Continued pestering and manipulation by moderator class

[Guide]

Several posts have been deleted to conceal behavior of the disturbed moderator "MagsJ" who continues to require supervision.

I received, among others of a like crack-pot charter, the following fraudulent and revealing of an irregularly mentally lost individual, private message, sent on behalf of the forum by the mental somnambulist "MagsJ" (in appearance [so far as anyone can ascertain]: hired without meeting the unknown owners):

"From: MagsJ
To: Guide

Guide wrote:
For some reason the myriad-teaming cesspool synonymous with the user "MagsJ", excreted this foolishness to me in private message (further cementing my view that this forum is beneath the level of intelligent discussion, producing sour fruit from the stalk of facile eristics and peculiarly feeble-minded disease of mind).

Guide wrote:
No. “Guide” means the same as in Tarkovsky’s “Stalker”, one who is a respondent of the circumstance. It is this authority, of the circumstance, that the stalker is honed into.

The change in the meaning of that word over time, would still make a stalker a stalker, for that is what he effectively is.. just not in male eyes, it seems.

I see where your posts have lead.. the initial harsh tones giving way for, and belying, a romanticism in you. Were you ever a fan of the movement?

Guide,

Personal attack threads against Mods are not encouraged, and this thread will therefore be removed from public view, and any such similar threads will gain you a second and further warning/s.

As a female, reading your post on the meaning of the origination of the word 'stalker' did not sit right with me upon first reading it, but I thought that I would reply to your post further in a DM, to investigate the (unsettling) subject matter further, and why you would choose it out of all the words and the books to choose from in the world.

[MagsJ]

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=194827

Moved to Meta. This, like the original removed thread, is not the grist of the Philosophy forum. It's a complaint about board moderation practices, i.e. a post about the board, i.e. the grist of Meta.



To the complaint: Mags' PM appears to have been sent in her capacity as a member, to discuss the ideas expressed elsewhere. There does not seem to be an express threat or warning of any moderator action (though of course everything a moderator does carries an implied threat).

The original thread was properly removed from Philosophy. It might have been better to move it to Meta, since here were are in any case, but a similar thread in response to a PM from another user would have been appropriately removed. The original thread, after all, was a complaint about a PM sent as user, so the thread airing distaste for such a PM was just taking a private disagreement public through personal attacks.

The dual role of moderators as both cops and citizens is complicating, and seems to explain a lot. Guide's reaction was likely partly to the implicit threat of punishment, and Mags reaction in turn was likely partly driven by her role in policing abuse. Thus, a philosophical disagreement seems to have escalated unnecessarily.

Karpel Tunnel's suggestion here is a wise one: if normal member-member interactions are impossible without escalating, avoid interactions. Don't initiate interaction, and don't respond to interactions. That should include indirect reference (e.g. preambles to threads which purport to exclude the other without naming but through clear implication), and also interaction in the course of duties.

[MagsJ]

You have simply repeated yourself here, and re-posted my DM, that I had already shared for all to see - the only one who is showing any lack of mental acuity here is you.

Your pesterings remind me of.. someone gold, and turdish.

[Carleas]

Locking this thread as duplicative, please discuss here.