Moderator Abuse and M14 Shooter's Ban

[mixedmedia]

While I think I get what this "Troll" term means, I do not know if it refers to M14. (Sort of like calling Bush Hitler.)

From the few times I debated with M14 I didn't get the impression he was a troll. I found him to be relatively thoughtful and mild-mannered. Don't agree with him on anything, but, ya know....

 

[MSgt]

M14 was not contributing to the debate. He was just trolling and mimicking what Shuamort was saying. He does the same thing with me. He just keeps repeating the same thing over and over like a 5 year old child. He lobby-ed to have someone call the FBI on my ass because he didn't like what I was saying. There is probably no one on this board that I think less of (and have no respect for) than M14.

You tried to give him some semblance of credibility. He will never have that in my book until he shows some sign of maturity in his posts. What I mean by that is that you have to bring something new to the table everytime someone provides evidence to refute your claim. You, cannot simply restate your position and think that is a valid rebuttal. That is bullshit. You [GySgt] do not do this. You personally address and attack every new point with new evidence of your own. That is why you have my respect. I don't think I disagree politically with anyone more than you. But I also respect you more than just about everyone on this board for rolling up your sleeves and not running away or acting like a child.

You and I are going to lock horns many times. But I never take it personal. Nor would I ever think of turning you in to the FBI!

He can be abrasive. I can too. (I keep waiting for my bannishment.) I was merely following "Shuamort's" and "M14 Shooter's" conversation on this particular incident and was shocked when the bannishment occured. That's all I brought up. It didn't make sense.

If a moderator is going to ban a person, do so at the right time, not while that moderator is slinging the same insults and underhanded tactics that the banned was accused of. Anything else, with regards to historical events, becomes irrelevant.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by GySgt
He can be abrasive. I can too. (I keep waiting for my bannishment.) I was merely following "Shuamort's" and "M14 Shooter's" conversation on this particular incident and was shocked when the bannishment occured. That's all I brought up. It didn't make sense.

If a moderator is going to ban a person, do so at the right time, not while that moderator is slinging the same insults and underhanded tactics that the banned was accused of.

My arguement here is pretty much handicapped. For I do not believe in banning anyone.

 

[MSgt]

From the few times I debated with M14 I didn't get the impression he was a troll. I found him to be relatively thoughtful and mild-mannered. Don't agree with him on anything, but, ya know....

I know, but all of the one's that somewhat share my point of view (the correct view since it is mine) appear to be ban victims (SKILMATIC). I'm sure that's not true, but ya know....

 

[mixedmedia]

I know, but all of the one's that somewhat share my point of view (the correct view since it is mine) appear to be ban victims (SKILMATIC). I'm sure that's not true, but ya know....

I didn't realize you shared sissy-boy's views.....tell me more, GySgt.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by GySgt
I know, but all of the one's that somewhat share my point of view (the correct view since it is mine) appear to be ban victims (SKILMATIC). I'm sure that's not true, but ya know....

I miss SKIL. I wish he would be allowed back. He was harmless.

He's over on Deegan's website politicalshootout.com if you want to drop in and say hi. Everyone who gets banned seems to go over there to chat.

 

[MSgt]

My arguement here is pretty much handicapped. For I do not believe in banning anyone.

I know. Me too, except for those idiots that pop on the site and claim all sorts of false claims for the sake of stirring up issues. The last one was the guy that claimed to be a soldier in Iraq, but his IP showed that he was in India. I say ban that bastard.

 

[Pacridge]

I know, but all of the one's that somewhat share my point of view (the correct view since it is mine) appear to be ban victims (SKILMATIC). I'm sure that's not true, but ya know....

I don't know the number off the top of my head but I'm sure we've banned members from across the political fence from you. Sissy-Boy comes to mind.

Usually it's a long drawn out process where all the mods come to an agreement. Banning isn't taken lightly, nor was this incident.

 

[mixedmedia]

I miss SKIL. I wish he would be allowed back. He was harmless.

He's over on Deegan's website politicalshootout.com if you want to drop in and say hi. Everyone who gets banned seems to go over there to chat.

Skilmatic was a fine debater when he wasn't acting like a five year old on a 3-day sugar bender. Which was most of the time. He was given ample opportunity to grow up on this board. He chose to extend his pre-pubescence for a while longer. And as you have pointed out, there is a place out there for everyone.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by mixedmedia:
Skilmatic was a fine debater when he wasn't acting like a five year old on a 3-day sugar bender. Which was most of the time. He was given ample opportunity to grow up on this board. He chose to extend his pre-pubescence for a while longer. And as you have pointed out, there is a place out there for everyone.

You hit the nail on the head with ole SKILLY. But I still thought he was harmless. And Gy was right. SKIL was the closest to his position. Funny, I always thought Navy Pride was aligned in Gy's camp. Anyway, none of them are my ally's.

 

[MSgt]

I don't know the number off the top of my head but I'm sure we've banned members from across the political fence from you. Sissy-Boy comes to mind.

Usually it's a long drawn out process where all the mods come to an agreement. Banning isn't taken lightly, nor was this incident.

Well, it doesn't matter. It's in the past. The Moderators reviewed it and made a decision to correct it. Very commendable.

 

[MSgt]

You hit the nail on the head with ole SKILLY. But I still thought he was harmless. And Gy was right. SKIL was the closest to his position. Funny, I always thought Navy Pride was aligned in Gy's camp. Anyway, none of them are my ally's.

I think I'm kind of in my own camp. "oldreliable" has done the same studies I have and we see eye to eye on most subjects.

"SKILMATIC" was in agreement with what I typed, but his views of solutions was a bit extreme. He hadn't done the study, but understood what I typed.

"NavyPride" is in agreement with what I type for the most part, but he has an extreme allegiance to current administrations. I'm a bit more dedicated to the issues rather than the political figures dealing with the issues. (Bush has made mistakes and we (the military) have also.)

 

[mixedmedia]

You hit the nail on the head with ole SKILLY. But I still thought he was harmless. And Gy was right. SKIL was the closest to his position. Funny, I always thought Navy Pride was aligned in Gy's camp. Anyway, none of them are my ally's.

Harmless in that he didn't mean any harm? ehhhhh, maybe.

The longer I stay here the less I depend on political views to gauge how much I like a person. It's been very therapeutic that way, lol.

 

[cnredd]

The longer I stay here the less I depend on political views to gauge how much I like a person. It's been very therapeutic that way, lol.

This here is the crux of the argument...

Two points if I may...

1) The political affiliation has been, and always will be, nothing more than a copout...If you're a Con and see a Con getting banned, or a Lib seeing a Lib getting banned, the kneejerk reaction of "It must be political" is so much crap that I shouldn't even have to acknowldge it. Until this one instance, which I shall discuss in point #2, all bannings have been documented and open for discussion in the Mod Forum, which is open to all participants which, if anyone has ever read it, will see that we are of all political affiliations and platforms...If a Con gets thrown, whatever Mod did it will have answer to the Con contigency...Same as all politicos across the board...Bannings are not taken lightly, so thus we turn to...

2) The fact that this has been such brew-haha brings a relevant point which all forum members should understand...

What happened is an anomaly...not the status quo...

If this was an everyday occurance, there would be no need for this thread or for a discussion in general...Why point out something that happens everyday?...

The fact is...it doesn't...It was an instance which goes against the normal flow of what we do here...which is the exact reason it was brought to light...

In this case, Shuey has, admittedly, stated that what was done was "un-Modlike"...

But keep in mind that what was done was also "un-Shueylike"...In the 500 things that he's moderated correctly and with the forum in mind, he got ONE wrong...

That means he's batting .998...Compared to all other forums of this nature, he's still far and away one of the kings of the hill...If anyone here is expecting perfection, then I suggest you move to a forum where human emotions do not apply...The line drawn in the sand is different for everyone...and even for one individual, that line may be drawn differently upon reflection...

So to reiterate...

1) The Moderators don't care who or what you're backing on any given day...Are only concern is HOW you say it, and not WHAT you say...Thinking otherwise to make your "team" feel victimized is laughable...

2) This should not be a reflection of the Moderator Team or the Forum in general...When we say that we "strive" for equality and objectivity, that is a never-ending process which must be reinforced in every action...To negate the many steps forward and concentrate on the one step back is equally laughable...

 

[Schweddy]

cnredd: absolutely!! Tell it like it is brother.

But, I also have to agree that bringing up sensitive topics - like this one - can be very healthy for the forum and all the players in general. Sometimes yah gotta call BS when yah see it. Sometimes, we (the mod team) have to revisit an action with more precision than normal. There is nothing wrong with either end; albeit being the callee or the caller. This is the reason why we have such a diverse team. We have that ability and it is built in system.

Thats not partisan, "that's walking the talk".

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by cnredd:
This here is the crux of the argument...

Two points if I may...

1) The political affiliation has been, and always will be, nothing more than a copout...If you're a Con and see a Con getting banned, or a Lib seeing a Lib getting banned, the kneejerk reaction of "It must be political" is so much crap that I shouldn't even have to acknowldge it. Until this one instance, which I shall discuss in point #2, all bannings have been documented and open for discussion in the Mod Forum, which is open to all participants which, if anyone has ever read it, will see that we are of all political affiliations and platforms...If a Con gets thrown, whatever Mod did it will have answer to the Con contigency...Same as all politicos across the board...Bannings are not taken lightly, so thus we turn to...

2) The fact that this has been such brew-haha brings a relevant point which all forum members should understand...

What happened is an anomaly...not the status quo...

If this was an everyday occurance, there would be no need for this thread or for a discussion in general...Why point out something that happens everyday?...

The fact is...it doesn't...It was an instance which goes against the normal flow of what we do here...which is the exact reason it was brought to light...

In this case, Shuey has, admittedly, stated that what was done was "un-Modlike"...

But keep in mind that what was done was also "un-Shueylike"...In the 500 things that he's moderated correctly and with the forum in mind, he got ONE wrong...

That means he's batting .998...Compared to all other forums of this nature, he's still far and away one of the kings of the hill...If anyone here is expecting perfection, then I suggest you move to a forum where human emotions do not apply...The line drawn in the sand is different for everyone...and even for one individual, that line may be drawn differently upon reflection...

So to reiterate...

1) The Moderators don't care who or what you're backing on any given day...Are only concern is HOW you say it, and not WHAT you say...Thinking otherwise to make your "team" feel victimized is laughable...

2) This should not be a reflection of the Moderator Team or the Forum in general...When we say that we "strive" for equality and objectivity, that is a never-ending process which must be reinforced in every action...To negate the many steps forward and concentrate on the one step back is equally laughable...

I agree with every word.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Vauge:
cnredd: absolutely!! Tell it like it is brother.

But, I also have to agree that bringing up sensitive topics - like this one - can be very healthy for the forum and all the players in general. Sometimes yah gotta call BS when yah see it. Sometimes, we (the mod team) have to revisit an action with more precision than normal. There is nothing wrong with either end; albeit being the callee or the caller. This is the reason why we have such a diverse team. We have that ability and it is built in system.

Thats not partisan, "that's walking the talk".

With that being said, I am the best at "Talking the Walk!?

 

[Billo_Really]

I certainly hope this whole experience doesn't have an adverse response in this forum and manifests itself as forum members become more belligerant and disrespectful towards mod's and mod's become reluctant to pull the trigger and do the mod thing that their job requires them too.

 

[Pacridge]

With that being said, I am the best at "Talking the Walk!?

well, you seem to have the whole modesty thing down pat.

 

[robin]

This is true, I used to mod on another site in which I will not name, and I stopped moderating because the other mods (not all) was banning everyone who did not agree with them and I seen this as a dictatorial site instead of free opinion within reasonable expressions. This board seems to be pretty lenient to us but I did like M-14 and hope his ban may be lifted in time.

I agree. I've experienced sites where the mods form clicks. I don't see a need for mods frankly. Squabbles are few & far between & usually burn themselves out anyway. Even when they don't burn themselves out there's plenty of other threads to visit. Sometimes the squabbles are so laughably pathetic they're entertaining anyway... so again I ask ... why have mods. Mods seem to start them half the time anyway. You don't have mods in pubs & bars do you... thank God.

Besides.. which is more obscene & offensive ?... naughty language & petty squabbles, or the large proportion of Americans here that seem to think that fascist tyrants installed by the CIA are OK, 2 million killed in the Vietnam war was all done in the name of freedom, it was OK for Bush & Blair to have triggered the Iraq war by deceit & that the Palestinians are always wrong & Israel is always right :roll:

 

[Tashah]

Besides.. which is more obscene & offensive ?... naughty language & petty squabbles, or the large proportion of Americans here that seem to think that fascist tyrants installed by the CIA are OK, 2 million killed in the Vietnam war was all done in the name of freedom, it was OK for Bush & Blair to have triggered the Iraq war by deceit & that the Palestinians are always wrong & Israel is always right :roll:

You forgot to include trolling... but luckily I remembered :smile:

This thread is about community moderation... keep it that way plz.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Pacridge
well, you seem to have the whole modesty thing down pat.

I couldn't hold a candle to teacher. Because .............I'm into blow-torches!

 

[MSgt]

I agree. I've experienced sites where the mods form clicks. I don't see a need for mods frankly. Squabbles are few & far between & usually burn themselves out anyway. Even when they don't burn themselves out there's plenty of other threads to visit. Sometimes the squabbles are so laughably pathetic they're entertaining anyway... so again I ask ... why have mods. Mods seem to start them half the time anyway. You don't have mods in pubs & bars do you... thank God.

Besides.. which is more obscene & offensive ?... naughty language & petty squabbles, or the large proportion of Americans here that seem to think that fascist tyrants installed by the CIA are OK, 2 million killed in the Vietnam war was all done in the name of freedom, it was OK for Bush & Blair to have triggered the Iraq war by deceit & that the Palestinians are always wrong & Israel is always right :roll:

Bwahahahaha!. So typical of my arch enemy....

"We should all get along and be a strong community and be one and not need mods and .....and ..........and...........and.............uh........stupid America and Bush and Iraq war and oil and tyrant corporations and Pinochet and CIA and damn Vietnam war!"

 

[mixedmedia]

Bwahahahaha!. So typical of my arch enemy....

"We should all get along and be a strong community and be one and not need mods and .....and ..........and...........and.............uh........stupid America and Bush and Iraq war and oil and tyrant corporations and Pinochet and CIA and damn Vietnam war!"

ummmmm.......snap.

 

[Kelzie]

I agree. I've experienced sites where the mods form clicks. I don't see a need for mods frankly. Squabbles are few & far between & usually burn themselves out anyway. Even when they don't burn themselves out there's plenty of other threads to visit. Sometimes the squabbles are so laughably pathetic they're entertaining anyway... so again I ask ... why have mods. Mods seem to start them half the time anyway. You don't have mods in pubs & bars do you... thank God.

Besides.. which is more obscene & offensive ?... naughty language & petty squabbles, or the large proportion of Americans here that seem to think that fascist tyrants installed by the CIA are OK, 2 million killed in the Vietnam war was all done in the name of freedom, it was OK for Bush & Blair to have triggered the Iraq war by deceit & that the Palestinians are always wrong & Israel is always right :roll:

There's plenty of other forums out there if you don't appreciate the way the mods run this one.