[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.
Moderators: JoinTheSchwarz, LAJ_FETT, Ramza
  1. Jobo Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 14, 2000
    star 5
    Yes, by that logic, were I a mod (hahahahahahaha), I could ban everyone who said Spiderman 2 wasn't the greatest movie ever. I'm banning everyone who says it, right? And I know that they are speaking falsities, so it's knowingly false. And those jerks are just trying to get people like me, who love Spiderman 2, all riled up! They're trolls too!!! And of course they've offended me personally! It's the greatest movie ever, how could anyone be so bold as to speak otherwise??
    _jOBO
  2. BobTheGoon Moderator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 21, 2000
    star 6
    Hell, should we threaten to ban every self-proclaimed insider that comes into 3SA proclaiming that their spoiler information is true when we can be reasonably sure that it is not?

    If someone says that they heard from a friend, but don't believe it themself, that Yoda would in fact be BLUE in Episode III, but the mods and every other user knows with 99.9% certainty that Yoda would be GREEN, would a mod be justified in threatening that user with a ban, assuming that the original poster was not malicious in thier intent?

    How much sense would that make?
  3. Vertical Former Head Admin

    Member Since:
    Apr 6, 1999
    star 6
    />

    Actually, the title of the thread was "So my stepbrother found this true events of 9/11 site....."

    As I read that, this person's step-brother found a "true events of 9/11" site. This only indicates that the other website is claiming these things are true, not that the author believes these things are true. This is further backed up within the body of the initial post, where the author states, quite clearly, "Now I don't believe one word of this, even though they claim to have, and present some numerous amounts of proof, most of which I feel is blasphemy."

    I don't see how anyone could come away thinking the original author is claiming the website is proclaiming the truth, when in fact the author states exactly the opposite.

    But let's look at every word of that first post:

    "The site is entitled "Lets Roll 911", and focuses on how the Towers were brought down by controlled detonations in part of a huge insurance scam. It also focuses on the planes that were hijacked, and how they were switched with other planes which had missle pods that fired at the Towers. It doesn't quite explain the whole "terrorist" aspect of the situation, but maybe someone can find something on the site that does. Now I don't believe one word of this, even though they claim to have, and present some numerous amounts of proof, most of which I feel is blasphemy. Anywho I thought it would be interesting to see other people's reactions to this site. Here you go: [link provided]"
    "The site is entitled "Lets Roll 911 and focuses on how the towers were brought down by controlled detonations in part of a huge insurance scam".

    This statement is true. That is the name of the site, and that is the theory which the site focuses on.

    "It also focuses on the planes that were hijacked, and how they were switched with other planes which had missle pods that fired at the Towers."

    This statement is true. This statement does not say "the planes were switched with other planes which had missile pods that fired at the towers", it says "[The "Lets Roll 911"] website focuses on ...", which is true. The website does focus on that claim.

    "It doesn't quite explain the whole "terrorist" aspect of the situation, but maybe someone can find something on the site that does."

    Neither of these statements can be qualified as true or false. I don't see how you'd have a beef with this one, since the author seems to be suggesting that the site doesn't fully explain something.

    "Now I don't believe one word of this, even though they claim to have, and present some numerous amounts of proof, most of which I feel is blasphemy."

    This cannot be qualified as true or false. It is an expression of opinion.

    "Anywho I thought it would be interesting to see other people's reactions to this site. Here you go:"

    Here the author solicits the thoughts of others. This is not a true/false statement.

    I fail to see how any of the initial post could have elicited moderation with regards to posting "knowingly false" information.

    Everything the poster stated was either true, or categorically unqualifiable in terms of truth or fiction.

    Would you ban me for posting a thread with a link to a site discussing how the government allegedly 'staged' the moon landings, and just asking what people thought?

    Would you ban me for posting a thread with a link to a site discussing how there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll, and just asking what people thought?

    Would you ban me for posting a thread with a link to a site discussing how the government allegedly covered up an alien landing at Roswell in the 50's, and just asking what people thought?

    Vertical/>/>
  4. SDA Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Jul 7, 2004
    From the thread that spawned this mess -

    For watching people die on my TV.
    For watching two buildings in my skyline crumble.
    For seeing the devastation wrought at Ground Zero firsthand.

    It's knowingly false that 9/11 was staged. I got no problem removing people who post and say otherwise.


    Wow...can you say "reactionary"?

    It's appalling that you would censor/silence someone based on an opinion or speculation - wayward as it might be. While I know that this board is subject to certain limitations that preclude absolute free speech, it's still, by nature, a discussion forum. That said, discussions shouldn't be prohibited just because those in power disagree with their content.

    It's absolutely ridiculous to ban someone based on the fact that they touched upon a subject that upsets your delicate sensitivities - "Thin-Skinned Administrators" indeed.

    I personally haven't visited the website in question, but have been to others with similar intent and direction. While I don't subscribe to those kinds of inflammatory views, I believe they are warranted as part of an ongoing national dialogue.

    Is that painful to discuss such a tragedy? Yes.

    Should the desire to avoid pain spark the removal of those seeking to discuss? No - never.

    The content and intent of the thread in question is not obscene, baiting or "flaming" in nature. Therefore, it doesn't violate free speech as defined by this board's Terms of Service.

    The actions dp4m threatened are blatantly presumptive and abusive. If you let free speech get to you so easily, dp4m, perhaps being a moderator at a message board isn't the best job for you.

    SDA

  5. dp4m Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2001
    star 9
    Yes, by that logic, were I a mod (hahahahahahaha), I could ban everyone who said Spiderman 2 wasn't the greatest movie ever. I'm banning everyone who says it, right? And I know that they are speaking falsities, so it's knowingly false. And those jerks are just trying to get people like me, who love Spiderman 2, all riled up! They're trolls too!!! And of course they've offended me personally! It's the greatest movie ever, how could anyone be so bold as to speak otherwise??

    1) My "gut feeling" would imply that it was an opinion, not a fact relating.
    2) Much like GriffZ isn't a three-yer old red-headed girl (that I am aware of), there's a difference between falsehoods that hurt people and falsehoods that don't hurt people. Much like the Supreme Court defends free speech, it doesn't allow you to yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater (absent a fire, of course).

    The person who was banned for posting that thread should be reinstated - immediately - and be offered an apology. The actions of dp4m are blatantly presumptive and abusive.

    If you let free speech get to you so easily, dp4m, perhaps being a moderator at a message board isn't the best job for you.


    Perhaps being a user on a messageboard might imply that you read the threads. I never banned anyone. Thanks for playing.

    As for ONCE AGAIN stating that I wasn't going to ban anyone for beliefs, only stating falsehoods. As we've established time, and time, and time, ... , and time again: there is no free speech here. First Amendment has no place here (we're not the government, you see). The rules are governed by the Terms of Service and Rules of Conduct; nothing more, nothing less.
  6. Jobo Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 14, 2000
    star 5
    May I ask how believing 9/11 was staged hurts anyone, especially to the possible extent of shouting, "Fire," in a theater?
    _jOBO
  7. carmenite42 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 21, 2003
    star 4
    i'm still trying to figure out what the falsehood stated was?
  8. AmazingB Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jan 12, 2001
    star 7
    Perhaps being a user on a messageboard might imply that you read the threads. I never banned anyone. Thanks for playing.

    But you threatened to ban, which is an exercise of your e-power all the same. If I were to go around threatening to ban people for anything, I'd be laughed at because I don't have the power to back it up. You do, so merely threatening to ban anyone is an exercise of your power.

    As for ONCE AGAIN stating that I wasn't going to ban anyone for beliefs, only stating falsehoods.

    And should someone steadfastly believe in something that is false? How would you handle that situation?

    The rules are governed by the Terms of Service and Rules of Conduct; nothing more, nothing less.

    And the author of those documents has posted several times in this thread explaining their meaning to you.

    Amazing.
  9. dp4m Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2001
    star 9
    May I ask how believing 9/11 was staged hurts anyone, especially to the possible extent of shouting, "Fire," in a theater?

    Well, for one, it hurts me.
    For two, it probably hurts Mrs. Beamer to think that the government planned her husband's death.
    For three, and I don't think I'm in the minority here, some of us are pretty patriotic folks; stating such a thing about our country is akin to spitting on us.

    i'm still trying to figure out what the falsehood stated was?

    There wasn't one stated; hence me not banning anyone. Can you see why I'm so amused with this?

    But you threatened to ban, which is an exercise of your e-power all the same. If I were to go around threatening to ban people for anything, I'd be laughed at because I don't have the power to back it up. You do, so merely threatening to ban anyone is an exercise of your power.

    I never laughed at you for your abuses of e-power.
  10. AmazingB Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jan 12, 2001
    star 7
    I never laughed at you for your abuses of e-power.

    So, at best you didn't understand what I wrote. And at worst you're intentionally trying to deflect everything away from you while completely ignoring my point.

    Amazing.
  11. dp4m Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2001
    star 9
    So, at best you didn't understand what I wrote. And at worst you're intentionally trying to deflect everything away from you while completely ignoring my point

    No, I understood your point. I threatened to ban "people" (whomever they might be) for a violation of the TOS.

    Isn't that what we're supposed to do, rather than an abuse of e-power as you put it?
  12. Jobo Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 14, 2000
    star 5
    Okay, I don't think the comments hurt anyone. People may have been offended (though if it's because you're so patriotic to America, ban everyone who opposes the war, please). I was offended when you threatened to ban people for their beliefs.

    Oh, that's right, it's different when the situation is turned back on you, right?
    _jOBO
  13. Falcon Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 7, 2002
    star 9
    First of all, there's not a single one of us who agreed to moderate without personal bias. It's not a part of the rules. At BEST, what I violated was a lack of etiquette (which, since you wrote the rules, you know of what I speak).

    If you feel this way then I suggest the rules be re-looked at and re-written to the point where one cannot let their personal feelings get in the way of better judgement.

    As for ONCE AGAIN stating that I wasn't going to ban anyone for beliefs, only stating falsehoods.

    You may have had no intentions on banning this user, but like everyone has stated so far over and over again, the regular user wouldn't know that.

    As we've established time, and time, and time, ... , and time again: there is no free speech here. First Amendment has no place here (we're not the government, you see). The rules are governed by the Terms of Service and Rules of Conduct; nothing more, nothing less.

    Everyone has a right to speak, we chose the right to either break the TOS or follow it. No one can make us chose how we decide to act on the boards. And to say we have no free speech is no where near the truth, you know how many times I engage the mods in a pm exchange because I didn't agree with the judgement? I was speaking my mind, so you can't say we don't have the right to speak. Look at everyone here who are voicing their points of views, if you believe what you truly said then every single post would've been edited by now.

    You're right, we're no government, but that doesn't mean we can implement rules that have to be followed if we want to continue to post here.

    It's our right to chose, but certain users have the power to make sure the TOS is being followed.

  14. BobTheGoon Moderator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Sep 21, 2000
    star 6
    I wonder why dp4m hasn't responded to Vertical's dissection of the offending post in question.

    Probably because it completely devestates dp4m's argument. [face_plain]
  15. dp4m Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2001
    star 9
    though if it's because you're so patriotic to America, ban everyone who opposes the war, please

    Why? Being able to peacibly assemble to protest or to speak one's mind against government policy is the epitome of free speech and one of the bastions of our patriotism... :confused:

    Oh, that's right, it's different when the situation is turned back on you, right?

    Um, no. If it offends you to see someone enforce the TOS, perhaps you shouldn't have agreed to it when posting?

    Everyone has a right to speak, we chose the right to either break the TOS or follow it.

    Warnings are handed out to users all the time.

    And to say we have no free speech is no where near the truth, you know how many times I engage the mods in a pm exchange because I didn't agree with the judgement?

    That's not free speech; that's a conversation. Free speech is what's guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States; it allows that the government will not abridge speech, not private institutions.

    Look at everyone here who are voicing their points of views, if you believe what you truly said then every single post would've been edited by now.

    Why? :confused:

    No one posted anything against the TOS in this thread (I don't think), though there has been a sock of a troll posting (once)...
  16. HawkNC Former RSA: Oceania

    Member Since:
    Oct 23, 2001
    star 6
    If it offends you to see someone enforce the TOS, perhaps you shouldn't have agreed to it when posting?

    It has been proven repeatedly in this thread that there was no breach in the TOS in that thread. Even if someone had posted "The government had a hand in the 9/11 attacks", there would be no breach, because the WRITER OF THE TERMS OF SERVICE HIMSELF told you that you are misinterpreting them quite dramatically. Are you ready to give up yet?
  17. DarthBreezy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jun 4, 2002
    star 6
    What if someone started a thread wanting to discuss a website that "Proves the Holocost never happened" (God forbid, but there ARE websites out there that do proclaim such a fallacy.) I think it would spur the same reaction that other thread got. A lot of angery people posting on his message board calling the webmaster out. I would find such a site abhorrant myself yet I can't see it violating the TOS....
  18. Katya Jade Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jan 19, 2002
    star 7
    May I ask how believing 9/11 was staged hurts anyone, especially to the possible extent of shouting, "Fire," in a theater?

    Well, for one, it hurts me.
    For two, it probably hurts Mrs. Beamer to think that the government planned her husband's death.
    For three, and I don't think I'm in the minority here, some of us are pretty patriotic folks; stating such a thing about our country is akin to spitting on us.


    Okay, so dp, by your logic since I am a Christian and it's a widely accepted fact that Jesus existed if someone creates a thread that says "Jesus is a fake", I can lock it and ban because:

    It hurts my feelings.
    It hurts other people because they believe in Jesus.
    Stating something like that insults millions of Christians around the world.

    Is that what you're saying? We all hold beliefs that are important to us. But going around dictating what should and shouldn't be allowed to exist on this site because it hurts us is a poor yardstick for moderating. Just because I feel "spit upon" when someone posts something contrary to my personal belief system doesn't justify my taking action based on my feelings.

    First of all, there's not a single one of us who agreed to moderate without personal bias.

    I did. I have plenty of biases on subjects I don't believe should be allowed, but it's a public board. If I went around locking everything I thought wasn't appropriate, the JCC would be a different place. I moderate according to the TOS and rules of conduct and seriously try to limit my personal beliefs when it comes to moderating.
  19. Falcon Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 7, 2002
    star 9
    Look at everyone here who are voicing their points of views, if you believe what you truly said then every single post would've been edited by now.

    Why?

    No one posted anything against the TOS in this thread (I don't think), though there has been a sock of a troll posting (once)...


    The purpose of the statement would say that if we didn't have the freedom to speak our thoughts even if this isn't the government then all the posts would be either deleted or edited taking away our freedom to speak on the boards.
  20. AmazingB Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jan 12, 2001
    star 7
    No, I understood your point. I threatened to ban "people" (whomever they might be) for a violation of the TOS.

    Ok, so that leads you into a curious situation. You threatened, in that thread, to ban anyone who broke the TOS. You've also said that since you didn't ban anyone, it clearly means no one violated the TOS. Now, why did you post the warning in the first place? Warnings are used to help calm down an escalating situation before it gets out of hand, rather than as a pre-emptive course of action. So, wouldn't threatening people who haven't violated the TOS nor come close to doing so with a ban be an abuse of power? Shouldn't the TOS that everyone agrees to adhere to be sufficiently pre-emptive?

    If it offends you to see someone enforce the TOS, perhaps you shouldn't have agreed to it when posting?

    That's an interesting argument to make seeing as how, technically, posting without agreeing to the TOS isn't feasible.

    Amazing.
  21. Darth Dark Helmet Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Dec 27, 1999
    star 6
    First of all, there's not a single one of us who agreed to moderate without personal bias. It's not a part of the rules.

    Wow. Okay, I have to comment, because that statements annoys me more and more everytime I read it. Because it seems to me, that is exactly what you signed up to do when you decided to become a mod. Unless things have changed drastically since I was mod, I thought one of the most important things for a mod to be was impartial. To look at things in the context of the rules, not their own personal beliefs. Thats' the way I viewed it when I was mod. There were many things I saw that may have annoyed me, but unless they specifically broke a rule, I never threatened or implied any moderator action against them. I think it has been proven in this case, that no rule was broken. Maybe a boundary was pushed, but no rule was broken, yet moderator action was threatened because of a moderator's personal beliefs and an offense to that. Something that should never, I repeat, in bold, never, come into play when moderating something. If you can't seperate yourself, then maybe it time to examine whether the role is right for you.
  22. scum&villainy Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 8, 1999
    star 4
    "But you threatened to ban, which is an exercise of your e-power all the same.... threatening to ban anyone is an exercise of your power.

    I never laughed at you for your abuses of e-power
    And with that response, dp4m, you have shown yourself to be entirely unsuitable for the role of forum moderator and should step down or be replaced.

    You're not fit to carry out your duties in the manner expected of you.

    Do the decent thing.
  23. dp4m Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2001
    star 9
    And with that response, dp4m, you have shown yourself to be entirely unsuitable for the role of forum moderator and should step down or be replaced.

    You're not fit to carry out your duties in the manner expected of you.


    Uh, the what now?

    How so?

    Because it seems to me, that is exactly what you signed up to do when you decided to become a mod.

    You're not asked to give up your biases and opinions and become a mindless ModBot(tm); you're asked to treat users fairly by aplying the same rules to everyone.
  24. Darth Dark Helmet Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Dec 27, 1999
    star 6
    No one's asking you to give them up, just to keep them out of the equation when moderating a situation. If you can't then then it calls into question everything, do your friendships affect the way you moderate? Your enemies? Are you giving other topics that may be just as controversial preferntial treatment because you happen to agree with those issues? The minute you let your opinions affect your desicions when moderating, you open up a whole big can of worms that shouldn't be opened.
  25. Falcon Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 7, 2002
    star 9
    You can voice your own opinions. But you must do so as a regular user; and not use the mod powers that were bestowed upon you. If you threaten to ban for an honest opinion, then you are abusing your powers regardless if the tos is being broken or not.
    I was led to believe that a mod should moderate fairly and not let their personal feelings get in the way of better judgement, because the innocient would end up getting the ban when the flammer walks away without getting spanked.

    Because if you truly believe that you have signed up agreeing that you can let your personal feelings about a certain topic get in the way; Perhaps this position is not the best role for you.
Moderators: JoinTheSchwarz, LAJ_FETT, Ramza
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.