Why banning anyway?

This is like children complaining about their teachers, and the teachers actually sitting down with the kids and explaining things. I'm not sure who should be embarassed more, those complaining, or those having to gently explain things to them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The ones who have to explain, actually. A person can't "just know" when he's ten years old, or when the situation is chaotic and moderator fiat is abused to promote personal agendas. Also, whatever they "explain" they should stand by. Teachers used to tell me things and then immediately do the exact opposite, like "come to me when he's bullying you" then ignoring me. That was a headgame. When you are a child it's devastating. When you are an adult it's annoying and it ruins that person's credibility. Credibility is a lot more important than status. A teacher who plays games like that is not filling her own shoes or her job description.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think we should all be given moderator status and banning powers. Then we could have mod wars.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm also a public rights lawyer in my country and my daily job besides other things includes a watchful eye over actions and laws passed by my government. Some mods don't truly understand what happened there, and I don't blame them, they don't have the education or in depth understanding of human rights and basic principles of law and justice, but what happened was vile, dirty and dishonest, and a disgusting breach of human rights and free speech.
Secrecy is put before justice and ideological correctness before ethics (yes!).

Yes, this is a private board, I know it, but the "management of members" has been so incompatible with my ethics and rights code, that I did the only right thing possible - I spoke up.

I knew what was going to happen, even if a load of people said that mods can do whatever they can. They have some point, but only if it applies to members, not the administration. Thou shalt not question it.

Yeah, I did it, I was demoted, now Tiassa and some others are lying about the issue, that nothing happened and nothing could possible have happened.
I could post some screenshots, write an article or something, but then I'd probably be banned and my posts deleted. Right guys?
Right, "nothing happened", there was no "threat", carry on, people.

So I do the other thing possible - I stay and participate in the forum, because I like this community, and because of my sympathies and my honour I have paid a small price. Totally worth it!

Because if I had "gone over to the dark side", there would be nothing of Avatar left and I wouldn't even be able to do my daily job with sound conscience.

 

Yay Avatar! Boo everyone else.

 

Yes ... we believe you ....

Have you an example to provide?

 

I broke a trust? I never did swear to this administration that I will sacrifice my honour and sense of justice to it. I broke a trust that was given to me by an abomination of human rights.
sarcasm -> Yes, I must feel terrible about it. <-sarcasm

I really don't have the time to write an essay here, especially because I think some mods here are being dishonest, but in law there is no one higher principle, principles are weighted and balanced between themselves.

I carefully (because I respect law and order) weighted and balanced privacy on one side and justice and human rights on the other. Secrecy wasn't worth shit in this case. The merit for the community of keeping it secret was ZERO, the potential danger to the community was great, and, I have reasons to believe, still is great.

There are some others here that believe that privacy (or secrecy) should not be the ultimate principle above all others.

To answer concerns by Plazma - yes, I would have breached the privacy of mod forum again if this sort of thing happened again.
And no, I would have never breached the privacy of mod forum, if there wasn't a serious violation of human rights (even if it was behind the scenes).

I'm a public official and I gave an oath to serve the government and the public. And within that oath is written that if I ever see that the government is acting against the best legitimate interests of the public, I should act in the interests of the public against the particular government.

Of course, that oath was to a different establishment, but I don't see a difference.

I was entitled to an opinion? Sorry, it skipped my notice. Probably it's written somewhere where Sun will never shine, mod subforum maybe?
I hope not thought.

==========

By the way, I want to stress out again that Tiassa was lying to the mods, because he said that there is a strong opposition in the community for Baron Max being a member, that BM's antagonistic actions were somehow against the interests of this community.
My thread conclusively proved, and, I suspect, would have proven to an even greater extent, if it hadn't been locked, that there was no such thing.

Baron Max's actions were against the ideology of some mods and less than a handful of ordinary members, and that's all.
An ideology that includes secrecy as the top principle, above law, above ethics, above justice and human rights. And they call themselves liberal! Such sickening hypocrisy!

Administration wants trust, here's something they can put trust in me for - I won't have any more dealings with you regarding this matter, I won't explain myself to you, I won't try to defend myself to you and I will definitely not trust you in anything you say.

Tiassa and Asguard are abominations of sentience beyond any acts of redemtion.

 

If that's the case, surely you weren't the only moderator who would've seen through Tiassa's claims. Bells and S.A.M. both, as indicated by the recent discussion, understand your concern; string, madant and BenTheMan are all very fair in their moderating from what I've seen. The situation as you describe it still doesn't sound like something that would've required the actions you took.

Heh!

 

Eh, what's one more breach, here's Tiassa word by word: "On an entirely unrelated note, I recognize now that I shouldn't have bothered posting this advisory topic, and simply should have dealt with max as was my first inclination and disregarding any conflict of interest."

 

And if that had happened, and assuming that the ban was on shaky grounds, members here, including moderators, would've noticed an unfair banning and PMd an Admin about it. Maybe I just have too much faith in people but this whole thing seems to stink of unnecessary melodrama.

 

Sam, why are you doing this, this is how it was in Baron's case:

Just an update on [sarcasm] [insult]
[member name] has resumed his [ridicule], [ridicule].

Note the mod edit at [references].
I'm symapthetic to [user who wished Baron Max death].

My problem is that [blah, blah, blah Baron Max is antagonist].
If he [continues to be antagonist] ***other words for - disagreeing with me*** I will [warning] [ban cycle].

Since I bear an obvious conflict of interest in this, I figred some advance [explanation] before I [insult]

 

Right, I'll PM Adolf Hitler and complain about actions taken by SS.
Maybe this was unnecessary for the community, maybe indeed it was and I was too melodramatic, I can accept that, but it wasn't unnecessary for me.

 

By the way, anybody else amused that such a person moderates at Sciforums, what is Ethical, Moral and Just?

The quoted example speaks for itself.

And the sad thing is that Plazma sees no problem with Tiassa moderating Ethics, Morality and Justice.

That's like putting Stalin in charge of an Opera.

Tiassa appears to be no problem for this administration, like hand with the glove.

 

put aside free speech for a moment
lets talk about the baron

what do you know about him?
his ideology
world view
solutions

can you provide a summation with citations?
you are batting for the guy right?

 

Well I think most of Baron Max's his posts make a good point.

 

It's disheartening to see you ignore my previous post, Tiassa. Perhaps you can spend this solitary time reflecting on your transgressions as a moderator.

I saw great potential in this thread, Tiassa, the moment it was launched. It seems as if Sciforums' perturbed community, perpetually increasing in numbers, decided to voice its concerns regarding the abominable moderator work. The "mod squad" has been labeled many things, as I'm sure you're well aware of; notice, however, that none of the descriptions thus far have been flattering, or even remotely encouraging. Why is that? The moderators vehemently deny abusing their powers and singling out unfortunate users, yet it seems this community, endowed with "freedom of speech", has shown no signs of appreciation whatsoever. The simple reason for this phenomena is that there truly is nothing to appreciate. The moderating was shaky at best when I first joined; throughout the course of my tenure, it has witnessed a downward spiral, plunging into the abyss of outright fascism.

Returning to my point: yes, this thread did, and likely still does, have potential; unfortunately, the moderators have created gimmick accounts, using dick-mongrels like gustav to slowly destroy the rebellion from within. Notice how this thread once featured legitimate, passionate concerns, yet is now host to a hotbed of gossip, stirred primarily by the usual suspects - Gustav and Sam. Complaints of this calibre never originate out of thin air, Tiassa, which is a fact you're familiar with. The fact that James threatened to ban me for one month simply because of my avatar is very telling, in the sense that a harmless image angers the moderators more than the utterly mindless and offensive nonsense posted by visceral_instinct and her equally unlikable goons. So, is this how you treat your intellectuals? Threatening to abuse or exile them, whensoever they show signs of independent and unique thinking?

Strangely, I'm not at all surprised.


Kadark

 

OMG really? Thanks for letting us all know, we would have never guessed.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Regardless, what they did to you is BS! At least you had the balls to speak up.
IMO they are the ones who look bad in this whole scenario, not you.

 

cool
two retards with one stone

perhaps someone else actually analysed .....
i doubt it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

the old bugaboo
calling for bans gets caller a ban
sentence in this case was commuted to a lesser charge

this demotion however fits a punishment for breaching site protocol
it was probably the case
if it was not, make the case or my shit stands

the only escape hatch is asserting the two instances of the term "offenses", refer to different instances

 

What Avatar said is a bit shocking, but I wholeheartedly trust Avatar in this matter, not that I don't trust other, but Avatar has been always consistent. Maybe there is just a misunderstanding here. There is one way to prove which one is saying right or wrong. Screenshot?

 

--deleted--

Sorry for the double post, my connection is lagging.