Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by James R, Apr 13, 2009.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Part of the issue may be that if no one reports a post, the moderator may simply not have known of the offending post's existence. However, I have a strong feeling that the problem is deeper than that. Terms such as a$$ and the f word and its derivatives should be clearly shown to be against the rules, thus avoiding confusion as to whether it's a reportable word or not.
Some would say that context matters; fine, context matters; but there are some words where, in general, they are meant to be personal attacks; I believe both the terms above qualify. If no one feels that it was used badly, no one need report it. And even if it's reported, a moderator still decides whether or not it's a personal attack.
This rule set doesn't apply to people who have some powerful enemies on sci forums however; for such people (I include myself here), well, you take your lumps or you can get censored.. or banned.. it all depends on the popularity of x or y view(s) you have and how much you try to clarify and/or defend them.
I'd say that more was going on than simply using the word "ass." But, hey. Others are free to look at it and decide for themselves.
By the way, scott, a$$ isn't a word in any language I'm aware of. And by "f word" are you referring to "freedom," "fine," "fun..."?
My question is more about exactly what a poster is acting on when they determine a mod is not acting in a biased fashion towards others (since they are not privvy to the infraction notices or fingerprints of a deleted post).
I seldom delete posts, except from spammers. I certainly do not delete posts purely because I disagree with them. If I did that, a good fraction of the forum would disappear. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You're just hypersensitive to threads on Israel and Islam. Moreover, you notice and take exception to my moderating threads on Israel, while approving of and hence ignoring my moderation of threads in which attacks on Islam are concerned. It's a simple case of confirmation bias on your part. You assume I'm pro-Israel because you're so rabidly anti-Israel yourself - practically everybody must look pro-Israel to you. Why you assume I'm anti-Muslim puzzles me.
I do not recall any occasion on which I have said anything negative about Muslims. I do not "think its okay to rail against" Muslims, and there's no basis in my actions or posts that would make an unbiased observer think that's what I think.
If you think I'm against Muslims, I challenge you to quote a single one of my posts that makes an explicit anti-Muslim statement. Find just one, if you can, and maybe your complaint will become mildly plausible. Until then, you're just accusing me of biases I do not hold.
Interestingly, I have been accused by some of "protecting" SAM, and quite recently at that.
Try to be consistent. A moment ago you complained that I edit and delete posts off my own bat, and now you're complaining that I won't act unless I receive a report. So which is it? Do you want me to act on my own initiative, or only on reports?
Wrong on both counts. otheadp has been moderated (by me, among others) in the past, warned and (I can't remember) perhaps even temporarily banned.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I've already stated the difference in moderation James. While you delete posts insulting Jews, you do not do the same for posts insulting Muslims. You lock threads where Israel is called fascist for having real fascist policies but calling Islam and by extension all Muslims as warmongerers in a propaganda thread is alright by you. Reports on the fitna thread also pass by you as such propaganda is probably "useful" discussion in your regard.
One need not always make a statement, it is also possible to show bias by omission. If one can discuss Geert Wilders, then there should be no lockdown on discussing Lieberman, you locked at least 3 threads on that topic alone.
As to being pro-Israel, you prove it by your actions regarding how you address the different issues. I have yet to see you jump in and ban people for making derogatory statements about Palestinians or Arabs on your own account. However you have done this for posts/threads about Jews/Israel.
In the same thread that otheadp called them as Islamist savage monkeys you sent me a warning for hate speech for objecting to such generalisation by asking the moderator who supported such speech if I could then say Judaist rats. Your defence of that was that string was using something other than the dictionary definition of Islamists.
Meanwhile I don't particularly care what your political positions are. spidergoat is "rabidly" pro-Israel and I have no issue with his stance. But when it reflects as bias in moderation and you send me warnings on hate speech, it becomes my problem. Accusing me of "confirmation bias" when I provide links and posts to support my POV and when you ignore reports I have personally made is dodging the question.
One can only conclude from all of the above that you are selectively willing to allow propaganda that endorses and spreads negative stereotypes of Muslims.
actually i was referring to a concept known as "the truth", or what a person honestly believes to be true.
I have a strong feeling you know exactly what I'm trying to convey. But on the rather unlikely possibility that you don't, by all means take a look at the post I was responding to; the words I'm referring to are spelled out quite clearly there.
If only it were easy for everyone to know what was true eh? As it is, however, there are many times when people disagree as to what the truth is. In that case, the golden rule applies; those who have the gold make the rules. Just as law is based on enforcement power and legal niceties are only effective when the masses are actually in agreement with it.
I think a good example is Guantanamo Bay and torture. For a long time, a good proportion of society thought these things were 'ok', but people who supported these things are finally beginning to realize that perhaps they were mistaken. And so it goes...
don't worry scott, your tongue isn't going to swell up and fall out if you say the words cunt, fuck, ass, nigger, jackass, or pussy face.
i always thought "the majority" made the rules.
the concept of justice takes care of the stragglers
almost every law i'm aware of is based on logic and/or common sense.
i don't think torture is legal in any part of the civilized world.
the military has its own code of justice called the UCMJ.
for the record I got an infraction for hate speech for that. though how its hate speech i do not know.
The moderation in the forum is completely in favor of particular groups, and in the complete detriment of others. Unfortunately, most members enjoy the freedom to insult, issue racist names, and simply silence debate with flaming, as long as the oarticular group is unpopular among the moderators (i.e. Muslims, African-Americans, etc). A few of the moderators are some of the worse flamers on this forum.
I agree. I've used the f word on a few occassions; the last time I remember using it, it was to stave off a physical threat, way back in gym in high school. I had to do push ups for doing so, but I think in that case it was worth it. On some rare occassions it can be good for that; on others, it can actually incite it; in most cases, I find it to be counterproductive to communication.
In some countries, the majority may be led to believe that. In point of fact, however, the majority elect people who then supposedly have their best interests at heart. Sometimes they really do. But I think it's also wise to look at where a lot of campaign money comes from. Hint; not from your average citizen.
It allegedly does, yes. It doesn't always do so, however. People on the sidelines, that is, the poor and those who have unpopular viewpoints, frequently get the brunt of society's cruelties. They generally learn to live with it (we sometimes hear of those that don't), but that doesn't make it fair.
Ah leopold. You seem to think that logic and common sense are equivalent. And I'm sure that many people who felt that the earth was flat, or that the inquisition was necessary or that slavery was a good thing felt exactly the same way. This doesn't mean it was true, though.
You one of the people who think that waterboarding isn't torture Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!? Perhaps you should give it a try, see how many seconds you last before you drop the weights Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The only moderator that I've seen get to the ground level insults (and, in Tiassa's forum atleast, get deleted with all the rest as well) is Skinwalker. Anyway, I agree with you; the unpopular groups have a rough time of it. Unfortunately, this isn't something that is particular to sci forums. Most forums that I've seen do the same. It generally doesn't even matter if my views are supported in a forum or not; the bottom line is that the views that the moderators don't like (whatever they may be) are going to get the shaft.
Isn't it amazing how unpopular you are that the moderation lets you bitch and whine like this? Personally I think its all in your head, You just want to believe everyone is against you, it makes you feel important, it makes your cause seem worthy.
i remember when ophiolite was saying how inconsistent the moderation was on this forum and that all he was asking for was a little consistency.
well he got what he was asking for when he called cutsie marie a "sensitive bitch".
what does the leader of men, the trainer of the alpha male do?
does that thumb taste good or what.
like james said, be careful of what you ask for you just might get it.
But I saw pornography in another thread. Is that allowed then?
How about this? :shake: or this :spank:
lol are you serious ? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Wow, another of the older generations gone. But the moderation on this forum is fine!!! LAAHH LAAHHH LAHH, I CAN'T HEAR YOU! IT'S FINE I TELLS YA!
Separate names with a comma.