I appreciate the review and clarification on harassment. Thank you.
…I’m curious why this post in this very thread was not actionable.
Even though the post was in response to another poster, do you contend that this particular post, based on Morgenstern’s behaviour throughout this thread, was not another back-handed attack on Chimera? It didn’t even garner a mod-note? It was a quote taken completely out-of-context for the sole purpose of characterizing another poster as “not normal.” Is this sort of post the new standard in ATMB? (And yes, it was reported.)
One of the things you guys are really missing here is the chilling effect of allowing this sort of thing to continue. Like the relentless bullying of Big T. I’ve stood up for him a couple of times in the pit, but I’ve stopped doing that because I don’t want to be made a target. And I’m sure I’m not the only one. I understand the desire for “free speech” here. But do you think you’ve got the “balancing act” correct here?
No they are not.
Not so. Our notion of being a jerk is doing things against the written rules. Doing so can get you banned if you keep at it long enough. Dickishness is not defined in our rules, and is not a useful enforcement standard. You think this would be a better world if cops could write you tickets for “being a dick”?
Context again. That was in response to an issue underlying this thread. Be fair, show the before and the after.
I recently quit a forum after a moderator called me a fool, and I liked that forum too, but I won’t stand for some things. Do what you think is right, but show care, you may miss this place.
…the question was asked of the moderation team. I’m not interested on what you consider “fair” or not. I’m quoting from this very page for goodness sakes. People can see the context.
Two points:
-
We shouldn’t have left this thread open as long as we did. This kind of bickering has nothing to do with the rules or board administration.
-
Setting that (sizable) issue aside, what exactly is your objection to the use of the quote? Is it manufactured or altered in some way?
…is that a concession that that particular post was inappropriate for ATMB?
" It was a quote taken completely out-of-context for the sole purpose of characterizing another poster as “not normal.”
Ok. That was a misunderstanding on my part and I’m probably not the only one. I was under the impression that the “don’t be a jerk” was an actual judgement call offense that was warnable or bannable. Thank you for clarifying.
Not that particular post. Most of the thread. We should have closed it as soon as it became apparent where things were headed and told the participants to take it to the Pit.
Are you saying you think we have a rule against characterizing another poster as not normal? Can you provide a cite? Please understand, I wrote or approved virtually all the rules we have. I recall no such rule.
The entire quote had been posted a few posts above that and it was even quoted.
No one doubted where that quote came from.
This is something I discuss with new mods. Once in a long while something happens that’s completely beyond the pale but not contemplated in our rules. Then, and only then, do we invoke the “don’t be a jerk” rule. But it’s the nuclear option, the last resort. Nothing in the present case rises to that level.
I’ve tended to keep most personal stuff off this website, for other reasons. Now that I know that folks can take personal stuff and use it against me as has happened to Chimera in this case, you can bet I’m locking my presence down here even tighter–and I think it’d be a terrible idea for folks to talk here about things such as illnesses, family tragedies, or the like, given that they can be turned into attacks with impunity.
I think this is terrible for the boards, and I hope y’all reconsider, but I suppose it’s up to you.
…nope. That isn’t what I’m saying at all.
But its good to know that the snark on this board goes all the way to the top.
Do you not think that characterizing another poster as “not normal” is an attack on that poster? Are attacks on other posters now allowed in ATMB? I thought that was what the pit was for.
Please read what I wrote. We made a mistake in not closing the thread right off the bat. ATMB is not the place for arguments between posters. As for “attacks” - what do you mean by attack? People criticize each other all the time on this board in many forums. In your view does this constitute an attack? Do you think we do, or should, have a rule against this?
Sorry, need to go make dinner, it’ll be an hour or two before I get back.
The internet in general and this board in particular has always been this way. Self disclosure on this message board has always run a risk. Morgenstern is not the first poster to delight in resurrecting posts that are many years old for the purpose of humiliation. Nor are facile and unreflective cynicism and ludicrously hostile readings a new thing. It’s shitty behavior and has always been practiced by a small minority, but a small minority is sufficient.
A larger minority cheers them on.
Anyway LHoD, most people like you here. But still, watch what you post. Same advice goes for everyone else. This isn’t a great message board for self-disclosure.
Here is a brief summary of a very long thread:
OP post
Posts 57 94 99 120 make cogent factual responses to OP points
Post 199 and 212 he restated original points without responding to or referencing posts by lawyers and posters working in government
215 Really Not all that Bright makes cogent reply as does Shodan in post 219
298 OP makes false claims about Cali water production to further the ‘debate’.
302 and 303 he proved wrong by Ravenman and DinoR yet carries on his debate
310 Guestchaz catches on to his trolling
339 reports long debunked UN issues
341 357 again shot down
Skip to 860 and 873 CarnalK mocks him and accuses him of arguing both sides when it suits him
And he only stops when its revealed that Yes California was funded by the Russians
Sorry for not linking to the posts directly but I’m on my phone
And I’ve only scanned about 25% of the tbread
“Trolling” doesn’t mean “makes lousy arguments with snark, even though I disagree with them.” It gets used that way far too often around here, but that’s not its meaning.
I looked at most of the posts you linked to–there’s nothing there that looks remotely trollish to me.
There’s a difference between a disagreement that lasts for one thread or one topic, or two posters who have frequently differences of view but who don’t engage in campaigns against each other, and delibrate targeting of a poster with people going back years to find material to use against that person, whether it’s relevant to the topic at hand or not.
Note that LHofD seems to be seeing a pattern of unacceptable behavior here. Like many of us, he/she sees Morgenstern’s dig at Chimera’s mental health (pure speculation on Morgenstern’s part) and his recent divorce as unacceptable.
This post, in this thread, I view as admission that Morgenstern is targeting Chimera and pointing out to others how to target him, encouraging a dogpile. The whole dwelling on waiting, watching, and “thick with suspense” is intended to threaten and intimidate. Telling Chimera he made a “bad move”, as if this is a chess game and not an attack on Chimera regarding both his sanity and a resentful hurtful episode is also a jerk tactic.
^ This, as I pointed out.
So…
It has been noted by several people (including me) that Morgenstern has been targeting Chimera.
Wiskey Dickens reported Morgenstern for following him around.
I have reported Morgenstern for doing the same to me - with the same non-result.
I have to wonder how many other people have reported this behavior but haven’t come forward in this thread. One? Five? Ten? None?
And here Morgenstern is, again, stating in advance that he’s going to repeat something of Chimera’s and, based on his past behavior, I’m expecting it will be out of context and presented in the least-flattering manner with malicious intent.
Yes, Ed, I get that you don’t see it. But other people are seeing it, and some of your members here are reporting being targeted by Morgenstern. MAYBE they’re seeing something you’re not.
Seriously, this is reminding me about the thread involving sexism and misogyny on the Dope - some people just don’t see, while to others it’s a plain as day.
I’m not arguing with posters here, I’m trying to point out that I agree with the premise of this thread - the moderation here permits personal harassment. It is driving people away and it is stifling others.
There is a difference between criticizing opinions and positions and criticizing the person. There is a difference between honest questioning and malice.
I’m rather gobsmacked at how many people can’t understand the difference.
We SHOULD have a rule, even in the Pit, about malicious attacks, those designed to purposely hurt another person - such as stating that the reason they got a divorce is because they’re mentally ill when there is no factual indication of that, the person making the accusation is not a mental health professional (who most likely would not presume to diagnose over the internet anyhow), and stating that they will happily throw that out again and again because that’s the way he rolls.
Or, to take one from my own past - questioning whether or not I’m a pilot then demanding a copy of my pilot’s license via PM to prove my claim of being a pilot - which, by the way, violates the rules on asking for personal information (my pilot’s license has my legal name, my address, and my social security number). I reported this YET IT WAS NEVER ACTED ON. THIS is the problem: someone CLEARLY violates the rules, demands I hand over personal information of a sensitive nature** and not a goddamned thing is done about it** even though I reported it to the mods. The rules are NOT being enforced. I was told “there was not enough evidence”. Dude, someone demanded personal information from me in a manner that was clearly against the rules. I believe this was in connection with a Pit thread which I chose not to participate in because it was basically one long attack on me and my credibility.
People have been reporting these things, and they’re invariably swept under the rug with a “there’s not FACTUAL evidence” or “we don’t see it” or something else dismissive. Then we get here and we hear “no one has reported it” and “there’s not record of this”. What is the point of even trying anymore?
And that’s why you’re losing some long-term posters that contributed a lot to this board. People get tired of the harassment, the bullying, the rules-violating demands, and having NOTHING done about it. That’s why this board is gaining a reputation of tolerating cyberstalking and bullying… because you are, even if you don’t see it.
Or as bucketybuck said:
That is the atmosphere you’re promoting here, whether or not that’s what you intend.