Moderator Censorship - James R. and Race

[Prince_James]

As I've noted elsewhere where I have protested James R's actions: I have nothing against the man personally and find him to be a pretty okay fellow for the most part.

That out of the way, it is my opinion, and evidently the opinion of at least a significant minority here, that James R is consistantly crossing the line. In any thread even remotely related to race, James R immediatly bans discussion, even when it is completely amicable. Evidently, his political beliefs being criticized through people actually thinking to discuss something he finds uncomfortable is enough to warrant him banning discussion on it. There have also been other accusations of bias and it is time for these things to stop.

It is seriously getting despotic and is hurting SciForums.

Thus have I put forth this thread as a petition for James R to stop his over-moderation, to discuss specific accusations and other topic-related things, and to poll the Sciforum opinion of James R.

Again, this is nothing personal, but it is getting to the point where SciForums is becoming less appealing owing to the actions of James R. and his moderation style.

The poll is not public to avoid "reprecussions". Although I am loathe to support such cowardice in general, I think it fitting when a moderator could form an ill view of some people owing to their views, even if I don't think James R. is of that type.

 

[draqon]

No.

 

[S.A.M.]

No.

 

[oozish]

No.

 

[Genji]

The fact there are at least 3 white supremacists here proves you are wrong Prince. Arab haters galore, white power racists posting thread after thread, non race related threads being derailed by the local White Guard, etc. SF needs MORE moderation more often. Where you get the victimhood syndrome is a secret only you must know.

 

[James R]

Prince_James:

Your complaint is all very well in the abstract, but can you provide any specific examples?

Please post links to threads you think have been unfairly closed, moved or censored, explaining why you think my actions were unfair. Then we can discuss this in the concrete rather than the abstract.

I dispute your claim that I "immediately ban discussion" of racial issues, and as Genji has said, the very fact that many threads on the issue exist and remain open seems to refute your point.

I have said quite clearly at other times that I see no reason for sciforums to become a platform for white supremacists and other racists. There are plenty of alternate forums for those people to vent their bigotted hatreds, but relatively few forums for intelligent discussion of science, politics, religion and so on.

We have a few clear racists here, and they are allowed quite a bit of lattitude in promoting their racists agendas - much more, in fact, than I would personally put up with if I did not believe in certain principles of free speech.

Banning racist speech completely does not solve the problem of racism. It simply pushes it underground. Racism must be confronted if it is to be shown up to be the shallow and unintelligent thing it is. Having said that, I am not a zealot anti-racist. My interests on sciforums range over a wide variety of issues, as is clear from my posting record. It is instructive to compare this with the posting record of certain propagandists on this forum, who post solely about racism or anti-semitism or anti-Islamism, for example, to the exclusion of all else. To them, the only interesting news is news which they can twist to make the same racist or sexist or anti-whatever point they are pushing, and their entire presence on the forum is focussed on stirring up hatred.

On a personal note, I find it interesting that these kinds of accusations of biased moderation almost invariably come from people with whom I have recently had some difference of opinion. In your case, we have recently disagreed on the subject of rape. However, I have not censored or edited any of your posts on that subject, so you cannot complain of biased moderation in a personal sense. I wonder whether you therefore feel frustrated and go looking to complain on behalf of unnamed others?

It is, of course, entirely up to you whether you choose to keep posting here. If you find sciforums is no longer to your liking, you are very welcome to find an alternate forum which suits you better.

Having said that, I have no particular desire to see you leave. Also, though you may find this strange, I find the odd thread like this one to be valuable feedback for me. It is always useful to get feedback on what people think about what you're doing, and negative feedback is often more telling than positive feedback.

 

[Mr Anonymous]

In relation to the poll question: No. Not even close.

 

[Oniw17]

I tought it was always a public poll?

 

[Bells]

That out of the way, it is my opinion, and evidently the opinion of at least a significant minority here, that James R is consistantly crossing the line. In any thread even remotely related to race, James R immediatly bans discussion, even when it is completely amicable. Evidently, his political beliefs being criticized through people actually thinking to discuss something he finds uncomfortable is enough to warrant him banning discussion on it. There have also been other accusations of bias and it is time for these things to stop.

It is seriously getting despotic and is hurting SciForums.

Thus have I put forth this thread as a petition for James R to stop his over-moderation, to discuss specific accusations and other topic-related things, and to poll the Sciforum opinion of James R.

Again, this is nothing personal, but it is getting to the point where SciForums is becoming less appealing owing to the actions of James R. and his moderation style.

The poll is not public to avoid "reprecussions". Although I am loathe to support such cowardice in general, I think it fitting when a moderator could form an ill view of some people owing to their views, even if I don't think James R. is of that type.

If he was biases against racists, he'd have banned all racists from this forum permanently. Yet so many of you remain and have not been banned. Hmm yes that shows bias indeed. And as has been pointed out above, there are quite a few racists threads open with an ongoing discussion. Maybe it's because the supposedly "significant minority" (who at the moment appear to have abandoned you in your little poll if the sole vote of '1' were anything to go by, but I'm sure that will change once you start to rabidly PM said minority to vote alongside you) who are the racists tend to take over so many threads and say the same thing over and over again. I mean it gets quite boring. You keep quoting the same thing and discussing the same thing constantly. How many threads do you need to start to say exactly the same thing? You're all boring. The message touted by the racists on this forum is boring and old.

And I have to say, what is with the plethora of white supemacists who have taken to joining this forum of late? Have the racial vilification laws in your respective countries banned your racist forums?

 

[invert_nexus]

No. He is biased.
But he's just not so biased as to immediately delete and ban.
But, he will ALWAYS engage in argument with them.

It is practically impossible for James to pass by a thread with even a passing taste of race in the topic.

I guess it's his thing. Like poking at god-kissers and pseudos is Q's and Skinwalker's thing.

Because, you know, everybody has a bag, man. And inside their bag is their thing.
Everybody has a thing.
(Paraphrased from Dragnet.)

 

[S.A.M.]

Because, you know, everybody has a bag, man. And inside their bag is their thing.
Everybody has a thing.

And some of them should put the bag over their heads and spare the rest their "thing".

James treats every case on its own merit. It is one of the best things about him. And he usually gives a warning before he takes any action, especially with newcomers.

 

[Bells]

No. He is biased.
But he's just not so biased as to immediately delete and ban.
But, he will ALWAYS engage in argument with them.

It is practically impossible for James to pass by a thread with even a passing taste of race in the topic.

I guess it's his thing. Like poking at god-kissers and pseudos is Q's and Skinwalker's thing.

Yeah but so does just about everyone else.

The little white supremacists on the forum cannot go by a crime thread (as one example) without posting something about white vs black crime. Vince and his merry little band of Islamaphobes are the same in regards to anything Islam or Muslim. Some have issues with homosexuality. Others have issues with women.

And come on.. who doesn't like poking the 'god kissers' in their little cages?

 

[Genji]

Anyone here think SF is hard on moderation?? Please register at iidb.org. (Internet Infidels Discussion Board.) Here you will find true over the top moderation that actually does stifle discussion and create an aura of paranoia.
Once there you'll feel very different about how easy you racist trolls have it here.
I for one would IMMEDIATELY permanently ISP ban 5 posters here. So relax, have some arsenic and be grateful.

 

[S.A.M.]

And come on.. who doesn't like poking the 'god kissers' in their little cages?

I am constantly amazed by the show of defence any perceived criticism of a certain member generates. Is there a secret club here?

 

[Bells]

I am constantly amazed by the show of defence any perceived criticism of a certain member generates. Is there a secret club here?

Secret club? Where?!?

Then again no one would tell me as I tend to make fun of most people on here..

 

[S.A.M.]

Secret club? Where?!?

Then again no one would tell me as I tend to make fun of most people on here..

Oh alright *sniff* keep your secrets

 

[Bells]

Hmm PM's must be flying. More votes coming in for "yes"..

In all seriousness though. The racist's who post on this forum are, well, boring as hell. They have no zing. And it's constantly the very same people posting the same thing repeatedly. I used to enjoy having a tussle with some of the resident little racists of this forum, but they've become dull and their message is the same, year in, year out. *Yawn*..

I mean isn't it time to face the facts? The South lost the war. Slavery was put to an end. Laws were changed so that blacks could ride at the front of the bus and drink from the same fountains as whites. All this happened years and years ago. It's no longer legal to stalk around the woods with white sheets on your heads and lynching the coloured folks, nor is it legal to burn crosses on their lawns. Get with the times. Move on already.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

Banning racist speech completely does not solve the problem of racism. It simply pushes it underground.

I agree. So it would make sense to let racists have their say and then set about dissecting their comments and refuting them. Have it out openly to really get to the bottom of every misconception these racists have.

It's the only issue I can think of where you get banned for being incorrect.
If someone believes that black people are more prone to committing crimes or being dumb than they should be able to say that's what they think and why, and posters like you jamesr should then be able to argue with them.

That's the thing, JamesR could make a great poster, I don't think he's capable of being an unbiased moderator though since he's so passionately attached to certain issues. It's like having JB as a moderator really, there's no difference other than jamesr's extremism is more politically correct.
It's still extremism and it does definately affect the way he moderates.
A moderator ideally would be not racist but also not dramatically offended and outraged by racism.

 

[S.A.M.]

I agree. So it would make sense to let racists have their say and then set about dissecting their comments and refuting them. Have it out openly to really get to the bottom of every misconception these racists have.

It's the only issue I can think of where you get banned for being incorrect.
If someone believes that black people are more prone to committing crimes or being dumb than they should be able to say that's what they think and why, and posters like you jamesr should then be able to argue with them.

That's the thing, JamesR could make a great poster, I don't think he's capable of being an unbiased moderator though since he's so passionately attached to certain issues. It's like having JB as a moderator really, there's no difference other than jamesr's extremism is more politically correct.
It's still extremism and it does definately affect the way he moderates.
A moderator ideally would be not racist but also not dramatically offended and outraged by racism.

He banned you, huh?

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

He banned you, huh?

Yes, he did.
For saying I love niggers. Obviously that's ridiculous.
He also closed a thread and gave me a little red-spot warning for saying black women are sexually intoxicating enough to make men impregnate them accidentally.
You know, race is clearly a bit of a soft spot for my man james. He's not equipped mentally or emotionally to deal with the subject arising in this forum. It's all a bit much for him if anything(positive or negative) about an ethic group is discussed, he just totally loses it.
I don't think there's anything off the wall about suggesting these aren't desirable character traits for a moderator.