An apology where someone can't explain the negative consequences of the behavour they're apologizing for is no real apology. I will reiterate that I find this behaviour cowardly and unbecoming. Since you seem to be confused about my preferences I will again state them openly: apologize if you really, legitimately think you did something wrong and understand what it was and can articulate it to me. Don't if you don't, and defend your claim appropriately. Since you are unwilling or unable to do the former up til now, I have to assume that your apology is insincere, as your defense of your behaviour implies. So do the latter full throatedly instead of half heartedly and provide your evidence.
edit: apologies like yours have no predictive power about your future actions. Since in your words your error was merely "overconfidence", not an attempted lie/smear, and you haven't demonstrated an understanding of how such actions could affect me, I don't see why you would feel the need in the future to not do exactly the same thing over again.
I find your mincing of words to be inaccurate and offensive. You have somehow "not claimed or even implied that I am a liar" while claiming that you "know" that I am someone who I claim not to be in public, and have done so previously. What would you call this, if not claiming that I am a liar or dishonest?? You have "taken my claim at face value" while defending to the death that there was nothing wrong with your initial observation except "overconfidence".
You did make the claim flippantly with zero evidence. This is an undisputed fact that you are free to rectify at any time, you have not provided a single shred of evidence other than your vaguest feeling that our posts are similar somehow. Make your effort post about my contributions to the forum to prove your case. What I find offensive is your flipflopping on the matter. According to you, you have both A) done something wrong and b) your analysis is actually good, you were merely overconfident, you have no systemic bias in your moderator actions, and it is somehow me being overly "emotional" to request a sincere apology.
You are still dancing around the consequences of your behaviour. You haven't answered: Why did you decide to smear my account like this? What are the consequences of discrediting my account by sharing false information?? Could it perhaps be that you wanted to produce a chilling effect and discredit the words that I write with no legitimate basis? If this is not true, attempt to explain how it is not. You have not done this.
If you refuse to either apologize sincerely or defend your claim in proportion to how inflammatory it is, I will indeed pursue other avenues or be forced to throw up my hands and accept this cowardly treatment. At the end of the day, your behaviour as a moderator is not your own business.
Edit: you have also decided to substitute your own altered version of my thought experiment instead of engaging at all with the meat of the issue: what effect do you think your words have on people who speak like Bob? Is it acceptable to you to unfairly impugn anyone as being Bob who's not willing to go to the lengths I have to reply with paragraphs and paragraphs to extract a half hearted apology on the matter? Does your apology say anything about how you will treat other people who speak like Bob? How should the book club authority's behaviour change to avoid this happening?
**Edit: I have now been banned by another moderator for this comment, which lays out factual statements in order to advance a coherent argument with reasoning and evidence. This is the latest in a sequence of actions the moderators have taken publically which I find to be unbecoming conduct: making wild accusations with no evidence, offering insincere apologies, lying about being willing to provide further details, refusing to respond when pressed, and now banning someone for daring to stand up to the authority of a moderator who clearly and demonstrably did something wrong because I am an outsider, I don't write in the accepted fashion, I'm not liked. The moderator insists I am being dishonest, but do you notice how when I accuse them of being dishonest I cite specific things they have lied about, while when I am supposedly dishonest there is literally no claim at all to evidence of this, and instead they resort to name-calling? I find this fact interesting. What do you think? The fact that I will be permabanned from this forum for trying to defend myself as an authentic liberal voice, not a lying alt, in the context of moderator actions having chilling effect on other past prominent leftist accounts is particularly ironic.
The statement that you " have no trouble grounding the discussion in specific cases" is demonstrably untrue.
In the last 2 weeks, you used your position as a moderator and an incredibly lazy armchair observation to impugn my character and outright lie. When called out on this, you at first failed to respond until prompted twice, made a very half hearted and insincere apology, denied you did anything substantially wrong, and offered multiple times to provide the reasoning behind your observation. After multiple back-and-forths and now a week and a half after your reasoning was requested, you also have failed to provide any of this mentioned reasoning or once again respond or show any indication of responding without prompting, and so have lied again to me.
All of this untoward conduct has occurred in public, and I am willing to defend every claim I have made about you in exact proportion to how inflammatory it is with evidence and reasoning. I cannot say the same of your words.
I think it's fairly clear that you did not "ground the discussion in a specific case" when you impugned my character casually because you didn't cite any specifics at all, you simply asserted a consensus that did not exist. This is despite multiple claims that you were willing to do so and that you have failed to follow through on, therefore as I said your claim is demonstrably false.
If you would like to position yourself as having better conduct than the user you're talking to, it would be best to reflect accurately the behaviour you yourself engage in on this forum.
More options
Context Copy link