Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by James R, Apr 8, 2009.
probably just an infraction or warnin
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I don't believe there is a system in place for that.
You raised the topic of your agenda, not me.
Are you accusing me of flaming or baiting you? If you have a real issue, I am very happy to discuss it. Probably PM would be best, so there's no grandstanding for the invisible audience - by either of us. But if you really want to raise it in public, that's up to you.
I would prefer a public and open discourse. Not for grandstanding, as you imply but for a matter of public record and because I do not believe that private discussions are required for complaints on a public forum about matters related to moderation.
My complaints are quite few and very succint, I will give specific examples:
1. Personal attacks. e.g.
in this thread, which was quite a good discussion until you came in. Thread cesspooling was unwarranted and closure even more so.
2. Illegal allegations of hate speech
For this post to Spock
And this one to string:
I'd like some clarifications about these two posts, the first addressed to Spock who used the term joos which I imitated sarcastically and the second which was a question to a moderator making a bigoted hate speech statement against Islamists.
I'm not sure how this is a personal attack, unless you take exception to the accusation that you think Israel is fascist. But you can't take exception to that, can you? Because it was you who started that thread with the title "Israel goes fascist: Lieberman to the fore!" and in your first post you wrote:
I disagree, for the reasons I gave in the thread, which you quoted above.
If you read the posting guidelines I helpfully copied for you above, you will see that name-calling (e.g. "Joos") is not tolerated on sciforums.
The answer to your question is an obvious "no". There is no valid complaint here. You are not free to call Jews rats.
I imagine this would depend on context. What was superstring's response to you?
In the first case, as far as I am aware, only your post was reported. Spock's was not.
In the second case, you'd need to clarify with superstring what he meant by "Islamists". It's not a word that I, personally, use, because I think it could variously be taken to mean "Muslims" or "fundamentalist Muslims" or terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda or to groups such as the Taliban.
SAM, if you're complaining, you presumably have some desired outcome of your complaint. What do you want done, regarding the above, ideally?
1. There was a good discussion going on in the thread between several pro and anti Israelis [or semites if you wish] which falsifies your premise. I fail to see how pre-emptively protecting the feelings of spidergoat or Buffalo or deciding precipitiously in the middle of a discussion that there is no point to a thread, warrants cesspooling and/or closure. For one thing, I did not see this in the rules you thoughtfully posted before
2. How is Joos "name calling"? What is the name?
3. Why am I responsible for strings vocabulary or inability to distinguish between Islamists and terrorists?
I was not protecting the feelings of spidergoat or Buffalo Roam. I mentioned them merely as people who would probably take the bait of your inflammatory thread.
As far as I can recall, the thread was moved to the cesspool and closed because it violated the following rule (quoted above):
I refer you to rule 3, again helpfully quoted for you above:
"Joos" is out for the same reason that "Mooslums" is out.
Do you need further explanation of this rule? I thought that it would be fairly uncontroversial and easy to understand.
You'll have to ask superstring, I guess, if indeed he has held you responsible for his vocabulary.
Out of interest, why have you bottled up this complaint since November 2008, only to raise it now? Would it not have been better to sort it out at the time?
Like you "sorted" it just now? Perhaps I knew then, as you proved now that you too are incapable of separating your personal feelings from objective moderation.
What are you talking about? Be specific.
Are you are claiming I don't like you, and therefore I moderate you and/or your posts in a biased fashion? Or are you claiming that I'm buddies with superstring and therefore I'll side with him even when he is in the wrong? Or what?
Which of my "personal feelings" do you think are relevant here, SAM? Be specific.
I think I've been fairly specific. I just wanted to be sure I was not making any false assumptions. But either you have a blind spot or you are being wilfully misleading. Regardless, this has been as is usually the case, another pointless exercise. Anyway, thanks for the cooperation. Goodnight.
No not a pointless exercise Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
There is no pointless exercise :shrug:
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I am stoned sorry
tnerb do you have multiple personality disorder or did you forget to log in as your sock?
You are responding to your OWN post idiot
I'll respond later.
Well Brent, the same James who closed the "inflammatory" Israel is fascist thread, which was unproductive bullshit, because of this rule:
is the one who had no problem allowing this thread, Muslims lie, to run for several hundred posts.
Opening Post of the "Muslims lie" thread:
There was another, called Arab mindset, which I cannot now locate, so its either been renamed or deleted. That too was not considered inflammatory. But a fascist Israel? That warrants a cesspooled closure, because it would be too much trouble to say, change the title, like he did for Zaks thread on the same topic.
This is also the James who responded to my message:
With the answer:
So yes, this is a pointless exercise.
Zero-tolerance week is over, right ? Better close the thread before someone gets hurt.. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Fuck the inflamitority.
Yeah, muslims liePlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
He's too cruel.
Nah. James realizes that there isn't uh rule to paying people their manners. You'd think he would get that. I am not sure why he doesn't. What I do know, however, is that there is a good point to this in that you're defending and taking up for yourself. James is a cruel bastard and very very evil man who has no intentions for what is right and just. Though I admit that I do.
James is a bastard face it, also skinwalker etc
So you believe that there is not such a system in place ?
Gah. I'm sorry enmos I did not mean to say that I had actually ended that way so that I could find out what I was going ot say next the bait was sent unfortunately you took it and decided to report me.
I am probably going to have to get it in mind that you would like to report me even when I am not intending to do something wrong. I realize that. I know that you want to report me.
Separate names with a comma.