sam's trollish nature

Quite, I think they are just trolling you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

nexus:

(Q) is the only one who seems to given more than token condemnation of SAM's bullshit. I'm still a little doubtful that either you or spidergoat are serious about getting SAM to reign in her BS. If there was genuine disapproval amongst the mods, then she would have been dealt with ages ago. So either:

1. You're lying, and you aren't actually bothered by SAM's behaviour.

2. You're telling the truth, but don't feel it's worth actually addressing.

3. You're telling the truth and wish to address the issue, but most/all of the other mods have railroaded you.

I don't consider you to be a liar, so either explaination 2 or 3 sound most plausible.

Good. Then ban all those responsible, instead of just those which the mod squad happens to take a personal dislike to. Because that's what happens. This isn't me whining or making shit up, it's the real deal.

I've taken the proper avenues in order to discipline unruly moderators, and have either been ignored or treated with condescension. This is while I have been repeatedly banned for absurd BS which the mods routinely engage in.

There is a clique amongst a vast majority of the mods on this forum. I doubt (Q) is a part of it. Spidergoat and you probably aren't either, although I'm not sure. But I know for certain that a significant number of mods either remain strangely silent, or close ranks, when one of their own misbehaves and somebody calls them on it.

Perhaps the moderators who disagree with the behaviour of other mods don't mention anything in support of the members, because it encourages criticism of all moderators in general?
Ergo: Moderators are no longer considered as infalliable and untouchable. It's the same reason why teachers will never openly support a student during a teacher-student conflict, even if they think that the student is in the right. Because if bashing one authority is acceptable, then by extension it is acceptable to bash all authority figures. If one moderator is demoted, then all moderators are under considerable pressure to shape up.

(Q) is tame in comparison to SAM. And I've never seen him abuse his mod privileges by banning 'flamers'. I may be incorrect on the latter statement though, as I don't post in the Religious forums much anymore.

Impossible. You're a moderator, hence you're held to certain standards of behaviour that vanilla posters aren't. Also, given the standover tactics employed by the moderators on this forum, posters will always be forced to consider your moderator status when they respond. Ergo: The behaviour of the moderators on this forum has endowed the moderator status with a negative stigma.

If you don't like being regarded as a moderator when you post, then renounce your modship. But you can't have your cake and eat it too.

If the mod squad doesn't leap to the defense of SAM, why is she still a moderator, despite her abmyssal behaviour? Why is Tiassa still a mod? What about James R? Could it be because they close ranks, much like anyone in power does?

The above is the sort of response which makes me lose hope in being treated with fairness or justice by any moderator on this forum. And you wonder where the 'bash the moderator' attitude came from.

1. I wasn't flaming. I merely responded with a tongue in cheek comment to what is essentially misandry.

2. I never reposted any material which I was originally warned for.

3. Bad behaviour by numerous individuals in the 'mod clique' on this forum goes unnoticed and unpunished, not only on the forum in general, but IN THAT VERY THREAD. That's what pisses me off the most. My 'flames' (if you want to call them that?) are tame in comparison to other posters in that thread, and in other threads.

So after belittling me, you're pretending to take some sort of interest regarding my banning? Are you for real? To be honest, you're one of the few moderators on this forum that I can tolerate, but I don't have much faith in you giving me fair treatment.

Moderators shouldn't engage in debate in threads that they moderate, full stop. In fact, moderators should moderate subfora which they have no vested interest in.

I'd agree with the above, if the vast majority of the moderators on sciforums didn't 'stick together'.

I'd argue that sciforums is indeed a business (it aims to provide a service and make a profit, right? I may be wrong about the latter), and we are indeed the customers (receiver of the service). We pay for the service via our loyalty, and contributions in time and ideas.

But even if the metaphor isn't an exact replica of the situation, so what? It's a metaphor, merely meant to demonstrate that you should treat your 'customers' with decency and respect.

The problem is the attitude moderators take to 'whiners'. Perhaps if the moderation team started with the assumption that all posters who wish to proffer criticism are essentially decent, honest people, instead of the assumption that they are just looking to stir up shit, then perhaps things would run smoothly on this board.

Granted, sometimes the members don't act reasonably. But, as that old (adapted) saying goes "The members make peace difficult, but the moderators make it impossible".

Remember, it's the moderator with the power. It's the moderator who holds the aces. And when moderators engage in hypocrisy and standover tactics instead of tact, diplomacy, and sincere inquiry, it's a given that there won't be any 'respect' between all members that Plazma once pleaded for. I personally found it laughable that Plazma called for respect, when his own moderators don't even know what 'respect' is.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I just had sam troll my thread about freedom with pictures of dead babies. I'm not... not 100% on your agenda sam. You think you could maybe post some more pictures of dead babies?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

mountainhare

impeccable reasoning
excellent inferences

still a fascist pig, i believe

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

/kowtow

 

stick that shit on your forum, mods, and stop banning mountainhare

/disgusted

 

I was using the Abu Ghraib/ Gitmo definition of terrorist. More fluid and not requiring real charges or a trial

 

Well, close enough.

 

I think the point is that in many discussions the specifics of what the US in particular does or dosen't do (many of which we Americans agree are utterly stupid and/or fucking incompetent) are largely irrelevant, and by introducing that theme time and time again, it is counterproductive.

 

I believe that's been done here ad nauseum. You can too, if you like. :shrug:

I've already explained my reasoning.

 

Why?

 

Well, I wouldn't mind it so much if she wasn't a mod. But she is.

 

So you're saying being a mod (in Biology and Genetics, Science and Society) I should not have an opinion on the United States policies. Or express it. Because being a mod means I should not have an opinion. And this, in your opinion is what you call free speech.

 

Being a mod, you should have no right to flame, troll, derail, mock, and ban members for frivilous reasons.

 

Oh your ban was approved by the admins.. I posted the flames in the mod forum.

besides, you should know that deleted posts are visible to the admins (and mods of the forum they moderate)

 

Sam,

The evil USA talk really has no place in Roman's thread. His thread is a simple piece on giving up freedom for security.

 

Hmm, you're right. I should start talking about the warts on my dick in every thread you start.

 

Duh!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

S.A.M:

I don't believe you. You banned me almost IMMEDIATELY after I made the post. Unless correspondance between mods and admins goes at the speed of light, I don't find your rationalisations plausible.

 

Sure you can, if you think your dick applies to all the threads I start. I only moderate the forums I am responsible for, I couldn't care less if you talked about your dick your warts or your I got laid stories in other forums; not my problem.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

S.A.M:

Why didn't you mention India, where 12 year olds give up the freedom to not be raped by soldiers in order to feel more secure against terrorists and rebels?

Drop the fucking facade. You'll look for any excuse to bash the U.S.A, and the West in general.