It's justice. Of course you have no idea because your people are not dying in droves day after day, your people do not have to eat grass to stay alive, they don't have to fear constant bombing and have to tuck their kids in at night knowing they may be killed the next day. You can live comfortable without a worry in the world, but my people are dying and I have to stand up for them or else no one else will. It's justice for them that drives me, nothing else.
Um, he called for your banning after you said So ad hom with a nice solid dash of racism. I think his request for your banning was courteous.
(Insert title here) That might be the case, but those folks, more often than not, can generally be answered with a simple enough question: Can you really not tell the difference? See, we actually do let people get snitty and angry with one another. Various issues affect how we perceive the origin, content, and effects of those disagreements. I had a situation recently in EM&J, for instance, in which a member repeatedly and baselessly attempted to denigrate and dehumanize a certain group of people. It seemed unquestionably an expression of vicious bigotry (although, in light of recent events, might be symptomatic of self-loathing). Other members responded harshly to this provocation. Now, here's the problem the moderator faces: Do we simply address the symptoms, or the sickness? In this case, do we suppress those who would respond harshly to a hatemonger in order that the hatemonger be granted unfettered, and even specially-protected freedom to denigrate and dehumanize? So, there are those who would hate ______. (Fill in the blank: blacks, gays, women, Muslims, Jews, &c.) And there are those who would oppose them. Sometimes these exchanges get out of hand. From a moderator's standpoint, it is better to address the source of the problem. This accounts for some of the people who get banned. There are also those whose whole purpose seems to be to offend people. In these cases, the question is similar. Why not X, Y, or Z? Because X, Y, and Z are generally capable of contributing something of value to this community when they're not on their various warpaths. That cannot necessarily be said of, a V or W. In many cases, those alleging hypocrisy and favoritism do so in order to distract any attention from their own behavior. One with a regular and established pattern of offenses against individuals, groups of people, and site rules will be regarded more severely than those who are deviating from their normal patterns. Consider Syzygys' assertion that this thread represents the point at which the site "jumped the shark". That is certainly one way to look at it, but he's giving the discussion far more credit than it actually has. The vote thus far reinforces the basic suspicion that those who respond to a ban by demanding the expulsion or suspension of other members are, indeed, a marginal minority. Indeed, only one of the votes in favor stands out in my mind as a regularly-problematic member who complains of hypocrisy and bias in order to cover his own hatred and poor conduct. Those folks haven't come out to play, yet.
This thread reminds me of something that happened when I was at school. Many of the pupils had been misbehaving, and the headmaster, Mr James, called us all to an assembly. Next to him on the main stage was a big cardboard box, attached by wires to a large red button. Mr James: It may have come to all of your attentions that this school is slowly sliding into a state of anarchy. It is for every one of you to make a personal choice on the matter. Do you want chaos, or order? I have asked Mr Ki-u, the science master, to rig up an explosive charge. It's up to you. If you want reason, you can all go back to your classes and behave. If you want chaos, put up your hands and I'll press the button. Captain Kremmen ( in school cap ): It's a hoax. There's nothing in the box. Call his bluff. We all put up our hands. That was the day of the famous Warwickshire school explosion. Fortunately, I was saved by a very fat boy sitting in front of me and was one of the few survivors.
There's more to it than you might imagine You see? Even if we try to make this place more democratic, some people still complain. Or, more to the point, it should be sufficient to say that, while among moderators the proposition of a mass banning is not unheard of, the idea has never been actualized. There are several reasons for this, the most relevant being a widespread suspicion that it would have no positive long-term effect. Indeed, our next months would be spent banning the myriad re-registrations of those whose only purpose is to denigrate the virtual quality of life in this community; why increase the workload for so little profit? As things stand, at least we know where the troublemakers are, and can deal with each in their turn as and when their behavior demands. In the meantime, the desires of some members to see other people banned for petty disagreements are long-established at Sciforums. SFOG itself almost shut down amid the poisoned chaos of ban threads as certain members rushed to vote one another off the island. The present discussion only reflects the current phase of that persistent trend. Of course, the history leading up to this thread might not be so apparent to recent arrivals. It takes a few years, at least, before certain cycles reveal themselves clearly, unless of course one spends their days combing the archives in chronological order, and, frankly, it's a bit tough to imagine someone actually doing that.
You can please all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time. Hazard of any society. The mods seem to have good intentions to me. Perfection, however, is not a possibility. As the resident loon, having only been moderated twice, I have not seen any evidence of impropriety in the use of mod powers. I have seen evidence of bias in thought, as well as a sense of aristocracy. Once again, however, these things are not avoidable, any more than personal grievance. I think it's curious, however, that so many of the alleged 'intellectual elite' spend so much time grinding axes instead of attempting to review their own opinions and adjust as necessary. I guess this elitism breeds closed-mindedness. Don't think so? Suggest something to a specialist Doctor of some kind. Without similar training, your suggestion will be dismissed out of hand. The first step to resolving any problem is to acknowledge one exists. If everyone would take a true step back and look at things objectively, they may find their position to be more malleable than evidenced so far.
This site is excellent, and I wouldn't be too upset if it stays exactly the way that it is. I have a small criticism in that sometimes it can be a little bit too politically correct. But I also have a larger criticism in that it sometimes bans clever and entertaining people with unacceptable opinions. Thrown out. Don't come back! I feel it like a blow when I see that happening. I can see that it is hard to find a balance, and if the decisions were mine instead of the powers that be, I'm sure that other people would find them just as unacceptable. Perhaps more so. Perhaps the forum could listen more, and when there are howls of protest against a decision, rethink it.
CK-How do you seperate valid howls from invalid howls? There will be howls about any decision made by those in power. Even if this were a true democracy, there would remain a put-upon minority. It's unavoidable.
I think that the majority of people on here are fair minded. The protests against the most recent banning were mostly from people who disagreed with the poster but liked his sharpness. With regard to law. You can either have set rules, which judge all people who contravene them on equal terms, like any proper country's legal system. Or a system which judges people more or less severely according to common consensus. My point of view at the moment is that we should judge people according to consensus. On this site, not as a general rule.
CK-consider this: Read the rules carefully. How many people have followed them to the letter? I know you are saying that the rules should be followed and enforced in spirit. I'm just saying, that's what is happening now. For example-Religion. Technically everyone on every side that frequents that subforum breaks it's rules as stated. However, the only moderation I've seen is for specifically anti-science postings. Fighting science is an odd thing to do on a science forum. This is biased of necessity towards Atheism, because the common view is that all western theism holds back scientific progress. This is a topic worthy of debate, however, the people on that subforum would rather parrot one-sided, closed-minded arguments rather than consider the opposing viewpoint. Consider, as well, that well-documented theory is considered fact by the general populace. Unusual theories based on bias and speculation simply don't fit into the normal categories, nor does descending into the realm of tossing insults. I cite Reiku as a good example of this. Science, in my opinion, is best viewed with eyes and mind wide open. Closed mindedness is against the benefit to sciforums, and should thus be moderated.
The other point I'd like to make if indeed I already made one, is that it's very hard to 'debate' someone who holds exactly the same views as oneself....something I think we forget sometimes.
