Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 88

Thread: I Know Astromark Was Already On Thin Ice...

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    9,649
    Quote Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
    ... before i realized that i had been reading his post as "one of Mark's posts" where i automatically filtered out the somewhat strong wordings.
    I don't think we should expect our members to do that.

    e.g. His crashing down on newbies posting in Q&A was one of the worst things he was doing. Those newbies may be scared off the forum; they're not going to think "oh, that's just Mark".
    I don't see any Ice Giants.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,664
    Quote Originally Posted by pzkpfw View Post
    The ban wasn't for the last post, it was for the entire history of his posting.
    I know that

    Some people make many many posts that are just slightly "bad". When such people are banned (or even just suspended), yes, it can make the "final straw" seem a bit of a non-event - but we can't let that go on and on.
    I'm just not so sure about that. Is it really impossible for a community to accept a member that they know will probably always slightly end up on the wrong side of the rules when they can be reasonably certain that that member's intentions are good, and that he would sincerely apologize for inadvertently upsetting others? Even if they can be just as reasonably certain that this will not change.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    9,649
    Quote Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
    I'm just not so sure about that. Is it really impossible for a community to accept a member that they know will probably always slightly end up on the wrong side of the rules when they can be reasonably certain that that member's intentions are good, and that he would sincerely apologize for inadvertently upsetting others? Even if they can be just as reasonably certain that this will not change.
    If someone were a genuine kleptomaniac, I'd not want them in my shop; but I accept that "even" kleptomaniacs need to buy food, so I'd see it as wrong that they'd be banned from every shop.

    In this case, BAUT is "just" a web forum, and there are others where astromark can post (e.g. Tom's) so (including the extra work astromark was causing us moderators) I do think we as a community are better off without him.

    If his posts were adding more value (if he'd stuck to his knitting), I'd maybe have been more lenient.
    I don't see any Ice Giants.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,664
    Quote Originally Posted by pzkpfw View Post
    I don't think we should expect our members to do that.

    e.g. His crashing down on newbies posting in Q&A was one of the worst things he was doing. Those newbies may be scared off the forum; they're not going to think "oh, that's just Mark".
    Then why not tell him that he is not allowed to respond to newbies' posts? Make it a number, for example don't respond to anyone with less than 500 posts here. That's a clear and exact rule which i presume he could more easily follow than more vague rules about rudeness. Sometimes borderline cases require their own specific solutions.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    7,741
    I can see where you are coming from, caveman1917, and that may have worked but I'm not sure the mods can be expected to make little rule tweaks and special conditions for individuals, given the number of members here. If that were to happen there would be a number of posters I could think of who would have all sorts of special conditions. No puns for Swift, for one. (Just kidding Swift, you know I'm a fan of them)

    I think most of us will miss Mark, he really seemed like a nice guy, but I think most of us also noticed his posts were seeming more and more agitated. I do wonder whether 6 months might have changed that, (a self imposed exile helped me feel more relaxed here) but then who knows?

    In summary: unfortunate but seemingly justified.

    If you read this, Mark, best wishes and thanks for your contributions over the years!

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    8,267
    Quote Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
    Then why not tell him that he is not allowed to respond to newbies' posts? Make it a number, for example don't respond to anyone with less than 500 posts here. That's a clear and exact rule which i presume he could more easily follow than more vague rules about rudeness. Sometimes borderline cases require their own specific solutions.
    Recalling his responses to infractions (which I won't go into in detail) I seriously doubt that imposing such a prohibition on him would have been any more successful than telling him not to use a particular word.
    Brett's the name. Peters Creek is the place.
    ─────────────────────────────────────────────
    My moderation comments will appear in this color.
    To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the lower-left corner of the post:
    .
    Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,664
    Quote Originally Posted by pzkpfw View Post
    If someone were a genuine kleptomaniac, I'd not want them in my shop; but I accept that "even" kleptomaniacs need to buy food, so I'd see it as wrong that they'd be banned from every shop.
    This implies that you, as a shop owner, consider yourself to have more right to forbid someone access to your shop than other shop owners. If you uphold your right to ban a kleptomaniac from your shop, and consider other shop owners to have the same right, then the logical result is that he could be banned from every shop. If you consider that conclusion to be wrong, you'd have to either give up banning him from your shop, or you'd have to consider your right of banning being more than other shop owners'.

    In this case, BAUT is "just" a web forum, and there are others where astromark can post (e.g. Tom's) so (including the extra work astromark was causing us moderators) I do think we as a community are better off without him.
    Perhaps, but that's hardly the point. Strictly speaking a society is probably better off without the homeless, that doesn't mean it would be moral to put them out of the country.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    7,741
    The problem is that special rules like that would be something like insisting a shop owner install a sales window to service those kleptomaniacs, so they can get their goods by request and not be able to steal things.

    It is an interesting idea that might work (and would allow the shop to take in their money/allow BAUT to take in the pluses from Mark or others' posts) but I'm not sure we can insist the shop owners do so.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    9,649
    Quote Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
    This implies that you, as a shop owner, consider yourself to have more right to forbid someone access to your shop than other shop owners. If you uphold your right to ban a kleptomaniac from your shop, and consider other shop owners to have the same right, then the logical result is that he could be banned from every shop. If you consider that conclusion to be wrong, you'd have to either give up banning him from your shop, or you'd have to consider your right of banning being more than other shop owners'.



    Perhaps, but that's hardly the point. Strictly speaking a society is probably better off without the homeless, that doesn't mean it would be moral to put them out of the country.
    I said I'd not want them in my shop, I didn't say I'd actually ban them.

    And I do think my "other forums" comment is dead on point.

    If my shop sold a vital thing, like food, I'd see my reaction to that kleptomaniac in a different light than if I sold candlesticks.
    That kleptomaniac might come in my food store, and be closely monitored or I'd require that he or she use my on-line shopping facility, or give one of my staff a written list and have them wait at the door or ...
    That kleptomaniac might come to my candlestick store and simply be asked to leave (assuming a history of coming there and stealing).

    If Astromark can be a member (for example) of Toms' forum (with whatever rules they do or don't have there) then I don't see why it's any issue at all that he's banned from BAUT.
    I don't see any Ice Giants.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,664
    Quote Originally Posted by Spoons View Post
    The problem is that special rules like that would be something like insisting a shop owner install a sales window to service those kleptomaniacs, so they can get their goods by request and not be able to steal things.

    It is an interesting idea that might work (and would allow the shop to take in their money/allow BAUT to take in the pluses from Mark or others' posts) but I'm not sure we can insist the shop owners do so.
    We can certainly ask that they first at least try other measures before taking it to a complete ban. Even if only a long-term (for example 6 months as you say) suspension. It is true that his posts have become more and more agitated over an extended period of time, it is not so unreasonable to assume that over an equally extended period of time this might reverse again.

    After all that might be the best counter argument to those that say that "it will never change". It did change, for the worse, why couldn't it again change for the better? And why not leave a door open for that possibility?

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    7,741
    I agree that styles can change - listen to Bob Dylan's discography! Personally, I also wish he'd been given something like 6 months off maybe it would've made the difference. And suspending him once every 6 months for a few chance would probably be minimal effort. But I guess the line must be drawn somewhere - we can provide input but ultimately it's not our call.

    I expect the response would be that they did try other measures, including many many warnings and a number of suspensions.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    9,649
    There is precedent for being "un-banned". But it'd need to be a while before such a request was considered.
    I don't see any Ice Giants.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,664
    Quote Originally Posted by pzkpfw View Post
    If my shop sold a vital thing, like food, I'd see my reaction to that kleptomaniac in a different light than if I sold candlesticks.
    That kleptomaniac might come in my food store, and be closely monitored or I'd require that he or she use my on-line shopping facility, or give one of my staff a written list and have them wait at the door or ...
    That kleptomaniac might come to my candlestick store and simply be asked to leave (assuming a history of coming there and stealing).
    So you'd allow their right to the basic necessities but not to other aspects that life has to offer? That still doesn't seem right to me.

    If Astromark can be a member (for example) of Toms' forum (with whatever rules they do or don't have there) then I don't see why it's any issue at all that he's banned from BAUT.
    Because a ban is uncalled for in the situation. A ban, in my opinion, is what you do when you have conflicting intentions, with someone wilfully breaking the rules (me, not being a kleptomaniac, wilfully stealing). What you do in the case of conflicting results (a kleptomaniac stealing) is damage control, which can be accomplished with (perhaps long term) suspensions and allowing a chance to apologize for inadvertently causing damage. I am of the opinion that as long as the intentions are good a door should always be left open.

    Opinions may of course vary.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    9,649
    Quote Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
    So you'd allow their right to the basic necessities but not to other aspects that life has to offer? That still doesn't seem right to me. ...
    It's about balancing everybodies rights. If I'm a shopkeeper - I have the right not to be unreasonably bothered (with potential loss of income) by kleptomaniacs.
    I don't see any Ice Giants.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    9,147
    Quote Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
    This implies that you, as a shop owner, consider yourself to have more right to forbid someone access to your shop than other shop owners. If you uphold your right to ban a kleptomaniac from your shop, and consider other shop owners to have the same right, then the logical result is that he could be banned from every shop. If you consider that conclusion to be wrong, you'd have to either give up banning him from your shop, or you'd have to consider your right of banning being more than other shop owners'.
    "We have the right to refuse to anybody" is a very common sign around here.

    I worked for a guy who would, on occasion, run people out of his tropical fish store waving a snubnose .38 and screaming like the crazy old coot he was. (Hell of a guy. I thought he was quite colorful and a real friend.)

    He caught a repeat shoplifter in the store once, while I was in the back sorting fifty pound bags of different sands and gravels. In reality I don't condone violence and am more than capable of quelling it in most cases. The boss was whacking this kid with his cane while only people there to stop him were two teenagers and...well an "old queen" is the best way to discribe Mack. He not only wasn't ashamed of the title but Mack discribed himself in just that way several times.

    Not a good subduing force when somebody steals from the Old Man.

    I didn't hustle my butt up there until I heard the police radios squawking out in front of the building and the responding officers were the same ones who came the first time this guy was caught stealing livestock. This time instead of a firm talking to the thief was handcuffed and the officers were applying their nightsticks to his backside and the back of his legs, while his friends watched from their car, until the officers were convinced that the thief understood completely that since he didn't live there he was not welcome in that town. The thieves had all sorts of stolen fish and fish stealing accessories in their car as we were the fourth store they were hitting that day.

    (The ring leader was the only one who got hit as the officers seemed to be offended by the fact they weren't taken seriously the first time they told him to stay away.)

    Oolongapo, Philipines; Mombasa, Kenya; and Brisbane, California are the only places I've seen the police actually do that. I always really hated seeing that even if the guy deserved it.
    Time wasted having fun is not time wasted - Lennon
    (John, not the other one.)

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,664
    Quote Originally Posted by pzkpfw View Post
    It's about balancing everybodies rights. If I'm a shopkeeper - I have the right not to be unreasonably bothered (with potential loss of income) by kleptomaniacs.
    If you're a shopkeeper that knows a kleptomaniac, who is apart from his kleptomania simply a nice guy, then picking up the items he wants from the shop while he waits outside every once in a while is hardly being unreasonably bothered.

    Likewise keeping an eye out on a member every few months and if necessary giving a suspension for the next couple of months is hardly being unreasonably bothered.

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    7,741
    Quote Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
    Likewise keeping an eye out on a member every few months and if necessary giving a suspension for the next couple of months is hardly being unreasonably bothered.
    I'm inclined to agree with you, though I've never been a moderator of a busy forum and regardless I think we really must defer to their own admissions of what does or doesn't unreasonably bother them.

    Given they got together and discussed it, then came up with their decision I suppose we can assume that collectively they maybe felt otherwise. Unless, of course, they hadn't even had the idea to do these extended suspensions (I don't remember what the maximum suspension period is here). I suppose the question may be, for how many people can they take such measures, since by doing it for one it sets the precedent.

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    9,649
    Quote Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
    If you're a shopkeeper that knows a kleptomaniac, who is apart from his kleptomania simply a nice guy, then picking up the items he wants from the shop while he waits outside every once in a while is hardly being unreasonably bothered.
    Yes; I even suggested it in post #39.

    (Edit: though on second thought, that example/action is about preventing the stealing. If all shopkeepers did that, the kleptomaniac doesn't get to be a kleptomaniac. Letting astromark post here and then having to keep cleaning it up is slightly different.)

    Quote Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
    Likewise keeping an eye out on a member every few months and if necessary giving a suspension for the next couple of months is hardly being unreasonably bothered.
    Astromark has had suspensions. (The ban isn't the first thing that happened to him). And (speaking as someone who has to actually do moderation tasks here) it is unreasonable for us to have to keep doing that. Eventually he needs to learn.
    Last edited by pzkpfw; 2012-Apr-19 at 03:00 AM. Reason: Edit:
    I don't see any Ice Giants.

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    39,424
    A few thoughts...

    First, with regard to intentions, I have said repeatedly, and for a very long time, that I can not determine the intentions of any member. Heck, I sometimes don't know the intentions of people I met in person. I am not a mind-reader. I can only judge by the words that people type into their posts. If you write something bad, something against the rules, I have to go by your words.

    We moderators are frequently accused of bias, of playing favorites (a popular complaint of CTers). I have to try to be as fair as possible, I spend a lot of effort to do so. If I start making assumptions about specific members, about what they intended in their posts (rather than what they actually wrote), then I am being unfair.

    Along those lines, we can't have special rules for certain members. Beyond the favoritism, trying to remember each and every "special" rule would drive me insane (or more insane).

    Quote Originally Posted by PetersCreek View Post
    Recalling his responses to infractions (which I won't go into in detail) I seriously doubt that imposing such a prohibition on him would have been any more successful than telling him not to use a particular word.
    I will echo what PetersCreek said. Particularly over the last year or so, Astromark's reaction to warnings and infractions was... let's say not constructive, nor did he show any evidence that he was paying attention to our advice nor trying to change his ways.

    I will also echo what pzkpfw said and say I was particularly bothered by his behavior to very innocent questions, particularly from newbies, in both Q&A and CT.

    As far as giving him a suspension of several months or a year... I can't say I really like that idea. We have tired this before. There was one particular member quite a number of years ago, who was popular, very outspoken, and frequently in trouble, that we tried this with, and frankly it ended up being a very bad experience for me, eventually got that person re-banned from BAUT and banned from another forum, and almost drove me out of both of those forums. But that is only my opinion on such long-term suspensions.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,727
    My $0.02 for what it's worth is that the moderation in this forum is just about spot on. The moderators are fair and balanced and I think they go out of their way to be reasonable.

    The point is often made that this forum is not a democracy. The rules are in place to ensure that debate is robust but does not descend to the ad hominem 'insult-slinging', or worse, the utterly inappropriate language for a public forum, that results in other such fora being not worth the time invested.

    I will miss Mark. I generally enjoyed his posts even though I sometimes had to take some time to decipher them. But, after multiple warnings, infractions and suspensions, at some point you have to say 'enough is enough'. Maybe his behavior would have improved. I suspect there is a greater chance that it would have deteriorated. But if I was a newbie to this forum and I had to endure some of the responses that I had seen recently, then my approach would be either to (a) stay away, because a long-time poster can insult me with impunity; or (b) respond in kind, get suspended and object to the apparent lack of objective moderation. Either way - I wouldn't come back again.

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    27,481
    You know, I lived with a kleptomaniac. And I think I had more of a right not to have my stuff stolen than she had to steal my stuff. If she literally couldn't help it (which is not completely true, otherwise she would have been stealing nonstop, not one of the symptoms of the disease), then she shouldn't be allowed in any situation where it was possible to steal from other people. I shouldn't have had to go to special lengths to ensure that she didn't steal from me, because what she was doing was wrong regardless of why she was doing with it. And eventually, if she was unable to obey the rules of society, she would have ended up outside society in one fashion or another, be it a mental hospital or prison. There is some behaviour which is simply unacceptable, no matter why you do it.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    8,919
    Quote Originally Posted by pzkpfw View Post
    There is precedent for being "un-banned". But it'd need to be a while before such a request was considered.
    I assume that's true, and can't really imagine how there wouldn't. But I think that would mean that Mark would have to demonstrate that he's changed, and that would take time and effort on his part. I agree with some of the assessments about his contributions to threads. I would often try to avoid reading his posts just because I knew I'd inevitably be irritated by either my lack of ability to understand what he was trying to say or worse, understanding and being irritated by his tone.
    As above, so below

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,403
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    You know, I lived with a kleptomaniac. And I think I had more of a right not to have my stuff stolen than she had to steal my stuff. If she literally couldn't help it (which is not completely true, otherwise she would have been stealing nonstop, not one of the symptoms of the disease), then she shouldn't be allowed in any situation where it was possible to steal from other people. I shouldn't have had to go to special lengths to ensure that she didn't steal from me, because what she was doing was wrong regardless of why she was doing with it. And eventually, if she was unable to obey the rules of society, she would have ended up outside society in one fashion or another, be it a mental hospital or prison. There is some behaviour which is simply unacceptable, no matter why you do it.
    Good points, Gillian.
    "There are powers in this universe beyond anything you know. There is much you have to learn. Go to your homes. Go and give thought to the mysteries of the universe. I will leave you now, in peace." --Galaxy Being

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,612
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    And eventually, if she was unable to obey the rules of society, she would have ended up outside society in one fashion or another, be it a mental hospital or prison. There is some behaviour which is simply unacceptable, no matter why you do it.
    This is surely the point. For all this kleptomaniac analogy tries to point out the genuine inability of some people to conform to rules of society (be it a messageboard or the laws of the land), it still misses the point that first and foremost an offence has been committed. Someone who is arested for theft is put up and charged, and their reasons for doing it are considered in sentencing. They still get removed from a situation where they are likely to reoffend, whether that be a short spell in jail or a spell in an institution to give them the help they need. Either way the shopkeeper against whom the offence was committed is not told 'he can't help it, just be nice to him as he's a special case'.

    I knew a kleptomaniac. He was a great guy aside from his habit of stealing things. I turned a blind eye, I pointed out to him what he was doing, I confronted him directly when he stole something of great sentimental value from me and when I recovered it it was vandalised. It made no difference, and he continued to do it, alienating alot of people in the process. However nice a guy he was generally, that behaviour was unacceptable, so I barred him from ever entering my house. Was I wrong for doing so because 'he couldn't help it?' I don't believe so.

    BAUT is the shop. Like the shopkeeper, it retains the right to bar entry and service to anyone. It is not the jail, nor the place for whom the people who can't follow the rules for whatever reason are to be rehabilitated.

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    14,570
    A few things I want to comment on.

    Quote Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
    After all that might be the best counter argument to those that say that "it will never change". It did change, for the worse, why couldn't it again change for the better? And why not leave a door open for that possibility?
    Considering the number of individual infractions, I'd say we have. Still, we also have to consider our new members, none of whom deserve to be abused while here. We also have to consider the board's interests, particularly in the Q&A forum where it's far more likely for such abuse to feel official. Q&A is BAUT's first impression, and, right or wrong, the behavior of every single one of our participating members directly reflects on BAUT as a whole. BAUT has an interest to strongly discourage abusive behavior there.

    Let me give you an example of what I mean. It's from another forum, but it's apt enough.

    -----

    I was recently granted a month of TotalFark, (which is basically Fark on a premium, with additional privileges and quicker access to threads). TotalFark is marketed as a closer community, and it's frequently implied (or outright said) that non-paying Farkers (Liters) are meaner and more aggressive.

    From the outside, it certainly appears so.

    But the very first TotalFark discussion thread I opened, pretty much at random, was a mob scene straight from the classics. They were verbally castigating someone, in what may be the most abusive terms I've seen (and I was there for the alt.tasteless vs rec.pets.cats year long flame war in the early 90s), for having expressed that he hadn't enjoyed his time on Totalfark. (I'm pretty sure I could smell torch smoke, but I wouldn't vouch for that 100%.)

    I won't suggest there wasn't a degree of provocation, there. Dude should have simply walked away. But the reaction was wildly excessive.

    The first impression I'd had was so bad -- I was turned off so completely -- that I simply walked away. Not from Fark, the Liters are friendly enough if you're not trolling them, but I'll never be a TotalFarker. I'm not mean enough to be a TotalFarker.

    -----

    Where, exactly, do you think we should draw the line, caveman1917? At what point do the needs of our new users outweigh the hope that a regular member's behavior might someday, hopefully, change? (And is it really our responsibility to attempt to alter someone's long term behavior? We're not a public institution. The notion of "posting rights" really doesn't exist.)

    -----

    Banning a regular member is the very worst part of this job. It's sometimes necessary, but I've never gotten used to it, and I've never not been uncomfortable enough to lose sleep over it (made far worse because threads like this draw the discomfort out over several days.)

    I will say, straight up, that this was one of those necessary times. Astromark showed no sign whatsoever that he'd been attempting to correct his behavior, though he'd frequently (and I mean frequently) made a point of pointing out what he thought (nearly always incorrectly) was misbehavior in others. That sort of dichotomy doesn't do much for me.

    -----

    As for long term suspensions (and/or unbanning), my view is that when the point is reached where a long-term action becomes necessary, I don't feel it's appropriate that such a member be permitted to return without demonstrating a clear commitment (more than just the intention) of altering the behavior that caused the situation. I won't speak for all mods, but I consider such a demonstration of commitment a prerequisite to even considering a ban reversal. If the person in question doesn't even appear to recognize there was a problem...

    I feel that long term suspensions only extend the problem and delay solutions.
    "Words that make questions may not be questions at all."
    - Neil deGrasse Tyson, answering loaded question in ten words or less
    at a 2010 talk MCed by Stephen Colbert.

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    112
    Backwards Astromark's sentence- like yoda structure ... jumbling-miss i will. (But not so much with the content of his posts)

    RIP Astromark... >:sniff:<
    who was he anyway?

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    20,092
    Just a few disconnected notes about astromark:
    - I liked that he started off being uninformed about astronomy, and came to know lots more than he did through us.
    - He seemed to want acknowledgment of what he saw as his new knowledge, but was always surrounded by people who knew more than he did.
    - After several years, he developed a trend of being harsh to new people who he thought knew less than he did.
    - He never got comfortable being corrected for his own misstatements.
    - We all hoped he'd come around, but he seemed to increasingly be going the wrong way.
    - 25 infractions, etc. did not include my many advising PMs.

    I'll kind of miss him, but he had become the creator of a significant fraction of all moderator work that needed doing here.
    Forming opinions as we speak

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    9,158
    I think the Moderators have definitely gone a 2nd mile for some folks. Even a 5th or 6th mile. It's telling that many of the Mods here are willing to discuss the situation, and even point out Astromark's good points.

    To those who endlessly criticize the Mods here, start your own board. Put your money where your mouth is, see how much you like dealing with certain ongoing behaviors and attitudes. It's easy to criticize when you're not the one in the hot seat with it.

    I've both participated at boards and co-moderated AND owned. Shoe's different when it's on the other foot.

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    7,717
    Judging by the infraction history, the mods' action was certainly not eccelorated.
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Clear Lake City, TX
    Posts
    9,042
    We all hoped he'd come around, but he seemed to increasingly be going the wrong way.

    I certainly felt that way. He also didn't seem to understand what he was doing wrong. You can't learn from your mistakes if you can't (won't) see them.

    Yeah, it's tough to ban a long time Member. There's always the view that, if we give him just one more chance, he'll come around. But we gave him that one more chance multiple times, and he didn't come around. He got worse.

    Would a lengthy suspension have turned him around? If he had understood the reason, if he had actually realized why he was being sanctioned, it might have. But he gave no indication that he did. We got several notes from him and they took two lines. One was, "What did I do wrong? It seems okay to me." The other was, "I see, it won't happen again."

    And it didn't... until it did.
    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
    Isaac Asimov

    Moderation will be in purple.
    Rules for Posting to This Board

Similar Threads

  1. Europa's Ocean: Thick or Thin?
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2007-Dec-04, 11:50 PM
  2. Very Thin Crescent Venus
    By Kyle Edwards in forum Astrophotography
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 2007-Aug-08, 03:49 PM
  3. Opacity in a thin plasma
    By upriver in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 2007-Jun-16, 01:41 PM
  4. How thin can light be spread?
    By Dark Jaguar in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 98
    Last Post: 2005-Dec-18, 06:03 AM
  5. looks like a thin crusty surface layer
    By John Kierein in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2005-Feb-19, 06:22 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: