Same moderator trawling post history and issuing false infractions.

ogsjw

Same moderator trawling post history and issuing false infractions.
Pixelburp is the moderator, and he seems to be trawling my post history looking for 'warnings' to issue.

First I equated hatred of the #metoo movement to hatred of victims who report sexual violence. Some genius attributing bad writing in a movie to 'pandering to the #metoo movement' (I assure you, my eyes rolled back further). Disparaging the #metoo movement is in fact disparagment and minimization of victims who report sexual violence or harassment. So that was a nonsensical 'warning'.

I guess the moderator in question also has unhealthy opinions about this topic, because he is trawling any posts I make in the subs he moderates for posts to give warnings for. Just another came in, for what I believe is an even older post than the first, so he is clearly trawling, and issuing warnings. And then of course there's 'a history of warnings' if he or another moderator is trying to justify a ban, which is what he's trying to buid. Except this 'history' is complete bull. Especially when you consider he doesn't use the big bad bold moderator text warning first, and goes straight to issuing a formal warning.

Look, I get it, I've used the internet for 20+ years. Moderators are insecure and powerless people in real life, so they apply to be moderators on forums so they can strong-arm people. That's fine, it's not going to change. Nowhere is the concept of the wrong people being the ones that look for the power more true.

But boards won't even allow swearing, it's censored, but hate speech seems to be fine, which seems like hypocrisy to me. The people who spew hate speech know how to tip-toe around the TOS, and still get away with spewing racial hatred and sexism. I'm going to be keeping a close eye on who sponsors ads on this website, maybe it's time to talk to them, the site's host, and any hate group watchdogs operating in Ireland, and give them some examples (how long do you reckon it would take to collect a few dozen examples? Fifteen or so minutes?). Terrible moderation expecting regular people to tolerate the intolerant because they are 'follow the TOS' is not acceptable.

ogsjw

He is also personally insulting me in PM's, directly calling me an 'ass', which is something I have not done myself, and still had 'warnings' sent. What is going on here? How can mods fire insults at people but also send warnings to people that didn't even use slurs like this??

Mr E

He is not trawling your posts - he is reacting to a reported post that the mods of that forum (me included) received this morning.
Someone else was reading that thread and reported your post.

If you are disputing the infraction (or warning from yesterday), let us know which (or if both).
Then contact the mod by PM and see if you can resolve it between you.

If you can't come to an agreement, come back here and a CMod will take a look at it for you.

Edit: I see you've been in touch. For completeness, please report the Private Messages you received from the mod.

Tone down the hostility too, or I'm going to nip this in the bud and the infraction/warning will stand.

ogsjw

Just reported the PM.

Mr E wrote: »

Tone down the hostility too, or I'm going to nip this in the bud and the infraction/warning will stand.

Yeah, this attitude is kinda the issue I'm talking about. Far too much 'because I said so' moderation going on here, with some hypocritical personal insults thrown in too of course, and this is not good moderation.



There is nothing wrong about hostility towards hate speech being defended. As Irish people we should know so much better. Irish people did 800 years of getting their face pushed in the mud and then fled and got the ol' 'No Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs' craic abroad too. It's unacceptable and the TOS needs to start reflecting that.

Mr E

I'll ask a CMod to take a look, so.

Sad Professor

Hi ogsjw

Bear with me while I have a look at this for you.

ogsjw

Thank you. BTW I'm looking to have both warnings stuck off, forgot to mention that bit.

Sad Professor

Okay, ogsjw, so I looked at both the yellow and red card you received and am upholding them both.

For the yellow you accused another user of having a "hatred of female victims of sexual violence" in response to a comment they made that suggested they were critical of MeToo. Your post was uncivil, uncalled for and overly personalised. For the red you were uncivil and condescending while also telling two users to "develop some intelligence", a thinly veiled insult.

Looking through the rest of the thread I found other instances of you being overly hostile or insulting which were not actioned but probably should have been, so I think you got away fairly lightly with just two cards. As you are a fairly new member of the site, I'd recommend familiarising yourself with the rules and posting guidelines and ensuring that you attack the post not the poster in future.

Let me know if you wish to appeal this decision to an admin.

ogsjw

Sad Professor wrote: »

Let me know if you wish to appeal this decision to an admin.

Yes of course I do, what a redundant request, because by your standard 90% of posts on boards classify as 'uncivil', and there is no defense for civility towards islamophobia, racism or sexism, which makes this absolute nonsense.

Sad Professor wrote: »

For the yellow you accused another user of having a "hatred of female victims of sexual violence" in response to a comment they made that suggested they were critical of MeToo. Your post was uncivil

and there is still the issue that the moderator who gave these bogus warnings was a hundred times more overtly uncivil, literally throwing insults, so why are there different rules for moderators? Why expect us to follow rules not even mods do?



Tell me; do you guys have figures of reported false warnings vs actual removal action taken on this site? Is the number zero?

Beasty

I will firstly address a couple of your comments above:

"because by your standard 90% of posts on boards classify as 'uncivil', and there is no defense for civility towards islamophobia, racism or sexism, which makes this absolute nonsense."

I have no idea what you are getting at here, but if you consider posts uncivil, report the and leave it to the moderation team to deal with

"Tell me; do you guys have figures of reported false warnings vs actual removal action taken on this site? Is the number zero?"

Again I have no idea what you consider a "reported false warning". Whatever it is, there are no records maintained of particular actions/reports, other than there being lists of reported posts and cards issued to users (we can also track bans) - this information is only available to moderators, CMods and Admins

Turning to the two cards you are challenging. I am in complete agreement with the CMod's decision and rationale set out above and I am upholding both cards

ogsjw

Beasty wrote: »

I have no idea what you are getting at here, but if you consider posts uncivil, report the and leave it to the moderation team to deal with

Leave it to you... when you have no idea what goes on in a huge percentage of general discussion threads? Great idea, and it's clearly having the intended effect!

Beasty wrote: »

Again I have no idea what you consider a "reported false warning".

When a mod shouldn't act, but does because they want to, are insecure, and powerless in life so they have to flex on message boards.

Beasty wrote: »

Turning to the two cards you are challenging. I am in complete agreement with the CMod's decision and rationale set out above and I am upholding both cards

"I am ok with people slandering victims of sexual abuse and claiming they influenced the writing of ****ING STAR WARS MOVIES." LOOOOOOOOOL



Yeah time to talk to your hosts and sponsors I think about the islamophobia, transphobia, homophobia, racism and sexism you allow on your boards for the advertising revenue.....

Beasty

Marking resolved