Moderator Bias and Censorship in Atheism & Agnosticism

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

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.

Well then I would refer you to post 1 of this thread where amongst other things my wife was insulted and my sexuality was questioned. As well as this Phill was accused of having committed a criminal offense.

Like I said before, I made a personal plea to you to stop the bullying. You could have easily done this, treated me civilly and I would have done the same and we could have discussed the actual topic without it being personal.

Not too much to ask.

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

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

If you took away the bans given by Robin and Penn I would have a virtually Clean record.

MilanPan!c

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.

It's been explained to you. You're doing your typical "I'm a nice guy that everyone is ganging up on" routine.

It's a joke.

MilanPan!c

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If you took away the bans given by Robin and Penn I would have a virtually Clean record.

Sure if you take away Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman, OJ Simpson is just a misunderstood guy.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If you took away the bans given by Robin and Penn I would have a virtually Clean record.

You took others by them to the DRP - they weren't overturned, were they?


For reasons best known to yourself, you seem to have decided to abandon the DRP route and go straight to feedback here. Any reason?

Brown Bomber

MilanPan!c wrote: »

It's been explained to you. You're doing your typical "I'm a nice guy that everyone is ganging up on" routine.

It's a joke.

So no examples then? Can't say that I am surprised...

As for being "nice". I believe I have been. Here are some examples of me being "nice". These are towards people who were arguing against me. I suspect it is 3 more than you could come up with.

I don't think I could ever take anything you said the wrong way. FWIW I find you uncommonly polite and respectful.

This will probably be the kiss of death for you but I just wanted to say that my opinion of you has been raised exponentially from this comment alone (not to suggest that it was low to begin with). I've had enough of the vomit-inducing hypocrisy that is everywhere so I salute you for your integrity, whether I share your opinions or not.

I think everything you have said if fair and reasonable. What is more I think it is persuasive. Despite any impression I may have given there was never too much daylight in our beliefs to begin with but I believe what you have said has closed the gap even more. I feel like you have opened my eyes a little and I thank you for that.

I will now refrain from responding to anything irrelevant from here on in as I know how this will go, the thread will be locked.

EDIT: And if anything good is going to come from this going forward then I think could be setting the ground rules for debate with the referendum coming up. One way or the other someone on the site needs to decide from the perspective of the site if it's personal abuse to call someone a "hompohobe" and also if preferring traditional marriage is automatic homophobia.

MilanPan!c

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So no examples then? Can't say that I am surprised...

As for being "nice". I believe I have been. Here are some examples of me being "nice". These are towards people who were arguing against me. I suspect it is 3 more than you could come up with.

I don't think I could ever take anything you said the wrong way. FWIW I find you uncommonly polite and respectful.

This will probably be the kiss of death for you but I just wanted to say that my opinion of you has been raised exponentially from this comment alone (not to suggest that it was low to begin with). I've had enough of the vomit-inducing hypocrisy that is everywhere so I salute you for your integrity, whether I share your opinions or not.

I think everything you have said if fair and reasonable. What is more I think it is persuasive. Despite any impression I may have given there was never too much daylight in our beliefs to begin with but I believe what you have said has closed the gap even more. I feel like you have opened my eyes a little and I thank you for that.

I will now refrain from responding to anything irrelevant from here on in as I know how this will go, the thread will be locked.

EDIT: And if anything good is going to come from this going forward then I think could be setting the ground rules for debate with the referendum coming up. One way or the other someone on the site needs to decide from the perspective of the site if it's personal abuse to call someone a "hompohobe" and also if preferring traditional marriage is automatic homophobia.

Preferring for others? Like: I'd prefer if that gay guy married a nice lady instead of that other gay guy...?

And no, calling someone a homophobe isn't abuse; of course being homophobic usually is - in the real world. On Boards, not so much.

As for your endless "prove it" responses; the proof is all around you. You've been repeatedly banned, other notice your dishonest behaviour and your never-ending claims that everyone is out to get you.

No one is buying any of it.

Turtwig

I warned, infracted posts and even banned a posted for insulting your personal life and you suggest that ban then be lifted. Then you complained in this OP about personal attacks on you. You were shown incredible patience in that thread. Every side track, every potentially inflammatory remark, you made was quenched as best we could. Given how fast and how heated the debate it is things were on the boil on several occasions. As, I've said before in many a PM you need to work on you communication. It's far too provocative and emotive.

To reiterate for a few times now. Being a mod of different forum means nothing. Mods of other forums are for all intents and purposes just regular posters.
PLEASE DO NOT LET ME HAVE TO REITERATE THIS AGAIN!

Honestly this is thread is really old and worn ground. I really don't see the point in elaborating any further. You have your issues with the forum and it's unfortunate but I don't see any resolution. So here's a challenge for you. Make the case you expect me to make. Provide the counter argument to your OP in this thread. If you cannot do that then there's no real hope of ever having a constructive discussion in any thread. Switch roles and see how that works.

I'm not going to discuss any of the recent comments in the thread as I see there's multiple reports and I haven't read a single one of them. Robs been afk overseas (the bastard!) and I've been swamped by RL issues so cover was a little lighter than anticipate and forum activity has been a lot more frequent than the norm.

Scofflaw

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If you took away the bans given by Robin and Penn I would have a virtually Clean record.

Actually, no, you'd have 10 bans, 10 infractions, and 7 warnings.

correctively,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Overheal wrote: »

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.

Jernal wrote:

I'm not going to discuss any of the recent comments in the thread as I see there's multiple reports and I haven't read a single one of them. Robs been afk overseas (the bastard!) and I've been swamped by RL issues so cover was a little lighter than anticipate and forum activity has been a lot more frequent than the norm.

Reading the thread, that's what I see as well - a thread running too fast for the best possible interventions (and at the weekend). The only way to stop that kind of thing is to lock the thread and go through it with a hammer, but you don't generally want to do that with a thread which is running hot about a current issue (as opposed to, for example, a Northern Ireland thread which is running hot over well-trodden ground).

I would prefer mod warnings to be visibly mod warnings - personally I like the use of bold type to distinguish such warnings from other posts by the mod in thread.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Brown Bomber

Jernal wrote: »

I warned, infracted posts and even banned a posted for insulting your personal life and you suggest that ban then be lifted. Then you complained in this OP about personal attacks on you. You were shown incredible patience in that thread. Every side track, every potentially inflammatory remark, you made was quenched as best we could. Given how fast and how heated the debate it is things were on the boil on several occasions. As, I've said before in many a PM you need to work on you communication. It's far too provocative and emotive.

To reiterate for a few times now. Being a mod of different forum means nothing. Mods of other forums are for all intents and purposes just regular posters.
PLEASE DO NOT LET ME HAVE TO REITERATE THIS AGAIN!

Honestly this is thread is really old and worn ground. I really don't see the point in elaborating any further. You have your issues with the forum and it's unfortunate but I don't see any resolution. So here's a challenge for you. Make the case you expect me to make. Provide the counter argument to your OP in this thread. If you cannot do that then there's no real hope of ever having a constructive discussion in any thread. Switch roles and see how that works.

I'm not going to discuss any of the recent comments in the thread as I see there's multiple reports and I haven't read a single one of them. Robs been afk overseas (the bastard!) and I've been swamped by RL issues so cover was a little lighter than anticipate and forum activity has been a lot more frequent than the norm.

Jernal, I have a short-term fix. I have no desire to post in A&A again. The only long-term solution as I see it is to give everyone even treatment regardless of their opinion. Do away with counter-productive "house rules" which allows and even encourages forum "regulars" gang-up and intimdate away outsiders who don't share the herd's opinions through mod-sanctioned trolling and personal abuse.

As for the mods flagrantly breaking rules issue. They are letting themselves down most of all. Try to see it from my perspective - I am getting personally abused by a mod of a different forum, this abuse is thanked by the forum mod, I ask the abuser to back-up their accusations and I then get penalised by the forum mod.

What would you do...?

Dave! a mod of a different forum publically calls out on thread to have me banned. I report the post. Nothing happens. His very next post is a clear case of personal abuse. Nothing happens.. How am I supposed to have any faith in any of the mods on boards? Surely Dave! knows that this is completely innapropriate behaviour for any user, nevermind a mod? Surely you seen these two crystal clear flagrant abuses of site rules? I understand that you are all buddies and probably have met up a few times but you still need to do the right thing.

All that aside, on the whole I do believe you have been patient, fair and civil with me. I genuinely hope I haven't been too much of a burden to you and thank you for volunteering your time for the benefit others.

Brown Bomber

Scofflaw wrote: »

Actually, no, you'd have 10 bans, 10 infractions, and 7 warnings.

correctively,
Scofflaw

I have no memory of the warnings and infractions but I am certain you are mistaken on the bans.

I had hoped that the powers that be would be more sympathetic to bullying. Not even for my sake, but some kid without my thick skin could be on the receiving end, really take it heart and do something stupid.

Brown Bomber

Jernal,

I have one last point if you don't mind? The answer, I believe, will show the disparity between the treatment of people who share the mod's/mob's mentality and opinions and those who don't.

In every thread that I've ever posted in in A&A they only people who have ever been banned or threatened with banning have been people who hold contrary opinions to the mods/mob.

When was the last time a forum "regular" was banned from A&A? Has it ever even happened???

Scofflaw

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I have no memory of the warnings and infractions but I am certain you are mistaken on the bans.

Don't be - I'm not.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I had hoped that the powers that be would be more sympathetic to bullying. Not even for my sake, but some kid without my thick skin could be on the receiving end, really take it heart and do something stupid.

When it happens to people who fit that description, we do take it seriously indeed.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Turtwig

Phill was banned because of the content of his posts. It stuck out like a sore thumb. I had been just skimming the thread every now and again (and I assume Rob was the same). Others were goading him and that is annoying and irritating and we do NOT like it but in the context it's also somewhat understandable. Lots of posters engaged in that thread were involved in similar discussions on after hours and the heat transferred over. Or rather, Phil when he was banned from After Hours jumped right into A&A posting identical content that had already infuriated posters over there. This was allowed for a while until it was clear he seemed he wanted to prime himself for suicide by mod. Rob issued him a final warning and he chose to still bicker nonsense. We both banned him at the same time.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Jernal, I have a short-term fix. I have no desire to post in A&A again. The only long-term solution as I see it is to give everyone even treatment regardless of their opinion. Do away with counter-productive "house rules" which allows and even encourages forum "regulars" gang-up and intimdate away outsiders who don't share the herd's opinions through mod-sanctioned trolling and personal abuse.

As for the mods flagrantly breaking rules issue. They are letting themselves down most of all. Try to see it from my perspective - I am getting personally abused by a mod of a different forum, this abuse is thanked by the forum mod, I ask the abuser to back-up their accusations and I then get penalised by the forum mod.

What would you do...?

Dave! a mod of a different forum publically calls out on thread to have me banned. I report the post. Nothing happens. His very next post is a clear case of personal abuse. Nothing happens.. How am I supposed to have any faith in any of the mods on boards? Surely Dave! knows that this is completely innapropriate behaviour for any user, nevermind a mod? Surely you seen these two crystal clear flagrant abuses of site rules? I understand that you are all buddies and probably have met up a few times but you still need to do the right thing.

All that aside, on the whole I do believe you have been patient, fair and civil with me. I genuinely hope I haven't been too much of a burden to you and thank you for volunteering your time for the benefit others.

If everyone in the forum was treated evenly you'd have been perma banned an incredibly long time ago. You have been shown more leniency than all the other forum regulars combined. That you do not realise or appreciate this is worrying and somewhat irritating because we have shown you INCREDIBLE patience and each time as reward we get it pretty much spat back in our faces with complaints and moaning and groaning. To be fair some of them are fair but most of the time it's nit picking and rule lawyering. In the general scheme of things the thread your cherry picked and the quotes you picked wouldn't happen.

It's posters like you that turn modding into a tedious job. Several posters have called for aeons for you to be banned. By reports, by PMs (asking why you weren't) and of course in thread. The latter I loathe when it happens but it's only ever been for you and the irony is that one of the light hearted reasons I gave in some of those PM's was the inevitable clusterf**k and timesink that would be expected when you were eventually banned. It's worse than Vogon bureaucracy. Every little iota, every little i and every little t that might just make your discussion or situation seem reasonable is always cherry picked. Every PM exchange point made is forgotten and sometimes utterly twisted in a DRP. You misrepresent everything and then you have the gall and audacity to actually claim mods are flagrant with the rules. We were flagrant with them, in that it's now clearer than ever that those lobbysters were actually right we should have banned you a long time ago. But you know what? Once your ban is up, you'll be free to post again. I vented there. I had to. It'll hopefully let you understand how frustrating you can be at times. But, you see another reason I give in those PMs is that every so often, even rarely, you provide moments of contradictions, points, that no other poster would have made and you force people to reinforce their arguments/opinions. Then, naturally, you take it too far. My hope is hanging by a thread but so far you've got another chance to find that balance that is there. You just always seem to capsize it. As I see it though your ban is up is 3 weeks and then you've got another chance.

This isn't even your second forum ban this year. It should go without saying though the ice you're skating on would be a lot thinner than most other posters so the threshold for what's acceptable will obviously be lowered. So yeah, I think, it's only fair to expect uneven treatment. Most posters initially receive a light nudge via PM and passive warnings. You won't have such luxuries.

Brown Bomber

Scofflaw wrote: »

Don't be - I'm not.

I've just read through my inbox and there are only a couple of bans that aren't from Penn or Robin.

Scofflaw wrote: »

When it happens to people who fit that description, we do take it seriously indeed.

cordially,
Scofflaw

... and how could you possibly know who fits that description? Surely the only safe route is to clamp down on all bullying wherever and whenever you see it?

Turtwig

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Jernal,

I have one last point if you don't mind? The answer, I believe, will show the disparity between the treatment of people who share the mod's/mob's mentality and opinions and those who don't.

In every thread that I've ever posted in in A&A they only people who have ever been banned or threatened with banning have been people who hold contrary opinions to the mods/mob.

When was the last time a forum "regular" was banned from A&A? Has it ever even happened???

Two posters have been banned for confrontational style of posting. One of these was banned for personal abuse directed at you. Another one is on incredibly thin ice.

None of those were against the status quo opinion wise. None of these bans exceeded a week either, iirc.
There may have been others. Those are off the top of my head.

Scofflaw

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I've just read through my inbox and there are only a couple of bans that aren't from Penn or Robin.


... and how could you possibly know who fits that description? Surely the only safe route is to clamp down on all bullying wherever and whenever you see it?

We do clamp down on bullying. We even clamp down on people's annoyed reaction to a regularly confrontational poster - but we also penalise the regularly confrontational poster.

You're needlessly confrontational, and appear to get a kick out of it. It's hard to take the idea that you're being bullied seriously, because all you need to do to stop people reacting badly to you is stop being needlessly confrontational.

As others have said, you have been given a very large amount of leeway, which you don't appear to recognise, because you feel you're entitled to act as you like without penalty. That's not actually the case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I've just read through my inbox and there are only a couple of bans that aren't from Penn or Robin.

There's a record of all bans, infractions and warnings kept by the system for the past 4 or so years. A Cat Mod will be able to see this and will be able to give you an exact number of bans, infractions etc. You could ask someone else like an Admin to double check Scofflaw's numbers but I highly doubt they are wrong.

Brown Bomber

Jernal wrote: »

Two posters have been banned for confrontational style of posting. One of these was banned for personal abuse directed at you. Another one is on incredibly thin ice.

None of those were against the status quo opinion wise. None of these bans exceeded a week either, iirc.
There may have been others. Those are off the top of my head.

I would have noticed if anyone had ever been banned for personally abusing me, it would have been a stop the press moment. You must be mistaken.

Turtwig

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I would have noticed if anyone had ever been banned for personally abusing me, it would have been a stop the press moment. You must be mistaken.

You sent me a pm! Asking me to consider reversing a ban on a poster you quoted in the OP. One who was commenting on your wife, your sexuality!

Scofflaw

nesf wrote: »

There's a record of all bans, infractions and warnings kept by the system for the past 4 or so years. A Cat Mod will be able to see this and will be able to give you an exact number of bans, infractions etc. You could ask someone else like an Admin to double check Scofflaw's numbers but I highly doubt they are wrong.

They're not exactly all that important, either. As you know, from a mod perspective, not a lot of posters actually stand out so that you remember them. Brown Bomber is a poster whose name on an OP, or in a thread a lot, always makes me go and do a quick thread review, because it's likely that people are being annoyed, and oil will need to be poured on the troubled waters.

There's a limit to my willingness to penalise people who are being trolled.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Brown Bomber

nesf wrote: »

There's a record of all bans, infractions and warnings kept by the system for the past 4 or so years. A Cat Mod will be able to see this and will be able to give you an exact number of bans, infractions etc. You could ask someone else like an Admin to double check Scofflaw's numbers but I highly doubt they are wrong.

I am certain they are. He banned me a while back for "posting porn" in politics, when what I posted were victims of Ariel Sharon. I maybe had another ban in politics, or maybe not. A misunderstanding led to me being banned in Islam and I think yekahs maybe banned me once in conspiracy theories. 10 bans is way off. Not that it matters so much though, I don't intend on causing you too much trouble for much longer.

Brown Bomber

Jernal wrote: »

You sent me a pm! Asking me to consider reversing a ban on a poster you quoted in the OP. One who was commenting on your wife, your sexuality!

OK, but you didn't ban that guy.

Turtwig

Brown Bomber wrote: »

OK, but you didn't ban that guy.

Oops.

nesf

Scofflaw wrote: »

They're not exactly all that important, either. As you know, from a mod perspective, not a lot of posters actually stand out so that you remember them. Brown Bomber is a poster whose name on an OP, or in a thread a lot, always makes me go and do a quick thread review, because it's likely that people are being annoyed, and oil will need to be poured on the troubled waters.

There's a limit to my willingness to penalise people who are being trolled.

cordially,
Scofflaw

It's not that it's important, I just don't want anyone reading the thread to think that you're pulling the numbers of out thin air. The constant problem with BB for many years has been this exact shifting of position in debate. First the record was clean, then it was "can't find the PMs" and now it's "oh, there were bans but they were wrongly given out anyway." Neither of which square with "clean record" without performing some interesting cognitive dissonance. Just replace "having a clean record" with any other controversial but provably false position and the subsequent goal post moving and you get the problems he creates across various forums.

Brown Bomber

Jernal wrote: »

Phill was banned because of the content of his posts. It stuck out like a sore thumb. I had been just skimming the thread every now and again (and I assume Rob was the same). Others were goading him and that is annoying and irritating and we do NOT like it but in the context it's also somewhat understandable. Lots of posters engaged in that thread were involved in similar discussions on after hours and the heat transferred over. Or rather, Phil when he was banned from After Hours jumped right into A&A posting identical content that had already infuriated posters over there. This was allowed for a while until it was clear he seemed he wanted to prime himself for suicide by mod. Rob issued him a final warning and he chose to still bicker nonsense. We both banned him at the same time.



If everyone in the forum was treated evenly you'd have been perma banned an incredibly long time ago. You have been shown more leniency than all the other forum regulars combined. That you do not realise or appreciate this is worrying and somewhat irritating because we have shown you INCREDIBLE patience and each time as reward we get it pretty much spat back in our faces with complaints and moaning and groaning. To be fair some of them are fair but most of the time it's nit picking and rule lawyering. In the general scheme of things the thread your cherry picked and the quotes you picked wouldn't happen.

It's posters like you that turn modding into a tedious job. Several posters have called for aeons for you to be banned. By reports, by PMs (asking why you weren't) and of course in thread. The latter I loathe when it happens but it's only ever been for you and the irony is that one of the light hearted reasons I gave in some of those PM's was the inevitable clusterf**k and timesink that would be expected when you were eventually banned. It's worse than Vogon bureaucracy. Every little iota, every little i and every little t that might just make your discussion or situation seem reasonable is always cherry picked. Every PM exchange point made is forgotten and sometimes utterly twisted in a DRP. You misrepresent everything and then you have the gall and audacity to actually claim mods are flagrant with the rules. We were flagrant with them, in that it's now clearer than ever that those lobbysters were actually right we should have banned you a long time ago. But you know what? Once your ban is up, you'll be free to post again. I vented there. I had to. It'll hopefully let you understand how frustrating you can be at times. But, you see another reason I give in those PMs is that every so often, even rarely, you provide moments of contradictions, points, that no other poster would have made and you force people to reinforce their arguments/opinions. Then, naturally, you take it too far. My hope is hanging by a thread but so far you've got another chance to find that balance that is there. You just always seem to capsize it. As I see it though your ban is up is 3 weeks and then you've got another chance.

This isn't even your second forum ban this year. It should go without saying though the ice you're skating on would be a lot thinner than most other posters so the threshold for what's acceptable will obviously be lowered. So yeah, I think, it's only fair to expect uneven treatment. Most posters initially receive a light nudge via PM and passive warnings. You won't have such luxuries.

The way I see it is that the "regulars" want this public discussion forum to be their private members club where they can reinforce their prejudices, politic and back-slap uninterupted.

I have been no more than annoyance, a bump in the road to this herd. I have never done anymore than give my opinion and state my case, even if I have done it with my heart on my sleeve. They couldn't dispose of this annoyance by constantly personally abusing me so they turn to you to censor me. I apologise for my part in this but I don't see it as my fault. However, you can be sure I wont be there again so you don't have to worry. I was sincere in my compliments of you. So thanks again.

Brown Bomber

nesf wrote: »

It's not that it's important, I just don't want anyone reading the thread to think that you're pulling the numbers of out thin air. The constant problem with BB for many years has been this exact shifting of position in debate. First the record was clean, then it was "can't find the PMs" and now it's "oh, there were bans but they were wrongly given out anyway." Neither of which square with "clean record" without performing some interesting cognitive dissonance. Just replace "having a clean record" with any other controversial but provably false position and the subsequent goal post moving and you get the problems he creates across various forums.

What various forums? I only post in 2. These are my bans:

08-08-2010 Automatic Ban Lift from: Islam
17:00 boards.ie
13-11-2010 Automatic Ban Lift from: Conspiracy Theories
23:00 boards.ie
26-08-2011 Automatic Ban Lift from: Conspiracy Theories
15:00 boards.ie
20-04-2011 Automatic Ban Lift from: Conspiracy Theories
13:00 boards.ie
05-05-2013 Automatic Ban Lift from: Conspiracy Theories
20:00 boards.ie
Messages: 2 Boards.ie
28-12-2013 Automatic Ban Lift from: Atheism & Agnosticism
01:15 Boards.ie
07-01-2014 Automatic Ban Lift from: Politics
02:15 Boards.ie

Brown Bomber

Scofflaw wrote: »

They're not exactly all that important, either. As you know, from a mod perspective, not a lot of posters actually stand out so that you remember them. Brown Bomber is a poster whose name on an OP, or in a thread a lot, always makes me go and do a quick thread review, because it's likely that people are being annoyed, and oil will need to be poured on the troubled waters.

There's a limit to my willingness to penalise people who are being trolled.

cordially,
Scofflaw

When has this ever happened???

Scofflaw

Brown Bomber wrote: »

When has this ever happened???

I wish I was as surprised that you claim you don't notice as you apparently are that it happens, but I'm not.

BB, I'm not going to play chapter and verse games. This is not my forum, and this is not my ban. I will let you know next time it happens.

jadedly,
Scofflaw