Q's Ban (Or, Syne Strikes Again)

[(Q)]

Links and images
9. Images that some readers might reasonably find confronting or disturbing should be posted as URL links rather than as images embedded in a post. In such cases, a clear warning should be posted along with the image, including a brief description of the content.

Yes, "some readers", highly subjective and often biased.
...

- http://www.sciforums.com/announcement.php?f=87

Yes, I have read that lengthy list of rules, which if ever fully enforced would find the vast majority of posters here banned, including yourself and other mods. It is entirely worthless and causes nothing but controversy and conflict as biased and over-inflated mods egos bypass them whenever they want and impose bans on those they personally don't like. It is a farce, at best.

 

[Randwolf]

Yes, "some readers", highly subjective...

I would think you couldn't get anymore subjective than "some readers might reasonably find confronting or disturbing". The only attempt at saving grace in this rule is the "reasonably" but that really doesn't mitigate much. I can easily imagine a group of KKK members "reasonably (at least amongst their peers) find confronting or disturbing" an image depicting African Americans enjoying a meal at the local diner with white folks or, God forbid, a black man walking down the street arm in arm with a white woman. Less extreme examples are easy to come by, but this illustrates the point at hand.

Who decides what is "reasonable"? Society's leaders, that's who, so the mods in general and Syne in this particular case. Since he found (Q)'s image to be confrontational and / or "disturbing" than that is the reasonable viewpoint and therefore a ban is deserved. (not, but that's beside the point)

Face it, Sci is what it is and there is no way to completely eradicate the personal biases and plain old humanity from the moderators. Personally, I think most of them do a good job but everybody makes mistakes now and then. Maybe not the best system, but it's what we have...

 

[GeoffP]

Behaviour that may get you banned

• Hate speech.
• Trolling
• Propaganda, preaching, proselytising or evangelising.

...

Links and images
9. Images that some readers might reasonably find confronting or disturbing should be posted as URL links rather than as images embedded in a post. In such cases, a clear warning should be posted along with the image, including a brief description of the content.
...

Hate speech and stereotyping
6. Hate speech, defined as the vilification of a group of people based on their race, religion, country of origin, sex, sexual orientation, political affiliation etc. is not tolerated on sciforums.

8. The use of vulgar or demeaning words to describe a group of people – particularly a group that includes a member whom you are addressing – is unacceptable.
...

Trolling
18. Trolling is the posting of inflammatory posts with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional (often angry) response. Trolls aim to disrupt normal on-topic discussion, often by raising tangential or irrelevant hot-button issues. Trolling posts are intended to incite controversy or conflict and/or to cause annoyance or offence.
...

Propaganda, preaching, proselytising and evangelising
21. Propaganda is loosely defined here as posts that have no aim other than to proclaim the superiority of one belief over another, particularly where the belief in question is the subject of controversy or argument.
- http://www.sciforums.com/announcement.php?f=87 [emphasis added]​

I have to say that, on that basis, while Q's banning was nominally justified, it's not something I would say was actually justified. There are numerous images on the site - whole threads, for example, devoted to offensive political images (vilifying one political pole or another), religious images, and mounds and mounds of prosetylising. I can't say on that basis that Q deserved that ban, temporary or not. I don't know if Syne was familiar with the common usage on the forum, however; but there is ample precedent. If this is going to be standard, there are infractions waiting all over the forum for others.

Not a good idea, gentlemen.

 

[GeoffP]

Yes, I have read that lengthy list of rules, which if ever fully enforced would find the vast majority of posters here banned, including yourself and other mods. It is entirely worthless and causes nothing but controversy and conflict as biased and over-inflated mods egos bypass them whenever they want and impose bans on those they personally don't like. It is a farce, at best.

I must second this. It is, in fact, this is the actual slippery slope of intolerance that one administrator has cited as a looming danger to the forum. It might be that I see no offense in the image because it doesn't strike me as offensive - but it doesn't seem reasonable to me.

 

[Magical Realist]

6. Hate speech, defined as the vilification of a group of people based on their race, religion, country of origin, sex, sexual orientation, political affiliation etc. is not tolerated on sciforums.

8. The use of vulgar or demeaning words to describe a group of people – particularly a group that includes a member whom you are addressing – is unacceptable.

...

Syne regularly vilifies people based on their sexual orientation. There's a thread going on now where he compares gay people to criminals and gambling addicts. He's even posted pics of exposed gay men at gay parades. Based on this rule, he should've been banned long ago.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

...

Syne regularly vilifies people based on their sexual orientation. There's a thread going on now where he compares gay people to criminals and gambling addicts. Based on this rule, he should've been banned long ago.

"compares gay people to criminals"
Are you sure he's doing that?
Could you give a link?

 

[Randwolf]

...

Syne regularly vilifies people based on their sexual orientation. There's a thread going on now where he compares gay people to criminals and gambling addicts. Based on this rule, he should've been banned long ago.

Are you sure he's doing that?
Could you give a link?

I think I read that thread, IIRC, Syne's defense is that he is referring to homosexual behavior, not homosexuals per se. I could be mistaken though, I would like the link as well MR, if you have it.

 

[Magical Realist]

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?140970-Demonizing-people&p=3166781#post3166781

Posts 3 thru 8...

 

[Randwolf]

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?140970-Demonizing-people&p=3166781#post3166781

Posts 3 thru 8...

Uh huh, pretty much as memory served. But we all know that Syne is, well, different, right?

 

[Captain Kremmen]

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?140970-Demonizing-people&p=3166781#post3166781

Posts 3 thru 8...

Yes, he does make that comparison.

It looks like he is trying to make his opinions known without being insulting, though you may still find those opinions offensive.
When you are talking on a controversial subject, that's the best you can hope for in your opponent.
If he can moderate without letting his opinions affect his impartiality, he could still do a good job as a moderator.

I think that would be difficult for him, as his opinions are so strong.

 

[Magical Realist]

Uh huh, pretty much as memory served. But we all know that Syne is, well, different, right?

Definitely THAT! lol!

 

[Magical Realist]

Yes, he does make that comparison.
I'm not saying that I agree that he should be banned, but his view of homosexuality is as an aberration from the ideal, at least.

I wasn't even aware of the hatespeech/stereotyping rule until he mentioned it as justification for Q's ban. I'm actually well aware that there may be rules on the books that hardly anyone enforces in order to preserve the peace. So my holding Syne to his own touted rule is mainly just to prove that point. As Q said, if the mods really enforced the letter of the law here then everybody would be banned for something.

 

[Balerion]

Yes, he does make that comparison.
I'm not saying that I agree that he should be banned, but his view of homosexuality is as an aberration from the ideal, at least.

But not only way he not banned, he was promoted! LOL.

 

[Syne]

There are numerous images on the site - whole threads, for example, devoted to offensive political images (vilifying one political pole or another), religious images, and mounds and mounds of prosetylising.

There are different moderators for each subforum, and their differing styles and emphasis do not necessitate a policy change site-wide. Each subject has its own criteria. Political discussions are not likely to occur without some tolerance of political propaganda. Some subforums, like Linguistics, require little or no moderation at all. So it would be hard to choose which subforum should be held as the standard site-wide.

And it would be very difficult to argue that the Religion subforum should serve as a guide for the whole science forum.

...

Syne regularly vilifies people based on their sexual orientation. There's a thread going on now where he compares gay people to criminals and gambling addicts.

You complete missed the point. You can be of the opinion that someone is behaving wrong or in an immoral fashion without vilifying them as a person. While I do not think homosexuality is ideal, I do not automatically think all homosexuals are evil. See the difference?

But the larger question is, why should all posters here be of the same opinion on such issues?

 

[Balerion]

There are different moderators for each subforum, and their differing styles and emphasis do not necessitate a policy change site-wide.

Which means, essentially, that moderators view their respective subforum has a miniature kingdom, in which they are free to enforce or not enforce the rules as they see fit, hiding this absurdity behind the "styles and emphasis" cop-out. Again, this is a symptom of poor leadership.

Each subject has its own criteria. Political discussions are not likely to occur without some tolerance of political propaganda.

The same is true of the religion forum. You allowed blatant proselytizing to stand, but when the chorus is atheistic in nature, you act swiftly. It seems your "style" is to allow theistic posters to do whatever the fuck they please, while your "emphasis" is on bringing down the ban-hammer on atheists who behave similarly.

And it would be very difficult to argue that the Religion subforum should serve as a guide for the whole science forum.

No one suggested it should. Rather, the whole science forum should serve as a guide for the religion subforum.

You complete missed the point. You can be of the opinion that someone is behaving wrong or in an immoral fashion without vilifying them as a person. While I do not think homosexuality is ideal, I do not automatically think all homosexuals are evil. See the difference?

He didn't accuse you of calling gays evil. He said you vilify them based on their orientation. Which is true enough. (You actually vilify them for their behavior, which, for some reason you refuse to disclose, is something that is wrong and should be controlled)

And they made a moderator out of you! Isn't that amazing?

 

[Syne]

Which means, essentially, that moderators view their respective subforum has a miniature kingdom, in which they are free to enforce or not enforce the rules as they see fit, hiding this absurdity behind the "styles and emphasis" cop-out. Again, this is a symptom of poor leadership.

No, it simply allows the moderators to tailor their efforts to the subject of each subforum.

The same is true of the religion forum. You allowed blatant proselytizing to stand, but when the chorus is atheistic in nature, you act swiftly. It seems your "style" is to allow theistic posters to do whatever the fuck they please, while your "emphasis" is on bringing down the ban-hammer on atheists who behave similarly.

You do not know what you are talking about. That thread was created while I was at work, and Tiassa handled it, for which I am grateful, before I even knew it existed (creation to thread move all occurred within five hours). And I have given warnings for preaching/proselytizing.

No one suggested it should. Rather, the whole science forum should serve as a guide for the religion subforum.

So should no opinion be stated without evidence? There goes all the Life, Philosophy, and most of the World subfora as well as several others.

He didn't accuse you of calling gays evil. He said you vilify them based on their orientation. Which is true enough. (You actually vilify them for their behavior, which, for some reason you refuse to disclose, is something that is wrong and should be controlled)

Is "sexual activity with the same gender" really that ambiguous? And who said anything about "control[ing]" such behavior? Condemning is not equivalent to wanting to control, as I can condemn gambling without even the slightest desire to get involved in deterring it.

 

[Magical Realist]

Is "sexual activity with the same gender" really that ambiguous? And who said anything about "control[ing]" such behavior? Condemning is not equivalent to wanting to control, as I can condemn gambling without even the slightest desire to get involved in deterring it.

Condemning means you want the behavior to cease in some way, either thru it being controlled or repressed or outright outlawed. That's been the traditional approach of religion for 2500 years now. So on what basis do you morally condemn two gay people loving each other? What standards are you applying to them? And can you rationally support such condemnation considering it is an inalienable right of everyone to pursue their own happiness.

 

[Balerion]

No, it simply allows the moderators to tailor their efforts to the subject of each subforum.

Style and emphasis have nothing whatsoever to do with catering to the needs of a particular subject. You can't use one as an excuse for the other.

You do not know what you are talking about. That thread was created while I was at work, and Tiassa handled it, for which I am grateful, before I even knew it existed (creation to thread move all occurred within five hours). And I have given warnings for preaching/proselytizing.

We'll just have to take you at your word, I suppose.

So should no opinion be stated without evidence? There goes all the Life, Philosophy, and most of the World subfora as well as several others.

Did I say that? Are opinions stated without evidenced punished in every other subforum? You list several here that don't, so how could you possibly argue that using the site as a whole as a guide for the religion forum would result in the deterioration of the subfora which help influence the moderation of it?

Strawmen fail you, Syne.

Is "sexual activity with the same gender" really that ambiguous?

Did I say it was? Where in my post do you see that?

And who said anything about "control[ing]" such behavior? Condemning is not equivalent to wanting to control, as I can condemn gambling without even the slightest desire to get involved in deterring it.

I never said you wanted to get involved in anything. I said you believe that homosexual behavior should be controlled--which you do. You can't believe a behavior is morally wrong without believing there is a morally-correct alternative. So your belief is that homosexuals should control their impulses and adhere to a morally-correct behavior.

 

[Syne]

Condemning means you want the behavior to cease in some way, either thru it being controlled or repressed or outright outlawed. That's been the traditional approach of religion for 2500 years now. So on what basis do you morally condemn two gay people loving each other? What standards are you applying to them? And can you rationally support such condemnation considering it is an inalienable right of everyone to pursue their own happiness.

Maybe for you, but I can both condemn a behavior and not care whether it continues without any cognitive dissonance. I can tolerate people being wrong just fine.

 

[Syne]

Style and emphasis have nothing whatsoever to do with catering to the needs of a particular subject. You can't use one as an excuse for the other.

Yet I did just that, regardless of whether you agree or not.

Is "sexual activity with the same gender" really that ambiguous?

Did I say it was? Where in my post do you see that?

"You actually vilify them for their behavior, which, for some reason you refuse to disclose..."

If the behavior was not ambiguous, what did I "refuse to disclose"?

I never said you wanted to get involved in anything. I said you believe that homosexual behavior should be controlled--which you do. You can't believe a behavior is morally wrong without believing there is a morally-correct alternative. So your belief is that homosexuals should control their impulses and adhere to a morally-correct behavior.

My belief is that people are free to make their own mistakes. I am not the final arbiter of anyone's morality but my own.