Moderator Bias and Censorship in Atheism & Agnosticism

Brown Bomber

Hi, I was told to make a new thread after posting in the one about AH, so here I am. I firmly believe there is moderator bias in the Atheist & Agnosticism forum on the subject of the brouhaha surrounding the drag queen "Panti's" accusations of homophobia made on The Saturday Night Show.

There were only two non-echoes in this chamber. Now there are none, both have been banned. Extremely unjustly IMO.

The mod doing the banning is clearly not neutral on the subject and makes no pretense of otherwise.

Phill Ewinn was banned for "ignoring mod instructions". Which he did in fairness but his ignoring of the mod instruction was a response to the grossly unfair warning.

Phill was instructed, but none of these people, including boards mods goading him were.

Goading, abuse and baiting of Phill Ewinn.

969 Endlessly ignoring questions asked and repeating the same nonsensical unlogic is the very definition of troll phill

243 I'd report you but it's to be the guards to be honest.
Incitement to hatred across multiple threads and general homophobia.
You can't get arrested for being thick.
Lucky you!

945 Yes, Phil. We know that is what you believe.

Please stop flaunting your prejudices and engage in the debate.

249 Homophobia, trolling across multiple threads and general odious behaviour.

237 As usual, Phil is shooting in the dark and pulling made up facts out of the sky.

962 I've met some trolls in my time but seriously. Where does that guy get the time or energy?

Made by mod. 964 Phill, you still haven't provided a single rational reason to oppose SSM. Are you ever going to bother?

Post 966 Trolls tend not to provide rational reasons for anything.

Post 89 Ah Phill. You've transferred from AH I see.

Why can't gay people get married?

Post 93 Phil, many people have read that thread and many people arestyill confused as to what your position is. Nayhow, this is a new thread on a different forum. Would you like to clarify your position on whay gay people cannot get married for those not familiar with it.

Bullet points would help

Post 116 What are your objections to gay marriage Phill?

Post 119 Boo-fucking-hoo.

Post 224 Thanks for the vague endlessly repeated generalties phill, the thread is better for your contribution.

I am the second person to be banned in that thread for what is the banning based on the most spurious of reasons and punishing the most innocuous of posts I genuinely have ever witnessed on boards.

This is me being hostile"

(Mod Instruction) 508 BB has been red-carded for continuing to post in a hostile fashion despite repeated moderator requests to cut it out.

---

The so-called hostile fashion was was using the terms "filthy lie", "personal abuse" and "false accusation".

Meanwhile this is the mountain of ugly personal abuse that I was subjected to and none of these people, again including mods, were banned.

Comments Insulting My Wife.

Post 990 You're married BB? To your keyboard, or what?
If on two legs, your mrs must really get angry at you spending all your time at the computer. Almost Like you're married to it

Or maybe she isn't

Comments Questioning My Sexuality.

Made by Robindch. Post 771 your interest in pictures of naked men is similarly irrelevant.

417 I always wonder about that in the naysayers. 'The lady doth protect too much' and all that

Post 416 Ah but where would BB have 'random encounters' with gay men, he wouldn't be at all that way inclined

Comments Insulting My Intelligence.

From a mod. Post 233

He's trolling because I know he's not dumb enough to be genuine when he makes asinine points like the one I quoted.

Made by a mod. Post 1377 Sigh, Clearly you are unable to understand comparisons......and you are unable to read[/QUOTE]

Post 1450 BB, your reading skills are showing.

Made by a mod. Post 170 Seriously whats wrong with you?

Post 1464 The fact that you think there IS a comparison to me made either means you're woefully confused, wilfully dishonest, or harbouring some homophobia yourself.

Allegations of Homophobia

Post 1443 That is unless you think gay couples are worse than the worst straight couples.

And knowing you, who knows what you ACTUALLY think.

Made by a Mod. Post 88 I imagine because BB thinks there's something wrong with being a drag queen, and by pointing out that Rory performs as a drag queen, he can sway debate, but doesn't realize that people just don't share his prejudices. Bit of a useless ad hominem.

Made by a mod. Post 1085 That's exactly what I was talking about previously. BB does what David Quinn and Breda O'Brien do

(Made my mod & thanked by Robindch) Isn't it nice when less people pay attention to Brown Bombers desperate attempts to justify Iona's position of discrimination against gay people.

From a mod: Best to ignore it from this point. It's game over for these homophobic (in every sense, subtle to extreme) views and they know it.

You remind me a lot of David Quinn and Breda O Brien. (homophobes)

When the naysayers in this issue start splitting hairs to this degree, you know it's game over and they're grasping at straws.

Post 1758 Brown Bomber, your prejudice is showing.

Generally Abusive Comments.

Post 754 You are the lowest kind of low do you know that?

From a Mod. Post 231 Someone ban this guy please. Clearly trolling now.

Made by a mod. Post 1355. Brown Bomber doesn't NEED to listen to someone to get uppity about people criticising their idiotic claims and behaviour. He's hardcore like that.

Made by Mod. 723 I was hoping the extra pages since this morning would be entertaining, nuanced debate, but it was mostly just Brown Bomber

Made by Mod. 683 Thanks for goalpost shifting and making it abundandtly clear you don't value any honest discourse but just want to waste people's time. Really, at this point Brown Bomber, any good faith I might have had for you is gone.

Ignoring Mod Instruction (What Phill was banned for.)

275 Why the feck was Brown Bomber allowed back again?

---

Mod Instruction

---

294 It is a genuine question that should be open for public discussion, not hidden away in a private conversation. People are banned publicly, why not discuss why they have been allowed back?

hullaballoo

There's a site-wide rule against bigoted prejudices. There's nothing to see here.

Orion

Multiple bans across different forums from different mods - not to mention the multiple infractions. Maybe you're the problem not the mods.

Brown Bomber

Orion wrote: »

Multiple bans across different forums from different mods - not to mention the multiple infractions. Maybe you're the problem not the mods.

Not at all interested in any "maybes", just the facts. Which is why I've provided such an extensive (though not exhaustive) list of the abuse which nobody cares about as long as it's directed at people who hold opinions which is contrary to the mods (and the mobs) opinions.

MilanPan!c

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Not at all interested in any "maybes", just the facts. Which is why I've provided such an extensive (though not exhaustive) list of the abuse which nobody cares about as long as it's directed at people who hold opinions which is contrary to the mods (and the mobs) opinions.

Glad to see you banned out of that thread if I'm honest. You used the most specious argument possible to make a round about attack on the very notion that gays should have equal rights under the law.

I STILL don't know what you think, but no one is going to accuse you of being reasonable.

On top of that you endlessly played the victim on that thread, while at the same time suggesting that allowing gay couples to adopt children was some sort of social experiment.

Totally deserving of the ban.

Brown Bomber

hullaballoo wrote: »

There's a site-wide rule against bigoted prejudices. There's nothing to see here.

I'm glad there is. And what "bigoted prejudices" are you accusing me of? On what basis are you accusing me of these "bigoted prejudices"?

You are a mod, right? Have you ever banned anyone, ever for giving a hypothetical example to explain something?

Would you not ban someone for a user saying to the other "you are the lowest of the low"? For questioning their sexuality? For insulting their intelligence? For abusing their family?

Brown Bomber

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Glad to see you banned out of that thread if I'm honest. You used the most specious argument possible to make a round about attack on the very notion that gays should have equal rights under the law.

I STILL don't know what you think, but no one is going to accuse you of being reasonable.

On top of that you endlessly played the victim on that thread, while at the same time suggesting that allowing gay couples to adopt children was some sort of social experiment.

Totally deserving of the ban.

You'll forgive me if I take what you say with a pinch of salt seeing as you were one of the people involved in giving the personal abuse.

One point though. Woolyjumper is a gay guy I had a discussion with in this thread. Who kindly and honestly said:

That's very Kind of you and to your credit if I responded to you in a fair and respectful manner it was because that was a tone you kept throughout with me and that's not easy when you are arguing something and its 10 against 1
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88803263&postcount=791

MilanPan!c

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You'll forgive me if I take what you say with a pinch of salt seeing as you were one of the people involved in giving the personal abuse.

One point though. Woolyjumper is a gay guy I had a discussion with in this thread. Who kindly and honestly said:

No doubt there are plenty of polite bigots.

As for personal abuse, you behaved dishonestly throughout, which is pretty obvious.

This complaint is basically another example of your behaviour. You get banned repeatedly, people line up to support the ban, and yet, you know, this one gay guy thought you weren't rude so... You know...

Gimme a break.

Overheal

Hullabaloo regardless of the specific nature of this case I think you can agree that type of dialog should have been actioned against long before it got to that stage. Based on the quotes above the thread degenerated one way or another into something it shouldn't have. One way or another it is also a site wide policy not to make personal attacks or accuse others of trolling in support of using the report post functions and have moderators step in. This seems to have not happened here.

Brown Bomber the bigotry in this case would be the lapse of a constructed argument in opposition of the rights of other people on the basis of their sexual preferences. Not that I want to bring that argument here, and I don't support your take on that at all, but that is your answer.

Brown Bomber

MilanPan!c wrote: »

No doubt there are plenty of polite bigots.

As for personal abuse, you behaved dishonestly throughout, which is pretty obvious.

This complaint is basically another example of your behaviour. You get banned repeatedly, people line up to support the ban, and yet, you know, this one gay guy thought you weren't rude so... You know...

Gimme a break.

Could you make your mind up, cheers. The only reason I brought it up at all was to prove you wrong that nobody could accuse me of being reasonable.

How have I behaved dishonestly when giving my honest opinion? This is nonsensical. Quote me on a single bigoted statement from that thread.

(alternatively save yourself the hassle of trying to find one, because you won't). Either way don't make empty accusations unless you are prepared to back them up.

By the way, your post and my response is like a cardboard cutout of my complaint. You throw all kinds of abuse and allegations at me and I respond patiently and courteously.

Brown Bomber

Overheal wrote: »

Hullabaloo regardless of the specific nature of this case I think you can agree that type of dialog should have been actioned against long before it got to that stage. Based on the quotes above the thread degenerated one way or another into something it shouldn't have. One way or another it is also a site wide policy not to make personal attacks or accuse others of trolling in support of using the report post functions and have moderators step in. This seems to have not happened here.

Brown Bomber the bigotry in this case would be the lapse of a constructed argument in opposition of the rights of other people on the basis of their sexual preferences. Not that I want to bring that argument here, and I don't support your take on that at all, but that is your answer.

I appreciate the response. So there is no doubt I will make it clear here as I did many, many times in the thread. I am absolutely FOR equal rights for gays, and everyone else for that matter. I am absolutely FOR gay marriage. I just didn't agree that an opposition to gay marriage = de facto homphobia.

robindch

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How have I behaved dishonestly when giving my honest opinion? [...] I respond patiently and courteously.

You were banned, following repeated public and private warnings -- at least some of which you acknowledged -- for you to tone down your almost continually disruptive rhetoric, for hypothesizing that another poster was an "ignorant and rude prick".

You were not banned, as you have claimed again here, as you have claimed in the past, and as you were explicitly told you would not be banned, for expressing some point of view which is not shared by the majority of other posters in A+A.

FYI, you have been extended a latitude in A+A that has been afforded to no other poster, as the sheer number of complaints from other posters about your obstreperous behaviour on the forum demonstrates. Regardless, upon the expiration of your ban, if you choose to return and continue posting in your usual antisocial tone, you will be banned again, this time probably permanently.

I trust that this clarifies the reason for your most recent ban, just a few short weeks after your last one.

Overheal

In fairness Rob, that sheer number of complaints should be a private matter behind the report post function, not a public spectacle. Why isn't more of a push being made to ask posters to raise the civility up a notch or two?

I'm reading backward through this thread and can spot arguments between posters already starting to brew. I reported a couple I find objectionable.

The tone in that forum is precisely why I avoid it.

Rob, you have posters in the thread not only posting replies to a banned user. To the best of my knowledge, never been a kosher tactic. Yet you thanked the post. What the heck, guy? Posts #1761,2. In every other forum I contribute to when a poster is banned they are hands off from additional responses or commentary.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88910087&postcount=1761

#1763,

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88910200&postcount=1763

Why let it fester? And this is just through the most recent 40 posts never mind the other 1700.

Nodin

Overheal wrote: »

In fairness Rob, that sheer number of complaints should be a private matter behind the report post function, not a public spectacle. Why isn't more of a push being made to ask posters to raise the civility up a notch or two?

...........

Were anyone to have previously tried to "raise the level of civility" the OP would have been perma-banned some time hence. That kind of thing cuts both ways. It's also worth noting the number of feedback threads about A&A and the number of those started by the OP.

In addition the poster the OP mentions has been infracted/warned/banned across three different forums in threads on similar subjects.

Overheal

I'm not defending the OP, but I am critiquing the forum tone. Already very aware of your other point, but that doesn't negate the fact that the tone in that thread is below the site standard.

Brown Bomber

robindch wrote: »

You were banned, following repeated public and private warnings -- at least some of which you acknowledged -- for you to tone down your almost continually disruptive rhetoric, for hypothesizing that another poster was an "ignorant and rude prick".

You were not banned, as you have claimed again here, as you have claimed in the past, and as you were explicitly told you would not be banned, for expressing some point of view which is not shared by the majority of other posters in A+A.

FYI, you have been extended a latitude in A+A that has been afforded to no other poster, as the sheer number of complaints from other posters about your obstreperous behaviour on the forum demonstrates. Regardless, upon the expiration of your ban, if you choose to return and continue posting in your usual antisocial tone, you will be banned again, this time probably permanently.

I trust that this clarifies the reason for your most recent ban, just a few short weeks after your last one.

Now it doesn't actually. We may have been able to clarify it if you responded to your PM's. Doubly so if you actually said why I was banned rather than playing to the crowd with your witty message/cheap shot then this also would have helped.

BB will be spending the next fortnight within the wilderness without.

I was speaking in the 3rd person in my hypothetical example. Can you honestly say it is okay to abuse a user of this site over and over again but if you insult "somebody" that doesn't exist to illustrate your point then this is not okay?

It is important to put this into context. It should be clear to any reasonable person that there wasn't an iota of ill-will between us. We were just two people trying to have a conversation. Asking and answering questions to the best of our ability. I was just trying to help out the guy/girl.

---

I said:
You do know difference between being homophobic and saying something homophobic?

jjpep said;

Actually I don't, could you explain?

I said:
It's the same for "homophobia" as anything else. (and posted dictionary definitions to both "be" and "say".)

jjpep said:
I think I'm missing on some subtly here then. Is saying ****ty things the same or different to being ****ty? Maybe I'm over simplifying things?

I said: I'll give you a simple example. You could be an ignorant and rude prick but when you meet your girlfriend/boyfriend's parents for the first time you could be the perfect gentleman and say everything politely.

jjpeg: Ok. So which one then would be the true character of the person then I wonder?

Or do you mean say prickush things but in a polite way?

I said: What we "are" is a question for the philosophers. I was simply pointing out what we say does not equate to being.

---

You were warning me for things I wasn't doing. How do you expect me to stop doing what I am not already doing?

You infract me for responding to offensive and false allegations by pointing out that the allegations are false and offensive. Meanwhile you thank the post that makes the false and offensive allegation against me. I'm on a hiding to nothing. Do you simply expect me to just accept false allegations, while you do nothing? You infracted me for this post. It sends out the message that it's okay to make baseless and offensive allegations against people who you don't like.

What a filthy lie. Quote me where I have done this. If Iona have discriminated against gay people I absolutely condemn it. I'd report the post but it seems pointless as a moderator has thanked your personal abuse. So please at least have the decency of RTE and support your false accusation or withdraw it.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88769176&postcount=440

You are applying no consistency at all in your moderation. If you did you would have banned on the majority of the abuse listed above. You didn't. If it's not a personal vendetta and if it's not your personal bias then please tell me what it is then.

Nodin

Overheal wrote: »

I'm not defending the OP, but I am critiquing the forum tone. Already very aware of your other point, but that doesn't negate the fact that the tone in that thread is below the site standard.

The first post you highlighted looks perfectly ok to me. The second refers to the inevitable round of feedback threads and DRP that the OP is well known for. The tone of course overall could be better, but that would have meant - presumably - removing the actors responsible for it's lowering earlier, which would have undoubtedly led here as well.

Overheal

You'll always have a poster or two get their pride wounded but the forum overall would have a better vibe.

Nodin

Overheal wrote: »

You'll always have a poster or two get their pride wounded but the forum overall would have a better vibe.

...by quicker and harsher bannings? Perhaps. It would degenerate into a echo chamber rather rapidly though, I think.

Overheal

Where are the on thread directions to calm the tone down. It seems like not much was said by the moderators until it got to the point of a ban. A once in a while knock it off can be a first step.

Nodin

Overheal wrote: »

Where are the on thread directions to calm the tone down. It seems like not much was said by the moderators until it got to the point of a ban. A once in a while knock it off can be a first step.

Actually there were multiple such warnings in the thread (and I haven't gone through all of it)

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88873135&postcount=1618

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88867022&postcount=1519

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88813240&postcount=889

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88854150&postcount=1382


and a fairly explicit on-thread warning saying that the next one to offend would be banned........it's quoted here

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=88906630

Overheal

Well then clearly something isn't working right, and a lot of those warnings are extremely passive, to the point of Camp Counselor-ish.

Scofflaw

Overheal wrote: »

Well then clearly something isn't working right, and a lot of those warnings are extremely passive, to the point of Camp Counselor-ish.

Mod warnings tend to be deliberately light in tone when the mods are actively engaged in the debate, or believe the issue is one worth debating, because a really good heavy-handed mod warning can have a chilling effect.

That doesn't change the fact that they're mod warnings, and the majority of posters appear to take that on board. Others don't.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sulla Felix

Overheal wrote: »

Well then clearly something isn't working right, and a lot of those warnings are extremely passive, to the point of Camp Counselor-ish.

If BB was a nub and had no experience of what A&A and the modding there is like, then I'd agree that maybe the mods could have been less "passive" but he's not, he knows exactly what's expected and to be perfectly honest, given his history both of crying oppression when he is moderated and ignoring the actual direction given in terms of his continued posting style, I find it hard not to conclude that he deliberately invites bans in order to have something extra to cry foul about. If the mods try to be lighthanded in order to avoid an endless repetition of that I say fair play.

Overheal

I don't defend the ban at all, I object to the posts left on the thread (and other examples exist in the forum, too) of posters accusing each other of trolling, making personal insults, etc. all of which a mod should be able to warn against, boldly, imo, whether or not they are in a discussion as those types of post are off-topic to that discussion.

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

Actrually there were multiple such warnings in the thread (and I haven't gone through all of it)

You also are one of the people quoted in the OP for dishing out punishment free abuse. So it is unsurprising that you would argue for maintaining this special privilege to abuse. In fact, I actually appealed to your better nature to just stop with the name calling... You didn't-

There is no "but". It's a baseless and horrible accusation.

I don't see how your repeated hollow and offensive allegations amount to anything other than bullying. You are aware that if I report a post nothing will be done by the mods. You are aware that if I even try to get people to support their baseless allegations then I am the one who is punished, you even thanked the punishment. So you are attacking someone who is defenseless, so please stop. If not for my sake then for the sake of the gay community. Empty and repeated empty accusations of homophobia are a discredit to the actual sufferers of this prejudice.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88784369&postcount=539

Brown Bomber

Scofflaw wrote: »

Mod warnings tend to be deliberately light in tone when the mods are actively engaged in the debate, or believe the issue is one worth debating, because a really good heavy-handed mod warning can have a chilling effect.

That doesn't change the fact that they're mod warnings, and the majority of posters appear to take that on board. Others don't.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The mod warnings themselves are further evidence of the moderator bias. There couldn't be a starker contrast in the language and tone of the warnings to people who share Robin's opinion and to those who don't.


Also, how can you say the majority followed the warnings. We were told in post 954 that
"The next person who trolls, or posts some uncharitable, paranoid or tatty rhetorical flourish, or indeed, anything at all which isn't the high level of debate that most people are willing to make the effort to sustain here on A+A, will be banned without warning. "


In post 1 of this thread I've listed a number of undeniable examples of direct personal abuse that came after post 954. Why weren't these people "banned without warning"?

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

.............

In post 1 of this thread I've listed a number of undeniable examples of direct personal abuse that came after post 954. Why weren't these people "banned without warning"?

All I've seen is the usual nonsense, claims of martyrdom and accusations that happen after you're reprimanded. It's as predictable as the sun rising.

MilanPan!c

Sulla Felix wrote: »

If BB was a nub and had no experience of what A&A and the modding there is like, then I'd agree that maybe the mods could have been less "passive" but he's not, he knows exactly what's expected and to be perfectly honest, given his history both of crying oppression when he is moderated and ignoring the actual direction given in terms of his continued posting style, I find it hard not to conclude that he deliberately invites bans in order to have something extra to cry foul about. If the mods try to be lighthanded in order to avoid an endless repetition of that I say fair play.

THIS is exactly what I mean when I said, repeatedly, that he was behaving dishonestly, this behaviour you've described.

Brown Bomber

MilanPan!c wrote: »

THIS is exactly what I mean when I said, repeatedly, that he was behaving dishonestly, this behaviour you've described.

... then you should be able to provide examples of when I have ignored mod warnings. I've been perfectly civil and polite throughout the whole thread. Not because of any mod warnings but because it is my nature. I generated the heat against me because I wouldn't be browbeaten into accepting the mobs opinions.

If I have been uncivil or otherwise broken forum rules then show the posts.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

... then you should be able to provide examples of when I have ignored mod warnings. I've been perfectly civil and polite throughout the whole thread. Not because of any mod warnings but because it is my nature. I generated the heat against me because I wouldn't be browbeaten into accepting the mobs opinions.

If I have been uncivil or otherwise broken forum rules then show the posts.

So you want to dispute all your various bans from whatever fora they were received?