Clarifying when mods are entitled to delete posts

Yea, atheists are horrible people. We get your point.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

you have to admit that anyone that believes in a supernatural being full of love and compassion for humanity is simply deluded.
how the hell can any such entity stand idly by while things such as 911, iraq, or the conditions in india, continue to happen and do nothing.
but then we are faced with the other side of the coin of the almost universal concept of religion. there has to be an explanation for that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What about people who believe that 'male privilege' and 'white privilege' are prevalent in Western society? Do you consider them deluded? I sure as hell do. I'd rank them right up there with God believers. Hell, I'd argue that deists are probably less delusional than some of the dogmatic liberals on this forum. Tell me, how do you think I would fair if I called Tiassa 'deluded' and labelled his ideology frivilous bulllshit when he started banging on about how women are being oppressed by the patriarchy?

Don't bother trying to respond, the answer is so blatantly obvious the question might as well be rhetorical. He'd don his mod hat and green font, and warn me for trolling and being an antagonistic prick, and I'd be on his shit list for the rest of my stay on sciforums. For crying out loud, he's warned Baron Max for far less.

And here's the thing. Had I said the *exact same thing* when Asguard was moderating his little subforum, I wouldn't have been censored/regulated. Because Asguard, like myself, resents all that feminist bullshit. Madanthony would probably turn a blind eye too, because he's not on a vigil to spot and squash any perceived 'sexist' remarks, real or imagined. Superstring probably wouldn't give a shit either, although I'm not sure, I haven't seen many of his posts.

A blatant inconsistency exists right there, and it takes a while to pick up on. Whether a rule is enforced depends on how the moderator perceives the posters involved, and their own idealogical dispositions. This is well demonstrated by two of our most extreme posters whose beliefs are on the opposite ends of the ideological scale.

S.A.M gets insulted and regulated in subforums moderated by atheists/conservatives, and pampered in liberal subforums (Ethics, Morality and Justice). She was also protected for some time by James R, who is ridden with guilt about Islamophobia, but now even he has tired of her, because like most Westerners, James R suffers from an even stronger bout of shame over anti-semitism. And when a Muslim is criticising a Jew (and vice versa), the Jew is gonna win out. The 'shame' of Islamophobia has only been drilled into the heads of liberal Westerners for the past 7 years, the 'shame' of anti-semitism has been drilled in for 60+ years. No contest, folks.

Now let's compare S.A.M to her opposite, Baron Max. Baron Max gets treated pretty fairly in conservative subforums, but he's always getting threatened with bans by Tiassa in the Ethics, Morality and Justice forum. Please don't try and tell me that's not evidence of bias, Baron Max is no less abrasive in World Affairs than in Ethics, Morality and Justice. In fact, I'd argue that he's more abrasive in World Affairs and Politics, because that's where he is more likely to clash with S.A.M. It's just that his ideological views are tolerated better in the more conservative subfora.

Two different posters, who are treated differently depending on the particular bias of the moderator in question.

How about this radical proposal. How about the moderators start enforcing the rules consistently, instead of only when their prejudices and biases demand that they do so? If the forum rules decree that one cannot make personal attacks, then one cannot make personal attacks. No exceptions. Moderators shouldn't be allowed to just circumvent this rule whenever it suits them, that's hardly fair. That's all I'm asking for, a fair go, where the rules are applied consistently across the board.

And yeah, I know, it's probably never going to happen. But at least the moderating team can't pretend that all is well amongst the masses.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Copernicus, you have done a good job of pointing out the inconsistencies in moderation. However, your attempt at identifying the motivations is laughable. Stick to objective observations and leave the fuzzy personal stuff to people who understand those things.

 

it's "feminist bullshit" to point out the fact that women are shit on in practically every culture on the planet?

actually it isn't. the fact that you have 2 mods at the opposing viewpoints prove that.

wow.
this is something james needs to address, not me.

tiassa has jumped down my throat too, so i can't say tiassa is biased.
but unlike some in this thread i like to wash my dirty laundry in private.

it will never "be well amongst the masses", ever.

 

Yes. It's all those white guys who are usually sexual assault victims. It's white guys who are mostly abuse victims. Oh, and most racist, sexist charicatures? White guys!

Oh, wait, no it isn't.

Look, I'm all for personal responsibility. I don't think bigotry pardons me from giving my best. However, don't kid yourself.

 

maybe the solution to all of this lies in having 2 mods of opposing viewpoints share specific subforums.

 

I think the solution is that people learn a little diplomacy (not smarminess and false humility, Scott) and remember: It's the internet. If your panties are going to get in a wad, leave them and your pretenses at the door.

 

another guilt ridden white man

/saddened

opi
why did you guys hate the jews so much?
why did you guys commit genocide against those noble and gentle folks
why?

i mean....xylon b? entire families? little children?

/weeps

 

/teehee

*Australia during the 1930s was a society that held almost identical racial theories of evolution and Social Darwinism as those that dominated the ideology of Hitler’s Germany. It was the inherent assumption that ‘inferior’ peoples could be disposed of that led to genocidal acts being perpetrated in both societies. Many people today assume that what happened in the ‘holocaust’ in Europe was an aberration of history and was not possible in other Western ‘civilised’ nations, but in doing so those in settler-nations such as Australia, the United States and Canada are able to conveniently absolve themselves of their own bloody histories. In Australia the greater part of the mass murder and genocide of Indigenous peoples occurred in the 150 years prior to the advent of Hitler’s rise to power in Germany, and that the most destructive phase of the Australian concentration camps occurred from the 1930s through to the 1960s. This means that the Australian holocaust not only has been unacknowledged, but also has persisted in different forms for two hundred years, whereas the entire period of Nazi German excesses covers less than two decades.

*From the moment in January 1933 when Hitler became Chancellor, the Nazis had embarked on a vicious reign of terror and exclusion against the German Jewish community which continued largely unabated through to 1938 when, U.S. President Roosevelt, alarmed at the dramatic increase in Jewish refugees seeking to escape Nazi excesses in Germany and Austria, called for an international conference to be held in Evian, France in July 1938. None of the countries that attended the Evian Conference really had the interests of the Jewish refugees at heart, least of all Australia which was represented by a delegation led by a Cabinet Minister, Colonel Thomas Walter White, who had been passing through London on other business.

Paul Bartrop has said that, ‘between 1933 and 1945 the Australian government pursued a policy of restricted entry toward Jewish refugees’ , and never was that more evident than at the Evian Conference where Colonel White was to distinguish himself by declaring Australia’s position thus,

...It will no doubt be appreciated also that, as we have no real racial problems, we are not desirous of importing one... (link)

 

an even better solution would be for the parties involved to take their argument to the formal debates forum and request that the "offending" mod not moderate the thread. you can get around the formal debate part by agreeing to a two post debate. after the pseudo debate create the discussion thread.

 

Alright, you were saying those words were already on your list. I'm not saying you approved new words, just that you agreed that my words should be proscribed (note the should be; they aren't always proscribed, but I understand that you don't moderate all the forums).

 

You seem to be implying that I am smarmy and falsely humble

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I would contend that I am neither, and that, furthermore, you have provided no evidence for your accusation.

I don't know about you, but I personally don't wear panties. As to pretenses, if you feel that I'm pretending to be something I'm not, by all means, point out where you think I'm being false.

 

Yes. Go stand over with the God believers, I find you just as delusional as they are. And according to the stance of some particular individuals on this forum, that means I would be entitled to belittle the shit out of you.

No, sorry, I'm afraid it is a blatant inconsistency. The fact that on one subforum I could say X and be banned for trolling, while I could say the same thing on another subforum with impunity, is a clear inconsistency.

No doubt while expressing views which were in conflict to his. Perhaps you should ask yourself, has he jumped down your throat even one tenth of the times he has done so to Baron Max?

Oh wait, I forgot, Baron Max is an 'antagonistic' poster. That's why his posts are rarely (if ever) regulated on World Events and Politics.

Now let's consider S.A.M, who is just as 'antagonistic' as Baron. How often is *she* regulated on the Ethics forum? If anything, she is protected. You know this yourself, just recently you tried to pull one of her tricks (ie. derail a thread with discussion of India), and Tiassa bitching you out.

Good for you. Unfortunately such an approach doesn't work for everyone.

Who knows? What I do know is that there is a constant turnover of 'dissenters' on sciforums, you just need to look through the history of the Open Government forum. One generation of dissenters leave/are banned, and they are simply replaced by the next generation of veteran posters who dislike the corruption inherent in this forum.

 

ah well i disagree.

don't wanna.

belittling me does nothing to my argument.

i realized my mistake after i posted.
i offered a solution in a previous post.

don't know, i usually don't follow sam around on the board.

do you see me crying about it?

i wonder how the mods feel about being viewed as a bunch of conspirators?

 

Holy shit.

Do you mean that the moderators can just arbitrarily edit and delete posts, and ban posters, even if they were not in violation of the rules? And that moderators can act against rules whenever it pleases them? Is that in the spirit of what the owners wanted? Maybe I should just contact them and ask them personally if they approve of moderators flaunting the set rules (erm, sorry, guidelines).

Hence the inconsistency. How one moderator views a poster may differ radically from how another moderator views that same poster. Such prejudice should not exist when moderating people.

And some succeed better than others. Personally, I think that Skinwalker and Tiassa fail miserably at not letting their ideology influence their moderation.

Really? Avatar was demoted because he spoke out against the establishment, and you could argue the same for S.A.M.

No problem. It's blatantly obvious that you were originally protecting S.A.M because you believed she was a victim of Islamophobia on this forum. There were so many complaints about S.A.M during her time as a moderator (which must have been for about 2 years), and for the majority of that time the moderating team (including yourself) responding with a wide eyed innocent stare, "What, S.A.M unfit to be a moderator? Nahhh, this is just Islamophobia, a personality clash, etc etc." And then one day, *BAM*, S.A.M was just demodded without so much as a warning.

You not only got tired of her anti-semitism, but she started to question the establishment and its slanted enforcement of the 'hate speech' rule, and that can't be tolerated. If she had just kept being bigoted without questioning the seedy cabal that is the moderating team, she would have been OK, but no, the bitch had to question the integrity of a bunch of people who had closed ranks to defend her ass so many times in the past. How ungrateful! So out she goes, along with you withdrawing your protection.

How about enforcing the rules consistently across the board. S.A.M and Baron Max are case studies of how inconsistent moderation on this forum is.

No. You know you've got a huge problem when people as disparate as S.A.M and myself agree that the moderation here stinks.

 

You just don't get it. This has nothing to do with being 'easily offended'. It has to do with a lack of consistency in moderation, and an inability of the authorities on this forum to enforce the rules in a fair, dispassionate and neutral manner.