Wil Cali start again as a newbie under new RDF forums?

[Tigger]

Erm .... I know I risk complete opprobrium but I'm going to support Salviati here, but with a few disclaimers first:

1) I love Cali to bits - I respect and admire him and I dearly hope to meet him some day. He is an internet legend and his knowledge has always been backed up with voluminous sources and footnotes. He has nothing to prove to anyone.

2) I'm aware Salviati had a very big axe to grind with klr on another thread, so he has previous here - but it should be set aside until he gets shitty, right?

Right.

Now, I was just reading through this thread, enjoying the to-ing and fro-ing and the narkiness - there was nothing overly bitter, nasty, rude, attacking or whatever you want to call it.

As the debate rolled on it turned to whether Cali wanted a footnote or not for helping Dawkins. There were a number of questions - did Cali explicitly say he wanted a mention? did he warrant a mention for his efforts? It seems that Salviati thought not - he gave his reasons why clearly and succinctly and he concluded that Cali has a large ego.

At this point there didn't seem to be any real damage done. Cali is a big boy who has probably heard a fuck lot worse, and I'm sure he would have been able to defend himself easily.

As Salviati put it, he made "a few comments with slightly negative connotations" - and he got suspended for a week. WTF?

Okay, we all like Cali and we don't like Salviati much, but this is overbearing bullshit.

He went overboard in this thread: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 25#p366852 and continued with much unpleasantness. He didn't play nice, but I see what you mean if you didn't see his other aggression. He was suspended for a day then a week.

[devogue]

Erm .... I know I risk complete opprobrium but I'm going to support Salviati here, but with a few disclaimers first:

1) I love Cali to bits - I respect and admire him and I dearly hope to meet him some day. He is an internet legend and his knowledge has always been backed up with voluminous sources and footnotes. He has nothing to prove to anyone.

2) I'm aware Salviati had a very big axe to grind with klr on another thread, so he has previous here - but it should be set aside until he gets shitty, right?

Right.

Now, I was just reading through this thread, enjoying the to-ing and fro-ing and the narkiness - there was nothing overly bitter, nasty, rude, attacking or whatever you want to call it.

As the debate rolled on it turned to whether Cali wanted a footnote or not for helping Dawkins. There were a number of questions - did Cali explicitly say he wanted a mention? did he warrant a mention for his efforts? It seems that Salviati thought not - he gave his reasons why clearly and succinctly and he concluded that Cali has a large ego.

At this point there didn't seem to be any real damage done. Cali is a big boy who has probably heard a fuck lot worse, and I'm sure he would have been able to defend himself easily.

As Salviati put it, he made "a few comments with slightly negative connotations" - and he got suspended for a week. WTF?

Okay, we all like Cali and we don't like Salviati much, but this is overbearing bullshit.

He went overboard in this thread: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 25#p366852 and continued with much unpleasantness. He didn't play nice, but I see what you mean if you didn't see his other aggression. He was suspended for a day then a week.

I saw the other thread and I notice he was suspended for 24 hours. Fair enough - he didn't know when to back the fuck off.

But there seems to be evidence here that Cali did want recognition from Dawkins (when others have said he didn't), and that Salviati had done nothing fundamentally wrong in this thread except claim that Cali is an egomaniac - well, whoop-di-doo - does that warrant a week long suspension?

If, as Salviati claims (and I mean if) Cali did want a footnote for producing information that even I could have got together for Dawkins then perhaps he has a case for calling him an egomaniac - it's then up to Cali to refute his claims and prove him wrong. It's a load of shite that a couple of mods have waded in unnecessarily and made things infinitely worse than they were.

I've said before that this "playing nicely" thing is a pile of bollocks - it comes across as patronising and childish.

[Blondie]

Well fuck you and the tall horse you rode in on.

[maiforpeace]

Well fuck you and the tall horse you rode in on.

He doesn't ride horses, he prefers pigs.

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 91#p380191

[devogue]

Serious stuff.

[Tigger]

Serious stuff.

It is.

Salviati was asked to reign it in almost immediately after his suspension but he continued having a pop at people after this. Perhaps if he hadn’t, the debate he said he wanted would have continued?

On RD.net if I’d called you a twat, I’d get banned. If I’d said I thought you were a twat, would I get banned? As I interpret it, the “play nice” format is designed to stop the sort of thing where argumentative souls just play at bending any hard and fast rules for their own gratification and attention-seeking. Nobody here wants an argument of this sort, so why not have something in place that can nip it in the bud, but with flexibility? It’s not supposed to be patronising; it’s supposed to help.