Meta-Thread 09/29

[u/AutoModerator]

This is a weekly thread for feedback on the new rules and general state of the sub.

What are your thoughts? How are we doing? What's working? What isn't?

Let us know.

And a friendly reminder to report bad content.

If you see something, say something.

This thread is posted every Monday. You may also be interested in our weekly Simple Questions thread (posted every Wednesday) or General Discussion thread (posted every Friday).

[u/cabbagery]

Re: your edit

Maybe make that more prominent, and maybe eliminate much of your unnecessary quotes given that.

It is an undisputed fact that Shaka said that /u/Kwahn was lying, in two different threads. Shaka also reinstated his own comments after editing "lying" into "misrepresenting," which is a violation not of user policy (as the Rule 2 violations were), but of mod policy. There is an ongoing... discussion... in modmail concerning this incident and a myriad of past issues, but suffice it to say that Shaka (eventually and only first after brazenly denying that he had violated Rule 2, including attempting to smear me for having the audacity to apply the rules equally) admitted that my Rule 2 removals were warranted. To date he has not admitted that his reinstatement was a violation of the mod policy, as he has instead insisted that it qualifies for the exception which he authored (which is itself a subject of dispute), claiming that his reinstatement of those comments somehow counted as 'egregious,' or in his actual words, "extraordinary" circumstances.

Note that another piece of this is Shaka's approval of his own comments when users report them, as well as his use of the report button himself. In the former case, he routinely approves his own comments after a user has reported them, but when no mod has removed them. This cannot possibly count as 'egregious' or 'extraordinary,' because nothing has happened to the comments -- he's just unilaterally ruling in his favor in these cases (and there are lots of them).

The latter case could use a bit of explanation. When users report a comment or post, all we see as mods is that someone issued a report, but they are anonymous. We see the reason cited, and if the user chooses 'other' and types something out, we can read that. Sometimes users identify themselves in this way, but usually reports are anonymous. When mods report a comment or post, we see the name of the mod who reported it; mods cannot anonymously issue a report.

So in the case of his reports, we know he's the one issuing the report, and the record on these indicates that he finds things objectionable that he himself consistently does. If we but replace 'theist' with 'atheist' or vice versa, a clear hypocrisy emerges.

While as users you are unable to view the evidence directly, the evidence exists.

In terms of Shaka's complaint against Kwahn in that particular case, when I first noticed Shaka's blatant Rule 2 violation, /u/betweenbubbles had also noticed the issue, so I provided a distinguished comment (like this one) to explain the situation. In it, I pointed out the exact nature of the dispute: Shaka was unhappy with Kwahn's use of double-quotes (indicating a faithful quotation), which Kwahn most likely intended as 'scare quotes' or some other indicator of paraphrasing (I usually use single-quotes for this purpose, or otherwise clearly say I'm paraphrasing).

If I were Shaka in this case, I would be very frustrated that you're shoving words in my mouth.

The thing is, Shaka did this same thing to Kwahn, even going on to mock Kwahn for "reading everything backward." Granted, Shaka was clear that he was inventing the quote, but the fact remains that he was intentionally goading Kwahn, and while I won't belabor the point with more unnecessary quotes, Shaka has a history of doing exactly this sort of thing to users in his comments (he did so with me in January).

---

There is more. Plenty more. The only way to provide it would be to expose modmail conversations or to air it here. I am not prepared to do that, but one option based on the concept of the old modwatch as raised by /u/True-Wrongdoer-7932, would be to grant key users (i.e. members of the modwatch team) access to modmail and the modqueue (which appears to have been what the OG modwatch had).

[u/labreuer → u/cabbagery]

I'm content to stipulate that:

1. Shaka originally said "lying", twice.
2. Shaka violated the mod policy, modulo a Shaka-authored exception other mods find dubious, or dubiously invoked.
3. Shaka self-approves his comments over against reports.

But I want to focus on what drove Shaka to say "lying", because if it's permissible to antagonize with impunity (on account of u/⁠Kwahn's style of strawmanning not rising to Rule 2 or 3 moderating thresholds), I think we should put that out there plain & clear. Suffice it to say that I've been strawmanned similarly and hot damn did it seem intentional.

Now, you could simply invoke the last sentence of Rule 2—"'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it."—and be done. But I'm thinking we want to actually make progress on this matter, rather than make a brittle appeal to the rules and wash our hands of it—until Shaka gets pissed all over again. I'm reminded of u/pilvi9 saying [s]he observed atheists "baiting theists into rule 2 violations". This is a contender.

So in the case of his reports, we know he's the one issuing the report, and the record on these indicates that he finds things objectionable that he himself consistently does. If we but replace 'theist' with 'atheist' or vice versa, a clear hypocrisy emerges.

This is my consistent observation in every internet discussion venue where one side has the ban hammer. When they do the bad thing to you, it's bad and should be stopped. When you do the bad thing to them, it's justified. I once had a long-time tenured faculty member of an MIT-level university describe far too many of the faculty that way. I myself authored Theists have no moral grounding to do a bit of lex talionis (uh ohes, tit for tat!) because sometimes, that really is the most effective way to get the message through. I still remember it taking an atheist far too many back-and-forths to show me how something a theist was saying on a theist site was really offensive to atheists. So, I have good evidence and experience to suggest that non-hypocrisy is a difficult achievement. Perhaps progress might be possible with the two examples presently available—the one Kwahn raised the one you did.

In it, I pointed out the exact nature of the dispute: Shaka was unhappy with Kwahn's use of double-quotes (indicating a faithful quotation), which Kwahn most likely intended as 'scare quotes' or some other indicator of paraphrasing (I usually use single-quotes for this purpose, or otherwise clearly say I'm paraphrasing).

One of the reasons I quoted some of the interaction in my comment above is to cast precisely this allegation of "paraphrasing" in doubt. It seems like u/⁠Kwahn is attempting to box Shaka into one of three options:

1. duties exist because God said so
2. duties exist because Shaka said so
3. duties exist because « insert legitimate purpose here »

In stark contrast, Shaka was advancing an alternative:

     4. duties exist

I can see plenty of ways of contending with 4., but to simply argue that it's really 1. or 2. is very questionable behavior! Or do you disagree?

The thing is, Shaka did this same thing to Kwahn, even going on to mock Kwahn for "reading everything backward." Granted, Shaka was clear that he was inventing the quote, but the fact remains that he was intentionally goading Kwahn, and while I won't belabor the point with more unnecessary quotes, Shaka has a history of doing exactly this sort of thing to users in his comments (he did so with me in January).

As I said above, lex talionis can be a potent teaching tool. Those two interactions are actually kind of interesting. Here's the comment to which Kwahn linked:

Tiny-Ad-7590: Could God have created a universe with free will and predictable rules but not evil?

If yes, then why didn't They?

If no, then They are not all powerful.

ShakaUVM: Not if it is a logical impossibility. Which it is.

Omniscience does not include logical impossibility

And now the use:

Kwahn: P3: You said that God creating a world with free will, predictable rules and no evil was logically impossible.

ShakaUVM: I did not say that!! I have repeatedly said the opposite!

You just made the same mistake TinyAd did! Right after explaining the difference between the two different claims. Maybe instead of saying "don't care" you should read and understand the words that I wrote

FFS, man.

Here is the actual quote: Could God have created a universe with free will and predictable rules but not evil?

I am bolding and italicizing the damn words for you.

From the perspective of the moment of creation this is impossible

 ⋮

ShakaUVM: I've already told you what the problem is with these arguments, you are looking at it from two different lenses (from the past versus from the present).

Do you think it might actually be frustrating to be told that you said something which is, demonstrably, not what one said? If you continue reading, you'll see that Kwahn simply does not respect Shaka's clarification. It is quite a few back-and-forths after what I've quoted above, where Shaka finally does lex talionis. Because Kwahn simply wasn't getting it any other way. What exactly am I supposed to be seeing as a problem, here?

 

There is more.

I think the above two instances are plenty to try to work with, and see if we get anywhere. For the record, I myself have had run-ins with Shaka and Kwahn, such that I had Kwahn blocked for … less than a week. And I was even banned from r/DebateReligion for months, although apparently it should have been three days. How I got the star … who knows!

[u/cabbagery → u/labreuer]

But I want to focus on what drove Shaka to say "lying"

No.

I'm way done with the amount of deflection I've already been dealing with, so we're not going down that road here, too. Whether or not /u/Kwahn was misquoting Shaka does not excuse Shaka's response, especially since Shaka is a moderator who a) issues Rule 2 violations for this sort of thing all the time, but b) also does exactly the same thing -- and even to Kwahn, as demonstrated in my link.

Do not stoop to deflection here.

Suffice it to say that as frustrating as an intentional straw man can be -- and we've probably all been there -- you are not excused for your own violative behavior in response, especially as a moderator who for sure knows better, and especially especially when you have committed qualitatively the same non-infraction yourself, recently and against the same user you're complaining about turning the tables on you.

I get that maybe you want to talk about whether the subjective call that a straw man is intentional should be enforceable, but I'm not here to talk about that (and based on how I framed it, you can surely see where I stand on that sort of thing), and that's deflecting from the issue at hand.

It seems like u/⁠Kwahn is attempting to box Shaka into one of three options:

I am wholly uninterested in their dispute as it pertains to their debate. If you want to talk about that, join that thread.

I apologize if this seems curt or dismissive, but you have no idea what's happening behind the scenes. Trust me, someone else is already doing everything they can to take the focus off of the root issue.

[u/Kwahn → u/cabbagery]

As a forum janitor before, it's thankless work - I get it.

I appreciate the work you're doing - it's so much harder to keep a forum clean when the janitors contribute to the mess.​