Conservatives of Wrong Planet

Post Reply New Topic

So moderators should censor ideas. Who decides what ideas get censored? Maybe we should also start burning books. (sarcasm)

Not sure where you're getting that, as I'm reasonably certain I never applied that label to him, though I found his zeal on climate change and anti-racism somewhat over the top.



That's all well and good, but I can't help but feel that absent pressure from members like me and fair minded people such as yourself, that wouldn't be the case; that's not fair, and I know it, but it's what experience and my contact with some of your fellow moderators leads me to believe.



I think it does because it changes who gets reported and with what frequency. For example, there are a lot more eyes on Jacoby at any given point than there are on any given liberal poster, and when someone gets reported enough times, often a reason to take action is found, if only to get some peace. I've tried counter-acting this effect by following behind contentious posters like Jacoby or Angela and reporting people who attack them (hence why my reporting pattern looks politically biased) and encouraged other posters to do the same, hoping to establish some parity on reporting frequency.



Fair point, but I've been lumped in with the conservatives by all of those people long enough that extending them the courtesy denied to me is difficult. I think of this as the "Raptorization process", and have been fighting it for a long time.



Again though, those people checked out long before anyone had heard of the alt-right, and I still don't believe they have much, if any, presence here.



I might have to take some "credit" there, I've been counseling posters for years to avoid duking it out in public and simply report people who attack them without making a big deal of it, and who I am means that it's mostly been right of center posters I've been talking to.



Oh, I fully appreciate the difficulties, and I hate the idea of ideological affirmative action, I'm just frustrated at the moment and do think it would help things.

You noticed Darmok was responding to a moderator who first proposed censoring an idea, right?

Do you?

Easy; there's a passion gap, but we're swimming against the tide and have to work much harder and be much more careful because of the number of opposing voices, and eyes watching us for reasons to get rid of us. You think it's easy for two members to battle a whole forum on even a single issue to the point that we dominate the conversation? For "gun control = good" to become the obvious consensus opinion here would merely require that Raptor and I stop posting, our level of domination requires that we both be experts on the subject and tireless in debating it, a level of dedication that most non-obsessed people simply can't match. It's kind of a microcosm of US gun politics actually.

No, I just don't want you to talk about them at all if you hate them. Talk about the lies they told or how you felt abuse by them or how annoying their style of English is, but don't talk about them. That's the division between personal/not personal.

"I don't miss his crap ideas" --Fine. "I don't miss him" -- Why would you need to say this?



She is a real person with real emotions, too. Does that magically make her abusive comments OK? I don't think you believe that.

While I can't remove the warning, I could put in a note to disregard it. I asked the other mods and they said it was a borderline case, but they agreed it was valid. That's the process. You don't get to decide that there is some other process or magic line in the sand or whatever.

Miscommunication, probably my fault. My intention was not to say that your actions in calling me incompetent and posting merry japes about creative murder is on a whole different level than the original warning.

To me these events look like this;

Adamantium: Warning: Hey, don't be nasty like that.
Dox47 Reply: "They may take our lives, but they will never take our freedom!"



Maybe there is something in your communicative style that I don't get. Perhaps I misread the PM you sent promising to fight this terrible injustice in light of your "Murum Aries Attigit"

You might be right, though I don't think so. I don't understand why this is a such huge deal for you, but I am confident that in time it won't be. I think I have made my thinking clear here and there isn't anything more I can usefully say about it.

I can see your perspective, you can't see mine or don't care to. We'll have to leave it there.

Yes.

Eh, it's a community, it's pretty hard to expect that no one is ever going to talk about each other. You can go back to the beginning of this thread, before this recent *unpleasantness*, and find people coming out of the woodwork to take shots at me personally, and unless I'm very much mistaken, nothing was done about it, despite the presence of several moderators and the site founder. My real objection here is that I'm feeling singled out because I don't see this standard of non-engagement being enforced against anyone else, regardless of functionality level, and that kind of differential treatment is sort of a special interest of mine, as you've no doubt figured out by now.



That's not my point, my point is that it's completely natural for me to be happy that someone like that is gone, and unreasonable to expect me to never acknowledge my feelings on the matter. Again, community and all.



No, but I can make a stink and argue my points, which is more than I get in the "moderator review" process that never seems to overturn a call. It's not like I'm harming anyone here, I'm essentially filibustering to make a point, which I feel has been made.



I am a bit Scottish, and it's not like you weren't warned, "The Ram Has Touched the Wall" essentially means no quarter once battle has commenced.



That seems likely, my humor seems to go right by you (truly, that's not an insult, just an observation). I have that very Aspie trait of seeing humor in the most deadly serious of situations, and sometimes that strikes people the wrong way.



Surely, as an autistic person, you understand extremes of thought when the subject of fairness comes up? Agree with me or disagree with me, the point is that I felt that I wasn't treated fairly, and that's a situation where I don't particularly care about the magnitude of the actual act, it's the principle of the damn thing that drives me. I'm a chef, I'm on my feet all day dealing with the insanity that is a professional kitchen, do you think that what I want to do at the end of my day is spend hours fine tuning internet rants? I'll fully admit this is a compulsion with me, one that I haven't found a solution to, as I'd really much rather be able to shrug this kind of thing off.

Also, as someone who's been accused of not actually being autistic before, I'm going to use this thread as "exhibit A" in the future.



Oh, I see your perspective, I just think it's wrong, and wanted to make my case in the open for others to judge.

I should of explained more clearly , the recourse should be with a PM to a mod. Unfortunately posting here is a privilege not a god given right. If you post here , you have to obey the rules including ones that Mods make up on the spot , it may not be fair or right but publicly bitching about it does nothing positive for you as a member and in fact can have the reverse effect , it can turn you into a marked man.

For the record , I am not having a go at you Dox , I'm just telling you how I see it as I have a bit of experience in censorship & being banned on forums ( Im much more chilled nowadays and know when Im fighting a losing battle )

Another thing I'd like to change is to do away with the Moderator Attention thread as personally I think it is used by members who want to find and be involved in a drama

You do not need to ban anything (besides maybe robot-spammers such as the stuff that typically gets throw into the spam-box of g-mail accounts). All that is needed is education. Proper education (rather than indoctrination). I also need to correct the idea that Marxism has resulted in more deaths than any other ideology. Statism (i.e.: belief that any claimed so-called government-entity is somehow infallible) is what has resulted in more deaths than any other ideology. Actually, when it boils down to the core, only two ideologies exist in reality : The ideology of Peace versus the ideology of War. Any ideology that, for any reason, condones some form of punishment upon another for any kind of perceived offense is an ideology of War; and out of all the «ideologies» I have ever come across, Absolute-Pacifism is the only ideology that would never lead to being a cause of deaths upon others, for nobody in their right mind who believes in the Karmic-Law of Life would ever want to be complicit to bringing any harm against others with the knowledge that all suffering imposed, including all of the collateral-impositions/sufferings, will become the same experiences that «manifest» into his or her future (even if it is a fate to be met in any so-called after-life).

Just going to quote the specifically relevant points here and address both Ada and Dox.
I think the both of you are blowing up the issue(s) a bit more than necessary.
Not missing someone is simply the opposite of missing someone. If it's a big deal to express how one feels about another, without actually directly name-calling them or referring to them in a derogatory or pejorative manner, then consider this...

I have periodic absences but, for some reason, a number of forum-members always recognise me and it is obvious that my references to so-called «conspiracies» or subjects that touch upon the para-normal or ufology are frequently responded to with the kind of expression (some might use the term: attitude) that entertaining such ideas makes one a nut-case. Certainly, I do entertain and consider valid what others regard as the raving delusions of a lunatic, and I might even go so far as to say that I am the only member of these entire boards who receives such expressions from others (but nobody reports those comments, and I feel no need to report such things either, although I can probably safely state for a fact that the average person being lumped into passive-references of being a so called «crazy, tin-foil hat-wearing, insane & delusional, mentally ill, nut-case conspiracy theorist who needs to be drugged up with psychiatric-medications» would probably be far more offensive to them than for someone to say that they were not missed or will not be missed).

For «Arbitration» purposes, I will agree that «good riddance to him/her» or «I do not like that guy» or «glad they're gone now» may indeed, come close to border-line passive-aggression, but neither are they necessarily direct insults, although such posts/statements can certainly «stir» the feelings of those being referenced (that depends of course on their emotional state-of-mind... I even remember, from another forums, a response that someone gave back...: «This isn't facebook. You don't have have to "like" me.»).

Now if it were a statement about someone who is factually known to be very emotionally unstable, and definitely or likely or guaranteed to take offense to the idea that someone who comment about not missing them, then of course I would ask for said poster to please refrain from fanning the flames and educate said poster that the one who is gone needs help/assistance to recover from their unstable/offensive/etc., state-of-mind, rather than criticisms. Discussions of how to help disruptive people become more sane would be encouraged whilst the perpetuation of criticisms would be discouraged.

For purposes of the «Verdict» of my current «Arbitration» on the Ada/Dox matter, I might recommend that Ada take a one-week break from responding to Dox about how Ada thinks that Dox is wrong about this or that in this or that way since it seems to be possibly causing him more agitation to need to respond or argue back and, similarly, I think Dox has already voiced out sufficient frustrations, but should also similarly try to refrain from responding to Ada for also about a one-week period. For now, I will also recommend that, should Dox have any particular issues with any particular forum-members to express, that Dox do so in a manner that does not specifically address any forum-names directly. For example, say I were to go absent, and many of us know that I have that Tin-Foil Hat reputation by certain «factions» around here (teehee), a post like... «...what a relief that what I perceive as nutter-job rantings have stopped for now» would be fine whilst «good riddance to that Ban-Dodger guy who finally couldn't dodge a ban» or «glad we don't have that resident tin-foil hatter around any more» would be too obvious as to the forum-member's identity (although I do not personally find it a big deal but, remember, everybody deals with stresses in life, some may have even gone through the traumas of losing all of their family members in life without necessarily telling anybody).

From a «Neutral/Out-Side» Perspective... I feel that what was really only an Ant-Hill has been getting blown up into something becoming a potential mountain if continued.

There was a time when members here would get banned for no reason and lot of them happened to be members on the troll forums or they would go join them after being banned over a misunderstanding or after dealing with the abuse and some of them just left before they were even banned because they felt they were being harassed by one of the mods. There was one girl duckfetishgirl, who was banned for her username and I believed it was a misunderstanding (she had made no posts here at the time of her ban) and then she came back after me and the two mods still believed she was a troll and thought I was still trying to make trouble when I posted I was glad to see her here.

Then I remember that same mod who posted the mod log also found a pattern that any member who was banned from here had their accounts messed with by having their emails deleted from their account and their passwords changed and they were all members of the troll forum. For some reason I was never banned until I pissed off a mod. Why the special treatment, I will never figure it out. One of my online friends who no longer comes online thinks this had all been planned months before it actually happened when I showed him the log. That would probably explain the "special treatment" if his speculation was correct. But why me? I know I have always been vulnerable to bad treatment. Even my school wanted to put me in a behavior class and acted like I was evil or something when I was 12 when all I was doing was trying to be normal and be like everyone else and trying to figure out the rules. They tried to say I had a behavior but my mom thinks they were just saying that so they could get rid of me. It's speculated that the former mods here were looking for excuses to get rid of members here so they would just look for things in posts to warn them about to get rid of them. I felt thrown out then too and I also felt one of the mods was just looking for things in my posts to slowly get rid of me and that was something other banned members had complained about in the past on other boards and from ones who left before they were banned. So I have experienced this in real life and online.

If the above is true, then I apologize for saying that the moderators are not doing their jobs correctly. One thing I believe is a problem is that no one knows what happens and if everyone is being handed out the same disciplinary actions as everyone else. I, for one would have no problem with people knowing that I was banned - I don't see what the big secret is, in fact, it is not a big secret because I see in some threads how people are told when a person is banned and how many strikes they have against them. There should be a place one can go to check on people's records and who has been banned and for how long so they know when they are coming back. I know when you report someone and want to be told the situation was handled, all they do is come back and let you know it was closed. The person who reported the incident should at least be told how the member was disciplined, in fact, the whole community should be aware of who has how many strikes against them and who is banned and why. That's why I'm so upset, because I think that I'm being banned and no one else is (which evidently is not the case). When people don't know anything, then that's when paranoia and rumors start. I just want everyone to be treated fairly.

I have not read a single word on this thread, for a lonnnnng time----I only clicked on your post, NA, because I knew that Dox had defended you on this thread, and wanted to know what you thought.

Now, as some people are aware, I support transparency when it comes to a Mod's actions, regarding why a thread was locked, for instance. I don't, however, think I support transparency in regard to a Mod's action when someone has been disciplined----because then it is a personal matter, and that's not fair to the person who got banned, for instance. I don't think Mods should be tellin' other people's business, and that's what it would be if a Mod told User A, that User B got banned, because of User A's report of their behavior. When User B gets back, then it's totally their prerogative, to divulge what happened, or not.

Also, I can totally see how, if a Mod were to tell User A how User B was disciplined, it could turn into a "feather-in-the-cap-gettin'-challenge"----meaning, User A might get a swelled head, thinking he had "power" to get people disciplined, and then be on a mission to report User B, at the drop of a hat, cuz User A simply doesn't like User B, and that's not fair because there is ALWAYS gonna be people that a user doesn't get along with, while getting along with many OTHER users. One can't just say "Well, I don't like this person, so I'm gonna get him banned"----which brings me to my final points.....

If the whole community knew who had how many strikes against them, I can totally imagine hearing stories of how someone worked, behind-the-scenes (using the Report button/PM), everyday, to get a user "that last strike" to get them banned----or, WORSE yet, a clique of people ganging-up on someone, to get them banned.

There's always gonna be rumors----imagine if there was a log: "User A - banned for cussing", "User B banned for a personal attack"..... Then, people will be saying: "Ohhhh, I wonder who User A cussed-out", or "Ooooo, I wonder who User B attacked----I bet it was User T; they hate each other!". "No, I bet it was User S, cuz User B likes her, and instead of admitting his feelings to himself, he attacks her all-the-time, to put her down"; and it would be totally unethical, IMO, to include any more detail than that (ie, which user, User A cussed-out), because that throws another person into the mix (again, tellin' someone else's business).

Wholeheartedly agree with you CC