Why banning anyway?

You're right. Shame on me..

So why do you think it was closed Lou?

You turned a perfectly good thread, something that was worthwhile and obviously important to Inzomnia and to this forum as a whole, into an insult fest. Seriously.. dude.. wtf? You weren't trying to be noble in detracting the negative "evil moderation" attention to you. The noble thing would have been to respect Inzomnia in her desire to make her point. You twisted it to suit yourself. You completely took away her original message. And for that you should be ashamed of yourself and apologise to her.

Your actions were selfish and downright insulting. Not just to Inzomnia, but also to another member of this site. If you were a noble individual, you'd apologise to Inzomnia for ruining her thread, a thread she started with good intentions, which shows that she cares about this forum and its members.

 

Shame on me? What? You don't think she deserves an apology for what you did to her thread?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I was shocked that you said what you said in that thread Lou. Even for you, it was low. You used her thread to try to get your own in.. You don't like Asguard? Fine. No one is forcing you to like anybody. But what you said in that thread was downright insulting and obscene. You took a perfectly good thread, started by a member who has genuine concerns about this forum and its future direction and you turned it into something about you. How selfish are you? You took attention away from something that was vitally important and turned it to you.. In short, you drew attention away from Inzomnia's post and her important message and turned it to you. It was selfish and insulting, not just to her, but to the individuals you decided to insult. You used her thread to be insulting and abusive.

I like you Lou. Even for all of your weird arse behaviour.. I find you amusing some of the time and frustrating the rest of the time. But what you did to her thread is shameful. And as someone who actually appreciates your membership on this forum, I can only say that I am disgusted by what you did.

 

I'd like to make a few comments. Note that I do not write in this post as an administrator. Opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent the opinions of any other moderator or administrator.

I will respond to comments in the order they appear in the thread.

I'm not sure what you think was not "open" about Avatar's demotion. A clear reason was given by Plazma Inferno!, who made the decision.

Or maybe you think that we ought to have had an "open" discussion about Baron Max, which is what apparently set Avatar off in the first place. To that, I can only repeat what Bells has already said numerous times: Baron Max did not look like he was about to be banned at any point. The moderators were having a private discussion regarding the Baron and his recent return to sciforums. While one moderator in particular expressed reservations about Baron Max, many others supported his continued presence here.

Having a discussion regarding the moderation or banning of a member among the general membership tends to be an unproductive exercise. Since the moderators and/or administrators have to make the final decision anyway it is often easier to convass opinions among that small group than to open a free-for-all discussion among the general membership. Moreover, history shows repeatedly that a certain fraction of the membership is unable to discuss such issues in any objective manner. What we see instead in such discussion often amounts to a popularity poll, or a free-for-all character assassination. Certain members also take any opportunity to attempt to turn a discussion into a referendum about the actions of moderators, as we have seen in the current thread.

I'm beginning to think that, because thoughtful and objective members are so often drowned out in Open Government by the vocal minority with an axe to grind, that perhaps Open Government has outlived its usefulness.

I think the moderators will need to debate whether or not to shut down that subforum.

I think, Lou Natic, that you have a personal agenda that you do not acknowledge. I note that you have been permanently banned from sciforums before. And since you were given another chance in good faith you have mainly used the opportunity given to you to attempt to sow dissent among moderators and between moderators and the general membership.

This is, of course, just my observation. I'm sure you will take time to point out my vendetta against you personally and how I am extremely biased against all those who, like you, have the immense courage to "speak out" against the great injustices perpetrated against you, seeing as your own actions are always above reproach.

That may well be. You are trying your best, I see, to stir up as much trouble as you can. You seek as usual to rally people to your cause - not out of an honest concern for the cause itself, but merely as a tool to sow dissent of the type I have mentioned above.

I deduce that the main reason you still post here is that you enjoy this kind of thing.

Who knows? Maybe your grand conspiracy theory will fly with some members. The simple fact is that it isn't true.

One mistake you continually make, and which has been made by several other people in this thread, is to assume that the moderators form some kind of monolithic entity, thinking and acting with one mind. They do not. There are constant disagreements and discussions among moderators.

Because of your assumption that the moderators think with a group mind, you assume that Avatar was demoted after groupthink by the moderators. You might wish to reconsider that assumption.

Like Lou Natic, you may be under the mistaken assumption that your name has suddenly come to the attention of the moderators. Please consider the possibility that you may have been under discussion for some time, regarding your history of posting long before the last few days.

Not as such.

The same principles apply to moderator PMs as apply to posting any other members' PMs on the public forum.

It is, of course, the height of discourtesy and impoliteness to post in public what a person has communicated to you in private, unless you have that person's express permission to do so.

Of course, some people have no manners and lack breeding, so they don't think twice about doing such things. When they do so, it reflects on their personal character more than anything else.

Members will not, in general, be banned for lacking any sense of what is or is not socially acceptable behaviour, though exceptions can be made in certain circumstances (e.g. where specific site rules bear on this).

As I said in the moderators' forum, I think you've blown the matter out of all proportion.

It sounds to me like you have decided that the way sciforums works is incompatible with you acting as a moderator. In such a case, it seems like the honourable thing to do would be to resign. As an alternative, it seems to me that perhaps you pushed to force your own demotion, though I'm not sure about that.

Are you alleging a cover-up now?

I'm glad you're satisfied with the outcome. I hope we can move on, then.

That's strong language: "abomination of human rights".

Do you really think that's what happened? I mean, seriously? Or are you perhaps playing just a little to the gallery here?

I think you'll find that most others, if not all.

In other words, every time a moderator proposed a member as a possible candidate for banning, you would publicise it?

In that case, I'd say Plazma's decision was very fair.

We just can't have moderators revealing those kinds of discussions. It's inappropriate. As SAM said, it's like a board member of a company publicising board minutes.

Perhaps, like Lou Natic above, you have fallen into the line of thinking that regards all moderators to be of a single mind on all issues. If that is the case, I suggest that the reason may be that you have not participated much in the moderator community as an active member. You have not been involved in many of the discussions that we have had. That has been your choice.

You also seem to assume that the mods, as a monolithic group, are stupid enough to fall for lies. Do you really suppose that individual moderators are not able to make up their own minds on issues? Do you think that any moderator will accept the word of just one other moderator as the total evidence to be considered in deciding whether to ban a member? Surely, any moderator worth their salt who is commenting on such a matter in the moderators' forum will have weighed up the evidence for themselves.

I freely admit that I disagree with most of Baron Max's politics. That may also be true for some other mods, or true in part, or not true at all, depending on the individual.

But a disagreement like that doesn't, for me, bear on whether a member ought to be banned.

I'm not sure whether you are claiming that Baron Max's "ideology" (whatever it is) is supported by a majority of sciforums members. I suspect that it isn't. But that is really neither here nor there.

Now this is primarily for the audience, is it not?

Personal issues with other moderators could have been settled in a more appropriate manner, if you ask me.

Yes, why is that?

Perhaps it is because a small minority of members, yourself among them, have been the recent subject of moderator action, and you have an axe to grind as a result of personal animosity.

Or not.

Freedom of speech on this forum does not extend to racist diatribes and personal insults. Accept that, or go somewhere where such strictures will not impede you.

Actually, while I'm at it, perhaps you and Lou Natic could explain for us all why you continue posting on a forum which propagates such great injustice to you and to others.

I would be most interested to hear.

Do you claim that gustav is a sock puppet of a moderator?

If so, this is a first for sciforums.

I leave it to members to judge the likelihood of this for themselves. Enough said.

Now, let's be honest, Kadark.

First, I threatened to ban you for one month, rather than for 3 days, for example, because that's where you currently sit on the ban ladder. You have previously been banned for 3 days, 7 days, 14 days. A 4th offence always corresponds to a 1 month ban. A 5th is a permanent ban.

The general principle, in case you missed it, is that repeat offenders are gradually treated more and more harshly if they do not reform.

Second, my threat to ban you was based on your recent record of anti-semitic posts, and not purely because of your avatar.

Thirdly, your avatar at the time was an Israeli flag with a swastika on it instead of the Star of David. This is deeply offensive and anti-semitic.

Your claim that visceral_instinct's avatar is somehow offensive is patent nonsense.

No. It's how we treat you, and other people who resort to bigotry.

Which brings us to...

A clear instance of homophobia and class hatred from the man of principle.

More hypocrisy, anybody?

I assume you're referring to the thread in which Baron Max compared gay marriage to a right to have sex with goats.

You regard that as a "defeat" for Tiassa, do you?

Again, I leave it to members to judge that for themselves, and you.

We already have that system!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Correct.

Threats against other members are not tolerated. They are far more serious than mere insults.

Two wrongs do not make a right. visceral_instinct's bad behaviour does not excuse yours. Besides, visceral_instinct has, in fact, been banned in the past, not that it matters.

Once again, you overestimate yourself. Yes, you and I disagree on most things. But I would never stoop to using my powers as an administrator to take action against you on that basis.

Once again, I leave your claim that you effectively rebut all my arguments and post superior ones yourself for others to judge, and have a quiet chuckle to myself while I'm at it. I'm hardly "enraged" by you, Kadark. You're just one more young male whose sense of his own self-importance is greatly overblown. It's disappointing that you waste your obvious intelligence, but there's little I can do about that. You're not unusual or special.

Playing the wide-eyed innocent doesn't become you, Kadark. I really can't be bothered digging through all your past posts to prove to you what you already know, so I'm not going to. But rest assured I will be sure to provide you with specifics in any future action taken against you, if such action becomes necessary.

I assume you are referring here to my advice to you to hit the "report" button if you see any posts that you think breach the site rules.

Of course, this process, while good enough for the rest of sciforums, may not be appropriate for a special person like yourself. If that is the case, my only suggestion is to grit your teeth and see if you can bear it. We all have to do things we don't like or agree with in life. If this is the first time for you, then consider it a valuable learning experience.

For the record, I am neither a Muslim nor a Jew. Nor do I have any bias for one group or the other. This is one reason why sciforums is such a good forum for debates between these groups. If there was a clear bias in moderation of debates on, say, Palestine and Israel, then sciforums would quickly come to be regarded as a pro-Israel or pro-Palestine site. Instead, sciforums is seen as a bastion of rational, balanced debate.

Regarding Cheski, Buffalo Roam and OIM, I suggest that you might review their posts and work out why they are not banned. Buffalo Roam is probably the best person to learn from in that regard. He manages to survive my clear liberal bias very nicely; I can't remember him ever being banned. Hint: the reason is that he doesn't breach any site rules. Simple.

You can think whatever you like.

But if you choose to think racist thoughts, then all you need to do is refrain from expressing them on sciforums. Then there will be no problem.

I acknowledge that this is what I said. Moreover, your current avatar (as at the time of this post) is acceptable. Thankyou for changing it.

Most people, eh?

What I see in this thread is a lot of posts by very few people. The vast majority of sciforums membership apparently does not wish to express a view on this. Either they are all scared of being banned by big mean old me, or they are reasonably happy with how sciforums is moderated, or they just haven't seen the thread, or ... well, you can think about the possibilities.

A few corrections:

1. There was no "whining like a pussy".
2. There was no conspiracy.
3. I doubt that Baron Max is Tiassa's "most hated troll".
4. I would query your characterisation of Baron Max as a troll.

It obviously pleases you to view things this way. What a pity the world doesn't always conform to our wishes, eh?