On the other hand, if you read through the rule and through my first post, that I wasn't technically breaking the rule is a fact, not a opinion, as I provided a sufficient point of view. Usually, when a moderator makes a request to change the first post, the hint that it was in danger of being locked is implied. Maybe this wouldn't be if it were made privately with an emphasis on it being a request, but as it is, Vrael's a moderator, he doesn't like how the first post is written, he pulled out a rule, and he told me publicly about the dislike. Additionally, you saying 'it's apparent that you will not even be held to Vrael's original request at this point' implies that I was to be held to his request at some point, which, unless the definition of being held to something is different for the two of us, is in direct contradiction of your previous sentence.

Vrael judged this an individual case, sure. But he judged this to be an individual case where he should ask me to do something, however innocently, and not one where he should spare me, because my post was not in direct violation of the rule he informed me of and, thus, there was nothing to spare me from.

You keep pointing out that your topic was technically legitimate by the letter of the rules, but while asking for "each case to be judged individually". The latter rather implies not handling moderation via some oversimplified universal formula, and is what was done - your topic was found to be ambiguous, too close to the rules, and misfitting with the general theme that SD has maintained for some really long time ( intellectual debate on 'serious' issues ) .
Further, he pointed out that there's not really much argument for "was the election fair?", and I didn't see anything else made clear as the subject of the thread ( "all aspects" is exceedingly vague ) .
A subjective claim, unfortunately. Moose, apparently, had not read it that way, and I can say that I didn't.
The "it's apparent" is an important part of the phrase, I think.

Or, it simply was not apparent before. It does not necessarily contradict what Moose said.

Consider that this topic would likely not exist at all had you adhered to the spirit of rule #7 and not the letter.

I apologize if I implied anything I did not mean, but as the actual text of my post stands, I see no implications other than what I said. "edit your first post to include your viewpoint" is technically a command, but in no way implies that I was going to lock your topic. If I was going to lock it, I would have locked it, just like I had done to shadowfox's homosexuality and abortion topic, for instance, which is going to remain locked until he edits his first post or someone else unlocks it for some reason. I will endeavor to be as consistent as possible to minimize discrepancies over your predictions of my actions and my actual actions, but I believe it is safe to say that unless I explicitly say I am going to lock something, (or enact some other form of moderation) I'm not going to lock it. That is to say, the topic would be locked if I was going to lock it, and my post would have contained the reasons why it was already locked, and how to comply with the rules to unlock it, rather than an implication that I was going to lock it.

The topic was not called 'Was the Moldova Election fair?' for a reason. A debate does not have to be horrifyingly specific to be a debate, and thus I'd say 'all aspects' is reasonable. I wanted to discuss the fairness of the elections, why there would be such an uproar if the election was fair, and the feasibility of the whole communist system in Moldova. No, it's not a simple God vs No God debate, but I'd say that that's a definite plus. And, yes, I think each case should be judged individually. However, I meant it more in terms of allowing some topics that don't 100% meet the rules as opposed to closing those that do.

I admit I slightly overreacted to Vrael's 'requests', but I feel that what I should've done is still far closer to what I did than what you're telling me to do, so I'll continue. Here's what I got out of Vrael's first post:
' If it is communism you wish to be debated, by all means continue, but edit your first post to reflect your viewpoint on communism and its role in this story.'
Let's see... not a request, but an order, from a moderator who closes many SD topics. If you read it some other way, please tell me how you read it.
It seems to me that my interpretation of that rather simple sentence is much more intuitive and probable. Elaborate on yours.

But that's exactly my point. It wasn't apparent that I won't be held to your request. Thus, at least from my point of view, Moose's 'no hint that it was in danger of being locked for a rule violation' is a direct contradiction. Again, unless we have some different understanding of 'held'.

Consider that this topic would likely not exist at all had you adhered to the letter of rule #7 and not the spirit. Who are you to decide what the 'spirit' is? (yes, I know, the moderator, but that's not something that really fits into a debate)

Honestly, I'd be happy to drop this argument, since my baby topic is safe, but as my fragile ego demands me to get the last word (or a draw), it shall continue! Anyway, I already addressed this paragraph above, by pointing out that a moderator who closed several topics was telling me to edit my first post.

A) Vrael is made of win.

B)The forum is not too strict, nor the moderation.
C)Cent should be kicked out that forum on the grounds that no matter how absurd his arguements always are, he will never accept that what he says and believes can in fact be wrong/ stupid.

Well, if Shocko says it, it must be true...


I don't even think a 'lol' smiley is necessary here.

Are you serious? If this is true than <explitive> you for wasting all of our time over your <explitive>.

I hope that was nothing more than a bad joke.

So far, Centreri, I have closed three topics, moved one to Null, and deleted a bunch of posts. As for the topics I have closed, one ran its course, and two had extremely terrible first posts that were not worthy of SD. If you had predicted my actions correctly, you should have assumed then based on the other two that your topic would already be locked, because I gave neither of the other two topics a chance at life at all, but I didn't lock yours, so you should have assumed based on that that you were clear.

False.
The "it's apparent" thing does not contradict what Moose said, because the transparency of the statement in no way affects the probability of the locking of your topic. That is to say, the statement is irrelevant as to whether I was actually going to lock your topic or not. The locking of the topic was not dependant on the statement Moose made, and Moose's statement was not dependant on the locking of the topic. Consider the following:

Case 1:
The Statement: "It is not apparent that your topic will be locked AT THIS POINT."
The Action: Your topic was not locked.

Case 2:
The Statement: "It is WAS NOT apparent THEN that your topic would be locked."
The Action: Yor topic was not locked.

Do you see now? It has nothing to do with the definition of the verb "to hold," it simply is you failing to understand what was said through failing to understand the situation. Essentially, and based on the statement about your ego, you are making every attempt to be the best sophist that you can be and warp everything we say into some argument against us, rather than try to derive the truth of the matter at hand, because you may be at fault, and that is a consequence which you must not allow to be concluded.

Unfortunately, Centreri, while your statement does parallel mine, and clearly you wanted the parallel structure to ridicule me in some way, but your statement is dumb because it is not true, and it makes you look even worse. It is the spirit we are concerned about here, and the letter is only useful for enforcing things to the spirit. Secondly, I DID adhere to the "letter" of rule #7, while simultaneously adhering to the spirit.




Lastly, you lose because Shocko says so.

I'm seeing two scenarios:
A. You could have curttailed the entire argument here by saying, "Look at topic title". You still have to deal with the claim that there's little discussion to be made on that subject ( though whether that itself is worthy of discussion I've no comment on )
B. You misnamed the topic. There are so many flaws here that I'll just ignore B.
"Reasonable" is subjective. I still have no idea what you're talking about, and Vrael was apparently confused as well.
Your argument has been that it does meet the rules, only just barely. You're speaking of the wrong side of the line there.
The way you interpreted the statement seems the more obvious interpretation to you? I never would've guessed.
'It is now established past reasonable question what Vrael's intent was, and that it did not involve necessarily locking'.
An absurd argument. It is explicitly stated in the SEN ToS that the administration, and by implied extension, moderators to whatever extent the administration agrees with their use of this right/responsibility, has/ve the freedom to arbitrate arbitrarily as seen fit. And "letter" should never take priority over "spirit", as that makes about as much sense as insisting on going to a film developer before allowing anyone to view digital photographs you've taken. The latter ( "spirit" being the point of debate/digital camera ) renders the former ( "letter" being the point of debate/film development ) obsolete.

I got my topics safety. I think that the moderation is overly strict, but I know that I'm not going to get anything by arguing right now. I'm effectively arguing against three people on a largely subjective matter, you guys win by democracy. This debate is rather useless now. I'm not going to convince anyone alone. And, I'd made a mistake or two dealing with you in my SD topic, further hurting my case.

But yes, that was, at least partially, a joke. And the part that wasn't a joke is part of the reason you're continuing to argue as well.

Or I could've (and did) assumed that you didn't immediately close my topic because it was closer to allowable than the previous ones you closed. Let me make this clearer: For someone relatively new to the job, moderator of a largely inactive forum, you have a lot of closings.

Derive what truth from the matter at hand? What truth is there in this scenario? You are somehow trying to convince me that there was nil chance of my topic being locked, despite the wording of your first post in the topic saying otherwise and prompting Felagund to make this topic. And I'm not convinced. That's all there is here. You're overcomplicating the situation. At this point, I know that my topic is safe, so yes, you can make the argument that it was always safe, though your wording, from my point of view, said otherwise. Moose's wording was ambiguous (apparently), subject to interpretation, and the fact of the matter is that no matter what he said has nothing to do with whether the moderation was too strict or not or whether my topic was safe or not. As for calling me a sophist, that isn't very nice. As I'd mentioned, there's no 'truth' in this argument, so if I'm a sophist, so are you. Both of us here are doing nothing but posting our interpretations of events in such a way as to support our respective arguments.

Unfortunately, Vrael, while your interpretation does ridicule my parallel, and clearly you wanted the interpretation to ridicule me in some way, but your interpretation is dumb because it is not true, and it makes you look even worse.

Adhering solely to the 'word' of rule #7 would've stopped you from ever posting in that topic, or at the very least PMing me about a request for changing the content of my first spot. This topic wouldn't exist, proving (well, showing) your first sentence wrong. As for you adhering to the spirit, what do you want me to say? When you create some generic spirit of a rule, say that you're adhering to the letter of rule #7 simply because the topic is still open, even though you posted a reprimand for me. What argument is there against that? It's exactly like me saying that you're not adhering to the letter of rule #7 because you interfered as a moderator in a topic that adheres to the letter of rule #7. I believe it's a matter of innocent until proven guilty versus guilty until proven innocent, but I'm not going to elaborate or think more about it because my head hurts.

CAFG called you trigger happy .

I think that this is already happening, such as in that recent topic about elections in Moldova!

... Slightly?
Are we posting in the same topic?

I couldn't agree more.
Regardless, the outcome of your argument crossed the threshold into the realm of inconsequentiality some time ago. (assuming that it was ever outside of it.)

Not even Vrael is arguing anymore that my topic followed the rules as they were stated. He's saying that it wasn't up to par with the 'spirit' of the rules. Might want to find a rule that my topic was directly violating, Moose.

I didn't start this topic. I didn't post until page two, I believe (EDIT: And post #18). And when I DID post, it was in response to something you said. Yes, I believe 'slightly' fits. I wasn't here second post yelling about how Vrael should be kicked from the moderation team.

Not the thread, no. But this particular conversation has. If you decide to cut off this cancerous conversation, don't forget to cut off your post which kicked it off, hmm?

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Apr 11 2009, 10:35 pm by Centreri.

I find it amusing indeed that you edited your post not to reflect the edit of my post made while you wrote your original post, but rather to add the last sentence of your quote. (which I find disrespectful) The obvious counter is that "it takes two to tango".

(Truncated.)

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Apr 11 2009, 10:49 pm by Mini Moose 2707.

...? I don't actually recall doing any real editing. I edited the post above to change 'fight' to 'find' and to edit in the 'cut off your post' bit, but I don't believe I did anything else... and I don't notice what in particular you changed. I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about here.

As for the shut up clause, sure. I didn't start this thread, and what set this whole argument off was your first post in it, which made a direct link from my Moldova thread to this one. Previously, all I'd said was effectively that I didn't think that Vrael's style and method of interpretation was 'kind' enough for his judgement to decide the fate of topics instead of what the actual rules said. What, you thought after berating me in this thread about a separate one I'd sit down and say nothing?

Must I go into the database to prove that your last sentence was not in the original post?
Actually, I'm dropping this because I just discovered that I can't. That's not good.
What I changed can easily be discovered by looking at my post and your quote of it.

Likewise, I disagreed with your claim that moderation was strict. (in this case, other cases not considered)
Was I supposed to sit down and say nothing?

Also, I forgot to mention this before, but this isn't good for your credibility. You lose trust when I don't know if you're being truthful about your perceptions and judgments when you may in actuality be saying anything to be right and satisfy your ego. Particularily after you yourself claimed you were "arrogant" in the shoutbox yesterday.

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Apr 11 2009, 11:14 pm by Mini Moose 2707.

'Regardless, the outcome of your argument crossed the threshold into the realm of inconsequentiality some time ago. (assuming that it was ever outside of it.)'
versus
'Regardless, this thread has crossed the threshold into the realm of inconsequentiality. (if it wasn't there already)'?
What's the difference? I mean, I left out the 'I couldn't agree more.' on both of them, but since that was just you agreeing with Vrael that I'm a horrible person, what's the point of quoting it?

No. This is why there's a debate about it now. I'm just not the one threatening you with a ban over it (nor would I be, if I could).

EDIT:
If you trust all great psychologists (Freud, I believe, though he's pretty much the only one I know), most of what we do we do to satisfy our ego. You're definitely satisfying your ego by pointing out that my credibility is damaged, your satisfying your ego by arguing with me (and, you think you're winning), just like I'm satisfying mine by arguing with you (and think I'm winning). As for everything else, yes, I'm arrogant. So are you, I've never seen you back down from an argument, and I've never seen Vrael back down from one either. Plus, if I'm vocal enough to proclaim to everyone I'm arrogant, why do you particularly distrust my being truthful about my perceptions and judgements? I'm obviously someone who says whatever comes to his mind .

I like to win or else according to my arguments. The debate we had here now was unwinnable because it relied on perception. I perceived this and that, and you guys were saying I had no reason to do so. Whatever.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Apr 11 2009, 11:20 pm by Centreri.

The difference is THE THREAD being inconsequential versus the PARTICULAR ARGUMENT of this case.

I would ban you for dispect during this debate, not this debate itself.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Apr 12 2009, 6:42 am by Mini Moose 2707. Reason: Clarification

Which part wasn't a joke? This is extremely important. Secondly, I will be explicit about the reason I am still arguing: I am convinced that you are wrong, and wish to show you that, so that this matter can be effectively closed with all parties sharing the same viewpoint. While this does leave me vulnerable to being manipulated by people who just want to waste my time, in general I think it's the better thing to do, so I'll take the risk.

Well, first, there's your problem "assumed," for one thing. Secondly, that is an invalid conclusion, because I had not closed any other topics of similar nature to yours after first allowing the original post time to be edited.

That is because, as the moderator in question, I can tell you explicitly that there was no chance of your topic being locked, and secondly, the wording does not imply that I would lock your topic.

Your point of view was wrong, and no reasonable person would imply that the topic would be locked from what I said.

The truth hurts sometimes.

False.
My personal agenda is to derive the truth of the matter, not forward my own personal status or "righteousness" or prove you wrong. (Except that proving you wrong is a necessary consequence of deriving the truth in this case). I wish for this matter to be resolved between all parties (namely, you and I), and as you have not shown any compelling reasoning or text to show that you are right, it is necessary for me to attempt to show you that I am right and you are wrong. There is always a "truth," whether it be as simple as "the apple is red" or as complex as quantum field theory.

Now you're trying to ridicule me again through parallel structure, and you are failing even harder. To ridicule me in this way, you would first need to prove how I was wrong, then employ the parallel structure as the final sentence to drive home the point. Indeed I was hoping to show you how ridiculous you were being, but I clearly failed on that point since you continued the cycle of parallels. Here I hope to end it.

False, I did adhere to the "word" as you call it, and still posted in your topic.

Yes well, I was joking about Shocko's post to be quite honest.

First, this is irrelevant to what Moose was talking about, and second, I never argued that. It's irrelevant because there is a rule that says "Posts judged to be of a low quality will be deleted at the moderators discretion." Rather than delete your post, I requested that you edit it a bit.

Centreri, please inform me what what things I would need to show you, to prove to you that you are being unreasonable in this case. I fear that you are following the same path as others I have known, you try and argue the hell out of it and refuse to accept anything at all that could prove your case wrong.

Also False.
http://www.staredit.net/topic/6569/2/

Is there anything I could say or show, that would prove to you that you are being unreasonable?

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Apr 11 2009, 11:29 pm by Vrael.

Oh. Sorry. I'll edit that. But you know, it doesn't automatically update something for me when you update your post, I just copy paste the text... It doesn't take energy to change it back, it takes energy to change it to update what you added in, so if you expect me to update every single time you do that, that's just unreasonable.

I have so much to say to this, including comparisons to certain unmentionable persons, but alas, that would be disrespectful. To show my respect, I will leave this thread. Good day.

To refuse to try, to refuse to regard the thoughts and reason of others, to walk away from a difficult task: This is no respect, but rather weakness and vulgarity.

I agree. I was just amused when discovered that the edit you made to your post was not the one I expected.
In retrospect, my reaction was disproportionate and I apologize for it. (the "truncated" portion of my other post)

I might be, I might not. The nature of my position does not make it advantageous to show weakness publicly.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Apr 11 2009, 11:43 pm by Mini Moose 2707.