nemesio,
As I have never been a fan of moderation at all, I have been moderated on several occasions. Big deal. If something is offensive to me I will alert it. There have been very few occasions that I have ever done this. I have alerted spamming posts like what happened in the tournaments forum when a newly banned players head exploded. You are right to say things may come down to a popularity contest, that is human nature. As for consistancy, as I have stated many times before.....it can never happen. You cannot have consistancy in a non random society. It will always be inconsistant for someone in their opinion. That is why we have prisons in society. There is consistancy in inconsistancy.
Mike
Originally posted by rapalla7I await with bated breath your other-worldly explanation
You cannot have consistancy in a non random society. It will always be inconsistant for someone in their opinion. That is why we have prisons in society. There is consistancy in inconsistancy.
of these four sentences.
Nemesio
Originally posted by nemesioYou are like a bad citizen. You demand change but you are unwilling to help it out. You read the forums and when you come upon things that are potentially offencive you let them go and complain about them? You demand others do your work for you? You are lazy; and if the post's should be alerted you should do so. If you are so lazy that you cannot be bothered by the act of alerting, you should shut up and except it for what it is. That is all I am saying. Quit being lazy and do something about it, or quit yer dang crying about it. Don't demand from others what you cannot provide yourself........Lazy!
I await with bated breath your other-worldly explanation
of these four sentences.
Nemesio
Mike
Originally posted by nemesio
Can anyone explain this phenomenon? Did the righteous
calling for the stricter moderation leave RHP?
Nemesio
Yes they did.
The constant complaining over the moderation resulted in the 'community' to decide moderation.
IMO, this is horse. There are simply put, posts that deserve moderation and a warning or ban irrespective of the quantity of people having to read it first before moderating it. But free speech they wanted, and that is what they got.
The level of 'instigating' posts (Graye, Dr Scribbles(aka: Cribs) - RBHill (apologies RB) would also fall in this category) is growing and how do you alert 'spam' ?
Further, a removed post deserves a 'reason'. Unfortunitely robomod is the simplest solution, but it is far from effective.
Simply put, I'm tired of being forced to ignore posts in my threads simply because someone has it in for me because of something I posted 6 months ago.
I backed RHP mods, so did Ivan. We know who didn't. We know who was in favour of unmoderated forums. If you didn't stand up then, there is little point in complaining about it now.
pc
Originally posted by pcaspianGee was Ivan supporting the mods when he got a forum ban for spamming the forums? Were you supporting the mods when you threatened to leave the site unless other paying subscribers were banned? You seem to have a curious way of "supporting" this site, Pcaspian.
[b/]Originally posted by nemesio
Can anyone explain this phenomenon? Did the righteous
calling for the stricter moderation leave RHP?
Nemesio
Yes they did.
The constant complaining over the moderation resulted i ...[text shortened]... then, there is little point in complaining about it now.
pc
[/b]
Originally posted by no1marauderTruely brillaint no1. In my post, where did I use the phrase "supporting" this site. Did I even use the tern 'supporting' anywhere ? Which part of "I backed up RHP mods" did you struggle to understand ?
Gee was Ivan supporting the mods when he got a forum ban for spamming the forums? Were you supporting the mods when you threatened to leave the site unless other paying subscribers were banned? You seem to have a curious way of "supporting" this site, Pcaspian.
side note:
__________-
no1marauder is another example of RHP posters simply out to spam every post you make. It gets annoying after a while having him comment on every second post(irrespective of whether he is remotely interested in the debate or not). Ofcourse such a post does not deserve (on its own merit) to be moderated, but the continued manner in which he posts (irrespective of the topic) should be addressed by a moderator. Unfortunitely the current system will never be able to address this. The same goes for instigating posts, which, in isolation, seem rather inconspicuous, however still calls for the works of a forum troll.
pc
Originally posted by pcaspianSo "backed up" doesn't mean "supporting" in your dictionary? Interesting.
Truely brillaint no1. In my post, where did I use the phrase "supporting" this site. Did I even use the tern 'supporting' anywhere ? Which part of "I backed up RHP mods" did you struggle to understand ?
side note:
__________-
no1marauder is another example of RHP posters simply out to spam every post you make. It gets annoying af ...[text shortened]... isolation, seem rather inconspicuous, however still calls for the works of a forum troll.
pc
On A Front Note:
Pcaspian is catching some of Ivanhoe's paranoia; I doubt if I've responded to more than a handful of his posts in the last few months. Obviously a thread on "Forum Moderation" would be something I do have an interest in. Pcaspian's odd call for my censorship and/or banning even though he concedes my posts don't deserve to be moderated "on its own merit" is typical. Basically, Pcaspian knows that I post well within the allowable limits of this site (I have never received so much as a one day forum ban) but because he doesn't like my political ideology he feels I should be "addressed" by a moderator.
Since this site is not run by right wing religious zealots like Pcaspian it is a severe disappointment to him that viewpoints which don't bend their knee to his fanatical views are allowed here. Sorry about that but I'll continue to post things Pcaspian doesn't like since he basically doesn't like anything that doesn't agree with his warped view of the world.
Guess you'll have to get over it and try to find an Inquistion on another site, buddy.
Originally posted by no1marauder
So "backed up" doesn't mean "supporting" in your dictionary? Interesting.
PCaspian : "I backed RHP mods, so did Ivan. "
* Is this sufficient to convey my message ? Lets attempt to quantify this statements further :
"We know who didn't. We know who was in favour of unmoderated forums. If you didn't stand up then, there is little point in complaining about it now.
Now lets see how no2 interprets this :
no1 : "You seem to have a curious way of "supporting" this site, Pcaspian."
Ofcourse instead of recognising his mistake and perhaps even offering an apology, he continues his rather subdued rant with
"right wing religious zealots", "fanatical", "warped view of the world.".
Now with all due respect, this is the reason I tend to avoid no2's posts, and other similar posters out there. Ofcourse I care little if someone has different views from mine, afterall a little tolerance is required in a public forum. What I don't appreciate is that this constant animosity is left unchecked at RHP and at most an offensive post is deleted.
I campaigned to keep the mods. Either I was in the minority, or not enough other RHP members spoke up. RHP forums (of which I've been a part of for 2 years) has visibly degenerated. We know Crib's never really left (well not for long anyway) and even after his attempted coup, his return seems to be welcomed.
pc
Originally posted by pcaspianYou said that you and Ivan "backed" up the mods. Of course, you only did so when they were censoring viewpoints you didn't like. Did you back the mods when Ivan, the great mod supporter, got a forum ban for spamming? Of course not. And you didn't back the mods when they allowed posts and posters you don't like; then you started crying about leaving the site if others weren't banned. You are being dishonest and hypocritical.
[i/]Originally posted by no1marauder[/i]
[b] So "backed up" doesn't mean "supporting" in your dictionary? Interesting.
PCaspian : "I backed RHP mods, so did Ivan. "
* Is this sufficient to convey m ...[text shortened]... after his attempted coup, his return seems to be welcomed.
pc
[/b]
It's laughable for YOU of all people to complain of "animosity" in other people's posts; you spew venom all the time, particulary against gays. It's like Ivanhoe complaining about "insulting" posts and then calling people "scum" and "Nazis". And certainly calling for someone's else banning is exhibiting a wee bit of animosity, isn't it Pcaspian? So spare us the self-righteous, hypocritical BS at least on this score.
Originally posted by rapalla7I have demanding nothing Mike. I'm not calling
You are like a bad citizen. You demand change but you are unwilling to help it out. You read the forums and when you come upon things that are potentially offencive you let them go and complain about them? You demand others do your work for you? You are lazy; and if the post's should be alerted you should do so. If you are so lazy that you cannot be b ...[text shortened]... rying about it. Don't demand from others what you cannot provide yourself........Lazy!
Mike
for more moderation. I've alerted only the most egregious
of posts, the ones with severely obscene language used in
a bigotted way. This limited moderation has met with my
satisfaction.
However, there were people out there who were claiming that
the 'forums were being destroyed.' And, interestingly enough,
they've gotten objectively worse, and I am no longer hearing
these 'RHP Forums are dying' claims.
You give some sort of explanation which defies grammar and
reason, and I'm the 'bad citizen.'
I love it.
Nemesio
There are simply put, posts that deserve moderation [b] and a warning or ban irrespective of the quantity of people having to read it first before moderating it. But free speech they wanted, and that is what they got.[/b]'They' left? Is this correct? You can, of course, support
this evidence (I ask this, because I wouldn't want you to
appear like a troll, tramping in and responding to one of
my posts with a contradictory statement without support).
What does 'this is horse' mean? Do you mean 'worse' or
'horse <expletive>?'
When you say 'deserve moderation,' are you suggesting
that there is an objective standard that people are ignoring?
Why can't it be that most people aren't offended and the
whiney people are in the vast minority?
Hmm?
Nemesio
Originally posted by no1marauder
You said that you and Ivan "backed" up the mods. Of course, you only did so when they were censoring viewpoints you didn't like. Did you back the mods when Ivan, the great mod supporter, got a forum ban for spamming?
Well, actually, mods were 'disbanned' by that point. As I recall Russ would have performeed the ban. Either way, I actually I believed Ivan deserved a ban. Ofcourse I say not his reactions were unjustified, but a ban was required nevertheless. See, this is where we differ. I judge someone's actions on RHP, irrespective of what their religious, political or social agenda is. I've already claimed that RBHill's posts should be curbed (a fellow Christian) and I have agreed that Ivan calling people Nazi's deserved a ban. That is called imparitial.
It's laughable for YOU of all people to complain of "animosity" in other people's posts; you spew venom all the time, particulary against gays.
We (BBarr and I) debated to morality of homosexual marriage. Ofcourse in your mind that would imply that any views contrary to yours is 'venom'. You are a prime example of being intollerant of another's views. Instead of accepting that someone else may just have different opinions from yours, you seems to take out your black book, write a name down and from then on forward make a concerted effort to oppose all that person has to say for the duration of their stay at RHP, irrespective of what the topic is . That constitutes a forum troll.
Ofcourse should we have a long running feud over a particular topic (lest say abortion), I would expect a response from you everytime I discuss this topic and air my views (similar to Ivan/BBarr in abortion), however as you care very little about actual debate, merely the person (as you've illustrated in this thread), you come across as a troll.
pc
Originally posted by pcaspianI don't want to enter in this crappy debate,but I find this statement of yours pretty hypocrit,as you do the same with kirksey's posts,arguing them regardless if it's off topic or not.
side note:
__________-
no1marauder is another example of RHP posters simply out to spam every post you make. It gets annoying after a while having him comment on every second post(irrespective of whether he is remotely interested in the debate or not). Ofcourse such a post does not deserve (on its own merit) to be moderated, but the continued manner in which he posts (irrespective of the topic) should be addressed by a moderator.
pc[/b]