Over-Moderation

[PraedSt]

Originally Posted by Warren Platts

Then there are guys like PraedSt who aren't sure what to do. He wants to be one of the guys, yet he is personally appalled by the cliquishness of The Clique--and rightly so if you ask me. But of course I would say that. I hope that answers your question.

Hey!

Allow me to clarify. I have no intention of being one of the guys, neither have I ever been appalled by the cliquishness of any clique. I like cliques!

What I am appalled by is the sheer capriciousness of Warren's latest banning. Given the rules, and given what he said, I thought it was uncalled for. It gave me the impression that Antoniseb was "gunning for him".

I'm afraid that Warren might be the second member, in my short lifespan, that the Admins consider to be too troublesome to have around. (Neverfly being the first). They're characters, and although I'm sure they cause headaches at times, they do also make my experience here on BAUT much more interesting.

Anyway, you all know I feel this way. I've griped about it before.

[Robinson]

Originally Posted by Tucson_Tim

BAUT, like any organization, needs those who view things differently.

No! Viewpoints are deadly. Believing the wrong things (anything not mainstream) is akin to a crime against humanity.

So is laughing about stuff.

[PraedSt]

Originally Posted by antoniseb

Any time you post something in the gray area of the rules you should expect the possibility of different outcomes.

Yes, but his post was not grey. And besides, this is an excuse. You should be trying to minimize this undesirable effect, rather than hiding behind it.

There is no exact formula saying what will be permitted or not.

In this case there was.

You are often close to the line, and you have been reminded of that often.

Yes, that's you doing your job.

If you'd like to post remarks that are insulting to the rest of humanity,

Speaking for the whole world now are we? I didn't find it insulting, neither did any of the follow up posts. You certainly may see it as insulting if you make an effort to see it that way. And if some people press the triangle and complain, how about continuing to administrate and moderate as you had in the past? You're not supposed to be a voting machine.

I bet you can find a forum that encourages that.

I'm sure he can.

We suppress it.

It appears to me you suppress this particular member when you can.

Do you feel suppressed? That's why.

Nice. What a lovely post from an Administrator. How friendly! Why don't you just revoke his membership and have done with it? Or are we doing the "we'd prefer it if you resigned" routine?

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by Warren Platts

I merely happen to disagree with your ingenuous theory about how the culture at bautforum.com operates. There's nothing wrong with that.

When your "disagreement" involves insulting other posters, then there is something "wrong with it".

For example...

R.A.F. once got rejected by The Clique...

I was banned because I continually broke board rules. I sincerely apologized and was reinstated.

...but he's been striving mightily ever since to redeem himself and gain Clique status.

So "basically", I'm member of this "clique" because I'm trying my darndest not to break any board rules? Do you so lack the empathy to understand that this might be viewed as an insult?

...my little declaration of victory was my little way of signaling that everything that could be said and done had been said and done...

It was your way of "winning" the argument without actually convincing anyone else that your argument had validity...no one was ever going to agree with your argument the way it was presented by you, so you declared yourself the "winner" because you simply cannot stand the thought of losing.

Let's put it to a vote.

Be careful what you ask for...

[Merkin Muffley]

Originally Posted by Robinson

No! Viewpoints are deadly. Believing the wrong things (anything not mainstream) is akin to a crime against humanity.

So is laughing about stuff.

A lot of people here violate the first one. The second one, not so many.

[Robinson]

To be fair, you can believe anything you want. You just can't post about it.

[Jeff Root]

Originally Posted by antoniseb

If you'd like to post remarks that are insulting to the rest of humanity,

Was that a hypothetical, or is it descriptive of something Warren
actually said?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Merkin Muffley]

Originally Posted by Robinson

To be fair, you can believe anything you want. You just can't post about it.

Don't ask, don't tell

They don't mess around here. I didn't even get a chance to vote in the poll.

Warren, I disagree with a lot of your posts, but I vote that you should stay.

[Robinson]

I tried to post (in the closed thread) "I protest the closing of this thread!", but I missed the window by several seconds.

[Nowhere Man]

Originally Posted by Robinson

To be fair, you can believe anything you want. You just can't post about it.

Not quite. You can believe anything you want, and you can post about it (saving only politics and religion). But if someone asks you to support your belief, in the CT and ATM areas, then you have to come up with answers to provide that support. And "I don't know" is an acceptable answer.

Fred

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by Nowhere Man

Not quite. You can believe anything you want, and you can post about it (saving only politics and religion). But if someone asks you to support your belief, in the CT and ATM areas, then you have to come up with answers to provide that support. And "I don't know" is an acceptable answer.

Indeed...however presenting an unconvincing argument, then declaring "I won" is not acceptable.

[Merkin Muffley]

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

Indeed...however presenting an unconvincing argument, then declaring "I won" is not acceptable.

The "I won" could become a second claim, to be supported with evidence, with "I don't know" being an acceptable answer.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by Merkin Muffley

The "I won" could become a second claim, to be supported with evidence, with "I don't know" being an acceptable answer.

You can't possibily be serious, yet I see no "smillie".

[Merkin Muffley]

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

You can't possibily be serious, yet I see no "smillie".

If the first part is true, then there is no need for a smilie.

[R.A.F.]

Ah ha.

[Jason_Roberts]

Here are some things I've learned from this thread:

• The moderators seem to be human beings. (That's a relief!)

• People cannot get along with, or agree with each other one-hundred percent of the time. This is also a relief.

In conclusion, it seems that BAUT's rules are working as intended.

[mahesh]

Originally Posted by Warren Platts

... But I'm not going to waste the keystokes to explain it to you.....

Warren Platts:
your post at #144...is astounding. And funny. I mean humour-wise. Are you sure this isn't an unintentional satire?

Originally Posted by Platts

...you should save your righteous indignation for occassions when it is appropriate, that is, when a real moral wrong has been committed. I merely happen to disagree with your ingenuous theory about how the culture at bautforum.com operates.

Come, come, Sire! I am not 'indignated', righteous or otherwise. I do not have any theories, ingenuous or otherwise, about BAUT culture. Don't think such a thing exists. Only thing I know of, is, one: be nice; two: don't get your pants in a twist.

Can you not see, really, can you really not see, that there is no 'clique' at BAUT.

After naming a few, pretty much regular participants, respected BAUTzens, as members of this mysterious clique, you add, that I am definitely in there. You made me laugh, this nice morning. Thank you.

I would have thought that you would be there too. Hey! Whatsamatteryou!

Well, two things come to mind. First is Groucho Marx. His famous comment about not wanting to belong to a club, that would have him as a member; secondly, it reminds me of Mak, who often quoted him, Groucho. Bless him. Mak's anniversary (don't know if this is a right word) in this week.

ah, wait....I do belong to a 'clique'. The founder of that one is my baby Flynn, along with our pets.
I am an honorary member, we have lots of fun.

If there was such a thing as a clique, here, as you say:

Originally Posted by Platts

...Gillianren is the paradigmatic cliquemeister; if The Clique had a formal organization, she would be President....

I like that. I like that very much. You are very observant, Mr.Bond Platts.
Then perhaps, I could belong to two!

In the meantime, let me congratulate you for some of your work that is published at / with / through armscontrolwonk / G Gordon . I am delighted to have made your acquaintance as I mentioned to you, the other day. And am glad that I get to rub shoulders with such talented people as you and others, here, at BAUT.

Just lighten up a bit, hey?!?! Have a cup of tea or something. May be I shouldn't say that this week, considering what happened in Boston. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bo...er_colored.jpg


edit:

Originally Posted by Platts

.......But I'm not going to waste the keystokes to explain it to you.
and ...mugaliens would be allowed into The Clique, but he's got to get his mind right first.

see what I mean about being offensive, Platts? but you can readily waste keystrokes, being not nice to / about mugs, ...
Ease up / lighten up. you'll come across nicer, to everyone else around you. and smile.

[HenrikOlsen]

Originally Posted by Warren Platts

Yeah, no kidding, because discussing space politics is specifically not a violation of the rules:

OK, once again from the top, since you seem unable to understand this point:

The rules are there for a purpose and when there's conflict that purpose overrides the letter of the rules.

The no politics rule is there because political discussions becomes heated and people forget to Be Nice so we have to hand out suspensions which we don't like.

The space politics exception is there because those discussions normally stay calm.

Overly nationalistic posts are inflammatory and therefore goes against the reason for the rule even though the letter of the rule would allow them through the space politics exception.

The spirit of the law overrules the letter of the law.

Don't expect a literal reading of the rules will save you if you've gone against the reason why the rule exists.

[Drunk Vegan]

Originally Posted by Warren Platts

You should know! You're a charter member! In fact, all mods are in The Clique, with the possible exception of tusenfem. Actually, on second thought, he is in The Clique: he just doesn't behave very cliquishly. Similarly Grant Hutchison is an honorary member, but to his credit, he stays aloof from all cliquish shenanigans. Drunk Vegan above has made it to the periphery. Mahesh is definitely in there.

You still remembered me in your acceptance speech, even after all these months that we haven't talked? I'm touched.

I just want to give you a slobbery, wet kiss now.

[Warren Platts]

PraedSt: Extraordinary! Your analysis is spot on. I know this to be true because the silence is deafening.

Mahesh: I suggest you follow your own advice and untwist your own knickers. I'll make you a deal: I'll mind my own neurochemicals, if you mind yours. Thanks.

R.A.F.: For the last time, this is why I believe I won that silly, little debate: I did not bite off more than I could chew. The proposition I defended was very limited, very narrow, and very precise, to wit: "it might have been possible that the satellite had the mechanical wherewithal to be intentionally rammed into another satellite." Full Stop. Period. Finito.

My sole concern were the potential, latent capabilities of a mothballed satellite. I provided evidence. In my case, "I don't know" was not an acceptable answer, nor could I in good conscience retract the proposition I defended. So I won. In my mind. Maybe not in your mind. But that's OK. It is OK when reasonable people agree to disagree.

I had nothing at all to say regarding whether there was an actual conspiracy or not--mainly because I'm not a claravoiant and I'm not good at remote viewing, nor do I have access to NSA intercepts. The thread shouldn't even have been in the CT forum!

But that's a typical parlimentary maneuver at bautforum.com for you. Don't like what someone has to say? See if you can get the thread moved to CT or ATM. Then you will have the advantage in an unfair debate format.

My mistake was to think I could walk through the fire without getting burned. Whatever. I'll never touch that tarbaby again. So let's please, please just never mention it again. It's water under the bridge. I'm over it.

In fact, I hearby respectfully request (as in ask, not "demand") that the entire thread be removed and we all just forget it ever happend. It's an embarrassment. Thanks in advance.

Moose: Thank you for the kind words. I would like to continue posting at bautforum.com. However, when you say that "_nobody_" is out to get me, methinks thou dost protest too much. Because it's too late. Henryk already spilled the beans. See below.

Henryk: Your latest analysis is fine as far as it goes except for a couple of things. How am I supposed to know what the framer of the constitution here had in mind when he wrote the rules? (For that matter, how do you know?) It's not as if there exists a Federalist Papers for bautforum.com.

I'll stipulate that the no-politics rules exists in order to eliminate the strife often associated with political discussions.

But it is not at all obvious that the reason for the space politics exception is because the potential for drama in space politics is intrinsically less. An alternative, at-least-as-reasonable interpretation is that since this is a space-related discussion forum, the space politics exception was excepted because space politics is an essential component to space exploration, and thus space politics is worth the cost in flames.

However, you might have had a point, Henryk, if all such discussions (re: whether all or part of the Moon ought to be sovereign territory of the USA or any other nation state) inevitably devolve into flame wars. But there is no evidence for that. For example, there have been several, recent Space Review articles that treat the subject, and you might find this National Review article interesting.

More to the point, the same very idea has been discussed in bautforum.com more than once, e.g., here and here and here. You might not be surprised to learn that the tone remained civil; Australians, Americans, Europeans, and who-knows-what-else managed to be nice. Same subject. No complaints about insults against humanity. No bannings. No big deal.

So the new precedent that any discussion regarding the sovereignty of the Moon is now considered to be an inflammatory insult against humanity is entirely brand new. In other words, y'all are making it up as you go along!

Moreover, your latest explanation, Henryk, even if it were true as far as it went, it doesn't touch the double-standard issue. For proof that there is a double standard, one need not look further than the thread in question for proof of that:

aquataine: The US has installed and/or supported no less than 23 dictators in the last 50 years. But this is a bit off topic.

mugs: Yes.

Warren: The best thing for the world civilization as a whole would be for the USA to claim the entire Moon as sovereign US territory.

antoniseb: This is inflammatory politics.

aquataine: In the 1950's the CIA overthrew the democratically elected government and installed the Shah (lookup Operation Ajax). The anti-american stance in Iran now is a direct result of this, as is all the trouble they cause in the Middle East.

Now, it's not my aim here to get aquataine in trouble. I'm merely pointing out that what he wrote is a flagrante delicto violation of both the spirit and the letter of the no politics rule, yet there's nary a warning. Meanwhile, I'm supposedly guilty of violating a hair-splitting, "borderline" area within the "spirit" of the law--quite a stretch at best--and I get a weeklong suspension. . . .

I was about to add "when a warning to tone down the rhetoric would have sufficed", but now after rereading my post just now, there was nothing much to tone down, so there was no need even for a warning.

So I'm forced to conclude it is what it is: an unfair singling of me out. Sorry, but the emperors where no clothes.

Especially when you just gave the real reason I'm getting special treatment, Henryk, in your post #136 above. There you said I have a "constant willful refusal to learn from others" that "flies in the face of the purpose of this forum", and so "it's in the interest of the forum to keep it to a minimum". Apparently even if that requires singling me out and bending the rules until I get the message that I'm not wanted around here by . . .

By whom exactly? PraedSt, Tucsan Tim, and Merkin Muffley, at least, think I should stay. They know that an honest disagreement is not the same as an insult, and that being in agreement is not the same as being nice.

Because let's get clear. When I first read that I exhibit a constant, willful refusal to learn from others, I experienced that same feeling of weirdness--in H.P. Lovecraft's sense of the word!--that I felt that time I climbed the tallest mountain on Ushagat Island. The mountain was shrouded by a thick cloud, but when I climbed down the same way I came up, when I popped out of the cloud, everything had changed--I wasn't on the same island! I was on an island, but the coast was different; the other island that was supposed to be out there was gone; there was no camp! So for that first minute (before I figured out that I had taken a left instead of a right) I realized in my bones then that THE UNIVERSE DOES NOT FOLLOW RULES! Either that or I had been swallowed by a mini-black hole and just been popped out into an alternate universe. So I had to do a reality check. You know, check out the calender to make sure the date was still the same, and look around the room to make sure everything was the way it was supposed to be.

Because I have a constant, willful desire to learn from other people. I ought to know. And I find it hard to believe that people who actually read what I write here could doubt that.

But one can learn from someone, and still not agree with them. That's my real problem, isn't it? It's not that I don't learn, it's that I disagree too much, whether it's about Cosmos 2251, the LHC, the OST, or the XYZ--and then I write about it. To put it succinctly, I'm a scientific disestablishmentarian, and that's considered politically incorrect by what I call The Clique--that faction that has taken control of this forum by monopolizing the moderatorship ever since Phil and Fraser abdicated, and that continue to maintain their power by choosing new moderators from within the same clique--and so I must be "suppressed".

And now to watch you moderators circle the wagons and deny what's going on, it's, well, it's why we need some checks and balances around this place.

Drunk Vegan:

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by Warren Platts

...it might have been possible that the satellite had the mechanical wherewithal to be intentionally rammed into another satellite.

Too bad you didn't have that "pesky" little thing called evidence to back up that idea...

[Warren Platts]

I could write a thousand words, but there's no need to waste the keystrokes:

http://www.bautforum.com/attachments...-microjets.jpg
http://www.bautforum.com/attachments...-thrusters.jpg

[R.A.F.]

This is not the place to rehash your failed arguments.

[Warren Platts]

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

This is not the place to rehash your failed arguments.

Brilliant!

[Tinaa]

This is NOT the thread to argue this again.

Warren I'm sorry you feel picked on. Aquitaine should have been warned but no one reported it and we missed it. It was an accident! Nobody has ever claimed we are perfect. We will keep an eye out for his posts from now on.

You've made your argument and the moderators have discussed it and we disagree that you are unfairly treated.

[Warren Platts]

Originally Posted by Tinaa

This is NOT the thread to argue this again.

Warren I'm sorry you feel picked on. Aquitaine should have been warned but no one reported it and we missed it. It was an accident! Nobody has ever claimed we are perfect. We will keep an eye out for his posts from now on.

You've made your argument and the moderators have discussed it and we disagree that you are unfairly treated.

In that case I would beg you to reconsider the new ban on all discussions of national soveriegnty on the Moon. It's a timely subject, and other people might want to discuss it in the future. They should not be disallowed from that just because of me.

Thank you.

[Robinson]

Doesn't the US own the moon? I mean, nobody else has been there, right?

[Moose]

This isn't the place for that discussion either. But no, by international treaty, nobody owns (or can own) the moon.

[Robinson]

Can there be under moderation?

[Gillianren]

Wow. My computer takes a few days to get repaired, and suddenly I find out I'm the president of a clique. I don't know quite what to say. I've always felt this place was very different from high school!