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/showt...3&page=2&pp=30
Printable View
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/showt...3&page=2&pp=30
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.Quote:
It seems someone here has a problem with authority. Closed.
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke John
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.
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,
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke John
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.
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.
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke John
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....
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,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
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.
Soly, right leaning!!!! HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Maybe you need to have reading lessons as well. ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe
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.
Dave,
That was irony. It's usually funnier without smiley.
Louis,
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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
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.Quote:
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 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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=42611
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TosaInu
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
was the problem?Quote:
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.
I'm currently occupied with something about code popping up in posts, I'll look at it later, is that ok?
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...
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrackedAxe