Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
Because nobody was picking on or ganging up on Canadian_watcher on that thread. I mean, she and I fight all the time. And (at least as far as the topic goes), for most of the thread, even I was on her side and/or had her back more than the other way around.
So I'm not trying to be obstructive or mean. I want her to come back. But the truth is that this:
MIB, Brekin?
Where are you big swinging dicks now? Let's have your answer to my question.
[size=200]LET's HAVE IT.[/size[
...is not exactly the portrait of somebody who's being assaulted.
The reason she had to post asking AD, MiB, and brekin if they believed she was an anti-Semite or not was:that nobody had called her one.
compared2what? » Sun Jul 21, 2013 11:30 am wrote:MiB wasn't arguing that he was anti-Semite; brekin was only arguing it incidentally; and AD wasn't arguing it exclusively. Or even primarily.
I'd say that the reason it became such a disproportionate focus of attention was that as far as this board is informally concerned, there's no difference between suggesting that "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and Holocaust revisionism/denial are anti-Semitic and being a fucking latter-day member of the Irgun.
Hunter » Sun Jul 21, 2013 11:26 am wrote:So the question is going forward who gets to decide which threads are necessary and which are not and is everyone going to be happy with that persons decisions and if they are not what is the recourse.
Searcher08 » Sun Jul 21, 2013 12:47 pm wrote:I'm a bit uncomfortable that a one off poll on asking for a reconsideration regarding 'Jeff and Mods' permanent banning decision is getting turned into a 'Common Board Law' precident for the whole future of R.I.
If Jeff + Mods wants to do that, fine but I myself have no legal thinking background.
If there is going to be a addition to the Posting Guidelines, WR's
"Let's be excellent with each other"
resonates with me much more than codification
c2w? - I need to register that I disagree *completely* with your assessment.
compared2what? » Sun Jul 21, 2013 1:06 pm wrote:Hunter » Sun Jul 21, 2013 11:26 am wrote:So the question is going forward who gets to decide which threads are necessary and which are not and is everyone going to be happy with that persons decisions and if they are not what is the recourse.
...
You may be right. But I hope you're not. Because I don't think it's possible (or even desirable) to have a discussion board full of threads that make EVERYONE happy.
I mean, threads that everyone is required to act happy about might be doable. But there would have to be totalitarianism first. In a reasonably free environment, conflict is inevitable. There's the freedom to either stay away from stuff you find intolerable or to engage with it. But that's about it. That's just freedom.
Wombaticus Rex » Sun Jul 21, 2013 1:42 pm wrote:If it is of any assistance towards expediting the poll, I would vote for a dumb simple, binary question: Banned or Unbanned?
That is the only issue to discuss, in terms of the OP here.
barracuda » Sun Jul 21, 2013 12:44 pm wrote:Allow me to preemptively delegitimize the whole idea of polling this decision:
- Whoever has the most sock accounts will prevail in an anonymous voting scenario. Dust off your old nicknames, put on some lipstick and let's roll.
- The poll essentially asks individual members to decide to ban or not ban a fellow member. Most people will never do that, ergo, the result is a foregone conclusion.
- We already have an excellent system for dealing with these situations - a panel of highly respected, longtime forum members, hand-picked by the site admin make decisions based upon the infraction at hand, the past history of the poster, personal appeals by pm and forum postings, and previous moderator threads dealing with the poster and other posters in similar situations.
barracuda » Sun Jul 21, 2013 1:44 pm wrote:Allow me to preemptively delegitimize the whole idea of polling this decision:
- Whoever has the most sock accounts will prevail in an anonymous voting scenario. Dust off your old nicknames, put on some lipstick and let's roll.
- The poll essentially asks individual members to decide to ban or not ban a fellow member. Most people will never do that, ergo, the result is a foregone conclusion.
- We already have an excellent system for dealing with these situations - a panel of highly respected, longtime forum members, hand-picked by the site admin, make decisions with him based upon the infraction at hand, the past history of the poster, personal appeals by pm and forum postings, and previous moderator threads dealing with the poster and other posters in similar situations.
I agree. All the arguing seems rather disrespectful of their already carefully made decisions.barracuda wrote:We already have an excellent system for dealing with these situations - a panel of highly respected, longtime forum members, hand-picked by the site admin, make decisions with him based upon the infraction at hand, the past history of the poster, personal appeals by pm and forum postings, and previous moderator threads dealing with the poster and other posters in similar situations.
Jeff wrote:This wasn't just because of the Icke thread, and it wasn't a decision arrived at lightly. The regret is sincere.
barracuda » Sun Jul 21, 2013 2:12 pm wrote:It sounds from Wombat's comments that the mod team has contracted buyer's remorse. If that's the case, they should simply reconsider the permanent ban, institute a longer temporary suspension, and give Canadian_watcher one final, absolute, line-in-the-sand, no-eighth do-over, last chance mulligan.
Otherwise, this polling nonsense undercuts their ability to moderate the joint effectively.
Return to Ask Admin [old version/not in use]
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests