The Bad Astronomer
2005-Mar-18, 07:51 AM
It appears I made a mistake. Two mistakes, in fact.
This post is long, and somewhat complicated. Bear with me.
In this thread (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=20344&), JPax2003 and SciFi Chick started to argue. As I posted in the last message, JPax made what IMO was a (mildly) condescending post, essentially making fun of people who were using math -- correct math, I might add -- to make a point. IMO, he didn't understand the math, was being stubborn, and got frustrated.
SciFi Chick then replied, and her post was, again IMO, uncalled for. There were many paths she could have taken, but chose to use sarcasm. Again, I can see the frustration that was there. It's obvious.
Now, it's possible to disagree with people and still remain civil. Perhaps JPax already stepped over that line. SFC certainly did with her reply. This was not a banning offense, I'll add. IMO at the time, her reply came out of nowhere and was uncalled for, and had I seen it when she posted it I would have warned her. But I didn't, and things got worse from there. Coming in on page 8, I felt that both of them were baiting each other, and so I took action: I locked the thread, and banned them both.
On technical merits alone, this was not the correct decision. I did not warn either of them. This was a mistake. I generally do not ban people outright like that unless it is a vagrant violation of the FAQ (posting porn, spamming, outright insults, etc.). That is in fact reason enough to reinstate both of them.
But there is more going on here. I try to judge what I consider to be violations on their own merits, and not to look at past events. But I see now this is an unreasonable course of action; I have to make the case based on what I know. Sometimes one has to look over the whole, the history. SFC is a fine poster, and has contributed to the BABB quite well. If she were to slip up, should I not take into account her history?
Yes, I should. I've done it before. I've banned people who have skirted the line many times, only to cross it once. Take JSPrinceton, for example. I took his history as a brilliant scientific poster into account, but I also had to include his very abrasive posting style. I did in fact warn him, but he continued to post the same way. I had to make a very tough decision the day I banned him. I still feel bad about that.
SciFi Chick's history shows her to be pretty patient, a virtue in this game of skepticism. She has also been bright and cheery, and is clearly much loved here (more on that in a moment). However, she has also jumped in twice to fire the first shot (the 0.9999 thread linked above, as well as this thread (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=434774)). Some might question her "starting this", because there is apparently a history between her and JPax, and he has provoked her before. But in both these cases she came in and posted. She didn't have to. And IMO in the second thread (Lurker's Persian thread), I don't see where what JPax did was so awful (if someone can explain to me something I am missing, I welcome new information). What he posted was odd, and perhaps inappropriate given the nature of the thread, but not worth the rolleyes. If SFC thought it was inappropriate, she should have just said so.
However, given that I should have warned her and not banned her, and given her history here-- something in the future I will be more diligent about considering-- I have unbanned her. I should not have done it in the first place, and for that I apologize. I'm also sorry for any stress I caused as well.
However, I want to make clear that while my banning you, SciFi Chick, was a mistake, the correct action I should have taken was a warning. So: consider yourself warned. Don't post while you're that frustrated. It leads to no good.
Now, to JPax2003. I have gone over his threads as well. I will be honest, as I have to be: I can see why people have been irritated. Many of his posts sound condescending, and many sound immature. The repeated line "Thank you for your consideration" can only be regarded as baiting, IMO. I did not find any posts that were strictly violations of the FAQ, but many skirted it pretty hard. Of course, I could not read all 1667 posts, so there may be more.
I cannot include SFC's history without also including yours, JPax2003. Your behavior in that thread was poor, to say the least. There have been other threads as well with questionable posting tactics at best. There have been other occasions where you should have been warned. However, I think it would be unfair of me to unban SFC without unbanning you, given that it was my mistake for not warning you both.
I apologize to you as well for banning you, but this apology comes with a much sterner warning: consider very carefully your posting style. It does in fact rankle people, whether you think it does or not. If I see you baiting a poster again like you did, the next time you won't be reinstated. You need to rethink your methods, or else you will again find yourself at the very least on the receiving end of a lot of irritation.
..............
Now, on to me. I am unhappy about what's happened, of course. I don't like making mistakes, and admitting them is difficult. But I have to, because I have sworn to myself that I will be honest when I do. So I admit my mistake again. I am culpable as well for not having watched things more closely, and for taking the incorrect action. I apologize to the community here for the turbulence I caused.
I understand how upset people are. There have been posts on this board in the past few hours that were supportive of SFC, supportive (less enthusiastically, to be sure) of me, and some that were outright hostile toward me. I will add that my reconsidering this situation was due to the support of SFC from the community, and the plaintive posts asking me to rethink this. The hostile posts did not help, and in fact were an impediment to this. I am human, after all. Being called a coward (among other things) is not a great way to engender a proper frame of mind for rational thinking.
Let me be clear: I do understand those emotions. I deal every day with people who feed off of human misery. Day after day, week after week. It's grinding, and I sometimes have to struggle mightily to maintain my composure. The avatar of Buzz Aldrin wearing boxing gloves is in part a reminder to me to maintain that composure. I think I have done a decent job of not letting my temper run away, and while my own emotions have caused me to make some mistakes here, the signal-to-noise of this board is evidence that it is working at least in part.
If I can do it, others can to. That's why I wrote board FAQ the way I did.
However, this incident -- the fact that I stepped in too late to help, and that it was difficult to assess the history of the situation-- is evidence that this board is getting too big for me to handle alone. I am too busy at work and at home, and things will get busier soon, I'm sure. I had hoped that having people PM me when they see a problem brewing would take care of things, and it's been very helpful, but it's clearly not enough. This was the second mistake I referred to in the opening sentence of this post.
This situation is a wake-up call (for all of us), but I am not sure how to fix this problem. I still dislike the idea of moderators, for many reasons, but they may be necessary. I will consider it. I'll consider as many options as I can, but that is for another thread.
Finally, an important note: Some people have taken what I did as a sign that they cannot stand up to someone they think is wrong. This is incorrect. I have never tried to discourage that. This board, this entire website, is devoted to that very action!
What I demand is that it be done reasonably and politely. If someone is wrong, call them on it. If they continue to be wrong, continue to call them on it. Be persistent, be firm, but be polite. If they refuse to listen or act in a way that is contrary to a rational discourse, PM me. Given what I have learned here today, I will do what I can to deal with the situation reasonably and fairly.
This post is long, and somewhat complicated. Bear with me.
In this thread (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=20344&), JPax2003 and SciFi Chick started to argue. As I posted in the last message, JPax made what IMO was a (mildly) condescending post, essentially making fun of people who were using math -- correct math, I might add -- to make a point. IMO, he didn't understand the math, was being stubborn, and got frustrated.
SciFi Chick then replied, and her post was, again IMO, uncalled for. There were many paths she could have taken, but chose to use sarcasm. Again, I can see the frustration that was there. It's obvious.
Now, it's possible to disagree with people and still remain civil. Perhaps JPax already stepped over that line. SFC certainly did with her reply. This was not a banning offense, I'll add. IMO at the time, her reply came out of nowhere and was uncalled for, and had I seen it when she posted it I would have warned her. But I didn't, and things got worse from there. Coming in on page 8, I felt that both of them were baiting each other, and so I took action: I locked the thread, and banned them both.
On technical merits alone, this was not the correct decision. I did not warn either of them. This was a mistake. I generally do not ban people outright like that unless it is a vagrant violation of the FAQ (posting porn, spamming, outright insults, etc.). That is in fact reason enough to reinstate both of them.
But there is more going on here. I try to judge what I consider to be violations on their own merits, and not to look at past events. But I see now this is an unreasonable course of action; I have to make the case based on what I know. Sometimes one has to look over the whole, the history. SFC is a fine poster, and has contributed to the BABB quite well. If she were to slip up, should I not take into account her history?
Yes, I should. I've done it before. I've banned people who have skirted the line many times, only to cross it once. Take JSPrinceton, for example. I took his history as a brilliant scientific poster into account, but I also had to include his very abrasive posting style. I did in fact warn him, but he continued to post the same way. I had to make a very tough decision the day I banned him. I still feel bad about that.
SciFi Chick's history shows her to be pretty patient, a virtue in this game of skepticism. She has also been bright and cheery, and is clearly much loved here (more on that in a moment). However, she has also jumped in twice to fire the first shot (the 0.9999 thread linked above, as well as this thread (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=434774)). Some might question her "starting this", because there is apparently a history between her and JPax, and he has provoked her before. But in both these cases she came in and posted. She didn't have to. And IMO in the second thread (Lurker's Persian thread), I don't see where what JPax did was so awful (if someone can explain to me something I am missing, I welcome new information). What he posted was odd, and perhaps inappropriate given the nature of the thread, but not worth the rolleyes. If SFC thought it was inappropriate, she should have just said so.
However, given that I should have warned her and not banned her, and given her history here-- something in the future I will be more diligent about considering-- I have unbanned her. I should not have done it in the first place, and for that I apologize. I'm also sorry for any stress I caused as well.
However, I want to make clear that while my banning you, SciFi Chick, was a mistake, the correct action I should have taken was a warning. So: consider yourself warned. Don't post while you're that frustrated. It leads to no good.
Now, to JPax2003. I have gone over his threads as well. I will be honest, as I have to be: I can see why people have been irritated. Many of his posts sound condescending, and many sound immature. The repeated line "Thank you for your consideration" can only be regarded as baiting, IMO. I did not find any posts that were strictly violations of the FAQ, but many skirted it pretty hard. Of course, I could not read all 1667 posts, so there may be more.
I cannot include SFC's history without also including yours, JPax2003. Your behavior in that thread was poor, to say the least. There have been other threads as well with questionable posting tactics at best. There have been other occasions where you should have been warned. However, I think it would be unfair of me to unban SFC without unbanning you, given that it was my mistake for not warning you both.
I apologize to you as well for banning you, but this apology comes with a much sterner warning: consider very carefully your posting style. It does in fact rankle people, whether you think it does or not. If I see you baiting a poster again like you did, the next time you won't be reinstated. You need to rethink your methods, or else you will again find yourself at the very least on the receiving end of a lot of irritation.
..............
Now, on to me. I am unhappy about what's happened, of course. I don't like making mistakes, and admitting them is difficult. But I have to, because I have sworn to myself that I will be honest when I do. So I admit my mistake again. I am culpable as well for not having watched things more closely, and for taking the incorrect action. I apologize to the community here for the turbulence I caused.
I understand how upset people are. There have been posts on this board in the past few hours that were supportive of SFC, supportive (less enthusiastically, to be sure) of me, and some that were outright hostile toward me. I will add that my reconsidering this situation was due to the support of SFC from the community, and the plaintive posts asking me to rethink this. The hostile posts did not help, and in fact were an impediment to this. I am human, after all. Being called a coward (among other things) is not a great way to engender a proper frame of mind for rational thinking.
Let me be clear: I do understand those emotions. I deal every day with people who feed off of human misery. Day after day, week after week. It's grinding, and I sometimes have to struggle mightily to maintain my composure. The avatar of Buzz Aldrin wearing boxing gloves is in part a reminder to me to maintain that composure. I think I have done a decent job of not letting my temper run away, and while my own emotions have caused me to make some mistakes here, the signal-to-noise of this board is evidence that it is working at least in part.
If I can do it, others can to. That's why I wrote board FAQ the way I did.
However, this incident -- the fact that I stepped in too late to help, and that it was difficult to assess the history of the situation-- is evidence that this board is getting too big for me to handle alone. I am too busy at work and at home, and things will get busier soon, I'm sure. I had hoped that having people PM me when they see a problem brewing would take care of things, and it's been very helpful, but it's clearly not enough. This was the second mistake I referred to in the opening sentence of this post.
This situation is a wake-up call (for all of us), but I am not sure how to fix this problem. I still dislike the idea of moderators, for many reasons, but they may be necessary. I will consider it. I'll consider as many options as I can, but that is for another thread.
Finally, an important note: Some people have taken what I did as a sign that they cannot stand up to someone they think is wrong. This is incorrect. I have never tried to discourage that. This board, this entire website, is devoted to that very action!
What I demand is that it be done reasonably and politely. If someone is wrong, call them on it. If they continue to be wrong, continue to call them on it. Be persistent, be firm, but be polite. If they refuse to listen or act in a way that is contrary to a rational discourse, PM me. Given what I have learned here today, I will do what I can to deal with the situation reasonably and fairly.