Perceptions of sciforums moderation

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

So now the members decide who goes and who stays? The majority can over-ride the wishes of the moderators and admin? Cool! All I need to do is behave in a charismatic fashion and win enough members over to my cause!

No but the community does. You may or may not remember Wanderer, he was an intelligent member, he didn't discuss topics that upset people but the way he interacted with the community as a whole was such that he was permanently banned. Mod's and admins are thinking of the community at large not individual member needs and wishes.

 

[copernicus66]

Oh?

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2238716&postcount=193

Care to not contradict yourself?

How have I contradicted myself?

We do adhere to that rule in that we don't advocate paedophilia.

There's a rule that members can't advocate paedophilia? Yikes, that's awfully specific, but OK.

But you're saying we should and then saying if the owners wish to prohibit it, they can since it is their site. Make up your mind.

There is no contradiction between those two statements. Weren't you a lawyer? I'd think that an ex-lawyer would have some measure of literacy comprehension!

 

[Bells]

How have I contradicted myself?



There's a rule that members can't advocate paedophilia? Yikes, that's awfully specific, but OK.



There is no contradiction between those two statements. Weren't you a lawyer? I'd think that an ex-lawyer would have some measure of literacy comprehension!

Because you were protesting that we do not. And then did a little backflip about how the owners set the rules and it is their site, so the only thing that matters is that the moderators adhere to the rules. And then went back to whining about how people are not allowed to express their opinions.

I mean can you make up your mind? You either agree that the administrators own this site and can set their own rules, thus banning people from advocating certain things, or you think we should have free reign to express anything and everything. Which is it?

 

[Sciencelovah]

So now members consider it appropriate to ban discussion of taboo issues? Scary stuff.

No, Copernicus66, of course not. You can as well post lots of porn pics, wet dreams, or whatever things you want to make this site becomes.

 

[copernicus66]

Because you were protesting that we do not.

Do not what? Enforce the rules in a fair, unprejudiced, non-arbitrary and even-handed manner. Well, you don't, that's the thing. But that has no bearing on what we were just discussing.

And then did a little backflip about how the owners set the rules and it is their site,

Yep.

so the only thing that matters is that the moderators adhere to the rules.

Adhere to those rules and enforce them equally, no exceptions.

And then went back to whining about how people are not allowed to express their opinions.

If the owners don't want to allow individuals to advocate pedophilia on their forums, that is their choice. I don't necessarily have to agree with their choice, but I'm not going to force my will on them, and I'm not going to break the rules either.

I mean can you make up your mind? You either agree that the administrators own this site and can set their own rules, thus banning people from advocating certain things, or you think we should have free reign to express anything and everything. Which is it?

Both. I repeat, neither stance is exclusive. I can believe that the administration *should* allow people to express anything and everything, but also acknowledge that it is their site and that I have no place to make demands of them based on what I feel is appropriate.

Think of it this way. You think that hippie down the road *should* get a haircut, but you also acknowledge that it is his head of hair and that it isn't your place to tell him how to cut it.

 

[copernicus66]

No, Copernicus66, of course not. You can as well post lots of porn pics, wet dreams, or whatever things you want to make this site becomes.

Posting pornographic images is explicitly against the rules. I'm not sure if advocating pedophilia is explicitly against the rules though, I think Bells might be wrong on this one. I'll have to look through the CoC more carefully later.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Yeah, I agree. I cannot think of any myself. But still the forum has some really good mods like SuperString. If he thinks someone is out of line, he counsels them. If the behaviors persist he takes actions. He welcomes new folks to the forums. I think he is an example of a perfect mod. And I suspect he is a very good executive. He certianly exhibits good management skills in forums he moderates. He is a teacher.

Yes, yes, very nice, that does not change the fact he gets joy out of is position of power, despite being an altruist he still rubbing his nipples while doing it, metaphorically at least. and of course we would all rather have moderators like him, but that does not change the fact of why people become internet forum moderators: for ze power.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Posting pornographic images is explicitly against the rules. I'm not sure if advocating pedophilia is explicitly against the rules though, I think Bells might be wrong on this one. I'll have to look through the CoC more carefully later.

Small cartoon images of pornographic nature can circumnavigate this rule because they are art, not porn.

 

[scott3x]

Should we allow members to advocate fucking children, to put it bluntly?

YES! No matter how objectionable such an opinion is, a member should be allowed to express it. Let me do a Baron Max and put things in perspective. Many posters on this forum argue in favour of a war in Iraq, and said war results in thousands of children being blown into iddy bitty bits. Are you going to censor anyone who argues in favour of a war?

An excellent point on the hypocracy of many people, but I'm afraid it's lost on most people here. There are other points however; first of all, I have never advocated fing children; the concept conjures very unpleasant ideas in my mind. There are important points here;
1- How are we defining "children"?
2- "fucking" is generally seen in a rougher way as "sex" and even that is seen different then, say, "making love".
3- Many people don't seem to have noticed that I have always made a distinction between sex and sexual interactions. A sexual interaction can be something as simple as a kiss. Should we ban people 16+ from -kissing- minors? Then there's the whole "sexting" thing where minors are being charged for taking pictures of their own bodies. It's ludicrous.. and it's also the law. Scary stuff.

Eating meat is legal. Having sex with children is not.

So we can't argue in favour of activities which are illegal? Oh well, no more threads which argue in favour of pot being legalised.

A very good point copernicus. What's happening is that the moderators have decided what people can advocate to be legalized and what can't be. It limits discussion, but if enough sci forum members are fine with it, it can fly; it currently is actually; threads wherein someone describes the age of consent laws as not the best approach are generally closed down pretty quick these days. There is also another thing; it's one thing to advocate changing the law. It is another thing -entirely- to advocate breaking it. I have never advocated breaking it, but many people here seem to have missed this point.

Can you tell why one is not acceptable on this site and why one is?

I know *why* advocating pedophilia is not accepted on this site, but I don't necessarily agree with the justifications. Just because society as a whole finds such behaviour reprehensible doesn't mean we should censor people who would advocate such behaviour.

If they were to allow people to advocate breaking the law, the -site- might well get in trouble with the law. Any large site that supports people who are attracted to minors, such as Boychat or Girlchat, know this full well and make it very clear on their home page that advocating breaking the law will result in a ban of the member. They actually go further, stating to never reveal having engaged in illegal activity in forums, as this also can get people in trouble and may even result in the site having to provide email addresses and IP information to law enforcement.

 

[John99]

Yes, yes, very nice, that does not change the fact he gets joy out of is position of power,

so what?

 

[Sciencelovah]

Your last post in this thread:

.... first of all, I have never advocated fing children;

Just to quote some of your post in some other thread:

Do I believe that some adult/minor sexual interactions should be permitted? Yes.

Another example:

People don't have a problem with parents and teachers teaching children other things. Why should sexuality be so different?

And God knows what else. I rest my case.

 

[Stryder]

What rewards? The joy of having power over someones else no matter how pathetic it is? For some people that all they need and no matter how much they are complained about or called a fascists it only arouses them more.

I guess you are basing that on your "Power trip" back when you did a flip out.

Not every moderator is in it for the power trip, some are here trying to help the forum, much like community volunteers use to help out with Geocities or Fortunecity back in the day. I guess it's relative though, depending on who you are and what makes you tick.

 

[ElectricFetus]

I guess you are basing that on your "Power trip" back when you did a flip out.

Of course

Not every moderator is in it for the power trip, some are here trying to help the forum

Ha! you believe that? If they want to help they can do it in real life where it actually counts as help. No people come on the internets for there own entertainment, if they get joy out of modifying or deleting others post, dictating "the rules" to others and twisting other wills to their command not matter how nice they do it, they are power triping, they may rationalize to them selves that they 'just want to help people' but thats is a lie.

much like community volunteers use to help out with Geocities or Fortunecity back in the day. I guess it's relative though, depending on who you are and what makes you tick.

Altruist in this world are rare, and are actually helping by say feeding starving children, vaccinating the poor, organizing food drives, etc, IRL stuff, any attempt of altruism on an internet forum is nothing but cover for ones own entertainment of more nefarious desires.

 

[scott3x]

Your last post in this thread:

.... first of all, I have never advocated fing children;

Just to quote some of your post in some other thread:

Do I believe that some adult/minor sexual interactions should be permitted? Yes.

First of all "fing children" and adult/minor sexual interactions are, I believe, quite different. I have explained my reasoning as to why in my last post. Secondly, you fail to understand the importance of the 'should be permitted' part in the second quote. It currently isn't. Where this gets rather interesting is that the term 'minor' varies depending on where you're at, so what is legal in one place is illegal in another. I think it also bears repeating that I have never advocated breaking the laws here, only of changing them.

People don't have a problem with parents and teachers teaching children other things. Why should sexuality be so different?

And God knows what else. I rest my case.

What I have said in the forums is all a part of record. If you don't want to find out, that's fine, but there's no need to get God involved . As to parents and teachers teaching children about sexuality, they already do so. I simply believe that their education on the subject of relationships and sexual relationships could be done in a better and more in depth fashion.

 

[Sciencelovah]

Ok, so, let me get this straight, Scott3x. Please simply choose straightly so that it becomes clear. Which one are you:
1. No, I am not advocating/supporting/encouraging adult-minor sexual interactions
2. Yes, I am advocating/supporting/encouraging adult-minor sexual interactions

1 or 2?

 

[draqon]

I think scott is for 2nd choice

 

[Enmos]

Ok, so, let me get this straight, Scott3x. Please simply choose straightly so that it becomes clear. Which one are you:
1. No, I am not advocating/supporting/encouraging adult-minor sexual interactions
2. Yes, I am advocating/supporting/encouraging adult-minor sexual interactions

1 or 2?

You're not going to get a straight answer to that

 

[Sciencelovah]

I think scott is for 2nd choice

You're not going to get a straight answer to that

Let's put aside our prejudice and give the man chance to tell us where he stands. I would appreciate straight forward answer

 

[Enmos]

Lets put aside our prejudice and give the man chance to tell us where he stands. I would appreciate straight forward answer

He is going to say that he picks option 1 because he's not advocating any illegal activities.
In fact, he's advocating that the legal age of consent should be lowered to fit his own sexual interests.
So he wants to, but he can't

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

I think pedophiles make excellent decorations for one's yard, in the tradition of Vlad the Landscaper in... was it Romania?

If you like sex with kids, please forward your address to me. I'm planning a party.