What would you have suggested Sam? Do you think the post should have been deleted? Should he have been reprimanded? Banned? He's voicing an opinion of you, an opinion that isn't shared by all and no matter how in error this opinion may be I don't see why you should object to his right to post it. I am surprised you would let something like that bother you. Geoff used the term 'Kafir' and I didn't hear you say a peep about it.
I'm asking James to clarify what he considers are the rules he thinks we should all be following. My problem Lucysnow, is that I have received warnings for hate speech from James. When asked why my posts are hate speech and the ones I am responding to are not considered bigoted, his response has always been that well, those posts are not reported. So apparently the criteria for hate speech is the reporting of the posts. James is also especially prone to considering any and all statements against Jews as hate speech while broad generalisations against theists or Muslims are considered as valid discussions. To this end he has closed threads on Israel based on such assertions as: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=90620&page=2 This is when the media of the entire world was reporting on the alarming right ward shift in Israeli politics. He has done the same with threads on the same topic that Zak had opened on the subject. I have no objection to string expressing an opinion of me. But does his opinion constitute productive bullshit? Is this what James considers we should follow as rules. Note that string is the moderator of said forum and I am supposed to report ad hom off topic posts to him. Note also that this is zero tolerance week. All I am asking for is clarity.
Well then I better understand you point. You say that James considers any negative statements about jews as hate speech, well I think the use of hate speech if he used that term quite strong BUT there is a huge difference between criticizing the State of Israel and criticizing all jews, I object to that as much as I do when anyone does this towards muslims.
Well you are free to read the above thread and tell me if you think his decision was justified. I am just tired of the two facedness from the moderators and admins. We are all expected to follow rules. However, if we ask for clarification about any of the rules we don't receive straight answers or are given some broad platitudes or ad hominems. Moreover, moderators break their own forum rules and display excessive personal bias in moderation and the administration feeds you some standard spiel when requested clarification. When you go back to a thread and find your posts missing for no good reason, you are directed to ask the moderator of the forum who ignores you and does not bother to respond to honest queries. e.g. However, the moderators are so fed up of their inefficiency in addressing issues that they experiment on the posters with zero tolerance week. This is quite insulting considering that they are doing such a poor job and expecting us to learn from it. For example:
No SAM it is just an expression a figure of speach that allow us a little bit of fucking movement man.... a bit of freedom. Us learning from it is good if we wish to change our behaviors to something perhaps a bit more accepting of what the moderator is asking of us. If the moderator thinks we are such bad people he will stop us from hurting anyone else it is kind of odd how that works but also teaches us a good lesson. What that lesson is I'm not aware of fully yet but it is nice to see such a change in the forumPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I cannot remember this place being that much different save for the fact it was much freer of excessive moderation and then that changed, now the complaint is that it is either too free or too rigid. Believe me I am not defending James on this particular issue but I wonder if there really is a way of having strict fast rules and sciforums distinguishing itself from every other forum. I'm going to go and look at the thread you mentioned.
I agree. There are too many and too many bad moderators. If I was not receiving ridiculous warnings or finding my posts selectively deleted or if I was not being targeted for having "antisemitic" political views I personally would not care. But to be addressed with statements like these: in the face of all of the above issues and the absence of a clear consensus on what constitutes posting guidelines, is quite ridiculous.
Why do you insist on playing dumb, SAM? I think it is because you're looking for "holes" in the system that you can exploit. You have been a moderator yourself. You know how it works. You know the kinds of judgments that have to be made all the time. Yet you pretend to be stupid. You're playing for an audience. This is complete nonsense, and you know it. Moderators, as you know, do not read every post. We do, however, look into every post that is reported. Therefore, it is a simple fact that if a post is not reported, we cannot guarantee that it will be moderated, even if it is blatantly offensive. That is why I have advised you to report offensive posts. Hate speech is hate speech whether it is reported or not; hate speech that is not reported may not be moderated, for the simple and obvious reason that moderators are not aware of it. Your accusation of a pro-Israel bias on my part is equally nonsensical, as a simple review of my posts on the Israeli-Palestine question will confirm. I am sure that, being as biased as you are yourself, you see anybody who takes a disinterested view as biased agaisnt your point of view. But that's your problem, not mine. As for theism vs atheism, I'm not really interested in "my god is bigger than your god/lack of god" arguments. I consider them to be, on the whole, pointless proselitising. I treat generalisations about atheists and theists on a case-by-case basis. I can see little alternative to that, given that many kinds of generalisations are possible, some are fair comment, others are not, etc. This is where a moderator's discretion becomes necessary; it is why there aren't automatic moderator bots taking care of the Religion forum instead of human beings. But you already know all this, SAM. They are quite simple. If you need them boiled down they reduce, essentially, to: remember the human at the other end of your post, and be polite and reasonable. You are constantly trying to find loopholes in the rules. You want a water-tight code that covers all eventualities. As a past moderator yourself, you know that such a code could run to hundreds of pages and still not cover all possible posts. What we expect is that people of your intelligence, in particular, should be able to take a few simple principles and judge for yourself whether you post is likely to be acceptable or not. For your guidance, we have helpfully listed a number of general categories of speech that will in most, if not all, circumstances, be considered unacceptable on this forum. To some, any moderator action against them is, by definition, personally biased. Some people have no capacity for self-reflection. Zero tolerance week is based on reports from non-moderator members. As far as I am aware, no bans have been handed out so far. At the same time, the volume of member complaints has decreased. So, all in all, it seems to be working out well so far. Final point: nobody is forcing you to put up with a bunch of biased moderators who all hate you, SAM. If the whole moderator team is against you, and unfairly moderates your posts while protecting the posts of your online enemies, then I suggest you leave for a more congenial environment.
Please continue to feel free to avoid responding to any of the issues I have addressed to you. Thanks.
Well I am not easily discouraged, not even by blatant inefficiency. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I am also quite capable of standing up for what I believe in. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Ok. Well it would be seriously boring without you. I think you need to um know that. But James is speaking truth.
Well Sam I certainly don't think you are an antisemite simply because you are critical of Israel. From what I read I didn't see any reason why the thread was closed save James didn't like the you using fascist and Israel in the same sentence. Why didn't he simply suggest you change the title page into something else? To bad, interesting discussion, though I know all those discussion tend to be i am on one side or the next and are always certainly passionate...but so what.
Well as long as I receive ludicrous warnings that "serve as a reminder of forum rules" which I am expected to follow without any indication of what they are, I will have an opinion on it and I will express it. Ditto for the antisemitism which I have decided it is more prudent to embrace, since I would hate to deprive anyone of the opportunity to follow their conscience and shut down criticism of the self proclaimed Jewish state or colour my arguments with bigotry to provide legitimacy to the oppression by Israel. Time will tell us who is right or wrong, its not my concern to decide that. I can only follow my own conscience. Thank you. Now you see the point of my pointing out mods and admins floating into threads to declare me as bigoted or anti-west or having an agenda without any provocation on my part. They are, of course, welcome to address the specific issues at any point in time. I do not pretend to be unbiased about my own opinions.
SAM: Well, let's see then. I notice you made some comments about me, but you haven't actually directly addressed me much at all. You asked: I responded to this previously. The posting rules are contained in the announcement post, below the section on "zero tolerance week". I repost them here, in case you can't find them: Grandstanding for your cause again. Your little tirade above shows you have a quite clear agenda. You are anti-west, despite living the the great old US of A. At least, that's how you come across on this forum. And you're perfectly entitled to that view, by the way. Your claim that you do not provoke is disingenuous. Again, you're playing the role of the ingenue to an audience - one that is largely invisible. Addressed.
Thanks for the input and further gratuitous comments addressing my "agenda". What is the correct response to flaming and baiting by moderators and admin?
