 | | | | | | | |  | 
|
|
UncaYimmy posted on February 12, 2011 20:47  Note: See My Take on Being Banned I received what I consider a dubious Rule 12 infraction from LashL. I submitted my appeal at 10:30 PM. It was approved (appeals must be approved manually by a mod) at 10:42 PM. At 10:44 PM, before I had a chance submit an addendum, LashL denied my appeal. I thought that if an admin issued an infraction that another admin handled the appeal. Anyway, below is that appeal. Addendum 1: Darat updated my appeal writing, "After a complaint was raised I revisited this appeal and given the circumstances Lashl should not have handled both the infraction and the appeal. However the decisions made were correct so the infraction and the appeal decision stand." Addendum 2: in the ~100 posts moved to AAH, only mine received an infraction. Tricky said that one other post received an infraction later, but that infraction is now gone. Locknar claimed that "several" posts received infractions, but I never saw any others besides the one Tricky mentioned (2<>several), and as it stands now, mine is the only one to receive an infraction. Addendum 3: Apparently it is attacking the arguer to say, "I'm glad a member revealed related facts about their personal experiences because it helps me judge the value of their opinions about the personal experiences of other people." But before you read that, some people on the JREF think I have a buttload of infractions for Rule 12 (attacking the arguer). Since October 2009 (7,000+ posts), I have exactly three Rule 12 infractions. My last was six months ago. I also have fewer than a dozen infractions total, most of them happening in Forum Management. I have had 2 infractions completely overturned and two partially overturned. Too bad this wasn't one of them. As a result I have been suspended for one month. This is my first suspension for my conduct outside of Forum Management, where I am a vocal critic of the moderation team. My last forum-wide suspension was for 3 days (it was for a post in Forum Management), and it wasn't for "attacking the arguer." In fact, my two Rule 12 infractions were back-to-back in August. Since then I have not had any until this latest dubious infraction. Apparently, though, it is part of a "pattern of behavior" that warrants a month suspension. I should also point out that during the whole VFF saga on the JREF, I did not receive a single infraction for anything even though there were probably a dozen issued to members personally attacking me and/or being uncivil. Begin Appeal I appeal the Rule 12 infraction for the following post: Originally Posted by UncaYimmy I'm glad you brought it up. It exposed your lack of knowledge regarding female orgasms, and it exposed SC's sexual immaturity. It provides context to the points you both have made. It helps judge the opinion of someone judging a 13 year old's maturity level when she fakes orgasms with her husband, whom she thinks is an "excellent lover" even though he hasn't a clue that she fakes nor does she trust him to deal with it honestly. Simply put, I did not attack the arguer. I wrote that it "helps judge the opinion" of Schrodinger's Cat. She has presented herself as an expert on the subject of the maturity of minors and sex, which is the topic of the thread. Here is an example: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...79#post6857879
But 13 dude, really? REALLY? Have you been around 13 year olds lately? I volunteer with them so I'm around a lot of 13 year olds, and they don't even look remotely like adults to me, even the most physically mature among them. They look like kids. And even the most mature 13 year olds I know still ACT like little kids. If I had ever in my life met a single 13 year old that didn't look, think, act, and sound like a child, I might agree with you. But I never have. Thinking you're ready to have sex and risk pregnancy, STDs, etc is one thing (which can happen even with protection, let's remember). Actually being able to have that cognitive ability and fully comprehending the ramifications for your actions is quite another.
<snip>
But I personally am still am in favor of laws which prevent an adult who has every advantage over me from being able to legally pressure me into sex I didn't want to have when I was still a kid. And I assure you, at 13, I was a child. SC made a number of other posts in the thread that were of a similar nature, namely her opinion on the maturity of teenage girls and her own personal experiences. As we have been told numerous times, we can impeach the credibility of a person presenting herself as an expert so long as we tie it to the subject at hand. In this case her ability to judge the maturity of 13 year olds.
SC on her own accord posted that she fakes orgasms with her husband. Her exact words were, "My husband is an excellent lover, and he knows me very, very well. And he has no clue when I fake it." In that very same post she is once again testifying about what other minor girls do when she writes, "Heck, that's true as an adult too. The difference is that now we fake it pretty rarely, whereas when we younger, we either almost always faked it or we always faked it."
In the following quote from my infracted post, the part in bold is factual based on her own statements: "when she fakes orgasms with her husband, whom she thinks is an "excellent lover" even though he hasn't a clue that she fakes nor does she trust him to deal with it honestly." The last part is my opinion, but it is a reasonable conclusion to draw as to why she by her own admission deliberately misleads her husband.
In regards to my comment about her sexual immaturity, that is her self-described opinion, not mine. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...96#post6867496
I actually didn't become sexually active until I was 20, and then I had sex very, very rarely. I CERTAINLY wouldn't base any of my opinions on this subject on my personal life, because I was very naive about sex, more so than your average teen, so my personal experience would be a horrible thing to base it on. If in a thread about the sexuality maturity of women a member describes herself as a sexually "naive" teen inexperienced with sex well into her 20s who "fakes orgasms" with her "clueless" husband who is an "excellent lover," how is it attacking the arguer to say that I am glad this information came to light because it helps me judge her opinions about teens and women in general?
I call for the infraction to be reversed. End of Appeal Here's my addendum that never got posted. I forgot to add a point to my appeal.
It occurs to me that I might be accused of sophistry. That is, I was trying to insult SC in a back-handed way under the guise of judging her opinion rather than her personally. As evidence to the contrary, I offer this comment I made [B]a full day before[/B] the infracted post when somebody first mentioned that he didn't like the direction the thread was heading. Link
Personally, I think anecdotes such as that are relevant since we really are talking about what happens to individuals. Since no clinical evidence is forthcoming and most of the opinions are based on how people feel, I see nothing wrong with looking at how experiences shaped their opinions.
When the person to whom I was responding didn't seem to understand what I meant, I posted the following (again, before the infracted post).
Link
I'm sorry you don't see the relevance. I'll try to explain it to you. SC and I seem to be at very different ends of the spectrum on the topic at hand.Based on this most recent exchange, it appears that she sees these young girls as immature because her personal experiences. I mean, teens bragging about giving partners orgasms and the partners bragging about how well they can fake them? A teen who needs two years after becoming sexually active to figure out what an orgasm is? Married adults faking orgasms?
To me it's no surprise that SC is so content with a higher blanket cut-off age. By contrast my sexual experiences are far different and, I have to say, much more mature. It's no surprise therefore that I see plenty of room for evaluating each situation as it hits the courts. End of Addendum.
Doesn't seem right to me.  Thursday, February 17, 2011 3:27 AM who engages in a behavior as an adult that I consider immature The definition of immaturity is that you engage in behavior that is normally associated with age groups below your own, not meeting the social norms expected of your age. But studies (which I posted, and which you did not disagree with) show that 70-80% of women admit to having faked orgasms. Furthermore, women are most likely to fake orgasms with men they love who they are in long term relationships with. While perhaps chronic[I][/I] faking of orgasms would be indicative of non-normative behavior, as I have only done what the vast majority of women my age have also done. That makes it normative behavior for my age group, not immature. What's more, even if faking an orgasm were immature behavior (which it isn't), isolated incidents of immaturity, ESPECIALLY in youth (I'm only 29, have been with my husband since I was 22, so my faked orgasms were all done while a young adult) are not indicative of an overall immature mindset. Also, while the rare faking of an orgasm is not, I don't think, an especially laudable thing to do, it is, at the very worst[I][/I] a mistake. You are actually saying that making a mistake in your 20s discounts you from the right to have a respected opinion for the rest of your life?[I][/I] So your argument is not actually: SC's behavior is so unusually immature that it makes her incapable of discussing sex laws. It is: I am a mysogenist who only thinks that women who are perfect (perfection being defined by my arbitrary standards of how I think women should behave) have the right to form opinions. Second, yes, I did relate my personal experiences and opinions. So did everyone in the thread. So did you. But my conclusions on this subject were based not on that, but on the numerous studies and statistics available on this subject, and most especially, on the sexual education guidelines determined by the nations which 1. Are the most sexually liberated and 2. Have the most successful sexual education programs in the world You are the one who based his entire argument on opinions, not me. This is provable by the fact that you stated opinions that were easily falsifiable. I.E. you said it would probably be better for girls to sleep with older men, because they would be more likely to use protection and would be safer. Which is actually false, and prior to you stating this, I posted numerous studies which showed that 1. Adult men actually use protection far less with young girls than boys close to their age 2. Young girls are at a MUCH higher risk of STDs from an older man than from a boy their age, especially HIV 3. You girls are at a higher risk of unplanned pregnancy with older men. If I had only given my personal opinions, then you would have a point. But I didn't only give my personal opinions and anecdotes. The vast majority of my argument was base don statistical analysis and studies of human sexuality in teens, which I cited. But you ignored every single fact, study, or stat I presented, as you also ignored my points about the sexual education guidelines of other nations, and instead attacked me personally. Even if I had a post that had several paragraphs of objective facts, if I had one single sentence[I][/I] that was a personal anecdote or opinion, you ignored any objective evidence I presented and concentrated only on the personal anecdote as if that is all I had written.
whom she thinks is an "excellent lover" even though he hasn't a clue that she fakes nor does she trust him to deal with it honestly. This is your unsubstantiated opinion, which was shared by exactly 1 other (and barely literate) poster. No one else shared this opinion. Furthermore, this opinion[I][/I] is predicated on the belief that a given human behavior can only have one possible causality. The behaviors in discussion were 1. A woman isolated lying about an orgasm 2. A man's ability to perceive an isolated fake orgasm. You will not find one credible human behavior specialist, psychologists, anthropologist, etc, who will ever claim that there is every any singular possible causality[I][/I] for any human behavior. Yet, based on your unsubstantiated opinion which was shared by a total of 1 singular other poster (the rest disagreeing with you and defending me)[I][/I], and without having any[I][/I] context, you went onto this disturbing diatribe in which you psychoanalyzed me, my husband, my sex life, and my entire marriage, all to my detriment. And then, your psychotic rant wasn't enough. You started thread after thread in forum management section about me. THEN you started a thread about me on a secondary website which I have no affiliation with.All because of what? Because, even when viewed in the worst possible light, I admitted to having made a couple mistakes in my 20s?[I][/I] Dude, its a website. That's all it is. You don't even know me or anything about me. You're not my god, or the god of sex, or the god of your internet. A thought entering your head does not make it correct. I have to say, JREF is the first internet community I have ever been a part of, and going in, I simply had no idea that I would be dealing with people who are this emotionally invested and obsessive[I][/I] about a website and people who post on it. This entire experience and your obsession with me/my personal life/this website seriously just creeps me out. Before I just thought you were the biggest troll on JREF. Now I think you're actually crazy. For someone to become this astoundingly angry over finding out a woman he doesn't know has done something that 80% of other women have done...it would be the equivalent of me finding out you'd ever looked at porn, and writing a diatribe about how you must not love your wife, and your wife must be ugly or bad in bed because why else would you ever look at porn? that can be the ONLY possible reason. The other reason I think that you are crazy is because you're absolutely obsessed with the JREF website. You have your own website, and that isn't enough for you? You need to be absolutely obsessed with every aspect of how JREF is run, constantly demanding it be retailored to suit your personal preferences? And then, you start blogging about me, using my screen name, on a website (this one) I have no affiliation before. I've never even heard of your website before, but several JREF posters have emailed me warning me about this. At this point, I don't even want to participate in JREF anymore. Online discussion and debate is fun, but its not worth getting cyber stalked by psychopaths. I can't even tell you how creeped out I am that you're actually blogging about me, someone you don't even know. Just leave me alone. That's all I want. Leave me alone. You are scaring me.
Thursday, February 17, 2011 5:54 AM
If you think my blog has anything to do with you personally, you're way off. You're just a name/avatar to me, and I would have written this blog whether you were involved or not. I'm not "obsessed" with your personal life. Truth is, I know nothing about it outside of what you shared in that *one* thread. If you can't handle people commenting on what you write in a debate, then don't write it. Honestly, I really don't care about you personally. Thursday, February 17, 2011 6:48 AM
In the interests of full disclosure, my above comment was automatically sent to SC because she checked the "Notify me of followup comments via e-mail" check box. She then responded to the automatic notification by sending me the following: I did not read your reply and did not read it. I had no interest in hearing back from you. I just want you to leave me alone and stop posting about me because you are clearly severely mentally ill, and your obsession with me/my sex life/the JREF disturbs me. It also has disturbed many of the posters on JREF, judging by the comments in the threads on this issue and the flood of PMs I have received. It is the reason I have stopped posting on JREF. It's a friggin website, and not worth exposing myself to this degree of psychosis.
Thursday, February 17, 2011 6:54 AM
My response is essentially the same. I didn't *ask* you about your sex life. You volunteered it as part of a discussion about sex, and I commented on what you wrote. Last I checked, that's how discussion boards work. I'm sorry you find that obsessive. ETA: You have started 96 threads in the year you've been on the JREF forums. I responded in just six of them. In one of them (last June/July) I started out by saying that I was only vaguely aware of your handle and thought you were a guy. Sorry, just not obsessed with you, and I'm sorry you think I am.
Friday, February 18, 2011 12:53 AM
Thursday, February 17, 2011 6:54 AM Thursday, February 17, 2011 7:48 AM Thursday, February 17, 2011 7:54 AM yeah, not obsessed at all,
Saturday, February 19, 2011 7:40 AM
From the sidelines, and having read most of the JREF thread in question, it looks to me like both UncaYimmy and SC are obsessed with this particular issue. SC unwittingly touched off a powder keg by volunteering intimate personal details about her sexual experiences. It was a mistake on her part and she compounded the mistake by becoming emotionally invested in defending her position. UncaYimmy seems to me extremely bright, well read, and articulate, to the point of being obsessive about being right and prevailing in any argument. He also seems to be overly invested emotionally in advancing and defending his positions. (These are my general impressions from reading some of his posts in other JREF forums.) It takes two to tango. Some people need to learn when to back off and let things go. I hope both UY and SC have learned something from this experience.
 Saturday, February 19, 2011 12:26 PM
Hi UncaYimmy, I just wanted to say that I followed that thread on JREF and I thought the rule 12 infraction and subsequent 1 month suspension you got handed was completely unfair. Your comment, when viewed in the context of the discussion, was not an attack on the arguer. It was an attack on the arguer's knowledge and experience of the topic at hand, which in any other topic of discussion would never get labeled a rule 12 infraction. SC, on the other hand, was guilty of several blatant rule 12 violations, yet never got infracted. Just goes to show that the JREF moderation staff is completely biased. "Just leave me alone. That's all I want. Leave me alone. You are scaring me." LOL SC you are funny. This blog post isn't about you, it's about the rule 12 infraction (reading for comprehension is a good skill to have, you should pick it up). The only reason you're mentioned is because you happen to be the person whom UY was accused of a rule 12 violation against. "Online discussion and debate is fun, but its not worth getting cyber stalked by psychopaths." Perhaps you need to learn the definition of stalking in addition to sharpening your reading comprehension skills. Being mentioned in a blog post by someone is a far cry from them stalking you. If he was sending unwanted correspondence to you personally, that could be considered stalking. But, that is not the case. In fact, the situation is the exact opposite: YOU are the one posting on his blog. It seems to me like UY said some things on JREF you didn't want to hear, and now you are the one obsessing over him. You should think twice before taking a jab at someone on a forum when you can't take any yourself. And yes, you are the one who began with the hostilities in that thread. I suggest you log off of the Internet for a while and stop embarrassing yourself. No one is stalking you, you're not that important.
 Saturday, February 19, 2011 1:58 PM
Honestly, I wonder if SC's post here had anything to do with me being banned. After all, in the past when the mods are "debating" a decision, they have simply suspended somebody without any notice whatsoever. Later, when they decide the appropriate reaction, they post the notice. Call me paranoid if you want, but in this case my suspension notice came a full day after the ridiculous infraction. Seems to me like they had already debated things. So I get a one month suspension, which is my first and only suspension for something unrelated to Forum Management and 10X longer than my previous longest suspension (3 days). Several days go by without a word, and then SC posts her comments her about "being scared." A few hours later I am banned for "repeated breaches" when in fact I had but four total Rule 12 infractions in over 7,000 posts (over 2+ years). Only two were outside of FM, and the last one was six months ago. Correlation doesn't mean causation, but in this case, it's certainly plausible. Let's not forget that LashL accused me of "stalker like behavior" when giving me a Rule 11 (off topic) infraction, but when asked to explain publicly, refused to explain what it meant. Turns out that Skeptic Ginger, one of the five most prolific posters on the board, had entered threads after me about as many times as I entered threads after her (there weren't that many). In other words, it's about what you would expect in terms of active members randomly bumping into each other. Remember, in this case it was LashL who issued my infraction, and it was LashL who handled my appeal in a record two minutes (much better than the 40 DAYS I once waited) even though the rules explicitly state that the person giving the infraction does not rule on the appeal. P.S. I hope SC has kept her identity private because her husband would probably be a bit chagrined to know what she wrote. I know I would.
Saturday, February 19, 2011 2:36 PM
BTW, does anybody recall LashL writing the following in Forum Management before she became a mod? "It seems that the Forum Management section has become "The Atheist and Uncayimmy Travelling Sideshow" recently, featuring such over the top drama queen nonsense that the TA and Uy show has become a parody of itself." "You're really going off the rails these days, UncaYimmy. Have you considered taking a break?" Saturday, February 19, 2011 9:48 PM
The JREF is typical of small-time non-profits. Unable to afford qualified personnel, the wrong people are put into positions they have no business being in.
Sunday, February 20, 2011 1:59 PM
BabyCondor - Your assessment is fair. I would offer that my "emotional attachment" to being right is more a result of the fact that I don't engage in threads unless I already have a strong opinion that I can support. It's not like I (like some people) jump into threads with off-the-cuff opinions, then spend 50 posts wriggling on the hook defending them just to save face. I come in loaded for bear. In this specific case, according to JREF Mod Logic, I attacked myself when I pointed out that my personal experiences color my perception of teen sexual maturity. It wouldn't have been a personal attack if someone else had pointed out that maybe I see teens as more mature because of the way my life unfolded just like it wasn't a personal attack to point out that SC's opinions about teens are influenced by her lack of experience and sexual maturity. It's a shame that I've been banned for such a ridiculous infraction.
Sunday, February 20, 2011 4:17 PM
It is curious that you backed the Amanda Knox thread posters in the recent FM disputes, a subject it seemed you managed to avoid for some time, then all of a sudden got banned for a comment that is a real stretch to think of as a violation to begin with. Of course, all us Amanda Knox groupies are prone to CT's anyway. Just sayin. You wouldn't be interested in hosting such a discussion here would you? ☺
Sunday, February 20, 2011 5:53 PM
Hey UY, I thought you'd be interested in LashL's response to someone cornering her about your 2 minute appeal process: BEGIN LASHL It was no such thing, actually, and there was nothing nefarious about it. Unfortunately, I didn't realize at the time of his appeal that it was me who had issued the infraction (possibly due to the fact that it was subject to discussion among the Moderating Team at the time and possibly because the appeal didn't come until two days later after much more discussion had also been held about some of his other reported posts and after discussion about the nearly 100 posts moved to AAH from that thread) but still, I did issue the infraction, so I should not have dealt with the appeal, and that was indeed an oversight on my part. As soon as that oversight was brought to my attention, I asked that Darat or Lisa review my decision, and that was done. END LASHL Of course, that's a load of BS. If she had handled the appeal in a legitimate manner, she would have remembered that she was the one to infract that post, especially after reading it again. Even assuming she really did forget, she would have looked at which moderator issued the infraction had the appeal been handled without bias, at least to see what explanation had been given.
Sunday, February 20, 2011 7:11 PM
All I know is that LashL is the one who posted the mod box stating that nearly 100 posts were moved to AAH (11 Feb 8:02 PM AZ Time) and that she issued the only infraction in that bunch (11 Feb ~8:30 PM), which was my post. The next day a post by Mike81 received an infraction, but that infraction is now gone (or at least it was the last time I was able to look) - no other infractions. LashL is incorrect in saying that my appeal was filed two days later. It was filed one day (26 hours) later on 12 Feb at 10:30 PM.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011 11:23 AM
Hopefully my final blog on this matter: Am I Incorrigible?Thursday, March 17, 2011 10:19 AM
The results of my appeal can be seen here.
| |
| | |
| | |
| |
| |