Monday, May 17, 2010

Farewell Arcadia!

Signed into my Hotmail account today and noticed a lovely little e-mail from the Mod of the Arcadia forum ("Suspension from Arcadia Forum‏", Sunday, 16 May 2010 10:36:16 PM):
We have noticed that you have published private messages arising out of the Arcadia forum on your blog. Not only is this against the Arcadia house rules, but we consider this to be disrespectful and unethical. You will therefore be suspended from the Arcadia forum for a period of 6 weeks.
Your account has been deactivated and will be reactivated on 27 June, but only should you delete the messages immediately from your blog (within 24 hours); otherwise consider your ban to be permanent.
The "private messages" he refers to are featured here. It wouldn't surprise me if someone dobbed me in. Otherwise, it means Mr. Mod "checks up" on me, which is cool in itself.

Anyway, I was left with a tough decision, especially in light of the brief timeframe ("24 hours"). I was caught between a rock and a hard place (plus, I've got a busy night ahead). Do I censor myself and ride out the six week suspension or do I make a stand against this hypocrite? After some careful consideration, here's what I wrote back ("RE: Suspension from Arcadia Forum‏", Monday, 17 May 2010 4:05:25 PM):
Let me tell you what's unethical: exhibiting double standards in carrying out your censorship policy against forum members.

You repeatedly censored and warned me about "personal attacks", but allowed David and co. to do the same unhindered (until very recently). You've even been ok with him advertising his merchandise on the forum, even though this is against the board's "spam" policy.

After I reported another member ("Archangel Michael") for posting personal details and such, did you punish them? No, of course not. You slapped me with a two week suspension.

Did you check out the IP of this member against another harasser ("George")? Buggered if I know. And wouldn't you know it? Now clarmonde's been complaining about getting harassed by another member on there. Great "police" work there, Mod!

What choice did I have? You do display double standards in upholding your rules. Slapping me with a six week suspension is an absolute joke. For what? Telling the truth?

So, you know what? Perm ban me. I'm not going to succumb to your threats. Or your double standards.

Have a good one.
Well, it was a good run while it lasted. So, to fellow forum members, no, I haven't chickened out or gotten bored with Arcadia. It's still a lively place for discussion. But there's only so much of this kinda crap I can take. After all, I had to found my own forum to escape this kinda wonky censorship.

Wouldn't be surprised if the Mod starts deleting my posts in a hissyfit or reporting me to "higher authorities". Welcome to the Highgate Madness, folks!

But hey, why not seize a golden opportunity? Here's a follow-up message I've sent to the Mod ("RE: Suspension from Arcadia Forum", Monday, 17 May 2010 4:20:54 PM):
Oh, by the way, would you like to do an interview for my blog? I'd love to hear your thoughts on the Highgate biz, since you've had to filter so much of it via discussions on the forum.

Let me know, ok?
Reckon he'll get back to me? I bloody hope so.

Sunday, May 16, 2010

Easing Up on Double Standards

Looks like the Mod of the Arcadia forum has eased up on the double standards previously evinced (see: "Double Standards Elsewhere" and "Zero Tolerance?").

As Gareth J. Medway reports:
David may or may not agree that the 'tulpa' theory could explain sightings of 'ghosts', or even the 'Highgate Vampire', but you will have to wait a while to hear his opinion, since a Moderator, who to judge from his photograph is a French priest who died in 1917, has for whatever reason suspended him from this board for two weeks.
Justice served. And the best part? I didn't have anything to do with it. Dave hoist himself with his own petard by carrying on with his personal attacks against other forum members and so forth.

Incidentally, the reference to "a French priest who died in 1917" concerns the Moderator's cribbed profile pic:

The bloke in the photograph is François Bérenger Saunière (1852–1917), best known for his association with conspiracy theories concerning Rennes-le-Château.

Monday, May 10, 2010

Zero Tolerance?

I uncovered the double standards held by the Arcadia forum Moderator in the previous post.

Recently, Andrew himself posted up a stern warning the participants in the Highgate Vampire thread:
I would like to start by thanking everyone for their contribution on this part of the forum.

At the same time, I have asked the moderator to manage this thread differently than the others, with zero tolerance for bickering and personal attacks.

I don’t care who started it – end it now please or you will be banned.

Thank you.
In light of the somewhat shady and incredibly selective interpretation of "personal attacks" by the Moderator (despite the Forum's clear "House Rules") I'm somewhat apprehensive about Andrew's post. That's one reason why I decided to share the content of this post and the previous one: quite frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if I wind up banned from the forum.

Not for "personal attacks", mind you. I try and avoid those as much as possible. But for the Moderator's tunnel vision. For instance, why was Barbara allowed to get away with calling "Venator" a "ladyboy"?

Why was David arrogantly, hypocritically and deceptively allowed to insist that I and "Venator" are the only people "making personal insults" against other members, and then (ironically) follow it up with attacks on intelligence?

Sure, Andrew's post hadn't been posted then. But jeez, what about the damn House Rules? You know, the same ones the bloody Moderator wrote!

So, in the aftermath of Andrew's post, it's gonna be very interesting seeing how the Mod handles these two.

Double Standards Elsewhere

I previously reported on the double standards shown by the Healthypages forum.

Unfortunately, this principle exists elsewhere, namely on Andrew Gough's Arcadia forum.

When I cautioned a fellow member of the forum, clarmonde, about certain other members (in light of recently being stalked by them), I was sent this message by the board's Moderator ("Re: is everything connected to Highgate supposed to b sinister?.", 07 Apr 2010 9:45 pm):
I have had to delete part of your recent post, which was a personal attack. This is your second warning. Should you be warned again, you will be suspended from the forum. Please read the House Rules.
Here's what I wrote back ("Re: is everything connected to Highgate supposed to b sinister?.", 07 Apr 2010 10:05 pm):
Firstly, how would advising clarmonde to be "wary" of Caled and George be a "personal attack". George was suspended, but you seem to have allowed him back on again. Meanwhile, Caled has been harassing claremonde in PM, going by her own post.

I requested that you check the IPs of George and Caled, as they are possibly the same person. Instead, you seem to have ignored this.

Now, you're singling me out for "personal attacks"? This is after the numerous personal attacks against me, like David referring to me as an "idiot" for certain Protestant beliefs I have?

Are you kidding me?
To which they replied ("Re: is everything connected to Highgate supposed to b sinister?.", 07 Apr 2010 10:32 pm):
Advising someone to be wary of someone else is a personal attack.

Your request was not ignored. I replied to you about this, indicating that I was not able to reveal identities of forum members.

You are not being 'singled out', as you say. Other forum members are contacted frequently, but I am not able to let you know who has been warned and when.
Here's what I wrote back, minus the quotes from that reply ("Re: is everything connected to Highgate supposed to b sinister?.", 09 Apr 2010 12:48 am):
As opposed to the multitude of personal attacks against myself, and others that are allowed to take place on the forum?

Also note that if I'm making a personal attack by telling clarmonde to be "wary" she's the one telling Caledfwlch to leave her alone on the forum, and also making reference to private convos. Here's her latest.

And nor was I asking you to. As I said, it was only a matter of confirming whether or not they were the same person. I also noticed you allowed George back on, despite his stalking my home address and picture, which he proudly admits to doing.

Yeah, except the difference is, you've threatened to suspend me if I post anymore "personal attacks" (even something telling other forum members to be wary), meanwhile, it's clear that folk like damiana, David, Sheila, etc. are allowed to carry on unhindered.

That's a hell of a double standard.
This reply went unanswered. Later on, I was being harassed by another forum member, "Archangel Michael", so I reported him to the Mod ("See What I Mean?", 18 Apr 2010 5:48 pm):
Hi there Mod,

Archangel Michael has posted the same picture George sent me via PM. Except this time, he's published it on the forum itself:


I suspect they're the same person, too.
I should note that the picture won't appear in that link because Archy edited it out after I raised a complaint about it on the forum. Should've just reported him, first.

So, what was the Mod's course of action for this stalker/harasser? Simple: suspend me, instead ("Suspension from the Arcadia Forum", 19 Apr 2010 9:07 pm):
Parts of your recent posts have been removed, as they constituted personal attacks and were potentially defamatory.

This is your third warning and therefore, in accordance with the House Rules, your account will be suspended for 14 days.

Your account will be reactivated on 3 May 2010.
Talk about tunnel vision. I still had enough time to fire off this response ("Re: Suspension from the Arcadia Forum", 20 Apr 2010 1:27 am):
You have got to be kidding me.

Are you actually saying it's ok for Archangel Michael to post personal pics (I can even send you the webpage as proof)...that it's ok for David and Barbara to make continuous attacks against me but you're threatening me with suspension?

What was the "potential defamation" I was engaging in?

If you keep up these double standards, I'm gonna have to have a word to Andrew about it. You're clearly discriminating against me.
That, too, went unanswered. So, I decided to contact the forum's owner, Andrew Gough ("Discrimination", Tuesday, 20 April 2010 1:38:39 AM):
G'day Andrew,

I really do hate posting this kinda stuff to you, but I honestly feel like I'm being discriminated against on your forum.

Even though I receive multiple personal attacks from David Farrant and damiana (Barbara Green) and even had the anonymous Archangel Michael post personal pics of me...the Mod sent me a message saying I am to be suspended for posting "potentially defamaing" information on the board and for making personal attacks.

What was this stuff? Who knows. He keeps censoring it without a chance of reply.

I'm not denying I can be a lil controversial, but I can at least back-up what I say. Meanwhile, I've been stalked, had attacks made against my intelligence, my racial background, etc. All of these have passed by without mention.

I hope I can procure some assistance in this matter from yourself.

~ Anthony

And here's what he wrote back ("RE: Discrimination‏", Tuesday, 20 April 2010 2:50:31 AM):
Anthony, hi. I was disappointed to hear this, but I can confirm that while the HGV portion of the forum is overly volatile, the one thing that cannot be tolerated is accusations of others being fraudulent. While on the surface this probably appears to be no worse than much of what you have been levied with, accusing another of being fraudulent or having made things up, brings legal connotations that, historically, have almost led to my site being shut down, for good. So there is a special sort of zero tolerance for that. I suspect this is why they suspended you. But I trust it is not for long?

Thank you for your participation and sorry that it has lead to this temporary hiccup Anthony.


It was good to have his sympathetic ear, but wasn't exactly what I was after in its own right. Also, they can't get their story straight? The Mod says I was suspended for "personal attacks", now it's accusing people of fraud? Which one was it?

Anyway, here's what I wrote back ("RE: Discrimination‏", Tuesday, 20 April 2010 10:44:25 PM):

G'day Andrew,
But that's the thing, if what I say con notates fraudulence, what about the stuff levelled against me? Like how many times does it need to be alluded that I'm a liar and deceptive and so forth. The charges levied against me had nothing to do with fraud, but "personal attacks".

And even then, what claims of fraudulence? Again, I'd love to answer to the charges, but the Mod doesn't bother quoting me and selectively censors my posts.

In fact, I first messaged the Mod about Archangel Michael posting personal pics of me (one he obtained from a previously suspended member, George) and who continued to harass me on the forum. The Mod's reply? To say I had been engaging in "personal attacks" and told me I was suspended (till May 3rd)! Like, what the hell is that about?

Surely if I'm to get booted off for personal attacks, then so should Dave and Barb, etc. There's something really outta whack going on here if I'm the only one being punished while they're allowed to carry on unhindered. Clearly your Mod has blatant double standards.

~ Anthony
Andrew didn't bother replying to my message, but, sure enough, I was unsuspended on the 3rd and allowed to post again.

What disturbed me (and still does) about the suspension, more than anything, was the sheer double standards on display. David and Barbara (among others) were given virtual free reign to continue (and still continue) to publish malicious posts, meanwhile, I get suspended.

Clearly, something is rotten in Arcadia.


Related Posts with Thumbnails