Jano "The ultimate Con-man and Liar?" thread...You be the judge

[Millard]

Only you didn't stop it. The reason reason you didn't stop it is because it never occurred.

What did occur is Jano posted several quotes out of context and cried publicly that you were giving special treatment to certain members.

However with that being said, I'll point out once more that no rules were violated. I've appended the offending comments below in context:

The "wife" in question wasn't even Jano's; it was someone else's, and there was no threat made. It was an analogy.

I never thought these MESO moderation principles would prove to be so controversial. Yet here we are...

(1) Alluding to the physical assault or sexual assault of a forum participant and/or his family members is prohibited in all contexts.

Anyone who violates this rule will be penalized with a temporary ban in most cases.

Not only do they deserve it, it's owed to them. It's the members that make the forum, not the administration or the advertisers. Members give you their time without receiving any financial compensation. At the very least, you owe them your loyalty and some appreciation.

(2) A foundational principle of MESO-Rx forum moderation is the application of the rules with impartiality.

MESO recognizes and appreciates all valuable contributions to the forum.

However, in absolutely no circumstances does anyone receive special treatment or consideration in regard to the application of the rules. No one is above the rules. The rules apply to everyone regardless of their contributions to the site. No one deserves, or is owed an exemption from following the rules.

You fucked up here, Millard. Big time. Given the fact that Brutus has been a respected member in good standing for 10 years, this needs to be rectified immediately. Anything short of full reinstatement is unacceptable and will serve as an example to all that investing the time and effort to contribute to Meso, build an account, make friends, etc. is a pointless endeavor that can all be taken away in an instant.

The only thing required to rectify the situation is respect and adherence for the rules once a member returns from a temporary ban.

 

[Millard]

To reply to your wall of text:

Alluding to the physical assault or sexual assault of a forum participant and/or his family members is prohibited in all contexts.

Did this happen? Yes.

Was he penalized as a result? Yes, with a temporary ban.

Yes, I will take you up on your offer: please provide a critical discourse analysis to justify why this forum should allow anyone to allude to the physical and/or sexual assault of other forum participants and/or their family members in any context, specifically the phrase "I am face fucking your wife".

@Millard I too concur with @CensoredBoardsSuck. It is painfully obvious how @janoshik spin-doctored the whole discussion; he didn't even try that hard really, it was done more or less as a joke/fun. He even confirmed it him self, that this is a bit of fun for him, a guilty pleasure:



It was an analogy, albeit distasteful, it was semiotically sound - well placed. The cheating wife and the pedophile one. When I get more time on my hands, I can do a short critical discourse analysis if you wish, as this is my field.

I haven't been following the thread a page or two after that, so I don't know what transpired afterwards, but on the basis of those initial shared analogies and thoughts, banning Brutus can be interpreted as giving leniency to a source or subduing to his influence. A source which is now also friends with the boards most notorious source; they even went on a date lately off which a log was made.

While you can post walls of text if you wish, explaining the logic of your decision (the length of which only takes away your credibility), looking at your actions structurally, the conclusions of censoredboardssuck make all lot of sense. Either you were fooled or you had some other incentives/motifs; I'm not going to assume one or the other, but obviously I'm having a hard time imagining how anybody could be fooled so easily.

If the analogies we are using is something users of this forum must be weary about, you should make a formal statement, explaining the new rules of this forum, so everybody can - per your policies - thread more carefully from now on, especially when dealing with high profile sources.

Either way, I concur Brutus should be brought back and apologized to.

 

[Jin23]

To reply to your wall of text:

Alluding to the physical assault or sexual assault of a forum participant and/or his family members is prohibited in all contexts.

Did this happen? Yes.

Was he penalized as a result? Yes, with a temporary ban.

Yes, I will take you up on your offer: please provide a critical discourse analysis to justify why this forum should allow anyone to allude to the physical and/or sexual assault of other forum participants and/or their family members in any context, specifically the phrase "I am face fucking your wife".

Respectfully, I don't think you understand the issue at hand, or you are pretending not to. So let me state this loud and clear once again; he did not allude to the physical or sexual assault of a forum member. It was an analogy, period.

Your supposition is thus wrong and your enforcement of the aforementioned rule (1) is hence void.

If you do not understand the semantic value of an analogy, I'm sure I can try and explain it to you. Ofc you can try and argue how his words actually were a threat. In defense (or justification of your actions), if there is a conversation to be made, it would be around this point. But as of now, this is how the situation looks like: you don't like how Brutus communicates, his use of "foul" language, politically incorrect analogies, etc. have no place in the new "woke" meso culture and thus you saw an opportunity to ban him. In this new hypothesis I'm disregarding any potential biased loyalties to parties who bring money to the table, which is a generous perspective indeed.

While brutus might have used foul language, the truth is that he is well articulated and his reasoning and logic are on point. Surprisingly so. I would much rather have such forum members then the flood of juvenile aas abusing kid's (and man child's) which have been roaming meso lately. The average meso thread, where people ask for advice and one of us "senior" members doesn't chime in, is a proverbial chit show of horrifically bad advice. Senior members like brutus are thus particularly valuable participants of these boards. Presuming he is actually adding any value to the forum ... I do understand however, the value of having some communication standards on an aas forum, where people's mind's tend to turn to mush while on these drugs and thus where there is a big inclination towards primitive roided "locker room" type of talk. But you could just say so then and not pretend he was "threatening" something ...

But let me get one thing straight. He is only temporarily banned and not permanently?

 

[Millard]

I'm sure I can try and explain it to you. Ofc you can try and argue how his words actually were a threat. In defense (or justification of your actions), if there is a conversation to be made, it would be around this point.

Please do explain in detail the "I am face fucking your wife" analogy and how it could be perceived as a threat and as an analogy for me and everyone else who reads Brutus' words.

But as of now, this is how the situation looks like: you don't like how Brutus communicates, his use of "foul" language, politically incorrect analogies, etc. have no place in the new "woke" meso culture and thus you saw an opportunity to ban him. In this new hypothesis I'm disregarding any potential biased loyalties to parties who bring money to the table, which is a generous perspective indeed.

Conflict of interest is the reason I stay on the sidelines with source discussion. I have never recommended or endorsed any source in public or in private for over 15 years.

I always encourage members to take the initiate at criticizing and holding sources accountable (as long as they avoid these references to sexual/physical violence).

I have a very long record to show that members are not restricted in such cases. And any time someone is banned, it is for cause independent of their criticism of any source. It is easily provable because members continue to regularly criticize these sources.

In the case of janoshik, please how any "biased loyalties to parties who bring money to the table" would have any relevance here since I've never received anything from him personally other than his hostility.

While brutus might have used foul language, the truth is that he is well articulated and his reasoning and logic are on point. Surprisingly so. I would much rather have such forum members then the flood of juvenile aas abusing kid's (and man child's) which have been roaming meso lately. The average meso thread, where people ask for advice and one of us "senior" members doesn't chime in, is a proverbial chit show of horrifically bad advice. Senior members like brutus are thus particularly valuable participants of these boards.

I agree completely. I know him to be extremely intelligent and a master with words. In private, I've had several exchanges that have been nothing but positive and respectful. So nothing could be further from the truth that I am "looking for a reason to ban him".

I do understand however, the value of having some communication standards on an aas forum, where people's mind's tend to turn to mush while on these drugs and thus where there is a big inclination towards primitive roided "locker room" type of talk. But you could just say so then and not pretend he was "threatening" something ...

I agree. This specific type of talk involving physical/sexual violence isn't productive on a harm reduction forum. How would you go about codifying this? I am respectfully asking.

But let me get one thing straight. He is only temporarily banned and not permanently?

Yes. I think the ban expires in a few more days.

 

[Eman]

Alluding to the physical assault or sexual assault of a forum participant and/or his family members is prohibited in all contexts

He did not allude to the physical assault or sexual assault of anyone.

The analogy, in less vulgar terms: someone walks into their house and catches their wife willfully having an affair, should they just assume it's the one and only time she cheated because it's the one and only time she was caught cheating? In parallel with: Jano was caught lying once, do we just take his word that it's the one and only time he lied because he was only caught the once?

The whole point of the analogy relies on it not being sexual assault at all. If he meant sexual assault, the analogy makes no sense... it's not an analogy at all. Even if it were an analogy and he actually DID refer to sexually assaulting someone's wife, then I would wholeheartedly agree with you - I've never agreed that sexual assault comments should be allowed here, regardless of their context - but that is most definitely not what he said here.

 

[readalot]

It was an analogy, albeit distasteful, it was semiotically sound - well placed. The cheating wife and the pedophile one. When I get more time on my hands, I can do a short critical discourse analysis if you wish, as this is my field.

If you end up doing this analysis make sure you cover this sentence (atrtached below). I agree the analogy would have been sound without this sentence. This sentence is problematic for the construction as a whole.

Wait…. You feel the facts about why you are not trustworthy are somehow not relevant because of repetition? You got caught with a _________in your mouth. No matter how many times I call you a pedophile it will never lessen the accuracy of the statement. I’m glad you decided to stop screwing people over and lying, but when it comes to scams I am a one strike and you are out guy. The date thing was CBS , but that doesn’t lesson your fake test any more than anything else anyone says. I think it’s nice you have some dummy accounts here to pump yourself up, and find it even more satisfying you have to keep several accounts going to make up for your life being so empty you need to hustle a steroid board to make a living. Keep up the good work.

 

[Eman]

If you end up doing this analysis make sure you cover this sentence (atrtached below). I agree the analogy would have been sound without this sentence. This sentence is problematic for the construction as a whole.

Again, analogy. Not quite as good as the first one, but an analogy nonetheless.

Jano's argument was that his scamming incident has been discussed repetitively, ad nauseum. Therefore, it should just be left behind and forgotten.

Brutus' counter argument, in much more colorful language, was that he scammed and that we could keep calling him a scammer until the end of time and it would still be a true statement. Talking about it a lot nor the passage of time doesn't somehow exonerate Jano by default.

Accusing someone of being a pedophile is not against the rules here as far as I'm aware, in any context... even if it's an analogy. If it were, this forum would have gone through several mass extinctions after the witch hunts I've seen.

 

[Jin23]

If you end up doing this analysis make sure you cover this sentence (atrtached below). I agree the analogy would have been sound without this sentence. This sentence is problematic for the construction as a whole.

There is nothing to analyze here. Calling somebody a pedophile is not threatening harm, it's just calling somebody a name. It has nothing to do with: "(1) Alluding to the physical assault or sexual assault of a forum participant and/or his family members is prohibited in all contexts.".

 

[Jin23]

I appreciate your calm demeaner in discussing opposing critical views to your decision making.

I agree. This specific type of talk involving physical/sexual violence isn't productive on a harm reduction forum. How would you go about codifying this? I am respectfully asking.

I took place in producing more reality shows then I'd like to admit. While these shows aren't scripted in the same way as a fiction film is, they do have a set of rules which then creates a certain environment and inclines the participants to act in a certain way. Also, the selection of participants is also crucial; a psych profile is made for everybody and certain character types are put together for which you know you'll either create tension, or partnerships, etc. In terms of a forum such as this (the reality show which is meso hehe), I think parallels can be made: a) setting some rules which are oriented towards conducing the type of environment you'd like to foster is crucial (and also reminding people ever so often of them) and b) supporting the types of personalities you'd like to hang on too, as those personalities will push the environment towards the desired outcome. How exactly you'd go on about this ... I suppose there are a lot of ways but I just had some emotional drama with my ex and my head is not in the right place, at all. I can share some thought and ideas at a later time ...

Yes. I think the ban expires in a few more days.

Well, then, ... this changes things a bit. And with your stubbornness (no pun intended), you've somewhat convinced me that you truly see things like you're saying and that there were no other motifs behind your decision making, so I've lost my motivation to discus this matter further. Although discourse analysis is something I like doing, I'm not in the right head space at the moment. It is an important discussion to be made though, at least in regards to forum moderation, especially as it relates to the aforementioned topic of "nurturing" the right environment. Seeing as you are the sole moderator of the public domain which is meso, going over such an example and why it might have been the wrong (or right) decision, could be a good illustrating example. But maybe a separate thread, dedicate to just this discussion would be a better idea too.

 

[pigeonhed]

Over the past fourteen years, my journey on this message board has been marked by numerous meaningful interactions with @Millard. Typically, a day’s wait would yield a thoughtful response to my messages. I've often been gratified to find that my ideas resonated, finding a receptive audience. There have also been times when the feedback I received prompted me to reconsider my views, which has been a valuable part of my personal growth. Through it all, our conversations have remained free from emotional upheaval, characterized instead by a respectful and gracious exchange of ideas.

When it comes to topics like bans or interpreting the board's rules, such matters warrant an in-depth conversation and should not be sidelined as tangential comments in this thread. I hold the community and this forum in high regard; they are significant to our self-expression. I extend my best wishes to everyone here, hoping they find ample opportunity to share and engage. Good luck to all.

 

[readalot]

There is nothing to analyze here. Calling somebody a pedophile is not threatening harm, it's just calling somebody a name. It has nothing to do with: "(1) Alluding to the physical assault or sexual assault of a forum participant and/or his family members is prohibited in all contexts.".

You are crawfishing a bit (respectfully). First an analogy now it is fleshed out as more?


From the Terms page. ..


You agree to not use the Service to submit or link to any Content which is defamatory, abusive, hateful, threatening, spam or spam-like, likely to offend, contains adult or objectionable content, contains personal information of others, risks copyright infringement, encourages unlawful activity, or otherwise violates any laws. You are entirely responsible for the content of, and any harm resulting from, that Content or your conduct.

 

[Jin23]

You are crawfishing a bit (respectfully). First an analogy now it is fleshed out as more?


From the Terms page. ..


You agree to not use the Service to submit or link to any Content which is defamatory, abusive, hateful, threatening, spam or spam-like, likely to offend, contains adult or objectionable content, contains personal information of others, risks copyright infringement, encourages unlawful activity, or otherwise violates any laws. You are entirely responsible for the content of, and any harm resulting from, that Content or your conduct.

You're smart enough to not loose site of the argument at place, right? The discussion was if brutus was "(1) Alluding to the physical assault or sexual assault of a forum participant and/or his family members" and not about if his words were "defamatory".

 

[janoshik]

Grown up men defending pedophile and rape 'analogies' on Christmas Eve.

Surely making their families as proud as Brutus is with his 'colorful' language.

Good lord, that's just outright sad.

 

[readalot]

You're smart enough to not loose site of the argument at place, right? The discussion was if brutus was "(1) Alluding to the physical assault or sexual assault of a forum participant and/or his family members" and not about if his words were "defamatory".

I am jumping ahead to a potential reason for a temp ban and addressing @Eman 's comment in the same post. My bad, it is not my site; it is Millard's.

There could be a case made for defamation based on the sentence highlighted above. I agree (1) would not be the reason for a temp ban. Falsely accusing someone of a heinous act on the other hand is within the scope of the Terms.

 

[JeffroCat]

Grown up men defending pedophile and rape 'analogies' on Christmas Eve.

Surely making their families as proud as Brutus is with his 'colorful' language.

Good lord, that's just outright sad.

Shut the fuck up, Slavaclause. No one gives a shit what you think.

 

[readalot]

I suppose there are a lot of ways but I just had some emotional drama with my ex and my head is not in the right place, at all.

I am sorry to hear this and regret engaging you in an academic debate/discussion now. Had I known this I would have not tagged you on all this. Hang in there and I hope you feel better soon. Been there and i think I know how you are feeling. Hit me up if you want to talk. Happy Holidays.

 

[readalot]

Shut the fuck up, Slavaclause. No one gives a shit what you think.

Bless you. Where is B Ware and his gif when you need him.

Merry Christmas.

 

[janoshik]

Shut the fuck up, Slavaclause. No one gives a shit what you think.

Quite a vulgar projection. To reiterate - good lord, that's just outright sad.

I'm a boring middle-aged man with no friends

 

[Eman]

Grown up men defending pedophile and rape 'analogies' on Christmas Eve.

Surely making their families as proud as Brutus is with his 'colorful' language.

Good lord, that's just outright sad.

It's not Christmas Eve here, nor where you are...

I've defended you too, publicly and privately, on more than a few occasions. What's right is right. If the tables were turned and it was you with the colorful language, I still would have said what I said... it's not like you don't have a history of some pretty colorful language yourself, so maybe save the holier than thou lecture.

 

[janoshik]

It's not Christmas Eve here, nor where you are...

I've defended you too, publicly and privately, on more than a few occasions. What's right is right. If the tables were turned and it was you with the colorful language, I still would have said what I said... it's not like you don't have a history of some pretty colorful language yourself, so maybe save the holier than thou lecture.

Oh, give or take a couple hours. Who cares.

Anyway, yes, and I was banned for far longer for far less during a time when MesoRx was far more lenient in regard to such talk. Was I not?

It's a rhetorical question. I don't care about pursuing this debate further at a time like this.


I just honestly find it sad and hope people have a better thing to do on the holidays.