And I agree with all of this. It is, to a great extent, the actions of the Moderators who keep this site thriving, and it is an arduous task.....
From the rules:
"Moderators have the final say, and can moderate your posts for any reason they think fit."
Right—an Administration, an inner House.Asguard said:Actually, thats not completely true. In the end its Plazma who has the final say. 'Thinks about this as a court.
Now I'm reminded of the Bush Whitehouse and the emperor sitting on his throne making his final decision but only after hearing a mouthful from the very influential Cheney and (late) Rove? I'm sure Cheney has lovely dinner manners and knows how to whisper his solutions into the ears of power to make them out to seem like conversation pieces and suggestions.Then the final appeal is to Plazma (the full bench of the supreme court\high court\whatever) who can do whatever he feels like, including overturning our decisions and if it came to it, "taking the game board and going home."
This amused the hell out of me.
Now I'm reminded of the Bush Whitehouse and the emperor sitting on his throne making his final decision but only after hearing a mouthful from the very influential Cheney and (late) Rove? I'm sure Cheney has lovely dinner manners and knows how whisper his solutions into the ears of power to make them out to seem like conversation pieces and suggestions.
As do the moderators on this site.
Again, have you any proof that Sam or any other moderators for that matter, have breached the site rules?
Do you have proof that Sam has been religiously biased in how she moderates?
Aw, hell. Can't we just be thugs, since that's how people want to look at us? Hell, one poser around here already regularly calls me a thug whenever I call him out on his bullsh@t. Let's all go get matching jackets and haircuts. I'd rather not do a skinhead thing, though. Something a bit more stylish, like maybe Catwoman's thugs.
Or Thuggee?
Oh, wait. Maybe we can be goons.
It's like reliving the days of Moderator Xev. (Not that you were bad from my perspective/memory, however it caused controversy.. if not as much as S.A.M. is getting now)
So you still have no specific instance of her being biased towards her religion, when she moderates? Link? Anything at all?
You placed this in the forefront of this debate glaucon. If you are not able to provide proof or at the very least, some information, I will ask why you are protesting. After all, you are virtually claiming that Sam is unable to moderate because she is a theist and is biased or could be biased. But then you say you are not protesting about her moderation. So what exactly are you protesting or complaining about?
John99 said:
If you are a certain religion you get free reign to post you sermons meanwhile every Christian that came here was unmercifully abused, even by yourself.
One would have to be completely brain dead not to have seen her breached the rules over and over.
She is religiously biased on everything, again you'd have to be brain dead not to see that. The point is that Sam continues to poison threads with her rants and then turns around and deletes posts she personally does not agree with.
What bias? My only bias against shorty is that she ignores the posting rules stickied in Biology and Genetics.
Ask Plazma.