Do the moderators play favorites in deciding who to ban?

[peregrinerose 0]

Of course they are biased... haven't you noticed that all the bannees are guys? They see us sexy babes and just don't have the heart to ban us

Seriously, I think they do a fair job, and even if I didn't, we're lucky to have this forum to begin with. It's a skydiving site, not a political debate site. There's no actual reason for this forum to be here at all.

People do dance on the line too much, and every once in a while really should be reeled in. Like when there's a lot of speeding going on, it gets to a point when there's a major crackdown on it, lots of speed traps, to get everyone to follow the laws a little bit more carefully.

Jen

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[SkyDekker 1,465]

I'd say they are generally pretty fair.

[wmw999 2,457]

Quote

ore leniency was given in Speaker's Corner as long as it didn't break the forum rules....correct me if I am wrong. I have noticed for quite a while now that many folks like to push the line a bit. The more they push it, the more others think it's OK. If this pattern is allowed to continue then the whole purpose of this forum will deteriorate. This is why I believe the Mods are reeling some people in.

That pretty much says it to a T. I've been known to PM moderators when things are getting nasty in some thread, and to PM moderators when I don't understand something, or even when I think they're being too quick on the draw. The more you do things in private rather than in public, well, the less you back people into a corner.

Only a few of us really like the back-you-into-a-corner technique.

And no, the vast majority of the time, I don't see anyone playing favorites. I do think every single one has bad days and good days, and breaking points. I have a feeling that SC is not the most desirable of moderating jobs, too -- I'd imagine it takes a LOT of attention and an exceedingly thick skin.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

I was punished last summer for a personal attack and am still bitter,

I really don't mean this to be offensive, but I think you might be taking this forum a bit too seriously if you're still bitter about being "punished" for something that happened last summer. If I ever get annoyed with an online forum - for whatever reason (other posters, not liking the way the forum is being run, whatever) - I just quit going to it. Maybe I'll check back later to see if things are different, maybe not... But definitely if something had left me "bitter" for months then I'd probably just stay out of that forum for good.

And no I don't think the moderators play favorites... but they are human so I'm sure that not every decision they make will seem fair to everyone... And I would imagine it's especially difficult trying to moderate Speaker's Corner since the discussions often get quite heated.

[Tf15 0]

Quote

Hey all, there are some posters here that remember when HH shut down the forums because of people getting out of control.

Please, be careful where you all go.

I've never even been given a warning because I know where that line is drawn. Figure it out peple and you won't get banned.

But you spend most of your posting time in Bonfire, not here. SC is SUPPOSED to be the place for heated debates. An obvious way to avoid being banned is not to participate, but that begs the question.

Three times is enemy action

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

SC is SUPPOSED to be the place for heated debates. An obvious way to avoid being banned is not to participate, but that begs the question.

I find it easy enough to participate in a heated debate without calling people names or making racist/hateful comments. If I feel an overwhelming urge to insult someone during a discussion in this forum - that is usually my signal to go away and move on to something more worthwhile.

The obvious way to avoid being banned is to simply follow the forum rules... If you're not sure whether something is a personal attack or not, then just don't post it.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

if any forum wants to appeal to its members in good faith they should appear to be objective.

Again, I say why? If the kind of forum where people are subjectively banned is not what you're looking for, you're free to find or start another. I've been here a long time, whatever HH and the moderators are doing has only attracted more members, not chased any off.

I prefer a forum with rules to keep down the clutter. Whoever thinks this forum is just all bitching and insults should go check out an unmoderated political forum.

I'll point it out again. They could easily be fair and impartial by just deleting all political posts immediatedly and permanently banning anyone who posts one.

I appreciate the fact that they don't, and we have this area for these discussions.

[Tf15 0]

Quote

Quote

SC is SUPPOSED to be the place for heated debates. An obvious way to avoid being banned is not to participate, but that begs the question.

I find it easy enough to participate in a heated debate without calling people names or making racist/hateful comments. If I feel an overwhelming urge to insult someone during a discussion in this forum - that is usually my signal to go away and move on to something more worthwhile.

The obvious way to avoid being banned is to simply follow the forum rules... If you're not sure whether something is a personal attack or not, then just don't post it.

I don't think anyone has complained about rules involving name calling or racist/hate speech. It's the "we reserve the right..." to ban someone who is "legally within the rules" rule that results in banning someone for being a smartass that is confusing as well as a logical paradox.

Three times is enemy action

[Ron 10]

Quote

No they don't play favorites. As a matter of fact, they're bending over backwards to prove their objectivity because the conservatives are bitching so much.

Yes, they do play favorites IMO.

I have a PM from a Liberal Mod that says he is holding me to a different standard than everyone else. He also said that he will not reply to PM's from me.

I have been banned a bunch so I understand that makes me get looked at closely.

However, when you discover that all but one of my bannings was from one mod and that mod only, and that he and I have opposed views on almost every issue. It is clear that there is at times a bias.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[wmw999 2,457]

Quote

I don't think anyone has complained about rules involving name calling or racist/hate speech. It's the "we reserve the right..." to ban someone who is "legally within the rules"

One person's racist/hate speech is another's smartass remark. If you delineate extremely clear unambiguous rules, then people who like to skate really close to the edge all of the time will skate close to (and over) those rules too. Or they'll think of a new word, not on the officially-proscribed list, to call someone a (insert racist/hate term here).

You really think that wouldn't happen?

The idea is to be polite. Polite is how you tell someone "I disagree with you vehemently, but I don't intend to directly give offense." Of course, piss someone off, and then they do intend to give offense. Especially if they think they can get away with it.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[peregrinerose 0]

Isn't there a trend here that the people who are banned all think that the system is unfair, those who have not been banned feel that the system is fair?

If you have been banned in the past, of course you will be looked at far more closely than those of us who are not previous offenders.

If I get banned, there's probably a darn good reason for it. I'll take it like a man and deal with it and not get all pissy later if it happens. Frankly, I'm pretty fair minded but even I would have a tough time moderating this forum. There's so much skirting along the edges of rules, it's hard to tell where to draw the line, and I have great respect for the moderators here that really do give a lot of leeway for disagreement and heated discussion before banning for personal attacks.

Jen

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[PhillyKev 0]

I've been banned, by the same liberal greenie Ron is talking about, in fact, for arguing with Ron.

I don't think it's unfair.

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

And I would imagine it's especially difficult trying to moderate Speaker's Corner since the discussions often get quite heated.

And also quite boring. I skip over the majority of threads and posts because quite honestly, I'm just not interested. However, the mods have to read all the drivel. It's not a job that I envy.

Chris

_________________________________________
Chris

[peregrinerose 0]

Quote

I've been banned, by the same liberal greenie Ron is talking about, in fact, for arguing with Ron.

I don't think it's unfair.

That's why I called it a trend, not a rule

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[Tf15 0]

Quote

Quote

I don't think anyone has complained about rules involving name calling or racist/hate speech. It's the "we reserve the right..." to ban someone who is "legally within the rules"

One person's racist/hate speech is another's smartass remark. If you delineate extremely clear unambiguous rules, then people who like to skate really close to the edge all of the time will skate close to (and over) those rules too. Or they'll think of a new word, not on the officially-proscribed list, to call someone a (insert racist/hate term here).

You really think that wouldn't happen?

The idea is to be polite. Polite is how you tell someone "I disagree with you vehemently, but I don't intend to directly give offense." Of course, piss someone off, and then they do intend to give offense. Especially if they think they can get away with it.

Wendy W.

Clear rules are rules that everyone can understand. Draw the line wherever you like, and someone will walk close to it - that happens in sports and the law too. Walking close to the line is not walking over it.

There's a very good reason that the Supreme Court throws out vague laws as unconstitutional - if the law is vague it is going to be misunderstood and is open to abuse. Same applies here.

Three times is enemy action

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

There's a very good reason that the Supreme Court throws out vague laws as unconstitutional - if the law is vague it is going to be misunderstood and is open to abuse. Same applies here.

I must be dumb or something, but I just don't see how supreme court decisions apply to how someone runs a private forum.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Isn't there a trend here that the people who are banned all think that the system is unfair, those who have not been banned feel that the system is fair?

If it was from more than one mod I would agree. If only one Mod bans a person and those two have opposite views, bias is a possible cause.

Quote

If I get banned, there's probably a darn good reason for it. I'll take it like a man and deal with it and not get all pissy later if it happens

Most time I did deserve it...But that does not mean there is not a bias when others doing the same thing did not get banned.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[wmw999 2,457]

One person's "clear" is not everyone's "clear." Especially with the large number of people we have in this country now, with varying upbringings and backgrounds, you can't possibly have them be clear without being completely specified, which would make them impossibly complex in fast-moving social situations like fora.

I can easily imagine being hugged after calling someone a bitch, and I can equally easily imagine giving offense if the surrounding situation and people were different.

Now extrapolate, and see how easy it is to write clear rules. And don't forget that no matter how clear the rules, someone isn't going to like them, and so they'll keep pushing and pushing in hopes that eventually they'll change. And pushing and pushing.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

I must be dumb or something, but I just don't see how supreme court decisions apply to how someone runs a private forum.

Maybe the greenies get together in their dungeon and wear black robes with HH as Chief Justice? I bet that's how it works.

Chris

_________________________________________
Chris

[PhillyKev 0]

You know..there are only 3 mods for the forum, and two of them are liberal. Maybe you just haven't been banned by the conservative one because he's biased in your favor.

Quote

Most time I did deserve it...But that does not mean there is not a bias when others doing the same thing did not get banned.

Was the other party you were arguing with banned as well? I know one of them was you and me arguing and both getting banned. And my other banning, the other person was as well.

[Tf15 0]

Quote

Quote

There's a very good reason that the Supreme Court throws out vague laws as unconstitutional - if the law is vague it is going to be misunderstood and is open to abuse. Same applies here.

I must be dumb or something, but I just don't see how supreme court decisions apply to how someone runs a private forum.

The SC provides us with a model. It's an analogy. The SC decided in its wisdom that vague laws are bad laws. Sufficiently bad that the SC won't allow them at all. I humbly submit that this wisdom applies in general to rules in any setting. Vague rules are bad rules.

Three times is enemy action

[wmw999 2,457]

Quote

The SC decided in its wisdom that vague laws are bad laws.

Like the Constitution? Of course, it's not the least subject to interpretation, is it?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Ron 10]

Quote

You know..there are only 3 mods for the forum, and two of them are liberal. Maybe you just haven't been banned by the conservative one because he's biased in your favor.

Maybe, but that would still go to show bias in the Moderation. I can only speak from experience with only one Mod, but they are human and might carry a grudge just like anyone else.

Quote

Was the other party you were arguing with banned as well?

Only in one case.(You) Many times I have seen people say the exact same thing I have been banned for without any warnings. I have also been openly attacked on these forums and nothing has happend to the attacker. This might be due to bias, not seeing it, or not seeing it as an attack. I have since stopped replying to attacks, or just pointing out the attack and send a PM to the mods (more than one mod). They have for the most part been fair and I have managed to stay out of trouble by just ignoring attacks at me.

I feel stupid asking for help instead of defending myself, but I have been told to just that.

If you ask me do I think ther is a bias? My answer is yes. They are human.

With that, I have been warned to not question the mods ever or risk being banned, so with this I am dropping this subject.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[GQ_jumper 4]

I've been banned once, and warned a few times, and looking back i did deserve, and they have let a few things i've said slide, not so much insults but threats, and there are a lot of moderateors whose opinions i disagree with, so i don't think thet're too biased.

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

[Tf15 0]

Quote

Quote

The SC decided in its wisdom that vague laws are bad laws.

Like the Constitution? Of course, it's not the least subject to interpretation, is it?

Wendy W.

The SC does not have the authority to declare the Constitution unconstitutional. Where it has the authority, it declares vague laws unconstitutional.

Three times is enemy action