Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

On moderation [was Re: Pat Wynne banned from Elfling!]

Expand Messages
  • laurifindil
    ... clarifications; ... I ... Civil with an an Orc like you? As long as you will be moderating things will go for the worst on Elfling.
    Message 1 of 12 , Dec 29, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      >
      > I expect people will want to respond to these policy
      clarifications;
      > do so but please keep it civil. I'd like to see closure in a week
      > because what I am primarily interested in seeing in this list (as
      I
      > imagine others are too) is discourse on Elvish linguistics.
      >
      > Elimloth, an elfling moderator.

      Civil with an an Orc like you?

      As long as you will be "moderating" things will go for the worst on
      Elfling.
    • Hans
      ... I don t think that s fair, sorry! At least, here s a moderator who speaks in public, while the rest is hiding behind anonymity (I don t even know the names
      Message 2 of 12 , Dec 29, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In elfling-d@yahoogroups.com, "laurifindil" <ejk@f...> wrote:
        > Civil with an an Orc like you?
        >
        > As long as you will be "moderating" things will go for the worst on
        > Elfling.

        I don't think that's fair, sorry! At least, here's a moderator who
        speaks in public, while the rest is hiding behind anonymity (I don't
        even know the names of all moderators at the moment, I just know that
        some of the first moderators of Elfling have quit, and I don't wonder
        why). It's sad enough the list needs moderation, and I don't think an
        unmoderated list is a good idea: it will either be ignored, or turn
        into another place where people are just yelling at each other,
        forgetting about the subject which should join them instead of
        dividing, Tolkienian linguistics.

        Hans
      • Carl F. Hostetter
        In Elfling message 27951 ( ), Elfling ... AND are boycotting the list. Don t forget that. ... Oh, so even
        Message 3 of 12 , Dec 29, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          In Elfling message 27951
          (<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfling/message/27951>), Elfling
          "moderator" "Elimloth" writes:

          > Several people have commented on this event and, along with exclaiming
          > their dismay, they have also asked for clarification of the moderation
          > policies of elfling.

          AND are boycotting the list. Don't forget that.

          > I chose to close pending postings on these related threads because
          > most of the pending posts were similar to those that were already sent
          > to the list.

          Oh, so even more people are boycotting Elfling? Glad to hear that. Too
          bad you won't let them declare so in public. Silencing abounds.

          > Pat's banishment was short lived, just three days.

          Sure, now that David Salo's banning of Pat (without warning,
          notification, or limit, mind you; something "Elimloth" conveniently
          neglects to mention) has blown up in his face, he's eager to have Pat
          come back. So long, of course, as Pat does so in a submissive posture:
          no apology from David, no public admission from David that what he did
          was completely counter to his own stated guidelines for the list, and
          completely biased (given that Helge Fauskanger continues without ban),
          and _so long as Pat subjects himself to the biased moderation of
          Elfling in the future_" the other key fact that "Elimloth" has somehow
          forgotten to mention.

          > There is one basic restriction that has always applied to everyone on
          > this list, and that is to post without sarcasm and without words that
          > denigrate others.

          The problem is that this restriction does NOT apply to everyone on the
          list: David Salo and Helge Fauskanger both routinely post deliberately
          sarcastic, insulting and innuendo-laden words about those who dare not
          to toe their party line. It is this "appallingly biased moderation" of
          Elfling, and the concomitant invective soapbox provided to Salo and
          Fauskanger, that _causes_ all of its problems.

          > Though there are 31 banned accounts,

          Ah, so, we can revise the earlier count
          (<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfling-d/message/99>):

          People silenced by David, Dorothea, and Lisa (that we know of): 31

          People silenced by Carl, Pat, etc.: 0

          > When moderators observe a violation of the posting guidelines, they
          > will often place that
          > person back onto moderation (if they were unmoderated), edit, notify
          > (usually privately), and/or observe for a while to ensure compliance.
          > Continued noncompliance is grounds for long term moderation and
          > sometimes stronger action.

          Unless you happen to be David Salo or Helge Fauskanger, of course.

          > I'd like to see closure in a week

          Sure, now that David's silencing of Pat has blown up in his face, he
          and you are eager to sweep it all under the rug and get back to your
          normal program of allowing David and Helge to post all the snide,
          sarcastic, innuendo-laden lies they want, the only change made in
          response is to "moderate" _other_ people, so that they can't respond to
          David and Helge's insults and rhetoric.

          The Elfling recipe for peace: don't remove the _cause_ of dissent, just
          silence the dissenters.

          > because what I am primarily interested in seeing in this list (as I
          > imagine others are too) is discourse on Elvish linguistics.

          Anyone truly interested in actual discourse on actual linguistics of
          actual Elvish will be better served by joining the Lambengolmor list
          (<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lambengolmor/>). 100% tattoo-free.



          --
          =============================================
          Carl F. Hostetter Aelfwine@... http://www.elvish.org

          ho bios brachys, he de techne makre.
          Ars longa, vita brevis.
          The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.
          "I wish life was not so short," he thought. "Languages take such
          a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about."
        • elimloth
          ... [...] ... Laurifindil, your color has gone dark of late. Sending me several dozen identical emails then ending with an epithet (and I don t mean orc ) is
          Message 4 of 12 , Dec 29, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In elfling-d@yahoogroups.com, "laurifindil" <ejk@f...> wrote:
            [...]
            > Civil with an an Orc like you? [personal attack]
            > As long as you will be "moderating" things will go for the worst
            > on Elfling. [opinion]

            Laurifindil, your color has gone dark of late. Sending me several
            dozen identical emails then ending with an epithet (and I don't
            mean 'orc') is unbecoming of decency let alone civility. You have
            sent me other epithet laden messages in the past, so I surmise this
            is a pattern of your choosing hence email from you to me is now
            blocked.

            Now despite your ill behavior, should you choose to send a civil
            post to elfling it will pass.

            Elimloth
          • elimloth
            ... Now Carl, you assumed the worst, and made a false claim. Now this isn t a big deal but I would ask you to engage in a more reasoned dialog, something well
            Message 5 of 12 , Dec 29, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              > > Though there are 31 banned accounts,
              >
              > Ah, so, we can revise the earlier count
              > (<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elfling-d/message/99>):
              >
              > People silenced by David, Dorothea, and Lisa (that we know of): 31
              > People silenced by Carl, Pat, etc.: 0

              Now Carl, you assumed the worst, and made a false claim. Now this
              isn't a big deal but I would ask you to engage in a more reasoned
              dialog, something well below hyperbole. Hyperbole is a grreat
              debating technique, but it is only useful as a tool for zero-sum
              games.

              Spammers silenced by Elimloth: 25 (porn, chain letters, etc).
              People banned by David: 2 (4 accounts yours, 2 acounts Pat's)
              As far as Dorothea and Lisa, since they are not involved with
              elfling, listing them as part of an elfling statistic is unfair.
              BTW, I do not know these people personally.

              > > When moderators observe a violation of the posting guidelines,
              they
              > > will often place that
              > > person back onto moderation (if they were unmoderated), [...]
              >
              > Unless you happen to be David Salo or Helge Fauskanger, of course.

              We've written to each other about that in private, and we just
              disagree on that one.

              > Sure, now that David's silencing of Pat has blown up in his face,
              he
              > and you are eager to sweep it all under the rug and get back to
              your
              > normal program of allowing David and Helge to post all the snide,
              > sarcastic, innuendo-laden lies they want, the only change made in
              > response is to "moderate" _other_ people, so that they can't
              respond to
              > David and Helge's insults and rhetoric.

              No. I disagree entirely with your biased characterization of this
              situation.

              > The Elfling recipe for peace: don't remove the _cause_ of dissent,
              > just silence the dissenters.

              Once again, this is untrue. The Elfling recipe for civil discourse
              is as I stated in my message to Elfling.

              Elimloth
            • Carl F. Hostetter
              ... Yet you have no problem with permitting Helge and David every unreasoning and hyperbole. ... Since I didn t list those numbers as Efling statistics , it
              Message 6 of 12 , Dec 29, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                On Dec 29, 2003, at 3:29 PM, elimloth wrote:

                > but I would ask you to engage in a more reasoned dialog,

                Yet you have no problem with permitting Helge and David every
                unreasoning and hyperbole.

                > As far as Dorothea and Lisa, since they are not involved with elfling,
                > listing them as part of an elfling statistic is unfair.

                Since I didn't list those numbers as "Efling statistics", it escapes me
                how your words follow from anything I wrote.

                > BTW, I do not know these people personally.

                Lucky you.

                >>> When moderators observe a violation of the posting guidelines, they
                >>> will often place that person back onto moderation (if they were
                >>> unmoderated), [...]
                >>
                >> Unless you happen to be David Salo or Helge Fauskanger, of course.
                >
                > We've written to each other about that in private, and we just
                > disagree on that one.

                This is an objective, observable fact. You can pretend otherwise, but
                this is not a matter of simple disagreement. Helge and David are
                permitted latitudes that no one else on Elfling is permitted, in
                particular not those who dare to dissent from David and Helge's
                rhetoric and pronouncements.

                >> Sure, now that David's silencing of Pat has blown up in his face, he
                >> and you are eager to sweep it all under the rug and get back to your
                >> normal program of allowing David and Helge to post all the snide,
                >> sarcastic, innuendo-laden lies they want, the only change made in
                >> response is to "moderate" _other_ people, so that they can't respond
                >> to David and Helge's insults and rhetoric.
                >
                > No. I disagree entirely with your biased characterization of this
                > situation.

                OK, you seem often to disagree with reality. But can you show us why it
                is at all reasonable for you to disagree, or how my "characterization"
                is either biased or inaccurate, as you assert?

                >> The Elfling recipe for peace: don't remove the _cause_ of dissent,
                >> just silence the dissenters.
                >
                > Once again, this is untrue. The Elfling recipe for civil discourse is
                > as I stated in my message to Elfling.

                And thus is just exactly as I say here. Simple gainsaying does not
                constitute argument (Monty Python not withstanding), nor does assertion
                constitute evidence. despite David and Helge's example.
              • elimloth
                ... Do I properly infer your previous post was indeed hyperbole? If so at least that is progress. Let s stick to *you*. We can talk about others later. You
                Message 7 of 12 , Dec 29, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In elfling-d@yahoogroups.com, Carl F. Hostetter <Aelfwine@e...>
                  wrote:
                  >
                  > On Dec 29, 2003, at 3:29 PM, elimloth wrote:
                  >
                  > > but I would ask you to engage in a more reasoned dialog,
                  >
                  > Yet you have no problem with permitting Helge and David every
                  > unreasoning and hyperbole.

                  Do I properly infer your previous post was indeed hyperbole? If so
                  at least that is progress.

                  Let's stick to *you*. We can talk about others later. You Carl. Why
                  do *you* resort to hyperbole and combative dialog. I ask this
                  question of you because not much I have read from you would give me
                  cause to think I've seen accomodation of any degree.

                  I have opened dialog and all I have read is (and this is paraphrase)
                  blow off those guys, ban those people I do not like. We can go on
                  like this for quite a while. Frankly I'd rather read Elvish
                  Liguistics.


                  > > listing them as part of an elfling statistic is unfair.
                  >
                  > Since I didn't list those numbers as "Efling statistics", it
                  escapes me
                  > how your words follow from anything I wrote.

                  Quite simply: Several times you quote some numbers specific to
                  elfling. All your posts to date on this issue of the banned body
                  count have been about elfling. Then you drag in other peoples names
                  you do not like to generalize what is a very specific situation.
                  That is how this discourse follows from what you wrote.

                  Elimloth
                • Carl F. Hostetter
                  ... No, you do not. You introduced the term hyperbole into the discussion, and criticized its presence. I pointed out that unfortunately you seem entirely
                  Message 8 of 12 , Dec 29, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Dec 29, 2003, at 5:25 PM, elimloth wrote:

                    > Do I properly infer your previous post was indeed hyperbole?

                    No, you do not. You introduced the term hyperbole into the discussion,
                    and criticized its presence. I pointed out that unfortunately you seem
                    entirely unfazed by the presence of hyperbole (esp. in Helge's posts),
                    the implication being that your mention and criticism of hyperbole here
                    is astonishingly hypocritical, given the posts that you yourself have
                    approved for Elfling.

                    > If so at least that is progress ... not much I have read from you
                    > would give me
                    > cause to think I've seen accomodation of any degree ... I have opened
                    > dialog

                    Progress towards what? Accommodation of what? Dialogue about and
                    towards what? The burden of any hope of progress or accommodation lies
                    on _you_ and your fellow Elfling "moderators". It is _your_ failure to
                    moderate posts to Elfling without bias and in accordance with its
                    stated guidelines that has brought Elfling to the sad, lowly state in
                    which it finds itself. And it is up to you to improve the situation, by
                    holding Helge and David to the standards David himself espouses. If you
                    are unwilling or (as I rather suspect, since David will simply override
                    any decisions on your part that he finds inconvenient, as he has in the
                    past) unable to do so, then if you have even a shred of integrity or
                    pride left, you should resign.

                    >> Since I didn't list those numbers as "Efling statistics", it escapes
                    >> me how your words follow from anything I wrote.
                    >
                    > Quite simply: Several times you quote some numbers specific to elfling.

                    No, I did not. I cited those silenced by David, Dorothea, and Lisa. I
                    did not specify Elfling, not once.

                    > All your posts to date on this issue of the banned body count have
                    > been about elfling.

                    No, they have not.

                    > Then you drag in other peoples names you do not like to generalize
                    > what is a very specific situation.

                    It is not a "very specific situation": it is a general pattern of
                    hypocrisy and censorship on the part of a group of known friends with a
                    common agenda.

                    > That is how this discourse follows from what you wrote.

                    And therefore it does _not_ follow, as I said.
                  • elimloth
                    ... discussion, ... Because it looks like hyperbole to me. How does it look to you, a calm and reasoned discussion? ... Woa, Carl. You and me. Keep the focus.
                    Message 9 of 12 , Dec 29, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In semi real-time elfling-d@yahoogroups.com, Carl F. Hostetter
                      <Aelfwine@e...> wrote:
                      >
                      > On Dec 29, 2003, at 5:25 PM, elimloth wrote:
                      >
                      > > Do I properly infer your previous post was indeed hyperbole?
                      >
                      > No, you do not. You introduced the term hyperbole into the
                      discussion,
                      > and criticized its presence.

                      Because it looks like hyperbole to me. How does it look to you, a
                      calm and reasoned discussion?


                      > And it is up to you to improve the situation,

                      Woa, Carl. You and me. Keep the focus.

                      > No, I did not. I cited those silenced by David, Dorothea, and
                      Lisa. I did not specify Elfling, not once.

                      Really? Then why did you tack on the 31 as a part of that statement?
                      Why did you assign them to the D,D,L? Looks like pretty decent
                      hyperbole to me. I mention this because if this discussion keeps
                      going the way you are driving it, then not much of anything useful
                      other than a lot of words of useless win/lose debate will ensue.

                      Elimloth
                    • Carl F. Hostetter
                      ... It looks like _fact_. ... I am keeping the focus right where it belongs, on those responsible for the lowly state of Efling: you, Helge, and David. It is
                      Message 10 of 12 , Dec 29, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Dec 29, 2003, at 9:11 PM, elimloth wrote:

                        > --- In semi real-time elfling-d@yahoogroups.com, Carl F. Hostetter
                        > <Aelfwine@e...> wrote:
                        >>
                        >> No, you do not. You introduced the term hyperbole into the
                        >> discussion, and criticized its presence.
                        >
                        > Because it looks like hyperbole to me. How does it look to you, a calm
                        > and reasoned discussion?

                        It looks like _fact_.

                        >> And it is up to you to improve the situation,
                        >
                        > Woa, Carl. You and me. Keep the focus.

                        I am keeping the focus right where it belongs, on those responsible for
                        the lowly state of Efling: you, Helge, and David. It is no part of my
                        doing, but I can diagnose the problem and see the cure as readily as
                        anyone else can. Anyone else but you, apparently.

                        >> No, I did not. I cited those silenced by David, Dorothea, and Lisa. I
                        >> did not specify Elfling, not once.
                        >
                        > Really? Then why did you tack on the 31 as a part of that statement?

                        Because the number is a _combined_ total of people censored by a group
                        of comrades with a common agenda and a common, hypocritical stance.
                        Have a look at the definitions of "and" sometime.

                        > if this discussion keeps going the way you are driving it, then not
                        > much of anything useful other than a lot of words of useless win/lose
                        > debate will ensue.

                        Nothing useful will come of discussion, only of action: action on
                        _your_ part. Discussion only allows you to fool yourself (and precisely
                        _no one else_, mind you) into believing that you can evade your
                        responsibility, and your failure.
                      • elimloth
                        ... a calm ... That s all well and good but it happens to be made up fact. An error on your part, Carl. *I* banished those 20+ accounts, not any one else. ...
                        Message 11 of 12 , Dec 29, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In elfling-d@yahoogroups.com, Carl F. Hostetter <Aelfwine@e...>
                          wrote:

                          > > Because it looks like hyperbole to me. How does it look to you,
                          a calm
                          > > and reasoned discussion?
                          >
                          > It looks like _fact_.

                          That's all well and good but it happens to be made up fact. An error
                          on your part, Carl.

                          *I* banished those 20+ accounts, not any one else.

                          > > [I wrote] Really? Then why did you tack on the 31 as a part of
                          that statement?
                          >
                          > Because the number is a _combined_ total of people censored by a
                          group
                          > of comrades with a common agenda and a common, hypocritical
                          stance.
                          > Have a look at the definitions of "and" sometime.

                          Once again you erred. On a wild stretch those people you mentioned
                          may have responsible for banning you (though you do know only one
                          person was responsible for that act since you have stated that fact
                          many times -- it is archived), but in no way can those other twenty-
                          something bannings have anything to do with them. I did it. I banned
                          those accounts, and rather recently. Period.

                          Will you admit error on your part? It's a little thing, yet it
                          becomes a rather large problem if you are unwilling to admit that
                          mistake.

                          Elimloth
                        • Carl F. Hostetter
                          ... I will admit that, in a discussion the context of which concerned the number of people banned by David, Dorothea, and Lisa, and, for your own part, the
                          Message 12 of 12 , Dec 30, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On Dec 30, 2003, at 1:54 AM, elimloth wrote:

                            > I banned those accounts, and rather recently. Period.
                            >
                            > Will you admit error on your part?

                            I will admit that, in a discussion the context of which concerned the
                            number of people banned by David, Dorothea, and Lisa, and, for your own
                            part, the number of people banned from Elfling, you introduced a
                            number, 31, without qualification as to the reasons those numbers were
                            banned; upon which I made the reasonable but, according to you, false
                            assumption that that number indicated the number of people banned for
                            reasons germane to the discussion we were all having. I.e., it did not
                            occur to me that you would introduce a fact into the flow of discussion
                            in a unqualified, misleading way.

                            > It's a little thing, yet it becomes a rather large problem if you are
                            > unwilling to admit that mistake.

                            What a remarkable statement coming from an Elfling moderator.
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.