John Cotter Posted March 22, 2023 Share Posted March 22, 2023 46 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said: Chris is piling it on Mark don’t you think? Is Mark obligated to respond? It seems like most of us are in agreement that Matthew was corrosive, and are not upset he is gone. Mark is within his rights to do so. Would you agree? I don’t agree. I think the issues Chris raised, which relate to fairness, transparency, evenhandedness and “rule-based order” (to coin a phrase), are legitimate and reasonable. We’re not all authoritarians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 22, 2023 Share Posted March 22, 2023 10 hours ago, Paul Brancato said: Chris is piling it on Mark don’t you think? Is Mark obligated to respond? It seems like most of us are in agreement that Matthew was corrosive, and are not upset he is gone. Mark is within his rights to do so. Would you agree? What is being contested here isn’t whether Democrats of the forum dislike @Matthew Koch for challenging them. I am laying out the facts that the reason given for his suspension using publicly available information in posts) which @Mark Knight called “stalking”, wasn’t a defined rule. Even if it was, Jim D has done exactly the same thing to Lance. Searched information and posted it in threads. This is a clear double standard and inconsistency in moderation. Frankly it looks like discrimination. Secondly, as per the rules, there is supposed to be a warning given. None was given to Matthew. He has had no communication since his suspension. For someone who pays into the pot to upkeep the forum, I find this very shabby indeed. To use a polarising example, if Matthew was a black, trans, jew, who sang the praises of the democratic party, would you be reacting the same? No. You’d be up in arms about it. It boils down to this; do you believe in having forum rules? Or do you prefer a demagogue like creature just making everything up as they go, who is not accountable? Would you like zero diversity here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 22, 2023 Share Posted March 22, 2023 15 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said: Remember to include that I didn't make the claim. I repeated a claim made by individuals I trust are knowledgeable of the incident. My experience with the Koch's of the internet is to exercise caution. His posts are indicative of someone slightly unhinged. You can also tell the cousin that I'll provide him with records of Koch's attempts at intimidation, gender bias, the works. Be my guest, Chris. TBH I don’t know @Matthew Koch’s cousin, I just forwarded the content to Matthew that looks like ‘libel’. I guess you’ll either get a letter through the door or not. We all have to be careful what we say, Leslie. We can all pay a dear price for a moment of silliness or rush of blood. I would caution everybody to keep a handle on their emotions. You should know better having formerly worked in PR (your claim). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 22, 2023 Share Posted March 22, 2023 14 hours ago, Bob Ness said: Just drop it, Leslie. It's important not to feed the tr@lls. Sounds like ‘ad hominem’ Bob. You are also using a prohibited term which isn’t allowed on the forum. Could you please remove this term. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 22, 2023 Share Posted March 22, 2023 14 hours ago, Matt Allison said: If there is this much lobbying spam for the misogynistic misinformationist Mathew Koch in the public forum, I shudder to think of the interminable missives directed at the mod's private inbox. Stop trying to gaslight everyone, Chris Barnard. This is an embarrassing spectacle. Why don’t you logically, rationally debate my complaint, @Matt Allison. You can’t. 🙂 I’ll just wait for the next ‘ad hominem’ from you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 22, 2023 Share Posted March 22, 2023 13 hours ago, John Cotter said: The pile-on here against @Matthew Koch and @Chris Barnard is a convenient distraction from the fact that moderator @Mark Knight has still not addressed the important points Chris Barnard has put to him. Why is Mark Knight unable or unwilling to address these points? Yes, all they wish to do is slide the thread, take it off topic and away from the crux of the argument. Isn’t there a rule about deliberately turning threads into chaos? Mind you, what good are rules if they are only selectively applied? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leslie Sharp Posted March 22, 2023 Share Posted March 22, 2023 51 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said: TBH I don’t know @Matthew Koch’s cousin, I just forwarded the content to Matthew that looks like ‘libel’. I guess you’ll either get a letter through the door or not. We all have to be careful what we say, Leslie. We can all pay a dear price for a moment of silliness or rush of blood. I would caution everybody to keep a handle on their emotions. You should know better having formerly worked in PR (your claim). I just forwarded the content to Matthew that looks like ‘libel’. You purport to be the arbiter of fair-mindedness, yet you failed to share your allegation of libel with me directly? sanc·ti·mo·ni·ous /ˌsaNG(k)təˈmōnēəs/ adjective DEROGATORY making a show of being morally superior to other people. Does cousin Koch need my contact information, or will you serve as hall monitor on this as well? Be careful where you meddle, Chris. med·dle /ˈmed(ə)l/ verb verb: meddle; 3rd person present: meddles; past tense: meddled; past participle: meddled; gerund or present participle: meddling interfere in or busy oneself unduly with something that is not one's concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Allison Posted March 22, 2023 Share Posted March 22, 2023 (edited) Is it known for a fact that ____ was a real person and not a sock puppet? IOW, is there verifiable biographical information about him? Edited March 23, 2023 by Matt Allison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cotter Posted March 22, 2023 Share Posted March 22, 2023 15 minutes ago, Matt Allison said: Is it known for a fact that Koch was a real person and not a sock puppet? IOW, is there verifiable biographical information about him? Says another poster whose forum bio seems empty - which is interesting in view of Mark Knight's message to me that I should fill in my bio "to avoid any penalties". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Allison Posted March 22, 2023 Share Posted March 22, 2023 6 minutes ago, John Cotter said: Says another poster whose forum bio seems empty - which is interesting in view of Mark Knight's message to me that I should fill in my bio "to avoid any penalties". Well, feel free to ask "Matthew Koch" about me, as he went digging into my biography; hoping to find something he could harass me with? His digs about punk rock were comically flaccid and fell flat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 22, 2023 Share Posted March 22, 2023 3 minutes ago, Matt Allison said: Well, feel free to ask "Matthew Koch" about me, as he went digging into my biography; hoping to find something he could harass me with? His digs about punk rock were comically flaccid and fell flat. Or perhaps he was trying to ascertain if your ‘doxing’ mentality was ‘dangerous’. You were playing this game long before he was on the forum. There is nothing worse that he has done, than you didn’t do to @Lori Spencer. You thought nothing of digging around in her life outside of the forum. Remember? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 22, 2023 Share Posted March 22, 2023 38 minutes ago, Matt Allison said: Is it known for a fact that Koch was a real person and not a sock puppet? IOW, is there verifiable biographical information about him? As if your comments couldn’t get more absurd, irrelevant or erroneous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 22, 2023 Share Posted March 22, 2023 1 hour ago, Leslie Sharp said: I just forwarded the content to Matthew that looks like ‘libel’. You purport to be the arbiter of fair-mindedness, yet you failed to share your allegation of libel with me directly? sanc·ti·mo·ni·ous /ˌsaNG(k)təˈmōnēəs/ adjective DEROGATORY making a show of being morally superior to other people. Does cousin Koch need my contact information, or will you serve as hall monitor on this as well? Be careful where you meddle, Chris. med·dle /ˈmed(ə)l/ verb verb: meddle; 3rd person present: meddles; past tense: meddled; past participle: meddled; gerund or present participle: meddling interfere in or busy oneself unduly with something that is not one's concern. Well, Leslie. I guess someone has to hang onto some semblance of morality. The best petty criticism you could up with was ‘meddling’. Have you looked at your own posts during the past 2 weeks since you were humiliated? Your sticky beak has been all over the place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted March 22, 2023 Share Posted March 22, 2023 (edited) 3 hours ago, Chris Barnard said: What is being contested here isn’t whether Democrats of the forum dislike @Matthew Koch for challenging them. I am laying out the facts that the reason given for his suspension using publicly available information in posts) which @Mark Knight called “stalking”, wasn’t a defined rule. Even if it was, Jim D has done exactly the same thing to Lance. Searched information and posted it in threads. This is a clear double standard and inconsistency in moderation. Frankly it looks like discrimination. Secondly, as per the rules, there is supposed to be a warning given. None was given to Matthew. He has had no communication since his suspension. For someone who pays into the pot to upkeep the forum, I find this very shabby indeed. To use a polarising example, if Matthew was a black, trans, jew, who sang the praises of the democratic party, would you be reacting the same? No. You’d be up in arms about it. It boils down to this; do you believe in having forum rules? Or do you prefer a demagogue like creature just making everything up as they go, who is not accountable? Would you like zero diversity here? This post, Chris, upsets me deeply. I’ll give you one point, which I bet others would agree with. Matthew should have been warned. Maybe he was. As for the rest of it, it’s now clear to me that you are doing far more than defending him. You are attacking what you perceive, wrongly, to be a bunch of misled mean spirited Democrats. Your next to last paragraph says an awful lot about who you think you are debating here, and it’s highly insulting. Edited March 22, 2023 by Paul Brancato Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leslie Sharp Posted March 22, 2023 Share Posted March 22, 2023 @Chris BarnardI am also astonished that @W. Niederhut thinks @Benjamin Cole is a problem. He is a nice guy who speaks his mind politely. I've been having difficulty pinpointing the approach, and it finally came to me. Sealioning refers to the disingenuous action by a commenter of making an ostensible effort to engage in sincere and serious civil debate, usually by asking persistent questions of the other commenter. These questions are phrased in a way that may come off as an effort to learn and engage with the subject at hand, but are really intended to erode the goodwill of the person to whom they are replying, to get them to appear impatient or to lash out, and therefore come off as unreasonable. @Chris Barnard Is this unconscious behavior, or a result of training? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now