The other one I banned was Stardusty. I was a bit conflicted, as he was a massive troll, but I had promised him his own thread where he could troll to his heart's content if he left Feser's. As he didn't actually take that off, and waited until Feser banned him, I thought it was okay to ban him when his trolling became too tedious.

John West wrote:

Based on the rules you just linked and what Jeremy has said, he would have banned you at least half a dozen times already.

Yes, except he'd have had to disqualify/ban himself a dozen times before that, if there were a formal debate going on as per those rules. Which there is not. Which is why we have the situation that we have. Which is why I suggest such rules.

Edit:
With rules in place, people would be compelled to behave accordingly. Without a rule in place people behave whichever way. Without a rule in place regarding e.g.that threads can be locked, locking of threads can legitimately be called moderator abuse. (Current rules only warn that posts can be edited/deleted and users banned.)

But if your response will be, "Okay, let's make a rule that threads can be locked" then this sequence of events will not look good:

1. A thread is locked even though there is no rule about it, with the moderator referencing patently wrong reasons for locking. ("You literally don't make anything even pretending to be a response to my points" when the immediately preceding post is, literally, a point by point response there for everyone to see.)
2. Complaint arises with a constructive suggestion to manage the situation.
3. The constructive suggestion is dismissed, and instead a new rule is devised to retroactively legitimise locking threads.

It looks like doubling down on moderator abuse when faced with a complaint. Does not look good at all. Jeremy has no recourse or reference to a rule when he locks threads. He simply says that he locks them. He says so and that's it.

Also, it will not change anything to re-open that particular thread. Because we are moving. Everything in this forum is basically over with now. Let's try to start anew a bit better.

Rules are there for a reason. Moderators themselves should be most aware of the rules and they should lead by example how things work here. Currently, things largely work here because we have a narrow topic and not too many members, but these little cracks are all the more noticeable for the same reason.

PS. I thought it was obvious what it was we're talking about, but now unfortunately I had to spell out "moderator abuse" for you. Normally Brits and Americans are world-famous for managing and administrating stuff, and quick-witted to see things coming. I sincerely hope the new forum will be better in every way, in terms of structure, arrangement, rules, and technical solutions. Now is the opportunity. Let's make the best of it.

Last edited by seigneur (1/11/2019 7:18 am)

I've been quietly investigating the matter of Jeremy since you started complaining. I'm waiting for one reply, but so far as I can tell right now the only person having any problem with him is you. In fact, some people have even complimented his moderating (N. B. mainly staunch conservatives).

Now, we have clear rules against posting off-topic so much it drags the thread off-topic (threadjacking). We've given you a tonne of room to air your complaint publicly, and two other avenues (i.e. Brian and I). I'll be deleting all further posts about this in this thread.