Mass bannings, anyone?

[Mr. Hamtastic]

draqon for Head Cheese!

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Wait. James R, this is serious? LOL I'm sorry I assumed the idea was so patently ridiculous it couldn't be serious. Sort of like asking what breed of dog was the best lay.

[draqon]

Sort of like asking what breed of dog was the best lay.

A double take, heh? James' a dog dude, ya know.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

He may know which breed is the best lay then. Tell us, James. I'm betting on cocker spaniel.

[GeoffP]

Personally, I believe you are an excellent moderator.

The problem are certain moderators such as Skinwalker who deliberately infuriate members and then get them banned.

People like BuffaloRoam, OilIsMastery and others should have been banned A LONG time ago. I shouldn't even have to be stating this, its obvious.

I am not defending the conduct of anyone, just stating that some posters behave the way they do due to the racist and xenophobic posts against them.

Which racist tirades are these? And what should be done about cultural supremacists? There are some of them also.

[draqon]

And what should be done about cultural supremacists? There are some of them also.

cultural supremacists? leave them alone.

[Ophiolite]

But I constantly hear calls from certain members that people they disagree with ought to be banned. And every time somebody is banned by a moderator, then I hear calls to ban other people as well.

James you are completely missing the point. I was one of the people who called for OilIsMastery to banned after you banned Kakard, or whatever the hell his/her name was.

I did not make that request because I disagree with him. I disagree with, for example, Baron Max. I find the Baron to be a selfish, bigoted, fascist pig. I abhor the positions he adopts on most things. I imagine, if he thinks about it, he has similar warm feelings about me. I would object vehemently if he was banned. He has done nothing to merit banning. He expresses opinions, with which I disagree, but does so with justification. The justification arises out of a different perspective base, and so his conclusions differ from mine. Fine.

I requested OIM to be banned because in dealing with facts, not opinions, he distorts, manipulates, takes out of context, employees multiple logical fallacies, and generally runs rough shod over the scientific method. When any of these are pointed out he ignores the response, or replies with more of the same.

I am offended that you think my banning request was based upon someone holding different opinions from me. If plazma wishes to post a message to the effect that he is happy to allow individuals to post unscientific nonsense, to post it repeatedly, to deliver a non-stop string of logicall fallacies, and otherwise break the posting rules of the forum, then I'll stop requesting the ban on OIM.

[Ophiolite]

Try out what it is like to have a discussion somewhere where you aren't really allowed to request that the other party explain or justify their position, and are instead expected to "respect" and "accept" the other person's position, ..

Could you give me an example. I've only ever been thrown out of a fundamentalist Christian forum and would like to broaden my experience.

[AlphaNumeric]

It depends on whose views are considered to be more important, the members or the moderators. Do the moderators want SciForums to be a particular way? What if the members, or at least a majority of them, want something different for the forums? In whose hands should the power to remove unwanted elements be in?

For instance, in principle the PhysOrg forums were set up to be a discussion area for mainstream physics. The majority of the members were cranks and so if they had had the power to ban they would have banned myself, Rpenner, Trippy and others who aren't members here, thus taking the forums even further from their originally intended nature.

Are the moderators here to make these forums as palettable to the members as possible, in which case 'Majority rules!' should be implemented. If the moderators are here to uphold the original vision of whoever set up this site, then they should not give banned powers to the majority vote because if the majority are people against the original vision for these forums, they will take the forums further from that vision by banning the people who stand for it.

I'm sure I'd get a few people voting for me to be banned, I do rub people the wrong way in many 'discussions'.

[draqon]

AlphaNumeric you are so considerate and so appreciative, sorry for thinking otherwise.

[leopold]

The problem are certain moderators such as Skinwalker who deliberately infuriate members and then get them banned.

bull fucking shit diamondhearts.
i've been moderated by skinwalker, i know his MO.
the man does not deliberately infuriate posters that he is "after".

you're full of shit clear up to your eyeballs.

[leopold]

I hope this will make all those crying out for mass bannings happy.

and those that are left can proudly wear sciforums official colors.

[draqon]

guys and girls, I think you are all missing a point here, even though James has suggested such an outrageous idea as "mass bannings" he voted against it.

[DiamondHearts]

bull fucking shit diamondhearts.
i've been moderated by skinwalker, i know his MO.
the man does not deliberately infuriate posters that he is "after".

you're full of shit clear up to your eyeballs.

I have had some previous experience with this moderator, I speak form experience.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...5&postcount=25

This is but one example. My friend Kadark is but one of the recent victims of this.

Furthermore, who are you? I don't even know you, why are you so profane and devoid of common courtesy?

Posts like these are why sciforums is sinking and its membership is declining. We allow these hate-filled posts to dominate these forums. Obviously members will leave because of this.

[Bells]

and those that are left can proudly wear sciforums official colors.

Sciforums survivor!!

[draqon]

Sciforums survivor!!

you missed the point, what he meant to say is those who have not been banned will be wearing insignia of bloodmarks, the killers of the members before them.

[leopold]

I have had some previous experience with this moderator, I speak form experience.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...5&postcount=25

i also speak from experience.

Furthermore, who are you? I don't even know you, . . .

is that relevant to the discussion who i am?
i have no idea who you are, and i could care less.
i'm only interested in your opinions.

why are you so profane and devoid of common courtesy?

ah yes, political correctness rears its ugly head.

[Killjoy]

you missed the point, what he meant to say is those who have not been banned will be wearing insignia of bloodmarks, the killers of the members before them.

No, you missed the point.
Personally, I think you need to drink much more and whore around some, but that's an aside...

In the aftermath, the remaining "fuh-roomers" will change the logo to a variant of the Tareyton cigarette ads, and all will wear a fake black eye thingy like this:

[draqon]

I don't smoke, Mr. KillJoy

[Killjoy]

`
I weep for the world - such is the sad state of its youth...


No, really... I do.