Should Moderators Be Held To Standards?

A forum about the forums

Moderator: Carleas

Should Moderators Be Held To Standards?

Postby The Golden Turd » Tue Jul 12, 2016 2:59 pm

Matthew 7:2 "For with what judgement you judge, you will be judged and with the same measure you use it will be measured back to you"

Turd Ferguson wrote
Incorrect as usual Smears. He is presenting a moral conundrum, and in doing so is seeking circumstantial support for further questioning. It is a investigative technique in Ethics. You can strip it far further than this, such as saying "Where is God", or "How do you do that?".

Secondly, English isn't his primary language, so he isn't aware America has stupid on your level. You probably confused the poor guy for doing what is right, thinking suddenly the rules of the world turned upside down. He doesn't know your somebody lacking credibility, easily dismissed yet. As far as he knows, your a highly knowledgeable person. This is a scary thought indeed! Consider this when lecturing others.


Please consider yourself on a caution on the Philosophy board. If you can't conduct yourself to the required standards, you'll be picking up warnings; Rant might be a better home. I'm sending a similar caution to Mr Reasonable too.


This was a threat I revueved, completely unwarranted by Only Humean.

It us a example, neither meant to limit to him, or even to this forum or era, and not even to forums per say, but to any self appointed coercive force who deem themselves warranted in the task of playing mental fuck-fuck games with others conversations.

1) What is the role that such people (out of control moderators insisting on 'order' of all things, despite their own chaos in attacking others) can take? I've already pointed out in the past it has a error resemblence to book burnings, the ban in Boston censorship, or Saudi Vice Police.... all universally hated and loathed. Can "good order" arise out of such hate and repression on the parts of moderating forces? Can higher thought arise in victims out of prejudice and battery on the part of coercive forces not otherwise actively involved in the debate, and for all intent and purposes have no horse in the race to begin with?

I note I got warned for defending someone's post, described as more or less inept by a second party.... yet a fully fledged philosophy debate erupted from it, not unlike the comedic debates Aristotelians would have in the late medieval era with fun topics ( they could turn serious fast). This effectively chastised the actual offender (without threatening him), saved the op, and nobody was threatened or banned.... but no, the full glory of that other most prestigious medieval institution got involved, Only Humean's incarnation of the Inquisition.

Image

Is it wrong to do what Only Humean does? I've made it very clear in the past it is.... what he does goes against the principled lives and actions of most formal philosophers past and present. Not all though.... I note the Inquisition.... Galileo was prosecuted by a fellow scientist who was likewise being prosecuted by another inquistional party.... seems it was less a battle of science and religion in that era than a battle for legislating philosophy- both scientific and theosophical, but threat of coercive force.

2) Consider Evolutionary Psychology, in regards to 1).

What is the underlining motivations of such people? I can present what I believe to be a fairly active characture, from Season 3 of Lexx, closely resembles a few moderators (not all) on thus forum:

http://lexx.wikia.com/wiki/Hogtown

Image

At Kai’s trial in Bog Town, the Adjudication Commission become more and more inquisitive about Kai’s past, The procurement officer tells them that Kai was an assassin. It seems that the more Kai has been bad, the happier they are. Then the Adjudicatrix (the lady on the panel) asks if Kai has suffered any torture, degradation or any other evil on Fire Planet. Kai replies "Yes, from this commission."
The group is outraged and the head dude exclaims, "Accusations against the Commission are not recordable." Then, as if gesturing to emphasise the point, they raise their hands and cross them over their chests.
Kai's TrialFinally, the Adjudicatrix dame glares at Kai and asks, "Claimant, have you in fact, at any time assassinated anybody." (OH NO! I can feel a, ‘I have killed mothers and their babies’ speech coming on…)
Looking like a bound and gagged black chicken, Kai launches into his party-piece, "I have killed mothers and their babies, I have killed great philosophers and proud young warriors." The panel look on with a mixture of glee and apprehension, the head geezer and the Adjudicatrix dame clasp hands as if they are experiencing a momentous confession…. "I have killed the evil and the good, the intelligent, the weak and the beautiful…" and then he ads with a wonderfully sharp voice, "but it’s been a while since I have killed a room full of petty bureaucrats." {185KB wav file} As if to drive the point home he concludes by singing the Brunnen G Battle Chant (badly).
The Procurement Officer feels obliged to point out to the disruptive Kai that he should answer the Adjudicatrix’s questions or suffer Standard Punishment Number 1 which he admits with a slightly embarrassed tone is, to be thrown off the edge of the city to his death. Kai immediately requests Standard Punishment Number one.
Erm... you can go!Again they refuse. Kai persuades the Procurement Officer to come over and play with his handy wrist gadget. After carefully aiming his arm in the direction of the head geezer (with a single red spot), he gets the Procurement Officer to manually fire the brace at the neck of the head geezer. Kai then says, "I request that you throw me off the edge of this city." {39KB wav file}
Unsurprisingly, the Commission agrees and there is much shuffling of paper and signing of signatures.

http://sadgeezer.com/LEXX-Season-Three- ... unnels.htm

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1NdgpxCIeoI

The episode too if anyone things I'm being unfair, I think it is spot on. That season modeled itself off Dante's Divine Comedy, but instead of levels, it was places in hell ( planet fire) and heaven (planet water). The entire motivation of these judges, denizens of hell, was to excitedly collect and lethally prosecute other residents of hell to keep law and order, but in fact where just as much a cause of pain and suffering in hell as any other random force one could encounter, and live everyone else, lead rough lives and often met brutal ends themselves. Their whole premise was by judging others, but set rules and procedures, they could "save hell" by establishing order. Of course, they never could, because they were a bunch of twisted perverts who couldn't comprehend what they were doing was wrong.

So.... what is the evolutionary psychology of this? What advantage to individuals and society as a whole gain from letting such madmen molest everyone without just cause? Remember.... they aren't aware often that what they are doing is just as wrong, if not more wrong, than the supposed offences (in reality people, as no attempt to really reform them is tried) they are after. What do they gain from this, what does society on a larger scale gains, and how did these traits arise in humans, and how far back?

3) Is the concept of justice related to this? It isn't related to a Radamathian sort of justice, for these threats come random from a outside, third party who is uninvited and has less of the facts by all appearances than the conversants do (which is odd, given mods can see the same threads, yet always seem never to get it). It doesn't seem to be justice, in the sense of a compact, or justice through learned understandings of the means and ends of laws for benifiting the needs of the prosecutor and defence as best as possible. It seems to be absolutely assine and backwards, tyrannical and unresponsive to pleas and reason. I don't think this is compatible with justice.


4) Do persecuted members reap any advantage from being fucked over by a moderator?

As far as I can tell, no. There has never as far as I've observed been a positive coercive act on the parts of moderators, here or on any site.... I can't really say anyone who ever have had their posts threatened, mutilated, or banned gained anything in terms of a better outlook from this trolling on the parts of moderators.

5) Do people who had their posts "protected" gain anything?

Again, this isn't just forums, larger society in general. I say, sometimes but not usually.... the action on a intellectual scale tends to be detrimental, unless it is a philosophy 101 class by nervous students needing considerable protection in discussions, or else they will back out.

I rarely recommend going full force against a novice, why I got annoyed with Smears in the offending thread where he attacked the OP as illegitimate. We don't know yet how advanced Malakis is in his posting, other than English certainly isn't his first language. I personally dont like hitting people up for low English skills, so it is wait and see with him. I will say beyond the initial trepidation, the golden rule in philosophy is to join the debate.... and the vast majority, 99.9% of it, has no moderators. It is duscussion, not in the Galactic Republic's shiny Senate Chamber, but in the nasty Outer Rim in Hutt's Palace, where everything is dirty and pretty girls are chained in basements.... the real world. After the first five minutes of protection, you gotta whip out your lightsaber and be ready, cause some shit is coming your way. You thought your ideas were fine and dandy till you expressed them to another, and they got news for you..... your ideas are as fucked up as a soup sandwich.

Now is our impulse to defend, to protect, to preserve.... something that evolved to preserve people, or preserve bad arguments, bad ideas, and kick out and suppress the ability of others to rationalize and reason, and point out the ideas if others is repulsive, regards, fucked up, not worth following?

The way the moderators like to enforce things around here, seems the latter. Seems Anti-Philosophical, as the entire motivation is aimed at repressing bad news for the preservation of a positive sense of self for others.... at the expense of criticism and expression if dismay. Is it a sharp emotion? Yep.... but completely necessary to the philosophical undertaking. You need failures as much as success to refine your ideas.... not everyone can be perfect like me and always get it right the first time. For those who can't take this reaction positively in themselves.... as a means to doubling down and trying harder, they give up in philosophy and flee. It is why I grade my replies. I rarely lash out on a level that will cause a noon to break down and leave. Some dumbasses, especially certain moderators and a very certain administrator, I gotta beat their ass with a cudgel for years just to make a impression in their dense as fuck minds. It is a ongoing process, brings me at times to the philosophy of Jeremias Drexel and his outlook on doing tasks for eternity (many of you are unknowingly acquainted with him through me:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremias_Drexel

There is a point, and the point isn't the perpetuation of a eternal farce on the moderator's part, in having to save face in pretending to be right for doing something completely fucked up and defending it tooth and nail. Some seem to back down after a while, while other mods just seem to make stupid monkey faces and pause, noting the charactures (I can't physically beat them, words are my only tools available) knowing on some level this has to do with them.... they don't want to identify with it, but seems to awkwardly relate with what they are doing. This makes them feel bad, but usually they can't respond or bite back without looking even worst, so they just stare and scoff, and double down on their determination to nail me and the other gadflies elsewhere (hence why moderation on these forums tend to be random and personal, rarely based on rules, but rather, use rules as a excuse to attack others. Rules exist only when they are convienant).

This results in a long term antagonistic angst and resentment... but inevitable, on the parts of offending moderators. Instead of reforming- which for a few happens only for a shirt period of time after suffering from a flash of insight from a criticism or satire, they methological create a clever master plan as the stress if not getting their way, despite being the designated authorized forum post molester, sorry, meant moderator, the master plan being deeply clever as follows:

They will hold back, try their best to look respectable, and by the book.... even though their moderation is getting increasingly wild, acting the paragon of reserved propriety and reserve.

They then will let the pressure build up inside themselves, looking for allies (usually just other former (Satyr defending a foul act of another mod) or current moderator, or someone.... anyone, they don't really care who.... somebody who hates this poster enough to come out and defend them on any nonsensical point (like Smears, Mr. Anti-Law & Order defending law and order, then goes and attacks people like in the OP). The only metric is the anger and pressure resulting from being told everytime you fuck up and dick someone else over, that yiu have had "enough" and are warranted to respind with violence.... and will ban you.

This is a anti social impulse, not unsimilar to suicude bombers and terrorusrs attacking becayse islam was insulted too many times, such as cartoons of muhammad being drawn. Effects more the sense of self negatively than the adherence to rules.... if such people did it out of adherence to rules, they wouldn't drawl so much negative attention to themselves, as they would in general lead pretty decent lives, if the rules are followed with a eye to justice and reason. When they are not, moderators boil over and lash out. Societies who love tyranny defend the moderators, while societies that love freedom of expression.... the very engine of philosophy, defend the people against the moderators.

This can be a solitary or pact phenomena, drawn by concensus that the "peons" are getting out of hand, and any nail sticking out too far needs hammered down. Such a wonderful mindset to have on a philosophy forum! You really saved philosophy by battering the best and brightest, those most critical of you. Thank you so much for that. We are all collectively dumber for these acts.

Lastly)

You can't easily make a forum resemble a legal system, or rule of law. Carleas tried this stunt excuse in reply recently to Joker's justifiable demand to know why in the fucking hell he was banned..... he literally did nothing abnormal or immoral, was remarkably tame, came unexpected. Rule of law implies a science, with the capacity for standards to exist, such as due process and appeals, unbiased judges, transparency, etc. If you don't have that shit, it is a farcical tyranny by anal retentives trying to apply order to a chaotic universe. What makes it chaotic is.... the ideas and persona expressed is incompatible with the world view of the moderator, in regards to how people should Think, should Be. It is pure thought control, and not philosophy.


So why does all this crazy shit happen? Beyond this site, in the larger scope of the world? What benefits do we reap from these seeming pointless mindfuck games moderators like to play? What do we gain?

I believe we gain weaker thinkers,.not used to self examination, or responding to negative feedback, to reliance of third parties to protect their positions. Same goes for the tools mods use, like applying random logical fallacies.... they don't usually understand them (my use of Ad Hom is philosophically valid in this case.... most Ad Home are justified within philosophy, essential to debates. Got a gripe against that, take it up with Aristotle), for if they did, they would know not to use them. It us far better to let individuals develop themselves, or if you seeing a duscussion get out of hand, to join in like I did and champion it.... using your words, not your threats or punishments.

Everything went swell, till Only Humean came in and fucked it up. He had a compulsion to take a salvaged and good discussion, and wreck it, lowering this forum to a new low, and threaten not one, but two very long term senior members with punishment, because in his sick bizarre head, this makes sense.

Question is why? What is the evolutionary impulse and rational behind this? Does such Anti-Social responses have a place in philosophy? Is philosophy intrinsically opposed to such mental density, or does it have room for such anti-thinjers, who run around kicking and pushing over people for no reason, slapping papers off people's desks, raking scissors to clothes in closets, abducting people, or outright killing them off (the old permaban, rest in peace SIATD).

Philosophers gave been known to bite their tongues off and spit it in the face of a tyrant when all other options of resistance are taken away.... the ultimate act of non-compliance to shitheads. Obviously, tyrants feel different about this. How did we ever get to this point as a species in the first place?

I'm criticizing the moderators as much as asking, why do you do the fucked up things that you do? It is a honest inquiry, left several points above to address.
Support "The Angels of East Africa" on smile.Amazon.com it is free to do, they donate 0.05% of your purchase cost to them, or give donations directly via:

http://www.machinegunpreacher.org

Image

Recently hidden post:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=192227&p=2649513#p2649513
User avatar
The Golden Turd
Fucking Unflushable
 
Posts: 9450
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:37 am
Location: Apparently Well Up Manical Mongoose's Ass

Re: Should Moderators Be Held To Standards?

Postby Only_Humean » Tue Jul 12, 2016 3:02 pm

Moved to H&S, shadow topic left in Phil.
Image

The biology of purpose keeps my nose above the surface.
- Brian Eno
User avatar
Only_Humean
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6194
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:53 am
Location: Right here

Re: Should Moderators Be Held To Standards?

Postby Only_Humean » Tue Jul 12, 2016 3:11 pm

I'm sorry you see a fairly polite private request to keep discourse civil (along with the information that the person you'd replied to had a similar request) to be an intolerable lack of sovereignty, even oppression on a par with the Inquisition. I can only imagine life must be very difficult with that level of emotional nuance.

I don't honestly believe you're asking anything in good faith; that's purely my reading of the situation based on the language and what I see as overblown metaphors. That's why I won't be joining in the debate.
Image

The biology of purpose keeps my nose above the surface.
- Brian Eno
User avatar
Only_Humean
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6194
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:53 am
Location: Right here

Re: Should Moderators Be Held To Standards?

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Tue Jul 12, 2016 3:21 pm

:lol:. 8)
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Re: Should Moderators Be Held To Standards?

Postby Mr Reasonable » Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:29 am

Turd Ferguson wrote:Matthew 7:2 "For with what judgement you judge, you will be judged and with the same measure you use it will be measured back to you"

Turd Ferguson wrote
Incorrect as usual Smears. He is presenting a moral conundrum, and in doing so is seeking circumstantial support for further questioning. It is a investigative technique in Ethics. You can strip it far further than this, such as saying "Where is God", or "How do you do that?".

Secondly, English isn't his primary language, so he isn't aware America has stupid on your level. You probably confused the poor guy for doing what is right, thinking suddenly the rules of the world turned upside down. He doesn't know your somebody lacking credibility, easily dismissed yet. As far as he knows, your a highly knowledgeable person. This is a scary thought indeed! Consider this when lecturing others.


Please consider yourself on a caution on the Philosophy board. If you can't conduct yourself to the required standards, you'll be picking up warnings; Rant might be a better home. I'm sending a similar caution to Mr Reasonable too.


This was a threat I revueved, completely unwarranted by Only Humean.

It us a example, neither meant to limit to him, or even to this forum or era, and not even to forums per say, but to any self appointed coercive force who deem themselves warranted in the task of playing mental fuck-fuck games with others conversations.

1) What is the role that such people (out of control moderators insisting on 'order' of all things, despite their own chaos in attacking others) can take? I've already pointed out in the past it has a error resemblence to book burnings, the ban in Boston censorship, or Saudi Vice Police.... all universally hated and loathed. Can "good order" arise out of such hate and repression on the parts of moderating forces? Can higher thought arise in victims out of prejudice and battery on the part of coercive forces not otherwise actively involved in the debate, and for all intent and purposes have no horse in the race to begin with?

I note I got warned for defending someone's post, described as more or less inept by a second party.... yet a fully fledged philosophy debate erupted from it, not unlike the comedic debates Aristotelians would have in the late medieval era with fun topics ( they could turn serious fast). This effectively chastised the actual offender (without threatening him), saved the op, and nobody was threatened or banned.... but no, the full glory of that other most prestigious medieval institution got involved, Only Humean's incarnation of the Inquisition.

Image

Is it wrong to do what Only Humean does? I've made it very clear in the past it is.... what he does goes against the principled lives and actions of most formal philosophers past and present. Not all though.... I note the Inquisition.... Galileo was prosecuted by a fellow scientist who was likewise being prosecuted by another inquistional party.... seems it was less a battle of science and religion in that era than a battle for legislating philosophy- both scientific and theosophical, but threat of coercive force.

2) Consider Evolutionary Psychology, in regards to 1).

What is the underlining motivations of such people? I can present what I believe to be a fairly active characture, from Season 3 of Lexx, closely resembles a few moderators (not all) on thus forum:

http://lexx.wikia.com/wiki/Hogtown

Image

At Kai’s trial in Bog Town, the Adjudication Commission become more and more inquisitive about Kai’s past, The procurement officer tells them that Kai was an assassin. It seems that the more Kai has been bad, the happier they are. Then the Adjudicatrix (the lady on the panel) asks if Kai has suffered any torture, degradation or any other evil on Fire Planet. Kai replies "Yes, from this commission."
The group is outraged and the head dude exclaims, "Accusations against the Commission are not recordable." Then, as if gesturing to emphasise the point, they raise their hands and cross them over their chests.
Kai's TrialFinally, the Adjudicatrix dame glares at Kai and asks, "Claimant, have you in fact, at any time assassinated anybody." (OH NO! I can feel a, ‘I have killed mothers and their babies’ speech coming on…)
Looking like a bound and gagged black chicken, Kai launches into his party-piece, "I have killed mothers and their babies, I have killed great philosophers and proud young warriors." The panel look on with a mixture of glee and apprehension, the head geezer and the Adjudicatrix dame clasp hands as if they are experiencing a momentous confession…. "I have killed the evil and the good, the intelligent, the weak and the beautiful…" and then he ads with a wonderfully sharp voice, "but it’s been a while since I have killed a room full of petty bureaucrats." {185KB wav file} As if to drive the point home he concludes by singing the Brunnen G Battle Chant (badly).
The Procurement Officer feels obliged to point out to the disruptive Kai that he should answer the Adjudicatrix’s questions or suffer Standard Punishment Number 1 which he admits with a slightly embarrassed tone is, to be thrown off the edge of the city to his death. Kai immediately requests Standard Punishment Number one.
Erm... you can go!Again they refuse. Kai persuades the Procurement Officer to come over and play with his handy wrist gadget. After carefully aiming his arm in the direction of the head geezer (with a single red spot), he gets the Procurement Officer to manually fire the brace at the neck of the head geezer. Kai then says, "I request that you throw me off the edge of this city." {39KB wav file}
Unsurprisingly, the Commission agrees and there is much shuffling of paper and signing of signatures.

http://sadgeezer.com/LEXX-Season-Three- ... unnels.htm

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1NdgpxCIeoI

The episode too if anyone things I'm being unfair, I think it is spot on. That season modeled itself off Dante's Divine Comedy, but instead of levels, it was places in hell ( planet fire) and heaven (planet water). The entire motivation of these judges, denizens of hell, was to excitedly collect and lethally prosecute other residents of hell to keep law and order, but in fact where just as much a cause of pain and suffering in hell as any other random force one could encounter, and live everyone else, lead rough lives and often met brutal ends themselves. Their whole premise was by judging others, but set rules and procedures, they could "save hell" by establishing order. Of course, they never could, because they were a bunch of twisted perverts who couldn't comprehend what they were doing was wrong.

So.... what is the evolutionary psychology of this? What advantage to individuals and society as a whole gain from letting such madmen molest everyone without just cause? Remember.... they aren't aware often that what they are doing is just as wrong, if not more wrong, than the supposed offences (in reality people, as no attempt to really reform them is tried) they are after. What do they gain from this, what does society on a larger scale gains, and how did these traits arise in humans, and how far back?

3) Is the concept of justice related to this? It isn't related to a Radamathian sort of justice, for these threats come random from a outside, third party who is uninvited and has less of the facts by all appearances than the conversants do (which is odd, given mods can see the same threads, yet always seem never to get it). It doesn't seem to be justice, in the sense of a compact, or justice through learned understandings of the means and ends of laws for benifiting the needs of the prosecutor and defence as best as possible. It seems to be absolutely assine and backwards, tyrannical and unresponsive to pleas and reason. I don't think this is compatible with justice.


4) Do persecuted members reap any advantage from being fucked over by a moderator?

As far as I can tell, no. There has never as far as I've observed been a positive coercive act on the parts of moderators, here or on any site.... I can't really say anyone who ever have had their posts threatened, mutilated, or banned gained anything in terms of a better outlook from this trolling on the parts of moderators.

5) Do people who had their posts "protected" gain anything?

Again, this isn't just forums, larger society in general. I say, sometimes but not usually.... the action on a intellectual scale tends to be detrimental, unless it is a philosophy 101 class by nervous students needing considerable protection in discussions, or else they will back out.

I rarely recommend going full force against a novice, why I got annoyed with Smears in the offending thread where he attacked the OP as illegitimate. We don't know yet how advanced Malakis is in his posting, other than English certainly isn't his first language. I personally dont like hitting people up for low English skills, so it is wait and see with him. I will say beyond the initial trepidation, the golden rule in philosophy is to join the debate.... and the vast majority, 99.9% of it, has no moderators. It is duscussion, not in the Galactic Republic's shiny Senate Chamber, but in the nasty Outer Rim in Hutt's Palace, where everything is dirty and pretty girls are chained in basements.... the real world. After the first five minutes of protection, you gotta whip out your lightsaber and be ready, cause some shit is coming your way. You thought your ideas were fine and dandy till you expressed them to another, and they got news for you..... your ideas are as fucked up as a soup sandwich.

Now is our impulse to defend, to protect, to preserve.... something that evolved to preserve people, or preserve bad arguments, bad ideas, and kick out and suppress the ability of others to rationalize and reason, and point out the ideas if others is repulsive, regards, fucked up, not worth following?

The way the moderators like to enforce things around here, seems the latter. Seems Anti-Philosophical, as the entire motivation is aimed at repressing bad news for the preservation of a positive sense of self for others.... at the expense of criticism and expression if dismay. Is it a sharp emotion? Yep.... but completely necessary to the philosophical undertaking. You need failures as much as success to refine your ideas.... not everyone can be perfect like me and always get it right the first time. For those who can't take this reaction positively in themselves.... as a means to doubling down and trying harder, they give up in philosophy and flee. It is why I grade my replies. I rarely lash out on a level that will cause a noon to break down and leave. Some dumbasses, especially certain moderators and a very certain administrator, I gotta beat their ass with a cudgel for years just to make a impression in their dense as fuck minds. It is a ongoing process, brings me at times to the philosophy of Jeremias Drexel and his outlook on doing tasks for eternity (many of you are unknowingly acquainted with him through me:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremias_Drexel

There is a point, and the point isn't the perpetuation of a eternal farce on the moderator's part, in having to save face in pretending to be right for doing something completely fucked up and defending it tooth and nail. Some seem to back down after a while, while other mods just seem to make stupid monkey faces and pause, noting the charactures (I can't physically beat them, words are my only tools available) knowing on some level this has to do with them.... they don't want to identify with it, but seems to awkwardly relate with what they are doing. This makes them feel bad, but usually they can't respond or bite back without looking even worst, so they just stare and scoff, and double down on their determination to nail me and the other gadflies elsewhere (hence why moderation on these forums tend to be random and personal, rarely based on rules, but rather, use rules as a excuse to attack others. Rules exist only when they are convienant).

This results in a long term antagonistic angst and resentment... but inevitable, on the parts of offending moderators. Instead of reforming- which for a few happens only for a shirt period of time after suffering from a flash of insight from a criticism or satire, they methological create a clever master plan as the stress if not getting their way, despite being the designated authorized forum post molester, sorry, meant moderator, the master plan being deeply clever as follows:

They will hold back, try their best to look respectable, and by the book.... even though their moderation is getting increasingly wild, acting the paragon of reserved propriety and reserve.

They then will let the pressure build up inside themselves, looking for allies (usually just other former (Satyr defending a foul act of another mod) or current moderator, or someone.... anyone, they don't really care who.... somebody who hates this poster enough to come out and defend them on any nonsensical point (like Smears, Mr. Anti-Law & Order defending law and order, then goes and attacks people like in the OP). The only metric is the anger and pressure resulting from being told everytime you fuck up and dick someone else over, that yiu have had "enough" and are warranted to respind with violence.... and will ban you.

This is a anti social impulse, not unsimilar to suicude bombers and terrorusrs attacking becayse islam was insulted too many times, such as cartoons of muhammad being drawn. Effects more the sense of self negatively than the adherence to rules.... if such people did it out of adherence to rules, they wouldn't drawl so much negative attention to themselves, as they would in general lead pretty decent lives, if the rules are followed with a eye to justice and reason. When they are not, moderators boil over and lash out. Societies who love tyranny defend the moderators, while societies that love freedom of expression.... the very engine of philosophy, defend the people against the moderators.

This can be a solitary or pact phenomena, drawn by concensus that the "peons" are getting out of hand, and any nail sticking out too far needs hammered down. Such a wonderful mindset to have on a philosophy forum! You really saved philosophy by battering the best and brightest, those most critical of you. Thank you so much for that. We are all collectively dumber for these acts.

Lastly)

You can't easily make a forum resemble a legal system, or rule of law. Carleas tried this stunt excuse in reply recently to Joker's justifiable demand to know why in the fucking hell he was banned..... he literally did nothing abnormal or immoral, was remarkably tame, came unexpected. Rule of law implies a science, with the capacity for standards to exist, such as due process and appeals, unbiased judges, transparency, etc. If you don't have that shit, it is a farcical tyranny by anal retentives trying to apply order to a chaotic universe. What makes it chaotic is.... the ideas and persona expressed is incompatible with the world view of the moderator, in regards to how people should Think, should Be. It is pure thought control, and not philosophy.


So why does all this crazy shit happen? Beyond this site, in the larger scope of the world? What benefits do we reap from these seeming pointless mindfuck games moderators like to play? What do we gain?

I believe we gain weaker thinkers,.not used to self examination, or responding to negative feedback, to reliance of third parties to protect their positions. Same goes for the tools mods use, like applying random logical fallacies.... they don't usually understand them (my use of Ad Hom is philosophically valid in this case.... most Ad Home are justified within philosophy, essential to debates. Got a gripe against that, take it up with Aristotle), for if they did, they would know not to use them. It us far better to let individuals develop themselves, or if you seeing a duscussion get out of hand, to join in like I did and champion it.... using your words, not your threats or punishments.

Everything went swell, till Only Humean came in and fucked it up. He had a compulsion to take a salvaged and good discussion, and wreck it, lowering this forum to a new low, and threaten not one, but two very long term senior members with punishment, because in his sick bizarre head, this makes sense.

Question is why? What is the evolutionary impulse and rational behind this? Does such Anti-Social responses have a place in philosophy? Is philosophy intrinsically opposed to such mental density, or does it have room for such anti-thinjers, who run around kicking and pushing over people for no reason, slapping papers off people's desks, raking scissors to clothes in closets, abducting people, or outright killing them off (the old permaban, rest in peace SIATD).

Philosophers gave been known to bite their tongues off and spit it in the face of a tyrant when all other options of resistance are taken away.... the ultimate act of non-compliance to shitheads. Obviously, tyrants feel different about this. How did we ever get to this point as a species in the first place?

I'm criticizing the moderators as much as asking, why do you do the fucked up things that you do? It is a honest inquiry, left several points above to address.



tldr
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25926
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself


Return to Meta



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users