draqon asks:
Will I permaban SAM? Not right now, no. Why not? Surely if I believe, as I have said, that SAM posts in bad faith, trolls, and propagates hatred, then I ought to simply ban her and move on, right? Why don't I do it?
The reason is simple: there is no general agreement that SAM's posts constitute a problem or that she deserves any sanction I might impose. I have been accused of being dictatorial and of moderating sciforums according to my personal whims and/or political views, but here is a prime example where I am constantly listening to other people, the general membership and other moderators.
The evidence of this thread speaks eloquently. SAM has a cheer squad who thinks that what she is doing is just fine and justifiable, even admirable. But you know what I notice? I notice that ALL of the comments in support of SAM in this thread all express agreement in one form or another with her political views, or come from people whose political sympathies lie close to SAMs (as their posting records confirm).
Examples:
Israelis are "criminals" and "invaders" etc.
Strawdog is on record as a firm supporter of the Palestinian cause and sides with SAM against Israel in most matters as far as I can tell.
Add to this Tiassa's long posts claiming that all of SAM's provocations can be justified as valid issues to raise. Tiassa has never been a fan of America's foreign policy regarding Israel/Palestine; there's no secret about that.
As a matter of fact, I have never denied that there are valid issues for discussion somewhere in amongst all of SAM's bile and hatred. My complaint, explained in detail above, is that SAM cherry-picks issues that invariably put her usual targets in the worst possible light, then actively works to avoid any real discussion or debate on the putative topics, instead using her time to troll, to evade and to push her usual set of agendas and opinions. SAM removes from members the possibility of having an intelligent discussion about any of the issues.
Ban SAM? Should I ban her when a reasonable fraction of the membership appears to sympathise with her politics and her approach? There are those who have argued that by not banning her or restricting her I have created an unsolvable and recurring problem on the forum. But in opposition, her cheer squad obviously thinks that SAM's version of debate on Palestine/Israel is how it ought to be done.
Like all armchair commentators, it is "obvious" to many what I, as an administrator, ought to do here. I should ban SAM. I should support SAM's right to speak her mind. I should join in her hatred rather than railing against it. I should censor her posts. I should close her threads. I should hail SAM as the saviour of the Oppressed and Downtrodden on sciforums. It's obvious.
It seems to me that whatever is finally done here will be criticised one way or the other by one group or another. An easy option is to let things slide, to go with the status quo. Then we all get the forum we deserve.... maybe.
draqon said:
Will I permaban SAM? Not right now, no. Why not? Surely if I believe, as I have said, that SAM posts in bad faith, trolls, and propagates hatred, then I ought to simply ban her and move on, right? Why don't I do it?
The reason is simple: there is no general agreement that SAM's posts constitute a problem or that she deserves any sanction I might impose. I have been accused of being dictatorial and of moderating sciforums according to my personal whims and/or political views, but here is a prime example where I am constantly listening to other people, the general membership and other moderators.
The evidence of this thread speaks eloquently. SAM has a cheer squad who thinks that what she is doing is just fine and justifiable, even admirable. But you know what I notice? I notice that ALL of the comments in support of SAM in this thread all express agreement in one form or another with her political views, or come from people whose political sympathies lie close to SAMs (as their posting records confirm).
Examples:
Carcano said:
Israelis are "criminals" and "invaders" etc.
Strawdog said:
Strawdog is on record as a firm supporter of the Palestinian cause and sides with SAM against Israel in most matters as far as I can tell.
Add to this Tiassa's long posts claiming that all of SAM's provocations can be justified as valid issues to raise. Tiassa has never been a fan of America's foreign policy regarding Israel/Palestine; there's no secret about that.
As a matter of fact, I have never denied that there are valid issues for discussion somewhere in amongst all of SAM's bile and hatred. My complaint, explained in detail above, is that SAM cherry-picks issues that invariably put her usual targets in the worst possible light, then actively works to avoid any real discussion or debate on the putative topics, instead using her time to troll, to evade and to push her usual set of agendas and opinions. SAM removes from members the possibility of having an intelligent discussion about any of the issues.
Ban SAM? Should I ban her when a reasonable fraction of the membership appears to sympathise with her politics and her approach? There are those who have argued that by not banning her or restricting her I have created an unsolvable and recurring problem on the forum. But in opposition, her cheer squad obviously thinks that SAM's version of debate on Palestine/Israel is how it ought to be done.
Like all armchair commentators, it is "obvious" to many what I, as an administrator, ought to do here. I should ban SAM. I should support SAM's right to speak her mind. I should join in her hatred rather than railing against it. I should censor her posts. I should close her threads. I should hail SAM as the saviour of the Oppressed and Downtrodden on sciforums. It's obvious.
It seems to me that whatever is finally done here will be criticised one way or the other by one group or another. An easy option is to let things slide, to go with the status quo. Then we all get the forum we deserve.... maybe.
