• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Audio Critic

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bullwinkle! Just test me.

Steve Eddy said:
He can only have received them if he actually saw them!

Just because you have sent something doesn't mean it has been received. And unless you have some proof that he in fact saw them, I think he's owed an apology.

se

I issued the warnings as per the Membership Agreement; it is not my responsible beyond that point. If you wish to state he did not "receive" the warnings then we have a point of disagreement that we will have to agree to disagree on since Wellfed certainly did receive warnings as per his Membership Agreement.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
 
You know, there's not just a Member Agreement in force here that members are expected to abide by. There's also a Moderator Agreement which one would assume moderators are also expected to abide by.

From the Moderator Agreement:

You have the responsibility to ensure requests and warnings are issued in an appropriate manner. You may chose to make a warning or a request to a Member private via a PM or email or you may chose to make the request or warning public as a post in a thread or as an announcement thread.

Ya get that? AS A POST IN A THREAD. Your warnings to Wellfed were NOT issued as a post in a thread or as an announcement thread. They were issued as a note within an existing post made by someone else.

In Wellfed's case you have clearly failed in your responsibility to ensure that requests and warnings were issued an appropriate manner as detailed in the Moderator Agreement which you agreed to abide by when you became a moderator.

Oh, there's also this:

Moderator actions are subject to appeal. The appeal will be handled by a Moderator and an Administrator not involved in the action (if possible). The decision of the appeal is final.

I think Wellfed should file for an appeal, and an apology.

se
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bullwinkle! Just test me.

Darat said:
I issued the warnings as per the Membership Agreement; it is not my responsible beyond that point.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

Moderators don't issue warnings as per the Memeber Agreement. Moderators issue warnings as per the Moderator Agreement. The Member Agreement applies to members and their actions. The Moderator Agreement applies to moderators and their actions. The Member Agreement doesn't empower you to issue warnings. The Moderator Agreement does.

And you most certainly did not issue your warnings as per the Moderator Agreement.

se
 
Steve Eddy said:
You know, there's not just a Member Agreement in force here that members are expected to abide by. There's also a Moderator Agreement which one would assume moderators are also expected to abide by.

From the Moderator Agreement:

You have the responsibility to ensure requests and warnings are issued in an appropriate manner. You may chose to make a warning or a request to a Member private via a PM or email or you may chose to make the request or warning public as a post in a thread or as an announcement thread.

Ya get that? AS A POST IN A THREAD. Your warnings to Wellfed were NOT issued as a post in a thread or as an announcement thread. They were issued as a note within an existing post made by someone else.

In Wellfed's case you have clearly failed in your responsibility to ensure that requests and warnings were issued an appropriate manner as detailed in the Moderator Agreement which you agreed to abide by when you became a moderator.

Oh, there's also this:

Moderator actions are subject to appeal. The appeal will be handled by a Moderator and an Administrator not involved in the action (if possible). The decision of the appeal is final.

I think Wellfed should file for an appeal, and an apology.

se

You do not seem to have read the complete Moderator Agreement, it also states (red added to highlight):

Editing Posts:

Moderators:
Posts may only be edited to remove or alter content that is in violation of the Membership Agreement.

Edits should be clearly marked by using the “Edit Box”. (Ensure that your name and the reason for the edit is clearly stated.) As a general policy the edit box should appear in the same place as the edited content was removed, the exception to this (at your discretion) is when a word has been “asterisked” under Rule 9 – “No profanity”, then the edit box may appear at the end of the post. If you need to post further comments, such as a warning then you should use “Moderator’s Box” in conjunction with the “Edit Box(es)”.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bullwinkle! Just test me.

Steve Eddy said:
Moderators don't issue warnings as per the Memeber Agreement. Moderators issue warnings as per the Moderator Agreement. The Member Agreement applies to members and their actions. The Moderator Agreement applies to moderators and their actions. The Member Agreement doesn't empower you to issue warnings. The Moderator Agreement does.

And you most certainly did not issue your warnings as per the Moderator Agreement.

se

You are mistaken. As I posted above the warnings were made as the Moderator and Membership Agreement state they will be (also they were in line with the customary practice).
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
 
But wait! There's more!

There's also this:

The general guideline is that if the request or warning will serve a purpose beyond addressing an issue with a specific Member then it should be made public.

Since you chose to make the warnings public, what was the purpose beyond addressing Wellfed's actions that you thought making it public would serve?

se
 
Re: But wait! There's more!

Steve Eddy said:
There's also this:

The general guideline is that if the request or warning will serve a purpose beyond addressing an issue with a specific Member then it should be made public.

Since you chose to make the warnings public, what was the purpose beyond addressing Wellfed's actions that you thought making it public would serve?

se

None. If you wish to continue a discussion about the Moderation of this forum I suggest you start a thread in “Forum Management” an area set aside for these types of discussions.
((Edited to add) You've misunderstand that part of the agreement, it is in place as a guideline to the Moderating Team so that something that may effect more then one Member is made public e.g. if a Member was being warned about using a word that wasn’t previously covered by Rule 8 that should always be made a public warning. It does not mean that that a warning should only be made public if it effects more then one Member.)
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat


(Edited for earned to warned.)
 
Darat said:
You do not seem to have read the complete Moderator Agreement, it also states (red added to highlight):

Editing Posts:

Moderators:
Posts may only be edited to remove or alter content that is in violation of the Membership Agreement.

Edits should be clearly marked by using the “Edit Box”. (Ensure that your name and the reason for the edit is clearly stated.) As a general policy the edit box should appear in the same place as the edited content was removed, the exception to this (at your discretion) is when a word has been “asterisked” under Rule 9 – “No profanity”, then the edit box may appear at the end of the post. If you need to post further comments, such as a warning then you should use “Moderator’s Box” in conjunction with the “Edit Box(es)”.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

Ah, so a technicality in the editing etiquette section trumps the specific means mentioned in the Requests and Warnings section?

How sleazy.

se
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bullwinkle! Just test me.

Darat said:
You are mistaken. As I posted above the warnings were made as the Moderator and Membership Agreement state they will be (also they were in line with the customary practice).
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

Then all I have to say is that your customary practice, which expects posters to routinely go back and re-read their own posts is just plain idiotic.

se
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bullwinkle! Just test me.

Steve Eddy said:
He can only have received them if he actually saw them!

Tell you what, Steve. You try a little experiment.

You pick any highway whose speed limits are enforced by photo radar. Speed on it. When you get the ticket in the mail, don't open the envelope. Then try to contest the ticket using your statement above verbatim as a defense and see exacty how far that gets you.
 
Re: Re: But wait! There's more!

Darat said:
None. If you wish to continue a discussion about the Moderation of this forum I suggest you start a thread in “Forum Management” an area set aside for these types of discussions.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

Nah, I've said all I have to say. I'll just recommend Wellfed file for an appeal.

se
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bullwinkle! Just test me.

Moose said:
Tell you what, Steve. You try a little experiment.

You pick any highway whose speed limits are enforced by photo radar. Speed on it. When you get the ticket in the mail, don't open the envelope. Then try to contest the ticket using your statement above verbatim as a defense and see exacty how far that gets you.

Bad analogy. A better one would be that in the above scenario the ticket was delivered by being fastened to the speed camera you had already passed.

Issuing warnings solely by editing past posts does seem to be a method prone to delivery failure.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bullwinkle! Just test me.

Thumbo said:
Bad analogy.

Yes. Very bad. Even if you don't open the envelope, you know that you've been sent something by your local law enforcement agency.

A better one would be that in the above scenario the ticket was delivered by being fastened to the speed camera you had already passed.

Yeah. Or perhaps better still, if the ticket was sent to an old address, and they expect you to keep going back to your old home to make sure nothing's been sent to you there.

Issuing warnings solely by editing past posts does seem to be a method prone to delivery failure.

Yes. I'm at a complete loss to see the sense in it. I've not encountered another forum which does it this way. Warnings are either issued as separate posts, via private EMail or both in order to assure that the warning gets through to the violator.

And while it may be the "custom" here to do it that way, that custom isn't detailed in the Member Agreement and there's nothing in the Member Agreement that would lead any reasonable person to believe that they need to keep going back re-reading their previous posts in order to avoid missing a warning.

Like I said, it's just idiotic.

se
 
Reading Previous Posts and Warnings

I have to agree, to a point, that posting warnings in a previous post does seem to violate the letter of the Moderator Agreement.

However, I have to side with Darat. There are two points that sway my opinion solidly that he did indeed sufficiently warn Wellfed.

First, Darat correctly claims that he followed the established precedence. Wellfed has standing to argue for improvement to the process, not but for mitigation of his suspension this time.

Second, given Wellfed's insistence that the forum members provide specific quotes and that the members reread the pages of his posts, he should have reviewed these threads enough to see the highlighted boxes involved.

Next, I argue that Darat's warnings are a kindness, not a requirement. We all read, or should have read, the agreement. We're each responsible for our actions. We each know that JREF is an educational foundation. We each know that children can access this forum. We each should know that children do access this forum.

Finally, to Wellfed, I need to be frank again. Please listen carefully. An apology, especially a sincere apology, must never be followed by "but it's your fault, not mine." Your attack on Kramer is misplaced and inappropriate in the context of an apology. I apologize for being so forward. I do care about you and your claim. Please understand I mean this in a way to help.
BTW, I never did receive a single cease and desist order despite Kramer's assertion to the contrary. Hmmm, now why is that doesn't surprise me?
 
Re: Reading Previous Posts and Warnings

Gulliver said:
I have to agree, to a point, that posting warnings in a previous post does seem to violate the letter of the Moderator Agreement.

However, I have to side with Darat. There are two points that sway my opinion solidly that he did indeed sufficiently warn Wellfed.

First, Darat correctly claims that he followed the established precedence. Wellfed has standing to argue for improvement to the process, not but for mitigation of his suspension this time.

Second, given Wellfed's insistence that the forum members provide specific quotes and that the members reread the pages of his posts, he should have reviewed these threads enough to see the highlighted boxes involved.

I doubt highly that I've ever insisted anyone re-read any of the record. The truth however does lie in the record and I would highly recommend anyone that wants to know the truth to search the record.



Gulliver said:
Next, I argue that Darat's warnings are a kindness, not a requirement. We all read, or should have read, the agreement. We're each responsible for our actions. We each know that JREF is an educational foundation. We each know that children can access this forum. We each should know that children do access this forum.

My apology was sincere as was my ignorance. I would not have used a profanity had I not believed that this particular term had been deemed acceptable practice.

Gulliver said:
Finally, to Wellfed, I need to be frank again. Please listen carefully. An apology, especially a sincere apology, must never be followed by "but it's your fault, not mine." Your attack on Kramer is misplaced and inappropriate in the context of an apology. I apologize for being so forward. I do care about you and your claim. Please understand I mean this in a way to help.

My apology was issued to Forum members in particular, not Darat or Kramer. Like Steve Eddy, I view the warning mechanism to be idiotic. I wasn't told the reason for my suspension even after writing JREF for an explanation. I have no need to make an issue of it any longer, I have been reinstated and nothing is going to change history. I simply hope they will choose to use their noggins the next time a warning needs to be issued to anyone. BTW, I truly appreciate "forward" when presented in a civil way.
 
Re: Reading Previous Posts and Warnings

Gulliver said:
However, I have to side with Darat. There are two points that sway my opinion solidly that he did indeed sufficiently warn Wellfed.

First, Darat correctly claims that he followed the established precedence.

But members here aren't asked to agree to the "established procedures" they're asked to agree with the Member Agreement.

And as I said, the "established procedures" aren't clearly laid out in the Member Agreement and there's nothing in the Member Agreement which would lead a reasonable person to believe that they must routinely go back and re-read their own posts in order to keep from missing any warnings that may be issued in those posts.

Wellfed has standing to argue for improvement to the process, not but for mitigation of his suspension this time.

Why?

Wellfed was ultimately suspended not for using bad language, but for allegedly ignoring the warnings that were issued within his previous posts.

Since the "established procedures" are not made clear in the Member Agreement and the Member Agreement gave Wellfed no reasonable expectation that he must continually re-read his previous posts in order to avoid missing any warnings, I would argue that the failure here was ultimately on JREF's part, not Wellfed's.

Next, I argue that Darat's warnings are a kindness, not a requirement. We all read, or should have read, the agreement. We're each responsible for our actions.

Certainly. And I'm not arguing that Wellfed shouldn't be responsible for his actions and I don't believe he would make such an argument either.

But as I said previously, the action taken against Wellfed was ultimately for his alleged inaction, i.e. ignoring the warnings.

And in that regard, the idiotic "established procedures" which are not made clear in the Member Agreement nor reasonably expected by any reasonable reading of the Member Agreement allows JREF to set people up to be blindsided.

"Oh look! An eagle!"

*THWAP!*

se
 
Sherman Bay said:
This thread would be a heckuvalot shorter, at least in screen real estate, if some people wouldn't have 7/8 of the post in their signature.

I'm just sayin'.
Sherman, turn off sigs (and avatars) using the cp and your screen will clear up better than an application of the GSIC. :)
 
back to the topic

The three-day forum suspension Wellfed received has caused a considerable stir here, like it was some big deal. It was not.

What is more important is the JREF rejection of the CLAIM.
Let's get back to that, shall we?

****** Bullwinkle (image) posted by webfusion ******

Gee, Rocky, when do ya think that Wellfed will come to realize that he isn't going to be tested? He even got the eMail telling him so! What a maroon!

Then comes ANDA's reply:

What email might that be? Can I assume Kramer is playing games with your head again if he has given you reason to believe such an email exists? Perhaps you simply dreamt that one up in your sleep and Kramer has nothing to do with your faulty belief (this time anyway).

======================================

Let's be straight here.

Michael Anda knows that his claim was rejected.
He knows that because he read the Challenge Application thread where it clearly says so, and he acknowledged it in this very thread, as well as in his My Struggle thread.

I suspect (and still do) that the only reason Michael Anda even entered the Million Dollar Challenge in the first place was to form a basis for a lawsuit. The more I read of his remarks, the firmer my belief is.

We shall see...


Originally, I asked about the "official notification" of his rejection in a posting made to Wellfed directly:

posted by webfusion
subject: The LostAngeles Test Will Proceed

Mr Anda indicates:
"My offer remains open as well."

No, it most certainly doesn't. Your claim was rejected.
Didn't you get an eMail about that?

If you received such communication, the record you posted here is incomplete.
Please clarify with the JREF, if you have not gotten an eMail that officially rejects your claim.
from page 2 of the thread My Struggle

This was ignored totally by the Former Applicant Known as Wellfed.
I assumed it was because he had me on his "ignore list" (an assumption that proved to be incorrect, as Wellfed later admitted that he indeed wasn't ignoring me during this particular time frame).
Even Beady chimed in then and asked "What part about 'the train has left the station' don't you understand?"
(BTW, May 3rd, the day of these exchanges, was when Wellfed started getting hot under the collar and repeatedly cursed the JREF and repeatedly had his posts edited by the admin. for breaches).


KRAMER replied, after jmercer and myself kept asking if Wellfed has "officially received" the notification of his claim being terminated :::: "Yes."
(He went on to clarify that Wellfed, by means of his reading the threads, has indeed been notified)

In fact, the reply by KRAMER went on to state:
  • Although there is no rule regarding a requirement for any notice in writing to be submitted by the JREF to an applicant notifying them that their claim is being rejected, Mr. Anda is aware that his claim was rejected, as evidenced here in his MY STRUGGLE thread. There is no doubt that he is aware. None.

    All we really need do is be sure that the applicant knows of it.

    And he knows it.

    We are not required to submit a rejection letter to him via post or email, if that's what you are asking, but we always do, regardless.


================================

Anda keeps hammering away:
"JREF's credibility is currently the heart of the issue as far as I am concerned."

and this:
"Now I am simply intent on exposing JREF misdeeds."

and finally:
"I have not broken any of THE TWELVE OFFICIAL RULES GOVERNING THE JREF CHALLENGE and am entitled to testing under its provisions."


Now, let's see what Wellfed then says, in his very first posting after the brief suspension was lifted.
Here are his exact words, which appeared directly below that very post about his notification of being a Rejected Applicant (the explanation as KRAMER offered it):

BTW, I never did receive a single cease and desist order despite Kramer's assertion to the contrary. Hmmm, now why is that doesn't surprise me?

What is amazing, skeppers, is that Wellfed is now accusing me, webfusion, of "simply dreaming up (this stuff) in your sleep and Kramer has nothing to do with your faulty belief (this time anyway)" >>>>
===================================

Notice the similarities of the argument that is being vigorously pursued by Wellfed, regarding his suspension on the forums, as if he did not "receive" the notifications from the moderator, nor any notifications from KRAMER.

====================================

The rules say that "If necessary a member will be banned from the forum."

Has Wellfed reached that point, yet?
Not quite, but he is certainly getting awfully close.
 
Re: Re: Reading Previous Posts and Warnings

Steve Eddy said:
But members here aren't asked to agree to the "established procedures" they're asked to agree with the Member Agreement.

And as I said, the "established procedures" aren't clearly laid out in the Member Agreement and there's nothing in the Member Agreement which would lead a reasonable person to believe that they must routinely go back and re-read their own posts in order to keep from missing any warnings that may be issued in those posts.

(Snipped yadda, yadda, yadda)

se

Oh, LOOK! Another "new member" that appears out of nowhere to champion poor Mr. Anda! Someone who suddenly rides in on their white horse, wearing shining armor... who apparently, in 22 posts, has become an expert on JREF, the JREF forums, the poor persecuted Mr. Anda's plight, and Darat's apparent failings!

My, my, my... we are getting a rash of these, aren't we? Not that I'd draw any conclusions from that, of course. :D
 
Mr Eddy

It was already acknowledged that Mr Anda and Mr Eddy have an ongoing relationship outside of these forums.


I first asked about that on April 6th.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870847701#post1870847701
(I was curious about Mr Anda having mentioned a Steve Cortez when this new "Steve" suddenly materialized here)

Re: any connection?

quote:Originally posted by webfusion
Is "steve eddy" really Steve Cortez at Audio Asylum?


No.

"steve eddy" is not really Steve Cortez at Audio Asylum. "steve eddy" is really Steve Eddy at Audio Asylum.

quote:What about it, 'se' ? Do you have a prior familiarity with Mr Anda that prompted you to join this discussion?



Yes.

I've been a regular user on Audio Asylum for the past five years (in fact yesterday was my fifth "anniversary") and had participated in some of the threads there about the Chip. I've also corresponded with Mr. Anda via EMail and we've had a number of telephone conversations.

That answer your questions?

se

I thanked him for the information at that point and dropped it.

The fact that Mr Eddy is now pursuing the suspension issue so diligently, seemingly on behalf of Anda, really irks me (even after Darat specifically asked it not be further discussed in this thread at all).
 

Back
Top Bottom