blah blah."

A pearl of wisdom in a philosophy topic? Someone is taking the piss

You got it.

[Seth]

So it seems like the ball is rolling now with the mods closing some of the reports from the latest drama thread and now might be the best time to start placing bets. But first, the facts:

- theropod went nuts, breaking multiple rules and did so knowingly with the explicit intention of forcing the mods to warn him.

- as far as I know, he's somehow escaped mod intervention before despite amassing many reports against him, so technically he has a clean slate.

- generally the mod response to the first time offence is to go with advice to stay out of trouble and re-read the rules, but this current batch of mods have routinely made exceptions to this rule (even with brand new members) when the offence is egregious enough. Importantly, theropod was also a mod and (as I've learnt from my past explanations of warnings) being an ex-mod means that you're held to a higher standard because you're expected to know the rules.

- Weaver purposefully broke the rules and also demanded a warning, the same point above also applies here with the addition of the fact that he does not have a clean slate. He was recently advised over his behavior, specifically in the feedback forum and specifically as part of a "flamewar" with Fallible.

- as far as I know, I didn't break any rule with the only possible exception of my supposed "revealing the contents of a PM", despite my error being fixed within minutes and the fact that it wasn't exactly a cryptic message anyway as the only reason the slipup occurred was because it was obvious that he was talking about rationalia and it is impossible for him to have been referring to any other site.

With all the facts above, what should happen is warnings for theropod and Weaver. But what will happen, in my opinion, is that the mods won't be very happy with having to sanction theropod and Weaver and nobody else so what they'll do is try to make it look like I was attacking or inflaming them in some way. Then they can give me a warning, and make it seem like 'yeah, they fucked up but it was only because they had been badgered into it' which means that they can justify only giving them advisories.

Any takers before the decision is made? Maybe Fallible will be permabanned as a troll like Weaver demanded? Maybe Scott# will be outed as my ingenious sockpuppet? Maybe the underground rebel group will rise up and take over RatSkep before any decision can be made?

You be the judge.

Got it in one! Good on 'ya. It's the policy of RatSkep to lay the blame for "provoking" someone on the individual who made the statement that was responded to inappropriately. This rule metastasized into the FUA as a direct result of my penchant for saying things that the liberal fucks over there just couldn't stand, which enraged them and caused them to post inappropriately and in violation of the FUA, as I pointed out many, many, many, many times. Because RatSkep is a Marxist Progressive religious assembly, it looks bad when the Mods sanction the ones who actually violate the rules by losing their tempers because the congregation is, generally speaking, extremely gullible, manipulable and infantile in their ability to control themselves and act like adults.

Like Galileo, I took the position of speaking heresy that just happened to be truth, but was a truth that could not be tolerated by the Priesthood because of its disruptive effects on the tender and immature psyches of the lumpen congregationist. So the priesthood feels obligated to protect the lumpen congregationist against anything that might disturb their Wa, even if what disturbs them happens to be rational, logical and true.

RatSkep is a forum made up of intellectual pygmies and dunces who don't deserve to use the word "rational" in association with anything they do.

I know first-graders who are more rational than RatSkepians.

[FBM]

Eh...I tried to visit RatSkep just now and instead of routing me to my posts, it tells me I'm not allowed to use the search function or something. Forum borked or did I somehow get banned?

[Mr.Samsa]

Eh...I tried to visit RatSkep just now and instead of routing me to my posts, it tells me I'm not allowed to use the search function or something. Forum borked or did I somehow get banned?

I think the forum is just fucked at the minute. It kept going down and the explanation was that something to do with the search index algorithm doo-gadgetmabob was messing with the forum, so if you're having problems with the search function then that's probably the culprit.

[FBM]

OK, thanks, Mr. Samsa. My bookmark goes to my posts, but I get that error message anyway. If there's one thing Ratzians understand, it's forum borkage.

[Seth]

Working fine for my sockpuppet...

Ooops!

[pErvinalia]

That fucking Scot Dutchy has been a factor in just about all the drama this last year.

You cracked me up in that Feedback thread, by the way - after theropod posted the last of his rants, Scott1328 comes in with "Okay...so that happened..." then valiantly tries to get everyone back on topic.

Didn't do much good, though

Lord knows, I am not Mr. Samsa's bestest fan, but it gripes me when legitimate complaints are dismissed out of hand based on who made the complaint.

I think the problem is that the current mods, and obviously some ex mods, seem to view any criticism of their actions as an attack and "trolling". So why would they bother to take the query seriously, it's just trolling and they can disrupt the thread as much as they like.

Which is exactly what Fallible and Stijn viewed my and other's legitimate queries as when we brought up exactly the same issues you lot are bringing up now.

[pErvinalia]

@Seth... Shut up, ffs. (Not regarding sock puppets, that is; sock puppets FTW! ). You really have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

[Mr.Samsa]

Which is exactly what Fallible and Stijn viewed my and other's legitimate queries as when we brought up exactly the same issues you lot are bringing up now.

That either wasn't happening whilst I was a mod or your concerns weren't coming back to modtopia. I do know that whilst I was there there was no mention of you being a troll amongst the mods and if there was any indication that the mods were responding differently to someone because they were being viewed as a "troll", I generally wasn't shy about telling them to pull their heads in.

Beyond that I can't really comment on that as I don't have any real information. I don't even know what your concerns were.

[pErvinalia]

What?? Of course you fucking do. I filled the feedback forum with acres of print on the same shit you lot are complaining about. I had multiple conversations with individual mods via PM, which unfortunately I've lost due to my banning. I don't think I was labelled a troll by any mods to my face, but fallible and stijn were condescending cockheads to me and others (well, Stijn was to others as well, I don't know if fallible was). And I and others were trolled like motherfuckers by redwhine and MoS and Regina too I think, for daring to question the status quo. And then there were the usual sycophantic nobodies like Scot Dutchy types who just sniped because it made them feel important sticking up for their heroes the mods. Actually, Weaver was a mod then and attacked AndyX terribly and the mods did nothing about it. You probably defended him at the time.

[pErvinalia]

Too late to edit that last post, but it might not have been Stijn who was a cunt to others. It might have been Kiore. It was a long time ago now and I don't have access to my PM's to remind me who said what exactly. Either way, those two were dismissive of my concerns in a condescending way.

[FBM]

Too late to edit that last post, but it might not have been Stijn who was a cunt to others. It might have been Kiore. It was a long time ago now and I don't have access to my PM's to remind me who said what exactly. Either way, those two were dismissive of my concerns in a condescending way.

Well, that's nice.