Personally I feel pity for people who waste their age by trolling, provoking, spreading hate, etc., on internet forum. Every second that gone will never come back. While they could be annoying, I normally don't let myself get disturbed much, I just put them on ignore list. When my head is already cool, I remove them from the ignore list. While I do feel pity for them, I don't favor banning over anyone, I hope one day I can understand them and so I cast my vote against the ban.
If you prefer common courtesy perhaps you should start by dishing out some. After all, I didn't know you either until you responded to one of my posts with: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1841388&postcount=71
Heh, you always try to ban the ones you love. That's why you gang up on my beloved SAM. She's wonderful.
Votes will be public if this goes ahead. If people want others banned, they can stand up for their opinions by having them public. "New" sock puppet votes will not be counted. If I am nominated and voted out, then I will resign as administrator and leave sciforums. Why would I want to be part of a forum that didn't want me, let alone administer it? As for other moderators, if they don't have the confidence of the majority of posters, then we need to question whether they should maintain their positions. It's this second-guessing of moderator/admin decisions that is annoying. Do you think that the moderators and admins are unaware of the posts of the people you have named? If Buffalo Roam was banned now, I can tell you there would be an immediate outcry from many members saying "You banned BR! Why didn't you ban X, Y or Z, who were much worse?" Do you see? And personally, I don't see why BR should be banned right now, anyway. As far as I can see, OIM hasn't broken any forum rules. Sure, he's dishonest and can be annoying, but so what? Does that mean he should just be banned because some people don't like him (or if I don't like him, theoretically)? It seems to me that some posters would like sciforums to be a clique of friends who all like each other. They want to be able to exclude anyone they disagree with or just don't like, for whatever reason. Life isn't like that. You have to learn to deal with people you don't like. Certainly not. Why don't you hit the "report" button if you see a racist or xenophobic tirade? We won't tolerate those, I assure you. We have a clear policy against racism. I agree. What I think the problem is, often, is that people are unable to disagree with one another without things becoming personal and antagonistic. It's not enough for them to say "Well, I'm not getting anywhere with X, so I'll just ignore X and stop interacting with him/her." They have to go that step further and shout out for X's banning. Even when X would say the same thing about them; they don't appreciate that for fairness these things must work both ways. I agree. Again, I agree. Often, the "misfits" provoke some interesting discussions. Of course, there is a line to be drawn, and that's where the moderators come in. Yet, I constantly see people telling the moderators and admins how to do their job. It's a continual theme. I see all the reports from people who hit the "report" button. Many complaints are quite legitimate, for clear breaches of site policies. But others amount, in effect, to complaints that a poster is not "playing fair" in a discussion or argument. And by "playing fair", I mean simply that the complainant thinks that the other poster should basically be stopped from expressing a contrary view, just because the complainant finds that view offensive. And when no action is taken on this kind of complaint, then I see threads started to complain in public about the "offensive" poster, essentially calling for a ban or censorship of the unwanted view. Exactly. I understand. I actually sympathise with your position on OIM. However, such tactics can be countered with counter-argument. They do not require OIM to be banned, in my opinion. I admit that a different moderator or admin might disagree with me on this and do things differently. It is partly because I agree with greenberg's comments above that I am not inclined to ban OIM at this point in time. I respect your right to disagree with this, too. But I have to call it as I see it. If I capitulated to demands for bans every time they came up, a large number of posters would be banned by now. I don't remember commenting on your banning request, specifically. I have said it before, and I'll say it again: the moderators are not a monolithic entity with a shared mind. In general terms, I'm confident that we want similar things for sciforums. However, in specific cases we can and do often have disagreements and discussions about things. This is not a flaw in the moderation team, but is a common feature of governing groups. The members have a large say, even implicitly, in what sciforums is. Every time somebody posts here, it has the potential to affect how sciforums is perceived by newcomers and occasional visitors. Also, despite some opinions, commonly expressed, the moderators do listen to members and what they want, even if we do not always agree. Ultimately, though, sciforums is not a democracy. We do not have moderator elections every month, for example. We do not, in general, continually ask members for their views on the day-to-day administration of the forum. If you want a truly democratic forum, perhaps you should try something like the Wired forum, where everybody gets to vote on how each individual post and poster is rated or ranked. With my current proposal, I hope that the majority of the sane and sensible membership would not vote to remove moderators or valuable posters. I hope that the cranks and those with an agenda or personal animosities would be shouted down by the majority. If you think you're in trouble, consider me. Every idiot I have moderated in the past who bears a grudge would like me to step down as administrator.
It'd be like the goddamn French Revolution. Or maybe that new batman movie. I think we should definitely give it a try. As a social experiment of sorts. Do people make the right decision when there's little risk associated with being an ass?
I stated: You have a right to hate religion. I however do not agree with your views that religions repress free human inquiry. Don't pull my posts out of context. You have a habit of it, it is dishonest. You post being: You came here for the wealth all that 'orrible slavery helped create, yet your own opinion of yourself is so pathetically over inflated to compensate for the fact your really a groveling little coward trying to placate the 'niggers' who front you out on the street. Why you didn't get banned for that statement, I will never know. May I remind you Lord_Voldemort was banned for using equally offensive statements only after posts like this provoked him. Kadark is also guilty of the same. Apparently Moderators allow this hatred to permeate this forum, and when some members are angered and overreact, they are banned permanently. For the rest of you, please read my post. It was a very strong post against the blatant racist exhibited by some posters. The fact the moderators allow this to happen is very troublesome. I'm sorry but if you believe that the racist tirades of Buffalo Roam and OilIsMastery stating in every post 'Islamic Nazis' or 'Islamofacists' or 'Muslim Murderers', and not only that but calling members on this forum with those names is acceptable, there is something seriously wrong here. These posters troll constantly and when asked to asked to give sources or verify their claims, they simply ignore the posts and keep spouting their hate-filled propaganda. I have no personal vendetta against them, but the fact is they hinder many fruitful discussions on this forum and the moderators of the forum allow this to continue unabated as if to mock those of us who wish to engage people of intelligence. Those people are wrong. However calling for the nuking of Muslim countries and the shooting of people belonging a 'religion of peace' are promotion of violence on this forum. These people are cowards who use the internet and their anonymity to their advantage to spout their hatred. They know if they said this to someone in form of their face, they would get knocked out. They are cowards, and by allowing these haters to multiply on these forums is against the nature of how this forum should be moderated. This should NEVER be acceptable here. I would feel equally the same about this for anyone, regardless of their political inclination, religion, or race. There needs to be a higher standard on this forum in regards to trolls and the promotion of hatred and violence against others. People should be banned for declaring willful intent to commit violence against a religious group. Frankly, there is no use. It will be ignored anyway. This is from my experience. A forum in which hatred is allowed will go downhill. You moderators do not realize why so many people have left, and are leaving this forum everyday. Already most of the intelligent posters are either leaving or have been forced due tot he atmosphere here to adopt an aggressive persona when engaging in debate. This forum is hardly an enlightened place for polite discussion on various topics, it is a haven for the most antisocial and rude posters I have ever seen on the internet. The moderators are to blame for this situation.
I'm flattered...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! However banning me won't turn hydrocarbons into living organisms or stop the Earth from expanding.
Where's the button that opts for flailing, salt scrubbing, skin peeling and bathing in acid then banning?
Mass bannings is just what Hitler would have liked to do. Sciforums is being like Hitler. According to the mentioning Hitler rule, this thread is closed.
