Skinwalker banning Scifes unacceptable

[scott3x]

yeah and neither one of you can explain why skinwalker the evil moderator managed to keep his ass out of the following thread either:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=92941
oops, my mistake, he spoke 3 words, sorry.

I guess the people in that particular thread generally lucked out.

lucked out? for 31 pages?? come now scott, you can't be serious.

Maybe he's keeping a low profile for now because of all the flack he's been getting here.

i don't call "deleting and editing posts" maintaining a low profile.
the "low profile" ruse doesn't wash.

Look, first you said that he spoke 3 words in that thread. Are you now saying that he was deleting and editing posts in it? I'd think that's just a tad more important than how many words he contributed and yet you made no mention of it.

I know the 'technique' perfectly well. Essentially, it goes like this:
1- Don't dare suggest the moderator is wrong.

you're a laugh scott.
you think for one minute if i thought a mod was wrong i wouldn't say anything?????? think again dude.

Perhaps you're just lucky that you don't disagree with him on anything substantial. Do you honestly believe that the posts he deleted of mine, one of which is posted verbatim in the thread I have shown you, merited deletion? If so, why?

the major difference between me and you in this regard is that i take a measure of responsibility with my words.

The implication apparently being that I don't. Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?

2. The moderator is allowed to be hypocritical.

a mod says one thing but believes something else?
evidence?

In this case, it was more that Skinwalker rebuked me for a post I made because it branched from the original discussion somewhat. The irony was that he had branched in the same direction himself in a subsequent post. So when I point this out to him, he deletes it, allegedly because it was "off topic" in the religion forum. Here is the deleted post in its entirety, only not in the religion forum, where it was allegedly off topic, but here in SF Open Government, where it was 100% on topic in the thread I created, which was asking for clarification as to when moderators are entitled to delete posts:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2218628&postcount=2

The whole thing was unfair and, I felt, worthy of being examined by the public at large since the administration had already done nothing in regards to the first post he deleted. For posting the complete message, which was only allegedly off topic in the -original- forum it was posted in (the religion forum), I was almost banned. James said that I would be if I did it again. Again, this was completely unfair. I hope that some day I receive an apology, one from Skinwalker for the deletions, and one from James for his unfair judgements, but I won't be surprised if I don't get either.

 

[leopold]

Look, first you said that he spoke 3 words in that thread. Are you now saying that he was deleting and editing posts in it?

no, you are the one accusing him of "editing and deleting" posts.
he can't maintain a low profile while doing that can he?

I'd think that's just a tad more important than how many words he contributed and yet you made no mention of it.

mention of what?

Perhaps you're just lucky that you don't disagree with him on anything substantial.

third time you've said that scott.

Do you honestly believe that the posts he deleted of mine, one of which is posted verbatim in the thread I have shown you, merited deletion?

i believe that is for james, stryder, and plasma to decide.
context is everything, if anyone hasn't been following the thread then they can't really make any kind of judgment call. i wasn't following the thread.

The implication apparently being that I don't. Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?

no, because most of them have been deleted.
evil moderators.

In this case, it was more that Skinwalker rebuked me for a post I made because it branched from the original discussion somewhat. The irony was that he had branched in the same direction himself in a subsequent post. So when I point this out to him, he deletes it, allegedly because it was "off topic" in the religion forum. Here is the deleted post in its entirety:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2218628&postcount=2

The whole thing was unfair and, I felt, worthy of being examined by the public at large since the administration had already done nothing in regards to the first post he deleted.

and you think if you keep hammering that they'll just throw up their hands and say you're right. yes, we see how this goes scott.

For posting the complete message, which was only allegedly off topic in the -original- forum it was posted in (the religion forum), I was almost banned. James said that I would be if I did it again. Again, this was completely unfair. I hope that some day I receive an apology, one from Skinwalker for the deletions, and one from James for his unfair judgements, but I won't be surprised if I don't get either.

almost banned? how can you be almost banned?
you either are or aren't.

clue for you scott, the more you screech on this the more grease you'll get.
personally i'd give it a rest.

 

[scott3x]

the fact that islam has a very real political agenda proves that.

Does christianity have an 'agenda'?

you conveniently left out the word political.

leopold, I'd quoted you using the 2 terms together and then responded right after that. You don't actually think I was talking about "a list of meeting activities in the order in which they are to be taken up", do you?

First of all, religions aren't people, they're belief systems, which makes it difficult for them to have agendas.

tell that to your daughter when she is being legally forced to cover her face because she married a muslim.

I don't have a daughter. I have a sister who got married to a muslim man, however. They moved to Saudi Arabia for a time and yes, she did have to cover up when she went outdoors. My mother says she hated it. We were all glad when she persuaded her (now ex) husband to come back to western society. What I'm mystified on is, what point are you trying to make? Not all muslims believe that women covering up should be required. I've actually met one who was a bartender and dressed in a very revealing manner. I really think that you should take the words of Robert Heinlein to heart. Another way of putting it is stop the stereotyping.

or she's being beat on because some religion allows it.
bullshit scott

The muslim religion is too varied to declare that it "allows" it. Instead of using generalizations, why don't you ask a real, live muslim woman, like S.A.M.; does -she- think that her religion allows the beating of women?

you might be comfortable with that, but i take great offense to it.
it's unconstitutional, but we can't use the constitution against religion can we?

Sure society can do this. And has, many, many times.

edit:
the above post was directed specifically to muslims and islam but it applies to all religions. you have about as much use in our courtrooms as battery acid does in baby food. keep your garbage out of our courtrooms.

leopold, -are- you a christian as DiamondHearts stated? You don't sound like one ;-). If you define religion the way I do, that is, a set of beliefs, the laws are a set of beliefs and thus, a religion in its own right. I ask you to consider the possibility that the role of many religious texts is the same role that the U.S. constitution plays. And whether or not either was divinely inspired, I firmly believe that men wrote both.

For the record, I don't belong to any particular religious affiliation. But for those who like people who are religious, perhaps I could brand my belief set as "scottism" and then say that I'm deeply religious ;-). Although I think the trend these days is to be seen as spiritual, not religious, as religion seems to be getting an asignation as what the -old- generation was into; I think this probably applies more in a scientific forum ;-).

 

[leopold]

I don't have a daughter. I have a sister who got married to a muslim man, however. They moved to Saudi Arabia for a time and yes, she did have to cover up when she went outdoors. My mother says she hated it. We were all glad when she persuaded her (now ex) husband to come back to western society. What I'm mystified on is, what point are you trying to make? Not all muslims believe that women covering up should be required. I've actually met one who was a bartender and dressed in a very revealing manner. I really think that you should take the words of Robert Heinlein to heart. Another way of putting it is stop the stereotyping.

it was an example scott, and i edited my post before you responded to it to include all religions.
frankly i could care less what muslim men do to their women.actually i do care but its like faring in the wind.
when it becomes legally enforceable is where i question it.

The muslim religion is too varied to declare that it "allows" it. Instead of using generalizations, why don't you ask a real, live muslim woman, like S.A.M.; does -she- think that her religion allows the beating of women?

sam is intelligent, no doubt, but i trust her views of the west none at all.

leopold, -are- you a christian as DiamondHearts stated?

yes.

You don't sound like one ;-).

religion from a holy book is a ruse.

If you define religion the way I do, that is, a set of beliefs, the laws are a set of beliefs and thus, a religion in its own right. I ask you to consider the possibility that the role of many religious texts is the same role that the U.S. constitution plays. And whether or not either was divinely inspired, I firmly believe that men wrote both.

now comes the subtleties i mentioned.

 

[scott3x]

Look, first you said that he spoke 3 words in that thread. Are you now saying that he was deleting and editing posts in it?

no, you are the one accusing him of "editing and deleting" posts.
he can't maintain a low profile while doing that can he?

He deleted the posts back at the beginning of April. Since then, I created the first thread wherein I and others called for his removal if he couldn't change his behaviour and now we have yet another thread doing so. You don't suppose all this bad press might have influenced him to keep a low profile, atleast for now?

I'd think that's just a tad more important than how many words he contributed and yet you made no mention of it.

mention of what?

I had been thinking that both the 3 words he posted and the thread deletions were occuring in the same thread. Clearly, they weren't; not only that, the 2 things appear to be separated by a significant time gap as well.

Perhaps you're just lucky that you don't disagree with him on anything substantial.

third time you've said that scott.

I'm doing it to try to get you to see what you apparently have a very hard time seeing; if you agree with him, sure you can think that he's swell. The problem is when you -don't- agree with him. At that point, things can get downright nasty.

Do you honestly believe that the posts he deleted of mine, one of which is posted verbatim in the thread I have shown you, merited deletion?

i believe that is for james, stryder, and plasma to decide.

James has already made his stance clear and Stryder has certainly put in some comments; I haven't seen Plasma in some time. But you're the one who's defending Skinwalker here. Are you afraid that if you were to truly listen to what I'm saying concerning his deletions that you'd be forced to admit that he went overboard?

context is everything, if anyone hasn't been following the thread then they can't really make any kind of judgment call. i wasn't following the thread.

The thread hasn't dissapeared; I've highlighted the relevant thread for you to make an informed decision.

the major difference between me and you in this regard is that i take a measure of responsibility with my words. i believe i mentioned this before when i said "technique"

The implication apparently being that I don't. Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?

no, because most of them have been deleted.
evil moderators.

Of the 3000+ posts that I've made, few have been deleted. Skinwalker has only deleted 2, the first which I described in this forum and the second which was reposted into this forum verbatim (I believe it's clear that it was only off topic in the original forum). In the first, all I did was state what I've have told you before; that is, my claim that some moderators don't properly understand the scientific method. For this, I also got a warning with an accusation of "trolling". I've already quoted the relevant sentence to you in the past when you wanted to see what the fuss was about, but if you want, I can send you the post verbatim via PM (sorry, but I don't want to get banned for posting it here). I have already linked to the other deleted post. From here, I think it should be clear that you should either back up your case by pointing out where you think that I'm not acting irresponsably, or you retract your statements concerning my posts in Skinwalker's forum.

In this case, it was more that Skinwalker rebuked me for a post I made because it branched from the original discussion somewhat. The irony was that he had branched in the same direction himself in a subsequent post. So when I point this out to him, he deletes it, allegedly because it was "off topic" in the religion forum. Here is the deleted post in its entirety:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2218628&postcount=2

The whole thing was unfair and, I felt, worthy of being examined by the public at large since the administration had already done nothing in regards to the first post he deleted.

and you think if you keep hammering that they'll just throw up their hands and say you're right.

I think you hadn't yet read further down. We'll continue with that part...

For posting the complete message, which was only allegedly off topic in the -original- forum it was posted in (the religion forum), I was almost banned. James said that I would be if I did it again. Again, this was completely unfair. I hope that some day I receive an apology, one from Skinwalker for the deletions, and one from James for his unfair judgements, but I won't be surprised if I don't get either.

almost banned? how can you be almost banned?

As in James telling me that I was very close to being banned. As a matter of fact, he apparently seemed to have asked to hold off from banning me, atleast for a bit longer.

clue for you scott, the more you screech on this the more grease you'll get. personally i'd give it a rest.

Grease? Sorry, I don't understand the term in this context.

 

[leopold]

Of the 3000+ posts that I've made, few have been deleted. Skinwalker has only deleted 2, the first which I described in this forum and the second which was reposted into this forum verbatim (I believe it's clear that it was only off topic in the original forum). In the first, all I did was state what I've have told you before; that is, my claim that some moderators don't properly understand the scientific method. For this, I also got a warning with an accusation of "trolling". I've already quoted the relevant sentence to you in the past when you wanted to see what the fuss was about, but if you want, I can send you the post verbatim via PM (sorry, but I don't want to get banned for posting it here). I have already linked to the other deleted post. From here, I think it should be clear that you should either back up your case by pointing out where you think that I'm not acting irresponsably, or you retract your statements concerning my posts in Skinwalker's forum.

huh?did i say you were acting irresponsibly?
i also believe i haven't commented on any specific post of yours in skinwalkers forums.

As in James telling me that I was very close to being banned. As a matter of fact, he apparently seemed to have asked to hold off from banning me, atleast for a bit longer.

this doesn't bode well for you scott.

Grease? Sorry, I don't understand the term in this context.

it's a metaphor, forget it.

 

[scott3x]

First of all, religions aren't people, they're belief systems, which makes it difficult for them to have agendas.

tell that to your daughter when she is being legally forced to cover her face because she married a muslim.

I don't have a daughter. I have a sister who got married to a muslim man, however. They moved to Saudi Arabia for a time and yes, she did have to cover up when she went outdoors. My mother says she hated it. We were all glad when she persuaded her (now ex) husband to come back to western society. What I'm mystified on is, what point are you trying to make? Not all muslims believe that women covering up should be required. I've actually met one who was a bartender and dressed in a very revealing manner. I really think that you should take the words of Robert Heinlein to heart. Another way of putting it is stop the stereotyping.

it was an example scott, and i edited my post before you responded to it to include all religions.

I know it was a fictitious example; I segued into the story of my sister because I wanted to include a real one.

frankly i could care less what muslim men do to their women. actually i do care but its like farting in the wind.

I certainly don't see it that way.

when it becomes legally enforceable is where i question it.

I question it before that point, but I certainly question it at that point as well.

The muslim religion is too varied to declare that it "allows" it. Instead of using generalizations, why don't you ask a real, live muslim woman, like S.A.M.; does -she- think that her religion allows the beating of women?

sam is intelligent, no doubt, but i trust her views of the west none at all.

I wasn't asking you to ask her of her views on the west. My question was:
why don't you ask a real, live, muslim woman, like S.A.M.; does -she- think that her religion allows the beating of women?

leopold, -are- you a christian as DiamondHearts stated?

yes.

Ah ok, thanks for making that clear.

You don't sound like one ;-).

religion from a holy book is a ruse.

The term holy is rather interesting; wikipedia redirects searching for holy to sacred, which is synonymous. Here is the introduction to their definition of sacred:

Holiness, or sanctity, is in general the state of being holy (perceived by religious individuals as associated with the divine) or sacred (considered worthy of spiritual respect or devotion; or inspiring awe or reverence among believers in a given set of spiritual ideas).​

They qualify ideas with 'spiritual' (remember, it's the new trend ;-)). But if you take out the term 'spiritual', you're left with 'a given set of ideas', or (my favourite) a given set of beliefs. I have found that terms can frequently merge into each other. I'm sure that many people view the U.S. constitution as sacred, if not holy. I certainly respect it more than the bible at any rate.

Anyway, I think terms such as holy are out; sacred still applies for some things (or atleast I like to use it for some things, such as sexuality), but for many things, I think people now like terms like 'revered' or atleast 'deeply respected'.

If you define religion the way I do, that is, a set of beliefs, the laws are a set of beliefs and thus, a religion in its own right. I ask you to consider the possibility that the role of many religious texts is the same role that the U.S. constitution plays. And whether or not either was divinely inspired, I firmly believe that men wrote both.

now comes the subtleties i mentioned.

Laugh . Subtlety is the spice of life . Ofcourse, the devil is in the details as well ;-).

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

this how muslims are able to spread their garbage lucy.
when the pile gets too deep they run under the umbrella of religion.

He or she is religious, so what? Really religious people don't bother me as long as they are not trying to change my lifestyle which is not possible in a forum like this. But anyway this regards Diamonds warning and I think if you are going to warn someone for breaking the rules fine but it isn't responsible to knock them for their religion or be patronizing about it. As far as occidental religions are concerned they seem six of one and half a dozen of the other, same same. I don't enter discussions on religious doctrine unless I have a question or want to clarify my understanding of something because the subject doesn't interest me so much no matter what religion. If its discussion on religion that's the problem then get rid of the religion forum! Or don't post in the religion forum if its not of interest, lashing out at anyone who is a religious muslim is as intolerant and bigoted as a religious person lashing out at the non-religious and I don't find it necessary. I try to treat people with respect unless they behave like total dick wad and there are enough of those around in the general population regardless of belief.


Anyway my point is that Skinwalker can easily send Diamonds a warning without bringing up references to his religion or ethnicity.

 

[scott3x]

the major difference between me and you in this regard is that i take a measure of responsibility with my words. i believe i mentioned this before when i said "technique"

The implication apparently being that I don't. Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?

no, because most of them have been deleted.
evil moderators.

Of the 3000+ posts that I've made, few have been deleted. Skinwalker has only deleted 2, the first which I described in this forum and the second which was reposted into this forum verbatim (I believe it's clear that it was only off topic in the original forum). In the first, all I did was state what I've have told you before; that is, my claim that some moderators don't properly understand the scientific method. For this, I also got a warning with an accusation of "trolling". I've already quoted the relevant sentence to you in the past when you wanted to see what the fuss was about, but if you want, I can send you the post verbatim via PM (sorry, but I don't want to get banned for posting it here). I have already linked to the other deleted post. From here, I think it should be clear that you should either back up your case by pointing out where you think that I'm acting irresponsably, or you retract your statements concerning my posts in Skinwalker's forum.

huh? did i say you were acting irresponsibly?

Read a few quotes up; I said that you implied I wasn't taking "a measure of responsibility with my words"; you certainly didn't deny this statement.

i also believe i haven't commented on any specific post of yours in skinwalkers forums.

leopold, I think I have to just say it now; you sound so much like me right now . You're right, you haven't. But this whole thread has been primarily focused on Skinwalker and whether he's a good moderator, so I think that's what we should be focusing on, don't you?

As in James telling me that I was very close to being banned. As a matter of fact, he apparently seemed to have asked to hold off from banning me, atleast for a bit longer.

this doesn't bode well for you scott.

Tell me about it . I must admit that I'm happy that James apparently held off my being banned that time though.

Grease? Sorry, I don't understand the term in this context.

it's a metaphor, forget it.

But I wanted to learn the metaphor :bawl:

Maybe it's like the 'dirt' metaphor?

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

muslims on this board do the same thing in regard to america.
muslims have absolutely no right whatsoever to complain in this regard.

And so do some Europeans and Americans its hardly the same as calling all muslims liars and deceivers. I mean do you really believe that all muslims are liars and deceivers? Not crazy christians, the ruthless secular nor anyone else on the globe just muslims? Muslims are the trouble makers for all of humanity is that it? Its bullshit. You don't like Diamond or anyone else deal with that but don't bring up irrelevant issues such as their religion.

 

[leopold]

Read a few quotes up; I said that you implied I wasn't taking "a measure of responsibility with my words"; you certainly didn't deny this statement.

this was in reference to my questioning moderator actions.
what i'm saying here scott is that i moderate most of my own posts by edit or deletion.
the phrase "evil moderators. " was in reference to that.
the edit to the post above is a typical example.
ps,
how do you deal with the fact that your best friend just moved 800 miles away and had asked you to move with them just before they left?
no relation to the thread but to let you know what else i'm dealing with right now.

But this whole thread has been primarily focused on Skinwalker and whether he's a good moderator, so I think that's what we should be focusing on, don't you?

yes.
i believe both of us presented evidence to support our respective sides.
it seems to be in the hands of the administrators to me.
is skin a "good mod"? i wouldn't know because i've never been a mod so i don't know a good mod from a bad mod.
the only thing i can do is present facts, or my uneducated opinion.

 

[leopold]

But anyway this regards Diamonds warning and I think if you are going to warn someone for breaking the rules fine but it isn't responsible to knock them for their religion or be patronizing about it.

why drag this out into the open forums lucy?
this only goes against diamondhearts.
he would have gotten far more sympathy from james if he done this behind the scenes.

. . . lashing out at anyone who is a religious muslim is as intolerant and bigoted as a religious person lashing out at the non-religious and I don't find it necessary.

who's lashing out? i'm making it clear that muslims can keep their garbage out of our courtrooms. this goes for other religions as well.
(awaits further subtleties.)

Anyway my point is that Skinwalker can easily send Diamonds a warning without bringing up references to his religion or ethnicity.

and diamondhearts could have easily forwarded it to james.

 

[leopold]

And so do some Europeans and Americans its hardly the same as calling all muslims liars and deceivers.

i've deleted the post in honor of the peaceful intentions of muslims everywhere.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

i've deleted the post in honor of the peaceful intentions of muslims everywhere.

HAHAHA! Good on you

That's funny.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

why drag this out into the open forums lucy?
this only goes against diamondhearts.
he would have gotten far more sympathy from james if he done this behind the scenes.

who's lashing out? i'm making it clear that muslims can keep their garbage out of our courtrooms. this goes for other religions as well.
(awaits further subtleties.)

and diamondhearts could have easily forwarded it to james.

Ok well that I agree with, when members whine and whine its tiresome no matter if its Reiku (remember when he opened thread after thread about BenTheMan?) or SAM or anyone. I don't think matters such as a day banning is worth an entire thread and as usual its the same few people who are complaining. He's cited me once and is the only one who has but so what you know.

I'm not sure of what you mean about the courtrooms.

I do think that these complaints should be sent to James, I agree with you on that note, especially if its an ongoing thing for some members. But like I said I also agree that warnings should be warnings without inappropriate nudges...save those for the open threads

 

[PsychoTropicPuppy]

Now now...for how long was he banned? One day? You know, on other forums a one-day ban serves as a warning, too. And I presume that he got warned prior to ban. And even if he didn't, I don't know any other forum boards where the moderators are entitled to warn a user prior to ban when it is obvious that they are not following the rules. And since it was just a one-day ban, I don't see the big deal. This surely served him as a good warning for his future conduct on this board.

On other forum boards, I've seen people get banned, and warned, get their posts deleted for way less.

As for saying that the mentioned moderator is biased. Well, WHO isn't? I remember having been quite active on an other forum board where one of the moderators was an officially outed Christian, and he had the tendency to delete every single post of people who were mildly critical towards Christianity.

Either way, looks like nowadays it's not the race card that is being played, but the religion card.

 

[scott3x]

Read a few quotes up; I said that you implied I wasn't taking "a measure of responsibility with my words"; you certainly didn't deny this statement.

this was in reference to my questioning moderator actions.

You seem to be implying that it's irresponsible to question a moderator's actions when you think they're mistaken. I contend that, for from being irresponsible, it actually shows more responsibility. To give an extreme example, what did many Nazis say when they were asked why they did the things they did? That they were just "following orders". Now clearly, things aren't as extreme as Nazi Germany here. But my point remains that those who simply obey without questioning are essentially handing their power and thus, in a sense, their responsibility, to think away to those who they obey.

what i'm saying here scott is that i moderate most of my own posts by edit or deletion.

I do as well. If I don't edit or delete my posts, it generally means I think they are perfectly valid.

the phrase "evil moderators. " was in reference to that.

I think the best definition of evil is inneficient. I definitely think that Skinwalker's way of doing things at times is quite inneficient. The term bigot is defined by wikipedia thusly:

A bigot is a person who is intolerant of or takes offense to the opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding attitude or mindset.​

Is this what we want to promote here?

the edit to the post above is a typical example.

I edit my posts if I feel a part is in error myself (mostly it's just typos).

ps,
how do you deal with the fact that your best friend just moved 800 miles away and had asked you to move with them just before they left?
no relation to the thread but to let you know what else i'm dealing with right now.

I feel for you. A friend and (now) former roomate of mine just left last night too. I don't know when I'll see him again. It's most likely that he's now an illegal immigrant (his application for refugee status failed and I don't think he went to the airport to be deported). I will miss him.

yes.
i believe both of us presented evidence to support our respective sides.

I have seen no evidence on your part in regards to the validity of Skinwalker's deletion of my posts. You said that the evidence had been deleted, I pointed out the fact that one of Skinwalker's deleted posts had been ressurected and I could PM you the other one. You have essentially absolved yourself of providing evidence by saying it's the responsibility of the moderation team to decide on such things, but claiming that you have presented evidence to support Skinwalker here is patently false.

it seems to be in the hands of the administrators to me.

They decide, but opinions of the members do matter I believe. You have apparently decided that you don't want to commit to an opinion, osensibly because you lack the evidence to do so. However, as I've pointed out, the evidence is readily available.

is skin a "good mod"? i wouldn't know because i've never been a mod so i don't know a good mod from a bad mod.

I believe that being a mod is not the best way of determining what's a good and a bad mod. Instead, I believe that being a regular -member- is the best way of determining this; we are generally the ones that must bear the brunt of their mistakes. Conversely, if you want to know a good member from a bad member, I believe that the best position wherein you can determine this is by being a moderator ;-).

the only thing i can do is present facts, or my uneducated opinion.

As mentioned, you have the means to educate your opinion here. If you choose not to do so, that is, ofcourse, your choice.

 

[scott3x]

Ok well that I agree with, when members whine and whine its tiresome no matter if its Reiku (remember when he opened thread after thread about BenTheMan?) or SAM or anyone.

What you call whining I call people expressing how they feel in a civilized manner. The alternative is generally worse; either the people leave (I've certainly left Skinwalker's forums) or they rack up the foul language, whereupon Skinwalker would then have a legitimate reason to delete and ban them.

I don't think matters such as a day banning is worth an entire thread and as usual its the same few people who are complaining. He's cited me once and is the only one who has but so what you know.

This isn't just about Scifes being banned for a day; that was the start of this thread, but the thread has expanded to Skinwalker's moderation in general and ultimately how moderators should act. It's a theme that even James created a poll about. The thing is, to do it properly, one has to really get specific; vague ideas such as 'more strict' or 'less strict' don't cut it; moderators may be too tolerant of foul language and yet too intolerant of differing views, so putting more or less strict would be misleading.

I do think that these complaints should be sent to James

Believe me, when Skinwalker deleted my posts and issued me warnings, James was the very first person I turned to. He apparently thought Skinwalker's actions were fine. So I decided to take it to the public and see what everyone else thought. It seems clear to me that their views on the subject are much different. To date, it seems that no one here has really defended Skinwalker's deletions of my posts.

But like I said I also agree that warnings should be warnings without inappropriate nudges...save those for the open threads

You're saying that innapropriate nudges should be ok in open threads?

 

[John99]

Why would I answer any personal questions from someone like you? I mean especially you, you're a fly. And what how does it pertain to the thread in question dum dum? (and trust me when I say I'm not the only one who thinks so).

look at this.

 

[John99]

Many and sharp the num'rous ills
Inwoven with our frame!
More pointed still we make ourselves
Regret, remorse, and shame!
And Man, whose heav'n-erected face
The smiles of love adorn, -
Man's inhumanity to man
Makes countless thousands mourn!.

(or woman)