main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

[GEN] Moderators and the distinction between personal opinion and reality.

Discussion in 'Communications' started by Dark Lady Mara, Jul 1, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Raven

    Raven Administrator Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 5, 1998
    Yes, Gandy, but if someone in a thread said, "I believe that they are different" he would not be banned or even edited, I should hope. Also, you know, nobody trustworthy has said anything about this 9/11 thing. LFL guys have said Palpy and Sidious are the same.

    True. As I said in a PM a few minutes ago, "Should discussion of whether or not the US government is responsible for 9/11 be allowed? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how things go in the thread. Should discussion of how every president since Reagan is in fact Reagan, who has had his brain implanted into a fresh body three times now, be allowed? I?d say not."*



    * If it were serious. If it's a joke, that's alright.
     
  2. Jobo

    Jobo Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 14, 2000
    But with the holocaust there are a bunch of people who were there, and all that. And by no means do I believe the 9/11 site, either, it's just as ridiculous, but it is far more debatable. And it's not like the site didn't give reasonable back up. I could see if it were just a flash animation with a fat guy saying, "THE GOVERNMENT DID IT" but it's not!!!!! It's like 238954623547892364 pages of nonsense I was too bored and tired to read through.

    And I still wouldn't want someone who disbelieved the holocaust banned. He may be a fool, but stating your beliefs (in a polite manner) should not be against the TOS, ever.
    _jOBO
     
  3. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    It is a problem FOR ME when people post ridiculous falsehoods about 9/11. Hence, trolling by your definition.

    Making a single post that says that 9-11 was staged, or something along those lines, is not trolling. Making a series of posts or attempting to disrupt a thread with that could be considered trolling.

    There have been one or two Senate posters that have tended to believe things that the vast majority of people think are mistaken or outright wrong, but because they've offered substantial reasoning for their views and posted in a calm way, it hasn't been considered trolling.

    It's not just what's said, but how it's said that matters.

    If the thread was so inappropriate, it should have been closed. It wasn't closed by a JCC moderator, so that should say something about what the forum moderators thought about it's appropriateness at the time.
     
  4. dp4m

    dp4m Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Nov 8, 2001
    Should discussion of how every president since Reagan is in fact Reagan, who has had his brain implanted into a fresh body three times now, be allowed?

    I'd be more inclined to believe that... ;)

    But with the holocaust there are a bunch of people who were there, and all that.

    Well, the terrorists were there and they claimed responsibility. The people who saw their loved ones get on to the planes and then had them die were there. The paper trail is there.

    What's the cut-off for "fact" in your book?
     
  5. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    I don't for a second believe any sort of nonsense that 9-11 was staged, or anything like that. I think it's concrete fact that it was the work of terrorism.

    However, I don't believe it's trolling or against the TOS simply to state otherwise.

    Speaking of cutoff points, how much do you want to apply the "knowingly false" section of the TOS?

    A lot of things said here could be considered "knowingly false".
     
  6. jp-30

    jp-30 Manager Emeritus star 10 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Dec 14, 2000
    > I care if someone posts, as fact, that the Holocaust didn't happen. Then I'll ban 'em.

    As much as Holocaust deniers sadden me, if someone genuinely believed that it did not happen, and mentioned as such in a thread without malice or the intent to stir hatred / reactions, then what grounds do you have to ban them exactly?

    We have people here who claim the moon landings were fake, that Yoda is blue, and that they're the uncle of a monkey.

    Gonna ban all those posters too?

    No? So where do you draw the line in people posting 'opinion as fact'? And what gives you the power to arbitrarily set that line?



     
  7. dp4m

    dp4m Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Nov 8, 2001
    However, I don't believe it's trolling or against the TOS simply to state otherwise.

    Then, by your definition, it's okay to say:

    "Jesus begged for his life like a screaming baby on the cross."

    Hey, it could have happened. No one was there. We'll never know. It's a perfectly valid opinion one might have, right?
     
  8. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001

    "Jesus begged for his life like a screaming baby on the cross."


    Again, remember how important context is.

    Saying that at a point where it's bound to incite a thread and/or derail existing discussion would make such a post inappropriate.
     
  9. Raven

    Raven Administrator Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 5, 1998
    We have to draw a line somewhere.







    Otherwise, we owe Supershadow an apology. ;)
     
  10. farraday

    farraday Jedi Knight star 7

    Registered:
    Jan 27, 2000
    As I recall I once started a thread in this forum asking about a user who claimed that 9-11 was a result of drunk bet by drinking buddies and there was no terrorism and indeed no terrorists out to get the US at all.

    As I also recall apart from Sape trying to accuse me of being racist for an example I gave, the mods almost universally shot down any attempt to claim that expressing that opinion was actionable.

    Including yourself dp4m.
     
  11. Wes_Janson

    Wes_Janson Jedi Youngling star 5

    Registered:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Raven, pelase edit out the SS refrence.

    It's the least that you could do if Dashy wanrns me when I post a humor thread saying there is something good on SS, linked to the SS gold leia bikina pic's page.
     
  12. comet1440

    comet1440 Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 25, 2004
    dp4m acted on his personal feelings , nothing more nothing less , should we attack and punish someone for being human and having feelings like every other human , I dont think so . he didnt ban anyone , therefore there is no reason behind a 5 page " power abuse " thread when no such power abuse occured . he had a human moment , let it go .
     
  13. royalguard96

    royalguard96 Jedi Knight star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 13, 2001
    I think dp4m was entirely within his rights to do what he did.

    I'd be more worried if he had a " [face_plain] " reaction to the whole thing.

    We can't expect moderators to not have opinions on everything. They don't become these robotic machines once they are granted with 'teh colours.' He did the right thing as a mod and as a human being.
     
  14. jp-30

    jp-30 Manager Emeritus star 10 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Dec 14, 2000
    One can "do right as a human being" without threatening to ban people who hold a contrary viewpoint.

     
  15. royalguard96

    royalguard96 Jedi Knight star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 13, 2001
    And of course threatening to ban is the exact same thing as actually banning, right?
     
  16. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    We can't expect moderators to not have opinions on everything. They don't become these robotic machines once they are granted with 'teh colours.' He did the right thing as a mod and as a human being.

    We all have opinions on things. No one disputes that.

    However, moderators must be able to put aside their personal opinions and moderate as objectively as possible. All of us who have been moderators have had our share of trouble with this, and no one's above reproach. Still, that doesn't mean it's not something we should strive for.

    The question of whether or not the statement that 9-11 was staged (especially since the thread itself was about that) constitutes trolling is not a simple one.

    Remember, the thread itself invited such statements, so I'd submit that it's the thread itself that should have been dealt with, rather than individual posts.

    And of course threatening to ban is the exact same thing as actually banning, right?

    Depends on what qualifies as "a threat". Moderators past and present have told people that they need to shape up or not do something, or else they'll be banned. However, when it's a question of personal opinion or something as uncertain as this, telling people you'll ban them for saying something is highly questionable.

    I note that the tone of the thread instantly changed once those threats were made. Before that (and eventually after it settled down), the thread was pretty much fine.
     
  17. farraday

    farraday Jedi Knight star 7

    Registered:
    Jan 27, 2000
    I would not consider him wrong in mocking, deriding, or otherwise making it clear he felt any person who managed to believe such a thing was four feet short of a yard.

    My problem stems from his going further, from using a faulty interpretation of the TOS to claim it was actionable. KW how many times have I harped upon 'knowingly false'?
     
  18. KitFist0

    KitFist0 Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Nov 10, 2001
    dp4m, what you did lacked tact. I read that thread and what that guy said was simply point to a website where they had some far flung stupid theory about 9/11. I would have simply posted that the website is stupid and let it die, like everything does in yjcc.

    Everyone has the right to express their opinions, even if you disagree. You can't say that the government is not responsible in someway, because summer 2001 there were warning of a terrorist attack and they did nothing. I read the articles in the paper.

    You might as-well slap a 24 hour on me because I'm not convinced the present administration is completely innocent.
     
  19. Dark Lady Mara

    Dark Lady Mara Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jun 19, 1999
    I'm kind of disgruntled that I went away for a couple of hours and several dozen posts beating on/defending dp4m appeared here in the interim. So, to reiterate:

    *gets on bullhorn* This is not a drama thread. If you wish to post something about dp4m, the 9/11 thread, or anything including words such as communist, fascist, or communo-fascist, please don't do it in this thread.

    I'm more interested in settling the general question for future reference than fussing over things that are already in the past.
     
  20. Genghis12

    Genghis12 Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 18, 1999
    DLM...
    "Although I'd prefer this thread didn't break down into a discussion of one specific incident, for the sake of providing an example I'll point out the series of posts that inspired this thread..."

    It's threads like that which sometimes has me longing for the days of '99 and '00 where the community repudiated such idiotic internet sites with jokes, baiting, taunts and sometimes outright flaming, even by the administration. And when it was all said and done, the troll who posted and/or defended it was banned for trolling.

    But, we're a kindler, gentler site now. And society now tolerates such things. For the better, I suppose.
     
  21. mac-nut

    mac-nut Jedi Knight star 5

    Registered:
    Apr 14, 2001
    some of those old flame wars were really firey. and some of them were very memorable.
     
  22. Raven

    Raven Administrator Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Oct 5, 1998
    Well, it?s an unfortunate product of any kind of civilizing. Robert E. Howard once said something along the lines of ?Barbarians are far more polite than civilized people, because a civilized person doesn?t risk getting their head split open for rudeness.? If you have a system where you allow people to vent their frustrations openly in a rather uncontrolled fashion, those that remain tend not to stay frustrated, but those that leave have split skulls.

    In the same fashion, in the good old days of Chjyren der Vjiking, Jöel the Prjeacher, and other such Mjighty barbarian modjerators the Möd Sqjuad and everyone else could laugh at, bait, taunt, etc. anyone who happened to out a-trolljing or just being the board idiot. We?d sack them and throw the carcass to the dogs.

    These days, we?re civilized. We try to politely ask people to stop before we ban, we have more rules than you can shake a sword at, and more interpretations of those rules than you could shake a storm of swords at. No more skull-splitting in 3SA, mulled mead in JCC that led to the sacking of divans, or heavy canon artillery being fired in all directions in Literature.

    The result is a board that?s probably more accessible, definitely more family friendly, and much less barbaric. We?re civilized polite, which is to say we don?t split skulls anymore, we just spread nasty rumors involving a beaver, a waffle iron, farraday, Queen?s Greatest Hits, and all the hot female ex-mods.

    Incidentally, those rumors about a beaver, a waffle iron, farraday, Queen?s Greatest Hits, and all the hot female ex-mods are completely true, as I?ve found to my simultaneous wonder, horror and amusement.
     
  23. Night4554

    Night4554 Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Oct 9, 2000
    I think a mod might also need to be able to determine if they're *too close* to be able to exercise reasonable judgement on an issue, and remove themselves accordingly.

    As for the SC punishing mods, Night. When was the last time you ever saw that happen? Abuses of power at various levels of the hierarchy go unchecked nowadays. They have for a long time.


    I agree with the first sentence. As for the second, well, it's been a long time, I know what you're saying there. As for abuses of power going unchecked these days, I have more faith in the system than you have, but that's not the topic of the thread.

    Basically, we are human, and the best we can do is try and walk away from situations that get us extremely angry.

    ¤Night
     
  24. Dark Lady Mara

    Dark Lady Mara Manager Emeritus star 7 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jun 19, 1999
    For the better, I suppose.

    I agree. Freedom of speech and forebearance when it comes to using the ban button are good things indeed.
     
  25. Darth_Deus

    Darth_Deus Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Dec 11, 2000
    I'm fighting a losing battle in the Senate Floor because the mods won't admit there was some bias in a decision to close a thread.

    I started a thread about Dick Cheney swearing in the Senate. It was closed and I was told it was closed because it was redundant because it was already being discussed somewhere. Where?? In the Bush vs. Kerry 2004 Election thread. One might ask, as I did, what Cheney swearing on the floor of the Senate has to do with THAT thread, but I digress. In fact, there were TWO posts in the 2800 post thread that dealt with the Cheney incident. So 2 posts out of 2800 make that the official "Cheney Swearing" thread. However, there also exists a thread about Disney blocking Michael Moore's movie. It is 650 posts long. I count at least 4 posts that suggest Moore hates America. However, the "objective" mods allowed a thread called "Does Michael Moore Hate America?" to flourish. Now, according to my math, 4 out of 650 is 800% greater than 2 out of 2800. So the Disney/Moore thread is 8 times more about Moore hating America, but apparently, that wasn't enough to warrant closing an additional thread about Moore hating America.

    If you are going to have a set of rules, apply them equally. Don't let your personal politics get in the way. And obviously, this is what happened here. There is no other explanation.

    They still have not shut down the "Does Moore Hate America" thread, even though I have pointed out they are hypocrites if they don't. They explained the rules and the justification for closing my thread. But they won't apply it to a thread they like. Hypocrites.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.