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.
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. 
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.
Yeah?
Of course you didn’t.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sure Angry, sure.
I’ll settle this shit right now.
WW2, you’re probably a bigot. Because most people are.
Ucc, you’re definitely the most biased person here with moderator powers. It’s like a known thing. You give the radical right wing line on literally everything. It’s like you’ve never said a single word that wasn’t plagiarized from Rush Limbaugh. It’s comical at best, and offensive at its worst. You think that people who are in the center are radical leftists. That’s just the simple fact of the matter and I don’t think anyone would dispute it. So by virtue of your political leanings, you’re probably a bigot too.
Now you 2 kiss and make up.
What if the leftists are in that said “center”? And they think that they are. Don’t they? According to them everything and everybody is a rightist. And so it is. In other words: Rightist are a minority (at least in Europe) that becomes more and more tiny. And that is what the west really is currently: a world of leftists. A world of all-leftists is not a “better world” but the hell.
Back to the topic of this thread:
Why are some ILP members not banned, although they are trolls, whereas others are banned, although they are no trolls?
Arminius, that was a clever argument but it doesn’t reflect the way things actually are.
Regardless of Ucc’s views and stances on a myriad of subjects, whether biased, evil, or whatever, he does NOT abuse his moderator authority.
Yeah, he might see the entirety of the universe in terms of the left/right dichotomy and from the farthest right side, but he probably wont ban me for pointing that out. Hell, he might not even think it’s a negative thing to say.
Regarding the second part - I’m not aware of anyone who has been permabanned for reasons other than trolling/flaming, besides spambots.
There’s a large grey area for “trolling” - as long as you are not the moderator in question, there is likely to always be people you consider clearly trolls, and/or people who are being unjustly persecuted by overzealous moderators. If we took a zero-tolerance policy we would end up with a very quiet forum of a few posters with a single posting style.
So it’s always a balance. And there will always be people who are unhappy with where the balance lies. There are a considerable number of posters who fundamentally dislike/reject authority, some for philosophical and some for psychological reasons. There are some who dislike conflict. Some posters have less refined social/political skills than others, some worse tempers, some more extreme positions. And very, very many who see any exercise of moderator power as being personal prejudice rather than an attempt to accommodate a range of posters and foster productive discussion. 
I’m certainly always interested in feedback. I’ll also certainly never satisfy everyone’s expectations of a moderator, any more than I can provide a perfect forum for everybody.
There are three possibilities why you are reacting that way: (1) you are a leftists too, (2) you have misunderstood my statement, (3) you are a leftists and have misunderstood my statement (=> 1 and 2).
Leftists have occupied the center and the right wing, but they would never admit this, they would never say that they are rightists, but they are. The new rightist will never say “I am the rightist” but will always say “I am the anti-rightist”. Leftists live on the hardship of the poor people, and the poor people are becoming more and more, which is what the leftists want, must want, because they live on them. Just because others do not want to bite the dust (to lose their competences), they become leftists too. If there were no poor people, the leftists would immediately invent them. Leftist need the poor people because they live on their hardship.
This, what I just described, is the situation in Europe, at least in Old Europe, and I am pretty sure that it is not much different in the USA.
That’s right.
I believe you. But there is another interesting feedback: Many ILP members like trolls, and one of the feedbacks is that some of the moderators tend to like trolls too. So in the final analysis many ILP members and some moderators do sometimes not know who is a troll and who is not a troll.
Man you’ve got it backward. In the US, the right wing wants to let wall street do what they want and they want to cut any program that helps anyone. The left want people to be able to go to the hospital and want wall street to have to chip in some tax money to make that happen.