Boozer who?

[colton]

Colton, I know you don't want to get into any substantive discussion of the rules, so I won't even try.

Hmm, that's an awful lot like me writing, "Hopper, I know you don't want to try to understand anything I have to say on the topic, so I won't even try."

1. There is a difference between understanding the rules "as written" versus the rules "as applied" (the "real rules," in my vernacular).

The moderators use the written rules to make their evaluations of posts that get reported. Yes, there are judgment calls, but implying there is a substantial difference is an overstatement in my opinion.

4. The problem is further exacerbated when any simple, sincere request for an indication of what a phrase like "homophobic comments" is intended to include is deleted from a post and ignored.

I have no idea what you mean by that.

One almost gets the impression that the mods want to keep things as ambiguous, imprecise, and malleable as possible, to give them maximum latitude when voting and dispensing punishment, according to their personal agenda.

If that's really the way you perceive things, then I feel sorry for you. Must be tough to live with that much paranoia.

Alternatively, you could just try to avoid homosexual slurs. As the announcement said: "The moderating staff recently reached a consensus that going forward we will not be as tolerant of homosexual slurs as we have been in the past. Users posting defamatory remarks on this basis may receive warnings or infractions in the future."

It's really not that complicated.

 

[franklin]

What I don't get in this multi-thread, multi-page per thread argument from The Hopper, is, why moderators and others seem to care so damn much?? It's obvious to me the guy is looking for a good argument, but nobody wants to take up the battle and pay attention to the nuances. Instead, y'all keep reverting to a "everyone else but you seems to get it so go elsewhere if you don't like it" type finally. I mean, if you don't want to take up the argument then why don't you just ignore the guy? He's made several points that have been continuously wallpapered over or ignored. Why not ignore the entire bit then?

 

[colton]

One question I have regarding the process is once a violation is issued can it be removed? I've received one demerit for "making a homophobic slur". I used an idiom that the 3+ moderators who voted for my infraction obviously weren't familiar with, and took it exactly opposite as its meaning. What I'm wondering is if I can appeal this infraction in the case I start pushing the violation limit. I don't plan on it or anything, but it would be a nice cushion to have.

"Infractions" drop off after 180 days. "Warnings" don't count against you at all; they are just a notice that you are getting close to the line. In your case, you received a warning, not an infraction, so you don't have any strikes against you.

If it becomes necessary, you can appeal to Jason or myself. Appeals aren't granted very often.

 

[colton]

What I don't get in this multi-thread, multi-page per thread argument from The Hopper, is, why moderators and others seem to care so damn much?? It's obvious to me the guy is looking for a good argument, but nobody wants to take up the battle and pay attention to the nuances. Instead, y'all keep reverting to a "everyone else but you seems to get it so go elsewhere if you don't like it" type finally. I mean, if you don't want to take up the argument then why don't you just ignore the guy? He's made several points that have been continuously wallpapered over or ignored. Why not ignore the entire bit then?

Because I strongly object to his implications of how the moderation system works. Simple as that.

 

[Hopper]

Alternatively, you could just try to avoid homosexual slurs. It's really not that complicated.

As usual, Colton, you presumptively assume that "everyone" knows exactly what YOU (or, more accurately, three random moderators) have in mind when you use the term "homosexual slurs." Even when it has just been clearly demonstrated that this is NOT the case:

I've received one demerit for "making a homophobic slur". I used an idiom that the 3+ moderators who voted for my infraction obviously weren't familiar with, and took it exactly opposite as its meaning.

 

[LifeOnaPlate]

Hopper: go find some legitimate and meaningful injustice in the world to complain about. Doing so at JazzFanz is morally pathetic.

 

[franklin]

Because I strongly object to his implications of how the moderation system works. Simple as that.

That goes without saying. Here's the way I see about 25 pages of this summed up:

Hopper thinks the rules are subjective, and as such, bias could--and he's implied does--enter into moderator judgments. Hopper is not willing to concede that moderators are about as even kill as they come "off the bench".

Moderators make judgment calls, and are offended by the notion that they are handing out spurious, capricious, and/or vindictive rulings based on personal agenda. However, moderators, taking issue with The Hopper's vague implications, are avoiding the notion that the rules are subjective to vote and bias enters the equation whether minimized or not.

This has taken up a ton of pages and possibly subtracted enough productive time that a positive use could have lifted the world out of the recession we're not in but are.

 

[Inn Dawn]

Hopper: go find some legitimate and meaningful injustice in the world to complain about. Doing so at JazzFanz is morally pathetic.

No kidding.

 

[franklin]

Hopper: go find some legitimate and meaningful injustice in the world to complain about. Doing so at JazzFanz is morally pathetic.

Says the person complaining about what it's complaining about. Nobody takes your pseudo-whateveritisyouthinkyou'repassingoffasenlightenment seriously. Contradiction and being stupid generic are annoying, but, then again, who am I to judge what's legitimate and meaningful to another?

 

[franklin]

BTW Colton, thanks for clarifying the process. This warning shows up as an infraction under my settings tab, but was clearly a warning in my inbox.

 

[Bodhi]

Colton, I know you don't want to get into any substantive discussion of the rules, so I won't even try. I will, however, in response to your 99.9% claim, note a few things, viz:

1. There is a difference between understanding the rules "as written" versus the rules "as applied" (the "real rules," in my vernacular).

2. It is easy to SAY that "Everybody knows what (disorderly conduct, homophobic comments, trollin, etc.--insert your own prohibition) means." Notwithstanding their smug self-assurance, any such claim is prima facie foolish, if ya ax me.

3. The difficulty in trying to understand rules "as applied," becomes much more acute when a phrase like "disorderly conduct" (not a rule here, just a hypothetical example) is deemed to include such things as the utterance of words in the reverse order intended (in a "disorderly" manner, see?). Again, that's just a hypothetical example. It could be anything, like mebbe makin a post in such a "disorderly" fashion that some posters can't tell which parts of it are quotations and which aint.

4. The problem is further exacerbated when any simple, sincere request for an indication of what a phrase like "homophobic comments" is intended to include is deleted from a post and ignored. One almost gets the impression that the mods want to keep things as ambiguous, imprecise, and malleable as possible, to give them maximum latitude when voting and dispensing punishment, according to their personal agenda.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaait!!!!!! This has been a gag this whole time?!?! You aren't really uneducated? WELL.I.NEVER!!!

 

[LifeOnaPlate]

Says the person complaining about what it's complaining about. Nobody takes your pseudo-whateveritisyouthinkyou'repassingoffasenlightenment seriously. Contradiction and being stupid generic are annoying, but, then again, who am I to judge what's legitimate and meaningful to another?

Golly, franklin, what does this say about the guy complaining about the guy complaining about the guy complaining then?

Oh, and "Nobody" isn't quite accurate. See Inn Dawn's response above. Oops for you.

(ps- if you're screen name was inspired by Arrested Development then at least we have that to fall back on for a friendship in the future. Otherwise, we might be SOL.)