Atheism Forum

Vomit

Hi

If I can demonstrate that a moderator is attempting to censor or silence people on the forum, based solely on his personal whims and nothing more, can that moderator's position be reviewed by more senior members of this site?

Steve

Yes, but best bet there is to pm any or all cmod(s) of the forum

If you've no joy there then you can approach the admins.

jonniebgood1

Vomit wrote: »

Hi

If I can demonstrate that a moderator is attempting to censor or silence people on the forum, based solely on his personal whims and nothing more, can that moderator's position be reviewed by more senior members of this site?

Is there a comma misplaced?

Vomit wrote: »

Hi

If I can demonstrate that a moderator is attempting to censor or silence people on the forum based solely on ... personal whims and nothing more, can that moderator's position be reviewed by more senior members of this site?

I.e. this seems like a personal whim of your own based on my following of the Atheism forum.

The method for doing this would be exactly as steve has said.

Dades

FYI, Vomit, the "Bitch about Hitchens" thread has been fully re-opened for business, so you can revert to DEFCON 3.

That thread has already started going in circles, but if discussion can confine itself to there, then we're content to let it dwindle into an inevitable series of ad hominems and jibes and consider stepping in at some point in the future.

Vomit

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Is there a comma misplaced?



I.e. this seems like a personal whim of your own based on my following of the Atheism forum.

The method for doing this would be exactly as steve has said.

Jonnie, I'm sorry but I don't understand anything of what you just said to me.

Dades wrote:

FYI, Vomit, the "Bitch about Hitchens" thread has been fully re-opened for business, so you can revert to DEFCON 3.

That thread has already started going in circles, but if discussion can confine itself to there, then we're content to let it dwindle into an inevitable series of ad hominems and jibes and consider stepping in at some point in the future.

This has nothing to do with thread closure (which I was unaware of), nor has it got anything to do with ad hominems or jibes. It's about what I stated here when I made this thread - the slightly more serious matter of a moderator abusing their position.

minidazzler

Vomit wrote: »

Jonnie, I'm sorry but I don't understand anything of what you just said to me.



This has nothing to do with thread closure (which I was unaware of), nor has it got anything to do with ad hominems or jibes. It's about what I stated here when I made this thread - the slightly more serious matter of a moderator abusing their position.

Is the mod censoring people as per the charter or just randomly doing so? Because I doubt they are just randomly doing so unless they are complete numpties, and from my reading of the A&A forum, they tend to be quite good mods. I read that forum a bit and it's generally pretty OK. So really evidence or GTFO. At very least you should stop with alluding to evidence and actually provide someone who matters on the site with it....though no doubt it'll be some bull that you took personal when the mod was likely doing what they are supposed to.

Remember OP, there is no Free Speech here. So censoring to a degree is perfectly OK.

Beruthiel

Vomit,

I can state categorically, that if all Mods on this site were as fair, thoughtful and as even handed as the A&A forum mods, I for one would be well pleased.
They are both mail order mods. I wish we could clone them.

Just so you know, this is the Feedback forum for all topics to do with this site.
Complaints regarding Mods are to be brought to the CMod first and after that the DRP.

28064212

Vomit wrote: »

Hi

If I can demonstrate that a moderator is attempting to censor or silence people on the forum, based solely on his personal whims and nothing more, can that moderator's position be reviewed by more senior members of this site?

Simple answer? Yes. Your problem will lie in demonstrating the bit I've marked in bold

Vomit

I wish random people would keep out of serious feedback threads. I was asking a serious question to senior members, not for the opinions of random users trying to start arguments. I got my answer in the first reply, and I'm deciding which CMod is the best one to PM with the evidence.

Otacon

Why not PM all of them? Dades, nesf and Scofflaw?

Dades

The censorship in A&A is pretty shoddy if we're allowing posts like this go unmolested.

Otacon wrote: »

Why not PM all of them? Dades, nesf and Scofflaw?

I'd go with option two or three if I were him.

Vomit

I don't see why the post you mentioned should go molested at all. I wasn't personal and I didn't get into detail. Are you saying the slightest dissatisfaction should be deleted?? Later on, I did express frustration with what I saw as slanted moderation and my post WAS censored, which led me here.

Also, I'd bet heavily that all 3 CMods of Society are atheists and friends with each other and the person in question outside of boards. Nothing would come of my complaint.

twinQuins

Vomit wrote: »

[...]Later on, I did express frustration with what I saw as slanted moderation and my post WAS censored, which led me here.[...]

The rule about not commenting on moderation within a forum's threads applies to all forums (excepting Feedback, obviously), not just A&A.
It's not censorship, it's just making sure threads aren't overrun with off-topic bitching.

Plautus

Dades wrote: »

FYI, Vomit, the "Bitch about Hitchens" thread has been fully re-opened for business, so you can revert to DEFCON 3.

That thread has already started going in circles, but if discussion can confine itself to there, then we're content to let it dwindle into an inevitable series of ad hominems and jibes and consider stepping in at some point in the future.

I think Vomit is overreacting somewhat (and is getting into ad hominem with others), but, respectfully, I don't think that thread is going in circles on all counts. Some of us are contributing thoughtfully to it. I also think that this contribution by Robindch:

^^^ BB, I don't believe there's any chance that your viewpoint will coincide with anybody else's, so can you please move on from Hitchens' views on the Iraq war? Thanks.

Was rather improper. Pretty much the only gripe of mine that coincides with Vomit's.

Dades

Vomit wrote: »

I don't see why the post you mentioned should go molested at all. I wasn't personal and I didn't get into detail.

Apart from questioning moderation in-thread and making negative sweeping generalisations about the posters in the forum?

Vomit wrote: »

Also, I'd bet heavily that all 3 CMods of Society are atheists and friends with each other and the person in question outside of boards. Nothing would come of my complaint.

I bet you're wrong, on the first count, anyway.

Plautus wrote: »

I think Vomit is overreacting somewhat (and is getting into ad hominem with others), but, respectfully, I don't think that thread is going in circles on all counts. Some of us are contributing thoughtfully to it.

Perhaps in hindsight it was more a case of second-guessing the inevitable. At any rate the thread is now free to reach it's conclusion.*

* An actual conclusion would of course be a first in A&A!

robindch

Plautus wrote: »

I also think that this contribution by Robindch: Was rather improper.

Not the finest post I've ever made, I cheerfully grant , but do bear in mind that by that point, the discussion had been going in circles for some time, that ad-hominems had been appearing with uncharacteristic frequency, and there seemed to be little obvious interest in accepting or even understanding much, if any, of the other side's point of view.

robindch

Vomit wrote: »

the slightly more serious matter of a moderator abusing their position.

When building a case against another poster, whether moderator or not, it's best to report events accurately and completely.

Hitchens died on 16th December and seven hours after a thread dedicated to his memory was opened, you produced this uncharitable post. Ten minutes later, another. Ten minutes after that, a third. Forty minutes after that, a fourth.

In the context of a popular, albeit controversial, figure who was barely dead 12 hours, and recalling the complete mess that arose from similarly uncharitable comments made in the Steve Jobs memorial thread a few months before on the days following his death, I requested you to make a positive comment or refrain from posting. You ignored that warning and, in strict accordance with the letter of my prior warning, you were given the least severe warning I could give: a temporary yellow card. In summary, you were warned, you ignored the warning, you were carded. This was explained to you.

Some hours after Brown Bomber's arrival in the memorial thread with similarly uncharitable thoughts, Galvasean opened a "Bitch about Hitchens" thread and uncharitable postings resumed there.

Noting the standard of the uncharitable posts made in both threads, the "thanks" received by both sides, and my own general feeling, the content of both threads was substantially below what posters expect in the A+A forum and various posters pointed this out. While it's usually preferable to receive complaints about posts via the reporting mechanism, I believe that it can, occasionally, be useful for all forum visitors to see that the standard of debate in the forum is something that derives largely from the forum members themselves. I clarified my position on comments concerning trolling here; please note the full post, and not the single word you chose to remove from its context from the post I reference below. I also think it's quite inconsistent for you to complain about people calling you a troll, then five minutes later, you accuse others of trolling.

With respect to your accusation of abuse of position, you posted a few sarcastic comments about forum moderation and forum members. This sarcastic post received a light-hearted reply. You made a second, and substantially more sarcastic post, accusing me of a wide range of offenses, the majority of which post I deleted and referred you to the feedback forum.

Your text was deleted, not because of any wish to silence your views on Hitchens -- none of which were deleted -- but because in that post particularly, but in I believe almost every other one you've posted in A+A, you seem unable to adhere to forum rules, the general rules of debate, or boards.ie etiquette.

I reject entirely your accusation of "abuse of position".

Vomit

robindch wrote: »

When building a case against another poster, whether moderator or not, it's best to report events accurately and completely.

Hitchens died on 16th December and seven hours after a thread dedicated to his memory was opened, you produced this uncharitable post. Ten minutes later, another. Ten minutes after that, a third. Forty minutes after that, a fourth.

But it's a discussion forum, not a fan site, right? Why should any public figure receive your personal protection from criticism or negativity?

In the context of a popular, albeit controversial, figure who was barely dead 12 hours, and recalling the complete mess that arose from similarly uncharitable comments made in the Steve Jobs memorial thread a few months before on the days following his death,

I know nothing of a Steve Jobs thread. This is a separate matter about Christopher Hitchens.

I requested you to make a positive comment or refrain from posting. You ignored that warning and, in strict accordance with the letter of my prior warning, you were given the least severe warning I could give: a temporary yellow card. In summary, you were warned, you ignored the warning, you were carded. This was explained to you.

No, you warned me to say something positive, and then SECONDS later, I posted, "Ahh, trolling", in reply to somebody's accusation that I was a troll.

So,

1) I had no time to see your 'warning' and

2) I did not say anything else negative about Hitchens on that thread!!!

I PM'd you about this but got no reply. Later on, you gave a DIFFERENT reason for the card:

You said, "Just to clarify -- you were carded for producing a content-free post, after being asked not to produce content-free posts."

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76108556&postcount=56

So which is it? What was the yellow card for? Content-free posting, or saying negative things about Hitchens? (<-- which didn't happen after your warning)

Some hours after Brown Bomber's arrival in the memorial thread with similarly uncharitable thoughts, Galvasean opened a "Bitch about Hitchens" thread and uncharitable postings resumed there.

Noting the standard of the uncharitable posts made in both threads, the "thanks" received by both sides, and my own general feeling, the content of both threads was substantially below what posters expect in the A+A forum and various posters pointed this out.

There was solid debate about Hitchens' view of the Iraq War, not 'uncharitable posts'.

While it's usually preferable to receive complaints about posts via the reporting mechanism, I believe that it can, occasionally, be useful for all forum visitors to see that the standard of debate in the forum is something that derives largely from the forum members themselves.

I've seen worse threads with far less debate.

I also think it's quite inconsistent for you to complain about people calling you a troll, then five minutes later, you accuse others of trolling.

Oh please! Can't you see the context of that post? All MagicMarker did was call others trolls. I tried to post a genuine response to his question, to continue the debate, and all he did was give me a goading one liner. But instead of carding HIM, you thanked him.

I reject entirely your accusation of "abuse of position".

Goes without saying. But you told me to voice a positive opinion or stay quiet, carded me for something unrelated and then made up a false reason for doing so, after the fact. Speaks for itself.

robindch

Vomit wrote: »

Why should any public figure receive your personal protection from criticism or negativity?

Because Hitchens had been dead barely 12 hours, and here in Ireland, it is common courtesy not to speak ill of the recently dead. Specifically, I recalled the complete mess that arose from similarly uncharitable comments made in the Steve Jobs memorial thread a few months before, in the days following his death.

If you were unsure as to why you were being warned off making uncharitable comments, you could have queried it with a forum moderator, but you did not.

Vomit wrote: »

1) I had no time to see your 'warning'

Firstly, you were carded over 90 minutes after you made the post for which you were carded, so you had ample time to read my warning and do something about it. Secondly, my warning post appeared immediately before yours, so even if you had very little time, you still should have seen my warning post. Finally, I'm assuming that you did have time to read my warning, since you posted this message fifteen minutes after I posted, indicating that you were still browsing boards.ie fifteen minutes later.

Vomit wrote: »

2) I did not say anything else negative about Hitchens on that thread!!!

You weren't asked to avoid saying anything negative, you were specifically asked to say something positive or avoid posting. See the moderator request again.

Vomit wrote: »

What was the yellow card for?

You were carded for producing an unhelpful, content-free post, after being specifically asked to produce a positive post or to avoid posting. See the moderator request again.

Vomit wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

I also think it's quite inconsistent for you to complain about people calling you a troll, then five minutes later, you accuse others of trolling.

I tried to post a genuine response [...]

I find that equally hard to believe. Your post was uniformly uncharitable, impugned the integrity of forum members, suggested that all forum members were dumber than Hitchens, called Hitchens an "a-hole", claimed your views were being censored when they were not, made wild, unsubstantiated and uncharitable claims about Hitchens' motives, suggested Hitchens was paying off forum members. Etc, etc

As above, you seem unable to adhere to forum rules, the general rules of debate, or boards.ie etiquette.

The forum charter is here and I politely suggest that you read it before your next post A+A, since your next violation of the forum charter will result in your being banned from A+A.

Brown Bomber

robindch wrote: »

Not the finest post I've ever made, I cheerfully grant , but do bear in mind that by that point, the discussion had been going in circles for some time, that ad-hominems had been appearing with uncharacteristic frequency, and there seemed to be little obvious interest in accepting or even understanding much, if any, of the other side's point of view.

To be fair that is not an accurate description of what transpired.

• You not only singled out for silence and censor one "side" but one poster - Me.
• There was not a single ad-hom made from me throughout, I was on the receiving end at all times.

To your credit you could have went overboard and banned me after I responded to an earlier point made re Iraq after your warning. Technically you would have been within your rights to do so but chose not to when I am sure any Fascist type mod full of self-importance would've enjoyed banning me and jumped at the chance. So as i said credit where it's due.


______________




I do hope you can this constructively but I think I share at least partially Vomit's perspective on this. It is the perceived double-standard that is infuriating. On the one hand you have a forum for people to freely discuss organised Catholic priest paedophile rings or say things like "UK Muslims are far more likely to rape than non-Muslims" while on the other seemingly protect one of your own - either through mod action or mod inaction.

Vomit

robindch wrote: »

Because Hitchens had been dead barely 12 hours, and I recalled the complete mess that arose from similarly uncharitable comments made in the Steve Jobs memorial thread a few months before, in the days following his death.

So you're saying the issue is not so much saying bad things about Hitchens, but more that you didn't want another abortion of a thread? Because lets face it, if it were Saddam Hussein, or someone you disliked, things would be different.

You were carded 90 minutes after you made the post for which you were carded. You had (a) plenty of time to read my warning and delete your post and (b)

How the heck was I supposed to know what you were talking about? I think you are making this up after the fact. You said if I'd nothing positive to say to keep my hands in my pockets. I didn't see that warning, because I was busy posting, "Ahh, trolling", which was just me scoffing at someone's attempt to call me a troll (quite par for the course on A&A and every other forum).

So what you're trying to say is, you were warning me not to say ANYTHING MORE after your warning? Unless it was praise for Hitchens?

Look again:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76034810&postcount=58
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76034814&postcount=59

You really expect everyone to believe:

1) I saw your warning as I was posting that.
2) After seeing your warning, it should have been reasonable for me to consider my post to violate it, and delete it.

Again, here are the TWO DIFFERING reasons YOU gave my for carding me:

1. "I requested you to make a positive comment or refrain from posting. You ignored that warning"

2. "Just to clarify -- you were carded for producing a content-free post, after being asked not to produce content-free posts."

You weren't asked to avoid saying anything negative, you were asked to say something positive or avoid posting.

After your warning, I didn't post there any more, apart from the post in question above, which I posted at the same time as you, and which I didn't think was in violation of your request. What reasonable person could card that post??

You were carded for producing an unhelpful, content-free post, after being asked to produce a positive post or to avoid posting.

So now 'content free' is the same as negative? Firstly, people are always posting content free messages. Secondly, you should have been clearer about this, or even explained it to me in PM when I asked, but you ignored my PM. And now you wonder why I'm getting my panties in a twist.

I find that equally hard to believe. Your post was uniformly uncharitable, impugned the integrity of forum members, suggested that all forum members were dumber than Hitchens, referred to Hitchens as an "a-hole", claimed your views were being censored when they were not, made wild and unsubstantiated claims about Hitchens motives, asked sarcastically whether Hitchens was paying off forum members. And so on.

He called Hitchens critics trolls, repeatedly. I posted this:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76107704&postcount=49

And then he gave me a genuine trolling one-liner, which you thanked. And you call me a hypocrite for replying to his one liner by saying, "Now that IS trolling". <-- Notice the context.

As above, you seem unable to adhere to forum rules, the general rules of debate, or boards.ie etiquette. The forum charter is here. Please read the forum charter before your next post A+A, since your next violation of the forum charter will result in your being banned from A+A.

Which forum rules? Not being sarcastic? Not deleting a post of mine which I was supposed to know was in violation of your vague warning? Tell me these rules I can't keep.

minidazzler

Vomit wrote: »

I wish random people would keep out of serious feedback threads. I was asking a serious question to senior members, not for the opinions of random users trying to start arguments. I got my answer in the first reply, and I'm deciding which CMod is the best one to PM with the evidence.

The problem is this is Feedback, when you give feedback other regular users are allowed and I would think encouraged to also give feedback on the same subject either for or against what you say.

Now if it was the Dispute Resolution forum that's between you and a Cmod, but Feedback is for everyone.

Beruthiel

Vomit,
I have asked you to take this to the CMod and then the DRP.

Feedback is not the place to go into 12 rounds.

Also, please note, everyone who wishes to, can post in a Feedback thread, to give, feedback...

I am closing this thread and if you wish to continue with your complaint, get in touch with a CMod.