29 May 06
Originally posted by Sambo69You've been on the site for 20 days and made 24 moves and you, in your infinite wisdom, realize that the moderator approach is flawed??????
I've realised that the moderator approach on RHP is flawed.
Those who are against something tend to protest, while those who are for something tend to remain quiet.
Moderators, with limited time, respond to the many who protest without taking time to consider what's actually fair.
If there can be no justice in the virtual world, how can we ever hope ...[text shortened]... should be on the condition that STANG restrains himself when given a warning that is specific.
29 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Sambo69Yes, so? That there are exceptions doesn't you give a legitimate claim on the moderators such that they are obligation to explain anything to you. Anyway, I agree with you about STANG, I don't think he should be irrevocably banned. We're all adults here, after all, and can take a loudmouth in the forums. But this public attempt at shaming BF isn't going to get you anywhere but tossed out of the forums.
You yourself admit that there are exceptions. Have you read the first post ?
29 May 06
Originally posted by bbarrIf he gets tossed out of the forums for this then everything he says about BF is true.
Yes, so? That there are exceptions doesn't give a legitimate claim on the moderators such that they are obligation to explain anything to you. Anyway, I agree with you about STANG, I don't think he should be irrevocably banned. We're all adults here, after all, and can take a loudmouth in the forums. But this public attempt at shaming BF isn't going to get you anywhere but tossed out of the forums.
29 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Sambo69Sambo69,
BelgianFreak,
You made 2 allegations:
(1) STANG included a link to a picture more than once
(2) STANG continued to write about the same theme
Regarding (1) -
(a) Can you honestly say that you issued STANG a specific warning not to include a link to the picture ?
(b) Would you have preferred that STANG found new pictures of other horrifying th pinion is on Bush and what's happening in Iraq, etc - Are you honestly neutral ?
Sambo69
I've not hurried to answer your questions as I am reluctant to be beholden to someone on a subject that has a long history who has either:
1)been at the for under a month, so is unaware of that history
2)has been at the site a lot longer than his current user ID suggests, and is therefore hiding his previous ID for a reason
Instead of repeating myself, I'll cover the history with a copy of a previous post I made on this subject (12th April '06, "where the hell is Stang?" thread, Debates forum). I think that this will cover the history & many of your questions:
Originally posted by belgianfreak
sigh... as much as he (and others) may want to believe that STANG is a martyr for his beliefs, it's not true. He never did receive alerts for his viewpoint (such alerts would be ignored anyway); he did however recieve alerts for his persistant spamming. It might be argued that these alerts were from people who wanted to silence his poltical opinions, but the people alerting him for spamming were not the same as the people who argued against him in the forums.
Aside all of this, it was not the quantity of alerts that led to his ban but his continual spamming. Maybe you didn't get to see it all because all of the mods spent a great deal of time cleaning up after his floods. He was asked to desist and given repeated warnings to change the way he posted, but every time he came back and did more of the same. He couldn't or wouldn't grasp that his posting behavious was unacceptable and continued to:
1) post the same text in multiple threads often unrealated to the Iraq war or US foreign policy
2) open multiple threads on the near exact same topic, to the extent that up to half of all threads onpage 1 of Debates had been started by him
3) bump his threads that had died because no one else was posting in them back up to page 1 by replying to himself, often 3 or 4 times without anyone else participating.
4) posting links to other sites with misleading information as to what the link lead to.
The effect he was having was dominating the forums by sheer weight of threads and by spamming other peoples threads. Great - he was passionate about something, and I couldn't care less if it was the Iraq war or flower arranging, but the way he conducted himself in the forums was selfish, forcing his views on other people whether they were interested or not. Over a period of more thatn 6 months he was asked to change, given temp bans as warnings, and each time he promised to alter his posting habits and each time he came back and flooded and spammed the forums again.
The decision was taken to keep him banned so he appealed to Russ, again on the grounds of being silenced for his views. Russ let him back in the forums for 2 weeks before regretting his decision and advising us to reinstate the perminant ban.
Look at the forums like a bar where people discuss their views. STANG was doing the equivelent of barging into every other conversation and interupting it with what he wanted to say (spamming random threads), and trying to drown out all other topics of conversation by shouting loadest (flooding with multiple threads). He was asked to act in a more polite manner, didn't, and after being suspended for periods as a warning didn't have any effect he's banned from the club. Not because of his views, but because the way he acted devalued the forums for other users.
Sure, other users have gone on spamming rampages, and they were banned for it too, but they didn't keep coming back with the same force time & time again - if they did they would recieve the same ban.
To repeat what I have already said in this thread, STANG's ban is perminant. It's reinstatment was not specifically due to the content of this posts during his brief reappearance.
STANG's claims that Chris removed the ban are unsubstantiated. The PM he quotes (via yourself) from Chris says nothing about removing the ban, and I have had no PM or message from Chris in teh Forum Mods forum saying thathe took action. I have PM'd Chris to clarify this - if he saw fit to remove STANG's ban then we will discuss it, but seeing at the ban was a joint decision of all the currently active mods & Russ I would be very surprised if he chose to act in isolation.
To answer your last questions:
a) Yes I do feel that I acted fairly in reinstating STANGs ban, for reasons stated above. It is nmot a new ban, just a continuation of the old perminant one which I hve not been informed has been repealed.
b) I am not going to go into my personal views on Bush or the Iraq war for two reasons.
Firstly , even if I were to tell you that I think that the whole war is a debaucle & that I was one of the million brits who marched through London to protest it I don't believe me and therefore would not placate you.
Secondly, any expression I make about my own viewpoint is inappropriate when it is in regard to moderation. If I were to say I was anti the war then the next time a post was removed that was pro war I would be open to accusations of bias ("you only removed my post because you are anti the war" ). When it comes to moderation my personal political or religious views are irrelevent - my actions are not biased by them in any way.
I hope that this answers your questions to your satisfaction. I do not intend to get drawn into a prolonged debate with you on this subject - I have covered the subject in full and now consider it closed.
Thanks to all those who posted supportively on my behalf.
Regards
BF
29 May 06
Originally posted by DraxusThat actually cracked me up!
"Great - he was passionate about something, and I couldn't care less if it was the Iraq war or flower arranging..."
Hehe, thinking of someone spamming the forums about flower arranging made me chuckle.
I could just imagine people bawling over floral arrangements and bouquet etiquette.
31 May 06
Originally posted by belgianfreakIt seems very unfair given that STANG was being restrained and compliant when he returned and it appears that you didn't give him a specific warning about the picture that I believe all should see. STANG even said that he would have stopped making links to the picture if a moderator had warned him against it.
Sambo69,
I've not hurried to answer your questions as I am reluctant
STANG's claims that Chris removed the ban are unsubstantiated. The PM he quotes (via yourself) from Chris says nothing about removing the ban, and I have had no PM or message from Chris in teh Forum Mods forum saying thathe took action. I have PM'd Chris to clarify this - if he ...[text shortened]... s been repealed.
Thanks to all those who posted supportively on my behalf.
Regards
BF
As I've said before, protestors against STANG will be louder than his supporters. As a moderator, you are wrong in concluding that your supporters outnumber his.
I agree that Bush is corrupt, a war monger and a threat to your and my security.
31 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Let's say someone murders someone and is sentenced to jail for the rest of his life. 5 years later through a paperwork mixup he is released. While he is out of jail he doesn't murder anyone. When the mixup is found out should he be allowed to remain out of jail just because he hasn't murdered someone since he was released?