If you are going to moderate

[Redleg]

Lets see Saturnus just tried to caution me for a rant in the Traven - but allows others to do the same thing without a public caution.

A prime examble of Saturnus not holding the same standard to all.'

Quote[/b] ]Quote (Papewaio @ May 10 2004,01:43)
Quote (WarlordMasterHiji @ May 09 2004,09:26)
Bush should not have had to apoligize. Im glad he did though, if he didnt, the american-hating liberals would be all over him.

What is everyone complaining about, has everyone ever seen what they have done to our men? I saw some disgusting stuff in Newsweek. The men were burned then hanged, then pulled apart which basically made them look like a piece of burnt meat. Why not we be more concerned with these horrible, horrible, crimes against our men which come from OUR country rather then Iraqi prisoners which most likely did something horrible like this?

Pape Ranting about his countries allies.

What?

It's okay to do because they did it.

Your country has a consitution that enshrines human rights yet at the first threat you piss your pants wipe your arse with the constition and start acting like a bunch of neo-nazis er neo-conservatives.

Your moral codes are worthless because you do not live up to them.

Your leadership is spineless because they do political spin rather then lead.

Your army has no concept of duty other then being a lapdog.

Your country has no honour because it cannot even live up to its own constituion or treaties.
----

Basic concepts of ethics and justice 101:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Justice is a two way street.

Two wrongs does not make a right.

and then mine

Quote[/b] ]
Quote (Sinan @ May 12 2004,10:10)
Quote

Why don't you try to explain it just a little better - since its just ridiculous or just plain good old anti-American BS when I read it in the context of your statement


Ahh well too bad if you think so.

It isn't anti anything, nothing ridiculous, it's plain English.

Well since you wont answer the question here goes the rant and the response I think your idiotic statement warrants.

Quote
To answer your question: It's only a matter of time unless there is a regime change in the US, the US military will attack any country they please.


Lets see the United States led the collation to attack Iraq in 1991 because Saddam happen to decide he could attack and hold Kuwait. There was a cease fire that the corrupt Arab leader named Saddam and his corrupted Arabic leaders all decided was the best thing to do verus facing defeat. Because President Bush Sr. at the time caved into the corrupted Arabic regimes of the area - the United States halted its advance into Iraq. We had already defeat all that Iraq had and they were running like the cowards they are.

Then Clinton decided to help out in Somilia and look what that peacekeeping operation turned into. Again shows that Muslims have do not want peace they just enjoy killing.

Then there was the weak ass Europeans allowing Ethinic killings on their own back yard and the United States had to go in and clean up the mess that Europeans were to cowardly to handle themselves. Because once again Europeans were showing they don't care as long as its Muslims that are being killed.


Quote
Even after a regime change the absolute corruption of society and government achieved through the war on Iraq will be hard to reverse.


Couldn't agree with you more - all arabic countries are absolutely corrupt and regime changes will not prevent the abuses of arabic and muslim leaders from happening when they are allowed to have power.

Quote
Even after a change in US administration, future governments may feel compelled to follow the politics of governments past.


Yep after the United States leaves Iraq the following governments in the corrupted and abusive society that is the arabic world will fall back into the corruption and abuse that is their world.




So Sinan want to actually explain what you are thinking or should I continue with what the plain english of your statement means.

Notice how easy it was to spin your statement into anti-arabic and anti-muslim statements. The statement you made was ridiculous and your response was even more so.

So go
and maybe just yourself.

Edited by Redleg on May 12 2004,10:43

DId a deserve a caution - sure I spun someones flippant and hateful answer and sentence to make a point. I used language that was designed to show how ridiculous a certain statement was.

But I am getting tired of one group of posters getting a pass for doing worse then what I get a public caution on from Saturnus.

If your going to caution one person - you must apply the same standard across the board even if the offending person is expressing your own politicial or emotional statements.

[chunkynut]

Not really my place to say anything but (always a but ) as a member of this board i see Pape's comments as an attack on a country and your comments Redleg as an attack on a race.

I personally see a major difference between the two and that you take the condemnation of your country particularly badly.

[Redleg]

And I don't see the difference. An offensive comment is an offensive comment no matter if its concerning a country, group or individual.


I have seen Saturnus on other occasions do exactly the wrong thing - condemning and cautioning the statement when it concerning anything outside of a discussion against the United States. But if its directed at the United States he allows the comment. Take a really good look at the comments tht Papewaio stated - they are indeed offensive and meant to be so. Where is Saturnus caution concerning his statements posted publicily in the

The point is that if you are going to make corrections, place cautions or even sanctions against an individual on this forum as a moderator - you must be consistent in your practice, you must be fair and equal in your judgements, failure to do so leaves a since of inequality in the air in the debate.

[chunkynut]

Perhaps then the problem lies with the outlook.

I see an attack on a country an attack against its policies, systems, departments, its leader etc. But know (or maybe hope) this is removed from that countries peoples.

Prejudice against a country is fine (IMO) as long as the individuals from the nation aren't judged with the same generalisations.

Sorry away from the topic, but as you see A.Saturnus's comments as unjust and unfair, what do you think of your comments against Muslims? As i cannot or don't seperate types of unjustness and unfairness I wanted to see how you felt.

[Redleg]

Take it back to the traven and I will answer - but like I said in the initial post its a rant in response of someone's hate filled statement and their refusal to answer a question concerning what they meant.

I don't see a difference in offensive langauge be it personal, group, religion, ethnic, or country. That I was wrong for posting what I did - yep I even admit it, does it mean I actually think that way, nope it was a rant. If the moderators are going to allow someone to rant in the method Papewaio did and not place a public caution on it, then they must allow anyone else to rant in the same way.

Papewaio's rant was directed at all Americans, I made a rant directed at the Middle-east. Which one got cautioned - which one didn't. thats is in essence the point. The moderators must be fair and equal in their judgements and when doing so must leave their own politicial stance out of the equation.

There has been times when I protested very politily against the offensive langauge and comments of some and the moderators did absolutely nothing about it in the public setting. And allowed the language and comments to continue on the thread to the point they had to finally close it down.

[Idaho]

Ranting about US policy is legit. I don't hold American's responsible for it, unless they choose to put themselves between me and my target. Hence I have never directed hostile words at Tachi as he often agrees. Likewise if US government policy changed then I would abandon my criticism.

However saying that all muslims enjoy violence is patently wrong, offensive and ignorant. It is directed at a people and not a policy and there is no hope of this claim being revoked.

[chunkynut]

This is my last post on this topic as i have said all i will about this as it is not my place to judge.

Your rant was not directed at people from the Middle East but at Muslims (somalia for one is in Africa). You may have intended for your comments to be directed solely at the middle east but I misinterpreted your comments.

If i say that 'the Iraq under Saddam was an evil, corrupt place with lacking morals and the arrogance of power though which Iraq abused innocents' it is against the government and not the peoples. This comment would be understandable to you i believe. And if i say that i think that 'the US under Bush is aggressive, judgmental, corrupt and has through arrogance of power abused innocents.' this also is aimed at the leadership of the country.

However if i said that 'all Christians are uneducated bigots with a leaning to child molesting(or abuse of innocents)' this would be an attack on a people and of course unfounded.

I hope through examples i have explained my view better and i understand that you feel that you have received judgment for a type of behaviour that no-one else has.

[Redleg]

Quote[/b] (chunkynut @ May 14 2004,09:31)]However if i said that 'all Christians are uneducated bigots with a leaning to child molesting(or abuse of innocents)' this would be an attack on a people and of course unfounded.

I hope through examples i have explained my view better and i understand that you feel that you have received judgment for a type of behaviour that no-one else has.

Its been done in the traven and once again not public caution on the posters comment by the moderator.

Same standard should apply to all - not just those who the moderators disagree with.

[Redleg]

Quote[/b] (Idaho @ May 14 2004,09:13)]Ranting about US policy is legit. I don't hold American's responsible for it, unless they choose to put themselves between me and my target. Hence I have never directed hostile words at Tachi as he often agrees. Likewise if US government policy changed then I would abandon my criticism.

However saying that all muslims enjoy violence is patently wrong, offensive and ignorant. It is directed at a people and not a policy and there is no hope of this claim being revoked.

Well Idaho the same standard should apply to other's then. If its acceptable to rant and rave at one group - some of you say its ranting on policy - but when the ranting goes into where Papewaio and I both took it - then it has to be censored equally by the moderators or not at all.

Notice what you are saying I did - Papewaio did exactly the same thing refering to Americans. Where was his public caution by the moderators.

A clear double standard has been applied here. And frankly when Papewaio made his post - I waited to see if any Moderator would caution him in the open for his statements. It was not forthcoming.

My comments were no more offensive then what Papewaio stated but I don't see any criticism coming from any moderator for them.

[rory_20_uk]

Then that is unfair and you have a right to a grievance.

[Obex]

Dont worry Redleg, sometimes life just isnt fair. I myself recently had a whole post edited (deleted) by another moderator because of sarcasm. SARCASM. i was paraphrasing family guy actually. am i bitter that i got censored while other's sarcasm runs rampant here. yeah, i guess i still am. at least you only got a warning.

in your case, your remarks were the less offensive of the two, in my opinion.

[rory_20_uk]

Wha?? Deleted because of sarcasm? How will I communicate with out that basic method of belittling my lesser fellow men?? (and that's most of you by the way )

[Mount Suribachi]

Welcome to the 21st Century Redleg, where all opinions are equal, but some are more equal than others .

[hrvojej]

Yet there are still some surprisingly medieval notions floating around. Next time somebody makes a "joke" about shooting another memeber of this forum, or openly advocates exterminating and killing other people for this or that reason, remind me again what century we're in.

ps. This is not a direct retort to you or your point, Redleg, I want to make that clear, as I don't recall you ever did that. But, since I can't start the thread in this room myself, and the thread is about fair moderating, I took the liberty of posting it in here. I do however feel it bears some relevance to the issue at hand, namely why would someone be more edgy to jump on something like the mentioned remark due to preconditioning (fairness is beside the point I'm trying to make, and I'm not making any judgements in that respect). You yourself stated many times that if provoked through general atmosphere over many threads, your responses tend to get harsher even in cases when it's undeserved (which is only human, btw). The overall atmosphere has not been very healthy lately, and I believe there is a basis to give the benefit of the doubt with regard to attributing something to (the lack of) fairness as opposed to overreacting due to the preconditioned oversensitivity to things other than the usual "yo country yo momma" discussions.

[A.Saturnus]

You have a point Redleg, I should have said something when Pape wrote that.
However, it´s not that I have acted differently because what Pape said suits my views. In fact I find what he wrote silly and he would probably agree with me. It is probably true that I react more sensitive to racism than to anti-Americanism. But I don´t find blatant anti-Americanism more acceptable.
The main reason why I didn´t respond to Pape´s post is that Pape has an outstanding reputation. He has a habit of taking some points absurdly far. But when he does so it´s clear that he´s not entirely serious. Everyone who visits the Tavern only partly regularly knows that Pape is far from being anti-American. So I assumed that no one would take what he said serious. Maybe I was wrong doing so. But it´s so that if anyone had addressed Pape about what he wrote, he would never have let it come to something like a flame war. He would have explained what he meant very civilly.
You on the other hand are a usual suspect for a flame war participant. Often enough you have admitted that what you do was wrong, but you keep on doing it. You have shown that you are not unlikely to cause problems. Therefore it´s not surprising that moderators are more alert about what you post than what less troublesome members post.

I admit that I have acted unfair when I did not caution Pape, but from a view point of someone who has to take care that the Tavern doesn´t go out of hand, I think it´s somewhat understandable.

[Mount Suribachi]

Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ May 14 2004,21:50)]more sensitive to racism than to anti-Americanism

um, aren't they the same thing?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Seems to me that just as every where else in the world it is ok to bash America, Israel and Christians here but heaven forbid you bash anyone else.

[TosaInu]

Topic spotted,

The weather is very nice and family wants to go out. I have no time to respond at the moment, please forgive me.

Topic closed until I get back.