Unfair targeting by a Mod

Post Reply New Topic

Also what the mod says is that when attacking me it depends on context, but if he's not on the side of the person then contact seems to be irrelevant. I see another user has joined the discussion who has launched endless tirades against me and then the user who was warned after the 100th time of telling me I hate America has just come in and basically called me an "American hating bigot". The same guy who pretty much said a journalist should be executed by the US state.
Me and others here have been debunking the Russiagate hoax conspiracy theory the whole way along and were called all kinds of names in the process with no action taken. Yet me stating facts and providing evidence gets me a warning and banned. I can't correct people calling me a racist conspiracy theorist because I will get banned! The privileged ethnic group stat came from Norman Finkelstein, a Jewish man who's parents were in Nazi concentration camps and both sides of his family were liquidated by the Nazis. This isn't about antisemitism, it's about Israel! A racist and murderous state whose soldiers celebrate when they shoot someone and who shoot kids in the balls.

It's absurd to say I hate all the people in a country because I protest against what their government is doing. That's just paranoid garbage. It's why I feel sorry for a lot of Israelis that are exploited by their government.

Ouch John Powell, I rest my case.

I think the mods have a very tough job and I am grateful for their work on WP.

I think moderator issues should be discussed with the mods, and not on an open forum.

Of course we are not always going to agree with a mod's decision. Otherwise we would not need mods. I support the mod's position because he is a moderator and because it is a tricky decision.

Interesting word, moderator. Helping to make communication be more moderate.

I don't think any of the active posters on PPR suffer from not having their full views expressed.

Come to think of it, Blaze ... I have to wonder now why this thread was left open, especially when about a half-dozen other threads were locked over the weekend.

No government is a perfect system I think scrutiny is a good thing

*edit might of missed some posts in question*

I think a mod needs to have certain qualities.

They should not come off as someone on a power trip. Or as heavy-handed or intimidating or unapproachable to many.

If they are moderating in areas where politics or religion is being discussed/debated they should not come off as heavily biased. If there are two sides going at it, one side should not feel like the moderator is an enforcer for the other side.

If there are two sides, call them Orange team and Green team, a moderator should not come off as being like the captain of the Green team. He/she should not be using the same type of jargon the Green team uses against the Orange team.

That makes things unfair and unbalanced and discourages posting.

What we need is a civil lecel of debate that is within the rules. I had to remove one or two posts containing personal attacks. Thanks to those of you who ensure dialogue remains constructive.

There was a topic about the movie "The Hunt". I merely stated the premise of the movie ("evil liberals hunt MAGA people") and my post was removed, because someone complained. Yet, that is what the movie is advertised to be about.

Another time I was told I was arguing too much, someone complained, and I got a warning that I needed to make a new topic and not argue so much.

Often moderation seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to members complaining.