Apparently My Ban is Final

Look you were banned because you acted like an ass, refused to accept that you acted like an ass and failed to change your behavior. Selective mis-quoting of infraction stats (nice descent to the woo/IDiot level BTW) doesn't help your case.
Now cop on and get over it.

Gee, this wouldn't happen to be Lionking, would it? I can understand using a fake e-mail address, but a fake name? Whoever you are, at least own up to your accusations.

There is no "mis-quoting" of stats. While I cannot reach these links because I am banned, I assume they are accurate. If anyone can demonstrate that these links do not point to what is claimed, I will gladly retract them.
Infraction Rule 12 - Feb 1, 2011

Infraction Rule 12 - Dec 20,2010

Infraction Rule 0 and Rule 12 - Jan 28, 2011

Infraction Rule 0 and Rule 12 - Jan 15, 2011

Entire Post Edited for Rule 0 and Rule 11 - Sep 26, 2010

Infraction Rule 11 - Dec 9, 2010

Infraction Rule 11 - Aug 24, 2010

Their relevance is at the heart of my argument. JHunter1163 claimed that I was banned for a large number of infractions and posts going to AAH. It turns out he overinflated those numbers, which was either a lie or terrible negligence. Darat claims I was banned for repeated breaches of the rules.

I argue that I am being singled out unfairly. No one has disputed that I am the only member to be banned for a "body of work." No one has disputed that other banned members had increasingly longer suspensions and probation (except for those who had some egregious single event) while I was not given any such thing.

Lionking is an excellent example. He repeatedly argued that I was a habitual rule breaker, but the unbiased facts reveal that he has a recent track record that exceeds mine in terms of warnings. Why wasn't Lionking at least suspended?

The answer is simple. As Tricky said, I "argued" my infractions. Last I looked, the system is set up to allow people to contest moderator rulings. Apparently, though, if one does not argue the infractions, one can continue to repeatedly violate the same rules with little risk of suspension. If one does argue, the bar for infractions is lowered, and the punishments become more harsh (in my case, banning).

And even though I expressed my disagreement, I still followed the directives.
It seems the mods are not so much interested in getting people to follow the rules as they are about not having their power questioned. That's why Plumjam is suspended right now. It's petty.

That's what this is about. Well, that and the fact that the admins won't admit it. Hell, they refuse to even admit that it at least *looks* that way.

Do you remember Plumjam's post last year where he demonstrated that the mods closed threads of "complainers" at a rate 4X higher than those of non-complainers? Since then what has happened to the people on that list?

Plumjam - One of four people ever suspended from FM for a month
UncaYimmy - Banned and one of four suspended from FM for a month.
FlamingMoe - Banned and one of four suspended from FM for a month
The Atheist - Has not logged in since that time
Matteo Martini - Asked to be unregistered then seemingly had a suspected sockpuppet that was suspended indefinitely
Recursive Prophet - Virtually stopped posting except to occasionally comment on moderation issues

BTW, the fourth person to be suspended from FM is Wolfman. He asked to be unregistered after a run-in last fall where the mods ignored his issues, infracted him for calling the group "cowards," and then closed the several threads he started in Questions to try to get answers about his issues in Complaints.

I don't know how much more obvious the pattern can get. Members with far more infractions than me have not even been suspended once. Moderation is rife with post-hoc rationalization. They decide they want to suspend or ban somebody, then justify it by citing infraction counts and claiming "multiple and repeated violations" in the announcement.

The sad fact is that many members have multiple and repeated violations but do not even get suspended. Why is that?

It has come to my attention that Chillzero thinks that in my blog I "suggest" that I somehow "quietly" accepted moderation. I never suggested any such thing. Here is a quote from my appeal.

Do I argue infractions? Yes, I do. They are subjective by nature, and I avail myself of the avenues presented (FM, Appeals, PM). There have been times where I sent a PM to a mod to express my opinion and specifically stated that no response was expected. I don't think it's unreasonable to present my side of the story, and I never pestered a mod or sent an abusive PM. I'm not saying I never deserved an infraction - I've deserved several. I don't think it is fair for the mod team to declare me incorrigible simply because I dispute infractions. My subsequent actions in regards to the rulings are what counts because even though I may disagree, it's rare to see me repeat a violation, especially when compared to other members.

It appears more and more that I have been banned not for violating the rules but for arguing with the mods. Even Tricky alluded to the fact that some mods can't take criticism. Well, get over it. Every moderator action is a criticism of a member. We're being told our posts are inappropriate.

The difference is that the mods have the power in that they decide who is right. They can redact posts so that you can't quote it for others to judge. They can refuse to debate an action. They can toss posts to AAH. They can close threads when they don't like how the discussion is going. They can forbid you from ever bringing up a subject again. And, ultimately, it seems, they can kick you off the board if you disagree too much.

And despite all this imbalance of power they still don't like criticism? Well, they shouldn't have agreed to the Moderator Agreement in the first place because the board is supposed to promote critical thinking and provides several avenues to allow members to dispute moderator actions.

If it weren't so comedic it would be terribly sad. How can a board dedicated to critical thinking and lively debate ban someone because they think critically and debate moderator actions using the avenues provided? I'd still be a member if Forum Management and Appeals did not exist. Ironically, I have argued that both should be abolished.

You know, I think I have about the same number of infractions that you do there Jim. The difference is I wasn't nearly as effective as you were in making the case about how biased the moderation is at JREF. Sad, as there are so many interesting posters there. Perhaps things will change if Darat ever steps down, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

There are other examples of this as well. Take 911-Investigator. He's been suspended twice since the first of the year (7 days followed by oddly enough three days for multiple breaches). Since his last suspension in February it appears he has had six more infractions (thanks to my secret informer who has access to this kind of information).

I hear Lionking is up to his usual innuendo, this time about ignoring mod directives. Sometimes the mods put a mod box in a thread telling everyone or specific members to stop with the the personal attacks. When somebody right after that makes a personal attack, I consider that a more egregious violation since the member was on notice. I never did that.

Mine only came in Forum Management regarding topics of discussion, much like the BS suspension for Plumjam. In one example there were multiple topics about thread closures. We were told not to bring up one particular aspect in Thread A. A few weeks later in Thread B Darat was discussing something similar to that aspect, and I responded to his post. His interpretation was that I was discussing the forbidden but related aspect. My interpretation was that I was not. For that I was suspended.

Another one came while I was suspended from FM. Lisa told me not to start threads in other areas regarding Forum Management, something I have NEVER done before ever. I started a humorous thread in FM about what I could discuss while suspended from FM. In that thread several people asked specific questions about FM such as how does one get suspended from FM only. Did I respond? No, I did not, because that would be talking about FM issues. I did, however, continue to joke around about other issues.

The thread drifted around to the popularity of FM. I made a post pointing out that my suspension notices were among the most frequently viewed notices. I listed some notices for other members and their view counts. It was clearly a humorous post, and it did not discuss Forum Management in any way. In fact, had such a post been made in Forum Management, it would have been moved to Community because it was neither serious nor relevant to how the forum is managed.

Locknar redacted the entire post (Why? So I couldn't argue it publicly?). He gave me an infraction for Rule 11. Of course, there is no Rule 11 in Community, so it was bogus. On Appeal this was changed to ignoring a mod directive. Had Locknar not screwed up I wouldn't have even been nicked for ignoring a mod directive.

I know why I got the infraction. Lisa figured I was openly defying her. I wasn't. It was a self-deprecating joke thread, and pointing out that my suspension notices were among the top 5 most viewed notices was just goofing around. At that time GeeMack was suspended, and he and I were exchanging e-mails joking about whose notice got read more often. I told the admins this in my appeal, but they figured they knew my mind better than I did.

It's petty stuff like this for which I got nicked for ignoring mod directives. Meanwhile, in the Alcholism thread, several people received infractions for personally attacking me. There were two mod boxes warning people to stop with the personal attacks. A member who received an infraction for attacking me then posted *after* the mod warning calling me a "Forum Bully" (twice, actually). I reported it, and no action was taken.

So, why didn't he get nicked for ignoring a mod directive? Check out one of those posts that came after the infractions and mod box. I would have been suspended had I posted something like that following a mod box warning and infraction, but this member's post was allowed to stand.

How many incidents like this does it take to convince people that the moderation has some serious issues?

@Bookitty: I can't win with you, can I? You claim I never admit fault for infractions, but I actually do. You claim I am incorrigible. I point out numerous instances where I altered my behavior in response to a decision with which I disagreed. You still say I won't change my ways. So I offer to run any questionable posts by the mods first so that I don't inadvertently violate the rules, and you criticize me as needing a "significant" amount of help from the mods to follow the rules. This sounds like the same kind of emotional reaction you had a year ago when you thought I was calling you "Boo" as an insult. It's a personal thing with you. The reality is that the mods suggest this to all members as a standard policy. If you read FM like I did, you'd know that.

BTW, if anyone needs significant help from the mods, you do. While I think you only have a couple of infractions, you have three times as many posts tossed to AAH as I did (as a percentage of posts). In fact, one out of every 15 posts you write goes into the trash heap.

I'm not going to call you a stalker, but you seem a little obsessed with me. You have started only two threads in Forum Management, and both were about something I did. Of the seven threads in FM in which you participated, five of them concerned me directly or indirectly.

And then there's the thread in Community about my banning where you actively participated to say what a dick I am. There's also the thread I started about self-introspection where you attacked me personally.

I also know that one of your only infractions, perhaps your only one, was a personal attack directed at me. That was in the Alcoholism thread. Remember that one? I jumped into that thread rather late in the game. You jumped for the first time *after* me to argue one of my points. Funny how you had nothing to say in that thread before I arrived, huh?

If our situations were reversed, I would have without a doubt been accused of stalking you. I wish you would just admit that you simply don't like me and would rather not have me around instead of grasping at straws trying to justify my ban based on the rules and how other members are treated. That kind of honesty would be refreshing.

Glad you have been able to put all this behind you and move on.

@Lothian - Thanks!

@Piggy - Go do a search on the Forum Management Archive for threads started by me and read the many suggestions I made, several of which have been implemented. I don't "bitch" about the mods. Sure, I point out inconsistencies and mistakes, but as just about everyone will attest, my points were always thoroughly researched and well-supported. I looked at the big picture by, which is how I spot so many problems.

That this is called "bitching" indicates the serious problem that currently exists. This is why Childlike Empress can have 38 infractions in 4,000 posts but only one suspension while I have 12 in 7,500+ posts and get banned "repeated violations" of the Membership Agreement. Even Tricky said that some mods don't like being criticized, and it shows. It's not about the Membership Agreement. It's about not criticizing the mods or giving the appearance that you don't respect their authority.

It's difficult to be consistent all the time, but it's not difficult to correct your mistakes when they are pointed out to you. The only thing in your way is your own ego. That's why I'm still banned.

I am little sick and tired of being accused of being "after" Schrodinger's Cat. Here is where I addressed that in my appeal:

There has been some implication that I was "after" Schrodinger's Cat. Take a look at this thread where SC talks about her issues with mental illness as a teen. Did I attack her in that thread? No. We had a friendly exchange. I could have brought up her mental illness issues as a teen in the Statutory Rape thread, but I didn't. Why? Because it wasn't directly related to her sexual experiences as a teen. I recall a thread in Community started by SC asking for advice about how deal with a conflict at work. I responded to her in a friendly way. There was a thread in FM about Trolls where I pointed out that sometimes the "troll" gets infractions for personal attacks while others don't. I quoted several posts to prove my point, but I didn't name the various members I quoted because it wasn't irrelevant. One of them was her and somebody sent her a PM to tell her. She came to FM to complain about me and then announce that I was once again back on ignore. My point is that I was not "after" her in any way, shape or form. By my count she has publicly placed 10 members on ignore, three of whom (including myself) have been banned and two of whom have asked to be de-registered. The point is she willingly engaged in conflict and gave as good if not better than she got, and we simply bumped into each other a few times, which is nothing unusual.

There's also a thread in Community about padded bras. If you search that thread for posts by Ivor the Engineer, you will see one where he comments about how calm I remained despite having my position repeatedly misrepresented by Schrodinger's Cat. I remember this because Ivor had discussed with me a few months prior about being less caustic in my posts. If I could search Community via Google, I'd link to it for you, but you should be able to find it yourself. I think if you search for posts by Ivor the Engineer with the keyword UncaYimmy, it will probably show up. Otherwise, just look at his posts in that Padded Bra thread.

This accusation is nonsense. I had no particular interest in Schrodinger's Cat.

Pissing off the mods seems to be the ultimate crime, that's what they got Articulett for also. I'll miss your presence there even if some won't, you did manage to piss off quite a few members as well.

I'll be curious to see if Plumjam comes back now his suspension is over. I'm sure he is also on the staff's hit list as he also has been critical of the moderation. Feels funny to use that term as the way staff operates at JREF is anything but "moderate."

It will be interesting to see what happens to Randi.net after James passes on. As Plum said at TR recently, I think the days of such 'celebrity' sites-like RDF-are numbered.

re 38 infractions: I have far more than 4000 posts - many hundreds of them are in AAH. Nearly all of those, and nearly all of my infractions, originated from heated arguments with "casualties" on both sides in the 9/11 subforum. As is now basically admitted, this subforum plays by different rules. Outside of it and not counting the event that resulted in my only suspension, i have only half a dozen infractions (over five years). You'll find several posts of mine critical of the mods, and i often criticise them directly by PM. If Darat were the evil dictator that you paint him as, he would have banned me long ago for some things i wrote to him. What i don't do, and that's the difference here, is write a book and start a drama over every single infraction. Sorry, but your behavior is clearly obsessive, Yimmy, and i can't blame the JREF for your banning, although i have no problem with you and you are also correct in that you have always thorougly researched what you've written. But that's part of the problem. Get over it, it's just an internet forum after all. All the best to you, CE

Thanks, CE, for your support, though you may not realize that is what you've done. I was not banned for a body of work as claimed. I was not banned for repeatedly violating the MA - you're a classic example. While the mods claim the CT forums are moderated the same, I agree with you that they are not. They have *more* tolerance and give out *fewer* infractions, so your 38 infractions would have been far more in other areas. Your lack of infractions in other areas is not compelling since you spend so much time in CT. By contrast FM gets moderated more tightly, so infractions are given out there more frequently, and I spent a lot of time there. That widens the gap even more between my 12 and your 38.

I wasn't even banned for criticizing moderation - obviously you've done it. I did not, as you claim, complain about every infraction I got. Even if I had, that's just a dozen, which is no big deal.

What I did was *publicly* criticize the moderation with what many people agree are well-researched arguments. You seemed to do it via PM, which is a crucial difference. Another thing that is different is that I pointed out uneven treatment of many *other* people besides myself. In fact my complaints started with how *others* were treated, which is what led to my posts being judged more harshly and the subsequent complaints in that regard. Review my FM posting history. Quite a bit of it was not about me personally at all.

What seems abundantly clear is that I publicly made the moderators look bad while using the forum explicitly set up to discuss moderation issues, and for that I was banned. Everything else is post-hoc rationalization. It is not against the rules to "whine" or be "obnoxious" or "misogynistic" or any of the other dubious personal invectives thrown my way. It is supposed to be about the Membership Agreement.

I guess you have seen my sock that was banned. Funny thing is, under a new identity I had four posts nominated for The Language Award in less than a month. Two received multiple nominations. One was nominated by Skeptic Ginger, the member LashL accused me of stalking. No posts went to AAH, and no posts received infractions.

Funny thing that.

You are wrong in your assesment of what's going on in the 9/11 forum. There is a higher tolerance for uncivility *by certain posters*, not all. If someone like me pays back in the same spirit, they get infracted, while the protected posters get not. You've read in the current thread (study the AAH offshoots if you want some dirt) that my posts have an eight times as high likeability to get infracted as beachnut's posts have. I am not eight times as abusive as he is, and would argue that i'm not even close to being on par. I've seen many "truthers" get in serious trouble for minor incivilities. I guarentee you that you'll not find a single one of them who got away with as many infractions as I have. I could speculate on the reasons for this but fact is, if you want to compare yourself to me, you'll have to stick to my posts/infractions outside the 9/11 subforum. And by now, i guess at least half of my total posts are outside the sewer.

I suspected that the sock banning was an April Fools joke and am glad that it's not - would have been in very bad taste, as you obviously care a lot, and i would have voiced my opinion. But there it is again: Your obsessive behavior.

I would have liked them to be more open about banning you for being a PITA but that's the subtext and the truth. Farewell.

I do not dispute your point, CE, but I am looking at the overall number of infractions rather than there distribution. If you look in the Forum Archive for threads I started, there is one about how "trolls" end up getting banned through poor moderation. It is exactly as you describe.

I presented evidence where in multiple threads tossed to AAH, the "troll" received infractions while other members, some who were clearly more uncivil and/or issuing much more personal attacks, did not receive an infraction. The "troll" feels he is treated unfairly (and rightly so), which dials up his frustration a notch since usually the troll has an unpopular opinion already. It escalates, the same thing happens again. Next thing you know the "troll" loses it and gets banned.

Everyone clucks their tongue saying he deserved it. The mods can point to his infractions and say, "See? He was a bad guy." I'm not saying they do it intentionally, but they refuse to even acknowledge that it happens when it's pointed out.

I pointed out these kinds of things numerous times, and I got banned. You can call me "obsessive" if you want. What does it matter if I am or not? Is it against the rules? No. At least I post about things I care about and affect a lot of people. I don't condemn people for wasting thousands of posts on pointless threads in Community and Humor (a misnomer if there ever was one). I don't condemn people yacking incessantly about 9/11, Amanda Knox, or whether atheism is a religion.

I will say that I agree 100% with your last statement. The lack of honesty about my banning ticks me off. They should have simply banned me from Forum Management and been done with it. I had very few infractions unrelated to FM (four, I think).

Yimmy, what you are missing is that those people are humans, and volunteers, and your actions have caused them a lot of wasted time and, as they say today, butthurt. While mine haven't. They are far from perfect but the JREF forum is still among the best moderated forums I know. They are in general reasonable people, and you are in the anti-woo crusade clubhouse, while i'm not. You have just taken it too seriously, being too anal about being right "in principle" because you didn't violate the words written in the MA, too insistent in telling them how to run the place, once too often.

Quite frankly, CE, you have caused them far more work than I have. They have to document every infraction, and your 38 has sucked up a lot of time. You also have (you say) hundreds of posts tossed to AAH, which is more than me. That sucks up a lot of time. According to my research 1 in every 6 posts by Thunder ends up being tossed to AAH. Lionking has had more infractions (repeating the same violations) in the last six months than I ever did in any six month period. He has had twice as many posts tossed to AAH.

So, quite frankly, I reject the notion that I somehow caused them too much work. I mean, how many freaking reasons are they going to give? At first it was for repeated violations, but when that was shown to be dubious, it became a "body of work." When that was shown to be dubious, it was that I was misogynistic and obnoxious, neither of which are against the rules. Now you're telling me I cost them too much work?

Yeh, they are volunteers. If they can't stand the workload, quit or get more volunteers. Other forums have far more mods with fewer members. If they don't want to hear opinions on how to run the forum, then don't have a forum dedicated to it or an appeals system.

The JREF tells them how to run the forum. I never suggested that rules be changed. I suggested that the enforcement of the suicide rude should be more sensible, and that *did* change. I suggested that Darat should exercise his discretion in how FM is handled, and my suggestions were taken.

Beyond that I pointed out uneven and unfair moderation. I didn't tell them to change what they did. I simply pointed out their mistakes. So please don't feed me this crap about me wanting to tell them how to run the place.

I also laugh every time I hear someone tell me I take it too seriously. Do the mods not take it just as seriously? They are the ones suspending and banning people over trivial questioning of their authority. I mean, suspending Plumjam for bringing up a 2 year old mistake by the mods? Who are the ones taking it too seriously? They freak out over the slightest questioning of their authority. You can get dozens of infractions, but so long as you don't complain or talk back, you can go about your merry way. Is that really what the JREF wants?

I say it's the ones who refuse to admit mistakes, censor people from complaining, and ban them because they don't like having their authority questioned. The membership doesn't need to lighten up - the mods do. Look at how they screwed Wolfman. It was all a petty power play by the mods, mostly Darat.

Oh, and talk about taking things too seriously. What's the point of banning a sockpuppet account that is not causing any trouble but in fact has been repeatedly nominated for language awards? Who is acting on principle there?

I've moderated before. When I kicked someone out and they came back with a sock that was behaving just fine, I looked the other way provided they didn't make it publicly known. That's the *spirit* of running a board.

I've been on Usenet for 15+ years. I've seen plenty of socks. Most often they used them to get around kill-files (equivalent of the ignore feature). However, sometimes they used a new name for a new start. Most of us who recognized it didn't say anything unless the person started repeating the same bullshit that got them alienated in the first place.

They didn't have to ban the account. They could have said, "Hey, we know it's you. Since you didn't get a probation like nearly everyone else usually does, consider this new account as your probation. If it ever comes out that this is your sock or you run afoul of the rules, we'll immediately ban the account. We're not looking for vengeance. We just want a quality board."

Slaugh27, You seem to have missed the point that it is you that is banned not the name Uncayimmy. What is the point of banning someone is banning just means they have to change their name? How many last warnings are needed? Can it be right that to have no ultimate sanction.

Despite your revisionist ramblings you were banned for your behaviour. What is really sad is that you have recently demonstrated that there was no need. You could have been an extremely constructive member of the board, if only you could have found the self discipline to keep out of FM earlier.

It is not as if you weren't given warnings. Only an idiot would not have seen the consequences of what you were doing and you are certainly not an idiot.

You cut off your nose to spite your face. Every time your socks are found you will be banned. You may find it more constructive to build a legacy elsewhere. RP refers to a board where he and PJ find the moderation more amicable and the posters more stimulating. Perhaps it is worth a try.

Where you take this is up to you. If it is any consolation you had a good run. I would have banned you years ago :).

Wow...... Let me repeat my previous comment, get over yourself.
You created a sock puppet account even before you appealed your ban, knowing this was in breach of the rules you agreed to. Twice. Yet you still whine and demand special treatment. Let me tell you a secret; you're not important, you're not the centre of the universe.
As for the nominations, you might want to investigate the concept of irony......

A long time ago you and I debated the harmful effects of alcohol. I admit that I gave you some poor reasoning and made a few claims that I thought had more of a research base than they did.

You claimed that you and your friends drink and have no ill effects.

Needless to say, I find it quite amusing today that it's you who's been banned and is causing such a ruckus. Perhaps the alcohol is having some ill effects? :D

@Lothian - I get the point of banning people. I don't think *you* do. The goal of all the rules is to have a productive board. If board is unharmed or better off with a banned member using another identity to post productively, then what goal is being accomplished banning it? I say none. Sure, it's against the rules.

As for creating the sock before my appeal was decided, I created it for research purposes. It's kind of hard to appeal your ban when nobody tells you why you were banned. I needed to see what the mods were saying and then look up some other things. I only used the account to post as a contributing member after my appeal was denied. You may not see a distinction. I do.

And, once again, what I "did" to get banned was piss off the mods in Forum Management. That's it. They had the choice of banning me from FM, but instead they went with a full-on ban without so much as probation. The post-hoc rationalization is pathetic.

You're right, Lothian. I'm not an idiot. I did see it coming, though I thought a full-on ban was unlikely while an FM ban was. Ever wonder why I continued? It's not an issue of self-control.

I agree with your comments about post-hoc rationalization being pathetic, when do you intend stopping?

On an unrelated matter. Do you know anyone who is half competent at website design? Yours currently displays my name and e-mail in the comment box to everyone visiting this page. It had someone else's earlier. You should get someone to sort it out for you.

Am I getting special treatment? I noticed that Sluagh27's member name has been changed to Uncayimmy (could they have at least capitalized the y?). Has that ever been done before? The only socks I know of to check are on rule-12.blogspot.com/search/label/pdhoherty76, and in those cases it does not appear the member name was changed or the account details (join date, post count) merged.

Maybe someone with access to the public notices can investigate. Sounds like a job for rjh01 if you ask me.

>And, once again, what I "did" to get banned was piss off the mods in Forum Management. That's it.

No. Yet again you are lying, perhaps even to yourself. You broke the rules, as has been shown on several occasions, and, after several suspensions and many, many, warnings you were banned. Then you created a sock puppet account (lying again in the process) because of your obsession with the JREF Forum and your inability to accept you were wrong.
I suggest you seek some help, it is obvious you have obsessional problems, as shown by your behaviour with the JREF and Anita.

Regarding the name thing: This is a third party module I am using, and I am in touch with the author to figure out why it's happening. I have been using it for several years, and it never happened before. Like with most intermittent problems, it is difficult to pin down.

@Passing Stranger - I NEVER said I didn't break the rules. Why would you say such a thing? I did not receive "many, many warnings" as you claim. As I have repeatedly stated, I had about 12 infractions in 2+ years and 7,500+ posts yet someone like Childlike Empress has had 38 infractions and but one suspension (with about half my post count). In the last six months, Lionking had more infractions than me and at least twice as many posts tossed to AAH. He's had more infractions for personal attacks and uncivil behavior than I have, including several relatively close together, yet he has not been suspended once. There are plenty of other examples like that.

Nearly everyone in the last couple of years who has been banned for something other than a single egregious act (call it a body of work) received escalating suspensions (one day, three days, one week, two weeks, one month) followed by a probationary period. My longest suspension was 3 days, and I did not receive probabtion.

The difference between myself and the many other people with far more infractions and far more posts in AAH is my public criticism of the mod team, which is where most of my infractions happened anyway. They were the result of stupid rules which have since been changed, which means it is virtually impossible for me to repeat those violations.

Why are you bringing up Anita? I started the site to accomplish a goal, and I did. The site has been quiet since, and it has been used as a reference for other people she tried to contact. It's not an obsession.

As for the JREF, I am still exposing the mismanagement I was exposing before I got banned. Why should I stop simply because they banned me? Obviously some people are still listening. My question is why you are coming here to lecture me? THAT seems a little obsessive, and doing it anonymously a bit petty.

If I didn't have several hundred people reading my blog entries or a 600+ post thread in FM about my banning, yet I were still yacking away, that would be obsessive. As it was I dropped it after my appeal, and I quietly used a sock to continue to enjoy other parts of the board. People obsessed with me *personally* didn't like that, so they were actively looking for my sock. I wasn't disruptive. It was just that they didn't like ME posting there.

Tell me again, who's obsessive?

It seems like UncaYimmy has damaged many fragile egos during his time at the JREF forum. That would certainly explain the rampant irrationality being displayed by those who choose to willfully misunderstand the banning situation and launch one personal attack after another. It certainly lends support to this hypothesis, given by another commenter: "Skeptical organizations are little more than intellectual circle-jerks. As with organized religion, they are largely made up of insecure people who are looking to others for justification and support."

"RP refers to a board where he and PJ find the moderation more amicable and the posters more stimulating. Perhaps it is worth a try."

@Lothian: The mods are definitely more amicable but I never said the posters were more stimulating. If only.

Jim was far more attached to the JREF community than I was, and I know his being banned has been hard on him. I think this is especially true as it was such an unreasonable action, IMHO.

This is just really, really sad.

I wonder if you have ever considered spending a fraction of the time you've spent begging to be back onto JREF instead trying to cultivate a personality which wasn't so repellent that you were this desperately dependent on an internet board (which you don't even appear to like) for social interaction.

You really do need to get yourself some help. This is not healthy, normal behavior.

Begging to get back? You think I'm begging? Interesting. I don't recall begging. I pointed out that I was treated quite unfairly, and a lot of people seem to agree. Getting back on the forums is easy. I made one little mistake with my first sock. I will be more careful in the future because I enjoy the forum's level of intellectual debate despite the flaws in management.

As for my personality, why are you and others so obsessed with it? I don't care about personalities. I can debate people fairly regardless of my personal feelings about them. It's too bad others can't do the same. I'm interested in intellectual debate, and it's hard to find people worthy of debating me. The JREF Forums have members that make it worthwhile despite the flawed moderation and personality cliques.

You see, it's not me who is in need of the social interaction. It's those such as yourself obsessed with me personally who need it. I mean, I'm banned, for crying out loud. Why are people so obsessed with attacking me personally after the fact? People can't be content that I'm banned? Hell, why would you come to my blog to insult me personally instead of addressing the simple question about whether I was treated fairly by a mod team that puts on a facade of even-handed, impersonal treatment of members?

It's not unhealthy to point out when I've been screwed. It is, nowever, unhealthy for people to continue to attack someone personally. It's rather sad.

It seems I need to clear up the sockpuppet thing. First, up until Sluagh27 was registered, I had more than one person sending me the posts from Forum Management (unsolicited, actually). This was a pain in the ass for the persons and a pain in the ass for me to read.

I had no feedback whatsoever from the admins as to why I was banned, which makes an appeal exceedingly difficult. As I have explained repeatedly, which people still don't seem to get, there are basically two types of bannings. One is for a single incident or brief series of actions happening over a day or two.

The second type of banning is the so-called "body of work" ban. If you go through the history of Public Notices, you will see a pattern of escalating suspensions. If you search FM, you will see the mods talk about this procedure. If you look at ban notices, you will see many of them refer to members being banned for violating the MA while on "probation." I received neither an escalating set of suspensions nor probation. I did not commit a single egregious act. Therefore, my banning came as a surprise.

In order to adequately appeal my ban I needed to look at what the mods were claiming in Forum Management as well as research Abandon All Hope for my infractions. For that I needed an account, and I only used the account for that purpose. It was against the rules as written, but I have no qualms about doing what I did. It was only after my appeal was denied that I used it to post like a regular member.

What's interesting is that I couldn't search Abandon All Hope as a new member. I asked in Forum Help about this. It was suggested it was a matter of making 15 posts, so I made junk posts in Humor to get there. It still didn't work. Fortunately, Darat fixed it. I had a singular goal in mine - research.

Had I been reinstated, the sockpuppet would have simply wilted on the vine. Since I wasn't reinstated, I decided to demonstrate that when people don't have preconceived notions about a member, they judge posts quite differently. That's why Skeptic Ginger nominated one of my posts for The Language Award. So did Trentwray, for that matter. I had another post nominated multiple times with people seconding and thirding the nomination. That's a far cry from Slingblade posting in the TLA that she's glad a "certain bully" didn't win in the finals.

My intention all along was to reveal Slaugh27 as me after the TLA voting was over. That's just my style. I have since created a new sock for the purposes of reading the outrageous claims people are making about me. I know of more than one banned member besides myself having socks for reading the members only areas. That people get all drama-queenish about it is amusing.

BTW, I find Trentwray's comments a little odd considering he made this video about me.
Trentwray on UncaYimmy

One other note: I'm still trying to figure out the bug with the e-mails popping up. I can't make it happen, and as any programmer knows, it's tough to fix a bug when you can reproduce the error. It's doubly hard when the code is written by someone else. Since most people are posting anonymously, it's not a big deal. Just use a fake address.

ETA: For the record, no sock of mine has posted in Forum Management. The only sock I ever had that posted was Sluagh27.

This is just silly, the descent into pathetic self-justification isn't worth following.
As Simon suggest you should seek some therapy.
Bye.

You're welcome to call it pathetic self-justification. If you know of a way to file an appeal when nobody tells you why you were banned (my account simply stopped working), I'm all ears.

As for this being worth following, this is your fourth anonymous comment, the first being nearly three weeks ago. Why are you so interested?

The ban notice says multiple breaches of the MA, but I assume you must have seen that, that must be the "body of work" thing you were talking about. I am guessing that if one were to search AAH for your posts they could find the straws that broke the camels back, as it were.

See the Related Articles at the end of the blog for the full scoop. It seems some people are coming into the game late and missing a lot of background including a long history of unusual treatment by the mods. Start with the dubious Rule 12 infraction I received that set my ban in motion. Also remember I have just 12 infractions total in 7,500 posts (2+ years) whereas someone like Lionking had six in as many months without so much as a suspension.

You forgot to mention this post http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6856861#post6856861 which was edited for rule 9 (posting something indecent) on 9 Feb, just before you were banned. It is in AAH so you need to use your sock to see it.

And thanks for telling everyone you have another sock. Will take a look for it. Will see if your sock is undetectable. Just remember no bulling like you did before. That would be a giveaway. My money is that you will get caught, but not for sometime. Glad you think the forum is good.

Thanks for mentioning me (rjh01) above. As for changing the names of socks, sometimes they do, sometimes they do not. For example this thread makes no sense because it was done by radial tyre which was a sock of Rebecca. When this was discovered they changed all raidal tire's posts to rebecca http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=38634 . See also this post in public notices for SOP http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=112523

All I wrote was "glory hole." That was it. Do a search for glory hole on the forums. You'll see it referenced all over the place. Why is it that my reference (and apparently only mine) was redacted and sent to AAH? Were the others reported by others and not actioned or simply not reported at all? You know how few people read FM. Why would somebody report it there but not in the much busier areas? Or did Locknar see it it and decide to act on it on his own?

That was my one and only post edited for indecency. I went out of my way to follow the indecency rule. On at least five occasions I sent a PM to a mod asking if what I wanted to post was acceptable. In a scholarly thread about porn we had to reference adult websites. I started a Questions thread in FM asking how best to reference those sites without violating the rules. So, really, that Rule 9 thing is irrelevant to my body of work.

Well, except for the fact that I appealed it. As Tricky said, I argued with the mods too much.

As for announcing I have a sock, I thought it was pretty obvious that I had one before without announcing it. I even had a couple of people e-mail me and tell me it was obvious I had one and to be careful. My only goal by using it to post as a member was to make to the TLA finals and then reveal it.

I don't know yet if I will post with this new sock. Right now I'm just using it to satisfy my natural curiousity.

You argued with the mods too much Jim. They think it's about the people not the forum. So when somebody shows they're wrong about something, they can't stand it. There are crumbs of dog shit stuck on the shoe of the Randi forum like zooterkin, bookitty, remirol & lionking that can't stand it either. Watching those assholes suck up all the time would be pathetic if it wasn't for the entertaining aspect of it.

It won't change as long as people like Darat and LashL are allowed ban people because they don't like them and as long as moderaters are allowed to make up stuff about members in order to get them to shut up.

Thanks for letting some of us know who the new sockpuppet is. It will be fun to see how the loyal suck ups act when they find out how bad they were fooled. :)

One has to wonder where this amazing show of arrogance comnes from. The fact that someone is simultaneously trying to win "the sadest loser on the internet award" while constantly talking about how awesome they are seems a bit of a diconnect. So you have hundreds of views to your blog and a thread about you has hundreds of posts. Have you been reading those posts of late, using yet another sock puppet you've doubtlessly created? Because they're mostly talking about what a pathetic loser you are, and how reading your rants provides everyone with some entertainment. Just because you have their attention, doesn't mean you have their respect. Lindsay Lohan isn't tabloid fodder because of her talent, it's because there's something weirdly fascinating about watching another person totally and publically self destruct. Also, reading your posts simply makes people feel better about their own lives in comparison. However bad a day you're having, at least you're not THAT guy.



Your fixation with the TLA actually shows WHAT a delluded loser you are. Getting nominated for the TLA is not some show of distinction. Many posts get nominated for a TLA EVERY DAY. Anyone can nominate anyone for anything. From what I've seen, the biggest reason someone nominates another person for a TLA is simply because they strongly agree with them. I've seen TLA nominated posts I wouldn't blow my nose on. I've been nominated for a TLA on a post I put no thought into and thought was completely unremarkable in any way. But you've now bestowed some deep meaning into the TLA like it was a Nobel prize award because- simply - you have nothing else going for you. You're so desperate for validation that you'll grasp at anything to justify your own vanity. Not to mention, we all know you have created socks AND you state that people knew you were posting as a sock, so these meaningless nominations become even more so when you factor in that you could be nominating yourself or having one of your buddies do it for you.


There really is no bigger sign of what a pathetic person you are than the fact you've now spent multiple posts bragging about being TLA nominated like that actually means something. The fact that you're actually proud of this, like it's a major accomplishment, only shows how little you have going for you.


You are making a fool of yourself. I really hope for your sake no future employer finds this web page.

Stripped of all personal history, the idea of sock puppet as probation is interesting. There are a lot of pros and cons there. If a member can contribute to the board without disruption, why not? Mainly because without some sort of final action, there is no way to keep someone from being disruptive. But if your sock isn't being a dick, I'll ignore it.

I do wonder why you haven't taken your own advice to go somewhere else for six months, post without disruption and then appeal your ban.

Honestly, I'm not super-invested either way. Your email display issue was a bit malicious this time. I'm just throwing myself on the grenade.

Simon - Are you using a sockpuppet to post here? Do you know how they look to identify socks? They look for unusual writing habits such as misspelling a word in an unusual way (delluded in this case) or things like using ALL CAPS periodically for emphasis. I suggest you
click this link and see who on the JREF Forums has done that in recent memory.

The posts by "Simon" are coming from RIM.com, which appears to be the Blackberry ISP. Wouldn't it be a coincidence if the person found in the above search also used a Blackberry? It's not conclusive, but it sure looks a certain way.

Anyway, I'm sorry that the significance of the TLA escapes you. I'll try to explain, but first get your facts straight. Go look at the nominations. I was nominated by JimBob, Skeptic Ginger, Trent Wray (twice), sphenisc, Aepervius, and Akhenaten.. As I stated already, two of my posts had multiple nominations, and one of those had people seconding and thirding the nomination. That theory of my "friends" or socks doing it demonstrates a basic lack of research.

The best example of the significance of the TLA is Skeptic Ginger. It got to the point with her that when I posted a rebuttal to one of her points, she would accuse of me doing it just to get into a pissing match and avoid the discussion. I believe it got so bad she received an infraction for it. She also flipped out because I made a *joke* about her belief that a human and a sheep could breed.

Well, in her thread about god beliefs dying off, she didn't accuse Sluagh27 of arguing just to argue. She engaged me like she would anyone else. When I made a joke post ridiculing believers, she didn't get all pissed. She nominated it for a Language award.

I pissed people off in various ways. Some are mature enough to not let it affect their analysis of my opinions in other debates. Others, however, look at everything I wrote through the same distorted lens. It truly reminds me of The Breakfast Club.

The mods are the worst because once they decide they know what you're thinking, they see infractions and challenges to authority where the same post by someone else would receive no action. This was best demonstrated the time I copied/pasted a post by a mod that was reported and not actioned then discussed in FM and vigorously defended as acceptable. When I posted it, I received an infraction.

The evidence that I've been treated unfairly by the mods is overwhelming. Go look at Public Notices for bans. Some are mistakenly labeled as Ban Notice instead of Sockpuppet. Ignore those. The remaining fall into two categories: Egregious Events and Body of Work. The mods claimed it was my body of work.

Well, since January 2010 look at all of the people banned for violating their probation: timf1234, Bishadi, Cicero, The Painter, Fulcanelli, Rockingham AH Deist, JonathanQuick, EldonG, Especially, VisionFromFeeling, JMH423,and Enigma.

What kind of screwed up system puts somebody like Bishadi on probation but not yer UncaYimmy? Nobody has ever answered that simple question.

@Bookitty - Darat has mentioned that when he puts a member on probation, he doesn't announce it publicly. It makes good sense. You don't want members baiting someone or reporting every little potential transgression in an effort to get the person banned.

As for taking a break, I've taken a few breaks. Ivor the Engineer even commented at how well I was handling Schrodinger's Cat misrepresenting my position. The reality, though, is that I had just four Rule 12 violations in 7,000 posts, and a dozen infractions total. Meanwhile, Childlike Empress has 38, and Lionking had six in about six months.

There's a basic logic problem here. The mods defend suspensions/bans by saying, "This person repeatedly violated the MA, which is why we took the action we did." That's fine. So look at how many people receive multiple infractions for the same rule violations yet do not receive suspensions. That would seem to indicate that there's another reason for the actions taken.

This is the same line of reasoning used to detect racial profiling. The cops can defend their stops and arrests as legitimate violations and for the sake of argument assume they are. If, however, we find that blacks, who make up 12% of the population, make up 70% of the stops for broken headlights, what's really going on? Do black people have more broken headlights or are the cops selectively enforcing the law?

I'm not the only person who has been treated this way. I've just been the most vocal. I suggest that anyone interested start reading every post in Abandon All Hope like I used to do. See what kind of patterns emerge. You may be surprised to see how unevenly infractions are issued and how some members seem to get nicked much more frequently than others for "lesser" offenses. You may also see how some people repeatedly get infractions but never get suspended.

This recent post by a moderator is tangentially related to me.

Of course, past history is considered when deciding whether or not to give out a yellow card. Someone such as yourself, with 17,625 posts at this writing, certainly ought to know the rules; on the other hand, you have only one infraction in all those posts, so we're liable to let you off with an edit box and a naughty-naughty-shame-shame.

First, the mods have repeatedly stated that the method of delivery (mod box, PM, infraction) has no significance, yet here's a mod telling us otherwise. This is a sign of poor leadership of the mod team.

The more important issue follows, but first let me say that it involves Slingblade simply because she is the one who asked the question that elicited the above response, and she makes a good example. SB and I don't get along, but this has nothing to do with her personally. I don't think she's a troublesome member by any stretch of the imagination. It's about a flawed moderation policy. When I refer to SB here, please understand she's just an example of uneven enforcement through no fault of her own. I am not arguing that she should have been suspended or anything of the sort. She's just a typical member who sometimes (like she says) breaks the rules.

The mod said SB would be unlikely to get an infraction because she has only one infraction in a lot of posts. Well, if she doesn't get an infraction, then the next time a post of hers is reported, she will still have only one infraction. Therefore, she doesn't get an infraction. It's kind of a catch-22 in that other members get infractions because they already have an infraction. One member can look much worse than the other when, in fact, neither is all that bad.

Using SB as an example, she wrote this about me last year:

I will. I think UY is destroying the forum single-handedly with his constant childish playground whining, and I wish he'd leave and start his own damned forum with his own happy little rules.

Infract me. I fail to give a **** anymore

It did not receive an infraction. It was clearly a personal attack and uncivil. She even challenged the mods to give her an infraction, but she didn't get one. Why? Probably because SB has a lot of posts without infractions. If she doesn't get a lot of infractions, then giving her an infraction won't change that fact whatsoever. Not giving her one perpetuates her not getting one.

Just the other day SB asked a member if he was getting any [sex]? That would normally be considered a Rule 0 violation and personalizing the discussion. I know I would have received an infraction for it. A mod saw the post because it's in AAH. Nothing was done. Another member might have received two infractions when she got none. Next time around, he gets an infraction and she doesn't.

Like I said, this is not about SB. It's not often she breaks the rules, but it's a great example of self-fulfilling prophesies. The mods have too much discretion for a board that size, and they seem to have a policy that ensures that some people will get differing numbers of infractions simply because a mod decided to issue an infraction at some point in the past.

Now, couple this with a system that relies almost exclusively on members reporting other members. People who are well-liked will be reported less often than those who are disliked much like with TLA nominations only in reverse. It's human nature. We all do it.

And how do people become well liked? One obvious way is that they spend a lot of time in Community. That's where friendships are formed. It's also where few infractions are issued, partly because of the subject matter but also because there is no Rule 9, Rule 10 (modified), Rule 11 or Rule 12.

What happens when you spend a lot of time in Community? Your post count goes up, especially if you play around in the silly threads like the one-word continuation story. So when a mod sees a reported post and looks at the post count, he figures, "Well, she has a lot of posts with few infractions, so I'll let her off with a mod box." Thing is, many of those posts might be in Community, so it's not a good indicator.

How does one become disliked? The most obvious way is in heated arguments, which mostly happen in the public areas. Since there are more rules to violate and heightened emotions among members, there are more reports. If you stay out of Community and mostly post in contentious threads, your post count is lower. Therefore, you look more problematic than someone who does the opposite.

It's a flawed system. I'm no angel, but I'm not worse than quite a few other people who have no suspensions at all and far more infractions. Many others don't receive infractions because of the above scenario, so they look "better" than other members. Well-liked people who spend a lot of time in Community are reported less often and more likely as official policy not to receive infractions. The opposite is also true.

Finally, factor in basic human nature where the mods form personal biases. It is inevitable. That combined with a flawed system and too much discretion leads to some really poor moderation. It only takes a couple of borderline infractions to label somebody a troublemaker, so I'm not saying it's overt. It's subtle.

There are solutions. First, develop a consistent policy for issuing infractions. If a post violates the rules, issue an infraction. Period. vBulletin has a points system that would allow the moderators to rank infractions by severity, so the mods would still maintain a level of discretion. Right now unless a mod researches past infractions, he has no idea if it was borderline or egregious. The board is simply too big for them to remember accurately.

For example, a "friendly mod box" could become a 1 point infraction. A stern mod box could become 2 to 4 points. An infraction could be 5 to 10 points depending on how bad it was.

The vBulletin points system can be used to issue automatic suspensions and bans. I'm not suggesting they use that feature, but it can be a useful guide for helping ensure fairness. How much more transparent would it be to see a public notice that read, "UncaYimmy was suspended for having 3 infractions totaling 18 points in the last three months all for violating the same rule" rather than the vague "repeated violations" we see now?

The mods can also use the Actioned thread prefix on posts where they give out infractions. This would make it much easier for people to do a search to see which posts received infractions. I can see no reason not to implement this kind of transparency. Right now you have to read every damned post looking for the yellow card.

Combine these two suggestions and think about the above example. It would take only a minute to search for posts by UncaYimmy that were actioned in the last three months. Everyone could judge for themselves the fairness. It's not a perfect system, but it's much more transparent without violating anyone's privacy.

Another policy change would be to adopt a consistent policy for redacting text. Right now there is no policy - mods can do whatever they want. The problem is that I know of a number of cases where the redacted text was mild at best, such as the recent example where somebody wrote, "Hey, a girl has the right to change her mind, doesn't she?"

Why on earth would "girl," "her" and "she" be redacted above? The entire post was just that one sentence, so why wasn't it tossed to AAH as well? It makes it look like it was something really rude when in fact it was just a little joke. The problem is that nobody can publicly contest this infraction since you're not allowed to post redacted text. When Skeptic tried to, he received an infraction for reposting "girl," "her" and "she." How stupid!

One plausible reason I can see for redacting text is to allow an otherwise good post to remain instead of being sent to AAH. I wouldn't have a problem tossing the entire thing to AAH and telling the member that he can repost it without the personal attack or whatever. That happens already with some mod actions. A firm redaction policy would serve to make moderation more transparent. Reserve redactions for people gettting around the auto-censor. If a post is so bad it doesn't belong there at all, move it to deep storage. Right now it's all willy-nilly.

I am very confident that had such a system been in place, I would not have been banned. I bet some other people wouldn't have been banned and/or suspended while others, because of the transparency, would have been suspended. Members would be able post questions like, "You just suspended XYZ for having 18 points (3 infractions) in 3 months, but PDQ has 28 points (4 infractions) in two months. Why the difference?"

As I have mentioned before, I have never suggested changing the Membership Agreement. My issues have been with the enforcement. I made use of the system in place for discussing enforcement, and a moderator, Tricky, claimed I argued with the mods too much. That's just messed up.

As a result, my 7,000+ posts on the board, which took quite a bit of time and research, have gone down the drain. You'd be ticked off, too.

Actually, Yimmy, you'll notice that until your sock puppet stunt, I had nothing to say to you. I actually was rather sympathetic after your pleas that you would respect the forum rules and other members if given a chance. Then, you made your sock. You lost a lot of support after that one. You also, in addition, started harping on members here on your blog that had nothing to do with your banning. If you'd had just let well enough alone, I would have done the same. But now you are continuing to disrupt the forum. Why the hell should anyone show you the respect you've shown no one?

In addition, it's interesting to note that yimmy's "suporters" show the exact same deluded narcissism you do? Foir instance, one actually brags on your behalf that you successfully "fooled" other members with your sock puppet. He actually thinks writing something without other people realizing its you is an accomplishment - again taking great pride in something anyone who isn't mentally retarded could do. He also says that members like skeptic ginger were "fools" to not catch on. As if SG was actively examining any new member's post to figure out if it was you, and failed to do so.

Isn't it strange, yimmy, that your "supporter" exhibits your exact tendencies? Unwarranted feelings of accomplishment over others? Bragging about something no one who actually has any life accomplishments would ever think to brag about?

Exactly how many of your "supporters" here are real people, Yimmy?

I'm sorry to disappoint you, "Simon," but I'm not using sockpuppets to post comments in my own blog. Take a look at the "supporters" posting here. Nearly all of them have used the actual names or very close versions of the names they use on the JREF. Do some research. I don't know who JCS12 is, but I do know who Sardonicus is, and I understand why that member would prefer to remain anonymous given the vindictiveness of the moderators.

It's amusing that you condemn me for using a sockpuppet on the JREF. Most (but not all) of the people who have come here to bash me have used fake names. I can understand fake e-mails, but if you're going personally attack me, at least have the courtesy to use your JREF name. What is that if not a sockpuppet?

@RJH01 - You mentioned on the JREF that I must have found it harder than I thought to avoid being detected as a sockpuppet. Not really. I could have changed the IP of my machine, but for business reasons I have filters and firewalls in various places that are keyed to my IP. If I changed it, I'd have to change a bunch of other stuff.

I was using a proxy that inside the browser rewrites all the URLs to go back through the proxy. Unfortunately, it got a little buggy, so I had to start a new private tab in my browser. When I did, I had to log in again. After you log in, you see the link saying "click here if you're not redirected." The URL in the code for the redirection was not caught by the proxy software, so when the browser redirected it bypassed the proxy. I ended up on the site with my real IP. I made a post before I realized what had happened.

Interestingly, that was very early on in Sluagh27's career. Since nothing happened within a few days, I figured they weren't actively looking for a sock by me. I decided to stick with that sock since my goal all along was only to have it last until after the March TLA voting, at which point I would reveal it. It was a combination of hubris and laziness.

I interacted with members who don't like me all that much to prove the point that my posts had gotten to the point where they were constantly interpreted in the worst possible light. As it turned out, Sluagh27 made a ilttle over 100 posts and had 4 TLA nominations, zero infractions, and zero posts tossed to AAH.

I am using a new technique now. Unless I screw up royally, there will be no way to *conclusively* sniff out my sock. If I get caught, it will be circumstantial based on writing style. Since I use a spell checker when I post on the forums, I won't have any unusual misspelled words, which is a dead giveaway. My vocabulary, grammar and punctuation are excellent, so I won't have any "tells" from that perspective.

I am acutely aware of my phrasing, such as using "acutely aware." Do a Google search for site:forums.randi.org "acutely aware" UncaYimmy to see what I mean. My "tell" will be the manner in which I present my arguments and my tendency to write a lot and cite a lot of references. Well, that and my known positions on certain issues.

Like I said, for the most part I enjoy the forum. I don't enjoy the drama with certain members, but that's as much my fault as theirs. I simply don't give a crap if I offend someone since I'm not easily offended myself. As I've noted many times, I only had four Rule 12 infractions in 7,000+ posts, so it's not like I make a bunch of personal attacks. I'm just caustic at times.

Also, as I have said before, I think for the most part the mods do a good job. I'm fine with the rules, but I think they are too unevenly enforced. The part that gets my goat is that they are extremely reluctant to admit mistakes and treat a lot of people like crap. I also find them vindictive. That's a totally separate issue, which is why I wish I had simpy been banned from Forum Management for being a pain in their collective ass.

Referring to a recent comment in JREF, it would suck if the moderaters did "an ongoing review on the background of contentious posters' content with a possibility of enacting further summary punishments without notice". They could call you on the technicality of "multiple and repeated breaches of the membership agreement" for having two actions against the same breach of the rules, and not even rules you broke recently. That's an example of treating people like crap.

Add to that the ass-kissing of the chearleaders. If lionking, zooterkin and remirol go along with the moderaters to attack you and insult you in forum management, the moderaters think that endorses their crappy treatment and they look all the more for reasons to ban you.

So criticize religions and criticize psychics. Criticize Democrats or Republicans or Iraqis or truthers. Just don't criticize moderation and administration of the JREF forum and its management or you'll get kicked out of there quick as shit.

Yeh, I saw that thread with my sock. What's sad is that there are points there to bring up regarding my banning. However, since they closed the thread about it, nobody can bring it up anymore. Anyway, here are the relevant points:

* Thunder has 60 infractions. I had 12.

* About 1 in 6 of Thunder's posts ended up in Abandon All Hope compared to about 1 in 45 of my posts.

* Thunder had six infractions in the last 30 days. He was suspended just 90 days ago. I had just one dubious infraction in the 90 days after my last suspension.

* Zep revealed he is on probation. A new public notice about Roscoe_The_First indicated he was on a four month probation. I was never given probation.

Despise me all you want, but it's intellectually dishonest to claim I was treated fairly, which is all I'm concerned about. I would also agree that Thunder's latest infraction was ridiculous. That kind of post happens every single day with no action taken.

RE: "Despise me all you want, but it's intellectually dishonest to claim I was treated fairly, which is all I'm concerned about. I would also agree that Thunder's latest infraction was ridiculous. That kind of post happens every single day with no action taken."

Thunder was criticizing the moderaters lately. He made the mistake of showing a few of their stupid mistakes. What choice do they have except to hunt him down and find reason to punish him?

I predict that Chaos will feel the wrath of the moderaters' ire when they start picking aprt his posts looking for reasons to ban him. His latest in the forum management area is this one:

"Judging from all that harping about context and history, I´d guess he didn´t break any rules, or at least not to the degree that would get other posters in trouble if they did it. He´s on the mod shitlist, and thus his posts get searched with a fine-toothed comb to find rule breaches. Others, on the other, can do the same or worse and get away with it.

Do you honestly think that BeAChooser, JudeBrando, Skeptic, 9/11-Investigator, Saggy, or Boyntonstu wouldn´t have *at least* Thunder´s infraction-per-post ratio if their posts were given similar scrutiny?"

I'm not fan of Roscoe the First, and he *probably* deserved to be banned. However, it's still an example of the inept, biased moderation that I've cited before. Go read this thread to see what happened.

Roscoe came back and immediately the tone on both sides was pretty nasty with Roscoe being outnumbered. Somebody called Roscoe "kid" saying, "Is this kid for real?" No action. That same member then posted a drawing of some raving maniac at a computer with the caption "troll." Again, no action.

Then Roscoe replies to somebody calling him "sonny" writing, "Making up your own straw man again are you Sonny?" Roscoe gets nailed with attacking the arguer.

Between those two events people posted stuff like, "Have fun pretending you have a legitimate point. And yes, for the record, we're not lauging with you. " Somebody else accuses him of being a sockpuppet. No action.

Then another member writes, "99.999% of Americans think truthers are mentally ill, feeble-minded fools living in mommy's basement." Clearly this was directed at Roscoe. No action.

A few posts later Roscoe writes, "Yes brain cells are not abundant on this forum are they?" For this he gets a Rule 12 infraction. Others continue to call him a troll and "gibbering idiot" with no action taken. Then Roscoe gets what is his last infraction before being banned, where he calls someone a half-wit.

That last infraction was the only one that was deserved. In context, though, it came amongst a myriad of personal attacks directed at him that were unactioned. I'm not calling it acceptable, but the point is that this type of blatant uneven and selective moderation creates an environment where it's easy to ban people with "plausible" cause when with good moderation it may not get to that point.

The only similarity to my situation is that others in my final thread were personally attacking me with impunity. Only I didn't respond in kind. Maybe they thought I did because they expected it out of habit, but it wasn't intended as a personal attack, and many people agree that what I wrote was perfectly acceptable.

The main difference is that I spoke up and others spoke up on my behalf. Nobody will mourn Roscoe.

You mentioned Thunder a few times. He is now suspended for a month.

Your stats are worthless. Not all warnings and other sanctions are equal

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5426675#post5426675
Darat says in this post
Simple answer - not all breaches are of equal "badness" in terms of either the MA or what the JREF wants for the Forum. That is why generally no one is suspended or banned simply based on the number of warnings they have had - what the warnings were for and what the warnings were is of far more importance than the number of warnings.

Thanks, RJ, but as I told you, I have a sock, so I'm already aware of what's going on. No need to recap here for me, especially when I've heard it all before.

I'm not going to argue with you because I have covered this already. You seem unable to see the forest for all the trees. My infractions were at best dubious and none were egregious, hence the lack of forum-wide suspensions. Duh! I also detailed a broad case of inconsistent and flat-out biased moderation, which you conveniently ignore. Duh! And the majority of infractions I received and all but one suspension were for bumping against special rules in Forum Management that have since been changed and thus not possible for me repeat. Duh!

So, please don't waste my time. I know you mean well, but I find it annoying. Just don't forget why you publicly stated that you were afraid of reporting posts by moderators/admins. Deep down you already know that the admins are a vindictive bunch. I did something worse than reporting their posts: I challenged their decisions repeatedly, publicly, and with overwhelming evidence. That's why I'm gone. The rest is rationalization.

You can say it. It's okay.

UY, I pretty much agree with your analysis of the interactions that led to your banishment. It would be nice to think that TPTB might take a look at the situation and realize they made a mistake in banning you, but, in my opinion, the probability of that happening is near zero.

I hope you decide to post as a sock and that it goes undetected, not because it will be pulling one over on TPTB, but because the decision to ban you was a bad one and you have a lot to offer.

Thanks, GH. My offer to Darat still stands, but like you, I find it unlikely that I will be reinstated. I know they are aware of the comments here because my server logs indicate that LashL's IP address has visited 20+ times including just a day or so ago.

I do have a sock, and the reason I announced it is because some people didn't take to kindly to me "secretly" having one. It's not because I get some cheap thrill out of putting one over on the mods (not that I think you were accusing me of that, but some probably think it).

Quite honestly, it's not all that hard, so it's not like it's some great "ha ha, you can't catch me!" feat of daring-do. Even if you slip up and they catch you, you can just make another one. Big whoop. Any knucklehead can do it.

Like I said, if someone is banned for good cause, then their sock will likely run into the same problems with moderation. If the sock is behaving, who cares? Some do, apparently. The loudest voices are often the same ones quick to say, "lighten up, it's only a discussion forum" when people complain about moderation. I guess they want it both ways.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbozM-Kzrxc

???
Nevermind. LOL. Nice try, though. Keep looking.

Sorry,

I didn't have a youtube link to listen to the song. This is the one I meant to post

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCXVpEGGw_0

It is a lament to Isabella. I note a comment with the video

I thnk this is the best song I have ever heard.

I prefer Sanvean http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WdYe8Z98OI but Ocean is good. I hope you like it.

I saw your comments in FM, Lothian. Let me see if I have this straight. Sluagh27, my first sock, made over 100 posts and got several language award nominations and no infractions. It posted in areas that I almost never posted in, namely Religion. I wasn't even suspected until I ripped apart somebody's poor argument in my usual verbose, thoughtful way. That sock gets nailed due to a technical mistake. No administrative suspension.

So, I tell everyone I'll be back with another sock. Your theory is that Isabella is my sock. Now, Isabella's first post was about Randi's salary, which is something I've bitched about in the past. A few days later she jumped into a thread about RSL taking the side of Audible Click and Akhenaten. In case you don't recall, they were both part of the team of Meanies who helped me run StopVFF. I've also had a run-in or two with RSL.

So, your theory is that I created a new sock, ignored the approach that I took with my first successful sock, and immediately started posting about topics I've discussed before (but not very often) and supported my personal friends. This after making a lot of people aware that I'll be back with a sock. Have I got that right? I just want to make sure before I burst out laughing.

People have said a lot of things about me. Nobody said I was dumb. Do you think I don't know about administrative suspensions? Did you not see my post last year in FM detailing how to detect sockpuppets before Darat removed it as being too useful?

Is there some reason you think I would have taken this approach?

In all fairness, there are some similarities in style, but lots of people write coherently. Do you see any unusual things she and I both did in our writing? If so, what are they? I'm genuinely curious why you think that's my sock.

If Isabella is not your sock you can just say so.

If she is then there was something which gave you away. If not then it was a coincidence which is not significant.

Did you like the song?

I see you evaded the questions to preserve your unsupported accusation. On what basis do you conclude that something "gave me away?" Because the admins suspended her they must be right? What's *your* reasoning?

There are several scenarios here:
1) Isabella is my sock, and I admit it.
2) Isabella is my sock, and I say she's not.
3) Isabella is my sock, and I say nothing.
4) Isabella is not my sock, and I say she is.
5) Isabella is not my sock, and I say she's not.
6) Isabella is not my sock, and I say nothing.

You can make more combinations with the following:
1) Isabella provides documentation that the admins accept.
2) Isabella provides documenation that the admins don't accept.
3) Isabella provides no documenatation.

How do any of those myriad scenarios benefit my efforts to have an undetectable sock? The only one that works for me is if she's my sock, I say she's not, and she provides acceptable documentation. That doesn't benefit you because the documentation could be faked.

Are you wondering why the admins might reject documenation? Here's one. I moved to Maryland to Arizona, which is to say I moved from a state that has no yearly tax on personal vehicles to one that does. Lots of people put off getting an AZ driver's license and registering the vehicle here to save a few hundred bucks. That documenation will not match what's given at registration.

Then, of course, you have people who simply give fake names for privacy reasons. Charities raise funds. It would be trivial to write a program to pull out registrations, look up the name by state, then start soliciting people for money over the phone. The privacy policy explicitly states that the JREF can use your information to contact you about JREF business.

So what possible reason would I have to say anything at all about the accuracy of this unsupported accusation?

I see no point in wasting time answering your question when I am not going to find out if the answer is right or wrong.

Bye

Funny. You seem content to make accusations wtihout knowing the answer, but you're not content to explain your reasoning if you're not going to know.

All is not lost, though. At least you learned that you can't know one way or another. The only way to know is through technology such as the IP address. If such evidence existed, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

You are quite right. I can not know whether it was you. I will just have to file it with my other imponderables like, 'Will the sun come up in the morning?'

I note you yet again make a big deal about language nominations. Weird, it is almost as if there is something about those nominations you are not telling us. Is there anything you feel, in the interests of honesty you want to confess?

I have not and am not making a big deal out of TAL nominations, but that doesn't meant they are meaningless. You see, once someone is labeled a "toxic" poster, people view *all* of their posts differently. They look for infractions and ignore the contributions. Classic confirmation bias. That I can pop up with a new identity and have posts nominated like I *used* to have nominated in the past reflects on the confirmation bias that abounds. It's kind of sad that fls is going through the same thing now simply for questioning moderation in the forum dedicated to the subject.

As for something to confess, WTF are you talking about? Are you one of those idiots who didn't bother to look at *who* nominated the posts so as not to disturb the fantasy that I used other socks to nominate myself? Skeptic Ginger nominated me, for crying out loud. Do you think she would have nominated that post if she knew yer UncaYimmy wrote it?

You seem to think a nomination cancels out obnoxious behaviour. A bit like claiming Hitler loved him mum....

What does *used* mean?

Are your nominations not like mine? Someone independently without any prompting from me chooses to nominate one of my posts. I presume *used* means something else is going on.

Think very carefully, I am giving you the chance to clarify the situation yourself. I am sure neither of us would want anyone to be misled by your nominations.

How many times do I have to say that one does not negate the other? What you don't seem to get is that there's a huge swath of "borderline" posts on the board every single day. Those who are viewed as toxic posters have their borderline posts reported far more often than well-liked people. Once you have an infraction or two, then the bar is lowered, so posts by you get infracted when other similar posts do not. This is how the mods describe their policy.

What you don't get is that I'm no different than many members who have never even had a suspension. It's a severely flawed system. BTW, being "obnoxious" is not against the MA.

What I mean by "used to" is that I did not used to (in the past) have any problems with my posts being moderated. Throughout all the VFF drama I never received a single infraction despite infractions being handed to others like they were candy. It was only after I began pointing out flaws in the moderation of *other* people that I suddenly seemed to have trouble staying within the MA. Funny thing, that. Around the same time my TLA nominations went down. When I returned with a sock, no infractions, no moves to AAH, and several TLAs. Same guy, though.

We will have to agree to disagree on whether you are different and whether you deserved to be banned.

I see you are back to boasting about the nominations Slaugh got. You have chosen to ignore my hints. Perhaps if I am more specific your memory might improve.

Your nominations were not all the result of people independently without any prompting from you choosing to nominate one of your posts.

Would you like to clarify why that was or do you need a little more help?

@Lothian - Sorry for the delay in approving this. I thought I had, but it turns out all I did was reject some spammers and forgot to do yours.

Anyway, I think I figured out what you're talking about. After Slaugh's post about becoming a skeptic, Akhenaten made a very similar post using about two sentences to say what I said in a novella. I found it funny and sent him a PM indicating as much. I also wrote something to the effect of, "yeh, but mine is worthy of a language award." He then nominated it. I didn't ask him to nor did I tell him my real identity. That particular post was nominated a second time by someone else. Furthermore, I recall a "seconded" and "thirded" post for the nomination for a total of four times, only one of which is "tainted" in your mind.

Is that what you're cryptically referencing? If not, I'm totally stumped. BTW, for someone who put little meaning in TLA nominations, you sure are spending a lot of time discussing them.

I have provided ample evidence that many people have similar posting histories to mine and ones far worse but are not banned. I *know* I am different. I pissed of the mods, and I pissed off a lot of people by openly calling out people they like.

You are right, I don't think a TLA nomination gives people special status but you appear to.

Perhaps that is why you begged people to nominate your posts. So how many more PMs did you send seeking a nomination? I had information that there were others apart from the one you brought up.

As for evidence you have provided nothing. A murder is not the same as theft. A simple yellow card count proves nothing. The difference between you and others is that they are clever enough to game the system, know when they are near the edge and when they are not.

I know amateur diagnosis is dangerous and often wildly wrong but do you have a from of Aspergers? Seemed to me you were being set all the signals but they were not being received.

Thank you for being a shining example of what I'm talking about.

* I never said that TLA nominations give someone a special status. I expressed the relevance numerous time. You continue to see what you want to see because of your attitude towards me.

* I did not "beg" anyone to nominate a post. I didn't even *ask* much less beg. But you continue to see it that way because you *want* to

* If you think there are "others" then either you are lying or you are being lied to. I did mention to another member (friend) off-line that I had a sock and suggested he/she read the TLA nominations to see if he/she could spot it. He/she could not until I gave him/her more hints. Under your warped logic, you'd probably call that begging the member to nominate my posts.

* As for me knowing a ban was imminent, how many times do we need to go through that? I was at the very beginning of the course of escalating suspensions. No other member was banned for a "body of work" without first having increasingly longer suspensions. In recent years no BOW members have been banned without first going on probation. I did not receive probation. I went from a 3-day suspension a few months prior to an all-out ban. A ban from FM I figured was possible. A ban from the entire board? Only if the admins wanted to expose how vindictive and capricious they are. I guess they had some impulse control issues.

You're not here for discussion, Lothian. You seem only interested in attacking me personally with unsupported accusations and innuendo. As such, you are no longer welcome here. Do not return.

Wow, not even a 3 day suspension. No probation. Straight to a ban. I suspect you will not see the irony but others will.

Well, Alanis, even if your mistaken belief about the parallels were true, it would not be irony. Hypocrisy maybe but not irony. However, there is a huge difference between a discussion board with a membership agreement along with numerous policy statements and a guy with a blog. I'm not trying to rationalize telling you not to return. I simply don't want you around. The mods tried to justify their decision based on a bunch of BS. Had they simply stated as I did that they don't want me around without all this crap about how I repeatedly violated the MA, I wouldn't have complained. I said as much already, so clearly I am not being hypocritical. I am practicing what I preach.

What's hypocritical is you repeatedly berating me for having a sock. First, you don't even use your real e-mail address here. Second, even though I told you not to return, you came back anyway and left the above comment. According to my server logs you came back again after that. Remember your comment about me not being "welcome" on the JREF? Hypocrite.

This blog was dead for about two weeks until you came back making your still unsupported innuendo about Isabella. You sought me out to personally attack me. I've been tolerant, but my patience has worn thin. Had I actually any respect for you (I lost that long before I was banned), I might have let this continue.

"As for me knowing a ban was imminent, how many times do we need to go through that? I was at the very beginning of the course of escalating suspensions. No other member was banned for a "body of work" without first having increasingly longer suspensions. In recent years no BOW members have been banned without first going on probation. I did not receive probation. I went from a 3-day suspension a few months prior to an all-out ban. A ban from FM I figured was possible. A ban from the entire board?"

So you were expecting to be able to break the rules a couple of times more before you were banned? Heh...

Actually, I expected to be able to break the rules in perpetuity so long as I didn't do anything particularly egregious or immediately get several infractions after coming back from a suspension. You know, sort of like how Childlike Empress has 38 infractions to my 12 even though it has only about 60% of my post count. What I expected, which I don't think is unreasonable, was a PM from an admin telling me that my "body of work" was putting me at risk of being banned and that I would not be treated like everyone else who gets a series of escalating suspensions followed by probation.

You act like breaking the rules is some big crime. It's not, and the mods have said as much numerous time. You'd be hard pressed to find someone with a post count over 500 that hasn't broken the rules. Most don't get caught because of a flawed system that relies on reports.

Reasonable people understand that on-line debates about contentious topics inevitably lead to uncivil and/or personal comments. Moderation simply provides guard rails to keep it from getting out of hand. No need to get all dramatic about it.

Update: I *asked* Lothian not to come back. He did and left another comment. Again I asked him to stay away. Since he seemed unable to control his obsession, I blocked his IP address. He then got a new IP address and continued his personal attacks against me with yet another blog comment. I don't want to encourage my stalker any further, so I didn't approve it. Now he's running around claiming I "banned" him from my website, which for some reason the mods are allowing in a thread unrelated to me (I guess you're only off-topic when it's a negative comment about the mods).

However, should he come back under a third IP address, use a different name and post a reasonable comment for discussion, I'll approve it. I'm not going to get all paranoid that it *might* be Lothian, which is evident by approving the post by Robert in this seemingly dead blog. I mean, c'mon, I block Lothian, and the next day "Robert" shows up? I'm concerned about content, not people.

As for Isabella, I find it sad that people cannot imagine why somebody wouldn't provide documentation to the JREF. If you registered on a forum, made a handful of posts, then found yourself suspended because they thought you were somebody else, would you go through the trouble of sending your driver's license or whatever? I mean, what kind of paranoid discussion forum does that stuff? Hell, Luke had a long history with the JREF, and he refused to do it, so is it so hard to imagine a new member wouldn't bother?

If there were evidence it is me, Isabella would be banned. It's all unsupported suspicion by some paranoid people.

Kind of funny in a way though Jim, you have to admit. He comes here to criticize you for not accepting you should no longer post at jref then does the same thing here. The difference between your attitude to it and some of the jref staff is also hilarious, as I'm sure there's more than one who actually worry about it and have spent a lot of time searching for you, jref's own Keyser Söze. LOL

The JREF verification process is a joke. Go to Google Images & search for 'drivers license'. Find one that looks decent, save it, and then register with that name.

A new blog apologizing for my sockpuppet and explaining why.

No, PBJ was not my sockpuppet, but thanks for thinking of me.

You were banned because your report log was the longest in the history of the JREF, so stop your whinging.

I see that JHunter1163 claims that I had a bigger report log than Thunder. That's funny. Either he is lying, sadly mistaken or I also hold the record for the most posts reported that did not breach the membership agreement.

I had 12 infractions. Thunder had 60.

In Abandon All Hope, chances are that whatever post is first in a given thread was the one that was reported. It's not 100%, mind you, but it's a good indicator of reports.

I had 15 posts like that. Thunder had 123.

Thunder had thousands of posts in AAH. I, well, had maybe a couple hundred.

And yet somehow I managed to have a longer "report log" than Thunder? BTW, when you report a post, the vBulletin software creates a new thread in a special private forum under the *reporting* user's name, not the name of the person whose post was reported. If a second report comes in, it is added to that same thread. So what is this Report Log thing anyway?

If JHunter1163 is lying, that's very bad. If he is mistaken, then how could I possibly get a fair shake from the mod team in deciding to ban me?

If JHunter1163 is correct, that goes to show you that I had a target on my back. Thunder had five times as many infractions, 8 times as many posts in AAH where his was the first, and probably 10 times as many posts in AAH. That implies that a HUGE number of posts by me were reported and not actioned. I shouldn't be punished because people were reporting posts that did not breach the membership agreement.

It's funny, though. Thunder had 60 infractions. Plumjam had 50+. Little Grey Rabbit had 42. Childlike Empress at last count had 38. I had 12. And yet it was my "body of work" that caused me to get banned. I'm sure it had nothing to do with me being a watchdog over the mods. No, couldn't be.