Perceptions of sciforums moderation

[scott3x]

i disagree.
freedom of speech comes with the price of responsibility.
yes, a person can say whatever they want but they must be held accountable for their words

So tow the party line or be censored and/or subjected to personal attacks? That about sum it up leopold?

 

[S.A.M.]

Actually its more like Freedom of Speech in everything except what we deem as Offensive.

Which is the only kind there is, no matter where you go.

 

[ElectricFetus]

I disagree freedom of speech should be free in all ways with exceptions only for direct death threats and if someone wants to sue you for slander. Now is the ideal actually met, well S.A.M got a point in her paranoid Muslim-centric mind on this point, I don't think it ever is as the authorities are always at least a little corrupt towards their bias.

 

[S.A.M.]

True but some are willing to admit it and recognise it. I've seen that in Skinwalker sometimes, like when I thanked him for a warning and he reversed it. But James will hang on to his errors and troll the people who point them out, which is a pity.

 

[Trippy]

A single post? Not likely.

Unless the individual has a sock puppet, this is precisely what happened - see here

I could link gazillions other posts that have not been deleted.

That's nice, but that proves nothing about my statement. It's kind of a non sequitere.

As above, so below. :3

The funny thing, of course, is that now its much better. When I came here two years ago, the freedom to treat theists like shit was upheld most ardently (except Jews, that is, mustn't ever say anything about Jews).

And I bet his comment has nothing to do with the fact that Muslims were being targeted in that thread, since unlike the Fitna thread where he deleted even our on-topic posts, he found nothing to moderate in that thread.

Your opinion, which you're entitled to have.

 

[S.A.M.]

Unless the individual has a sock puppet, this is precisely what happened - see here

See what?

That's nice, but that proves nothing about my statement. It's kind of a non sequitere.

Not when you try and search for equivalent posts on say, Jews and find that they are almost always deleted.

As above, so below. :3

Not really.

Your opinion, which you're entitled to have.

Its an educated opinion, which is easily confirmed or dismissed by simply asking Skinwalker.

 

[Trippy]

See what?

Oh yeah, that's right you can't see it, the post between posts 79 and 80 that was deleted because it was addressing genocide against muslims.

It's also missing from the user's post history of zero posts.

Not when you try and search for equivalent posts on say, Jews and find that they are almost always deleted.

You were claiming that action isn't taken against anti muslim sentiment, I was pointing out that it is. The lack of antisemitism on the board is irrelevant to the action taken against anti muslim sentiment.

 

[S.A.M.]

So I'm supposed to take your word about one invisible moderation over the gazillion unmoderated posts where arabs are referred to as sand niggers, where Muslims are all generalised as liars and fascists and when giant cut and pastes which characterise all Muslims as evil are bypassed?

Doh, aren't you supposed to be a science based person? That one moderation was probably an outlier.

The lack of antisemitism on the board is irrelevant to the action taken against anti muslim sentiment.

Oh please. Lack of antisemitism? Are you one of those determining that semites only refers to what Jews and white men decide it does?

Here is the obvious status quo, a biased one

Israel being called fascist gets James knickers into a knot. He first cesspools the thread then locks it

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=90620

Islam being called fascist has no such effect. He even provides a post in the discussion

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=83848

The funny thing of course, is that the thread on Israel refers to real political changes occuring and discussed in the media. The thread on Islam is just bullshit propaganda against Muslims by one of the anti-Muslim atheists here.

 

[Trippy]

So I'm supposed to take your word about one invisible moderation over the gazillion unmoderated posts where arabs are referred to as sand niggers, where Muslims are all generalised as liars and fascists and when giant cut and pastes which characterise all Muslims as evil are bypassed?

Doh, aren't you supposed to be a science based person? That one moderation was probably an outlier.

Are you asking me to undelete the post for a short period to prove a point?
Or perhaps to PM you the content of the post to prove a point?
And given the response i've recieved about that particular action, I'd have to say it isn't an outlier.

 

[S.A.M.]

Oh did you moderate that post? I don't recall making a complaint against your moderation. In fact, I haven't even come across your moderation. I am complaining about the bias exhibited by Skinwalker and James. You're free to include yourself, but only if it applies to you. I personally have yet to see an anti-Muslim post which I reported against deleted and a public warning against it given until I started making a BIG NOISE about it. Also, complaints to Stryder, James and Plazma have been typically met with platitudes or worse, trolling posts and baiting, so its admin policy that concerns me.

 

[Trippy]

Oh please. Lack of antisemitism?

You're the one that bought it up.

Are you one of those determining that semites only refers to what Jews and white men decide it does?

Nope - if you understand Antisemitism to refer to something other than what I understand it to mean, please feel free to elaborate rather than going on the offensive - i've said or done nothing to warrant this attack. I'm aware that not all Semites are jewish, but i'm also not the one that writes the dictionaries - if you consider the use of the phrase antisemitic to be a faux-par on my part, then so be it, i'm sure many of the Waitaha feel the same way about being lumped in with Kai Tahu.

Here is the obvious status quo, a biased one

Israel being called fascist gets James knickers into a knot. He first cesspools the thread then locks it

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=90620

Islam being called fascist has no such effect. He even provides a post in the discussion

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=83848

The funny thing of course, is that the thread on Israel refers to real political changes occuring and discussed in the media. The thread on Islam is just bullshit propaganda against Muslims by one of the anti-Muslim atheists here.

Call this a dodge if you want, but I'm not going to attempt to speak on JamesR's behalf, nor attempt to explain his actions (or lack there of).

As it happens, I agree with you in some respects (note, i'm refering here to israli politics, not commenting on JamesR's moderation), mostly I think (bearing in mind that i'm on an island in the south west pacific) that the assination of Yitzhak Rabin was one of the biggest tragedies of the last 20 years, and I 'saw' all of this coming after it happened.

 

[S.A.M.]

Call this a dodge if you want, but I'm not going to attempt to speak on JamesR's behalf, nor attempt to explain his actions (or lack there of).

Then you're wasting both our times

Its stuff like this that I am addressing:

Unproductive bullshit like this deserves its place in the cesspool.

The outcome of the Israeli election has sounded the death knell for the two-state solution. There are not 61 votes for it in the new Knesset of 120 seats. A good 64 of the just-elected and/or re-elected Members of Parliament favor accelerated Israeli colonization of the West Bank and oppose Palestinian statehood. Most militant of all is Avigdor Lieberman, a former bouncer from Moldova who has risen in Israeli politics on a platform of racial hatred for Israeli-Palestinians (20% of the population), whom he has urged be "executed" or made to take loyalty oaths, stripped of their citizenship and possibly transferred to the Palestine Authority

But don't worry, its still a democratic state, albeit a fascist democratic state

So what do you see as the outcome for the Palestinians?

Any takers on the enlightened world isolating the selection of an extremist party the way it was done to the beleagured Palestinians?

.

But not this:

Muslims must strive for Fascism, which is the only system such a religion like Islam could survive. Although deemed somewhat anti-religious, fascism serves as a replacement for religion, a sort of 'political religion.'

Islam embodies much of how people should conduct themselves in all aspects of their "submission," hence an excellent choice to fuse itself to such a political system.

Of course, fascism and democracy could not survive together for very long, especially when Islam is the key driver. Muslims would find a myriad of contrived excuses to war, claiming a needed defense while mustering an offense.

Large scale war would appear inevitable.

 

[Trippy]

Oh did you moderate that post? I don't recall making a complaint against your moderation. In fact, I haven't even come across your moderation. I am complaining about the bias exhibited by Skinwalker and James. You're free to include yourself, but only if it applies to you. I personally have yet to see an anti-Muslim post which I reported against deleted and a public warning against it given until I started making a BIG NOISE about it. Also, complaints to Stryder, James and Plazma have been typically met with platitudes or worse, trolling posts and baiting, so its admin policy that concerns me.

I can accept that, but look at it from another perspective, the name of the thread, and comments that have been made in it come across as being directed against the moderation of sciforums in general.

Oh, and I owe you another apology - it genuinely slipped my mind (or rather it only just occured to me) that only moderators can see deleted posts, and so you literally couldn't see that a post had been deleted.

 

[S.A.M.]

I am always pretty specific in my complaints, I see no point in vague hand waving, which post of mine induced you to believe you were included?

 

[Trippy]

Then you're wasting both our times.

Then I'll stop trying to engage you in discussion then, but I thought I was just being honest.

 

[S.A.M.]

You can engage me in discussion as long as you are willing to address the points I am making, rather than ones you think I am making.

At this point here, I will add that superstring and madnathony are both unbiased in allowing people of both sides to speak. They do let both sides get away with a lot more than site rules allow for [at least string does, madant is more circumspect but moderates opposing points of view fairly] but at least inspite of their personal viewpoints [both disagree with my POV], they are fair.

But James has even given me a warning for a conversation I was having in thread with a moderator. Which was absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Trippy]

I am always pretty specific in my complaints, I see no point in vague hand waving, which post of mine induced you to believe you were included?

At the time I made this post yesterday, in fact, yes - because the previous page or so of posts all seemed to be discussing eseentially the same thing, and it was something that I believed to be at least partially inaccurate.

You can engage me in discussion as long as you are willing to address the points I am making, rather than ones you think I am making.

Sure, just as long as you accept that communication is inherently a two way street, and that some times what is conveyed isn't what is meant to be conveyed.

At this point here, I will add that superstring and madnathony are both unbiased in allowing people of both sides to speak. They do let both sides get away with a lot more than site rules allow for [at least string does, madant is more circumspect but moderates opposing points of view fairly] but at least inspite of their personal viewpoints [both disagree with my POV], they are fair.

Without wanting to sound flippant or dismissive, great to hear some positive comments about sciforums moderators on a thread about sciforums moderation.

But James has even given me a warning for a conversation I was having in thread with a moderator. Which was absolutely ridiculous.

I'm not privy to James' motivation, although I will say that this.

I work in local government. I know what it's like to get the same person ringing up about the same thing every few days. That doesn't neccessarily make it any less valid, but it does make it easier not to act upon because it becomes "Just X complaining about Y again."

Without wanting it to come across as my defending JamesR's position (i'm neither defending nor criticising it at this point) try looking at it from another perspective - based on what you've said, and the impression that's given by some of the comments that have been made on this thread (and let me make it explicitly clear, this is my own personal opinion, i'm not claiming to speak on anyone elses behalf or behest) If JamesR was to act on every complaint that he received from you, would he then not open himself up to criticism by a larger group of people about being biased, and acting to protect you? Heck, you'd probably start being abused as the teachers pet - so to speak.

Just an opinion, but it seems to me that it doesn't matter what decision is made, it's always going to be biased.

 

[S.A.M.]

I work in local government. I know what it's like to get the same person ringing up about the same thing every few days. That doesn't neccessarily make it any less valid, but it does make it easier not to act upon because it becomes "Just X complaining about Y again."

I completely agree with you. Which is why, when I got those ridiculous warnings I invited the moderators to read what preceded them and in general, as my attitude is live and let live, I will not report posts unless they break site rules but are not directed towards me. But James will not act unless posts are reported, or at least thats his excuse. So its incumbent upon me to complain if I am to not be inundated with warnings about hate speech.

Which brings us to a point where people who are abusive to me and bait and troll me will also report my posts, hence all the references to Israel and Jews being summarily deleted and warnings about hate speech landing in my Inbox. Now since I do not complain or report, the offenders are not moderated. But I am.

So if the admin of sciforums does not want a policy based on "Just X complaining about Y again." then they should not create an environment that institutes it.

Of course the fact remains that even after reporting posts, there is a bias and turds like otheadp are allowed to get away with doing nothing but trolling posters while we are not even allowed to tell him off.

But thats the other matter I am addressing.

 

[scott3x]

I completely agree with you. Which is why, when I got those ridiculous warnings I invited the moderators to read what preceded them and in general, as my attitude is live and let live, I will not report posts unless they break site rules but are not directed towards me. But James will not act unless posts are reported, or at least thats his excuse. So its incumbent upon me to complain if I am to not be inundated with warnings about hate speech.

Which brings us to a point where people who are abusive to me and bait and troll me will also report my posts, hence all the references to Israel and Jews being summarily deleted and warnings about hate speech landing in my Inbox. Now since I do not complain or report, the offenders are not moderated. But I am.

So if the admin of sciforums does not want a policy based on "Just X complaining about Y again." then they should not create an environment that institutes it.

Of course the fact remains that even after reporting posts, there is a bias and turds like otheadp are allowed to get away with doing nothing but trolling posters while we are not even allowed to tell him off.

But thats the other matter I am addressing.

S.A.M., I think I summed it up rather well in a previous post; what generally counts is that -numerous- people lodge complaints about something or someone, instead of one person lodging multiple complaints. Popular opinion is generally a powerful thing in a forum. Many surveys, both offline and online, are taken precisely to gauge the general public's views on subjects. And that's understandable and laudable as well; it's certainly good to know what people think in general and for politicians, say, to formulate policy based on this, atleast some of the time.

The only thing is that it's a shame when logic and the scientific method goes out the window because of it, but that's life sometimes.

 

[fedr808]

I think it is terrible, I get a referral on one thread saying the words "ass" and on another a guy says "fuck Israel". Seriously. How in the world is this consistant?