Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

A forum about the forums

Moderator: Carleas

Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Yes.
20
56%
No.
14
39%
I don't know.
2
6%
 
Total votes : 36

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby Arminius » Wed Mar 23, 2016 10:02 pm

HaHaHa wrote:Image
Or:
filpr.jpg
filpr.jpg (15.94 KiB) Viewed 1547 times
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby Carleas » Thu Mar 24, 2016 2:37 pm

Artimas wrote:Or just simply put a 1-5 mark system 5 marks is perm ban. Maybe more marks depending.

Arminius wrote:I can agree with that.


So is the problem is that we have two too many marks?

If a member's behavior is disruptive to discussions, staff will intervene to prevent further disruption. Ideally, a private message or a post in a given thread will be enough, but if it not, additional actions may be taken based on the number of similar actions a user has incurred in the past 6 months:
1st warning: board warning, no further action
2nd: the user will be barred from posting for 24 hours
3rd: barred from posting for 4 days
4th: 1 week
5th: 1 month
6th: 3 months
7th: 3 months, but seriously, 7 warnings in 6 months when you can't post for 4.5 of them? Why do you come back?


Or, if it's that there's no permanent ban at the end, the reality is that there's no such thing as a permanent ban on the internet. We could say 'permanent', but that just means that the user name is dead, not that the poster is banished in practice.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 5760
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby Arminius » Thu Mar 24, 2016 4:35 pm

Carleas wrote:
Artimas wrote:Or just simply put a 1-5 mark system 5 marks is perm ban. Maybe more marks depending.

Arminius wrote:I can agree with that.

So is the problem is that we have two too many marks?

I can agree with Artimas’ suggestions concerning the mark system, but, for me, the mark system is not the main aspect of handling the problem. The main aspect of handling the problem are the administrator(s) and moderators, especially their personality and motivation. Therefore I mentioned the good example given by Uccisore.

Carleas wrote:
If a member's behavior is disruptive to discussions, staff will intervene to prevent further disruption. Ideally, a private message or a post in a given thread will be enough, but if it not, additional actions may be taken based on the number of similar actions a user has incurred in the past 6 months:
1st warning: board warning, no further action
2nd: the user will be barred from posting for 24 hours
3rd: barred from posting for 4 days
4th: 1 week
5th: 1 month
6th: 3 months
7th: 3 months, but seriously, 7 warnings in 6 months when you can't post for 4.5 of them? Why do you come back?

Or, if it's that there's no permanent ban at the end, the reality is that there's no such thing as a permanent ban on the internet. We could say 'permanent', but that just means that the user name is dead, not that the poster is banished in practice.

I am convinced that the number of the trolls will soon lower after the trolls will have realized their absolutely indisputable undesirability.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby Artimas » Thu Mar 24, 2016 5:09 pm

That's good that there is a mark system, they serve the most justice from what I can tell. The part where we have a problem is having your system better enforced i'd say. Only a few times have people been banned or warned. There are quite a few times where ad hom has happened and no system was enforced.

The mods aren't bad, the only one I got in an argument with was Ucc really, but I agree with his assertiveness. We just need more assertion behind the system is all. Step 1: identity the troll/flame baiter. Step 2: warn/ban the troll/ flame baiter. Step 3: continue the process, the more marks the harsher the justice.
Last edited by Artimas on Thu Mar 24, 2016 5:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Even nothing, is something.
If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3726
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby Artimas » Thu Mar 24, 2016 5:12 pm

Perm banning is near impossible due to proxies, ip changes, etc. Range bans are good, but this is also bad due to limiting the forum population by what places you ban and people being banned who didn't do anything, it raises the chance of new users not knowing we even exist.

Even nothing, is something.
If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3726
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby Arminius » Thu Mar 24, 2016 10:39 pm

Artimas wrote:That's good that there is a mark system ....

Yes, of course, but it already exists, and it is not the main issue. The main issue are the administration and moderation - without them all mark systems are useless.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Fri Mar 25, 2016 11:51 pm

Carleas wrote:Mostly you, but the question is for the room (and bakes in some of Artimas' ideas that you seemed to agree with).

I appreciate Uccisore's moderation style, it's very different from my own and in many cases better. He can clarify if I misstate his approach, but as I see it, Uccisore is better at enforcing obvious standards of quality, where I tend to emphasize articulable standards. I generally err on the side of permissiveness, where I think Uccisore would err in the other direction (to a lesser extent, of course, and we would likely disagree about what it means to err in the case of moderator intervention).

I think both approaches are useful, both have their time and place, and both have in turn won us praise and cost us users.

More generally (and this I don't intend as in contrast with Uccisore), I'm pretty easy going, and I don't find trolls that annoying, nor am I offended by offensive ideas. And I value noise; there can absolutely be too much, but there can also be too little noise.

Most importantly, I distrust humans when it comes to moderation, myself included; trolls that disagree with me are more annoying than trolls that don't. That's why I favor articulable standards, it keeps me honest and removes human lapses from enforcement. I think that's important on a philosophy forum, because it's easy to find ideas that someone considers appalling amid discussions such as these.

So I tend to under-enforce, because I expect that to be less harmful. But I could be wrong.



Hi Carleas. I wanted to bring to your attention a matter that has arisen with Uccisore. It seems he has been baiting and provoking, through mild trolling in numerous responses to me. I didnt instigate this and it is continuing in other threads. So I'm concerned that he, as a moderator, is essentially breaking the rules of the forum. One example being here, where he basically accuses me of bigotry and prejudice - viewtopic.php?f=1&t=187609#p2597449


He's often putting words in my mouth and assuming things that I didn't state here. because he takes things out of context and seems to be reading what he wants to read, one example here: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=190064&p=2595837&hilit=new+atheist#p2596049, //// viewtopic.php?f=5&t=190064&start=25#p2595841

Here he quotes me out of context and ignores the reasoning I gave in matters that he attempts to argue against, while ignoring the reasoning I had already gave..
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=190004&start=75#p2593891

Now it seems like its repeated behavior of him trolling me, but only on threads that have a similar theme. I already had reported another one of his replies to me, but Only_Humean basically didn't see the need to "sanction" Uccisore because of his pronouncement. Which was accusatory. So he often has been misquoting me out of context, ignoring my reasons and interjecting assumptions based on his preconceived notion of me and what my motives are it seems. I don't know why exactly, but it seems he has a big beef with New Atheists and has labeled me one. I'm not very aware of what type of people "New Atheists" are, or what he perceives them to be, but I have heard a lot of negativity about them and he seems to be one of those people that may understand it better than I and has some vendetta to crush whatever he suspects is New Atheist hogwash, or whatever. But I have been providing a consistent, related philosophy of mine within the forum the past month or so - and he has been providing rather trollish remarks instead of reasoning. I mean, for a regular member to do that would probably fly, but when a mod does I'm concerned. Is that a double standard of mine? Perhaps, but I would expect mods to enforce and abide by the rules moreso. Yes Carleas you do seem to let things slide. I think Humean does a great job of moving threads to where they belong... I don't see much from Uccisore myself. I could provide some examples of what I suspect is trolling from Uccisore to me, if wished. But I really think he's just trying to smear my philosophy because he doesn't like it. Not because I'm not providing reason...

I don't mind people disagreeing, and Uccisores methods of most others comes across to me as trolling. I haven't gotten that from any other poster here that disagreed with me on any thread. Only him thus far. So I think he is biased of course and being unreasonable in certain threads, but not in others. He seems to quick to assume things, insult, and project superiority... which by projection it seems he accuses me of thinking I'm superior, when its really him who he thinks is superior. As a mod, I find it very unbecoming for him. He likes to hold his misunderstandings of me and carry them to other threads and insult. I do usually, not always, return somewhat in kind. So I'm not always taking the high road myself. But nonetheless I find him to be instigating, baiting, and attempting slander on me with downright accusations and some subtle accusations, and using smear tactics with quoting me out of context. So, I don't think highly of this moderation. Humean, Yes. Everyone else is doing a fine job from my vantage, at least.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3478
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby Uccisore » Sat Mar 26, 2016 1:18 am

Artimas wrote:Welp I haven't gotten any warnings or bans, but I agree with Ucc. If I were mod I'd be a bit ruthless. No ad hom,


I actually don't have much of a problem with 'ad hom' as long as it's in a post that's furthering the discussion and isn't being reported as harassment. If somebody is saying "Your argument is incorrect because A, B, C, D, E...asshole" and the person they are writing too isn't reporting them, I just figure they're both adults and that's sometimes how adults talk. I'd much rather see a mean, insult ridden, and yet on-topic discussion than somebody posting innocent pictures of fluffy kittens everywhere *instead* of a discussion.

Part of the reason for this is that I find when moderation is strict about insults, the result is that people just more clever about insulting people. I also find that the people who are the best at cleverly insulting others are oftentimes the least desirable people to discuss philosophy with. I've seen forums lose good people to banning because those people weren't interested in playing coy with somebody that was calling them a motherfucker in a way that technically wasn't against the rules.

I admit this is a big difference between me and how other people in other parts of the internet moderate things.

Carleas wrote: He can clarify if I misstate his approach, but as I see it, Uccisore is better at enforcing obvious standards of quality, where I tend to emphasize articulable standards.


Yeah, that sounds right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby Carleas » Mon Mar 28, 2016 3:05 pm

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:I don't mind people disagreeing, and Uccisores methods of most others comes across to me as trolling.

This is the kind of thing that pushes me towards articulable standards: when something seems clearly true to us, someone disagreeing seems like they must be trolling: how else could they not see? But people actually disagree, and they perceive each other as trolls, and that's OK.

But what it seems to me like you're alleging is just that Uccisore is making bad arguments, and 'bad arguments' can't be subject to a blanket prohibition in any reasonable articulable standard of moderator intervention.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 5760
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Mon Mar 28, 2016 3:06 pm

Carleas wrote:
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:I don't mind people disagreeing, and Uccisores methods of most others comes across to me as trolling.

This is the kind of thing that pushes me towards articulable standards: when something seems clearly true to us, someone disagreeing seems like they must be trolling: how else could they not see? But people actually disagree, and they perceive each other as trolls, and that's OK.

But what it seems to me like you're alleging is just that Uccisore is making bad arguments, and 'bad arguments' can't be subject to a blanket prohibition in any reasonable articulable standard of moderator intervention.


Well bad arguments + insults

Philosophy forum rules:

Show courtesy to other posters at all times: no flaming. Insulting, aggressive or demeaning behaviour towards others will result in a warning.
2.2 Arguments should be made in good faith: no trolling. If a moderator sees a poster presenting an argument and dismissing any counterpoints without engaging them, or suspects someone of presenting arguments purely for the sake of inflaming debate or annoying other posters, a warning may be issued.


So no, I welcome criticism and disagreement - it's a manner in which it occurs that I think is unbecoming particularly for a mod
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3478
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby Uccisore » Mon Mar 28, 2016 5:12 pm

I called you a bigot who was prejudiced against religion because you're a bigot who's prejudice against religion, and you made that startlingly obvious in a thread you created a subject of which was the bigotry and prejudice of religious people. So not only is it true, but it wasn't off-topic for the subject you created, and, might I add, I'm not even the first person to call you an anti-religious bigot; somebody else had the same observation a few days prior in the same section of the forums.

What that has to do with my moderation, I am unsure. It's not like a banned you or warned you for being a bigot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Mon Mar 28, 2016 7:44 pm

Uccisore wrote:I called you a bigot who was prejudiced against religion because you're a bigot who's prejudice against religion, and you made that startlingly obvious in a thread you created a subject of which was the bigotry and prejudice of religious people. So not only is it true, but it wasn't off-topic for the subject you created, and, might I add, I'm not even the first person to call you an anti-religious bigot; somebody else had the same observation a few days prior in the same section of the forums.

What that has to do with my moderation, I am unsure. It's not like a banned you or warned you for being a bigot.


So here we go - bigot can be a very harsh word. I don't even know what thread I created that you claim was a thread of bigotry and prejudice of religious people as opposed. Providing a better way and providing reasons for flaws of religion isn't bigotry or prejudice. You make those accusations while ignoring the reasoning I gave that showed why religion isn't "good" and how going off of a knowledge based frame of reference as opposed to belief based is good. I provided reasons, you called it bigotry and prejudice, ignoring the reasons. Not cool
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3478
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby Uccisore » Mon Mar 28, 2016 9:52 pm

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:So here we go - bigot can be a very harsh word.


Then don't use it. You brought it up as an accusation against religious people. I just pointed out you fell prey to the characterization. If you weren't preoccupied with condemning the bigotry and prejudice of people with a different ideology than you, it never would have come up. God knows I'm not the guy who goes around sniffling about other people's 'prejudice'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby MagsJ » Mon Mar 28, 2016 10:18 pm

Complaints when we moderate, complaints when we don't.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

--MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 18024
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby Artimas » Mon Mar 28, 2016 10:20 pm

Not a complaint, just saying there are some trolls.

Even nothing, is something.
If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3726
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby phyllo » Mon Mar 28, 2016 10:29 pm

MagsJ wrote:Complaints when we moderate, complaints when we don't.

phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11146
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby MagsJ » Mon Mar 28, 2016 10:40 pm

Hey Art!

I'm on about the site in general, not about you.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

--MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 18024
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby MagsJ » Mon Mar 28, 2016 10:48 pm

phyllo wrote:
MagsJ wrote:Complaints when we moderate, complaints when we don't.


I don't get that humour as I'm British-Caribbean not Native British, so please expound on it... are you being facetious?

This is not my site, so I do not moderate as if it were, but as if it is Carleas' under his parameters. I, personally, would moderate under harsher conditions.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

--MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 18024
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby phyllo » Mon Mar 28, 2016 11:03 pm

I don't get that humour as I'm British-Caribbean not Native British, so please expound on it... are you being facetious?
Simple enough. If you cure a person of a nasty disease, he may no want that for whatever reason. There is no pleasing some people. Since the site is full of different people, then there will always be 'some' people who are not pleased - they are not getting what they want.

Then there are the people just want to be dissatisfied.
Nothing you provide will be satisfactory. Or is it that your unsatisfactory moderation satisfies them?
That's a complicated one. :-k
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11146
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Mon Mar 28, 2016 11:33 pm

Uccisore wrote:
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:So here we go - bigot can be a very harsh word.


Then don't use it. You brought it up as an accusation against religious people. I just pointed out you fell prey to the characterization. If you weren't preoccupied with condemning the bigotry and prejudice of people with a different ideology than you, it never would have come up. God knows I'm not the guy who goes around sniffling about other people's 'prejudice'.


I did not make any specific claims that people are bigots in any way shape or form. I claimed religious bigotry can happen with non believers maybe once, because it does and also very fervently I might add. In so much as in Saudi Arabia for example, people are punished physically for speaking against Islam.

So obviously it occurs - but its not like that was a major thesis around anything I've stated on these forums. Also - I would never claim that there isn't bigotry of religious people either. I just don't see where you can claim that I engaged in bigotry justifiably so - then continue railing on it as if it is some central part of my M.O. "God knows I'm not the guy who goes around sniffling about other people's prejudice". So what? I don't care what you do.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3478
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby Uccisore » Mon Mar 28, 2016 11:41 pm

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:
I did not make any specific claims that people are bigots in any way shape or form.


Yeah?

Certainly something so severe requires the believer to think they know, which this is how bigotry of non believers sets in. They think we are fools, for simply not believing... That we are evil... That we are going to hell. Simply because we don't believe the an ancient text, written by misogynistic, slave condoning people. Surely we have reason on our side, yet let's understand that escaping indoctrination, is extremely hard. It takes time.

To anyone who has broken free from these chains of indoctrination, I am honored to have you read the words I write. As you walk into the world among the people that believe everything you were told, hold your head up high, surely you are a rare breed, with a powerful independent mind.

While the slavish sheep like mentality of humanity walks around spouting prejudices and bigotry, I urge the rest of us to not engage in the same.



Of course you didn't.

I just don't see where you can claim that I engaged in bigotry justifiably so -


I don't give a fuck if you see it or not, that's a subject for another thread. You not comprehending or refusing to admit why I called you a bigot is not a problem with my moderation to run to Carleas about. This isn't a conversation about what a bigot you are, this is a conversation about how I'm supposedly bad at my job here for pointing it out, remember? I'd much rather have the conversation about your bigotry in the thread that begins with your hate-filled anti-religious screed, so people reading have the proper context.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Mon Mar 28, 2016 11:52 pm

Uccisore wrote:
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:
I did not make any specific claims that people are bigots in any way shape or form.


Yeah?

Certainly something so severe requires the believer to think they know, which this is how bigotry of non believers sets in. They think we are fools, for simply not believing... That we are evil... That we are going to hell. Simply because we don't believe the an ancient text, written by misogynistic, slave condoning people. Surely we have reason on our side, yet let's understand that escaping indoctrination, is extremely hard. It takes time.

To anyone who has broken free from these chains of indoctrination, I am honored to have you read the words I write. As you walk into the world among the people that believe everything you were told, hold your head up high, surely you are a rare breed, with a powerful independent mind.

While the slavish sheep like mentality of humanity walks around spouting prejudices and bigotry, I urge the rest of us to not engage in the same.



Of course you didn't.

I just don't see where you can claim that I engaged in bigotry justifiably so -


I don't give a fuck if you see it or not, that's a subject for another thread. You not comprehending or refusing to admit why I called you a bigot is not a problem with my moderation to run to Carleas about. This isn't a conversation about what a bigot you are, this is a conversation about how I'm supposedly bad at my job here for pointing it out, remember? I'd much rather have the conversation about your bigotry in the thread that begins with your hate-filled anti-religious screed, so people reading have the proper context.


No you're wrong by pointing out something that doesn't exist. Noting other people's bigotry doesn't mean I'm a bigot in turn. Am I a bigot for stating Hitler was a bigot of Jews? Obviously not. And that's essentially what I did - but I did not point any fingers at anyone specific, those who are religious is very broad, and to assume bigotry doesn't occur in religion as I stated - or that I pointed it out gives you justification to claim I'm the bigot? You don't even ask me how it occurs in religion - jumping to conclusions that I'm a bigot just because I pointed out bigotry, or because you associate me with people that I'm not, because you have no idea where I am coming from, who I am, what I think... even after all the posts I have presented here. Because you've ignored my reasons, expounded on your assumptions and essentially twist what I state.

So Yes, I do think its worthy to bring up to Carleas. I've been here at ILP for a very long time and have found this to be one of my favorite philosophy forums that I ever came across. As such, I think mods should have the same standard that they are supposed to uphold. While I understand there's a lot of leeway here in upholding those standards, I would expect mods to not propagate just the opposite of those standards.
Last edited by WW_III_ANGRY on Tue Mar 29, 2016 2:04 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3478
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby MagsJ » Tue Mar 29, 2016 1:51 am

phyllo wrote:Simple enough. If you cure a person of a nasty disease, he may no want that for whatever reason. There is no pleasing some people. Since the site is full of different people, then there will always be 'some' people who are not pleased - they are not getting what they want.
Oh he's an 'ex' leper... I guess I was too engrossed in Gotham to hear his high-pitched warbling properly. The cure has affected his livelihood.

Then there are the people just want to be dissatisfied.
Nothing you provide will be satisfactory. Or is it that your unsatisfactory moderation satisfies them?
That's a complicated one. :-k
You can't please those that cry for blood... this is not a Roman arena with an endless supply of victims to throw to the lions for entertainment, and this is evident in the 'Introduce Yourself Here' thread.

I personally like the stricter moderation style that some sites have.
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

--MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 18024
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby Uccisore » Tue Mar 29, 2016 2:11 am

No you're wrong by pointing out something that doesn't exist. Noting other people's bigotry doesn't mean I'm a bigot in turn.


Take it up with one of the other multiple people that have accused you of anti-religious bigotry. I already told you I'm not having it here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Tue Mar 29, 2016 2:29 am

Uccisore wrote:
No you're wrong by pointing out something that doesn't exist. Noting other people's bigotry doesn't mean I'm a bigot in turn.


Take it up with one of the other multiple people that have accused you of anti-religious bigotry. I already told you I'm not having it here.


You're the only one who accused me of bigotry, Uccisore.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3478
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

PreviousNext

Return to Meta



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users