Discussion about forum standards

Feedback and site usage questions

Moderator: Moderators

koko

Discussion about forum standards

Post #1

Post by koko »

I have had some PM discussions with otseng about what are/are not acceptable posts on this forum. The mods have clearly displayed selectivity in their objections to certain posts. I made that assertion to otseng and requested an open discussion on this forum. He complied with that request and allowed a thread here.

otseng and the mods have accepted certain objectionable posting patterns while they have not been tolerant of others whose content is significantly less objectionable and obviously far more informed. Someone like me makes a post about a controversial political figure and that post is deleted or a mod notice is made which condemns the post and alleges that it is not conducive to good discussions. This despite the fact that numerous public figures made similar assertions. By contrast, other people make highly objectionable posts such as that of a child getting abused and an allegation that an institution had something to do with that misconduct even though no evidence was presented to back up that assertion. Other repeated postings assert and repeatedly assert that BLM is a criminal or subversive institution that foments crimes in particular locales, again, without the slighest evidence that BLM ever had anything to do with such violence. (On the contrary, BLM was honored, that's right, HONORED by a mayor and by a police chief for preventing crimes and violence. Furthermore, BLM retains its tax exemption status under IRC 501(c) (3) which means the Justice Department, IRS, and yes even Trump continue to recognize it as a benevolent institution.)



Despite it all, my complaints about forum double standards have been disregarded by the admin. While I have repeatedly called for proof (PROOF, not mere reassertions) that BLM members have been indicted for arson in the recent urban riots not a shred of evidence has been posted. Claiming that BLM has fomented violence without any proof constitutes a violation of the biblical law injunction against bearing false witness. As such, this baseless assertion is not conducive to good discussion. Yet, the repeated and unproven assertions are allowed by the admin and mods.

My challenge to otseng is to make a valid case as to why the repeated and unproven assertions are allowed to be repeated on this forum almost on a daily basis, and how such repeated libels, somehow, are acceptable and conducive to good discussion. That by contrast, how can it be said that calling Bush a "traitor" is, somehow, objectional and does not lead to a good discussion even though Professor Ben Ferencz (my lifelong hero, the man who inspired me to go to law school and to pursue justice for all throughout my entire life) virtually made this same assertion when he called for a Nuremberg tribunal for Bush. otseng asserted that the statement is "inflammatory" -- how so? prove it? would you shut down Professor Ferencz? after all, he is only the world's foremost authority on the subject. Professor Ferencz's thoughts are objectionable but someone abusing children in a photo is acceptable and leads to a good discussion? In what fairy tale is that possible???

I do agree that informative discussion is commendable. It should be done here and on all forums. Professor Ferencz (now at age 100 years young) has been doing this all his life. I am proud to say he is my lifelong role model. And while I do not claim to live up to the class and quality of his level, I do my best. Yes, I may be a bit rough in my wording but nowhere do you see libel and slander. Furthermore, nowhere do you see exploiting the subject of children and their sufferings in my posts. As far as I am concerned, children are off limits. To me, no one should ever exploit them under any circumstances for any reason whatsoever. I again challenge otseng to prove to me the obvious exploitation we saw on this forum leads to good discussion and how quoting a distinguished scholar like Ferencz is somehow not so conducive.


Bottom line is that I am making a challenge to otseng to maintain a uniform standard in the application of his principles. Let us see how he defends the only too obvious inconsistency in the application of his alleged principles.

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3376
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 263 times
Been thanked: 935 times

Re: Discussion about forum standards

Post #2

Post by Miles »

koko wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 3:08 pm I have had some PM discussions with otseng about what are/are not acceptable posts on this forum. The mods have clearly displayed selectivity in their objections to certain posts. I made that assertion to otseng and requested an open discussion on this forum. He complied with that request and allowed a thread here.

otseng and the mods have accepted certain objectionable posting patterns while they have not been tolerant of others whose content is significantly less objectionable and obviously far more informed.
Objectionable to you perhaps, but not to them, which is what counts---why should they defer to your opinion? Intolerant to you perhaps, but not to them, which is what counts---why should they defer to your opinion?

koko wrote: Someone like me makes a post about a controversial political figure and that post is deleted or a mod notice is made which condemns the post and alleges that it is not conducive to good discussions. This despite the fact that numerous public figures made similar assertions.
So what? Do you think your opinion and argumentum ad populum here should rule?

koko wrote: By contrast, other people make highly objectionable posts such as that of a child getting abused and an allegation that an institution had something to do with that misconduct even though no evidence was presented to back up that assertion.
Objectionable to you perhaps, but do you really expect them to defer to your distaste? If nothing else you gotta keep in mind that DC&R is otseng's baby and that he can run it any way he chooses. I suspect he would suggest that if you dislike it so much then don't post or even read it.

koko wrote: Other repeated postings assert and repeatedly assert that BLM is a criminal or subversive institution that foments crimes in particular locales, again, without the slighest evidence that BLM ever had anything to do with such violence.
Again, like it or not this is his/their call.

koko wrote: (On the contrary, BLM was honored, that's right, HONORED by a mayor and by a police chief for preventing crimes and violence.
Not that it may not deserve such an honor, but keep in mind that mayors and chiefs of police come in all flavors, and I'm quite certain there are more that a handful who don't believe the BLM organization deserves any such an honor at all.

Perspective,
koko. Perspective.

koko wrote: Furthermore, BLM retains its tax exemption status under IRC 501(c) (3) which means the Justice Department, IRS, and yes even Trump continue to recognize it as a benevolent institution.)

As an FYI, 501(c) (3) organizations need not meet any definition of benevolency, but simply be non-profit, and be at least one of the below.


Charitable
Religious
Educational
Scientific
Literary
Testing for public safety
Fostering amateur sports competition
Preventing cruelty to children or animals



koko wrote: Bottom line is that I am making a challenge to otseng to maintain a uniform standard in the application of his principles. Let us see how he defends the only too obvious inconsistency in the application of his alleged principles.
Gotta say, this comes across more like a demand to maintain a uniform standard in the application of his principles as you see them.



.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18574
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 212 times
Contact:

Re: Discussion about forum standards

Post #3

Post by otseng »

For reference, the moderator action being referred to is:
viewtopic.php?p=1019989#p1019977

Note, it is a comment and not a warning, so it is not judged to be a serious violation and does not count against koko in terms of warnings. As a matter of fact, koko has not received any warnings up to this point, so I see no major point in arguing for a fair treatment, since he's not even on the path of censure.

But as for fairness in moderating overall, it is something that we have strived to maintain ever since the founding of this forum 16 years ago. However, it is not something that is guaranteed to happen in all instances. Maintaining fairness is not an easy task. What websites out there is considered to excel in maintaining fairness, even commercial sites with a paid staff?

We have a mixed group of moderators with differing worldviews and differing levels of acceptability of civility. Some are more strict than others in terms of enforcing civility, some are less so. We are all also doing this on a voluntary basis and we all also have our own lives to live. There will be up days and there will be down days. But, what we hope is that over time, everything will balance out and whenever we do have to make the decision to kick someone off the forum, it would be a fair decision.

Every individual has their own idea of what is considered fair. But, it is impossible to objectively define what would be fair. What is fair for one person can be considered not fair to another. For me, the line of what is acceptable and not acceptable is attacking a person. I grant liberty (often more than the other moderators) in attacking ideas. But, I am strict in not allowing attacking another poster.

In terms of giving out comments and warnings, moderators only act on what is reported. If a post is not reported, then most likely no moderator will act on it.

The moderating team only acts in regards to rules violations, which is primarily about civility. It is not the moderating team's job to enforce that people debate correctly, support their arguments, make convincing arguments, or provide proof for assertions made.

koko

Re: Discussion about forum standards

Post #4

Post by koko »

Miles wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 5:05 pm
koko wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 3:08 pm I have had some PM discussions with otseng about what are/are not acceptable posts on this forum. The mods have clearly displayed selectivity in their objections to certain posts. I made that assertion to otseng and requested an open discussion on this forum. He complied with that request and allowed a thread here.

otseng and the mods have accepted certain objectionable posting patterns while they have not been tolerant of others whose content is significantly less objectionable and obviously far more informed.
Objectionable to you perhaps, but not to them, which is what counts---why should they defer to your opinion? Intolerant to you perhaps, but not to them, which is what counts---why should they defer to your opinion?

koko wrote: Someone like me makes a post about a controversial political figure and that post is deleted or a mod notice is made which condemns the post and alleges that it is not conducive to good discussions. This despite the fact that numerous public figures made similar assertions.
So what? Do you think your opinion and argumentum ad populum here should rule?

koko wrote: By contrast, other people make highly objectionable posts such as that of a child getting abused and an allegation that an institution had something to do with that misconduct even though no evidence was presented to back up that assertion.
Objectionable to you perhaps, but do you really expect them to defer to your distaste? If nothing else you gotta keep in mind that DC&R is otseng's baby and that he can run it any way he chooses. I suspect he would suggest that if you dislike it so much then don't post or even read it.

koko wrote: Other repeated postings assert and repeatedly assert that BLM is a criminal or subversive institution that foments crimes in particular locales, again, without the slighest evidence that BLM ever had anything to do with such violence.
Again, like it or not this is his/their call.

koko wrote: (On the contrary, BLM was honored, that's right, HONORED by a mayor and by a police chief for preventing crimes and violence.
Not that it may not deserve such an honor, but keep in mind that mayors and chiefs of police come in all flavors, and I'm quite certain there are more that a handful who don't believe the BLM organization deserves any such an honor at all.

Perspective,
koko. Perspective.

koko wrote: Furthermore, BLM retains its tax exemption status under IRC 501(c) (3) which means the Justice Department, IRS, and yes even Trump continue to recognize it as a benevolent institution.)

As an FYI, 501(c) (3) organizations need not meet any definition of benevolency, but simply be non-profit, and be at least one of the below.


Charitable
Religious
Educational
Scientific
Literary
Testing for public safety
Fostering amateur sports competition
Preventing cruelty to children or animals



koko wrote: Bottom line is that I am making a challenge to otseng to maintain a uniform standard in the application of his principles. Let us see how he defends the only too obvious inconsistency in the application of his alleged principles.
Gotta say, this comes across more like a demand to maintain a uniform standard in the application of his principles as you see them.



.





If you find abusing children to be an acceptable form of entertainment or expression, well, good for you. I don't. But you need to apply some degree of common sense here as such a photo would have been deleted on any other forum and, for a forum that has had numerous discussions on abortion and the need to protect children, this unfortunate display is (or as you say, in my opinion) should not be normally acceptable. But if that's to your liking or approval, so be it. Oh by the way, I'm still waiting for proof that BLM had anything to do with the conduct shown in that photo as has been asserted without any proof.

Telling blatant lies is acceptable? Libellous comments? Unsupported assertions? Repeated, baseless insinuations that have as much truth as the man in the moon? Well, ok. If that's what you want, fine. As for me, I much prefer to have intelligent exchanges where people document, not reassert, pointless arguments that have no basis in reality.

Just today I got a call from a friend in NY who said he couldn't vote for Biden because he and Obama allowed in too many illegal immigrants and would defund police and use the redirected money for Medicaid and Medicare for illegals. I asked him where did you get that information? He said everyone he knows is saying that. Then I pointed out that Obama deported more illegals than Bush ever did, that Biden would have absolutely nothing to do with financing police, and that Medicaid/Medicare are federal, not state dollars which cannot be used for police purposes which are financed by locals, not be federals. When he thought it over he asked why he was ever foolish enough to believe those right wing fairy tales. In a world where 2 + 2 = 5, again, if that is the mythology you wish to believe, then go for it.


BLM doesn't deserve those honors? OK. let's turn that around: since when does YOUR opinion count? BLM has been honored by police, by mayors, and by the public (here in Minnesota the majority of its supporters are white) and retains its tax exempt status because of its service to humanity. Just who are you to assert that it is not worthy of all the accolades it has gotten? Since when do we as a society need to defer to your distaste or those of you who are like minded?


Nothing which I have said to otseng in my PM was a "demand" but a request for clarification, for consistency, and for a more informed exchange on the forum. Go ahead and ask him if you have any doubt. Let's have intelligent exchanges, with documentation to prove any assertions. And let's have a consistent outlook on standards of taste. That's what I'm looking for and otseng is well informed of that view.

koko

Re: Discussion about forum standards

Post #5

Post by koko »

otseng wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 6:18 pm ...

The moderating team only acts in regards to rules violations, which is primarily about civility. It is not the moderating team's job to enforce that people debate correctly, support their arguments, make convincing arguments, or provide proof for assertions made.


That's fine but if you go by miles's assertion he thinks I tried to twist your arm. Well, you saw my PM's - were they not cordial? Was my approach to you hostile or menacing? On the contrary, I was hoping to make the forum better and I stand by that. Let's make this an even better place for all.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1339
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 97 times
Contact:

Re: Discussion about forum standards

Post #6

Post by AgnosticBoy »

koko wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 7:59 pm If you find abusing children to be an acceptable form of entertainment or expression, well, good for you. I don't. But you need to apply some degree of common sense here as such a photo would have been deleted on any other forum and, for a forum that has had numerous discussions on abortion and the need to protect children, this unfortunate display is (or as you say, in my opinion) should not be normally acceptable. But if that's to your liking or approval, so be it. Oh by the way, I'm still waiting for proof that BLM had anything to do with the conduct shown in that photo as has been asserted without any proof.
It has already been proven that BLM members engage in looting, arson, attacking White police officers, and yes, abusing a White toddler. BLM has NOT condemned such acts. Trying to censor the evidence for such acts because YOU want to hide that ugly side is not going to work. Transparency trumps your political agenda!

Also, reread Miles post about your view. Miles exposed how your "standard" is highly unreasonable.
Last edited by AgnosticBoy on Sat Aug 22, 2020 9:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3376
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 263 times
Been thanked: 935 times

Re: Discussion about forum standards

Post #7

Post by Miles »

koko wrote:
If you find abusing children to be an acceptable form of entertainment or expression, well, good for you.
"Good for me"? Why would finding abusing children to be an acceptable form of entertainment or expression be good for me?

koko wrote:
BLM doesn't deserve those honors? OK. let's turn that around: since when does YOUR opinion count? BLM has been honored by police, by mayors, and by the public (here in Minnesota the majority of its supporters are white) and retains its tax exempt status because of its service to humanity. Just who are you to assert that it is not worthy of all the accolades it has gotten? Since when do we as a society need to defer to your distaste or those of you who are like minded?
Reading Comprehension koko Reading Comprehension . . . . Try it again, reading a bit more slowly this time.

"Not that it may not deserve such an honor, but keep in mind that mayors and chiefs of police come in all flavors, and I'm quite certain there are more than a handful who don't believe the BLM organization deserves any such an honor at all."

Get it? If not, read it again.

koko wrote:
Nothing which I have said to otseng in my PM was a "demand" but a request for clarification, for consistency, and for a more informed exchange on the forum.
And just what do you think " this comes across more like a demand to maintain a uniform standard in the application of his principles" means?

Does it mean:
1) you demand
2) seems like you demand

Or, do you actually see no difference between the two?

.

koko

Re: Discussion about forum standards

Post #8

Post by koko »

Miles wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 9:42 pm
koko wrote:

koko wrote:
If you find abusing children to be an acceptable form of entertainment or expression, well, good for you.
"Good for me"? Why would finding abusing children to be an acceptable form of entertainment or expression be good for me?

koko wrote:
BLM doesn't deserve those honors? OK. let's turn that around: since when does YOUR opinion count? BLM has been honored by police, by mayors, and by the public (here in Minnesota the majority of its supporters are white) and retains its tax exempt status because of its service to humanity. Just who are you to assert that it is not worthy of all the accolades it has gotten? Since when do we as a society need to defer to your distaste or those of you who are like minded?
Reading Comprehension koko Reading Comprehension . . . . Try it again, reading a bit more slowly this time.

"Not that it may not deserve such an honor, but keep in mind that mayors and chiefs of police come in all flavors, and I'm quite certain there are more that a handful who don't believe the BLM organization deserves any such an honor at all."

Get it? If not, read it again.

koko wrote:
Nothing which I have said to otseng in my PM was a "demand" but a request for clarification, for consistency, and for a more informed exchange on the forum.
And just what do you think " this comes across more like a demand to maintain a uniform standard in the application of his principles" means?

Does it mean:
1) you demanded
2) seems like you demanded

Or, do you actually see no difference between the two?

.



Re reading comprehension, you may well have missed the fact that there was pruposefully (let us say) a small degree of sarcasm in my reply. I shall allow you to ascertain to what degree that may have been intended.

BLM stands by the many accolades it has gotten. So does your government elsewise it would have removed the tax exemption status that group enjoys.

As for "demand", nothing in otseng's replies to me asserted that I tried to twist his arm in any way nor did he demand any apology from me despite your erroneous analysis.

koko

Re: Discussion about forum standards

Post #9

Post by koko »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 9:05 pm
koko wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 7:59 pm If you find abusing children to be an acceptable form of entertainment or expression, well, good for you. I don't. But you need to apply some degree of common sense here as such a photo would have been deleted on any other forum and, for a forum that has had numerous discussions on abortion and the need to protect children, this unfortunate display is (or as you say, in my opinion) should not be normally acceptable. But if that's to your liking or approval, so be it. Oh by the way, I'm still waiting for proof that BLM had anything to do with the conduct shown in that photo as has been asserted without any proof.
It has already been proven that BLM members engage in looting, arson, attacking White police officers, and yes, abusing a White toddler. BLM has NOT condemned such acts. Trying to censure such acts because YOU want to hide that ugly side is not going to work. Transparency trumps your political agenda!

Also, reread Miles post about your view. Miles exposed how your "standard" is highly unreasonable.


Let's see those indictments. I'll wait.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1339
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 97 times
Contact:

Re: Discussion about forum standards

Post #10

Post by AgnosticBoy »

koko wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 9:49 pm
AgnosticBoy wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 9:05 pm
koko wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 7:59 pm If you find abusing children to be an acceptable form of entertainment or expression, well, good for you. I don't. But you need to apply some degree of common sense here as such a photo would have been deleted on any other forum and, for a forum that has had numerous discussions on abortion and the need to protect children, this unfortunate display is (or as you say, in my opinion) should not be normally acceptable. But if that's to your liking or approval, so be it. Oh by the way, I'm still waiting for proof that BLM had anything to do with the conduct shown in that photo as has been asserted without any proof.
It has already been proven that BLM members engage in looting, arson, attacking White police officers, and yes, abusing a White toddler. BLM has NOT condemned such acts. Trying to censure such acts because YOU want to hide that ugly side is not going to work. Transparency trumps your political agenda!

Also, reread Miles post about your view. Miles exposed how your "standard" is highly unreasonable.
Let's see those indictments. I'll wait.
An indictment would be MORE evidence on top of the proof I've already presented. I find it hard to believe that you think someone putting their knee on the neck of a White toddler is not guilty. It doesn't take a lawyer to figure that out.

Locked