View Full Version : If you going to moderate Part 2
I agree with Dhepee way too much spamming and flaming goes on in the tavern. Take it OUTSIDE not inside *calms himself* thank you
solypsist
06-10-2004, 23:04
there has never been a "brawl room" here at the Org, and there are no plans to even consider making one.
case closed.
Gawain of Orkeny
06-11-2004, 02:40
Wait I found the perfect place.
Parking Lot (http://www.prof2000.org/JOKE/women%20parking%20only.htm)
Quote[/b] (Gregoshi @ June 04 2004,07:25)]
Quote[/b] ] Even though that analysis depends on a gross and unsubstantiated assumption about my intent.
Does this comment also apply to your analysis in the quote below from you last week?[/QUOTE]
Of course, as I have pointed out repeatedly.
Quote[/b] ] You ask us to be "squippy" biased by unconditionally accepting that you alone see the "truth" in all matters and the true intent in the hearts of all patrons, thereby allowing you free reign to express contempt, disrespect and heartless attitudes towards your fellow man.
Baloney; I have merely asserted that my opinions have equal legitimiacy and cannot be dismissed out of hand merely because of some assumption on your part or anothers. That appears to have been operational here - a groundless assumption of intent was made and used to justify censorship.
Quote[/b] ] Don't you find it the least bit odd that not one patron has come to your defense?
No. The absence of endorsement of a particular position within a particular group in now way challenges the validity of that position in the broader world.
Quote[/b] ] If we have so wronged you, where is the outrage from the rest of the patrons?
Argument to popularity, logical fallacy, Gregoshi Lose.
Quote[/b] ] You seem to find fault with the intent of all others, yet seem unwilling to even consider that at least some of the fault lies squarely at your feet.
If you could demonstrate some fault or perceived fault, I would consider it. So far all we have is Saturnus bald assertion that he didn't recognise poisoning the well for what it was, and your arrogant presumptions of intent. WHERE are these strong indications? I point out to you Gregoshi that until such time as you can demonstrate something concrete, all you are doing is exactly "unconditionally accepting that you alone see the "truth" in all matters and the true intent in the hearts of all patrons, thereby allowing you free reign to express contempt, disrespect and heartless attitudes towards your fellow man."
And I would point out further that I have never asserted my analysis is necessarily true, and have consistently denounced appeals to intent as untestable and irrelevant to argument; I have only asserted that my arguments should be challenged on their merits INSTEAD of the basis of such alleged 'intents' as being "anti-american" or "heartless". That appears to be too much to ask.
I still await an apology for the character assasination carried out by this banning and the spurious and groundless allegations levelled at me.
Squippy
I refer you to one simple rule of the forum.
Quote[/b] ]Posts containing any generally objectionable material: knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. Posting of copyrighted material, unless the copyright is owned by you or by The Guild, is discouraged. The Guild expects its patrons to remain civil even in the face of disagreements. Any kind of "flaming", slurs or insults adressed to an individual or a group is extremely inappropriate. Please respect etiquette at all times.
You have consistently violated this rule, and refuse to moderate yourself in regards to this rule. So the accusations and actions by the moderators in regards to where you are at now is not groundless. They might have gone to a extreme level - but your actions and failure to take corrective actions by yourself, lead to that action. Its plain for all the community to see. I have been cautioned and sanctioned for my actions and I accept the consequences for my violation of the rules. You seem to be unable to accept the consequences of your actions or want to adjust your behavior to meet the rules of this forum, which by the way you agreed to when you joined this community forum.
Before the moderators apogolize to you - you need to apologize to the community as a whole for your refusal to abid by the simple rules of the forum. Then you need to apogolize to the moderators for not moderating your own behavior.
I also accuse and argue with the moderators all the time about baised behavior on their part - but to demand an apology from them for doing what they volunteered to do - is uncalled for, and something that in my opinion the moderators do not owe you or is not something you deserve.
Voigtkampf
06-11-2004, 16:23
Yet another very eloquent post, squippy. If you were only that eloquent in the thread that warranted your demotion, then you would have avoided the demotion in the first place.
Someone reading your posts and unfamiliar with your past actions might just say "aw, this man is a martyr". The sad fact is that I have rarely seen such a poor, despicable behavior and such an outrage following rightfully received punishment. I don't know where you get the nerves from to repeatedly demand for an apology.
RisingSun
06-12-2004, 05:36
And you guys are for legalizing pot? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Quote[/b] (Redleg @ June 11 2004,08:25)]
Redleg, I am entirely familiar with the rules of the forum.
Quote[/b] ] You have consistently violated this rule, and refuse to moderate yourself in regards to this rule.
Demonstrate where I have done so with quoites please or withdraw the claim.
If you cannot support your claim with evidence, then if falls foul of the rule itself, being "knowingly defamatory".
Quote[/b] ] So the accusations and actions by the moderators in regards to where you are at now is not groundless.
They are entirely groundles, given the only criticism they have advanced is one that relies entirely on them imagining an intent.
Quote[/b] ] You seem to be unable to accept the consequences of your actions or want to adjust your behavior to meet the rules of this forum, which by the way you agreed to when you joined this community forum.
I await clear indication of what these alleged offences are.
Quote[/b] ] I also accuse and argue with the moderators all the time about baised behavior on their part - but to demand an apology from them for doing what they volunteered to do - is uncalled for, and something that in my opinion the moderators do not owe you or is not something you deserve.
And I have *not* complained about the moderation of the forums until you raised your spurious objections. I allowed the blind eye to homophobia and francophobia, admittedly uncomfortably. I exhibted a great deal of tolerabnce toward the orgs moderators policy, and their responze has been abusive and insulting. Yes absolutelky, a public apology and retraction are required from the moderators.
Quote[/b] (voigtkampf @ June 11 2004,10:23)]
Yet another very eloquent post, squippy. If you were only that eloquent in the thread that warranted your demotion, then you would have avoided the demotion in the first place.[/QUOTE]
Really? I suspect I was demoted precisely for being eloquent.
Quote[/b] ] Someone reading your posts and unfamiliar with your past actions might just say "aw, this man is a martyr".
Wel, by comparison to the depths of racism, homophobia and national conceit which permeate the boards, yes it is quite an interesting paper trail.
Quote[/b] ]
The sad fact is that I have rarely seen such a poor, despicable behavior and such an outrage following rightfully received punishment. I don't know where you get the nerves from to repeatedly demand for an apology.
Well, my posts remain visible and anyone is free to review them. I get the nerve to demand an apology due to the baseless nature of the charges, the fact that the moderators themselves can't seem to articulate the problem, and because their behaviour falls afoul of their own rules.
Squippy,
your posts were reveiwed and discussed by the moderators,
thats why you recieved a suspension.
you are again stepping onto thin ice by making unfounded allegations, especially the homophobia allegation,
A number of patrons and staff got into a discussion regarding the right of gay people to get married,
each side clearly and carefully explained, with references to sources where possible, what they had been taught in religious and secular studies.
Some of the references on both sides of the argument were to extremist sites and indeed some of the issues behind each sides arguments bounded on extremism, yet still, despite the "hot" nature of topic, the entire discussion was concluded amicably and without anyone losing their temper on the issue.
All participants managed to engage in an open and thought provoking discourse without the need for name calling or insults to, or from, any patron or staff member.
Squippy objected to the issue being discussed at all and indeed labelled one patron (by name) as openly homophobic.
I warn you right here and now Squippy,
should you continue to try and use that discussion as part of your defence and I WILL ban you myself for 30 days for inferring the Org, and thus myself, tolerates Homophobia.
Should you once more call any member here a Homophobe,
or even infere that any member here is a Homophobe and I WILL ban you for 30 days.
Do both and I WILL ban you for 60 days.
I hope i have made myself perfectly clear.
You will recieve no apology for being suspended.
Your suspension was deserved (amongst other things) for labelling a patron as a Homophobe.
We have a set of basic rules that over 3,000 patrons have absolutely no trouble understanding or following,
The staff here use the forum rules and our common sense to moderate the forums,
The Staff strive to be even-handed in our public actions and enforce strict interpretations of the forum rules as the situation dictates and granting more lenient enforcement when that seems appropriate.
To put my response to this issue you have with the staff here into a nutshell Squippy,
go read the forum rules and stop wasting my time
Barocca
Squippy as stated by you and never withdrawn or apologized for.
Quote[/b] ]I view you as an imperialistic racist
Then there are many others. Just because you choice not to accept the consequences of your behavior, or more correctly it seems that you refuse to acknowledge that certain terms are offensive does not mean it is not.
In the rules of law. for an examble only. If I told a sexually explict joke to a group of men in the workplace, and a female walks by and overhears the joke and is offended, I am guilty of making the work place an hositle workplace for that female. And would have to face the consequences of the sexual harassment claim by the female. Even though I believe the joke to be harmless.
Its not the intend of the person of the using the words that makes something an insult. Its the perception and the way the person recieving the words takes it.
That is why I brought this whole issue to the watchtower. It does not matter what your intent with the use of certain words is, its how they are recieved.
A.Saturnus
06-16-2004, 14:36
squippy, there are several documented cases of you violating the rules. They will not be revealed here because they are of an explicit language or might be hurtful to some members. Should anyone have questions about these cases, he or she can contact me.
The reason for your demotion has been explained in this thread. If you do not understand it, that´s your problem. I think most people would.
Your demand of an apology is baseless.
Quote[/b] ] you are again stepping onto thin ice by making unfounded allegations, especially the homophobia allegation,
How are these "unfounded", given even a cursory examination of posting content?
I don't claim that you are not entiteld to disagree with my diagnosis; only that you are not entitled to simultaneously disagree with me and also imagine some sort of provocative intent. If you honestly disagree with me, why don't you discuss it with me?
Quote[/b] ] All participants managed to engage in an open and thought provoking discourse without the need for name calling or insults to, or from, any patron or staff member.
Thats was true of that particular discussion in large paret; it is not true of the frequent and habitual use of the term "gay" as a term of abuse, or the blind eye that was turned to allegations that homosexuality and padophilia are linked. You are shifting the ground on which the allegation was made.
Quote[/b] ] Squippy objected to the issue being discussed at all and indeed labelled one patron (by name) as openly homophobic
Sorry, thats clearly false; I have never objected to the discussion being had whatsoever. I objected tom one poster attempting to derail that discussion by poisoning the well.
Quote[/b] ] I warn you right here and now Squippy,
should you continue to try and use that discussion as part of your defence and I WILL ban you myself for 30 days for inferring the Org, and thus myself, tolerates Homophobia.
That argument was only significant becasue of the hate-speech it contained; my much more general point is the continued presence of homophobic slang all over the Org. Its a bit ridiculous and hypocritical to stand on high principle when this behaviour persists and is condoned.
As long as the term "gay" remains in use with sanction on the Org, the Org is indeed promoting homophobia in a public forum.
Quote ] Should you once more call any member here a Homophobe, or even infere that any member here is a Homophobe and I WILL ban you for 30 days.
Why?
Quote[/b] ] You will recieve no apology for being suspended.
Your suspension was deserved (amongst other things) for labelling a patron as a Homophobe.
How can that be anything other than defending homophobia? I note that you have not objected to such homophobia, or even asserted that it is an undeserved appellation; you merely assert that MENTIONING it is unacceptable. Why is that?
Quote[/b] ] To put my response to this issue you have with the staff here into a nutshell Squippy, go read the forum rules and stop wasting my time
I have read the forum rules, and I have abided by them. I have repeatedly attempted to procure an explanation for my suspension, and so far none has been forthcoming. Will you please undertake to provide such an explanation?
Redleg wrote:
Quote[/b] ]Squippy as stated by you and never withdrawn or apologized for.
Quote
I view you as an imperialistic racist
Then there are many others. Just because you choice not to accept the consequences of your behavior, or more correctly it seems that you refuse to acknowledge that certain terms are offensive does not mean it is not.
There are many instances in which you have denounced me and others as wolly liberals, to choose a relatively inoffensive but reprsentative term. You have apologiused for none of these, nor have they been withdrawn, nor have the moderators seen fit to request that they be withdrawn, or supsended your posting priviliges.
Quote[/b] ] Its not the intend of the person of the using the words that makes something an insult. Its the perception and the way the person recieving the words takes it.
Correct. That is exactly why the use of the term 'gay' as a synomym for bad remains homophobic ragradless of any "I didn't mean it" apology.
A Saturnus wrote:
Quote[/b] ] squippy, there are several documented cases of you violating the rules.
Where? I have repeatedly asked for such demonstrations both here aby PM. Please feel free to open a dialogue in any medium you choose.
Quote[/b] ] The reason for your demotion has been explained in this thread. If you do not understand it, that´s your problem. I think most people would.
Except its based on the spurious attribution of intent. I acknowledge this was the reason you have resorted to, but it is baseless and I call for its retraction and an apology from you for this abuse of your powers.
Quote[/b] ] Your demand of an apology is baseless.
I don't see why; you have abused your position and slandered a patron, an apology would be the adult and responsible thing to do.[/quote]
The Blind King of Bohemia
06-17-2004, 10:35
I don't want to start anything with you squib but mate your probably digging your own hole right now. I'd just forget it and chill out http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif
Quote[/b] (The Blind King of Bohemia @ June 17 2004,04:35)]I don't want to start anything with you squib but mate your probably digging your own hole right now. I'd just forget it and chill out http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif
That would be a nice option for people who have not been suspended.
As footnote, I can't even PM the moderators, so I have no mechanism to discuss anything with them but on this thread.
I have already - in fact repeatedly - offered to let the matter lie as long as the cleanup of the org is carried out evenhandedly, consistently, and individual posters are not singled out. The moderators have declined this offer.
The Blind King of Bohemia
06-17-2004, 10:53
Sorry mate this is probably the first time i have looked at this thread. I normally stay out of the tavern, watchtower, etc because usually my mouth splutters utter crap half the time I haven't had a chance to read why you were banned. If i were you, i'd just let it settle down, give it a awhile and that will give it a chance to sort itself out
Yep your right Blind King - Squippy continues to dig his hole even deeper in trying to defend his actions. I accept the fact that I have made insulting comments and have decided to insure I pay attention to what I now type.
However even in this thread I fail to see Squippy take responsiblity for his own actions that did indeed lead to the sanctions. He continues to try to defend himself by pointing out the wrong doing of others.
As long as you try to defend your wrong doing and insults by saying things like the statement I quoted below, you will continue to miss the point on why the moderators had no other choice but to implace sanctions upon your ability to post
Quote[/b] ]There are many instances in which you have denounced me and others as wolly liberals, to choose a relatively inoffensive but reprsentative term.
I originally posted a lenghty argument addressing Squippy's comments on an item by item basis.
Then i thought why?
Anyone who wants to go to all the trouble of tracking down the threads and reading them all will know what i will say and how i will answer,
anyone who does not go to that trouble will only ever get half the story.
Quote[/b] (barocca @ June 16 2004,06:01)]I warn you right here and now Squippy,
should you continue to try and use that discussion as part of your defence and I WILL ban you myself for 30 days for inferring the Org, and thus myself, tolerates Homophobia.
Should you once more call any member here a Homophobe,
or even infere that any member here is a Homophobe and I WILL ban you for 30 days.
Do both and I WILL ban you for 60 days.
Squippy,
in your post you have ignored direct evidence of your insulting other patrons,
you have again accused the Org of tolerating and condoning homophbia,
you have again demanded an apology for your suspension,
The next post you make had better carry a very good reason for not banning you for the 60 days as warned.
You have directly and deliberately done what i have cautioned you not to do here at the Org.
This is our forum with a clearly defined set of rules,
you have continuosly and flagrantly breached those rules, specifically insulting staff and patrons.
All your rights of appeal have been exhausted,
there is no higher authority here to which you may petition,
I am it, and I have formally denied your petition.
You have exhausted my patience.
If you do not like the way we run the Org you are free to leave.
Quote[/b] ] You have exhausted my patience. If you do not like the way we run the Org you are free to leave.
In a sense, I already have; you will note this is the only thread I post to, and intermittently at that.
Quote[/b] ] This is our forum with a clearly defined set of rules, you have continuosly and flagrantly breached those rules, specifically insulting staff and patrons.
I have never insulted staff or patrons. I have, however, frequently been insulted, as here.
Quote[/b] ] The next post you make had better carry a very good reason for not banning you for the 60 days as warned.
Only the same as I have already advanced I'm afraid; accusations of insult are mischievous, and the boards tolerance of homophobia remains both hypocritical and offensive.
You may not wish to acknowledge the boards tolerance of homophobia, but the lack of that recognition does not make it any less true. And, silencing the whistle-blower doesn't make it any less true either.
I also note the opportunism with which my alleged offenses shift from day to day.
redleg wrote:
Quote[/b] ] However even in this thread I fail to see Squippy take responsiblity for his own actions that did indeed lead to the sanctions. He continues to try to defend himself by pointing out the wrong doing of others.
Thats a gross misrepresentation of my position, redleg. My position is that its doubly hypocrticial to accuse someone of being deliberately insulting just because you do no not like their opinions, and to simultaneously turn a blind eye to prevalent homophobia. It's a tangential issue, and mainly raised to discredit your claims of liberal persecution.
Quote[/b] ] As long as you try to defend your wrong doing and insults by saying things like the statement I quoted below, you will continue to miss the point on why the moderators had no other choice but to implace sanctions upon your ability to post
How does demonstrating the opportunistic implementation of double standards damage my case? Please note that I would NOT have raised the issue at all were it not for the fact that you created this thread; furthermore, if the sanctions were imposed on all perpetrators of bear-pit discussion, I would also not complain. But as neither condition exists, the implementation of one-sided penalties is an overt and direct abuse of the stated purpose and intent of moderation.
You will also recall that I have endorsed the call for the bear-pit atmosphere to end; and that I have on multiple occassions offered to debate you directly on serious topics as long as silly abuse such as being accused of being Saddam-lover are forbidden - offers which you have to date declined.
As I said in my previous post, I'm quite happy to drop the matter as long as moderator action is evenhanded; while it is not, it remains uinaccaptable and deserving of an apology. Not that I'll be holding my breath.
A.Saturnus
06-17-2004, 14:59
Quote[/b] ]I have never insulted staff or patrons
This is an outright lie and you know it (unless you suffer from amnesia).
Quote[/b] ]
Where? I have repeatedly asked for such demonstrations both here aby PM. Please feel free to open a dialogue in any medium you choose.
I can´t send you a PM. I´ll try email.
Quote[/b] ]Except its based on the spurious attribution of intent
Nonsense. As said before, it was your behaviour that got you demoted. Intent is irrelevant in this case.
Quote[/b] ]I don't see why; you have abused your position and slandered a patron, an apology would be the adult and responsible thing to do.
Wrong. Since I have proof of your violations of the forum rules, it would not be responsible for me to take back anything. All I did, I did because the duties of a moderator require it.
Quote[/b] (squippy @ June 17 2004,07:40)]You will also recall that I have endorsed the call for the bear-pit atmosphere to end; and that I have on multiple occassions offered to debate you directly on serious topics as long as silly abuse such as being accused of being Saddam-lover are forbidden - offers which you have to date declined.
Sir you have me confused with yourself. I have never made such a statement about anyone's position concerning Iraq.
A clear mistake on your part and futher damaging to your position.
Every attempt at civil and serious discussion that has occured on the politicial spectrum usually ends with you making a offensive and insulting comment such as the one already mentioned.
RisingSun
06-18-2004, 00:12
If Squippy is temporarily banned again, I think that would be a little heavy handed.
He should be free to voice his opinions about how he thinks the Org is acting in this forum- that's what it's here for. Banning him just for voicing his discontent in a civil manner (In this thread I have seen him do it no other way) is really not fair.
If he feels the Org is "homophobic," then he should be able to openly talk about how and why he thinks this. Then the moderators and administrators can decide if they want to take action because he is right, or if he is not.
That can then be the end of the issue. Even if he keeps voicing what he thinks, I don't think it is grounds to ban him, unless it becomes outright slanderous.
There is a legislated difference between anti-gay bias and homophobia.
While the dictionary may well list homophobia as including mere bias or disapproval our legislators do not.
It is not illegal to have or express anti-gay bias
It is illegal to encourage or commit homophobic acts
(which falls under hate crime legislation)
I will follow the law of the land regarding the definition of what constitutes Homophobic activities.
The Org is neither Homophobic nor carries an anti-gay bias.
sqippy continually accuses the org of Homophobia (which is hate crime).
That accusation is slanderous and will no longer be tolerated.
squippy continually attempts to drag a patrons name through the mud by accusing him of homophobia (which is a legislated illegal activity), when all i have ever seen is that patron display an anti-gay bias (which is not illegal).
That accusation is slanderous and will no longer be tolerated.
Calling someone gay, or an inamnimate object gay is not anti-gay bias.
Dictionary Definition
Gay, in addition to meaning "joyous" or "glad", also means homosexual.
Common Usage Definition (australia)
Gay - something a little silly, lame or half arsed, often used to refer to games which may be fun to play but are a little childish in content or objectives. May be used as a reference to an adult who is a little childlike in their behaviour.
If you wish to attempt to understand the fine points of the definitions i have used, then i suggest you first go to your nearest federal government printers and aquire a copy of the hate crime legislation relevant to your country or state.
In a court of law the Org would not be found guilty of Homophobia, even the patrons previously named as homophobes would not be found guilty.
Indeed those that bought such charges would be facing counter suits for spurios allegations and demands for compensation for costs and time.
== ==
I have finalised my explanation on all points relating to this matter.
Further slanderous posts will result in suspension.
Attempts to debate the fine points of definition of Homophobia will result is suspension.
If that is being heavy handed then call me an ogre,
I am tired of these unfounded allegations and some people splitting hairs on definitions and intent.
The staff at the Org do the best they can - as i have previously and succinctly explained.
If you dont like the way i apply the forum rules in relation to this allegation of homophobia then you dont have to come here.
Barocca.
Aurelian
06-18-2004, 10:29
Quote[/b] ]If Squippy is temporarily banned again, I think that would be a little heavy handed.
He should be free to voice his opinions about how he thinks the Org is acting in this forum- that's what it's here for. Banning him just for voicing his discontent in a civil manner (In this thread I have seen him do it no other way) is really not fair.
If he feels the Org is "homophobic," then he should be able to openly talk about how and why he thinks this. Then the moderators and administrators can decide if they want to take action because he is right, or if he is not.
That can then be the end of the issue. Even if he keeps voicing what he thinks, I don't think it is grounds to ban him, unless it becomes outright slanderous.
I agree with Rising Sun on this one. This thread is specifically for the discussion of how moderating is being conducted. If Squippy is persona non grata at the moment, he should still be able to protest his treatment in this forum. Of course, the moderators don't have to agree with his criticisms, but they shouldn't be squelched.
As for the use of the word 'homophobia', I think there may be some sort of intercultural communication issue going on here.
Perhaps the terms 'heterosexism' or 'sexual prejudice' could be used to get around any notion that hate crimes were being alleged. Link (http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/sexual_prejudice.html)
Finally, on a somewhat related note, I've noticed that a lot of threads have been pre-emptively closed down recently, presumably for fear that the subject matter being discussed would spiral out of control. On a couple of recent occasions these have been threads on religious issues. I'm afraid that these threads were closed because someone considered the discussion to be veering too close to blasphemy, and possible offence to religious members. I would maintain that the forums in question should remain open until a real issue presents itself.
Closing a thread dealing with religion pre-emptively because it might offend the religious would be akin to closing a heterosexist thread pre-emptively because it might offend homosexual or politically correct members.
Voigtkampf
06-18-2004, 14:52
RisingSun and Aurelian,
I sincerely believe that you are not totally familiar with squippy's past behavior and his series of offenses which has culminated in his latest episode upon I have no desire at all to remind anyone; if you were familiar with it though and still support him, then adios common sense
Aurelian, you might notice that there are many religious threads in the Tavern, discussing this issue openly. I don't know about of "lots of threads" and since I do the closing with the rest of the staff, I should know the best, shouldn't I? In matter a fact there is only one single thread closed, which I have closed down and warned the starter of the same (who has understood he stepped over the line, so we left it at it) with the title "God – is he pedophile?". This is an example of a bad and tasteless joke, or could have even been interpreted as a deliberate open insult to some members, so it went down in flames.
In other threads like the "It's not Islam – All religions are evil?" members openly discusses religion and are free to express their religious or atheistic opinions, and all the major religions have been the target of some harsh comments; but that thread was a seasoned discussion from different members and nobody went to the lengths of making any insulting comments.
And you stop the fire before it spreads.
In future please try to make an effort to post somewhat more correct statements without taking resort to unjustified exaggerations.
Alas, my final comment on this behalf; The Org policy is being designed by the Org founders and staff, which is no subject to the approvals or disapprovals of our members. We cannot form our decisions based on the public voting considering all and any issues that may arise; those who aren't familiar with that form of so-called "self-management", it has been introduced in socialism and communism and has failed miserably. Those that feel that the Org is homophobic (which is utter nonsense, BTW) or unjust or otherwise corrupted should feel free to leave anytime.
solypsist
06-19-2004, 03:22
Quote[/b] (Aurelian @ June 18 2004,04:29)][quote]If Squippy is temporarily banned again, I think that would be a little heavy handed.
He should be free to voice his opinions about how he thinks the Org is acting in this forum- that's what it's here for.
Squippy's email still works; he can "voice his opinions" and discuss it with Tosa.
I see no benefit from his problems being bandied about publicly, things like this just interfere with other users' attempts to enjoy the Org.
scooter_the_shooter
06-19-2004, 03:55
well if he is such a problem ban him for good and with an IP ban.i cant say that though since i have not seen these post. but if it is not real bad suspend and/or demote him. I used to think different but you really are good mods and are doing your job right.
Kaiser of Arabia
06-19-2004, 13:35
I'm not a mod, I know, nor will I ever be one (just like how JAG or Gawain will never be one), but I think banning would be too far in Squippys case, although if it gets out of hand, sure, go ahead, fine by me (not my problem, you know?) Anyway, although Squippy can post some, erm yeah..., if he can get banned over it, than I am not far behind. I don't want to be banned, and I don't want to see any member of this community banned, whether I like them or not.
Yes, I do think squippy should be punished, and yes I know about his posting behaviour, but don't ban the guy, not yet at least. Give him a chance to collect some common sence, calm down, he's probably not really a bad guy, you know?
Ok, I'm done rambling about this for now...
-Capo
scooter_the_shooter
06-19-2004, 13:48
give him lots of foold control then he cant post much bad things
I am familiar with Squiipy's posting habits. He has called people nazi's and a lot else so he shouldbe reprimanded for his behaviour. SO watch what he says.
A.Saturnus
06-19-2004, 16:52
I see no reason to ban him. Outside the Tavern his posting style is acceptable so far I know. The Org has much more to offer than just the Tavern. That someone is problematic in the Tavern, doesn´t necessarily mean he cannot make use of the rest.
The Blind King of Bohemia
06-19-2004, 17:00
I remember he was the guy who said i believe in apartheid( the racial probs in s. africa) that really annoyed me that did. He just saw his part to dive in and throw his mad views at me but hey i can let it slide http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ June 19 2004,18:52)]I see no reason to ban him. Outside the Tavern his posting style is acceptable so far I know. The Org has much more to offer than just the Tavern. That someone is problematic in the Tavern, doesn´t necessarily mean he cannot make use of the rest.
and that's true at the moment, he can't use the tavern. I agree with you however sat
RisingSun
06-20-2004, 21:27
Voigtkampf- You would be absolutely correct- I am unfamiliar with the posts which have brought the punishment upon him, and so I have only the information gathered in this thread upon which to make a decision. In this discussion I have only seen him behave civilly and with an even temper.
Like you said, if I had seen the posts, I'd probably change my mind. But since I haven't... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-toff.gif
Demon of Light
06-20-2004, 21:51
Quote[/b] (RisingSun @ June 20 2004,13:27)]Voigtkampf- You would be absolutely correct- I am unfamiliar with the posts which have brought the punishment upon him, and so I have only the information gathered in this thread upon which to make a decision. In this discussion I have only seen him behave civilly and with an even temper.
Like you said, if I had seen the posts, I'd probably change my mind. But since I haven't... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-toff.gif
Would it really? COnsider that the sum of Squippy's prior posting culminated in him getting demoted. Since then, he's been argueing that treatment in this thread. A ban would qualify for as a new punishment levelled for new crimes. Since everything since the last meting of punishment has been in this thread, any new punishment is (or at least should) be based solely on what is in this thread. You only have the information in this thread but with respect to any further action, what else do you need?
Voigtkampf
06-20-2004, 22:08
Quote[/b] (RisingSun @ June 20 2004,15:27)]Like you said, if I had seen the posts, I'd probably change my mind. But since I haven't... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-toff.gif
Change your mind or not, must I (yet again) point out that it holds no weight in our decision making?
Demon of Light
06-20-2004, 22:17
Quote[/b] (voigtkampf @ June 20 2004,14:08)]
Quote[/b] (RisingSun @ June 20 2004,15:27)]Like you said, if I had seen the posts, I'd probably change my mind. But since I haven't... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-toff.gif
Change your mind or not, must I (yet again) point out that it holds no weight in our decision making?
I don't believe he ever insinuated that it would. Besides, isn't he encouraged to voice his opinions?
Voigtkampf
06-20-2004, 22:41
Quote[/b] (Demon of Light @ June 20 2004,16:17)]I don't believe he ever insinuated that it would. Besides, isn't he encouraged to voice his opinions?
Quote[/b] ]If Squippy is temporarily banned again, I think that would be a little heavy handed.
Well, this was the RisingSun's initial statement, the one that he, as he stated himself, submitted only viewing the posts made in this thread. Making this statement would imply that he either believes that his opinions will be a relatively decisive factor in our decision making or that they should be regarded as such. There is the insinuation, DoL.
I really do not see the purpose or sense in members debating every decision the staff makes. The staff is capable of handling these issues alone; once the breach of rules has been undoubtedly confirmed, we act and take refuge to necessary actions.
What is the sense of "expressing opinions" in this matter? I watched soccer short while ago, the players did not discuss the rules, though some slightly protested for receiving the yellow card; little more protest, and there is already the red card, and off to the bench they'd go.
Why is it so hard to comprehend that someone, when he breaks the rules, is going to be punished? Why debating it over and over again?
Demon of Light
06-20-2004, 23:33
If I'm wrong, I invite RisingSun to tell me so BUT he said "I think that would be a little heavy-handed". That doesn't by itself imply anything except that this is what he thinks. Posting it here can have any number of intents. Discerning which one applies would require telepathy. Someone could say those words and imply exactly what you believe it to imply. But it would require a matching tonal inflection. There is no tonal inflection on the Internet. All we have are the words he typed and they do not explicitly say that he believes he has any power or authority to make decisions. Implicit statements are debatable in this case. This isn't about who is being banned or anything related. This is about people feeling free to express their opinions. I am not about to advocate stifling them. Anyhow, feel free to either PM me to reply or invite me to do so if you reply here.
Big King Sanctaphrax
06-21-2004, 00:47
It sounds to me like he was just voicing his opinion. Isn't that the whole point of the watchtower?
RisingSun
06-21-2004, 02:19
Thanks for defending me guys. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Voigtkampf- As BKS and DoL both have stated, I was simply voicing my opinion, which is why this forum is here. I never thought it would have any effect on the decision. The only way it would is if you decided it would.
And honestly, I think your post was flat out rude. Regardless of whether I thought they did or not, going around telling people they don't matter is simply bad manners.
But even after finding out about Squippy's (very severe) past offenses, I still think a ban would be out of order in this case, for the reason Demon of Light pointed out- a new punishment would indicate a new offense, and I don't believe in this case he has posted anything so offensive as to warrant a suspension.
However, any defense I may have mounted against Squippy's past punishments I now retract in full. But that is for another thread.
Voigtkampf
06-21-2004, 08:32
Pressed between a rock and a hard place, heh?
I will restrain from commenting upon my respective colleagues.
RisingSun, I did not want to be rude, and if it came across like that, I would apologize, yet the issue remains the same; the Org policy is not open for debate. If I were to set down a dispute between a liberal and a conservative in the Tavern, and the members would all "voice their opinions", I would have a regular mob fight on these forums while one half of the members would support one side and the other half the other. This means negative, Rafterman, staff decisions concerning our particular actions are not nor will they be ever discussed with members.
Other issues may easily be discussed; for an example, if you look at the Watchtower topics you'll see there are requests for new rooms to be created, inquiries on flood control, spyware issues and similar; that is where you can give suggestions.
Yet, however, single members do not influence our day-to-day decision making. If you would prefer hypocrisy, fine, but I give none; I call the shots as they are. If you suggest a new model for punishing/rewarding members, or generally how to manage the Org, you can state it. But with constant exclaiming of one's opinion comes the atmosphere where some members start to believe that every our step undertaken by the staff must be made with the consent of the entire community. That is both impossible and impracticable, so it will never be practiced here.
Aurelian
06-21-2004, 09:55
Quote[/b] ]Change your mind or not, must I (yet again) point out that it holds no weight in our decision making?...
I really do not see the purpose or sense in members debating every decision the staff makes. The staff is capable of handling these issues alone; once the breach of rules has been undoubtedly confirmed, we act and take refuge to necessary actions.
What is the sense of "expressing opinions" in this matter? I watched soccer short while ago, the players did not discuss the rules, though some slightly protested for receiving the yellow card; little more protest, and there is already the red card, and off to the bench they'd go.
Why is it so hard to comprehend that someone, when he breaks the rules, is going to be punished? Why debating it over and over again?
People are bringing these issues up here because this is supposed to be the "Watchtower", which is subtitled as: "A forum where we can talk about the Org forums. It's your chance to influence Org's policy."
This thread is called "If you're going to moderate", and in it people have been discussing fairness issues surrounding moderating since the first of its 12 pages of posts.
It's important that patrons at the Org have somewhere to discuss the decisions that moderators make.
Quote[/b] ]Alas, my final comment on this behalf; The Org policy is being designed by the Org founders and staff, which is no subject to the approvals or disapprovals of our members. We cannot form our decisions based on the public voting considering all and any issues that may arise; those who aren't familiar with that form of so-called "self-management", it has been introduced in socialism and communism and has failed miserably. Those that feel that the Org is homophobic (which is utter nonsense, BTW) or unjust or otherwise corrupted should feel free to leave anytime.
This post gives the impression that the moderators are not interested in contrary opinion from Org members. I'm sure this is not the impression that the Org moderators want to give. It is unfortunate that this post also contains political comments about the 'failure' of socialism and communism. Such comments are particularly inappropriate considering that Squippy appears to be a fairly open Marxist. Equally unfortunate is the invitation for people "to leave" the Org. I fully understand the need for the enforcement of rules in the Org, but this single forum, explicitly designated for the discussion of the rules, should be a place where people can feel free to talk about these issues without being invited to leave.
Last issue. There was some offence with my concern that threads seemed to be shut down too easily. I mentioned that "On a couple of recent occasions these have been threads on religious issues". The "God - is he a pedophile?" thread was the most recent. The other one that had me concerned was the "What does Jesus Mean to You?" thread. That thread was locked just before I went on vacation at the end of May. Both of those threads were locked due to concerns that people would be offended by blasphemous statements. I am happy to see that the thread was reopened while I was away, but it seems that individual discipline and editing would be a better way to handle extreme situations than simply shutting down a whole thread. Just my two cents on a policy issue.
Anyway, on a positive note, I think the moderating around here is generally quite fair. My comments are mostly just a concern that the Watchtower remains as advertised: "A forum where we can talk about the Org forums."
Teutonic Knight
06-21-2004, 15:46
for once, I agree.
Voigtkampf
06-21-2004, 22:32
Did I slide off to the Org PR department? Guess so.
I'll guess I'll have to repeat this one for dozens of times; perhaps I should save this post for future reference?
So, I'll make this as simple as possible and use preferably short words.
Members may express their opinions concerning the Org policies.
Members may give suggestions on how to run the Org.
Members may state critics on the Org policies and/or moderators.
Members may not take part in the decision making of the Org.
Everything clear so far? Good.
Now to your statement,Aurelian.
Quote[/b] ]This post gives the impression that the moderators are not interested in contrary opinion from Org members. I'm sure this is not the impression that the Org moderators want to give.
Whether I am interested in your approving/disapproving opinion has no weight in my decision process. After I conduct some actions, any actions, something that might include warning someone publicly or closing a thread or whatever else required, some members may openly or via PM approve my decision, while others may see it as unfair. Should I count those voices and form my final decision based on the quantity of pro and contra? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif
Quote[/b] ]It is unfortunate that this post also contains political comments about the 'failure' of socialism and communism. Such comments are particularly inappropriate considering that Squippy appears to be a fairly open Marxist.
Unfortunate, while it contains statements of failure of the communism and socialism? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-confused.gif Well, after all, communism and socialism did fail, whether some like it or not, and have left some of the greatest examples of human idiocy in the aftermath of creating an artificial "utopian" society – you have probably lived far away from the ex-communist countries and their people to be able to tell first hand. And as for Squippy, I honestly did not know that he was an open Marxist, since I haven't actually took much notice of him until he started making trouble. I don't know whether you would believe me this or not, but I just stated this (self-management) as a good example for a perfectly stupid idea, what it is and what it has shown itself as in the not all too distant past, and not as an attempt to defame him.
Quote[/b] ]Equally unfortunate is the invitation for people "to leave" the Org. I fully understand the need for the enforcement of rules in the Org, but this single forum, explicitly designated for the discussion of the rules, should be a place where people can feel free to talk about these issues without being invited to leave.
First of all, I did not invite anyone to leave. Be precise when discussing someone's words. I said that they should feel free to leave. I have also never invited anyone to leave because he stated anything in this or any other Org thread. I don't have that power and I have also never seen anyone that has deserved to be banned for good, though some members have committed some serious and unfair offenses towards their fellow members.
Ergo, the interpretation that people who are "talking freely" would be "invited to leave" is the result of your complete misinterpretation of my post, whether malevolent or misguidedly benevolent, yet false to the bone nonetheless.
Quote[/b] ]Last issue. There was some offence with my concern that threads seemed to be shut down too easily. I mentioned that "On a couple of recent occasions these have been threads on religious issues". The "God - is he a pedophile?" thread was the most recent. The other one that had me concerned was the "What does Jesus Mean to You?" thread. That thread was locked just before I went on vacation at the end of May. Both of those threads were locked due to concerns that people would be offended by blasphemous statements. I am happy to see that the thread was reopened while I was away, but it seems that individual discipline and editing would be a better way to handle extreme situations than simply shutting down a whole thread. Just my two cents on a policy issue.
Now, here we have your exact quote, page 11 of this very topic…
Quote[/b] ]Finally, on a somewhat related note, I've noticed that a lot of threads have been pre-emptively closed down recently...
Now, is this once again a deliberate false statement or one made out of ignorance? The words "a lot of threads" is a complete and utter exaggeration, and you yourself have managed to count only two of them, while one of them has been closed for a minimum period of time (couple of hours, tops) because me and Dhepee could not edit posts at that time (we can now) and Saturnus wasn't around so we could act coordinately.
So two threads are "a lot of threads"? Once again, I wonder; ignorance or deliberate misleading? I have set your statement straight right after the initial post, but now you bring me to do it once more.
Also, be informed that the threads were not closed preemptively, which is something that we never do, threads get closed at the moment where the violations becomes so offensive that only a thread closure could stop any further mayhem; in the case of "God – Is he a pedophile?", the criteria were met with the very title of the topic.
Perhaps you believe me to be to harsh? Well, consider the actions TosaInu has made in this thread for someone making false statements and consider again.
FLOOD CONTROL topic (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=13;t=19379;st=25)
Now, Aurelian, you have made false statements, you have perverted the meanings of my statements by taking resort to some truly nasty demagogic acrobatics and behold; I have not smited thee Why should I? I respect the rights of the members to express their opinions completely. But what I am displeased with is the fact how much time did I waste while endeavoring to prove how wrong your position is, and the result will probably not reach fertile ground anyway.
Even more horrified I am at the aspect I would have to debate this over with dozens and dozens of other members…
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif
Kaiser of Arabia
06-21-2004, 22:49
Quote[/b] (voigtkampf @ June 21 2004,16:32)]Did I slide off to the Org PR department? Guess so.
I'll guess I'll have to repeat this one for dozens of times; perhaps I should save this post for future reference?
So, I'll make this as simple as possible and use preferably short words.
Members may express their opinions concerning the Org policies.
Members may give suggestions on how to run the Org.
Members may state critics on the Org policies and/or moderators.
Members may not take part in the decision making of the Org.
Everything clear so far? Good.
But does that mean that Member opinions are irrelivent to those who run the Org? Does it mean that the Admins and Mods shouldn't pay attention to memeber opinions? Does that mean that the opinions of the Members carry no weight whatsoever?
It seems to me that Tosa and Barrocca do pay attention to our opinions (if now, what's the point in the Watchtower?)
-Capo
RisingSun
06-22-2004, 02:37
Exactly. It is sad when people do not listen to others' opinions because they are the ones in power, and don't think they could benefit from listening to suggestions or constructive critique.
And like it or not, I believe that is what is going on here.
Quote[/b] ]Members may express their opinions concerning the Org policies.
Members may give suggestions on how to run the Org.
Members may state critics on the Org policies and/or moderators.
Members may not take part in the decision making of the Org.
Nobody said we were making the decisions. We were doing the first three bullet points, not the last. No need to be rude. And you can apologize for the last post, but this next sentence certainly is flat out rude, no matter which way you spin it:
Quote[/b] ]So, I'll make this as simple as possible and use preferably short words.
Aurelian
06-22-2004, 05:59
Okay. May I suggest that moderators should be moderate.
Quote[/b] ]Ergo, the interpretation that people who are "talking freely" would be "invited to leave" is the result of your complete misinterpretation of my post, whether malevolent or misguidedly benevolent, yet false to the bone nonetheless.
Quote[/b] ]Those that feel that the Org is homophobic (which is utter nonsense, BTW) or unjust or otherwise corrupted should feel free to leave anytime.
Since everyone who posts on the Org is always free to leave, I interpreted your post to mean that you were 'inviting' those people who had a problem with the Org "to leave" (presumably in the hopes that they would stop bugging you). Obviously, I completely misinterpreted your post in either a malevolent or misguidedly benevolent way. It is now clear to me that since you do not possess the power to 'invite' someone to leave, your statement was merely a suggestion that people are free to do so if they have a problem with the Org. That is, of course, an entirely different matter. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
As for my concerns about threads being shut down... I was only trying to address what I perceived to be an issue regarding potentially blasphemous threads. I have perceived an increase in closed threads. Yesterday's closing of the "Al Qaeda Beheads Another Hostage" thread comes to mind. Generally, these threads SEEM to be closed because of fears that people will take offence at something someone else says. After reviewing the "Al Qaeda..." thread, and after looking at the religious threads I mentioned previously, I just don't see people attacking each other viciously. Sure, people say stupid stuff all the time, but in MY OPINION that's no reason to shut down the conversation. Here's the post that closed the "Al Qaeda" thread:
Quote[/b] ]This went far off its original topic, and is spiraling downwards. Wait another day and see twice as much insults and mutual bashing that serve no purpose? No, I don’t think so.
Topic closed
As far as I could tell, the thread wasn't particularly concerned with insulting or bashing other members. All threads go off topic, this one was less off topic than most. Maybe I just have a higher tolerance for dissent and crazy talk.
Anyway, I'm not going to waste any more of anybody's time by continuing to post in this thread. I get it. Moderators are in charge. Judgement calls need to be made. Everybody else can just shut up and deal with it.
Case closed (and no hard feelings) as far as I'm concerned.
Gregoshi
06-22-2004, 07:49
Quote[/b] ]Everybody else can just shut up and deal with it.
Not true. Patrons may not be part of the decisions made around here, but they certainly can (and have had) influence on decisions. You need only look at the recent changes in the avatar system, the Tavern split and the Conservative/Liberal "club" threads in the Tavern to see that.
Where patrons cannot get involved is in the day to day decisions: moving/closing threads, editing posts, warning patrons, etc. We simply do not have the time to justify and request consensus from the patrons on all these issues. You can, of course, PM a moderator to discuss an action taken (or not taken) if you feel strongly about it, but it ultimately comes down to the staff making the decision as it is their responsibility to do so.
Though you cannot be involved in the day to day stuff, you can get involved in discussing general trends of the day to day decisions. This topic is one such example. It started out not talking about one particular action, but a perceived bias in the overall moderating of these forums.
I hope you can see that you do have influence over what goes on here despite having no decision-making power. We do listen.
Voigtkampf
06-22-2004, 15:05
Oh, boy… I waste all those words and Gregoshi hits the nail with a one hammer strike
RisingSun, no matter if I use short or long words, some people still want to discuss it ad infinituum, but, to be as a nice chap as I am, I'll apologize once more for all of those offended by this post. Yet, these posts have not brought any results; the basic conclusion from some members still seems "mods, we own, members, get lost", no matter whether I took resort to short or long words That was no intention and I truly do not feel that way; community lives from its members and I am here only because I want to make a positive contribution to this community.
But, respectfully, I'll leave this discussion to those with greater eloquence and peace of mind then my humble person http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/ht_bow.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Quote[/b] (voigtkampf @ June 22 2004,17:05)]Oh, boy… I waste all those words and Gregoshi hits the nail with a one hammer strike
he does that a lot Voightkampf
RisingSun
06-23-2004, 05:33
Voigtkampf- Obviously, you meant it in a condescending manner, as if people like myself could not comprehend larger words.
That potshot was totally unnecessary.
But apology accepted. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/medievalcheers.gif
Voigtkampf
06-23-2004, 12:28
Quote[/b] (RisingSun @ June 22 2004,23:33)]But apology accepted. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/medievalcheers.gif
Well, if someone feels offended, let me apologize, it hurts no one and it might bring in some fresh breeze of mutual understanding http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/medievalcheers.gif
Oh, btw, now you better run to the "Will you buy RTW?" thread and prove that you can also give what you demand from others http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Papewaio
06-24-2004, 02:48
I would have to say that patrons views are accepted by the mods. Just remember the mods are patrons of every forum just like us and only have mod powers on their forum.
Also the fire zones would have to be the Jousting Grounds and the Tavern. Both these areas are open to personal opinion and not subjective reasoning... even though I can understand alot more people are upset with their PC in the apothecary they don't flame much there.
The Jousting Grounds was set up after another previous conflict.
Most tension at this site happens just before a release of a TW game, add-on or when the patching process begins. Aside from that I think the real wars in the world are adding to the underlying tension on these boards.
Just remember the mods are patrons, as such they are human and have different views on what is an insult. You will notice that the Australians, Kiwis and Canadians tend to have thicker skin on a lot of issues and will flame each other mercilessly and then call each other mates.
Different cultures and different backgrounds mean we use words in different contexts. It also means we take offense at different rates and about different things.
The mods do care about the patrons. Try and put things in perspective... how would you like to monitor every post within a forum? Make a judgement about each post and then get gutted for being too heavy handed in closing a thread or not closing one that has offended someone?
If you have an issue make sure you PM a mod or two first. They may not be aware of the post or why it is offensive.
Hello Papewaio,
The Jousting Grounds was not set up after another previous conflict. It just became clear that it was quite confusing to have MP and SP discussions in the same forum.
MP and SP games are quite different things. This did cause some friction as one made statements backed up in his mind by SP experiences and the other backed it up with MP. There were also people who were frustrated by constantly having to open and read topics that weren't what they expected it to be (MP instead of SP and vice versa) and topics easily getting 'contaminated'.
Papewaio
06-26-2004, 14:32
Hello Tosa-sama
I would say the Jousting Ground was setup after "conflict" you say "friction"... different words to describe the same situation where posters where fighting in threads over things like which units are good because one was talking about SP the other MP.
Then situations where threads started: This is a SP thread or This is a MP thread... if anyone posted the opposite type of ideas a fight would start.
It was a situation akin to the Conservative/Liberal Threads in the Tavern... just prior to the Tavern/Frontroom split.
We're talking about the same thing then.
Papewaio
06-26-2004, 16:20
I think so :D... the point I was trying to make is that there are a lot of concrete examples of the Org being responsive to patrons... Entrance Hall, Jousting Field, Frontroom... even flood control carding rather then outright suspension or ban.
A lot of times there are http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-oops.gif or http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-help.gif situations but I think overall the patrons are quite forgiving and helpful... and something everyone needs to remember is that the mods and admin are patrons too... so the have other life issues and want the place to be as nice as possible.
The_Emperor
06-28-2004, 23:06
Whats this? Pape your a Mod
Congrats mate http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Devastatin Dave
07-03-2004, 12:28
Pape's a mod now, man, I better watch myself http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
Quote[/b] (The_Emperor @ June 28 2004,17:06)]Whats this? Pape your a Mod
Congrats mate http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
ditto http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Quote[/b] (The_Emperor @ June 28 2004,23:06)]Whats this? Pape your a Mod
Congrats mate http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Agreed http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif
For the record, I returned to this forum briefly to check out news on Roms progress. However I see the moderators are still propagating lies and distortions and feel these should be addressed. Barocca writes:
There is a legislated difference between anti-gay bias and homophobia.
While the dictionary may well list homophobia as including mere bias or disapproval our legislators do not.
sqippy continually accuses the org of Homophobia (which is hate crime).
That accusation is slanderous and will no longer be tolerated.
Slanderous, huh? I point out yet again that this objection to the Orgs acceptance of homophobia and francophobia were only raised by analogy with the alleged abuse of objecting to American foreign policies. I also pointed out I was willing to turn a blind eye to it until I was accused of unacceptable impoliteness. Drawing that comparison is the “further” error for which sanctions were imposed, a discussion in this very Watchtower about moderation.
Barocca is entitled to his opinion, however ill-0informed and bigoted it may be. But the use of “gay” as a synonym for “shit” is so widespread that even the Simpsons parodies it. Perhaps Barocca lives in some isolated community and is unaware of these matters, but that is hardly a recommendation for a moderator. Regardless, his objection that rests on failing to recognise this synonymous use of the term, and falls.
Barocca also writes:
I am tired of these unfounded allegations and some people splitting hairs on definitions and intent.
And yet, that is the very basis for moderator action against, a false allegation of intent. If you are so tired of it, the simple solution is not to do it.
Solypsist wrote:
Squippy's email still works; he can "voice his opinions" and discuss it with Tosa.
No I cannot. Tosa does not respond to contact and is grievously failing in his responsibilities.
Voigtkampf wrote:
First of all, I did not invite anyone to leave. Be precise when discussing someone's words. I said that they should feel free to leave. I have also never invited anyone to leave because he stated anything in this or any other Org thread.
The rebuttal to this was perfectly correct; under the context such a statement can only be made as an offer, and was correctly taken as such.
Voigtkampf also wrote:
Hrvojej, the "condemnation" of member that has so blatantly posted and mocked another member that has just lost his father has occurred because of that; the argument you mention here is not the reason for his ban and degradation to senior member, the argument was merely used to further support our case and emphasize the fact that most of the patrons here do not support his actions as well.
This remains a direct lie. Motive has falsely been imputed to me – that is prejudice in the most literal sense. When you say “further support” you mean “leap opportunistically on the bandwagon”
This is clearly demonstrated when Devastatin Dave says:
Man squippy, you actually wrote that about a poor kid's father dying?? That's some cold hearted sht yo. And you're getting your panties all in a wad about me talking smack about the homosexuals wanting to mock marriage. Check yourself foooo
No, I did not say that about his father at all. What I said was that the argument offered was an emotionally manipulative tearjerker, an analysis which remains factual to this day. But Dave is, not unreasonably, taking the Moderators version of events – despite the fact that the moderators version of events is a lie.
My “demotion” was opportunistic and slanderous, after the moderators turned a blind eye to the continual homophobia conatantly demonstrated in the use of “gay” as a synonym for “shit”. The hypocrisy here reaches undreamt of heights.
Thank you and good night.
Devastatin Dave
09-09-2004, 21:55
For the record, I returned to this forum briefly to check out news on Roms progress. However I see the moderators are still propagating lies and distortions and feel these should be addressed. Barocca writes:
Slanderous, huh? I point out yet again that this objection to the Orgs acceptance of homophobia and francophobia were only raised by analogy with the alleged abuse of objecting to American foreign policies. I also pointed out I was willing to turn a blind eye to it until I was accused of unacceptable impoliteness. Drawing that comparison is the “further” error for which sanctions were imposed, a discussion in this very Watchtower about moderation.
Barocca is entitled to his opinion, however ill-0informed and bigoted it may be. But the use of “gay” as a synonym for “shit” is so widespread that even the Simpsons parodies it. Perhaps Barocca lives in some isolated community and is unaware of these matters, but that is hardly a recommendation for a moderator. Regardless, his objection that rests on failing to recognise this synonymous use of the term, and falls.
Barocca also writes:
And yet, that is the very basis for moderator action against, a false allegation of intent. If you are so tired of it, the simple solution is not to do it.
Solypsist wrote:
No I cannot. Tosa does not respond to contact and is grievously failing in his responsibilities.
Voigtkampf wrote:
The rebuttal to this was perfectly correct; under the context such a statement can only be made as an offer, and was correctly taken as such.
Voigtkampf also wrote:
This remains a direct lie. Motive has falsely been imputed to me – that is prejudice in the most literal sense. When you say “further support” you mean “leap opportunistically on the bandwagon”
This is clearly demonstrated when Devastatin Dave says:
No, I did not say that about his father at all. What I said was that the argument offered was an emotionally manipulative tearjerker, an analysis which remains factual to this day. But Dave is, not unreasonably, taking the Moderators version of events – despite the fact that the moderators version of events is a lie.
My “demotion” was opportunistic and slanderous, after the moderators turned a blind eye to the continual homophobia conatantly demonstrated in the use of “gay” as a synonym for “shit”. The hypocrisy here reaches undreamt of heights.
Thank you and good night.
Don't be such a baby, you were being a jerk and you got nailed for it. Suck it up. Just to give you a chubby, I'm banned too, so you see, they are fair. Stop whining you little cry baby!!! ~:joker:
If you go through life being "offended" by everything and not having a sense of humor you're going to be miserable. So chear up my little defender of the perverted side.
What I really love about the FREE world is that you see gay people (male/female) holding hands and walking in the street ~:) ....and nobody looks twice or gives a holy hoot. ~:)
This is the norm in civillised and progressive society.
Demon of Light
09-12-2004, 11:54
Don't be such a baby, you were being a jerk and you got nailed for it. Suck it up. Just to give you a chubby, I'm banned too, so you see, they are fair. Stop whining you little cry baby!!! ~:joker:
If you go through life being "offended" by everything and not having a sense of humor you're going to be miserable. So chear up my little defender of the perverted side.
Could we possibly refrain from calling squippy a jerk, cry baby, or an easily offended and morally bankrupt individual? The gentleman is opinionated and expressses those opinions forcefully and without regard to possible future unpopularity. This sounds remarkably like another gentleman I know (Dave). As long as he has an account to do this with, the de facto assumption must be that it is tolerable. Who are any of us to seek to deny him his voice? (I'll give you a hint; none of us are Tosa)
Big King Sanctaphrax
09-12-2004, 12:00
Hi DoL! Long time no see.
ICantSpellDawg
09-12-2004, 16:20
this forum is kinda like the weimar republic - take that for what you understand it to mean
Hosakawa Tito
09-12-2004, 17:02
The Freedom to express one's view also comes with Responsibilities. Some people that frequent this place emphathize and demand the former and completely disregard the later. Screaming "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater or "Jump" at some poor confused potentially suicidal soul standing on a window ledge just because one feels it is his/her right to freely express themselves irregardless of the consequences/harm to others demonstrates at best; A) extremely poor judgement and decision making skills, at worst; B) malicious intent to do harm to others for ones personal amusement/satisfaction. Neither excuse is acceptable in society or in the org. and will be dealt with accordingly.
What I really love about the FREE world is that you see gay people (male/female) holding hands and walking in the street ~:) ....and nobody looks twice or gives a holy hoot. ~:)
This is the norm in civillised and progressive society.
Too true, it does make me proud from time to time seeing the progress we have made, but we still have places to go we can't rest on what has been acieved.
Demon of Light
09-16-2004, 08:07
Hi DoL! Long time no see.
Been busy with a new job, life, and issues involving women. That last one really got more complicated over the last few days.
i think that squippy's use of the 'word' "homophobia" is offensive and slanderous to the religious everywhere
seems to me that squippy is wishing that everyone here at the Org has to accept "homosexuality" as an "ok thing".
i will never accept it as ok, and squippy or anyone else has no right to try to force that idea down my throat. IMO 'homosexuality' is immoral and an abomination against God.
the Org is entitled to ban me for that opinion if it wants to. but then the Org would be anti-Christian, anti-Muslim, and anti-Jewish (since all of the Holy Books from these religions explicitly condemn 'homosexuality' in multiple places), which would be a lot worse than being 'homophobic'
note: i realize my views do not reflect the views of the Org.
the Org is not 'homophobic'. personally i wish it was because then those who stand up for morality would be more free to use graphic language which in some cases can help to better illustrate their points
my advice to squippy: stop thinking you're God and that everyone in this Universe must either agree with you or be silenced.
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
09-16-2004, 09:13
I find that post offensive and slanderous.
So basically, you wish you could stone and feather someone because that person got a different opinions from yours? You'd like to be able to insult someone because of his/ her private life and opinion, whereas those are not damaging anyone else?
You can apply the advice you give squippy to yourself.
I certainly do not wish the org change its present stance. I'd leave if I were not free to express my opinion without facing insult and slander from other members: it would not be a discussion forum, but a mud arena.
Feel free to discuss your opinion, but respect the form of respectfull discussion.
Louis,
Another religious right wing nut job ~:rolleyes:
You'd like to be able to insult someone because of his/ her private life and opinion
You can apply the advice you give squippy to yourself.
squippy is insulting me and everyone else who upholds certain moral principles with the word "homophobia". phobia implies a mental disorder. someone does not have a mental disorder just because he disagrees with "homosexuality".
i don't mean to insult. however, there comes a time when certain morals must be upheld and there is unfortunately not any "amicable" way to do that (since we live in the real world and not Carebear-land)
i'm just trying to point out to squippy that the words he throws around, ie: "bigot", could easily be turned back around towards himself (since he seems to be prejudiced against those who disagree with him about this issue)
Teutonic Knight
09-16-2004, 20:05
i think that squippy's use of the 'word' "homophobia" is offensive and slanderous to the religious everywhere
seems to me that squippy is wishing that everyone here at the Org has to accept "homosexuality" as an "ok thing".
i will never accept it as ok, and squippy or anyone else has no right to try to force that idea down my throat. IMO 'homosexuality' is immoral and an abomination against God.
the Org is entitled to ban me for that opinion if it wants to. but then the Org would be anti-Christian, anti-Muslim, and anti-Jewish (since all of the Holy Books from these religions explicitly condemn 'homosexuality' in multiple places), which would be a lot worse than being 'homophobic'
note: i realize my views do not reflect the views of the Org.
the Org is not 'homophobic'. personally i wish it was because then those who stand up for morality would be more free to use graphic language which in some cases can help to better illustrate their points
my advice to squippy: stop thinking you're God and that everyone in this Universe must either agree with you or be silenced.
I agree entirely.
I find that post offensive and slanderous.
So basically, you wish you could stone and feather someone because that person got a different opinions from yours? You'd like to be able to insult someone because of his/ her private life and opinion, whereas those are not damaging anyone else?
You can apply the advice you give squippy to yourself.
I certainly do not wish the org change its present stance. I'd leave if I were not free to express my opinion without facing insult and slander from other members: it would not be a discussion forum, but a mud arena.
Feel free to discuss your opinion, but respect the form of respectfull discussion.
Louis,
That's mildly hypocritical...
Well, I think the above unseemly spat demonstrates my charge: that thgere is a great deal of homophobia on the org.
Now I'd like to point out, I am not saying that anyone is obliged to give up their religious feelings, no matter how stupid I may think they are. But that has nothing to do with saying XYZ is gay to mean XYZ is shit. And from the above responses, as we can see, any restriction of the ability to say that gay = shit is seen as horrifying.
Barocca was wrong, and is wrong. You homophobes (in my eyes) can feel what you like as long as you don't use abusive language. But you are using abusive language, in a public forum, and the Mods are conding it.
... and THEN the hypocritical bastards assert that identifying a tearjerker as such is so excessivley offensive that my ability to post must be restricted to protect the genteel and innocent.
The Blind King of Bohemia
09-20-2004, 14:44
i will never accept it as ok, and squippy or anyone else has no right to try to force that idea down my throat. IMO 'homosexuality' is immoral and an abomination against God.
Also i think the opposite should be applied there as well, i don't like hearing all the immoral and against god business that apparently homosexuality stands for but i can stand it as long as that idea isn't forced down my throat either
Duke John
09-20-2004, 17:27
Such disgusting posts as made by Navaros might be tolerated in the Tavern, but it would be better if they did not pollute other subforums here at the Org.
:verypissedoff:
And the people who stand behind the idea as posted in Navaros, please never ever contact me or expect anything from me.
Gawain of Orkeny
09-20-2004, 20:50
Could someone please point out to me the disgusting part of Navs post?
Ser Clegane
09-20-2004, 21:09
Could someone please point out to me the disgusting part of Navs post?
How about that part:
the Org is not 'homophobic'. personally i wish it was because then those who stand up for morality would be more free to use graphic language which in some cases can help to better illustrate their points
Calling for a homophobic atmosphere that is expressed by using graphic language is not acceptable in my books.
Duke John
09-20-2004, 21:33
IMO 'homosexuality' is immoral and an abomination against God.
That part is disgusting. In real life I would stop talking to anyone who would say this. And I don't act differently on an internet forum. People may have religion, fine by me. But religion should only be a personal thing to comfort people that there is something good after hell on earth. But religion should NEVER be a reason to condemn, discriminate, or be harmfull in other ways to other people.
I'm sure that there patrons at this board who are homosexual, and I just can't stand the idea how they would feel when people talk like that. And if people can't even feel a tiny bit of compassion for them, then I surely don't give a **** about those abominiations to human society (and I don't mean homosexuals).
But we have a certain amount of freedom of speech here at the Org, but I think that should be limited to the Tavern. But that should remain the only place.
And that is how I moderate.
Papewaio
09-21-2004, 04:44
Homophobia may be defined in some circles as a mental disorder, but I think it has another meaning used by most people to mean someone who acts on their prejudice of homosexuals.
Esseniatly alot of people define homophobics as bigots of homosexuals.
Disliking someone is fine. You do not have to associate with those people. Make friends with them etc. Using inflammatory remarks to describe those people is a different scenario and will be dealt with within the Org according to the rules we all agreed to as members.
There are more the a couple of ways to discuss things. Some of which are better then others... well better unless you want to be demoted anyhow. So do unto others as you would like them to do to you. If you don't want to be called a flaming bigot don't call someone else a flaming queer.
:knight:
Gawain of Orkeny
09-21-2004, 04:45
Calling for a homophobic atmosphere that is expressed by using graphic language is not acceptable in my books.
Nor is it acceptable in mine but that statement in itself is not disgusting. If this was to be implemented that would be disgusting.
IMO 'homosexuality' is immoral and an abomination against God.
That part is disgusting
Well then you find most practicing christiams to be disgusting them and many others of different religions also believe this.
In real life I would stop talking to anyone who would say this. And I don't act differently on an internet forum
Yopu are going to get awful lonely then and you will never change anyones mind by behaving that way. Once more dont forget the bible says hate the sin but love the sinner. As a christian you cant except the one idea without the other. So although you may consider the act of homosexuality an abomination you must still love the homosexual as a person.
Devastatin Dave
09-21-2004, 05:16
Dear God, please restrain my fingers from typing in this thread to debate the moral/immoral acts of man kind. Thank you Jesus!!
Papewaio
09-21-2004, 05:21
Simply express it as if you where talking to Jesus, your baby child, young niece, your pastor, possibly your mother in law... not someone going through Boot Camp... and you should end up with an explanation sans flaming, insults, swearing and graphic words.
frogbeastegg
09-21-2004, 09:49
Well then you find most practicing christiams to be disgusting them and many others of different religions also believe this.
There is a very vast difference between thinking and saying. To think it is your right and belief; I doubt many take issue with that. To say it, well I find a lot of wisdom in that old cliched chestnut "If you can't say anything nice don't say it at all."
I think Dave has the right idea here. This is not the tavern; this is the watchtower. Policy, not politics and religion.
Duke John
09-21-2004, 10:16
I wrote a pretty long post, but it got lost since the cookie expired. But the bottomline is that I want to know one thing:
Are remarks such as made by Navaros allowed outside the Backroom? And if not allowed are they deleted?
If they are allowed then I hereby resign from being a Moderator. I cannot stand above my strong disgust of people who condemn other people based on interpretations of a belief. But then again the idea of treating others in the same way as you wish to be treated is just a misstep of an otherwise great man....
Once more dont forget the bible says hate the sin but love the sinner. As a christian you cant except the one idea without the other. So although you may consider the act of homosexuality an abomination you must still love the homosexual as a person.
I don't consider calling homosexuality an abomination much in the way of 'love'. It will only serve to antagonize homosexuals. I don't take issue with Navaros' statements, but with the way he brought them. He accuses Squipy of being offensive and then proceeds to offend homosexuals in no uncertain terms.
That is not a constructive way to discuss homosexuality, merely a way to offend and antagonize someone.
Teutonic Knight
09-21-2004, 14:54
That part is disgusting. In real life I would stop talking to anyone who would say this. And I don't act differently on an internet forum. People may have religion, fine by me. But religion should only be a personal thing to comfort people that there is something good after hell on earth. But religion should NEVER be a reason to condemn, discriminate, or be harmfull in other ways to other people.
I'm sure that there patrons at this board who are homosexual, and I just can't stand the idea how they would feel when people talk like that. And if people can't even feel a tiny bit of compassion for them, then I surely don't give a **** about those abominiations to human society (and I don't mean homosexuals).
But we have a certain amount of freedom of speech here at the Org, but I think that should be limited to the Tavern. But that should remain the only place.
And that is how I moderate.
Well that's your opinion. I agree this is not the place for this kind of discussion so let's just forget about it and get back on topic, please?
As long as I don't use offensive or inflammatory language I am free to say what I want to whom I want when I want. There ain't a damn thing you can do about it as long as it is kept within the rules of the site, no matter how disgusting you may think my opinion to be.
How would you like it if I held the same opinion about pro-choice people? What if someone declared that they were pro-choice and all the conservatives reacted with disgust and horror at the evil, horrible bigoted thing you said. I'm sorry sir, but you are so incredibly blinded by your prejudice that you cannot possibly see any room for a viewpoint other than your own.
Now let's get this back on topic.
And the people who stand behind the idea as posted in Navaros, please never ever contact me or expect anything from me.
Oh good, no bias there. Maybe you should resign.
Duke John
09-21-2004, 16:10
I am aware that I am biased. That is why I posting this and why I am talking with the Admins and other mods about it.
And I am on topic. The topic is what are you going if are a moderator. Well, I am moderator and I making my bias known to the public. A good thing it seems to me, yet you seem to be judge me.
Myrddraal
09-21-2004, 16:12
But religion should only be a personal thing to comfort people
If I was a mod, I would moderate your post. I've said before, and I'll say it again:
Millions of people around the world live their lives by one religion or another. Have some respect when talking about their beliefs. I do not believe in God because I need comforting or whatever... What you are saying is coming close to saying I am mentaly unstable!
Teutonic Knight
09-21-2004, 16:37
And I am on topic. The topic is what are you going if are a moderator. Well, I am moderator and I making my bias known to the public. A good thing it seems to me, yet you seem to be judge me.
No I meant the homosexuality discussion, it's totally OT.
I won't judge you if you don't judge me. You have your bias and I have mine, that natural. But what's wrong is that you're declaring that you would suspend your services as a moderator to anyone who disagrees with your point of view. You can have your bias, that's not what I'm judging you on, what I'm judging you on is the fact that you seem to be allowing that bias to rule your actions as a moderator.
Religion, is not supposed to be the hammer to whack someone just because he/she or whoever is gay strraight, bi an alien, a mutant or whatever. Besides if and indeed IF you are Christian, does god not say love your neighbour as i have loved you? that is the great commandment, that is indeed a source of great comfort to many. and BTW i agree with DJ
Teutonic Knight
09-21-2004, 16:55
Religion, is not supposed to be the hammer to whack someone just because he/she or whoever is gay strraight, bi an alien, a mutant or whatever. Besides if and indeed IF you are Christian, does god not say love your neighbour as i have loved you? that is the great commandment, that is indeed a source of great comfort to many. and BTW i agree with DJ
I do not hate homosexuals, I merely think that the homosexual act is immoral.
Duke John
09-21-2004, 17:20
what I'm judging you on is the fact that you seem to be allowing that bias to rule your actions as a moderator.
That is what it seems, but I don't want that, and that is why I am asking the administrators to disallow such remarks outside the Backroom. People have a freedom of speech in there, but this is mainly a gaming site and such remarks should not spread into other forums. If they do then I will respond to them by action and I fully understand that is not how moderators should respond.
Please tell me, how many people do you think you have brought some joy or fun by saying "homosexuals are an abomoniation to God" and now compare that to the amount of people that are enjoying mods, stories or tactic discussion. And then take into account that this is mainly a gaming site. Is this the right way to go?
I do love the gaming part of this community. But remarks such as above are going so much against my feel of how people should treat each other that they are affecting my way of moderating and generally about how I feel about the Org. I already rarely visit the Tavern because I know what some people think, and I just can't stand those opinions.
But now these opinions are spreading to another forum. And at that point I'm raising my voice that it should end.
Myrddaal, I meant with religion being personal is that if you want to belief then it should not affect another humanbeing in a negative way. The 'comfort' thing is probably a poor wording of me to understand why people would belief. I'm sorry if you feel offended by it, it wasn't meant that way.
Teutonic Knight
09-21-2004, 18:23
That is what it seems, but I don't want that, and that is why I am asking the administrators to disallow such remarks outside the Backroom. People have a freedom of speech in there, but this is mainly a gaming site and such remarks should not spread into other forums. If they do then I will respond to them by action and I fully understand that is not how moderators should respond.
It seems we have had a confusion and a misunderstanding. I apologize for that. I agree entirely that this kind of comment and discussion has no place outside of the Backroom. In fact that nature of discussion should never leave the Backroom, much less comments of that nature. May I ask where it has spread to another forum besides this thread?
Duke John
09-22-2004, 08:22
First of all I want to say that I might have "misunderstood" the sentence "an Abomination to God". For me it's like saying that they are an abominations to evolution; they are a failure, and should not be given the treated with the same respect, friendliness as others.
KukriKhan gave me this link (http://glow.cc/isa/whatisan.htm) and after reading this, the statement of TK that he doesn't hate homosexuals while still believing that they abominations to God, makes me think that I have misinterpreted what was said. Or so I hope.
So my previous remark that I wouldn't help TK, Navaros and others who believe in what was said is taken back.
Still I stand by my point that such remarks have no place outside the Backroom and I'm glad that regular taverner like TK feels the same.
May I ask where it has spread to another forum besides this thread?
Similar degrading things has been said before. I believe at one time in the Entrance Hall jokes were being made and a moderator got angry because he had lost a friend because of "gaybashing". I'm not sure but I think that was one of the last straws for him and he left the Org. I can't find the thread, but I was pretty impressed by what he was saying and I would hate to see such a thing happen again.
And that is partly why I am reacting like this and why I'm asking for a change in the policy of the Org and why I'm putting hopefully some extra weight behind it by risking my "status".
Teutonic Knight
09-22-2004, 15:23
And that is partly why I am reacting like this and why I'm asking for a change in the policy of the Org and why I'm putting hopefully some extra weight behind it by risking my "status".
I am willing to support you fully in this effort, as i'm sure others are as well.
Gregoshi
09-22-2004, 15:46
DJ, the patron you are talking about was Tokagure. He wasn't a moderator, but he was one of the few remaining STW experts and was very helpful for those who discovered the wonders of STW long past its glory days. It was quite a shame to lose him.:no:
Teutonic Knight
09-22-2004, 16:10
DJ, the patron you are talking about was Tokagure. He wasn't a moderator, but he was one of the few remaining STW experts and was very helpful for those who discovered the wonders of STW long past its glory days. It was quite a shame to lose him.:no:
Yes, sadly I remember that.... :shame:
Sasaki Kojiro
09-22-2004, 18:48
Togakure...I'd wondered why he left.
Once again I must make a criticism on the way someone moderates the Tavern. The moderator is suppose to control and limit the insulting terms and prevent such activities. The Moderator can not control those type of situations when he takes part in that conservation and agrees with one of the individuals that makes the insult.
From this thread
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=37976&page=3
The post by the moderator.
Redleg, what you should understand is that for a gay-rights supporter (as I am one) your position is seen clearly as discriminatory. You may not agree with that, but that´s the way we see it. The arguments you use do not change anything about that. Preventing homosexuals from marrying the people they love is discriminatory in our view. Period. Whether it is a choice or a slippery slope or the will of the majority or a privilege or a sin or whatever you say, doesn´t change a bit about that.
My homosexual friend has a partner he loves. Although he probably wouldn´t do it anyway, I want him to have the option to marry his partner just like the heterosexuals I know. Anything else than granting him this right I see as intolerant and discriminatory.
Thus, while it surely doesn´t help to call each others bigots, you must accept that we see your position as such.
Saturnus you had no business implying in your post that you think I am being a bigot because of my opinion. In fact I doubt if you understand what the word means from the way that you wrote the post. The use of the word bigot is an insult especially when I do not fit that description in what I have written in this thread or even in this forum. The legal code of the United States does not even mean I am being discriminatory in my views about the issue. It is completely uncalled for you to join in the conservation as the moderator of the Traven and express your point of view as such - now the number of times that the word bigot and discrimination will be used by those who do not truelly understand the meaning of the word is will be used more to make emotional responses to points that they do not agree with. If I was to call everyone a bigot that does not agree with my viewpoint I would be wrong. Since you step yourself in the middle of the discussion - explain to me how I am being a bigot - where am I meeting the conditions of the meaning of the word.
Bigot - A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.
I don't expect people to agree with my opinion - I do not believe homosexuals are unreasonable or wicked - I just believe that its the state's right to define what marriage is for the state. The use of the term bigot by Goofball and now by you in an implied way is uncalled for and incorrect.
I do not have a problem with you disagreeing with my position - but I strongly disagree with being called a bigot - especially when what I have written is not discriminatory, hateful, or degrading of anyone - its simply a belief in what the state has the right to do in establishing society rules and regulations for the society of the state.
If you think that is discrimnatory and makes me a bigot - then sir I suggest you look up the terms and steer away from that discussion and just moderate to insure no-one - to include you - violates the rules of the forum.
A.Saturnus
10-16-2004, 23:35
Redleg, I´m sorry you took my post badly. Whenever I post not as a moderator but as a normal user of the backroom to state my opinion, I´m trying to find a way to express what I think in a way that doesn´t make people angry. In this case I obviously failed and apologize for that. I must admit that this is an emotional topic for me.
But what I want to stress is that I didn´t call you a bigot. You can hardly say I used the word in a way that is incorrect as the only time I used it was when I said we should call each other that way. Something you seem to agree on. When I said "we see your position as such" I meant discriminatory. Even when you and the legal code of the US don´t see this position as discriminatory, for me it is. I cannot help but to say it is discriminatory, because otherwise I would belie my convinctions.
Redleg, I´m sorry you took my post badly. Whenever I post not as a moderator but as a normal user of the backroom to state my opinion, I´m trying to find a way to express what I think in a way that doesn´t make people angry. In this case I obviously failed and apologize for that. I must admit that this is an emotional topic for me.
But what I want to stress is that I didn´t call you a bigot. You can hardly say I used the word in a way that is incorrect as the only time I used it was when I said we should call each other that way. Something you seem to agree on. When I said "we see your position as such" I meant discriminatory. Even when you and the legal code of the US don´t see this position as discriminatory, for me it is. I cannot help but to say it is discriminatory, because otherwise I would belie my convinctions.
And in such a discussion as the moderator of the tavern you should not express your opinion especially when the discussion has broken down to one individual calling another a bigot for their belief. Your post gives weight to Goofball's labeling me a bigot, which is not correct by the defination of what a bigot is or my own personal views. You did this when you stated my viewpoint was being discriminatory.
When you weighed yourself in the discussion - you have removed yourself from the ability to moderate that thread without prejuidice. And that is my concern - you have labeled my arguement as discriminatory because your belief is different then mine. So in essence you have given free reign for others to begin to insult and use inflammatory terms.
This thread and this post is not about your or my beliefs - its about how you moderated that particlur instance. Your personal conviction have no bearing on how you moderate a discussion on the issue - your ablity to moderate is soley based on insuring the post meet the rules of the forum. When you place your personal conviction above the rules - then you have violated the intent of being a moderator.
And yes I took your post very harshly because the term discrimination has a precise meaning - which my viewpoint does not crossover into. Now you have opened the barn door and it will be up to you to control the language in that thread.
A.Saturnus
10-17-2004, 19:24
As I said before, the purpose of my post was to make you understand the opposite view better and by that way reducing tension in the thread. Unfortunately, my post was worded badly and it had the opposite effect. I apologize for that. Again.
Said that, I want you to note that if you carefully re-read the thread in question, you will notice that the first one who labelled another member with the term bigot was technically not Goofball. It was indeed you.
After that, it came to be that Goofball said he is willing to let you label him that way if it is the conclusion of your logic. He asked you then to return this favour.
From my view, it didn´t degenerate into a flame war and so I´ve never seen a need in step in as moderator.
In general, I never saw a point in hiding my opinion. When I accepted the position as Moderator, no one said there would be a requirement to do so. Of course, the fact that I have an opinion, can influence my work as Moderator, I do not deny this. Fortunately I´m not alone and I know that my collegues would warn me if my actions were inacceptable.
Togakure
10-18-2004, 05:34
Regarding the member who left as a result of what you are discussing here: yes, it was me. And yes, I left in an angry and childish huff. The insulting and degrading references to homosexuals brought back a very real and severely traumatic incident from my past--one that deprived me and many others of a loved and truly remarkable friend. In my fury, I overreacted and wrote nasty things in response. Gregoshi was right to admonish me, and was gracious, to do so privately. In shame afterward, masked by idignance at what had been said (in the original posts), I vowed to leave, and did so for a few months.
I returned here very recently. I missed my friends. I missed the positive aspects of this community. So, I returned clandestinely, reading and enjoying the game-related posts, but avoiding the urge to post myself. I was curious when I saw this topic and decided to take a peek. I was surprised to see this discussion in progress, and even more so that I and the aforementioned incident had been mentioned.
This is an affair of the Heart, my friends. Some that are involved here seem to be caught up in their heads, so-to-speak. I hope it will be recognized that openly expressed hate--of any kind, towards anyone or any group--has no place among "civilized" and "decent" people, particularly on a public forum often visited by young, impressionable human beings. Love and good will are what it's all about, and you know what I'm talking about so please don't demean what I'm saying here. This reminds me of the government bureaucracy I used to work for: the greater good to which we all were dedicated became lost amidst the trivial minutia of policy, intellectual arguments, and individuals' desire for attention, power and influence.
What is the purpose of the Org? How can that purpose best be served? What organizational structures, processes, and rules would best support that purpose? Who is responsible for managing these things, and how are they empowered? How will these things be evolved as needed over time? These are the kinds of things that are defined in a Vision, Mission Statement, Goals and Objectives, Management Plan, and Operational Plan. There are very good reasons why these tools are used in almost every successful business. The Org is very much like a business. Perhaps it would help to develop these things, if staff have not already done so. If they exist, perhaps it would be beneficial to review and evolve them. At the "tactical" level, it sounds to me like moderators would benefit from more specifically defined rules regarding what is acceptable and where, and what--specifically--to do when these rules are violated. I think also that a lot of energy is spent debating these subjects. Who is responsible for making the call? Whoever it is: make the call, and those of you who have sworn to serve, support the decision.
Some may say that I'm moving up into the abstract and away from the issues at hand. Perhaps, but effective tactics are more likely to emerge from a sound strategy. Sometimes we get caught up with symptoms and miss the problems, and much energy is spent bandaging symptoms while the problem remains. You are all such excellent, capable people, staff members. Discussion is good, but it can be overdone. Someone with authority would do well to recognize when it's time to decide on a course of action, and make it so. The rest need to support the decision and that person, even if the decision is not to their taste.
Forgive me if I seem impetuous in what I've had to say. I'm glad to be back. I very much enjoyed the games today on the STW fakeserver. Thanks for making it possible to play again. Keep up the good work everyone. This site, no ... the people that make this site what it is, are the foundation of the TW community. You all should be very proud.
Sincerely, Toga
Teutonic Knight
10-18-2004, 15:28
Welcome back Togakure-san :bow:
A.Saturnus
10-18-2004, 18:11
TogakureOjonin, I´m glad you came back. Your wisdom is needed here.
Hosakawa Tito
10-18-2004, 21:46
TokakureOjonin, glad you decided to return despite your bad experience here. None of us are immune to the corrosive effects of anger. I always think of this quote when mine tries to get the better of me.
Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. *Buddha*
I believe the devisiveness over this issue will be overcome just as the battle for the civil rights of blacks/minorities, voting rights for women, etc...
The state is not an abstract being, it is the collective will of the governed. As Redleg has defined the conditions of marriage, in the eyes of the law, he might be correct, technically. However, in the eyes of an increasing number of the 'governed' that definition is morally wrong. Someday those that feel this is unjust will be in the majority and the law will be changed to reflect that.
As far as the appearance of bias between moderator, Saturnus, and patron, Redleg, there seems to be more smoke than fire. An apology has been made in good faith over any misunderstanding, I would hope the recipient will accept it as such.
Teutonic Knight
10-18-2004, 22:11
I believe the devisiveness over this issue will be overcome just as the battle for the civil rights of blacks/minorities, voting rights for women, etc...
The state is not an abstract being, it is the collective will of the governed. As Redleg has defined the conditions of marriage, in the eyes of the law, he might be correct, technically. However, in the eyes of an increasing number of the 'governed' that definition is morally wrong. Someday those that feel this is unjust will be in the majority and the law will be changed to reflect that.
If the majority of people say it's right for me to kill you in your sleep is it?
Hosakawa Tito
10-18-2004, 23:00
~;)
You can tell whether a man is clever by his answers. You can tell whether a man is wise by his questions. *Mahfouz Naguib*
Teutonic Knight
10-18-2004, 23:55
the question is an honest one, and it would be good for you to answer it rather than treating it as an absurdity.
oh and ~;)
Hosakawa Tito
10-19-2004, 03:40
You equate majority rule on an act of murder to majority rule on gay marriage, and then question the absurdity of such a comparison? Your logic is...er...beyond my comprehension. :bow:
Togakure
10-19-2004, 03:52
Thanks for the welcome back gentlemen, and for the wise words, Hosokawa Tito. I enjoy and relate to Eastern philosophy very much. However, living in a western world, it is often very difficult for me to adopt consistently in my life. I will keep trying though.
I know what apples are like; I've had an orange. Both round fruit ... right? ~D ~;)
Papewaio
10-19-2004, 11:53
Even in Biblical marriage the Husband has to be considerate.
The same with majority rule or any form of rulership, consideration for those you care for has to be done.
Teutonic Knight
10-19-2004, 13:48
You equate majority rule on an act of murder to majority rule on gay marriage, and then question the absurdity of such a comparison? Your logic is...er...beyond my comprehension. :bow:
err...no I'm trying to see how you can justify majority rule as abasis for morality. I'm not comparing homosexuality to murder, but the idea that the majority creates the morality is the same.
Teutonic Knight
10-19-2004, 14:51
You know what Tito, nevermind, this isn't the time or the place. If you want to continue this you can PM me. Sorry I said anything....
Papewaio
10-19-2004, 18:21
err...no I'm trying to see how you can justify majority rule as abasis for morality. I'm not comparing homosexuality to murder, but the idea that the majority creates the morality is the same.
Law, morality and justice are not the same thing.
Teutonic Knight
10-19-2004, 18:26
Law, morality and justice are not the same thing.
But are they contradictory?
Pm me or start a thread please, no more of this here.
solypsist
10-20-2004, 19:48
this thread needs a reset
Kaiser of Arabia
10-22-2004, 00:34
If you are going to moderate you should realize the difference from trying to start off an intellegent conversation and baiting, a concept that some mods fail to grasp (you know who you are)
-Capo
PanzerJaeger
10-22-2004, 01:45
Theres most certainly a liberal bias when it comes to the moderators.. but i think its kept under control. Kukri would be an exception.
Kaiser of Arabia
10-22-2004, 03:04
Kurkri was the only fair tavern moderator.
-Capo
Capo you were clearly baiting like many people were in that thread, I have been warned recently for far less, just take it like a man.
Teutonic Knight
10-22-2004, 15:46
Kurkri was the only fair tavern moderator.
-Capo
Amen, the best we've ever had. I hope we get him back...
This thread is not and never was about who is the fairest moderator. Its about when moderating a particlur thread the moderator must but aside his own opinion and insure each and every comment is ruled within the rules of the forum.
I got upset because I missed understood what Saturnus had to say in the thread about genetic homosexuality and his comments along the lines of discrimination as it related to me as an individual. In expressing his own opinion after someone's else's statement that stated - in my opinion - that I was a bigot - he showed favoritism toward that arguement. After some calming down on my part - and some futher explanation by Saturnus - I have accepted his conclusion that he did not mean that I was a bigot or anything else - and that I took it the wrong way.
The point I have with moderation is not that the Moderator's can not have their own opinions or baised views - what they must do is rule each and every violation of the forum rules in the same consistent matter.
Each moderator has their own methods in doing so - and a lot goes on by PM that we as patrons do not see. To say one is more fair then the other does not make any sense because while I like Kurki opinions more then Saturnus - I also understand that Kurki thinks completely different the Saturnus.
The problem lies in that Saturnus has completely different views then I have - therefor when he moderators or gets into a discussion - the line gets blurrly (SP?) especially to me. Then one must understand that cultural the United States believes that moderators should be impartial and not express their opinion in subjects in which they moderators - and many Europeans often believe a moderator can not only moderator but express their opinions also -(Kurki clued me into this methodilogy (SP?), while I as an individual do not agree with that prinicple - it does not make it wrong for Saturnus to do so.)
What I ask is for when moderating the moderator must remember to read the complete thread and take away his own opinion when reading the thread for items that violate the rules. After he or she has done that - then re-reading the thread and casting his opinion into the discussion is completely acceptable - and does not make the moderator baised in his moderation.
I like politicial discussion that cut across the broad spectrum of ideas and emotions that are in each and every human being on the planet - the concept of public discourse and moderation is to keep the discussion as civil as possible. And in that the moderators are all attempting to do the best that they can.
Kaiser of Arabia
10-22-2004, 23:08
Capo you were clearly baiting like many people were in that thread, I have been warned recently for far less, just take it like a man.
I was baiting? What about you?
I don't mind the warning if it was a fair one, but it obviously came out of hosas dislike for me.
I don't care, I just won't take the crap anymore.
-Capo
Right, I've got a great idea: let's close the Tavern altogether! Or at least restrict it to "fun and light-hearted" topics...
I would say that's going a bit far, but in the end nobody seems to be able to get the key things:
1) We all have different opinions
2) We are all human
3) Nobody is perfect
4) You have to tolerate other people and their opinions
Everybody seems to be missing the point entirely. This thread is now just an excuse for everybody to tell everybody else how their opinions are wrong and how the mods should all take this viewpoint. Several pages back I saw a mod say "look at Capo's age, Goofball, then see if you should be arguing with him". To which Goofball replied "I won't because it's not too late to make him see the truth" or something. If mods are going to be stupid enough to discriminate against people's age, I'll leave (I'm 12, BTW). Forever. It's only loyalty that makes me stay here, as this was my first ever forum.
KukriKhan
10-28-2004, 22:35
We Moderators don't usually come to each others' aid publicly, so that we avoid the appearance of a Mod "gang-up". But I'm compelled by some of the above posts to speak up.
My colleagues are, without exception, the fairest, most even-handed group of leaders I've ever had the pleasure of working with. Their example of restrained impartiality has largely informed my own methods of moderation. I learned from them, and continue to do so, daily.
My own personal paradigm of moderating in the Tavern included staying away from taking a personal stance on issues - not that I had no opinion; rather that expressing that opinion, would for me make it harder to mete out warnings and discipline, if it were necessary. And, at the time, I was working alone, so I couldn't say: "A.Saturnus, please handle this one; I'm already involved.". Again, given the circumstances, and my own US cultural background (where we want our journalists and moderators to be 'objective', even tho' we know they're not, and can't be), that method worked for me.
Having lived in Europe a few years, I learned that a different expectation exists there about journalists and moderators: it's assumed that they have personal biases and beliefs, and they don't try to pretend differently. Interviews and news shows there had me aghast at first because they seemed so aggressively antagonistic. But they always shook hands and moved on afterwards, stunning me again. It's just the European way. Direct. Confrontational. No-nonsense. Not better or worse. Just different.
Trust me: no Org Moderator hates any member. If it were true, I'd have heard it, and I haven't in two years. And why would anyone volunteer 3-4 hours of their own time every day to perform a chore they hated, with people they hated?
I'm not saying that all the concerns here have no merit. Most of them do, and we take those critiques to heart, making adjustments as we go.
Truth. Honor. Fun. Give it a shot.
I personally think its great the the moderators can express their opinions in the backroom. What I think they should be careful about, for appearances if nothing else, is moderating or threatening actions in a thread that they are already involved in the discussion of.
If you take a side in a discussion you lose the ability to appear unbiased in that thread. At least that's how I see it.
A.Saturnus
10-31-2004, 21:53
It's just the European way.
Well, that may be so. But I don´t think behaviour shouldn´t be questioned just because it is supposed to belong to some "culture". In any case, if someone has a problem with the way I moderate, I don´t want to use "it's just the European way" as an explanation.
I for one think that being unbiased is quite a good thing for a moderator. The problem is you´ll hardly find anyone who is neutral in all discussions. Few people don´t have an opinion about the Iraq war, for example. And I see no point in appearing neutral. Actually, if I had the intention to let my political views influence my moderation, I´d make sure no one knows those views. That´d make it a lot easier.
So what´s the solution? Well, there isn´t one unless someone invents genetically manipulated absolutely impartial judges. But I think it´s a step in the right direction when moderators who have their own opinion are open-minded and try to look at things from both sides. And that´s a standard I´ll gladly adhere to.
A very childish closing of a thread because you could not get me to back off of using certain language about someone's comments concerning voting.
It seems someone here has a problem with authority. Closed.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=40662&page=2
What is it Saturnus you will allow the term bigot to be used over and over again - incorrectly by the way. You will allow someone to say what another believes is discrimination. But won't allow someone to point out someone is just being hateful.
19% of the vote is not an overwhelming impact on the vote - and your trying to defend your statement shows exactly how hatful you have become of the voting public of the United States.
If you are going to moderate be consistant in your enforcement. If you are going to moderate don't be childish when you close the thread. In this case you are guilty of both once again.
To the point that it pissed me off enough to resurface this particlur thread.
Hosakawa Tito
12-17-2004, 15:16
The Guild expects its patrons to remain civil even in the face of disagreements. Any kind of "flaming", slurs or insults adressed to an individual or a group is extremely inappropriate. Please respect etiquette at all times.
Any of you ever see this? I copied it from the org rules page. How many of you are guilty of violating this from both sides of this particular disagreement? https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=40662
Friends can play verbal grabass in good faith/fun, but some of you are not friends. I'm getting tired of having to change your diapers everytime you make a mess so I strongly suggest the persistent offenders :
1. Stop baiting those you know will take it the wrong way.
2. Stop retaliating in kind
3. If you feel the need to say it, use the private message so the rest of us that can get along despite our differences don't have to read it.
4. Be as sensitive to others feelings as you are to your own.
And what are the moderators going to do about childish behavior from one of their own in closing a thread. This is not the first time a moderator has done so - and its not just Saturnus that does it.
A.Saturnus
12-17-2004, 16:55
So my behaviour was childish? Redleg, if you disagree with me, you can argue. You can PM me and explain your position, you can post here or you can contact Tosa. What you can not do is ignore what I say!
So my behaviour was childish? Redleg, if you disagree with me, you can argue. You can PM me and explain your position, you can post here or you can contact Tosa. What you can not do is ignore what I say!
you say I can not ignore what you say. I did not ignore - you asked me to edit - and I declined in a PM right back to you. To ignore would be for me to not of responded and continue with the discussion. That is not ignoring that was responding, and I told you exactly why I was not going to edit in the PM. Then you in a very childish way made a comment instead of just closing the thread. SO yes Saturnus your behavior was childish because you could not understand the PM that I replyed to your request, or more likely it pissed you off because I was not going to back off on the discussion point. You allowed a patron to call me a bigot without closing the thread, you allowed a patron to call my beliefs discriminatory, however you will not allow me to state I found someones views to be hateful of the American voter because the voting public did not vote the way they wanted them to.
Once again if your going to moderate be consistent in your moderation, and do not be childish when you close a thread. Your comment was childish - especially given that the request was done from a PM not on the message board. If you had a problem with my reply you should of responded in a PM instead of your flippant and childish message when you closed the thread.
IT is you who ignore what I said in the PM and you chose to close the thread - with a childish comment given the nature of the PM. You want to play the superior position on this one and pretend that I ignored you- then you are more incorrect then you realize.
I too can play your little game Saturnus - and frankly your comments show how baised you can be in your moderation. You want a take a cheap shot at patrons then don't moderate, it makes you look baised and unfair - which is exactly what you are often accused of.
So realize what the hell I am saying and learn to moderate without taking cheap shots at the patrons who's opinion you don't agree with when you moderate the discussion.
Edit: I don't use the PM for the exact reason that you have shown Saturnus - you want everything to be behind the scences so that when someone disagrees with you - you can then hide behind the moderator title when you have demonstrated childish behavior in your moderation. And attempt to try a superiority complex method to brow beat anyone who disagrees with your moderation. That tactic will not work with me - because I understand that tactic very well. The complaint is valid when you look at the way you wrote the closing of the thread. And I know exactly who it was direct at - because you believe that I ingored you because I would not edit my comments about someone's statements. However once again in that PM I told you why I would not edit them. So learn from your mistakes just like the rest of the world must when we make them.
This comment from you was childish and shows how baised you are in your moderation.
It seems someone here has a problem with authority. Closed.
I agree there is an issue with bias in the moderation of this website. Its like it should be called leftwingtotalwar.org.
If anyone shares a conservative opinion as freely as the leftwingers around here share theirs (the vast majority of members it would seem or maybe the other right wingers are just used to being told to shut up by now) they are immediately shouted down by droves of people including moderators.
After sharing an opposing opinion one moderator told me that "I was mindlessly spewing right wing propaganda" (flamed) and when I began to respond in kind then I was warned by another moderator not to "look for fights" on the forum.
Im totally disappointed in this level of prejudice in the moderation of the offtopic forums although I appreciate the game related forums. If you dont want politics to be discussed, thats fine, get rid of the offtopic forums, but if you allow them to be discussed you have to allow for disagreement to take place.
LittleGrizzly
12-18-2004, 00:15
Ive discoveed something amazing, if you read the rules and follow them you don't get in trouble with the moderators, who'd have ever thought.
A.Saturnus
12-18-2004, 00:49
It´s really simple Redleg: if I say "don´t do that in the Tavern", you don´t do that in the Tavern. Otherwise you suffer the consequences.
Tribesman
12-18-2004, 02:11
"No it was an offensive comment to the legislature that added the rider to change the whole focus of the vote into a vote on taxation instead of rewriting the States constitution to remove the historical racism that is enshrined in that document which the vote was supposed to be about "
Since you still seem to be misinterpreting my post as an attack on the general voting population rather than the politicians . then I thought I would repeat this one here ,if that is OK with the mods despite it being a locked thread?
BTW the only people using the word Bigot in the thread were directing it at the topic starter not yourself .
Regarding the argument about majority rules: I can't remember who said it, but Democracy has to be more than two wolves and sheep discussing dinner plans
I think most folks understand this. It gets a little harder when there are a whole bunch of sheep agreeing to limit what the wolf can have for dinner.
Regarding the oft-repeated line that the mods here are all (except Kukri) left-leaning liberals: Please don't refer to me as liberal - I am an independent thinking person whose positions might be labelled as either right or left, depending on the issue and the person doing the labelling. Labelling people as this or that is really useless - it may make some folks feel more comfortable or others to find order in the world, but the reality is that everyone has thier own set own values. The Golden Rule states that we should treat others as we ourselves wish to be treated. Want others to repsect your viewpoint? Take the honorable first step and respect theirs.
I think Kukri summed it up best in his last postMy colleagues are, without exception, the fairest, most even-handed group of leaders I've ever had the pleasure of working with. Their example of restrained impartiality has largely informed my own methods of moderation. I learned from them, and continue to do so, daily. . .
Trust me: no Org Moderator hates any member. If it were true, I'd have heard it, and I haven't in two years. And why would anyone volunteer 3-4 hours of their own time every day to perform a chore they hated, with people they hated? . . .
Truth. Honor. Fun. Give it a shot.
Prior to being selected as an AM I was warned and had a post deleted for blatant anti-French jokes. I still contend that it was all in good fun, but I have come to understand that the overall number one thing about this website is that it is a safe place for all to visit - kids, gays, French, Muslims, Christians, Americans - and that the best way to use this site is to keep that in mind at all times. If you want a flame war there's plenty of sites that allow, even encourage, such behavior.
That said I'll take the ideas and recommendations provided here and try to be even better. My guess is that the Mods and other AMs already are doing that.
There are several advantages to thoughtful discourse over baiting and insults. Many of the issues we discuss in the Backroom are quite important, and they deserve a high level of quality of discussion. So in addition to making this place safe to visit, I think we do ourselves a favor collectively when we discuss intelligently.
A while bakc someone posted a thread about why we come here to debate. Is it to espouse our position, to get it off our chests, to convince others, to convince ourseleves, to maybe learn from others? If our goals are to learn and help others learn, then polite dialogue seems to me to be the best method.
If we are here to vent our anger and abuse people, then name-calling and insulting behvior would be the preferred tool.
My guess is that most folks, including the organizers of htis site, prefer the former approach, and so there are prohibitions against nastiness.
I think that's a good thing, and one of the reasons I stick around. I also like to have al ittle fun, and some of my posts could be considered inflammatory. But never in anger.
That's my two yen.
ichi :bow:
ps Remember - I am not a liberal
It´s really simple Redleg: if I say "don´t do that in the Tavern", you don´t do that in the Tavern. Otherwise you suffer the consequences.
Once again that is not the issue Saturnus - try reading for once. If you can not figure it out - then maybe you are not as intellegent as you think you are.
The issue is not that you closed the thread - the issue is the method in which you chose to close the thread.
If you want to be a flippant smart ass - then I can also. That is the way it works. If you are civil then I will be civil. Not a hard concept to understand is it?
And here is exactly what you sent me in a PM
C´mon, nothing he said shows hatred towards Americans. He may have made sarcastic comments you disagree with, but that´s not a reason to call him hateful. You can call his statements unfounded and even hypocritical but hateful - that´s going to far.
I think you should edit your post.
And here is my response to your PM
I will not - because the statement and his defending as humor is hateful. Anyone who thinks a state election in the United States is influenced by AQ - indeed just hates the American Voter.
BTW you did not tell me anything - you asked me to edit with the word think - once again You did not make yourself clear and you made a request. When asking in that method - you implied that I had an option to either edit my post or not. I responded that I was not going to edit the post because that was exactly how I felt about his post. My comment was not offensive in its nature - it was an observation by myself about his comment.
Your smart ass flipant method in closing the thread is my issue - not that you closed the thread. But if you can not understand that - then shame on you.
Don't try to play the superiority position with me Saturnus because in this you are dead wrong - your position as moderator does not imply that I must do exactly what you say especially when the method in which you asked was not clear or concise in its meaning.
"No it was an offensive comment to the legislature that added the rider to change the whole focus of the vote into a vote on taxation instead of rewriting the States constitution to remove the historical racism that is enshrined in that document which the vote was supposed to be about "
Since you still seem to be misinterpreting my post as an attack on the general voting population rather than the politicians . then I thought I would repeat this one here ,if that is OK with the mods despite it being a locked thread?
BTW the only people using the word Bigot in the thread were directing it at the topic starter not yourself .
The term was in reference to another discussion - I am well aware of how it was used in the Segeration Thread. And goes to the issue of why I brought up Saturnus childish and flippant closing of the thread.
It was perfectly acceptable to close the thread - but not to be flippant and insulting when he did it.
A.Saturnus
12-18-2004, 18:39
Once again that is not the issue Saturnus - try reading for once. If you can not figure it out - then maybe you are not as intellegent as you think you are.
Quite possible. I believe myself to be very intelligent, so there´s definitely room for mistake.
BTW you did not tell me anything - you asked me to edit with the word think - once again You did not make yourself clear and you made a request. When asking in that method - you implied that I had an option to either edit my post or not. I responded that I was not going to edit the post because that was exactly how I felt about his post. My comment was not offensive in its nature - it was an observation by myself about his comment.
In spite of the fact that I´m sacrificing my sparse free time to clean up your thousand´s flame war, I tried to be friendly in my PM. I said: you can call his statements unfounded and even hypocritical but hateful - that´s going to far.
If the directive in that sentence is not clear to you, that´s your problem.
I say: "you can´t call him hateful"
You say: "I don´t care"
I don´t know, but that seems to me like a problem with authority. Believe me, I wasn´t pissed of by your answer. I wasn´t even pissed off when you choose to ignore what I said. But it brought me to the conclusion that you have indeed a problem with my authority. My final comment in the thread may have been flippant, but valid from my point of view. If you don´t have a problem with my authority, why then do you ignore my directive?
Because Saturnus -
I think is not a directive - its a request. A request allows the individual the opition of deciding if they want to or not. I responded according to my feelings on the issue. Once again the issue is not your closing the thread - but the flippant, and smart-ass way in which you decided to close the thread.
You are assuming I have a problem with your authority incorrectly. I have no problem with you closing a thread. I have a problem with the method in which you chose to close that thread.
And in that you are incorrect and wrong - and I suspect you even realize that - except now because I am calling you on your bad behavior as a moderator - you seem to be trying once again to say I have a problem with authority. Are you trying to defend your flippant response by saying it falls within your scope of responsiblities as a moderator?
If you are - you are dead wrong - one does not advance in the Military as quickly as I did - if you have problems with authority. Your making leaps and jumps in logic that do not apply in this case. Just like your flippant comment in closing the thread did not apply neither does your comments of.
I don´t know, but that seems to me like a problem with authority. Believe me, I wasn´t pissed of by your answer. I wasn´t even pissed off when you choose to ignore what I said. But it brought me to the conclusion that you have indeed a problem with my authority. My final comment in the thread may have been flippant, but valid from my point of view.
As a moderator - you can not have a valid point of view that allows you to be flippant with a patron when you close a thread. That was uncalled for and shows a baised on your actions.
I think you have a problem with any conservative that can argue their position in a logical aspect - and look for little things to either close the thread or to force such an exchange as this. Tribesman's views were indeed hateful of the American voter with his little comment about Al-Qaida in a state election. It does not matter to me that you don't agree with that - and its your responsiblity as a moderator to close any thread down that degrades into personal attacks. Which I did not personally attack him - I attacked his view - ie opinion.
However your position as a moderator does not entitle you to be flippant or baised toward one said of the discussion. If you thought I was being against authority - you should of sent a PM instead of placing it in the reason for closing the thread.
Yes I went into the travern in a vindictive mood because of your actions - however it seems you allow one side to be overly aggressive and offensive in their posts - while shutting down the otherside when they disagree with you.
Not fair moderation at all.
You really have outdone yourself now Saturnus - placing me on a warning status after you close the thread and after I brought you to question because of your flippant method in closing the thread. Smacks of unfair moderation on your part.
And people wonder about why you are often accused of playing favorites and being baised. This shows a prime examble of your poor behavior as a moderator.
You have been warned for the post: Your Post. Your warning level is now: 2. This action was taken for the following reason: You may not call other people hateful. Especially not repeatedly. Please reply back if you have a dispute. A.Saturnus
You really need to learn how to moderate and be fair in your application of warning status. When I go to the traven I should hope you placed Jag on a warning level for his comments. I should hope you placed Goofball in a warning status for his use of the term bigot. And just about everyone else in the travern.
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
12-18-2004, 20:15
I remember reading this topic on Alabama, and some patrons calling Soly biggot. I read it again once I saw the mess here.
A mouse out of a moutain?
I also remember the Spanish Elections and the reaction of some of the very same patrons, name calling the Spaniards back then. With no understanding whatsoever of Spanish politics, just like Soly or Tribesman may have misunderstood Alabama's politics.
Soly post about Alabama election, and is called a biggot in the first page. Topic closed soon after. One side claimed there is hate comment. Surprisingly, not Soly, who was personally attacked.
Many posted about Spanish elections, calling them traitors and cowards, some other patrons answered back, IIRC in a rather calm and quiet way, without resorting to calling the patrons angry at Spain racist or biggot or anything else (Well, I'd have to reread them, but for sure, I don't remember that it started a topic here).
Tribeman was hateful of America when he posted that American's election were influenced by AQ?
Wasn't the posts about Spain hateful against Spaniards then?
Were those topics closed?
Redleg, You would have liked the Alabama topic closed because of Tribeman comment. Fair enough. But I would understand and support your position much better had you, a year ago, asked for topics name calling Spaniard to be closed.
I don't remember you did.
If it's good enough for Spain, it's good enough for Alabama and the whole US. If you did not make your case a year ago to defend Spain, then suffer the same comparison today.
"First, they took the Jews...."
Louis,
PS: I find the "I think" comment kind of funny. Depending on circumstances whom tell me "I think", I might take it as a suggestion, an opinion, or a direct order. As pm from .org moderators are rather rare (at least for me ~D ), I have no doubt how I would have understood that one.
You are free to ignore it, but I have a hard time believing you would not know the consequences.
I spent way to many years giving orders and recieving them - the use of a question to get a response that you want - does not make a directive - it makes it a request from an authority. Which gives the reciever the opition to fulfill or state why they will not fulfill the request. I responded to his request with an negative response - its options should of been to inform me that it was not a request but a directive, to close the thread, or sanction me for my language. Not to close the thread - with a flippant post - and then two days latter place me on sanction after I brought his actions to the watchtower.
So once again I responded to Satrunus about why I would not do what he asked - that is not ignoring - since I responded directly to him. And yes indeed it was not a directive - because he did not state - Edit the language of your post. He left it as a request the words
I think implies that he was not sure and that I had a choice in the matter.
However once again its the method in which he closed the thread that is the real issue. Being a moderator does not entitle him to be flippant in his dealings with patrons. When Saturnus made his flippant response in closing the thread that was a direct insult at a member, and moderators should be above such behavior. It shows a baised on his part to Americans especially when he allows others to call Americans names without closing the thread in a flippant manner. In fact he jump into an arguement supporting a member calling another a bigot and discriminatory. Once again not an action of an unbaised moderator.
BTW talking about Fair Moderation - when is this little child going to get sanctioned.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=41140
Yes it seems like Saturnus will sanction an older conservative member in a heartbeat - but allow young poster the ablity to violate the rules in a steady stream of abuse.
Can't wait to read the justification on this one by Saturnus.
Well, to be honest, Byzantine Prince has been here for a year but probably disappeared for a while. You on the other hand are a backroom regular so should know the rules. He hasn't been round the tavern for too long it seems, so give him some leeway will you. I didn't read the segregation thread that much, so I'm not going to comment on that.
I think in general though, the mods are pretty fair. The reason is both sides complain. If one side was happy, there would obviously be some kind of bias, yet both sides complain so in general, in this kind of situation, I guess that the modding must be quite fair.
Also, I wasn't really around in the summer to see Kukri's modding. I'd like to ask what's so special about his style as he's the only one who hasn't been slammed for a 'liberal bias' at some point.
just my 2 pence. If this is incomprehensible, read my title and sig :wink:
Well, to be honest, Byzantine Prince has been here for a year but probably disappeared for a while. You on the other hand are a backroom regular so should know the rules. He hasn't been round the tavern for too long it seems, so give him some leeway will you. I didn't read the segregation thread that much, so I'm not going to comment on that.
I think in general though, the mods are pretty fair. The reason is both sides complain. If one side was happy, there would obviously be some kind of bias, yet both sides complain so in general, in this kind of situation, I guess that the modding must be quite fair.
Also, I wasn't really around in the summer to see Kukri's modding. I'd like to ask what's so special about his style as he's the only one who hasn't been slammed for a 'liberal bias' at some point.
just my 2 pence. If this is incomprehensible, read my title and sig :wink:
Actually most of the moderators are pretty fair - and this is not directed at all the moderators - just one in particlur - who went to far in his flippant smartass comment in closing a thread.
Yes I understand the rules very well - however when the moderator makes a correction - they do not have right or the priveledge to be disrepectful, insulting, or flippant when they make their correction. Saturnus crossed that line - and instead of apoglizing and correcting his mistake - he just tries to justify his action.
When a moderator is making a directive he needs to make his intent prefectly clear. Saturnus had no right to state what he did in closing the thread. Nor can he logicially state I have a problem with authority. His request to edit was responded to. That he chose to interpet as something else is the issue and his failure to abide by the rules of the forum is even more pronounced and grievous then mine.
And why shoul Prince be given any leeway when he is clearly violating the rules. The moderators have to act in a fair and equalible manner or they are no longe moderators.
Hosakawa Tito
12-19-2004, 02:05
Byzantine Prince received his just reward. No lee way given for telling someone to f*** off. Any more such commentary gets the ban.
My mother's grandfather was killed when his sleeve was caught up in the water well pump he was working on. He was a tough SOB who lived about a day and half tottaly beaten to a pulp.
At the risk of getting sucked in where A) my presence my not be appreciated or welcome and B) where I might get smashed . . .
It seems to me that you have made your point Redleg, and that there is nothing in my understanding of the history of the Org and its moderation that indicates that continued debate will result in an apology or reversal of action.
Dude, I remember within the last year you made a fantastic post that elevated you in my eyes - the one where you backed off after a similar incident. At the time I thought what you did ws a truly manly thing.
I suggest that we all go back to our respective corners and try to take the best of what the others have said to heart.
My guess is that Saturnus doesn't want this to continue endlessly, and will probably go back to doing his best at moderating (IMO he's pretty good at it - I'm sure I could do no better in the Tavern than he has).
Further repetition and debate seems pointless.
:bow:
ichi
Devastatin Dave
12-19-2004, 08:48
Redleg got his warning level risen?!?!?!? Rediculous. Redleg never crosses the line and always post in extreme depth to argue his points without flaming or getting personal with others. I get banned all the time for good reason, but to even go after Redleg when the majority of Soly's and other "left to center" posters in the Backroom are a constant bait or flame is a joke. It shows the bias on Saturnus' part. I'd post some examples but I can't even look at the Backroom anymore. ~D
Yawn, same #### different day....
My mother's grandfather was killed when his sleeve was caught up in the water well pump he was working on. He was a tough SOB who lived about a day and half tottaly beaten to a pulp.
At the risk of getting sucked in where A) my presence my not be appreciated or welcome and B) where I might get smashed . . .
It seems to me that you have made your point Redleg, and that there is nothing in my understanding of the history of the Org and its moderation that indicates that continued debate will result in an apology or reversal of action.
Dude, I remember within the last year you made a fantastic post that elevated you in my eyes - the one where you backed off after a similar incident. At the time I thought what you did ws a truly manly thing.
I suggest that we all go back to our respective corners and try to take the best of what the others have said to heart.
My guess is that Saturnus doesn't want this to continue endlessly, and will probably go back to doing his best at moderating (IMO he's pretty good at it - I'm sure I could do no better in the Tavern than he has).
Further repetition and debate seems pointless.
:bow:
ichi
The problem is that Saturnus did not learn from his mistakes of the past - and has continue the same problems that generated this topic in the first place.
I don't care if my sanction gets reserved or even if Saturnus learns apologizes. However I expect him to learn from his mistakes and quit repeating them over and over again. However this time not only has he made the same mistake - he has added a new one - being offensive, insulting, and disrepective of a patron while he was moderating a thread.
And he wonders why I have an issue with his moderation?
The problem is that Saturnus did not learn from his mistakes of the past - and has continue the same problems that generated this topic in the first place.
I don't care if my sanction gets reserved or even if Saturnus learns apologizes. However I expect him to learn from his mistakes and quit repeating them over and over again. However this time not only has he made the same mistake - he has added a new one - being offensive, insulting, and disrepective of a patron while he was moderating a thread.
And he wonders why I have an issue with his moderation?
Since I can not edit - the sentence should of read even if Saturnus apologizes.
A.Saturnus
12-19-2004, 17:44
You are assuming I have a problem with your authority incorrectly. I have no problem with you closing a thread. I have a problem with the method in which you chose to close that thread.
Well, you ignored my order. That seems like a problem with authority for me.
If you didn´t understand my directive as such, I´ll be more direct and less friendly towards you in the future, but the actions against you were nevertheless justified.
Well, you ignored my order. That seems like a problem with authority for me.
If you didn´t understand my directive as such, I´ll be more direct and less friendly towards you in the future, but the actions against you were nevertheless justified.
The sanction might or might not have been justified - the comment was not. Your hiding behind the moderator cloak of never being at fault shows how baised you are in your moderation of the tavern and frankly your a hypocrit of the highest order. You were incorrect and insulting in your flippant remark - and frankly you violated the rules of the forum in which you are suppose to monitor.
I think I shall respond to your moderation in the exact same way - with the same arrogance that you seem to be exhibiting here.
Well, you ignored my order. That seems like a problem with authority for me.
If you didn´t understand my directive as such, I´ll be more direct and less friendly towards you in the future, but the actions against you were nevertheless justified.
If you think - "I think" is an order - try using that term on the battlefield with troops - they will rightly ignore your stupidity and continue with the mission that was initially assigned to them.
You sir need a lesson on what constitutes a request, a directive, and an order. Your arrogrance is surpassed by your inablity to provide proper directives in the proper format.
A.Saturnus
12-19-2004, 18:04
This is a discussion board, not a battlefield. Other people here know what I want from them. Except squippy, though.
This is a discussion board, not a battlefield. Other people here know what I want from them. Except squippy, though.
Your term not mine - and you are incorrect. An order and a directive have a clear and concise meaning and intent. "I think" does not relay that intent or concise meaning at all.
A.Saturnus
12-20-2004, 00:29
If you need to have a sematical discussion at least don´t discuss the wrong thing here. The "I think" is irrelevant. I didn´t close the thread because you didn´t edit your post but because you repeated your offence. It´s right there in the last sentence of your post in that thread. And I said: you can´t call him hatefull. I did say that, not word by word, yet clearly.
I said calling him hatefull is going to far. You did it, thus you went to far. I gave you a clear directive that you ignored.
If you need to have a sematical discussion at least don´t discuss the wrong thing here. The "I think" is irrelevant. I didn´t close the thread because you didn´t edit your post but because you repeated your offence. It´s right there in the last sentence of your post in that thread. And I said: you can´t call him hatefull. I did say that, not word by word, yet clearly.
I said calling him hatefull is going to far. You did it, thus you went to far. I gave you a clear directive that you ignored.
Once again - you are missing the point - its not the closing of the thread or even the sanction - its the method in which you did the action. If you can not discern that point - then you should not be a moderator. In your action you violated the rules of the forum. If you wish to side track your failure to abide by the runs in which you claim you are enforcing - then so be it - it definetly makes you a hypocrit not worth paying any attention to.
And once again the term "I think" is not a directive. ITs a request that is hesitant and is meant as a search on the right way to approach something.
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
12-20-2004, 01:59
Redleg,
You are not the only with military experience, with civil leadership experience, or any other kind of authority experience.
I had American bosses, and I was a manager with Americans.
Whenever one of my boss told me "I think you ought to do that", I had very little doubt that it has to be done.
And when I tell my employees that "I think they got to do something", it's also crystal clear what is expected.
Just like a military order, "I think" can be ignored; then suffer the consequences.
I find that part:
You sir need a lesson on what constitutes a request, a directive, and an order. Your arrogrance is surpassed by your inablity to provide proper directives in the proper format.
either funny or sad. This is a game forum. I am not aware we have to use the pink forms to express our discontent, and that if I either receive a warning, it has to be labelled AXE-479 or otherwise it will be unvalid.
But I really shall listen to ichi...
Louis,
Redleg,
You are not the only with military experience, with civil leadership experience, or any other kind of authority experience.
I had American bosses, and I was a manager with Americans.
Whenever one of my boss told me "I think you ought to do that", I had very little doubt that it has to be done.
And when I tell my employees that "I think they got to do something", it's also crystal clear what is expected.
Just like a military order, "I think" can be ignored; then suffer the consequences.
I find that part:
either funny or sad. This is a game forum. I am not aware we have to use the pink forms to express our discontent, and that if I either receive a warning, it has to be labelled AXE-479 or otherwise it will be unvalid.
But I really shall listen to ichi...
Louis,
When I use the term I think with people I give directions to- just like I was taught by several mentors in school, in the military, and in business - I am giving them a way out of following my directions - or the ability to finish their tasks before accomplishing what I asked. "I think" is not a directive - its a request. A request allows the individual recieving to decide wether they want to or explain why they can not do that activity.
"I think" is not a directive - nor should it be considered a directive. It is phased in a question to allow the individual who is asked to either perform the act - or provide reasons not to preform the act. Saturnus stated "I think you should edit the comment" - I informed him I would not because it best fit what I thought of the comments that were made. To say that was a directive was incorrect on his part.
However that is the minor part of the issue - the major part is his failure to abide by the same rules of the forum in which he is suppose to moderate for.
Another fine examble of the exactly what I am talking about
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=41140&page=2
Severals exambles of individuals that should have a warning status as already - and the same individuals do it over and over again.
Are they allowed to get away with it because they are children - or because Saturnus agrees with their offensive views.
And then here is one with some more general attacks on patrons and groups by certain individuals.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=40983&page=2
Lets see I don't see any public and flippant responses from the moderators directed at the patrons that make these comments.
Togakure
12-20-2004, 07:26
With all due respect, you are making a bit of a fool of yourself, m8. In your military or business experience, when did it ever help to point out the shortcomings of others in defense of what those in power percieve as a violation on your part? What's done is done. For the most part at this point in our development, the notion of justice in human society is a farce. There is no shame in having a warning. This is a silly forum, and what anyone here thinks about you--does it matter? Allowing it to matter gives them power over you. They will not change the verdict. If you are as experienced in bureausis as you say you are, you know this. So, there is really no point in combatting this further in this manner. Perhaps this is an opportunity to refine your technique a bit--to say exactly what you mean, but in an acceptable way. It is not that difficult to cut like a properly maintained katana within the rules ... . Your "foe" is unassailable from this angle of attack, and you will only blunt or break your blade. Step back and reconsider your approach.
With all due respect, you are making a bit of a fool of yourself, m8. In your military or business experience, when did it ever help to point out the shortcomings of others in defense of what those in power percieve as a violation on your part? What's done is done. For the most part at this point in our development, the notion of justice in human society is a farce. There is no shame in having a warning. This is a silly forum, and what anyone here thinks about you--does it matter? Allowing it to matter gives them power over you. They will not change the verdict. If you are as experienced in bureausis as you say you are, you know this. So, there is really no point in combatting this further in this manner. Perhaps this is an opportunity to refine your technique a bit--to say exactly what you mean, but in an acceptable way. It is not that difficult to cut like a properly maintained katana within the rules ... . Your "foe" is unassailable from this angle of attack, and you will only blunt or break your blade. Step back and reconsider your approach.
That is your opinion - mine is something else. I don't have a problem with a sanction - I have had them before and will again. The issue is that Saturnus overstepped his bounds as a moderator and violated the same rules that he sanctioned me for. I don't have a problem with people thinking I am making a fool of myself - because I rarely place any importance of what people think of me - however I can not tolerate those who say they are dispensing justice - that violate the same rules they say they are enforcing on others.
Saturnus was within his duties to sanction me for my actions - however he was wrong for the stating what he did in the tavern when he closed the thread. That was a personal attack - regradless of why he did it. And is a clear violation of the same rules he says he was closing the thread and then placing the sanction on me for.
I have a problem when someone sanctions some for language but allows the same or worse language from others - without sanctioning them also. Its not the first time nor will it be the last time I bring this to the watchtower. A free society allows the voice of discontent to be voiced - even if they think its foolish or wrong. Some can call me foolish, hypocritical, and out of line - but that does not mean that my complaint is not valid.
Saturnus words in closing the thread in the manner in which he did a violation of the rules in which he placed punishment on me for. That action is extremly hypocritical of him and is wrong when one is performing the duties of a moderator.
And yet another thread the moderators allow language and behavior that has gotten me sanctioned with no evidence of any attempt to moderate.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=41193&page=2&pp=30
Duke John
12-20-2004, 15:37
Give the moderators a break will you? The insulting content (if there is any) is only 5 hours old.
And please explain it a bit more. You keep repeating that Saturnus has violated the same rule that you have been punished for, by his last response in the closed thread:
It seems someone here has a problem with authority. Closed.
Now , please help me get this straight because I'm missing something. You stepped out of line. Saturnus asked you to correct yourself. You didn't because others were not apparently warned (although you could have no idea since PMs are personal). Now moderators are chosen by the administrators (no, not by you) with the trust that they are capably of keeping civil interaction between members.
Saturnus is a Backroom moderator and thus an authority in that forum...
You didn't listen to him...
I'm sorry, but it seems that you have a problem with authority. Or do you have a problem if someone openly points out a fault that you made?
Give the moderators a break will you? The insulting content (if there is any) is only 5 hours old.
And please explain it a bit more. You keep repeating that Saturnus has violated the same rule that you have been punished for, by his last response in the closed thread:
Now , please help me get this straight because I'm missing something. You stepped out of line. Saturnus asked you to correct yourself. You didn't because others were not apparently warned (although you could have no idea since PMs are personal). Now moderators are chosen by the administrators (no, not by you) with the trust that they are capably of keeping civil interaction between members.
Saturnus is a Backroom moderator and thus an authority in that forum...
You didn't listen to him...
I'm sorry, but it seems that you have a problem with authority. Or do you have a problem if someone openly points out a fault that you made?
I have a problem with an individual who violates the rules of the forum in which he is moderating with a personal attack in public while closing the thread. That smacks of being hypocritical and violating the same rules in which he is to enforce.
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
12-20-2004, 15:56
In his own way, Redleg is trying his best to prove Saturnus right...
Reading the whole topic, and before you made a fuss out of it, I am not sure I would have guessed that Saturnus was talking to Redleg... I would have probably put my bet on a late intervention on Capo calling Soly a biggot in his very personal and charming way.
I don't know what your business or military experience is, but your discourse on word like "I think" are... odd to say the least. Are you a lawyer or a hairsplitter of some sort?
Honestly, although I don't know if we got the whole content of Saturnus PM, and we don't need that for we need that discussion to stop, I don't see any ambiguity in Saturnus word. I can't believe you were surprised to receive a warning after ignoring that kind of pm.
You choose to ignore it, that's your choice, live with the consequence.
Louis,
Duke John
12-20-2004, 16:04
If you do have a problem with his authority, was it then still insulting? And he said "Someone", not Redleg. But who the shoe fits...
I'm not a Tavern moderator, but IMO you should not always go behind the scenes using PMs. Sometimes it is better to do it openly so that others know that you mean in earnest. If you openly disobeyed a request for removing insulting content, then would it be wise for Saturnus to react with a PM?
Other new patrons (some of who make their entrance in your links) read the thread and see that the requests by Saturnus can apparently be ignored.
I do not know the personal motivations of Saturnus but it appears to me that he did the best thing by stating if moderators are being ignored that actions will be taken.
And when the same moderator allows the term bigot and allows others to call one's ideas discriminatory in public and does not enforce the rules of the forum in that regards, and not only does he allow the conservation to degenrate to that point - he sides with the initiall offender in his comments. When that same moderator sends a PM saying one can not say hateful - and then makes a public flippant statement in closing the thread. That moderator loses all ability to fairily moderate in my opinion. It shows blanant baised moderation and an inablity to fairly moderate any discussion from then on.
No one has to agree with me - however until I am completely halted from posting in this forum - I have the ability to post my views the way I see fit. I have the ability to question the moderators on their fairness and baised behaviors if I so see fit to do so. You don't have to like it, read it, or accept it - but unless you want to censor me for my beliefs - and TosaInu has that right since its his public forum - I will voice my opinion how I see fit in this thread - in the area designated about questioning .org policy - and in the tavern backroom in public dicussion on many different subjects.
Moderators are supposed to be appove such flippant behavior - and the comment was uncalled for in a public setting.
If a police officer in the fulfillment of his duties - ie giving a traffic ticket makes a flippant remark - he has abused his authority as a police officer. This is exactly what Saturnus has done. He has taken his authority to moderate and police the civil discussion in the tavern and has made a flippant and disrepectful comment direct at a patron - clouded behind the word someone - and it seems a fellow moderator seems to think its okay. The issue is clouded - by my own behavior - but it does not excuse his behavior to be disrepective or insulting to anyone - especially when there was no public insult or disrepect to him as a moderator.
But like the adage says power corrupts - absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Duke John
12-20-2004, 17:07
In your police officer example:
The officer warns a driver who is driving too fast. The driver continues to drive too fast. The officer again signals the driver to slow down. Again the driver refuses but is then pulled to the side of the road. After giving the driver a ticket, the officer says: "You seem to have a problem with authority." (And then closes the road :wink: )
Did the officer really abuse his authority by saying that?
If the term bigot is so abused and if it constantly results in flaming/baiting, why don't you petition to ban the word from the Backroom? Although I'm sure that the Tavern go-ers find another word to harass other members.
Saying someone is hatefull is wrong, since you simply cannot know wether someone hates. However you can say that someone is being discriminatory. If I say that certain people cannot vote, then I am excluding these people from certain rights solely based on their looks/sexuality/belief. And that is clearly discrimination.
You cannot know on a internet board wether someone is hatefull, even when he says so, he may be lying. However discrimation is very clear, just look it up in the dictionary.
In your police officer example:
The officer warns a driver who is driving too fast. The driver continues to drive too fast. The officer again signals the driver to slow down. Again the driver refuses but is then pulled to the side of the road. After giving the driver a ticket, the officer says: "You seem to have a problem with authority." (And then closes the road :wink: )
Did the officer really abuse his authority by saying that?
If the term bigot is so abused and if it constantly results in flaming/baiting, why don't you petition to ban the word from the Backroom? Although I'm sure that the Tavern go-ers find another word to harass other members.
Saying someone is hatefull is wrong, since you simply cannot know wether someone hates. However you can say that someone is being discriminatory. If I say that certain people cannot vote, then I am excluding these people from certain rights solely based on their looks/sexuality/belief. And that is clearly discrimination.
You cannot know on a internet board wether someone is hatefull, even when he says so, he may be lying. However discrimation is very clear, just look it up in the dictionary.
I understand completely what the word discrimation means - however a moderator should not take sides in a dicussion especially when he is moderating the discussion.
One should be able to state that an opinion is hateful - especially if one can state an opinion is discriminatory. If one can state one's views is that of a bigot - then one should be able to state one's opinion is hateful.
The examble you futher expanded upon of the police officer - both the speeder and the police officer are in a private sitution - not publicily broadcasting it with a bullhorn for all to hear - as he closed the road down. THe police officer would of still be going beyond his authority if he did that. However even then the police officer is incorrect with his terminology (SP?)the speeder has a problem following the rules - not with the police authority because he still stops for the police.
Tribesman
12-20-2004, 20:01
It seems someone here has a problem with authority. Closed.
To be perfectly honest , I thought that statement was addressed at me for writing of my strong dislike of politicians .
It would be quite an accurate description of my views.
Duke John
12-20-2004, 20:11
Ah, then we're done. Tribesman, I hope you have learned your lesson. Redleg, it was just a case of misunderstanding.
Cheers, and on to the next barfight!
:medievalcheers:
:wink:
Devastatin Dave
12-20-2004, 22:44
Ah, then we're done. Tribesman, I hope you have learned your lesson. Redleg, it was just a case of misunderstanding.
Cheers, and on to the next barfight!
:medievalcheers:
:wink:
Learned his lesson?!?!?!? There is no way that Saturnus directed that towards Tribeman!!! Guess you need to learn how to read as well. Maybe your fellow mod should learn his lesson since he's the one being a hypocritical and a contibutor to the discontent of the backroom. All too often one side is allowed to use terms such as "racist", "hateful", and "bigot" in describing anyone with a right leaning view and the mods don't take action since they basically agree with the opinion, unless it is a right leaning person pointing out the "racist", "hateful", or "bigoted" views of those with left leaning tendancies. But this will never be addressed. Its unbelievable that a group of people who claim to be so open minded and "progressive" can be so blind to their own one sided views. :dizzy2:
Oh well.... Merry Christmas, and remember the "reason for the season"!!!
Thank you Jesus....
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
12-20-2004, 22:53
Dave,
It's my understanding that you can't read the topic in the hall of perdition that is the backroom.
Be aware that the only person called a biggot in the topic that is talked about here is... Soly...
Soly might be right leaning, but given Capo called him that, it's kind of right leaning insulting right leaning in that case.
I'd like to mention that it seems being called a biggot was rather funny for Soly.
I read the whole topic. First it's really a mountain out of a mouse, and second, had Redleg not mentioned it, I would have been hard pressed to guess who was the offender (my guess was Capo...).
Louis,
Dave,
It's my understanding that you can't read the topic in the hall of perdition that is the backroom.
Be aware that the only person called a biggot in the topic that is talked about here is... Soly...
Soly might be right leaning, but given Capo called him that, it's kind of right leaning insulting right leaning in that case.
I'd like to mention that it seems being called a biggot was rather funny for Soly.
I read the whole topic. First it's really a mountain out of a mouse, and second, had Redleg not mentioned it, I would have been hard pressed to guess who was the offender (my guess was Capo...).
Louis,
And that goes to show why as a moderator Saturnus should not have said it.
BTW the use of the word bigot I am refering to was done by Goofball in a complete seperate thread where Saturnus also took Goofball's side in the discussion in that thread.
Devastatin Dave
12-20-2004, 23:12
Dave,
It's my understanding that you can't read the topic in the hall of perdition that is the backroom.
Be aware that the only person called a biggot in the topic that is talked about here is... Soly...
Soly might be right leaning, but given Capo called him that, it's kind of right leaning insulting right leaning in that case.
I'd like to mention that it seems being called a biggot was rather funny for Soly.
I read the whole topic. First it's really a mountain out of a mouse, and second, had Redleg not mentioned it, I would have been hard pressed to guess who was the offender (my guess was Capo...).
Louis,
Soly, right leaning!!!! HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Maybe you need to have reading lessons as well. ~D
Soly wants to leave America and continuesly attacks ANYONE with right leaning beliefs. Soly has also posted many times his contept for anyone from the south and he is always posting bigotted opinions about groups of people. Of course it was funny to Soly since he can post whatever he wants without the fear of any retrobution much like his fellow mod Saturnus can post any sort of insult or smartassed comment he wants. I'm not completely ignorant to what goes on in the backroom since I've been through the run around with both Soly and Saturnus many times. Just because I can't get in there anymore does not mean I know what goes on. I've seen how things operate. Its one thing to ban a poster like myself from the backroom or give me warnings. Its completely retarded to give a warning to Redleg who is one of the most comprehensive posters in the Org. Just because he has right leaning opinions are the ONLY reason he was singled out. Of all the shit I've seen posted by the left in the backroom without reprocussion, Red does not even come close to any of the insults and name calling done by many, including mods. To call some one "hateful" and get warned for it is just stupid. And its beyond hypocritical to go after that when there are many worse offenses that occur in the backroom than that. But then again, I guess if the mod agrees with the political view, then its OK for the agreeable party to post whatever they want too, right? That's all i have to say about this topic since it will not do any good to stick a mirror in the face of some people since they refuse to look into it. So jack up my warning levels some more and silence one more right wing person since I'm not jumping off the cliff with the rest of the lemmings.
Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
12-20-2004, 23:22
Dave,
That was irony. It's usually funnier without smiley.
Louis,
Goofball
12-20-2004, 23:51
And when the same moderator allows the term bigot and allows others to call one's ideas discriminatory in public and does not enforce the rules of the forum in that regards, and not only does he allow the conservation to degenrate to that point - he sides with the initiall offender in his comments.
Red, you should not take offence if somebody calls your "ideas" discriminatory. Attacking individuals is off-side, but there is nothing wrong with attacking ideas. I know it bothers you when liberals tell you that we believe the conservative viewpoint on gay rights is discriminatory, but you have to realize that we are attacking an opinion, not an individual. You know, the old "hate the sin, but love the sinner." There are many pro-lifers who regularly refer to abortion as murder, but that's fine, because that is their belief, and for the most part I don't think they mean to call pro-choice supporters murderers. There is a distinction, albeit a fine one, between attacking an idea and attacking an individual.
You are absolute correct Goofball - and I except Saturnus to maintain the same standard - I was discussing Tribesman's ideas and statements as being hateful and I get sanctioned - if Saturnus is going to allow one side to state ideas are discriminatory - or allow the use of the term bigot - he also has to allow one to express that another's idea is hateful.
What I said again was
19% of the vote is not an overwhelming impact on the vote - and your trying to defend your statement shows exactly how hatful you have become of the voting public of the United States.
That is the same thing as saying my thoughts are discriminatory about same-sex marriage. That I used a stronger word for his ideas then discriminatory should not matter - the concept is still the same.
If Saturnus is going to allow you the priveledge of attacking and labeling ideas - he has to allow others the same priveledge. To do otherwise is hypocritical of him - and makes him an unfair and baised moderator.
If the moderators can not see the point - then shame on them.
A.Saturnus
12-22-2004, 00:17
No, you said that Tribesman is hatefull. You infer an emotion unto him. That´s semantically entirely different from calling a view discriminatory. "Discriminatory" refers to a circumstantial concept, while "hatefull" refers to a mental state.
Anyway, you´re shifting your argument. You have said yourself in this thread that you don´t have a problem with the fact that I closed the thread. Whether or not it was right of me to forbid you to call Tribesman hateful is not the question. The point is that I did and that you ignored my directive.
A very childish closing of a thread because you could not get me to back off of using certain language about someone's comments concerning voting.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=40662&page=2
What is it Saturnus you will allow the term bigot to be used over and over again - incorrectly by the way. You will allow someone to say what another believes is discrimination. But won't allow someone to point out someone is just being hateful.
If you are going to moderate be consistant in your enforcement. If you are going to moderate don't be childish when you close the thread. In this case you are guilty of both once again.
To the point that it pissed me off enough to resurface this particlur thread.
This is what I brought up as the issue - however it seems Saturnus that you are refusing to address your method of closing the thread - and the flippant way that you chose to close the thread.
And in case you forgot - I said "how hateful you have become of the American voter."
Yes its attacking an emotion and his ideas on what he is posting. So explain to me why you allow the use of the term bigot, over and over again.
I just wandered around the Backroom for a while . . .
There are a lot of diverse opinions in there, but to be honest I found a lot more posts by so-called 'conservative' or 'right-leaning' peeps than from the 'left' or 'liberal' point of view. But overall there is a lot of freedom to express oneself. Just not to attack others personally.
It seems that while there is some open disdain for other's opinions, neither side appeared to me to have an advantage or to be more restrained or constrained by the mods.
In other words, the Backroom seems to me to be a place where members can post their ideas, argue and disagree, posture and debate. I see no gross unfairness.
I also reviewed some threads that are 'on the edge' of suitability. I also have a little knowledge (not a lot mind you, I am still a lesser god and not privy to all that goes on in the inner circle) of the warnings and punishments. It seems to me that the moderation operation is well within a reasonable center, not so biased to one way of thinking or another that I would label it unfair.
Mods here are encouraged to be impartial, to focus on personnel attacks and not on ideas. We are asked to take action to prevent flame wars and to make this site safe and enjoyable for everybody.
Now I know that some of you will think that I have my head so far up Tosa's a$$ that I can't see clearly, but those who know me will recognize that I am an independent voice quite capable of calling b#ll$h!t. If they told me today that I was reduced in rank or banned I'd get over it rapidly.
So . . .
A few pages back I mentioned that continued badgering was pretty much pointless, and with the exception of Louis most of the posts since then have been living up to that diagnosis.
Redleg, I think that you have made your point. Continually repeating over and over that you think If you are going to moderate be consistant in your enforcement. If you are going to moderate don't be childish when you close the thread. In this case you are guilty of both once again.
isn't helping.
At work my guys know that I do not like to repeat myself. And, I don't like it when someone continues to restate their case endlessly. A dog that barks when someone comes on the property is a guard dog - one that barks incessantly is a nuisance. Say it once, clarify if necessary, but don't argue continually.
Redleg, you have stated your case, and I think the point is a good one.
Now I have stated my case (for a second time lol) and so, this will be my last attempt, I think you need to let it go mate. I think you are a valuable part of our Backroom and would hate to see this escalate any further. I say these things not as a part of any organized effort - no one has asked me to interject myself - and I do not speak for the management here.
But as a friend. Points been made. Move on.
Aregato for listening
ichi :bow:
solypsist
12-22-2004, 03:39
fyi, it's spelled A-RI-GA-TO-U
[QUOTE=ichi]Aregato for listening
QUOTE]
I appreciate the feedback Ichi - and most likely I will let it go for now.
Aregato Redleg
Soly, its translated between languages that have ambiguous (=unclear) relationships. Like English and American ~;)
Consider it my signature, like 'teh' was used. Everybody knew it meant 'the'
:bow:
ichi
Another prime examble of inconsistent moderator behavior that often causes problems with the patrons of the tavern when the moderator shows either a baised or worse yet a precieved abuse of his authority.
As Redleg pointed out, Freedom or Liberty can be relative, it all depends on whose defining it, and thats the key issue. A society will define freedom, or restrict it, dependant upon its own level of social control. Don't be naive enough to think that social control is there to protect society from the harm that may come as result of the possible excesses of humankind. Rather, it is there to preserve the present state of society which exists largely to benefit a small minority of the population.
If it is only a small minority that benefits from the present state, I must be part of it. I don´t know about you CrackedAxe or you Accounting Troll, but I know that I have it better and I have more freedom than most of the approximately 70 billion people that have lived so far on this planet. Maybe you live in some sort of slavery, but maybe you´re just expecting too much. The rescources for survival on this planet are scarce and the only reason, truely, the only reason you have reached the age you have is the society you deem so corrupt. Maybe you didn´t notice but the last million years of human existence have teached manking that it is pretty damn hard to build a society that actually works! Yes, the society we built in the West is far from perfect and I´m a big fan of pointing out its many flaws. I do it almost every day, but the picture you draw above is ridiculous.
Quote:
our freedom is a phallacy
That´s surely the word-creation of the day.
Once again a moderator should be above such behavior - and it stired up several negative response in the thread that this came up in. And I am sure the moderator will attempt to sanction the offending posters because of this - when in fact his actions stirred the pot so to speak.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=42611
Hello Redleg,
What is the problem in that quote?
Hello Redleg,
What is the problem in that quote?
That Saturnus should be above correcting someone for a spelling mistake. especially in such a flippant way. By doing this Saturnus created once again a feeling of an abuse of power or authority in the tavern. This goes back to my comment about closing threads in a flippant manner.
All it does is create hard feelings - which a moderator must be concerned about in their moderation. Hell I do it enough on my own to understand why a moderator should not do it - it takes away from the illusion of impartiallity of the moderator. And at worse it provides an atmosphere that the moderator will abuse his authority whenever he so desires.
Hello Redleg,
I guess I'll have to read the whole topic to understand it for I'am at a loss.
I thought
As Redleg pointed out, Freedom or Liberty can be relative, it all depends on whose defining it, and thats the key issue. A society will define freedom, or restrict it, dependant upon its own level of social control. Don't be naive enough to think that social control is there to protect society from the harm that may come as result of the possible excesses of humankind. Rather, it is there to preserve the present state of society which exists largely to benefit a small minority of the population.
If it is only a small minority that benefits from the present state, I must be part of it. I don´t know about you CrackedAxe or you Accounting Troll, but I know that I have it better and I have more freedom than most of the approximately 70 billion people that have lived so far on this planet. Maybe you live in some sort of slavery, but maybe you´re just expecting too much. The rescources for survival on this planet are scarce and the only reason, truely, the only reason you have reached the age you have is the society you deem so corrupt. Maybe you didn´t notice but the last million years of human existence have teached manking that it is pretty damn hard to build a society that actually works! Yes, the society we built in the West is far from perfect and I´m a big fan of pointing out its many flaws. I do it almost every day, but the picture you draw above is ridiculous.
was the problem?
I'm currently occupied with something about code popping up in posts, I'll look at it later, is that ok?
Big King Sanctaphrax
01-24-2005, 18:20
It seems to me everyone got far too worked up over that. Saturnus was just pointing out an amusing spelling mistake. If I accidentally juxtaposed phallus and fallacy, I'd laugh at myself quite freely. It's funny...
CrackedAxe
01-24-2005, 19:13
Yes, it was my post, my mistake and it WAS funny. You know, I've used the word many times and never spelt it like THAT before. What WAS I thinking of? The message is: dont play with yourself while posting! (kidding, hehehe).
As, I said, it was funny, and humour in reponse was fine, but to be honest, Saturnis' response smacked more of sarcasm. I expect better from a moderator. Funny is welcome, derision isn't. The proof is in the posting: look at the hostile responses that resulted. Surely a moderator is meant to discourage this, not encourage it.
Yes, it was my post, my mistake and it WAS funny. You know, I've used the word many times and never spelt it like THAT before. What WAS I thinking of? The message is: dont play with yourself while posting! (kidding, hehehe).
As, I said, it was funny, and humour in reponse was fine, but to be honest, Saturnis' response smacked more of sarcasm. I expect better from a moderator. Funny is welcome, derision isn't. The proof is in the posting: look at the hostile responses that resulted. Surely a moderator is meant to discourage this, not encourage it.
CrackedAxe did an excellent job of actually stating the point I was bringing once again to this thread.
The witch hunt of Sat by certain members of the board continues I see.
In my opinion Tosa - ignore them and get back to real problems.
Hosakawa Tito
01-26-2005, 00:53
Repeat something often enough and it becomes fact, and what is expected and/or assumed. It is also rather telling that these latest claims of abuse at the hands of Saturnus are not brought by his alleged victims in the incident in question ("Do all people have the right to freedom" thread) in the backroom. He may have been a bit harsh in saying Accounting Troll & CrackedAxe ideas/thoughts on the subject were ridiculous, but he was commenting on the ideology NOT THE PERSON. The spelling error comment, phallacy = fallacy (called word creation of the day by Sat) was a funny faux pas. In fact, CrackedAxe saw nothing wrong with Sat's response in the source thread. At least not till Toga & Redleg made a mountain out of a molehill. If calling someone's ideology "ridiculous" and saying their typo is a "word creation of the day" is to be considered "arrogant abuse" then the people who are jumping on this bandwagon are as guilty of it as Saturnus. In fact, later in the same thread Redleg & Kafir Chobee engage in the same conduct that you, Redleg, have the gall to pillory Saturnus for. But don't worry, you have plenty of company in the "arrogant bastard" category. Let he who has not committed this particular sin in the Tavern cast the first stone. Not too many of us need bother to stand, me included. I can't speak for the rest of the staff, but this misunderstanding has been blown all out of proportion. Toga's reaction started it, Redleg gladly started grinding his axe, and since some seem to have heard it said that Saturnus is an arrogant young bastard who abuses his moderator authority, well then, it must be true. JAG has pegged this one, burn the witch.
Gregoshi
01-26-2005, 05:36
Anyone have a duck??
I got one or two ducks - maybe even a goat or two.
So Tito we are allowing harsh attacks on thoughts and ideas now are we? To the point of allowing the moderator to sarcistically correct someone for thier spelling are we? That's nice to know - especially given that you just gave me a warning for my harsh attack on Kafirs thoughts and ideas. A little hypocritical of you given this statement of yours, but not much.
He may have been a bit harsh in saying Accounting Troll & CrackedAxe ideas/thoughts on the subject were ridiculous, but he was commenting on the ideology NOT THE PERSON.
and wait I initially missed this one
In fact, later in the same thread Redleg & Kafir Chobee engage in the same conduct that you, Redleg, have the gall to pillory Saturnus for.
So I get sanctioned for engaging in conduct that Saturnus also conducted - according to your own words - but I am on a witch hunt? How hypocritical of you Tito. ( yep I got a goat alright)
So maybe you misunderstood my statements as a personal attack on Kafir - well it was just a harsh attack on his thoughts and ideas - just like his was a harsh attack on my thoughts and ideas.
Hell I don't even care about that sanction right now - I did a worse thing then attack Kafir't thoughts and actions and deserve a sanction that the moderators missed. So we can just call it even for now.
Now why I might be more guility of it then Saturnus - however I am not a moderator that has to give the illusion of impartiallity. As a moderator you have to hold yourself to a higher standard in order to enforce and rule on the violations of the rules by patrons. Even your statement shows that the moderators will allow themselves to be hypocritical in the enforcement of the rules. You are probably expressing an opinion because it has become obvious that I will bring it up every chance I get and because its a worthwhile discussion in my opinion - one should not allow those in a postion of authority or responsiblity to just have blanket authority or to leave them alone when they make a mistake. Bringing it up each and everytime makes it an issue that you can either chose to ignore - or to at least discuss the merits of each case and decide to discount the instance or take some type of corrective action when it is determined that a moderator might have abused his authority or his position.
So until Tosa asks me to leave it alone - I will bring it up wether it be Saturnus, you or anyother moderator that I think has overstepped their bounds in moderating. You can either discount it - or you can even prevent me from posting - however until then I will mention it and your own words Tito shows that you know that I just might be right. Once again in bold to sink the point home.
In fact, later in the same thread Redleg & Kafir Chobee engage in the same conduct that you, Redleg, have the gall to pillory Saturnus for.
So you will just have to excuse mr as I laugh my rear end off because I find it just to funny when a moderator demonstrates that they do not want to hold the moderators accountable for their conduct especially when the same moderator happens to understand the point very well indeed. The hypocrisy is just well to damn funny.
The line you quote does not prove any of your claims -
The whole point is that what Sat said is not in breach of the rules which you seem to think he is. He thus has nothing to apologise or be troubled by, but by Tito's statement he was stating that you actually did break the rules you are trying to pin on Sat. Thus the statement - In fact, later in the same thread Redleg & Kafir Chobee engage in the same conduct that you, Redleg, have the gall to pillory Saturnus for.
Nothing hypocritical or admittance of wrong doing there.
A.Saturnus
01-26-2005, 18:05
This is not a defence speech. Tosa knows the facts and I trust his decision. I only want to give a policy information. There seems to be a confusion what is personal and what not.
Let´s take examples:
the picture you draw above is ridiculous
In this sentence an adjective with negative connotation (ridiculous) is attributed to a subject (the picture). This can be called harsh criticism, but it is surely criticism of an impersonal object. Note that it is of course possible that the author has negative feelings about the person he speaks to, but that cannot be implied from the sentence. Any interpretation that the intend of that sentence was to criticise things or people beyond the content of a post, is far-reaching. Therefore, disregarding member status, this kind of behaviour is ok.
In contrast to this:
I suggest you learn to read before accusing someone of propaganda
It is not far-reaching to assume that the author wants to imply that his opponent cannot read, because otherwise it wouldn´t make sense. Making such an assumption about another person is obviously negative and personal.
What an angry little attempt at a propaganda spin from the hateful and angry liberial democratic left
Again, to make sense of this sentence "hateful and angry" have to be attributed to the opponent of the author and not the content of his post. Extremely negative and, of course, personal.
You truely are buying into the hateful propaganda of the democratic party - especially since you often spew it out on this forum.
Well, we don´t need to explain how that´s personal, do we? It´s sole purpose is to be personal, since it adds nothing to the discussion at all.
the individual who believes everything that the hateful liberal democratic party spins out
That´s not only personal, it makes very far-reaching and generalizing assumptions about the person in question on the basis of a few posts seen on a gaming forum.
This kind of behaviour is not ok!
Those are of course extreme examples since they are in gross violation of the forum rules (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/Rules.shtml), but I hope you still get the picture.
Devastatin Dave
01-27-2005, 05:49
"the individual who believes everything that the hateful liberal democratic party spins out"
That´s not only personal, it makes very far-reaching and generalizing assumptions about the person in question on the basis of a few posts seen on a gaming forum.
This kind of behaviour is not ok!
Those are of course extreme examples since they are in gross violation of the forum rules (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/Rules.shtml), but I hope you still get the picture.
LOL, and we know that you never allow liberals or leftists make any negative genaralizations of Americans, Republicans, or conservatives and when you see this, you take immediate action to ensure that you are bringing and unbiased aproach to your moderation of the Backroom.
And yes, I'm being sarcastic. :bow:
Sorry Redleg, the mods have circled the wagons, your posting to deaf ears. So much for tolerance and free thought huh? I guess its ok only if it passes the "global test".
I guess I won't be allowed to post or view the Watchtower along with my perminant expulsion from the Backroom now!!! ~;)
Orda Khan
01-27-2005, 17:53
I agree whole heartedly with Tito. It always amazes me how some people seem to want to live their lives constantly bleating on about the rights and wrongs of any subject. These same people are the ones who sow discord where ever and when ever they can. This whole thing was just trouble causing, maybe they look for some importance that they feel they are due but in my humble opinion this whole issue has become a joke. If one wants a forum where insults such as those used in the original thread are the norm, go look elsewhere and close the door when you leave. Nobody will miss you
.....Orda
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.