Unfair targeting by a Mod

Post Reply New Topic

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.

I agree that the "cryptofascist" talk was crossing the line and coming dangerously close to witch hunt.
I just interpreted it as his personal opinion, maybe even exaggerated by the fact that he had to lock a thread he agreed with.

And from someone who praised the destruction of Libya calling it a success. When that involved us supporting Al Qaeda and turning one of the most prosperous nations in Africa into a Jihad central hell hole where people are sold as slaves in the capital city.

I do not throw around terms like "cryptofascist" lightly.

To my knowledge, there are two somewhat active users on this forum who hold fascist views. One of them is not especially active and is scrupulously good at posting within the forum rules; they very rarely need any form of moderator action, and I think they are genuinely more interested in using the forum than in spreading fascist propaganda. They used to push the boundaries a bit, but now will only mention their views sideways ("I'd love to tell you more about what I think but it would probably get me banned...").

So I'm literally talking about one person, and it isn't anyone I've had to take action against in recent weeks. This user contributes a lot of good to the forum and would genuinely be missed but does, to use the crypto term, "let their power level show" on occasion. I won't say any more because I think it's somewhat unfair. I do realise that my somewhat vague description might make people worry that it is them, so if you're concerned that it might be you then it isn't you, but you can drop me a PM if you want certainty.

I think we have a lot of:
- contrarian conservatives who don't mind welfare spending
- traditional social conservatives who might occasionally find themselves agreeing with fascist talking points, but are genuinely horrified by fascism
- people who find progressive views, or a subset of them, exasperating or infuriating or just plain stupid

and they're absolutely welcome. And actually, both the cryptos are absolutely welcome - they both have a lot of positive qualities. But we've been somewhat naive about the effect of people constantly "pushing the boundaries" and it has made so many discussions utterly toxic.

Could you explain to us what exactly a "crypto fascist" is, and the type of posts that you believe have been posted by "cryptofacists?" That would be helpful.

Forums can be very quickly destroyed when the moderation system becomes corrupt. And it only takes one moderator — immature, or inexperienced, or bigoted, or sociopathic, or ignorant — to corrupt such a system.

When that happens, users in general no longer trust even the decent moderators because they don't know if their private messages are getting through, they don't know if their posts are being stealth-edited to misrepresent their views, they don't know if false statements are being made about them in private corners for manipulative purposes, etc.

Within the circle of moderators on any forum, even small-time abusers (to say nothing of full abusers) should be removed, because they destroy trust in the whole system.