*This post has attracted a warning for Manofnofaith, for breaching our guidelines. The warning has been posted in this thread, here. Apart from this notification, the rest of the text in this post are Manofnofaith's comments - Charlou*
I have been following this thread and its predecessor closely, and I have to say, kevin, that you don't sound so good. And I'm not saying that idly, as I will show below.
To the moderators: I am simply poiting out what is there and stating facts. There should be absolutely nothing objectionable about this.
Here is the section of LordPasternack's original post quoted by you:
lordpasternack wrote:
...
I mean, does he not consider - does he not know - that this front page moderator who sparked all the grumbling from the front-pagers, was an admin of the forum (and had probably risen through the ranks to reach that position) for several months, and his general demeanor was much the same then as it was when the staff on the board decided to give him another staff position? (And to note - I have every respect for Kevin/klr as a person - but I honestly wouldn't hand any more reins of power to him for the indefinite future.)
...
And here is its context in your post:
Note: I have underlined the whiny bitchy parts and added notes.
klr wrote:lordpasternack wrote:
...
I mean, does he not consider - does he not know - that this front page moderator who sparked all the grumbling from the front-pagers, was an admin of the forum (and had probably risen through the ranks to reach that position) for several months, and his general demeanor was much the same then as it was when the staff on the board decided to give him another staff position? (And to note - I have every respect for Kevin/klr as a person - but I honestly wouldn't hand any more reins of power to him for the indefinite future.)
...
Excuse me? Where on earth do you think you got the right to pontificate like this?-Free speech. It is a civil right in most countries that the membership posts from and is valued much more highly than at RD.net. Pretty fucking obvious. First up, you've hardly ever spoken to me one-to-one, let alone outside the context of some moderation issue. You think you are entitled to judge on such limited exposure and such a narrow context? No you are not. So you don't "know" me, and therefore you are not in position to say that you "... have every respect ... as a person ...", or indeed to hold any opinion good, bad or indifferent about me at that level, other than a basic presumption of respect that should be allowed to everyone by default.-WHAT IT'S OBVIOUS SHE MEANT WAS that she was arguing from what she knew of you. Not that you were close friends. There
are a number of people here and elsewhere who
do know me, based on extended and very detailed contact.
As for forming an opinion based on my moderation: You have not been in the position that I have, you don't know what actually transpired behind the scenes during all that time - trust me, you really don't. You are therefore not qualified to put forward anything other than a vague impression.-Blah, Blah, whinging with a notable lack of examples.
So why should I be bothered at all with the expression of what is essentially a worthless opinion?-Particularly absurd example of a bare assertion fallacy. For one thing, it doesn't do much for the tone of this forum-Wow. 2500 posts and you still haven't grasped that "the tone of this forum" doesn't exactly ooze respectability. to see people going around making groundless accusations against other people, or even just saying out loud things that they should keep to themselves, or be discussing in private. It also rather ironic.
You essentially accuse
me of being tactless.
You know, there are a whole litany of things that I could have discussed in my time here, but I've chosen to keep quiet in public,-So essentially you are abdicating you responsibility to agrue your side of the argumant and still continuing with your whinging. and almost as quiet in private. And for the most part to choose my words very carefully when I do speak on a touchy issue. Which is pretty much how I operated back at RD.net, except when responsibility dictated otherwise, and I do not believe in shirking responsibility.
I no more like being confrontational than the next person - life is too short really - and I do it only out of strict necessity.-Absurd statement unrelated to the issue at hand. I don't think "a strict necessity" constitutes LP's comments on your moderating style.
I should say that there is actually quite a bit to commend in your post, although there are also other parts that I would take issue with besides the above.
But I don't really feel in the mood to go through it bit by bit somehow. 
-So you'd rather write a long whinging post where you don't even present an argument. Yeah. Makes sense.
Now here's a very curious thing: If I wanted to, I could talk at length about everything that has happened in the past couple of years.-And yet you fail to mention any of these in your defence. Believe me, you'd hear things that would make your jaw drop, and then some
. Quite why I haven't done so do to date, I am not even sure myself. It's not as if I have anything to hide - I am ruthlessly self-analytical. It's
certainly not because I feel beholden to anyone
. I certainly never took any vow of silence. It's certainly not because I'm afraid of the general shit-storm that would ensue.
Finally, anyone who wants to offer an opinion about the RD.net Front Page really ought to take all the available facts (to them) into account before saying anything.-And just what are "all the available facts", hmm? And there are plenty of things to consider. My personal favourite happens to be this comment:
http://richarddawkins.net/articleCommen ... ge3#322295
Richard Dawkins wrote:I don't know about you, but when a thread degenerates into in-group, cliquish, bar-room willy-waving between a few individuals who all seem to know each other (but apparently don't like each other very much), I'm off. This is not a chat room, it is a thread about the Darwin 200 pamphlet. Very probably there is nothing more to be said on-topic, in which case I'm ready to move out.
LordPasternack's non-whinging, and quite polite response:
lordpasternack wrote:klr wrote:lordpasternack wrote:
...
I mean, does he not consider - does he not know - that this front page moderator who sparked all the grumbling from the front-pagers, was an admin of the forum (and had probably risen through the ranks to reach that position) for several months, and his general demeanor was much the same then as it was when the staff on the board decided to give him another staff position? (And to note - I have every respect for Kevin/klr as a person - but I honestly wouldn't hand any more reins of power to him for the indefinite future.)
...
Excuse me? Where on
earth do you think you got the right to pontificate like this? First up, you've hardly ever spoken to me one-to-one, let alone outside the context of some moderation issue. You think you are entitled to judge on such limited exposure and such a narrow context? No you are not. So you don't "know" me, and therefore you are not in position to say that you "... have every respect ... as a person ...", or indeed to hold any opinion good, bad or indifferent about me at that level, other than a basic presumption of respect that should be allowed to everyone by default. There
are a number of people here and elsewhere who
do know me, based on extended and very detailed contact.
Kevin - I said that I respect you as a person, but did not like your moderation style. You're right that I don't know you very much outside of your moderation (and you are, as you've said, quite private on the fora), but it was only to your moderation that I was referring. I've gleaned a small amount of information about you as a person from various interactions - enough to feel some sort of rapport with you - but I was never able to appreciate your demeanor as a moderator/admin.-She made it very clear it wasn't as personal as you made it out to be.
As for forming an opinion based on my moderation: You have not been in the position that I have, you don't know what actually transpired behind the scenes during all that time - trust me, you really don't. You are therefore not qualified to put forward anything other than a vague impression.
I don't know what happened behind the scenes, and I actually recall having a short dialogue with you on your being ousted from the staff, and you said the same then, and just a little bit more that I'll pause to maintain discretion. I was congenial with you then, and it was genuine. I do see something or other in you that I like...
... But I did see what happened out in the open - and I'm sorry Kevin, but I am not a fan of some of the tactics you used. I just disagree with that at a personal level.
For one thing, it doesn't do much for the tone of this forum to see people going around making groundless accusations against other people, or even just saying out loud things that they should keep to themselves, or be discussing in private. It also rather ironic. You essentially accuse me of being tactless.
I wouldn't accuse you of being tactless - more overbearing in your "tact". There is a general theme that permeates some of the things you've brought up in this thread about keeping up appearances, not bringing the team down, shaming the man at the top, etc. It was particularly what distiguished your short career modding the front page. You just couldn't stop shooting the troublemakers, the uncouth, those damaging the reputation of the site.
Frankly, I think Free Expression is more sacred than anyone's reputation (but that's personal inclination) - and I think and hope that in this sort of environment such Free Expression will yield criticism of non-constructive and/or spurious remarks.-I couldn't agree more.
You know, there are a whole litany of things that I could have discussed in my time here, but I've chosen to keep quiet in public, and almost as quiet in private. And for the most part to choose my words very carefully when I do speak on a touchy issue. Which is pretty much how I operated back at RD.net, except when responsibility dictated otherwise, and I do not believe in shirking responsibility. I no more like being confrontational than the next person - life is too short really - and I do it only out of strict necessity.
That's another thing: your honour. You seem to feel, in your modding, that it's your calling and duty to enforce what you feel is right - and as mentioned above, what you feel is right is not necessarily what others feel is right - including Dawkins himself, who was slightly more offensive about your modding than I was. There's no secret that the "head prefect with swagger stick" epithet was a general reference to yourself...
I should say that there is actually quite a bit to commend in your post, although there are also other parts that I would take issue with besides the above. But I don't really feel in the mood to go through it bit by bit somehow.
Well, if you have the time...
Now here's a very curious thing: If I wanted to, I could talk at length about everything that has happened in the past couple of years. Believe me, you'd hear things that would make your jaw drop, and then some
. Quite why I haven't done so do to date, I am not even sure myself. It's not as if I have anything to hide - I am ruthlessly self-analytical. It's
certainly not because I feel beholden to anyone
. I certainly never took any vow of silence. It's certainly not because I'm afraid of the general shit-storm that would ensue.
It's possibly because you apply your moderation ethos to your own words?
Finally, anyone who wants to offer an opinion about the RD.net Front Page really ought to take all the available facts (to them) into account before saying anything. And there are plenty of things to consider. My personal favourite happens to be this comment:
http://richarddawkins.net/articleCommen ... ge3#322295
Richard Dawkins wrote:I don't know about you, but when a thread degenerates into in-group, cliquish, bar-room willy-waving between a few individuals who all seem to know each other (but apparently don't like each other very much), I'm off. This is not a chat room, it is a thread about the Darwin 200 pamphlet. Very probably there is nothing more to be said on-topic, in which case I'm ready to move out.
That's not entirely on-topic.
In any case, you should also take into account that though Richard dislikes that sort of dialogue, he still allows it, and still holds to the ideal that he wouldn't like moderation.
And in fact, he did make a comment in a similar vein at some point where he made the concession that he enjoyed some banter now and again, but didn't like it descending too much into cliquey derails.
klr wrote:*Thread split from here: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... &start=125 - Charlou*
Charlou wrote:Two things ...
* I think we can discuss RDF guidelines and moderation without getting personal and/or insulting about members or staff of RDF, past or present. [/my opinion]
* Any discussion which becomes personal may be split and moved to our In Depth forum if it continues. [/staff comment]
I would much prefer if the discussion remained here actually, where the world, his wife, their 2.1 children, assorted family pets and two cars in the driveway can all read it.
For myself, I don't ever pay any attention to whether I'm posting in a public area or not - I have nothing to hide when I make a post. But in this case, I happen to care about whether or not this discussion remains public. I don't see why it should be moved to a members-only area - which would effectively be censoring -
just because someone has seen fit to insult me out of hand.-There were no insults involved, until you made that "worthless opinion" comment, which practically counts as one. That would be the proverbial double-whammy.
This is a discussion about RD.net. Why don't you leave it public, so that everyone can see (in plain view, without having to register) what people
here are saying about
there? It's not a discussion about internal forum policy. You should have nothing to hide.
This thread has already been marred by some very unsightly (and largely unsupported) sniping against various RDF staff members.-Complete and utter bullshit. You are using stilted language here. "Sniping" implies a negative connotation towards the writers of those comments, and seems to infer that those OPINIONS are not valid. And Your "largely unsubstantiated" comment clearly is a foul insult that you simply pulled out of you ass, and a bare assertion fallacy too. It is an insult because you automatically assert the invalidity of mine and others' opinions, WHICH ARE BASED ON PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. You should count all the people who made comments that reflected a negative opinion of the moderating opinion there and apologize to them all for this blanket swipe. You can be sure that those comments have been widely noted.
Moving the thread now would only make people at RD.net very suspicious about here.-Again you use the the "forum's reputation" strawman to beat LP with in your rambling whinging monologue. Remember that some of the comments made here could not be made at RD.net, as they would very likely attract formal warnings.-So WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE ARGUMENT AT HAND? And that kind of stiff fascistic policy is a reason why many of us are here, by migration after exlusion or voluntary boycott. Hiding the thread would only fuel a suspicion that this sort of thing is set to continue, or even escalate. It will likely work against you in a number of ways, including reducing your ability to attract new members from there.
You do not want people to see this as an "us or them" situation.-I actually laughed out loud when I read this, as you have turned this into a "you Vs. her" tiff with LP, when she voiced a personal opinion, and you proceeded to whine and bitch without giving a real argument in return. You also do not want people to think that they are being forced into registering here (easy step and all that it is) just so they can see what is being said.
So leave the thread here please.
If you really think that personal insults against past/present RDF staff are unwarranted, then you should have acted some time ago in a staff capacity.-Again, you bring up this non-existent insult. Whose are you addressing? LordPasternack's? Because if you are now switching to include all the people who voiced a negative opinion of the moderation at RD.net, then that is a dirty tactic that is uncalled for, as this should be between you and LP, and consequently you should be ashamed of yourself. But you seem to think not for some reason. I suggest you have a rethink about that.
I am a member here, and I would like to believe that I am going to be protected from unwarranted personal slurs.-Blah, blah, blah. Polite treatment isn't a forte of this place firstly, and secondly, there were no personal slurs against you. 
If that's not going to happen, well then I am perfectly capable of taking care of myself, and then some.-It doesn't seem so judging by your whinging non-argument. It will likely not be pretty, but I have no intention of getting personal.-You already have gotten personal, WHEN LP HASN'T, and done so with people who were not involved with people who were not involved in the dispute between you and LP. This is bullshit on the "there are WMD in Iraq" level.
klr wrote:Charlou wrote:
..
I certainly have no intention of 'hiding' this thread. I agree that the RDnet associated discussion should stay public and those who the topic concerns should be able to view it without having to register and log in.
I said the personal derail/tangent might be split from this discussion and moved to In Depth. I'm sure you're capable of handling yourself, and you are quite free to do so within the guidelines. Our In Depth forum is the place for forum (rationalia membership) related discussion of a personal nature.
So, given that this thread is (correctly) going to remain public,
are you going to formally decry the personalisation that has been in evidence here?-What personalization? so far, it has only been on your side. If it's a public thread, it
must be free from that sort of thing, according to the rules and guidelines of this forum? It's simply
not good enough to say this in a personal capacity.
The fact that I can handle myself doesn't mean I should have to.-Well, you should care to put up an argument on your half of the dispute, since the staff don't work for you and go smack someone around at your say-so. So you should put up some sort of argument instead of enless bitching. There should be no need for me to take the law into my own hands-Putting up some sort of argument does not equal "taking the law into your own hands", it just demonstrates a basic level of non-assholery. , even if I stay within the rules whilst doing so.
Someone's rights don't depend on their ability to personally enforce them.-This isn't about rights, it is about, in a sense, who is right. And so far, you haven't come across very well, with your strawmen and nonexistent insults against you, your dragging others into a dispute between two people, and your endless childish whining. That would ultimately be the law of the jungle.
Another very coherent and polite post from LP:
lordpasternack wrote:Kevin - as an erstwhile admin of RDF, one would hope that you'd learned to make the distinction between criticism of your actions or ideas, and insults to your person. Well, in fact, this was also something I saw that marred some of your moderation decisions on RDF - but I wouldn't like to derail this thread further...
If anyone insulted you, it was the man himself Richard Dawkins. He veiled it enough to make it sound generalised, but we all know to what and to whom he was referring. No-one here, to mind, has insulted you.
I'd like to close the book now on this particular interaction between us, frankly. Or at least, if you have something more to say - PMing (or starting a new thread for discussion) might be a better idea than having it play out here.
klr wrote:Charlou wrote:klr wrote:Charlou wrote:
..
I certainly have no intention of 'hiding' this thread. I agree that the RDnet associated discussion should stay public and those who the topic concerns should be able to view it without having to register and log in.
I said the personal derail/tangent might be split from this discussion and moved to In Depth. I'm sure you're capable of handling yourself, and you are quite free to do so within the guidelines. Our In Depth forum is the place for forum (rationalia membership) related discussion of a personal nature.
So, given that this thread is (correctly) going to remain public, are you going to formally decry the personalisation that has been in evidence here? If it's a public thread, it
must be free from that sort of thing, according to the rules and guidelines of this forum?
No, I'll move the personal discussion to the In Depth forum if it continues (which it now is).
Charlou,
There is no personal discussion here, not on my part anyway.
-Outright fucking bullshit. You have personalised it, and dragged in other members into your whining. I have no desire whatsoever to enter into such a discussion,-You didn't just enter into a personal discussion, you created it, by personalising what LP said. certainly not in public, and in the current case, probably not even in private.
I do have a right to defend myself-So why haven't you? by means of recourse to evidence and argument if the staff will not move to stop it, which they
should be doing. What I will
not do is lower myself to the same level by resorting to
unsupported allegations, conjecture, and groundless opinion presented as fact.
-Again with these fucking strawmen.
Charlou wrote:
klr wrote: It's simply not good enough to say this in a personal capacity. The fact that I can handle myself doesn't mean I should have to. There should be no need for me to take the law into my own hands, even if I stay within the rules whilst doing so. Someone's rights don't depend on their ability to personally enforce them. That would ultimately be the law of the jungle.
Not when there are guidelines about how members should conduct themselves. If members want to take a discussion to a personal level between themselves we have the In Depth forum for it.
That is simply not satisfactory.
A member has chosen not to follow those guidelines.-What guidelines? I have no knowledge of any guidelines against personal opinions. Are you hallucinating? Because that's about the only thing that would excuse all the bullshit you're spewing out. So what next?
As stated above, I have no interest in a "personal" discussion as a means of resolution.-What, other than the one you pulled out of nowhere? Why should I? I was going along quietly, minding my own business.
I could devote precious time and effort to further deconstructing what has been said about me and to me - in a non-personal way - but I don't see why I should have to do even that.-Again, you should include some kind of argument with this much bitching. If (say)
I started to publicly critique lordpasternack's posting behaviour at RD.net in a personal manner that led her to complain, I doubt you'd be telling her that her recourse was to thrash it out with me in the appropriate forum.-You are comparing apples and crabs. You were in A POSITION OF POWER, and yet somehow you think that exempts you from any criticism of your actions in aforementioned position. Posting IS NOT a position of power. Get it?
So enough of this wishy-washy approach please.
Someone has crossed a definite line here, and I expect you to address that clearly and unambiguously.-Someone has, indeed, crossed a line, several in fact, and it is you. Lines like, for example, decent conduct, responding in proportion, not personalizing a discussion, and confining the discussion to the relevant person. For all this abusive and insulting bitching you should get a warning, rare as they may be around here.
klr, for dragging us into your dispute and the blanket swipe at our opinions, you should apologise to all the people on the predecessor thread that expressed a negative opinion of the moderation style at RD.net.
And you also owe an apology to LordPasternack for this whining, abusive, self absorbed, needlessly personal, strwaman-laden, non-argument containing, hot winded, whining, whinging, childish, bullying episodic rant that you have spammed the forum with. You are in fact Trolling, and I have to say that your conduct on this matter is both disgusting and dishonourable. Shame on you.
