Unfair targeting by a Mod

Post Reply New Topic

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.

To follow the logic of a previous post as it applies to the general membership...

Forums can be very quickly destroyed when trolls find them. And it only takes one troll -- immature, inexperienced, bigoted, sociopathic, ignorant, et cetera -- to to ruin it for everyone.

When that happens, users in general tend to no longer post in even the most decent threads because they don't know if their posts will get pounced on, criticized, and torn apart every which-way, they don't know if their posts will be twisted and distorted to misrepresent their views, and they don't know when the next false statements will be made about them for no reason at all.

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

What exactly is a "small-time abuser"? Someone whose own opinions are in conflict with another's? Someone who posts on the same topic over and over again, and even in threads unrelated to their favorite topic? Someone whose posts are only walls of text or word salads that do not parse and make no sense at all? Someone whose posts consist solely of single-word replies and "smilies"? Someone who seems to have little or no understanding of proper grammar, punctuation, or spelling? Someone who habitually uses (or does not use) the Oxford Comma?

Being unpopular is insufficient cause for banishment. It's the reason(s) why someone is unpopular that provide(s) just cause.

I've had that experience and one of the former mods couldn't understand why I didn't just go to another moderator when I got a strange PM from one of them saying I was helping trolls break rules here and stuff. This was back in 2009.


I think it's pretty normal to feel uncomfortable with the whole staff team when one or few of them are bad. Like if you were to walk into a store and the cashier was grumpy and unfriendly and seemed annoyed with you as a customer, you wouldn't want to go back because your mind will automatically think all the store employees there are like that. Same with forums too when one of the mods is bad or the admin. And of course I am sure the manager will wonder "Why didn't you talk to the manager" when you had a problem with one of their employers. Maybe they didn't want to sound like a Karen or they thought the manager would also be as bad.

^ Wish I had a dime for every time I was called a c_nt, accused of being a misandrist, or otherwise been the target of someone's desire to have me de-modded.

Being unpopular isn't a valid measuring stick for a mod's effectiveness.

Popularity seems to be what NTs use as their standard of worthiness.

We're not NTs here, let's not act like them (at least in this respect). You don't have to be popular to be a good person.

True!

I notice when people say someone insults other people, what they are actually saying sometimes is "Your views are very unpopular. Most of the members feel threatened by you. You say things lot of people don't want to hear. You say things the way it is, you lack tact, you lack emotion in your posts, people get provoked by your innocence and naivety and because you are frank."

I don't think any of this is bad. I have came across some people who I always didn't agree with but I never started harassing them and mass reporting them as a troll like some people do when they don't like someone.

I am not talking about racism here or homophobia or transphobia, etc etc etc.

Did I leave my webcam and microphone on again?

... and my name is not "Frank"!

What about reputation?

For my purposes, a fascist is someone who wants to bring about a state in which people of European heritage have substantially greater legal rights than others. (This might not be an appropriate definition in some contexts where ideas about race and/or society are very different, but it works for a Western context)

A cryptofascist is someone who seeks to bring about fascist goals while posing as a non-fascist. Their focus is on making fascist ideas more socially acceptable, and trying to discredit anti-fascist ideas.

This video is rather good, although note that it is designed to be entertaining as well as informative, and I do not share the creator's anti-capitalist leanings, nor her distrust of liberalism.
https://youtu.be/Sx4BVGPkdzk?t=56

Some useful timestamps if you don't want to watch the whole thing:
4:49 - a cryptofascist sharing their ideology and methodology; goes onto that famous quote about dogwhistles by a Republican organiser
8:09 - cryptofascist use of euphemism
12:24 - camaraderie of the accused
14:34 - drawing an equivalence between white supremacy and black civil rights groups
15:34 - representing attacks on non-whites as defence of whites
16:37 - using "free speech" as a defence of racism, while attempting to silence other people's views
20:05 - resisting cryptofascism

Now the issue is that by their nature, cryptofascists try and make themselves indistinguishable from mainstream views. So if they're good, none of us suspect them at all. If they've survived on the forum for a decent period of time then they're probably quite good at it. The big giveaways are things like posting mildly racist cartoons, but also look at the way people talk about immigrants or minorities (particularly if they mention "threats to our culture"). They're often extremely quick to play the victim, they often focus more on their opposition to e.g. antifa than any of their actual views, and they're very keen to paint anyone who disagrees with them as an extremist who should be disregarded.

Sorry but that sounds like witch hunting to me.

I actually can't believe you posted that video.

You're an open supporter of Israel, where Europeans wants to bring about a state in which people of European heritage have substantially greater legal rights than the native non European population. The state poses as a victim that doesn't want to achieve these goals helped by their supporters.

And you're an open detractor of Israel. That makes things even. Now stand down and stop whining.

So me being against 'crypto fascism' evens things out?

Your anti-Israel stance and The Walruses pro-Israel stance cancel each other out. The tipping point is that he's the moderator, and you're the instigator.

There are people who get paid to moderate forums, I believe. Maybe that's the answer. Non-member professionals who, hopefully, don't have any particular biases.