Why banning anyway?

Whoever deleted inzomnia's perfectly respectable, insightful and geniune thread should restore it.
They threw the baby out with the bathwater.
At most Lou and Kardak's fucking around should be deleted or moderated.
What inzomnia had to say was valuable and exactly what the feedback forum should be used for.
She is an ideal poster and that was a perfectly valid, valuable thread that people should be able to read and cooment on.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Because I suspected, what our glorious leaders would do, I saved a screenshot, just in case.

So here you are, this is the kind of thing admins don't want to hear:
(because, if they had been ok with it, they wouldn't have deleted (they did not even lock it) the whole thread)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

------------
So here you have, but for all intents and purposes because of admin action this letter would have no longer existed.
No evidence, no nothing, just memories of a few users who happened to be online at that time.
Can you possible see anything that warranted the deletion of this letter? And what else is being deleted and we have no idea of it?

It was an open letter, not a private one. And it was posted in Open Government. And it was deleted a few hours after it saw light.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

god you are so melodramatic, you dont think inzomnia would still have copies in her outbox?

for the rest of you inzomnia stated that she had sent the letter to all the admins which james took at face value seeing as he recived a copy. There for when plazma choses to comment on it he will do so. No grand conspiracy infact if you all want a copy im sure inzomnia can forward you as many as you would like

have a nice day

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am not sure why my thread gets deleted when I was offline for several hours. I suspect it was to avoid riot. I can understand that, I also don't want to create riot in the first place.

I have checked my inbox, I don't receive any reply from admin or supermod yet. Perhaps it will take some time. Or perhaps they would answer it through action (through solution to the problem). Perhaps it will take slow, but I am sure my point is delivered.

I don't expect admin would take extreme decision like by making poll to chose new mods. The current mod squad must have been chosen carefully for their capacity in the first place. Nobody needs to be replaced if they would be willing to show better approach and to maintain their integrity. You can ban Baron Max, Lou, or Kadark, but so long you don't change your moderation philosophy, there will always be another Baron Max, Lou, or Kadark. It's because they care.

I understand that there are a lot of pressure on moderators. Several moderators have continuous clash with other members. If they take it personally, it is rather human. But even if the one who is doing wrong is the member, we would expect that the mod would be careful and bring good intention in their approach, otherwise it will backfire onto him/herself.

I'd like to add that I have no personal grudge against any moderator here. Lets take for example Asguard. As much as I disagree with the style of his moderation, we could get along well. In recent mafia games, we had fun and we exchange PMs. But he needs to change his moderation approach to us, if he would expect better approach from us, too. Please take a look at how BenTheMan or Superstring moderates. Their approach are always rather careful, humble and positive. They are also tend to focus on the issue at hand rather then on how members express their complain. Unless we are crazy, nobody wants to give the said mod unnecessary trouble.

I have to go shopping and do many other things. Sorry for all the inconvenience. Have a nice weekend.

P.S: thanks to One_Raven and Avatar. Your values are among that I respect the most.

 

I'm going to write this publically because obviously there are a lot of people that seem to want to be in a loop. I haven't responded to Inzomnia's PM previously because it's taken me a little while to catch up on the whole state of affairs and believe me it's not easy when all hell seem to break loose while you are away.

Moderator Selection
Selecting Moderators for new forums doesn't necessarily work if voted on by mob rule or for that matter if someone dictates that someone should become a moderator. Moderators are indeed "Volunteers", they aren't suppose to be a position of reverence. They aren't suppose to be tyrannical philistines that just ban people for opposing views. They are here to freely devote some of their spare time in trying to keep the cogs of this forum turning and keep people from being at each others throats.

This of course is basically what a moderator is suppose to be, an Arbitrator for not just administration but fair play in regards to site rules. I can understand that Moderators should perhaps be representatives of the forum, however in the growing social society climate of the internet, those that people would deem to be great moderators can be jerked around like some electronic electoral voting system.

(I mean take the current discontent in regards to Avatars publically polled "Baron Max Banning", for sure a number of members at this site might dislike one or other moderator that's currently here s they'd probably want Baron posted to the Moderator team. While Baron might actually knuckle down and prove his weight in gold, as a fair and just moderator above and beyond all expectation of all the people he's encouraged a montage of barbs with. He would likely only gain such votes from members that just want to undermine the current posed "regime".

While there personal grudges could be understood, this would indeed undermine the forum through allowing such grudge votes and that's the main reason why the voting system currently doesn't work, especially in the current climate... perhaps back in 2003/2004 but not now.

Of course this isn't meant as and offense to Baron Max, after all "...You say what you mean and are mean when you say it"..., oh! that might be "...Mean what you said". [Just a Jibb, Baron])

Some "Selected" moderators were originally instated based upon their own talents, qualifications, training and interests. Others were "suggested" by previous moderators with mixture of success and failure.

The one current problem that does need to be addressed is that currently there is no "Moderators handbook: A Guide to Etiquette" (Just need an ISBN for it) This means that each individual moderator, moderates pretty much as an individual. Occasionally when it's brought to the attention of Administrators by members or other moderators, talks are held on what to do. It's very bureaucratic, it can take time and often there are a number of interjections caused by a number of moderators. It's not a clear decisive dictatorship as some might have assumed, in fact this bureaucratic method is greatly impeded by such rulesets not being present.

Afterall it's not a "Section B paragraph 4 subsection 12" operation where some mister meaner is determined by previous responses to the same type mister meaner. It fluctuates due to the moderators individuality, due to what they might think is expected of them or in some very rare cases because they want to abuse their powers. (In truth we are about as powerful as any psychic in a Randi challenge)

Bannings
In honesty I've always thought tempbans to be a bit of a farce, they aren't really of any use in regards to discipline they tend to just upset whatever poster got banned so on return they make it a permaban through their own discordia. In a workplace, a college or a University, there is usually a standardised disciplinary method prior to firing or expulsion. It usually consist of:

• First offence: Verbal Warning
• Second offence: Verbal Warning (This is optional and might move straight to third offence)
• third offence: Final Warning (Written this can be contested by the offender but it's recorded about their Employment or Tuition)
• Final Offence: Expulsion/Firing

Obviously if the offence is great enough it can be brought to a committee to "fast track" expulsion or Firing should the person warrant it.

The First/Second offence is where a Tutor or Manager wouldn't have to inform a Dean or Director about the offence, all they are trying to do is ask the person to tow the line.

The Final Warning is when the Hierarchy is informed about their repeated offence and the written warning is actually from the Dean or Director, not the Tutor or Manager.

If this was employed on the forum it would mean using the Infraction system to issue the equivalent of Verbal warnings (Yellow Cards). Written warnings (Red Cards) would only be issued by Administrators, Banning's would only be issued by Administrators.

The only reason the Infraction system didn't work previously is it didn't adhere to this tried and tested method.

Obviously though this method works on the assumption that a Moderator isn't just someone that unblocks the toilet when it gets clogged (clean up offtopic posts etc) but they are actually a "Forum Leader", a position where they attempt to add content to the forum or be of use and on hand to aid the forums direction. This therefore means there is a Hierarchal plan to the smooth running of a forum, unfortunately currently though such methodologies haven't been assumed as of yet.

Sciforums Future
I know a number of members have become bored with the forums stagnation and I'm hoping that Plazma manages to get the bigger key that allows him access to the Executive suite because at the moment without that key we can't do anything to try and turn this place around. I mean I've put posts forward before to try and get an idea of what people want to see here, their feedback, heck even their complaints in the hope it would aid getting Plazma that key to the kingdom. Currently though if people think Plazma to be wrong in his operations here, they should realise he really hasn't had the chance to shine yet, his hands have been tied, at least that's what I assume.

We'll see what becomes of things.

 

Helo, Stryder, thank you for your respond. I haven't read it yet because I'm going out with my bf. I just replied shortly some PMs that I promised to reply before. One minute more I wrote, my bf will leave me, lol. So this is just a short notice in case you are wondering where I am ^^. Ciao & enjoy your weekend!

 

"Two wrongs do not make a right"? No shit, James. Who was arguing that two wrongs did make a right? Or did you miss the part where I explicitly stated, "I don't care if you ban me, as long as you ban others for committing the same wrongdoing". I guess that was too complicated for you to understand. As for visceral being banned in the past, I will ask, what for? How long ago? How many times? Do you realize how filthy and vulgar visceral's posts are? She has to be, without dispute, the most unproductive and repugnant person on this website. The only thing she talks about is adrenaline, or comparing members such as myself to diseases, complimented by threats to kill us, were we to ever cross her path. Why isn't action taken against her? Or is Sciforums' target audience adrenaline-addicted sluts who contribute nothing but insults?

You already have, hence why four of my five (or three of my four, I've lost count) bannings have been issued by you. Not by the moderators whose subforums I posted in, but by you. Your word really doesn't mean dick to me.

What could I do to make use of my "obvious intelligence"? Go to a gay parade, donate to PETA, have only one child to help the environment, etc.? Sorry, that truly is not for me. Some people use their intelligence to see these events and movements for the shallow, subversive pieces of shit they really are.

This is rich! You are only going to show me specifics after you ban me? You know, James, it's ideal for me to know what I'm doing wrong before I'm banned for doing it. Look, I know this whole notion sounds crazy, but give it a chance. Maybe you should give me specifics during the warnings to work with, which I can either protest or accept? Giving people general warnings with no detailed explanation is not how you alleviate your problems.

I did. Did you send otheadp a warning? Did you give him a public warning, like you always give me? I'll be checking in on that thread after this post, so you had better hope for your sake that firm action was strictly issued. Or else ...

So why is it that I get a warning for saying certain Jews perpetrated crimes on a grand scale, yet nothing is said to the people who say much worse about Muslims? Think about it. You clearly do have a bias in favor of Jews, probably due to your excessive schooling in the subject of the Holocaust. It's not entirely your fault, James; it's the system.

Oh, so the time he called every single Muslim a "Terrorist in Training" was perfectly fine, under the site rules? So, if I had said, "All Jews are Snakes", would you have given me a warning (probably an outright banning, if history is any indicator)? Or would you have trodded along saying, "Well, he's not breaching any site rules". Also, you conveniently "forgot" to comment on the nature of Cheski and Oil (I PMed you specifics). Your selective memory is acting up. Again.

Criticizing the wrongdoings of Jews is not racism. What made you ever think it was?

According to Oil, it represents terrorism, rape, and pedophilia. I better change it!

He literally started a thread in a secretive forum, attempting to garner support for the banning of Baron. He became increasingly indignant when the moderators (including yourself) saw no reason to support his malicious cause. If you ask me, that's whining like a pussy. He lost the debate, so he went to his secretive forum and attempted to get Baron banned.

Who are you trying to fool? We all read the posts.

In the screen shot Avatar took, Tiassa clearly said, "My least favorite half-wit troll". Those were his exact words. So, James, do you still doubt that Baron Max is Tiassa's most hated troll?

Hmmmmm?

I'm using Tiassa's description: "Just an update on the fabulous return of our (okay, my least-) favorite half-wit troll:" to which she proceeded to discuss Baron Max.

What a pity Avatar posted the screenshots of Tiassa's posts, which clearly show how infuriated he was with loosing to a debate in a topic very sensitive to him. When moderators disagreed with his suggested course of action, he proceeded to call them "lazy cowards". Wow, what a guy!


Kadark

 

Moderators calling members "half-wit trolls"?

Wow.

 

Yeah, but it was all supposed to be behind closed doors and never, ever made available to the general public.

I'm guessing that the mods now have a good understanding about how politicians feel in trying to keep secrets from the public.

Transparency is a nice sentiment, but as you can see, it ain't so hot in real life, is it?

Baron Max, half-wit troll

 

Not just politicians Baron, Look at the "Sudden" economic downturn created by the Domino effect of online Investors "Lemming" themselves like a herd of Stampeding cattle off the nearest cliff. Sometimes widespread news can generate panic amongst those that do not understand the "gossip" as being "gossip" not "gospel".

 

I believe the real 'gossip' is in the notion that the stock market was a safe investment. I believe it hasn't been for a long time and there are experts who have shared that opinion (no, no links today on that).

I did find this article, however:
*******************************************
No Amnesty For Wall Street

“The only way to fix this economic mess that the international bankers have created is to return America to sound money principles, as prescribed in the U.S. Constitution.”
*******************************************
http://www.davidduke.com/general/ch...nal-bankers-and-the-federal-reserve_4874.html

Yes, yes, he's also on the far right and it seems doesn't support the naturalization of illegal immigrants. But the fact that I don't agree with him on that doesn't mean that he doesn't have good points on international bankers.

I believe that Sir Josiah Stamp, Director of the Bank of England in the 1920s said it quite well:
************************************
“Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money .”
************************************
http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/the-money-masters-international-banking-cartel

 

Although we are getting a little offtopic, the main reason for the Domino effect is that online investors aren't necessarily "Savvy" they aren't trained, they don't necessarily understand the market, heck they might even be playing it because online Gambling is banned in their country or state (In fact this would suggest a potential conspiracy to force it into a Gamble as opposed to a stable market)

Those trained or Savvy would know to attempt to run the majority of the time with Arbitrary Systems so as to maintain stability, of course this is tested now with harsh consequences because of the economic avalanche, the question is "Who was that masked snowboarder that started it all off?".

 

Just a tad

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Feel free to move this part wherever you feel appropriate (just please don't put it in 'the 9/11 conspiracy'

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

).

I suppose you could blame Woodrow Wilson, although if he hadn't agreed to it, he probably wouldn't have been elected and the guy who -would- have been elected would probably be the one who did it. I do know that he later regretted his decision. Here's an excerpt from the article from that right winger (and I'm from the left), Chuck Baldwin:
********************************************
Already, Bear Stearns was awarded a $29 billion bailout, followed quickly by the bailout of Freddie and Fannie that will cost the taxpayers up to $200 billion. Then the Fed announced the bailout of AIG to the tune of $85 billion. Mind you, AIG is an enormous global entity with assets totaling more than $1.1 trillion. Moreover, the Feds agreed to pump $180 billion into global money markets. And the Treasury Department promised $50 billion to insure the holdings of money market mutual funds for a year. Now, taxpayers are being asked to provide $700 billion to Wall Street. (I hope readers are aware that, not only will American banks be bailed out, but foreign banks will also be bailed out. Then again, at least half of the Federal Reserve is comprised of foreign banks, anyway.) In other words, the Federal Reserve is preparing to spend upwards of $1 trillion or more. Remember again, this is fiat money, meaning it is money printed out of thin air.

All of this began when the U.S. Congress abrogated its responsibility to maintain sound money principles on behalf of the American people (as required by the Constitution) and created the Federal Reserve. This took place in 1913. The President was Woodrow Wilson. (I strongly encourage readers to buy G. Edward Griffin’s book, The Creature from Jekyll Island.) Since then, the U.S. economy has suffered through one Great Depression and several recessions–all of which have been orchestrated by this international banking cartel. Now, we are facing total economic collapse.

But don’t worry: the international bankers will lose nothing–not even their bonuses. They will maintain their mansions, yachts, private jets, and Swiss bank accounts. No matter how bad it gets on Main Street, the banksters on Wall Street will still have the best of it–President Bush and the Congress will make sure of that. This is one thing Republicans and Democrats can agree on.
********************************************
http://www.davidduke.com/general/ch...nal-bankers-and-the-federal-reserve_4874.html

 

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2053710#post2053710

Thank you.

 

Yeah, pretty good, still not really sure why it's locked. That's what I was initially fearing would happen, having no concept of the outlandish possibility it might be inexplicably deleted.

 

I agree.
The offensive comments have been removed - I don't see why it should be locked.

I do appreciate it being restored, however.

 

James:

So you don't see any difference between Avatar proposing a policy of Glasnost, and you proposing that we scrap the Open Government forum, which is the one last remaining vestige of member representation and democratic process left on this forum?

Your justification for scrapping Open Government is absurd. As I pointed out, it is the same justification used by totalitarians to subvert and annihalate the democratic process. Try watching 'Question Time in Parliament' or a meeting in American Congress. For Christ's sake, these people scream at the top of their lungs, swear, are vile, rude and obnoxious. Sometimes it even gets physical. At one point in India, their parliament degenerated into a madhouse, with politicians hitting each other with chairs.

And it's not just the politicians. Discontented citizens protest and engage in civil disobedience, protest, scuffle with police, and converge on parliament. Workers go on strike and throw down their tools. Lobby groups push their own agendas onto parliament.

And you know what? In a way, all of the above is beautiful. It is the price you pay for adopting a democratic procedure, and is symbolic of the fact that we live in a democracy where the people are represented, where people can air their grievances, where people can be human and sometimes subjective and still have their viewpoints taken into serious consideration without fear of getting censored and shot and squashed under tanks.

Your idea of an orderly forum where all the posters march in double file and never say a word out of line is bullshit, and not consistent with your very liberal leanings. If you want to have a forum which is progressive and democratic, you're going to have to take the good with the bad. And the bad involves the occasional frivolous complaint in Open Government, the vendettas, the bitching and flame wars. But even with these bad points, a democratic forum beats the hell out of a facist one.

I doubt it, although I do still wonder if you genuinely care about sciforums but are simply horribly misguided about how to achieve utopia.

 

James is very impartial, and although I don't agree with him a lot, he does a very good job at what he does. But he's not the guy I'd like to hang out with, but I guess that comes with the moderator status.