The most absurd moderation in Sci history

[Emil]

I think moderators should not need to be so severe.(But I admit correct)
I am convinced that people who are here know how to take care of themselves.
They know whom to choose to respond and whom to ignore.
If necessary, they know how to reply.Those who attend can draw conclusions.
In real life we do not have moderators to eliminate those unpleasant guys.
So we must be able to handle such a situations.

 

[Gustav]

I am becoming more agreeable to the notion of making sacrifices, including (in extreme cases) the banishment of unique people who have made me think, and laugh, and smile in the past. I do miss some people who have departed under unhappy terms, and no doubt I will again. That's the often difficult trade-off in maintaining a superior forum.

while either devil or redemption is probably in the details, a casual reading leads me to consider that sci is lucky to have james and plazma at the helm. plazma's amnesty was a highpoint in sci's history and james seemingly gives endless opportunities for people to come back and reinvent themselves.

i mean, norse is coming back aint he?
will he be sacrificed if you were admin hype?
would i sacrifice if i were?

/cackle

 

[StrawDog]

Yes but you couldn't even bring yourself to call it hate speech when it was not against Jews, so I suppose, yes, hate speech will be moderated, only you reserve the right to decide if the same set of words are hate speech, depending on who is the target.

In James defense, I have seen his hate speech moderation actioned on both sides of this fence. :m:

 

[S.A.M.]

however, time and again, Norse has been asked to back up many of his ludicrous claims--and i cannot think of a single instance in which he has done so.

in fact, Norse isn't much of one for sources in general, and when he does cite, it's invariably the tertiary variety.

do you recall that thread in which he was going on about how no one ever discusses the good which came from nazi germany, and such info is apparently rather well-guarded or concealed (or some such thing)? and then he provided some examples. his source? freakin' wikipedia! not all that esoteric if you can find this shit on wikipedia.

point being: he doesn't really "play fair" and he doesn't strike me as especially amenable to... er, reason. in most nearly all of his posts, one can identify numerous logical fallacies.

is that a bannable offense? fuck if i know, i've not read the terms and condition.

I have the same problem with James R except he calls me names and then backs away or devolves into rant when asked to substantiate his allegations. As for Norsefire, after the first time I engaged him in debate, I have never had the same problem with him. Can you guess why?

Generally when engaging in debate I tend to consider what I would do if this was a person in real life [ie not a jumble of words on the internet]. We cannot wish away people off line as we can online, but we still have the choice whether or not to engage in debate with them.

What I find really ridiculous is the notion that because someone expresses an opinion we do not agree with, we must gag and or ban that person or force him or her to take back or not express themselves. Instead of telling other people what to do about their opinions, how about exercising a bit of self control? Banning gendanken or Norsefire because people are offended is merely catering to the heckler rule. Instead, recommend the ignore button.

I just read something Pande wrote in another thread which expresses what I want to say very articulately:

You certainly have the right to ask questions, but no right to compel others to answer. Feel free to learn what you can from those who want to answer you, but you don't get a private subpoena power...

...simply because you have the power to remove people from a discussion in order to support a viewpoint you favour.

Thats it.

 

[Bells]

I just read something Pande wrote in another thread which expresses what I want to say very articulately:



...simply because you have the power to remove people from a discussion in order to support a viewpoint you favour.

Thats it.

You'd best be apologising to Nutter then.

 

[S.A.M.]

You'd best be apologising to Nutter then.

Nutter and I have already discussed the issue. You are free to contact him and ask him if he has any pending issues on the matter.

While searching the sciforums database, I came across this astonishing statement:

demanding people provide sources in refutation of a post that is not backed up by sources in my opinion should be considered trolling.

Why worry? You're not obliged to comply with somebody else's demands. Relax. Move on.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2358577#post2358577

Apparently James believes that we are not obliged to comply with someone else's demands to provide sources. I would like to know how this statement of his goes together with demanding replies under threat of bans.

 

[WillNever]

*aghast*

 

[S.A.M.]

In principle James and I are very alike. He just tends to let the way he feels get in the way he thinks. But at heart, he's a good sort.

So is Bells, for that matter. No one is infallible. And Gustav is right, sciforums is pretty lucky to have them.

But just because I like them, doesn't mean they can get away with pulling shit like this

 

[James R]

SAM:

I'm presenting a scenario which you claim is a frequent occurrence on the forum. Personally, I think mods should be objective and not take sides in a discussion unless they are posting as regular posters.

There's really not much argument in the real world when you say "The Jews sobotaged the banks and were responsible for their own holocaust". That's objectively hate speech, SAM. You've just got some catching up to do with polite society and reasonable behaviour.

For a moderator to take a side in a debate as a moderator, demand evidence from one side without offering any argument and use his power to remove one side of a debate is an abuse of moderator power - its also bias. To set timers and enact countdowns is just childish and immature.

The general rule in intellectual debate, SAM, is that the onus of proof is on the person making a claim. It is not up to opponents to disprove every nonsense notion that somebody comes up with.

There's no real debate on whether the Jews were responsible for the Holocaust. So if somebody makes that extraordinary claim, they'd better damn well be prepared to back it up with appropriate extraordinary evidence.

Regarding the issue of timers and countdowns, time limits have been imposed on members here less than 5 times in total, by my estimate. In every case, enough time has been allowed for the member to respond in detail, and we have kept track of when the member is online so that we know they know about the limit that has been imposed and so that they have a fair amount of time to respond. Time limits, when they have been imposed, have been imposed mainly to stop the offending member from simply avoiding or ignoring the request to provide evidence or retract the claim, thereby stringing out the issue until it just goes away. Some members have to be held accountable from time to time because they have a history of avoiding personal responsibility for their actions whenever they can. You'd be very familiar with the modus operandi yourself, of course. You're always avoiding direct questions, changing the topic, going off on tangents - anything but facing up to what you've written and standing by and defending your expressed views.

The first time I saw someone banned for antisemitism on this board [I think it was Roman], I looked up the term. Thats how irrelevant the holocaust is outside the west [and I consider myself a fairly well educated, well read person]

Your lack of knowledge is not necessarily representative of everybody "outside the west". I don't know what makes you think you represent people, SAM. You presume to represent the Palestinians all the time, for example, but as far as I can tell you've never been to Gaza or the West Bank, you don't know anybody directly affected, you live a life totally different from the everyday experience of the average Palestinian, and yet you somehow understand their plight better than they do.

Its only because I spent the last four years in the US that I have any idea how manic obsessive the west is about Jews and the Holocaust.

It's more about how obsessive you are about all things Jewish. You're projecting.

In other words you see nothing wrong with mods jumping into a discussion, taking one side and banning the other, without presenting any argument themselves.

This idea of moderators "taking a side" and moderating on the basis of opinion is silly. Moderators moderate according to the rules of the forum. Hate speech is not that hard to identify. Insults are not hard to identify. Posting pornography is not hard to identify. Spam is not hard to identify. If a moderator thinks "That post is spam. I'll delete it", then 99 times out of 100 (or more), I'll wager that they're right.

A comparable to Indian history would be, Indians created the conditions which enabled British colonialism to take root in their country and what do you know, its actually true!

So you'd agree that Indians were responsible for whatever massacres and oppression took place in India, would you SAM? You wouldn't find that at all offensive?

I merely want to state here quite unequivocally that it is unethical to abuse moderator power to direct a debate on a forum based merely on the perspective of the moderator.

Well, "perspective" is a slippery word, isn't it? Moderators inevitably have a "perspective" on every post that they read. When it comes to moderation the only perspective that matters is "Does this post breach forum posting guidelines?" Like it or not, it's their job to moderate based "merely" on their "perspective" on that. If you or anybody else thinks a wrong decision has been made, there are avenues you can take to address that problem.

Its unethical to stifle debate because you find it personally offensive based on arbitrary and subjective standards.

Then it's a good thing we don't work on arbitrary standards, isn't it? As for subjectivity, moderators are human, so there'll always be an element of that. It's why nobody has invented an automoderation bot yet. Live with it.

Its unethical to ban opinion on a science forum without presenting evidence to refute...

See where I talked about onus of proof, above. Also, there's an important exception in the case where opinion has been previously discussed and refuted and a member reposts the same thing again.

As someone who has actually worked in science, I guarantee you, such tactics would be laughed out of a conference. Any moderator who kicks out a debator because he doesn't like what he says will never be asked to moderate a scientific meeting a second time.

Participants at scientific conferences are pre-vetted by the conference organisers. They submit an abstract of their work, which is reviewed to see that it is not nutty, a waste of everybody's time, unscientific nonsense etc. At sciforums, we don't pre-vet members. We have to weed out the nuts and the trolls as we go along.

Science is about allowing all sides to present their views without restriction and allowing people to make up their own mind depending on where the evidence leads. Opinion has no part in it.

Now I'm wondering whether you've read enough Derrida. How about that? :bugeye:

You are usually more articulate than this Bells, I should not need to explain to you the difference between moderating a post for content and moderating a post for opinion.

But apparently we have to explain this to you.

You've apparently forgotten all of your experience as a moderator - except when it's convenient for you to recall parts of it. Par for the course for you, isn't it SAM? I wonder whether this kind of thing is conscious or subconscious for you. I'm not sure which would be worse.

I have the same problem with James R except he calls me names and then backs away or devolves into rant when asked to substantiate his allegations.

I don't believe I have ever called you names, SAM. Please link to any examples you can find of that, or else you owe me an apology.

As for backing away, that's your tactic, not mine. Most of the time I don't bother reading your posts any more, since they tend to be repetitive and boring, but every now and then I'll dip into a thread. Sometimes I'm motivated to call you on some of your bullshit. Invariably, whenever I do that you initially try to change the topic and/or answer questions with irrelevant questions. When pressed to a point where you have no option, you inevitably disengage. Then, a day or a week later you pick up where you left off, seemingly oblivious to the entire content of the previous discussion.

Of course, it's also when you are backed into a corner that all posts contrary to your position become "rants". That's a self-defence mechanism, I guess. Never acknowledge that somebody else has a point, and at all costs never do so when they disagree with you.

What I find really ridiculous is the notion that because someone expresses an opinion we do not agree with, we must gag and or ban that person or force him or her to take back or not express themselves. Instead of telling other people what to do about their opinions, how about exercising a bit of self control? Banning gendanken or Norsefire because people are offended is merely catering to the heckler rule. Instead, recommend the ignore button.

If you can't understand why gendanken keeps getting banned, you're really a lost cause. The reason is simple, SAM - we have a set of minimum standards of expected behaviour here. I shouldn't need to explain them to you again, so I won't. I advise you to go off and properly read the site posting guidelines. And I mean really read them, until you comprehend what we're trying to do.

 

[S.A.M.]

"The Jews sobotaged the banks and were responsible for their own holocaust". That's objectively hate speech, SAM

I don't think so. Stryder actually gave a very clear and objective response to Norses post which I think bears repeating:

And Jews sabotaged Europe, manipulate world banks, and created the conditions necessary for both World Wars.

Obviously some people would imply it as hate mongering, personally I just see it as a part of the "Tin foil hat" mob, in the sense that you're getting riled up over a conspiracy.

It's all well to blame Jews for a war, but then there are a whole host of other people that can be blamed too. I mean for instance there were Nazi's, they were to blame, then there was the English for not getting involved in European Politics sooner, then there was the US for not getting involved until they had their hand forced by the Japanese (apparently too much money to be made from both sides by War profiteering), there is then the case of how the Catholic church didn't protest against Nazi method of removing a "different religion" (Mainly because they likely had previously Jew owned artefacts shipped to them through Switzerland.)

At the end of the day you could list "Hundreds" of conspiracies, some Jew related and mostly others not. The point however being that those Wars were fought, atrocities committed and we circa 70 years on seem to still be arguing over the semantics.

Look forwards rather than looking back. After all most people that complain about those of a religious faith reason that the main problem they have with them is the fact that they dwell on stories written centuries ago and argue over the semantics, but to do the same in regards to a "historic" war and point at who was to blame is most certainly acting exactly the same as those of a religion.

Get over it.

http://www.sciforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2595025

That is I think, a clear and reasoned response, presenting a valid argument without any threats or invective. It is also the correct way to deal with such conspiracies, dismissing them rather than making a BFD out of them vastly out of proportion to what they deserve.

There's no real debate on whether the Jews were responsible for the Holocaust

In that case, its a good thing no one is actually debating that.

Your lack of knowledge is not necessarily representative of everybody "outside the west". I don't know what makes you think you represent people, SAM. You presume to represent the Palestinians all the time, for example, but as far as I can tell you've never been to Gaza or the West Bank, you don't know anybody directly affected, you live a life totally different from the everyday experience of the average Palestinian, and yet you somehow understand their plight better than they do.

I don't claim to represent anyone other than myself. My statement was "Discussions about Jews and the Holocaust are restricted in the west and irrelevant in the east"

This is an observation based on my 30 years of stay in the East, 5 years in the Middle East and 5 years in the west. In 35 years I never heard a single person mention the holocaust in ANY context and in 5 years in the west, you cannot get away from hearing about it ad nauseum in some context or the other. I don't need to represent anyone to make this observation.

This idea of moderators "taking a side" and moderating on the basis of opinion is silly. Moderators moderate according to the rules of the forum. Hate speech is not that hard to identify. Insults are not hard to identify. Posting pornography is not hard to identify. Spam is not hard to identify. If a moderator thinks "That post is spam. I'll delete it", then 99 times out of 100 (or more), I'll wager that they're right.

Agreed, but that is not what happened here. A moderator issued a subpoena to a poster demanding a response and banned him when that response was not forthcoming.

See where I talked about onus of proof, above. Also, there's an important exception in the case where opinion has been previously discussed and refuted and a member reposts the same thing again.

The onus of proof is within the context of a discussion. During the discussion in the Sam and James thread, you presented some vague allegations then refused to respond when asked to clarify how they pertained to your accusations of bigotry. You even went so far as to say that quoting someone elses words is tantamount to owning them. Should I demand that since you accused me of bigotry, the onus of proof is on you to substantiate it? Should I set a clock and ban you for 31 days for misreading and misinterpreting my posts as you have done? Or is abuse of power only in the domain of moderators?

Oh wait:

I don't believe I have ever called you names, SAM. Please link to any examples you can find of that, or else you owe me an apology.

You owe me several apologies James. Unfortunately, I don't have a subpoena ban handy to force you to apologise.

If you can't understand why gendanken keeps getting banned, you're really a lost cause. The reason is simple, SAM - we have a set of minimum standards of expected behaviour here.

We do? Thats news to me. I have disagreed with every one of her bans, including the current one. Since when do we ban members for a week for posting personal information of other members? Gendy is also subject to unique standards, which if consistently applied across the forums, would be very hard to maintain.

 

[James R]

SAM:

There's not much that's new in your last post, so just briefly...

A moderator issued a subpoena to a poster demanding a response and banned him when that response was not forthcoming.

What happened was that a moderator asked for evidence to back up the claim that was made or, failing that, a retraction of the original statement. There was a response. The response was a few sentences comprising a half-hearted attempt at self-justification, coupled with a refusal to retract the statement in question.

By the way, in case there's some confusion here, Norsefire's second ban was Bell's decision and action, not mine. I had previously banned Norsefire for 3 days for the original statement, and as far as I was concerned he had done his time for that particular offence. Bells, on the other hand, clearly judged that he was repeating the same statement that got him banned in the first place. Now, to me that comes across as a somewhat stupid move for him, but it's the path he chose to walk. I had no intention of interfering with Bells' moderation action and I stand behind her decision.

During the discussion in the Sam and James thread, you presented some vague allegations then refused to respond when asked to clarify how they pertained to your accusations of bigotry. You even went so far as to say that quoting someone elses words is tantamount to owning them. Should I demand that since you accused me of bigotry, the onus of proof is on you to substantiate it? Should I set a clock and ban you for 31 days for misreading and misinterpreting my posts as you have done? Or is abuse of power only in the domain of moderators?

If I recall correctly, I admitted I made a mistake in that particular instance, apologised to you and lifted your ban. Correct me if I'm wrong. I have done a lot of moderating since ... when was it? ... last November?

You owe me several apologies James.

For what?

I have disagreed with every one of [gendanken's] bans, including the current one. Since when do we ban members for a week for posting personal information of other members?

The policy to ban members for revealing personal details and/or names of other members without permission has been in place at least for several years, probably dating back to when you were a moderator. It's just not acceptable on a forum like this where they can be real-world repercussions of such activities.

The length of the particular ban gendanken was given this time was determined entirely by where she is up to in the ban cycle - as are the lengths of all temporary bans handed out by moderators/administrators.

Gendy is also subject to unique standards, which if consistently applied across the forums, would be very hard to maintain.

No. She would like to be subject to unique standards, as would you no doubt. But she isn't. She is expected to abide by the same standards as everybody else. Length of time or number of posts on the forum doesn't make you special.

 

[S.A.M.]

If I recall correctly, I admitted I made a mistake in that particular instance, apologised to you and lifted your ban. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You're wrong. You set a timer for 24 hours and banned me for 31 days. You didn't apologise. Last Dec/Jan I believe.

The length of the particular ban gendanken was given this time was determined entirely by where she is up to in the ban cycle - as are the lengths of all temporary bans handed out by moderators/administrators.

Not true. My first ban was for 14 days, my second for 7 days which you altered to 3 days, my third for 31 days. And gendaken has never been banned only for one day. Her last ban was for a week which you changed to 2 or 3 days. The ban length is arbitrary.

What happened was that a moderator asked for evidence to back up the claim that was made or, failing that, a retraction of the original statement

Once again, a moderator is either participating as a poster or moderating unbiasedly. A moderator abusing his power as a participant is unethical.

 

[James R]

You're wrong. You set a timer for 24 hours and banned me for 31 days. You didn't apologise. Last Dec/Jan I believe.

Is it important? Is there some ground here that we haven't already covered regarding that particular incident?

Not true. My first ban was for 14 days, my second for 7 days which you altered to 3 days, my third for 31 days. And gendaken has never been banned only for one day. Her last ban was for a week which you changed to 2 or 3 days. The ban length is arbitrary.

No. There's a clear announcement setting out the policy. Have you read it?

I don't know when your first ban was, but the current system came into play in March this year (from memory - the date is on the announcement).

Ban lengths are based on accumulated infraction points. 1 point is handed out every time somebody gets a temporary ban, and points expire 4 months after the ban for which the point was given. Maximum ban-length limits are set for each number of points. Moderators may, at their discretion, hand out a ban for less than the maximum allowed length.

None of this is arbitrary.

 

[S.A.M.]

Is it important? Is there some ground here that we haven't already covered regarding that particular incident?

You asked me correct you if you were wrong.

No. There's a clear announcement setting out the policy. Have you read it?

I don't know when your first ban was, but the current system came into play in March this year (from memory - the date is on the announcement).

The policy came into being when I was a mod. Thats much longer than a year, its more like three years

Ban lengths are based on accumulated infraction points. 1 point is handed out every time somebody gets a temporary ban, and points expire 4 months after the ban for which the point was given. Maximum ban-length limits are set for each number of points. Moderators may, at their discretion, hand out a ban for less than the maximum allowed length.

None of this is arbitrary.

We'll take your word for it, even though personal experience says otherwise. I had less than 2 infraction points when you banned me for 31 days.

I cannot see Gendaken's infraction points but her ban lengths have always been more than 3 days.

Anyway, my major argument here is not the arbitrary moderation, which is a separate topic here, it is moderators participating in a discussion and using mod powers to remove posters with unfavourable opinion

I am also disturbed by how you appear to interpret posts rather than read them:

And Jews sabotaged Europe, manipulate world banks, and created the conditions necessary for both World Wars.

"The Jews sobotaged the banks and were responsible for their own holocaust".

I'm not certain what that is symptomatic of.

 

[Bells]

In principle James and I are very alike. He just tends to let the way he feels get in the way he thinks. But at heart, he's a good sort.

So is Bells, for that matter. No one is infallible. And Gustav is right, sciforums is pretty lucky to have them.

But just because I like them, doesn't mean they can get away with pulling shit like this

Which begs the question Sam. Why won't you report me to Plazma or seek a review from the other moderators?

Apparently James believes that we are not obliged to comply with someone else's demands to provide sources. I would like to know how this statement of his goes together with demanding replies under threat of bans.

To quote Ben in the thread you quoted:

If you post about how much you love Mylie Cyrus, I'm sure people won't demand sources.

But if you post bullshit opinions and try to pass them off as facts, then you should be held accountable. In that case, demanding some sort of proof or support for your theses is just demanding some (to use a Tiassa word) modicum of honesty.

(Source)

My my..

But that's alright Sam. Lesson learned. Next time I'll be like you and just delete anything that I find disagreeable.

Anyway, my major argument here is not the arbitrary moderation, which is a separate topic here, it is moderators participating in a discussion and using mod powers to remove posters with unfavourable opinion

Is that what you think I did? Then report me to Plazma!

But you have thus far, point blank refused to.

Personally, I find your argument in this to be highly hypocritical when I consider how strict you were in how you moderated. You never even gave people a chance to provide sources. You just deleted and red-carded any member who posted something you found disagreeable. I have him a chance to support or retract his statement. He refused. In other words, he was held accountable.

But again, you have options to your horror of how I moderate. Report me. Failure to do so makes you more of a hypocrite to be honest. If you really don't think I should get away with this, then you'd report me or seek a review.

 

[S.A.M.]

Personally, I find your argument in this to be highly hypocritical when I consider how strict you were in how you moderated

I don't think deleting a couple of off topic posts qualifies as "strict"

Like I said, I have no hassles moderating for content. I did not participate in that discussion as a poster. A correct analogy would be if I participated in the argument and deleted the posts that opposed my stance and banned everyone who did not respond in the way I wanted them too.

I have already stated I have no desire to report. This is SFOG right? I am posting as a member of the forum who does not believe that mods should ban members who refuse to reply under threat of banning. I also think that no one in any forum has the right to force a response.

 

[Bells]

I don't think deleting a couple of off topic posts qualifies as "strict"

Like I said, I have no hassles moderating for content. I did not participate in that discussion as a poster. A correct analogy would be if I participated in the argument and deleted the posts that opposed my stance and banned everyone who did not respond in the way I wanted them too.

I have already stated I have no desire to report. This is SFOG right? I am posting as a member of the forum who does not believe that mods should ban members who refuse to reply under threat of banning. I also think that no one in any forum has the right to force a response.

You mean how you participated in that thread and just deleted any post you found disagreeable? Okay.

Sam, my responses to Norse were clear from the start. I gave him his options. I acted within the rules of this site. In fact, to some, I gave him too much leeway in asking for evidence instead of just banning him outright for a repeat of anti-semitism that was reported and resulted in his being banned originally.

Now, you find my actions horrible and unethical and biased. So biased and horrid that we've been going at this for how many pages now? Yet you still refuse to report me or even seek a review from the other moderators you trust. I don't get that. If you feel that my actions were that wrong, you'd want my decision to at the very least be reviewed and if found to be unethical, then reversed and I made to apologise. But you do not. You refuse to. So frankly, I really don't see why I should discuss this any further with you. Can you give me a reason why? You know that I stand by my decision. Or is this a good opportunity to dig the boot in? If you don't want to report me, you don't want to seek a review. Why are you still complaining about my actions in banning Norse if you refuse to do anything about it?

I've been pretty patient. I've put up with even being called a 'pig'. I've put up with being lied about and misrepresented. And my responses to those individuals was the same as it is to you. Report me if you feel my actions were that bad.

Otherwise, we will just be going around and around in circles.

 

[James R]

S.A.M.:

The following announcement was posted on 18 March, 2010 and was displayed on every subforum until 1 April, 2010:
-----------
Forum warnings, temporary bans and the ban cycle

Some minor changes have been made to the warning and temporary ban process, as follows:

1. For a first offence, for minor offences, or for any offence at moderator discretion, members may be issued an official Warning. A yellow card will appear on any post that attracts a warning, and a PM will be sent to the member in question. No infraction points accrue for warnings.

2. Warnings may also be given where a member has had no warnings or bans for a considerable period of time.

3. For more serious offences or repeat offences, or offences committed after previous warning(s), moderators may issue a Temporary Ban. The maximum length of any ban will depend on the member's current infraction point total. You can view your current infraction point total by viewing your profile and looking at the "Infractions" tab.

4. Moderators may issue bans of the following lengths or less, at their discretion, depending on the member's current total number of infraction points:

Number of infraction points    Maximum permissible ban
0                               3 days
1                               7 days
2                              14 days
3                               1 month
4 or more                       1 month + membership reviewed

This is the "ban cycle".

5. Each time a member is temporarily banned, 1 infraction point will be added to their active infraction point total.

6. Each infraction point expires automatically 4 months after the ban associated with the point was issued.

7. Any member with 4 or more active infraction points will be a candidate for permanent banning from sciforums. This decision will be made by administrators in consultation with the moderators.

8. After a member returns from a temporary ban, there will be a red card on the post (or one of the posts) that attracted the ban, and a PM will be available informing the member of why they were banned (including the offending post).

9. Obvious spammers or vandals may be immediately permanently banned by moderators without prejudice and without following the ban cycle given above.
----

Now, to respond to your post:

Is it important? Is there some ground here that we haven't already covered regarding that particular incident?

You asked me correct you if you were wrong.

So your answer is "no". Ok, let's move on.

No. There's a clear announcement setting out the policy. Have you read it?

I don't know when your first ban was, but the current system came into play in March this year (from memory - the date is on the announcement).

The policy came into being when I was a mod. Thats much longer than a year, its more like three years

Read the information at the top of this post. Clearly you didn't read it when it was originally posted.

There, now I've corrected you when you were wrong.

Please note that things have changed since you were a moderator. You ought to pay more attention if you want to start arguments about these things. The moderator group has moved on without you, believe it or not.

I cannot see Gendaken's infraction points but her ban lengths have always been more than 3 days.

So says you. Maybe you're wrong about that, too.

Anyway, my major argument here is not the arbitrary moderation, which is a separate topic here, it is moderators participating in a discussion and using mod powers to remove posters with unfavourable opinion

Anything new to add, SAM? Or are you at the rehashing old ground phase of your cycle now?

I am also disturbed by how you appear to interpret posts rather than read them... I'm not certain what that is symptomatic of.

I merely paraphrased the statement that we have been talking about for the entire thread. If you're worried, go back and look at the first 10 times or so that I quoted the complete version. Also note that I did not quote the paraphrased version as being Norsefire's words.

Your attempt to slur me just makes you look petty, SAM.

 

[S.A.M.]

Your attempt to slur me just makes you look petty, SAM.

You used quotation marks. According to rules of grammar quotation marks means you are quoting. Also I have personal experience of you similarly "paraphrasing" my post when you only saw "kill" and banned me for 7 days, later changing it to 3 days after the other mods and Geoff pointed out your comprehension problems.

Finally re:infraction points. I have two, one from string for "off topic" posting and one from you for "hate speech"

i.e. this

If a fasting Muslim refused to eat at a birthday party or even to attend it, it would be a parallel comparison. I'm not responsible for the "spitting at the reporter" phenomenon. The spitting thing is something that Jews have come up with as a form of expressing intolerance for idol worship [you must have read Cheski's comments on Hindu idols] It has its basis in spitting at the crucifix or near a church, with hasidic Jews teaching young children that if it is dangerous to spit openly then they should do so covertly. You'll not find Rahm Emmanuel spitting at many crucifixes. At least not openly.

Strangely enough, I do not think Jews in India or even Arab Jews, spit at crucifixes or idols, so this looks like an evolution which took place within the European diaspora, as did most of the laws of Jewish communities. Its why Ashkenazi Haredim do not consider the Mizrahi as "religious enough" - they do not have all these laws.

Since your definition of hate speech [=Jews]and strings definition of off topic [=Americans] are both subjective - it really all boils down to moderators using their power to stifle debate when they participate as posters

FYI

 

[James R]

SAM:

Your attempt to slur me just makes you look petty, SAM.

You used quotation marks. According to rules of grammar quotation marks means you are quoting.

Here's my original statement from post #289, in full:

There's really not much argument in the real world when you say "The Jews sobotaged the banks and were responsible for their own holocaust".

Did I mention Norsefire at all there? No I did not. In fact, I mentioned a generic "you", meaning when anybody says ...

I was not quoting Norsefire or pretending to quote him directly.

It is, however, quite obvious that the implication of what he did write was that the Jews, being responsible in his opinion for all the conditions leading to World War II, were also consequently responsible for their own holocaust.

Once again, I note that your attempt to slur me only makes you look petty.

Also I have personal experience of you similarly paraphrasing my post when you only saw "kill" and banned me for 7 days, later changing it to 3 days after the other mods and Geoff pointed out your comprehension problems.

Old news, SAM. Previously discussed in excrutiating detail with you - just like the current ban (that doesn't involve you at all, by the way).

But you don't remember inconvenient past conversations, do you?