Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

A Public Statement From Stephen Speicher

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

(partial repost from Moderators Forum)

I would like to see what preceeding moderator action is commensurate to your actions here. I don't believe there are any, but I'm open to your proof. Some posts have been deleted (which means removed from the thread but still available to moderators in the trash can) but I don't recall ever seeing any moderator action where the entirety of the post was destroyed, beyond recovery, and replaced by a rule citing and no other information.  Editing out the contents of a post is NOT the same as deleting the post.

What you fail to see is how your implementation of the rules has destroyed the evidence that either supports your moderation efforts, or holds your moderation activity accountable. You have altered (or again I stress destroyed) the historical documentation that establishes a user's posting history, character and credibility.

"implementation of the rules" is the key phrase in that paragraph. Your right the "evidence" has been destroyed; what I didn't realize is what a big deal was going to be made out of deleting a post that said something to the effect of-- how dare you exclude me from anything (not a quote by the way)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 192
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I have been a prolific poster to this forum and I want to make a public statement in that regard. Unbeknownst to me -- with no notice or warning -- a moderator, NIJamesHughes, has modified the content

what I didn't realize is what a big deal was going to be made out of deleting a post that said something to the effect of-- how dare you exclude me from anything (not a quote by the way)

Up to this point I was willing to entertain the notion that you had made an innocent error. But given that you think that this summarizes Stephen's posts (I have read the posts) along with your refusal to see a problem with what you did (Betsy has raised many important points with your behavior), I can no longer believe that this was done innocently.

Link to post
Share on other sites
; what I didn't realize is what a big deal was going to be made out of deleting a post that said something to the effect of-- how dare you exclude me from anything (not a quote by the way)

With the evidence destroyed, I don't think it would be very judicial to refer to the content of the evidence by mere hearsay. That is the whole point of the "big deal".

Link to post
Share on other sites
Up to this point I was willing to entertain the notion that you had made an innocent error. But given that you think that this summarizes Stephen's posts (I have read the posts) along with your refusal to see a problem with what you did (Betsy has raised many important points with your behavior), I can no longer believe that this was done innocently.

actually that is almost word for word what the last post said. besides that i address's betsy's post, and i don't really care if you think it was innocently, I just applyed the rules as they were written.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of all the posts here that might be deemed worthless, you chose one of Stephen's to delete?!?!

If a person of that stature really did make a worthless post, so what? It's one bad one versus hundreds of extremely valuable ones. Surely there are a vast number of posts far more deserving of such treatment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Out of all the posts here that might be deemed worthless, you chose one of Stephen's to delete?!?!

If a person of that stature really did make a worthless post, so what? It's one bad one versus hundreds of extremely valuable ones.  Surely there are a vast number of posts far more deserving of such treatment.

such treatment??? I deleted 3 posts! I didn't call him names insult his mother or call him a communist, i just deleted three posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correction: NIJamesHughes, You deleted them and then used Mr. Speicher's name to post a rule without pointing out that they were your words and not his. It is about much more than "deleting three posts."

Edited by me to make it clear who I was talking to.

Edited by non-contradictor
Link to post
Share on other sites
Correction: You deleted them and then used Mr. Speicher's name to post a rule without pointing out that they were your words and not his. It is about much more than "deleting three posts."

Actually, if you want to check for yourself they all three say : "edited by" meaning "someone changed this post," AND "NIJamesHughes"

So I did in fact point out that I "changed the post," and that "I" changed the post.

So it is just about deleting three posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
actually that is almost word for word what the last post said. besides that i address's betsy's post, and i don't really care if you think it was innocently, I just applyed the rules as they were written.

What evidence do you have that that is "almost" word for word what he said? Are we to take you on faith?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, if you want to check for yourself they all three say : "edited by" meaning "someone changed this post," AND "NIJamesHughes"

So I did in fact point out that I "changed the post," and that "I" changed the post.

So it is just about deleting three posts.

I made a very important distinction about the difference between deleted and edited. This statement above indicates that you still fail to see that distinction. Additionally, your use of the term "big deal" is suggestive that you are still not seeing the full consequences of your methodology.

When you engaged in these moderator actions, you used the "Edit" button, not the "Delete" button. So for accuracy purposes, you should state from now on that you edited three posts, not deleted three posts. Once you recognize the logical consequences and concerns of editing posts in that manner, you may begin to see why this is a "big deal".

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, that is great policy for an Objectivist forum. Excellent answer, that clears the whole issue up. Thanks for revealing yourself.

Its just a question Thoyd, why are you acting scared and using the argument from intimidation? why not just say what else you can do. after all i didn't say that that was all that you could do, i just asked you what else YOU could do.

So thanks for revealing YOURSELF.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Its just a question Thoyd, why are you acting scared and using the argument from intimidation? why not just say what else you can do. after all i didn't say that that was all that you could do, i just asked you what else YOU could do.

So thanks for revealing YOURSELF.

Don't try to play me for a fool. First, I am not scared, certainly not by you. And you don't know what the argument from intimidation means. Or else you realized the brazeness of your remark, and are trying to back out of it by turning an accusation on me. I was being strictly serious in my response.

Your question was not one that invited a response. It was rhetorical in nature and you know it. "What else can you do?" With all evidence destroyed, what do you think should be one's response should be to your question?

Link to post
Share on other sites
such treatment??? I deleted 3 posts! I didn't call him names insult his mother or call him a communist, i just deleted three posts.

But why those three, when there must be dozens by other posters far more deserving of deletion (or editing out of existence)? Why specifically those three? Is it your position that the rules required the deletion of those three -- and NO OTHERS?
Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't try to play me for a fool. First, I am not scared, certainly not by you. And you don't know what the argument from intimidation means. Or else you realized the brazeness of your remark, and are trying to back out of it by turning an accusation on me. I was being strictly serious in my response. 

Your question was not one that invited a response. It was rhetorical in nature and you know it. "What else can you do?" With all evidence destroyed, what do you think should be one's response should be to your question?

Obviously, i do know what it means and can also recognize it when it is being used. Also obviously it wasn't rhetorical because i asked you twice and asked for an answer. And i don't know what your responce wouldbe, thus the motivation for the question. So are you going to answer or not Thoyd?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nobody is paying attention to our side skirmish here. [about the proper use of quotes]

I am.

I don't, and made no attempt to distance myself from the word. I merely had to explain it to you, and my proper use of quotes.

You said yourself that you used it as irony. Irony contains an element of distancing oneself from the word used in its vanilla non-quoted form.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviously, i do know what it means and can also recognize it when it is being used. Also obviously it wasn't rhetorical because i asked you twice and asked for an answer. And i don't know what your responce wouldbe, thus the motivation for the question. So are you going to answer or not Thoyd?

The obvious answer to you is NO, I will not take you on faith. Meaning that I do not believe what you say. You are by your own actions out of the bounds of evidence and yet want us to receive your word.

Your question amounted to, "Yeah, I destroyed the evidence. And now I am going to tell you what he said second-hand. What are you going to do about it?"

BTW, Can you please delete your posts? They violate (profusely) the spelling and grammar rules of the forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess NIJamesHughes regrets having destroyed the evidence. I can easily see that he might not have considered it a major issue at the time if he evaluated the posts as being rude without adding to the conversation.

If my son had been the victim of something similar, I'd have advised him to take it up with his teacher or the coach instead of taking his ball and walking away from the playground.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am.

You said yourself that you used it as irony. Irony contains an element of distancing oneself from the word used in its vanilla non-quoted form.

Excellent, lets dive into the hairsplitting. Yes, I did use the quoted word as a form of irony, that was the original intent of my usage. I was not trying to distance myself after the fact in my explanation to him. The intent was the same from inception to explanation.

Now, the very use of the quotes does place a distance from the user, but that was my original intention which demands that you know the original thread that was refered to. The thread was entirely forgettable in terms of conflict between these two. This raised the question in my mind of why this topic would be his first since April 30th. Thus, the use of the "nemesis".

Link to post
Share on other sites

NIJH please respond why you specifically targeted Stephen's posts for deletion, rather than someone else's. And also, please specify which posts you've edited but left a note that they were edited by you. I have just looked through 13 pages of Stephen's posts, a no easy task let me tell you, and I have seen no evidence at all of any modifications. So please indicate which posts were changed, and let's hope that Stephen can come back here and we can discuss this.

Btw, there's only one post by Stephen in the Trash Can, so hopefully the moderator that deleted it can chime in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

NIJamesHughes,

From what Burgess says, there are few volunteers for the job of moderator. So, first let me thank you for volunteering.

Secondly, I'm sorry to see the way this thread is proceeding: too much vitriol for my taste. I have not seen a single post that asked you where you were coming from AND did so in a non-condemnatory way, in order to elicit facts from you rather than to provoke a fight.

The facts as I understand them are:

1. Stephen posted

2. You, as a moderator, thought they violated a forum rule

3. You acted by pasting the rule over the original text.

You say that you did so in good faith, and I believe that.

I'd like to ask you just one question: if you could do this again, would you do anything different?

- Would you take his status as a long-standing member into consideration and give him the benefit of doubt?

- Would you warn him?

- Would you retain the original text while posting the rule?

- anything different?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviously, i do know what it means and can also recognize it when it is being used. Also obviously it wasn't rhetorical because i asked you twice and asked for an answer. And i don't know what your responce wouldbe, thus the motivation for the question. So are you going to answer or not Thoyd?

You can't win a lynching. Time to change user-names and come back as someone else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...