1 edit
Originally posted by sasquatch672I thought he was doing well this time. Right up to the point where he starting posting the picture he has been asked, several times, not to post.
See, I think that's a great example. Shavixmir's posts are far more caustic and vile than anything Stang's ever said. I've never said he should be banned, in spite of the fact that he's right next to Osama in some of his opinions, because he doesn't spam and once in a while he's funny. There's a difference. Spamming is a deadly sin.
How hard would it have been to find a different picture? Why does he feel the need to push Russ (who I've never personally thought of as a right-wing despot or Bush stooge) to the limit of his patience?
[I certainly didn't alert any of his posts.]
Originally posted by sasquatch672Man...I wish I knew what caustic meant....
See, I think that's a great example. Shavixmir's posts are far more caustic and vile than anything Stang's ever said. I've never said he should be banned, in spite of the fact that he's right next to Osama in some of his opinions, because he doesn't spam and once in a while he's funny. There's a difference. Spamming is a deadly sin.
Originally posted by dottewellI've seen that picture before & thought it would polarise opinion. I don't know what Stang's motives are but he seems fairly upfront about his approach and in today's environment I find it refreshing.
I thought he was doing well this time. Right up to the point where he starting posting the picture he has been asked, several times, not to post.
How hard would it have been to find a different picture? Why does he feel the need to push Russ (who I've never personally thought of as a right-wing despot or Bush stooge) to the limit of his patience?
[I certainly didn't alert any of his posts.]
If everyone was as upfront as Stang we'd be closer to getting to the heart of the issues. It's a pity the moderators don't seem to hold freedom of speech in as high regard as some of us. If you don't like the debate, don't view & post.
I don't know Russ - Bush stooge or not - but I'd like to think a forum which espouses "heated" debate wouldn't clam up at the first sign of difficult material.
Is moderation a euphamism for censorship?
Originally posted by Sambo69Certainly wasn't the worst picture he could have posted either.
I've seen that picture before & thought it would polarise opinion. I don't know what Stang's motives are but he seems fairly upfront about his approach and in today's environment I find it refreshing.
If everyone was as upfront as Stang we'd be closer to getting to the heart of the issues. It's a pity the moderators don't seem to hold freedom of speech in ...[text shortened]... he first sign of difficult material.
Is moderation a euphamism for censorship?
However, given he'd been asked not to I guess the results are not too surprising.
Originally posted by Sambo69I'm not so sure that we are granted freedom of speech rights here, since RHP isn't a democracy or a government at all, but a privately owned website. I also don't think it's a matter of censorship.
I've seen that picture before & thought it would polarise opinion. I don't know what Stang's motives are but he seems fairly upfront about his approach and in today's environment I find it refreshing.
If everyone was as upfront as Stang we'd be closer to getting to the heart of the issues. It's a pity the moderators don't seem to hold freedom of speech in ...[text shortened]... he first sign of difficult material.
Is moderation a euphamism for censorship?
I believe that moderators in general get a bit power hungry and if they don't like a person they will find ways over and over to ban them. This is why STANG get's banned for an extremelly minor offense and ALL of his posts, inflammatory or not, get deleted. In other words, the moderators get off on having power. It is probably to compensate for extremelly pathetic lives.
Just a thought...
Originally posted by DraxusIt is often those who lead 'pathetic lives' themselves who ascribe that condition to others. Just a thought.
I'm not so sure that we are granted freedom of speech rights here, since RHP isn't a democracy or a government at all, but a privately owned website. I also don't think it's a matter of censorship.
I believe that moderators in general get a bit power hungry and if they don't like a person they will find ways over and over to ban them. This is why STANG g ...[text shortened]... g power. It is probably to compensate for extremelly pathetic lives.
Just a thought...
Originally posted by DraxusFrankly, if you deliberately post the same thing repeatedly despite being told not to do so by the owner of a private chess website then either (a) you are mentally ill or stupid; (b) you lack the imagination to press your case in a genuinely constructive way; or most likely (c) you KNOW it will irritate other users, and the moderators, and hence is a means of deliberately getting banned in order to draw attention to yourself.
I'm not so sure that we are granted freedom of speech rights here, since RHP isn't a democracy or a government at all, but a privately owned website. I also don't think it's a matter of censorship.
I believe that moderators in general get a bit power hungry and if they don't like a person they will find ways over and over to ban them. This is why STANG g ...[text shortened]... g power. It is probably to compensate for extremelly pathetic lives.
Just a thought...
If you think (c) is a legitimate technique where the subject matter is so grave, fine. Maybe it is. But it doesn't mean you should sympathise when STANG gets banned. And to me it shows unwarranted contempt for other members of the site, and to Russ.
Originally posted by dottewellThankfully I don't feel guilt when somebody I don't even know judges my amount of contempt or sympathy. I do now, and will continue to sympathise when moderators are heavy handed. I never have liked that. It has nothing to do with contempt for Russ, whom I have never met, or other members of this site.
Frankly, if you deliberately post the same thing repeatedly despite being told not to do so by the owner of a private chess website then either (a) you are mentally ill or stupid; (b) you lack the imagination to press your case in a genuinely constructive way; or most likely (c) you KNOW it will irritate other users, and the moderators, and hence is a mean ...[text shortened]... ets banned. And to me it shows unwarranted contempt for other members of the site, and to Russ.
You are right though, trolls (unless it was a first time mistake or something) shouldn't be tolerated, but if they stop they should be forgiven. The meaning of this thread is that he didn't warrant a banning, but who knows why the mods do what they do, they probably had a good reason.
Personally, I believe that STANG is part of category (a) which is why I was debating against him. 🙂
Originally posted by DraxusSTANG's not stupid and he was actually being very constructive until a single "lapse".
Thankfully I don't feel guilt when somebody I don't even know judges my amount of contempt or sympathy. I do now, and will continue to sympathise when moderators are heavy handed. I never have liked that. It has nothing to do with contempt for Russ, whom I have never met, or other members of this site.
You are right though, trolls (unless it was a first ...[text shortened]... ly, I believe that STANG is part of category (a) which is why I was debating against him. 🙂
Originally posted by Draxussure, object to someone turning the insult around to you, but it's OK to insult the mods in the first place. nice logic.
Did you read that somewhere, or are you just making it up because you have a friend who is a moderator?
Also, when does argument turn into personal insults?