Perceptions of sciforums moderation

So tow the party line or be censored and/or subjected to personal attacks? That about sum it up leopold?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Actually its more like Freedom of Speech in everything except what we deem as Offensive.

Which is the only kind there is, no matter where you go.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I disagree freedom of speech should be free in all ways with exceptions only for direct death threats and if someone wants to sue you for slander. Now is the ideal actually met, well S.A.M got a point in her paranoid Muslim-centric mind on this point, I don't think it ever is as the authorities are always at least a little corrupt towards their bias.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

True but some are willing to admit it and recognise it. I've seen that in Skinwalker sometimes, like when I thanked him for a warning and he reversed it. But James will hang on to his errors and troll the people who point them out, which is a pity.

 

See what?

Not when you try and search for equivalent posts on say, Jews and find that they are almost always deleted.

Not really.

Its an educated opinion, which is easily confirmed or dismissed by simply asking Skinwalker.

 

So I'm supposed to take your word about one invisible moderation over the gazillion unmoderated posts where arabs are referred to as sand niggers, where Muslims are all generalised as liars and fascists and when giant cut and pastes which characterise all Muslims as evil are bypassed?

Doh, aren't you supposed to be a science based person? That one moderation was probably an outlier.

Oh please. Lack of antisemitism? Are you one of those determining that semites only refers to what Jews and white men decide it does?

Here is the obvious status quo, a biased one

Israel being called fascist gets James knickers into a knot. He first cesspools the thread then locks it

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=90620

Islam being called fascist has no such effect. He even provides a post in the discussion

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=83848

The funny thing of course, is that the thread on Israel refers to real political changes occuring and discussed in the media. The thread on Islam is just bullshit propaganda against Muslims by one of the anti-Muslim atheists here.

 

Oh did you moderate that post? I don't recall making a complaint against your moderation. In fact, I haven't even come across your moderation. I am complaining about the bias exhibited by Skinwalker and James. You're free to include yourself, but only if it applies to you. I personally have yet to see an anti-Muslim post which I reported against deleted and a public warning against it given until I started making a BIG NOISE about it. Also, complaints to Stryder, James and Plazma have been typically met with platitudes or worse, trolling posts and baiting, so its admin policy that concerns me.

 

Then you're wasting both our times

Its stuff like this that I am addressing:

.

But not this:

 

I am always pretty specific in my complaints, I see no point in vague hand waving, which post of mine induced you to believe you were included?

 

You can engage me in discussion as long as you are willing to address the points I am making, rather than ones you think I am making.

At this point here, I will add that superstring and madnathony are both unbiased in allowing people of both sides to speak. They do let both sides get away with a lot more than site rules allow for [at least string does, madant is more circumspect but moderates opposing points of view fairly] but at least inspite of their personal viewpoints [both disagree with my POV], they are fair.

But James has even given me a warning for a conversation I was having in thread with a moderator. Which was absolutely ridiculous.

 

I completely agree with you. Which is why, when I got those ridiculous warnings I invited the moderators to read what preceded them and in general, as my attitude is live and let live, I will not report posts unless they break site rules but are not directed towards me. But James will not act unless posts are reported, or at least thats his excuse. So its incumbent upon me to complain if I am to not be inundated with warnings about hate speech.

Which brings us to a point where people who are abusive to me and bait and troll me will also report my posts, hence all the references to Israel and Jews being summarily deleted and warnings about hate speech landing in my Inbox. Now since I do not complain or report, the offenders are not moderated. But I am.

So if the admin of sciforums does not want a policy based on "Just X complaining about Y again." then they should not create an environment that institutes it.

Of course the fact remains that even after reporting posts, there is a bias and turds like otheadp are allowed to get away with doing nothing but trolling posters while we are not even allowed to tell him off.

But thats the other matter I am addressing.

 

S.A.M., I think I summed it up rather well in a previous post; what generally counts is that -numerous- people lodge complaints about something or someone, instead of one person lodging multiple complaints. Popular opinion is generally a powerful thing in a forum. Many surveys, both offline and online, are taken precisely to gauge the general public's views on subjects. And that's understandable and laudable as well; it's certainly good to know what people think in general and for politicians, say, to formulate policy based on this, atleast some of the time.

The only thing is that it's a shame when logic and the scientific method goes out the window because of it, but that's life sometimes.

 

I think it is terrible, I get a referral on one thread saying the words "ass" and on another a guy says "fuck Israel". Seriously. How in the world is this consistant?