I'm aware of some of the arguments regarding my status on the forums. I'll try to address those concerns. Some people seem to think that I am incorrigible in that I don't ever accept responsibilty for what I've done and that I will continue to violate the rules. I don't believe that's the case, and if you'll hear me out with an open mind, I think I can demonstrate it with evidence.
First, my pointing out that the mods are biased is not the same as saying I've done nothing wrong. The two are not mutually exclusive. Take my suspension for abusing the reporting system. Prior to reporting Darat for advocating suicide, I had made plenty of reports, and nearly every single one was actioned. When I saw King of the Americas suspended for advocating suicide when he clearly did not, I spoke up because I can only imagine how the guy felt seeing that public notice. I reported Darat to prove a point, and I appealed the warning to continue proving that point. Everybody knows that. I felt it was worth it because shortly thereafter the enforcement was changed such that KoTA's post probably wouldn't be actioned now.
The problem is that a month later I reported somebody for calling me "dude" and requested they be asked not to. Now, I can see how that might not be actioned. I can even see how it might be seen as me making a frivilous report, but why would I? I had no point to prove. I made no public announcement of my report like I did with my report about Darat. In my appeal I noted that I had publicy objected to being called "dude" in months past, so unless you believe I was setting myself up in the long term, it was a legitimate report. I was suspended nonetheless.
However, I had Tricky tell me that calling someone "sweetheart" was nearly worthy of an infraction. Can you see how that's conflicting? How can "dude" be so frivilous that it results in a suspension while "sweetheart" is so egregious it has to be redacted? I also had a member call me a "forum bully" twice in a thread where he had already received an infraction for personally attacking me. It was reported but not actioned. The messages from the mod team to me are inconsistent. How am I supposed to know that "sweetheart" is against the rules when my direct interaction with the mod team tells me that "forum bully" is acceptable and that reporting "dude" is so frivilous as to warrant a suspension? What message am I supposed to listen to?
More importantly, since that time I have not had any problems with abusing the reporting system. It was a one-time thing a year ago. Does that not demonstrate a willingness to listen?
My Dust-Ups in Forum Management
Last spring I had several dust-ups in Forum Management. I, like others, was frustrated with the closing of threads and what seems to be a misuse of Rule 11 to silence dissent. During that period I had a few infractions for discussing things in threads where I wasn't supposed to. I was suspended as a result. Fine.
Darat closes FM for a while then reopens it with new, stricter rules about closing threads, the opposite of what people wanted. So, in an attempt to follow the rules I started a thread in Questions that was (not quite verbatim), "If a member besides the OP asks a follow-up question in a Questions thread, and that follow-up question wasn't addressed, can that member start a new thread to re-ask the question. See this thread for an example."
In the past I would have simply started a new thread and re-asked my question, but I didn't. I listened to their admonitions, and for asking for permission to re-ask, I was suspended for 30 days for the ill-defined offense of "gaming the system." Chillzero commented that she believed my question was legitimate. After my FM suspension was up, I wrote a long post about it. I sent it to Darat via PM asking if it was acceptable. He forwarded it to the mod team, and Locknar told me it "might" be considered gaming the system, but he offered no explanation as to why. Did I post it anyway? No. Clearly I listened to the mods.
Since last spring have I had any issues (besides asking for permission to re-ask) in Forum Management with referring to closed threads or bringing up old topics? No, I have not. With the new FM structure, that won't be an issue anyway because they took my suggestion to put a mod box informing the membership that mod participation is done. This allows us to continue discussing it. Had this rule been in place last year, I wouldn't have had any dust-ups. It's a non-issue at this point.
Attacking the Arguer
Some people call me abusive. I don't agree. I'm aggressive and defend my position strongly. I'm also arrogant and condescending at times. That's not against the rules. Personal attacks are, so if there's really a problem wiith me attacking people, then there should be a history of infractions the mods can point to rather than looking at a "body of work." To the best of my recollection I had four Rule 12 violations including this last one.
The first was a Rule 0 and Rule 12 infraction. The Rule 0 was reversed, and the Rule 12 sustained because even though I didn't "attack" the arguer I "personalized" the discussion. The member at whom my post was directed, Wolfman, told me he didn't see it as a personal attack at all. It happened around the same time I was pissing of the mods for other reasons, so I chalked it up to that. These things happen.
Six months go by without a Rule 12 infraction, which I think shows that I am listening. I get two back to back. One was for posting about 20 quotes by LashL that I felt demonstrated a bias against members that I posted in response to another member accusing her of bias. LashL denied it, and I felt these prior comments were relevant. Apparently not. Since it happened in FM, I couldn't appeal it.
The next one I felt was borderline. I tried to tailor my comments to the argument, but I can see how it would be considered a personal attack. Fine. Another six months go by without an infraction for a personal attack, which if you consider my posting frequency is a long time. Then this one with Schrodinger's Cat hits, and I get banned. Many people don't consider it a Rule 12 violation at all. I don't.
Go read the thread in Community about how many infractions people have. I recall one person saying he got four Rule 12 violations in six months, and he was not even suspended. My point is that if you look at my posting volume and my Rule 12 frequency, it's nothing extraordinary.
Ah, But UncaYimmy Uses Sophistry
Honestly, this goes to the heart of the matter. Time and again in Forum Management, people point out that you can write, "your argument is stupid" but you can't write, "you are stupid." Rule 12 says to address the argument not the arguer. I have no doubt that some people feel belittled when I attack their arguments strongly and forcefully, but I do so within the rules. So what's the difference between playing by the rules and sophistry?
I got nicked once in Community for not being civil and polite. In the first paragraph I phrased my post to address the person specifically. In the second paragraph I switched to using generic terminology to say something quite rude. I sent a PM asking why I received an infraction. I was told that I used "sophistry" and that my second paragraph was just a veiled attempt to be rude to that member. I did not appeal, and since that time (last April, I think) I have had no other accusations of sophistry. See? I listen.
Pissing people off is not against the rules. Making them look ridiculous by ripping apart their arguments is not against the rules. Members do it all the time to physics cranks, truthers, religious nuts and woos. For members (not mods) to accuse me of using "sophistry" to "get away with" personal attacks I think is an indication of personal bias. If a woo/crank complained in FM about a post written in my "style" these same people would remind them that saying "your argument is stupid and pathetic" is permitted but saying "you're stupid and pathetic" is not.
My "Stalker-Like Behavior"
I was given a dubious Rule 11 infraction for impeaching Skeptic Ginger's credentials repeatedly in a thread. I disagreed with that decision, but did I do it again? No, I did not. That's me listening, folks! LashL warned me about "stalker like" behavior, but she refused to clarify. I pointed out that Skeptic Ginger entered threads after me about as often as I entered threads after her, so I felt it was unfounded. But still, have I had any major run-ins with Skeptic Ginger since then? No, I have not. I saw some ridiculous posts by her that I wanted to address, but I chose not to. That's me listening.
I had run-ins with Slingblade. For whatever reason she and I don't get along (she calls me a bully). I exchanged a few PMs with other members about it, and they said in effect that even though they didn't think I was riding her, I should just avoid her anyway. So I did. One of my posts made it to the TLA finals. When the voting was over and my post was not the winner, Slingblade posted in that thread that she was glad that a "certain bully" lost. Did I respond? Nope.
Ivor the Engineer commented to me several times about my caustic style. I took his arguments to heart. Another member, Bookitty, and I don't get along for various reasons. After my self-imposed sabbatical, Ivor the Engineer commented publicly that it looked like she was deliberately riding my ass and harassing me and that he was impressed at how I wasn't responding in kind.
The point is that I have, in fact, altered my behavior, not only in response to moderation but based on feedback from members. I have come to learn that FSM hates me. Honestly, I don't recall any PM from FSM (not saying he's lying) nor do I recall any heated debates with him. I'll take that into future consideration.
Other Examples of Me Listening
I got nicked last Feb/March for reposting redacted text. I did not have any problems with that again (I referred to redacted text without quoting it) until November when I reposted some parts of a redacted post while keeping the redaction for the rude parts. If you are wondering why, I was pointing out that the mods can nick you for sophistry, and I was using my post referenced earlier as an example. I was trying to demonstrate that even though I switched from "you" to "some person" they nailed me. I took out what I thought were the rude parts and left what I thought I needed to demonstrate what sophistry was. I got nicked for that and suspended. I explained why I did it and that I thought what I was doing was acceptable. I apologized via PM for the honest mistake. Since that time I have not done it again. That's me listening.
People brought up the contentious Obesity and Alcholism threads. To the best of my recollection at least five members received infractions for personally attacking me. I didn't receive any. I listened to the mods and simply reported the attacks without fighting back. When a member in the Alcoholism thread brought up something I wrote in the obesity thread, I responded advising the member not to bring up arguments made in a closed thread. A mod agreed that was the right approach. That's me listening.
In the obesity thread I did receive a Rule 8 infraction for providing evidence that a member using his first initial and last name as his member name was not the doctor he claimed to be. He was making claims of expertise based on his alleged experience as a doctor. I provided evidence (it took all of five minutes to find on Google) that he was merely an office manager in a doctor's office. It took the mods four days to decide it was a Rule 8 violaton, and many members publicly disagreed with that call. The point is you can't cite that as evidence of me being "incorrigible" when it's not clear at all a violation occurred. I didn't repost that info nor have I exposed anyone else since then.
I have on at least three (possibly five) occasions sent PMs to a mod asking if my post/link would be considered indecent. I also started a thread asking for the best way to refer to adult sites (needed for a discussion) without violating the rules. Not only is that me listening but it's me actively trying to stay within the rules.
Why Things Are as They Are
Let's call a spade a spade. I'm in this position because I piss off a lot of people and because I'm a vocal critic of the moderation team. There's a lot of confirmation bias going on here. I'm not saying I'm some model member. I'm not. I'm not saying I never deserved any of my infractions - I have without a doubt earned a few. If I stepped over the line in Forum Management again, I would have expected (though not agreed with probably) a ban from FM. Then again, with the new rules allowing continued discussion after the mods have officially responded, I can't really see me having any major problems. After all, under the prior rigid structure, I was by far the most prolific poster and still had very few problems.
What I'm saying is that I have demonstrated on multiple occasions a willingness to alter my behavior. What I'm saying is that feelings about me personally are clouding the judgment of how I have (and have not) breached the membership agreement. What I'm saying is that I had no warning whatsoever that I was anywhere near a banning. My longest forum-wide suspension was three days whereas the normal progression is one day, three days, one week, two weeks, one month and possibly probation. It seems to me that people are assuming that escalating suspensions and probation wouldn't work with me, so why bother?
I simply don't think it's justified for the mods to claim that I won't alter my behavior when, in fact, I have on numerous occasions. If my behavior is so egregious, why have I only racked up a dozen infractions in 7,000+ posts, most of them occurring in Forum Management?
And what ever happened to, I dunno, actually talking to a person? Yeh, the standard line is that the mods don't have time for that. Well, this is not the first time there has been a protest for how I've been treated (I think it's the third long thread). The mods seem to have more than enough time to talk about me, so why not talk to me instead? Plumjam has over 50 infractions. I have about a dozen. If his are like mine, they are generic messages that he has received a warning. My appeals, like most others, are terse ("Denied. Thread closed."). That's not good communication, and it certainly did not convey to me that I was anywhere near being banned. If they want to ban me from Forum Management, fine. But forum-wide? Not seeing it as fair at all, and quite frankly, it's a little humiliating to have "Banned" under my name. If I had known I was that close, I would have simply asked to be set to Guest than risk being banned.
Here's what I learned from this latest infraction, which started all this mess. I commented that should a person choose to share their own sexual experiences as a teen and an adult that it should be considered when they render their opinions about the sexual maturity of teens in general in a thread about the sexual maturity of teens in general. If you think that's wrong to do, then I don't know what to say.
What I did learn is that I need to find a better way to phrase it so it doesn't even remotely look like a personal attack. If your reaction is, "Well, that's sophistry," then I should remain banned. Personally, I don't consider it sophistry to find a way to phrase something so it's clear I'm going after the argument rather than the arguer. I also learned that I should avoid Schrodinger's Cat just as I've learned to avoid other people.
If you still think I'm incorrigible, then so be it. For the record, I sent an e-mail to Darat at 9:48 PM on February 21st (Arizona time) asking if it is possible to appeal my ban and if so, how to proceed. It's now 40 hours later, and I have not received a reply.
Addendum
Darat replied today (24 Feb) that there is no formal process but that I can submit to them reasons to reconsider my ban. I think this blog is probably the best representation of my case, but as usual, it's kinda long. I'm open to suggestions should the reader choose to comment. For the record, the only reason I moderate comments is because of spammers linking to Viagra, porn, MLMs and so forth. I actually had to block an entire subnet (small midwest ISP) because one of their users was posting 5-10 spam comments per day, none of which I approved. He kept getting new IP addresses. Rest assured I have approved every non-spam comment submitted.