posted
Scott R: Linguists have postulated that translation of Chinese <=> English can in some ways be considered as difficult as that of Blaynish => English Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Alternatively, hopefully Lisa has learned to interact with this community in an acceptable way. "
Hopefully there's a million dollars in my bank account. I expect this is more likely than Lisa not calling people idiots, or similar, for disagreeing with her about how to treat the Islamic population.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually don't think Lisa is being any more harsh or rude in her disagreements than the other people here are being with her, at least in this particular thread. (I have noted elsewhere that I consider declaring that someone should be silenced to be more offensive than calling somebody an idiot).
The difference is not in posting style but in posting content. I am certainly terrified of her declaration that an entire religious population be quarantined (in particular because I know that there are people out there who share the same view with more power than she has). I don't wish that she would stop talking about it though, I just wish she would change her mind.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't wish she'd stop talking about it, either. I wish the mods would do their job. There are theoretical rules about how we're supposed to interact with each other, but they aren't rules unless they are enforced. Calling someone an idiot appears to be way outside the bounds of the rules.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Point being, in this thread I don't think she has done anything that I would consider mod-worthy. (the idiot comment might deserve a warning or possibly a single deleted post, but I think there have been plenty of other comments with similar levels of offensiveness by people other than her).
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Point being, in this thread I don't think she has done anything that I would consider mod-worthy. (the idiot comment might deserve a warning or possibly a single deleted post, but I think there have been plenty of other comments with similar levels of offensiveness by people other than her).
The post I was responding to was more offensive than the response.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
His point was declaring over a billion people to be untrustworthy scoundrels is pretty offensive in the first place. What percentage of them have to actually want to go around killing people for putting them all in a ghetto to suddenly become okay?
Edit: I am generally interested in the answer. How many Jews would need to be/want-to-be terrorists for quarantine to be an acceptable solution to them?
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Out of curiosity, does anyone here think that self-censoring a word (b**** vs. bitch) in this context makes it less offensive?
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Only slightly, insofar as it indicates that you are at least aware that it is offensive and you are making a (slight) effort to pretend you aren't saying it. But again, only slightly.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: Out of curiosity, does anyone here think that self-censoring a word (b**** vs. bitch) in this context makes it less offensive?
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: His point was declaring over a billion people to be untrustworthy scoundrels is pretty offensive in the first place. What percentage of them have to actually want to go around killing people for putting them all in a ghetto to suddenly become okay?
Edit: I am generally interested in the answer. How many Jews would need to be/want-to-be terrorists for quarantine to be an acceptable solution to them?
I would pay you money if you could find a way to send all the Jews to Israel and quarantine us there.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Offensiveness isn't actually the standard that we are held to, according to the User Agreement. Abusiveness, on the other hand, is.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I would pay you money if you could find a way to send all the Jews to Israel and quarantine us there.
ahhh wait, wait, would you actively desire that the jews be stripped of their freedom to live where they choose? You would quarantine them if you could?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm having one of those "is Lisa actually a real person, or a strawwoman parody constructed to make people associate zionism and objectivism with craziness?" moments.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm having one of those lets stop talking about Lisa and change the subject moments. If you'd all be so kind.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I would like to point out that, that is kinda funny sounding, very allitative kind of appeal.
IP: Logged |
posted
"You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law"
Can you please get the user agreement changed if you're not going to moderate according to what it says?
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: I'm having one of those lets stop talking about Lisa and change the subject moments. If you'd all be so kind.
I wouldn't mind if you would show any inclination to uphold rules that this place supposedly has. Or is she just allowed to call people idiots and whiny bitches? I mean it more of as a serious question than as an attack. She seems to know that she can walk all over this place. And you.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paul: When I moderate I don't announce for all to read what I'm doing. I take the TOS very seriously. I've already taken steps to deal with today's drama.
I do appreciate those who whistle posts, it makes my job much easier.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Paul: When I moderate I don't announce for all to read what I'm doing. "
Doesn't that defeat about 80% of the point of moderating? You remove the deterrence, and you refrain from making a moral statement to and about the community.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "Paul: When I moderate I don't announce for all to read what I'm doing. "
Doesn't that defeat about 80% of the point of moderating? You remove the deterrence, and you refrain from making a moral statement to and about the community.
Possibly. When I edit posts I usually state a reason, but when I am discussing with individual posters where we are going from there, I don't do it on the boards, and I don't create a special post where I discuss what I have decided to do in regards to an individual poster. I don't think it's anybody's business.
I could do that as a way to send a message to those who might break rules in the future, but I am not convinced the efficacy outweighs the draw backs.
I'm happy to continue talking to you about the subject if you wish, but not on the boards.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Can you please get the user agreement changed if you're not going to moderate according to what it says?
Why? This place has never been moderated according to the TOS, but the darling assumption that it ever has been has led to inconsistent and incoherent policy.
BB: Know going ahead that when you use that strategy to keep moderation 'nobody's business,' you moderate without transparency towards your actions, then you end up in situations where people don't see what you are doing, only what hasn't been done in time, and what certain hilariously reliably unstable individuals will always do as long as they are able.
This is exacerbated by the fact that you effectively inherited an environment crippled by nonresponse and wrist-slappery.
It's not an invalid choice, I just advise against it because, well, I've seen where it always seems to go: spite against perceived inaction and confusion over whether or not action has even been taken. Also, I tend to think that moderation is the business of everyone involved, so if it is the response to public posts, the response should be public too so as to set coherent precedent.
Umm where was I
oh right. TOS still sucks. Vishnu is an unwashed juggalo.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samp: I get that by not publicly discussing what I'm doing, people perceive that I am being inactive. I could publicly declare that poster X has been banned/suspended/obliterated, (the latter, once I find the correct button) but I feel like all that would do is invite people to discuss whether the particulars of my actions are correct. I can't moderate effectively if every time I do my job, people armchair it. I'd have to not only respond to breaches of protocol, but also explain myself to a hundred judges every single time.
I can just as easily respond to problem posters and say, "I'm taking care of it," on the forum. It is to be hoped that in the long term people will start to notice a change in the general feeling of the forum. I understand that nobody is going to really notice when for example a troll suddenly stops posting, or really think about why a member in the middle of an eruption leaves the thread. I accept that as a hazard of the position. I'm not willing to toot my own horn, or endure the endless nit picking.
So instead, just know that I read the forums personally multiple times a day. That when a post is whistled, I take it very seriously. That sometimes a person breaks a rule, but there is a chance they will stop themselves. If that happens, I pay closer attention to a thread and watch how it progresses from there. When a poster manages to check themselves that is infinitely better than me having to say a word to them. Sometimes posters break rules, get called on it by other posters, and proceed to crash and burn, often managing to take other posters down with them in the process. I try to respond to those situations as quickly and efficiently as possible to minimize damage.
I'm trying to let you as adults police yourself to some degree, and I am pleased that many times that works. I also recognize that unless there are consequences to negative actions, people won't hesitate to break rules. I take a poster's history (both short and long term), nature of the infraction, and their willingness to work with me into account every time I do anything.
I'm not oblivious to Lisa's history either, and she didn't just skirt a line this time. I'm not OK with the things she said, and I'm dealing with it. The specific details of that are being worked out at present.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:I could publicly declare that poster X has been banned/suspended/obliterated, (the latter, once I find the correct button) but I feel like all that would do is invite people to discuss whether the particulars of my actions are correct. I can't moderate effectively if every time I do my job, people armchair it
the problem i'm pointing out is that you get armchairing in both cases, but in the case of shadow moderation it is exacerbated through lack of knowledge of what, if anything, is being done or where the consistency lies (see: the response here. Imagine it to be a ready template of the phenom) as well as confusion over what actually was done about what and what precedent is being set. It's attempting to avoid a few problems in a way which creates much more. insofar as i have ever, ever seen, so i'm just throwing it out there.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see threads like this and I get the inevitable sensation of hearing the clak-clak-clak-clak-clak... sound a rollercoaster makes just before it plummets into oblivion.
posted
I think that mostly makes sense. I think there might be room for some middle ground, wherein if a situation comes up/is-escalating, you have a generic message you put into the thread "Moderation in progress, please be respectful" or some such, which lets people know something is being done and reminds people to be polite without opening it up for discussion.
I apologize for negativity I contributed to today.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I will try to return a little to the original subject. I watched CNN yesterday, which is not typical (husband had an ER trip and while in the waiting room there isn't much to do but watch the tv). Dang, is there nothing else going on the world besides this? I guess for me, it really is a minor thing, even if I thought that all Muslims were terrorists and the whole purpose of this was to mock the US and all the negatives people have been saying. The economy, jobs, those things affect my life. But this, I just can't see how it deserves that much airtime.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Dang, is there nothing else going on the world besides this?
a big thing indeed happened, and it was exactly the sort of thing you would definitely want to drub an islamophobic noise cover for.
quote:the GOP blocked health coverage for the 9/11 first responders still suffering deleterious health effects for their heroism in aforementioned Acts of Muslim Terror Representing The Muslim World, and
no! no! pay no attention to that! MUSLIMS!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be fair, they didn't block it because they wanted to block it. They blocked it because they wanted to force the Democrats to vote on an amendment to deny care to any 9/11 heroes who were illegal immigrants and the Democrats tried to use a procedure to ignore the amendment because they lack the balls to actually take that on.
It's a lose-lose issue. The Republicans look like jerks, but the Democrats look like sissies.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: To be fair, they didn't block it because they wanted to block it. They blocked it because they wanted to force the Democrats to vote on an amendment to deny care to any 9/11 heroes who were illegal immigrants and the Democrats tried to use a procedure to ignore the amendment because they lack the balls to actually take that on.
It's a lose-lose issue. The Republicans look like jerks, but the Democrats look like sissies.
posted
Speaking as someone who moderated a newspaper forum for 5 years, I agree with the "don't mention it" school of moderation for two reasons.
First, it's more respectful to the person being moderated. Just as with family, friends, employees and children, dressing them down or calling them out for bad behavior in private allows them to keep their dignity in public. Public humiliation is not the way to get the calmer, reasonable commenter you want to encourage. It's amazing how many people you would assume to be trolls, based on their posting style, will respond to being treated like a person, like a valuable but little-too-harsh part of the community.
Second, other members of the forum who oppose the moderated member often see even casual public moderation as vindication of their own views, even if they've been nearly as obnoxious in their presentation, and they often make their glee public. "Ha! You got yelled at! That proves I'm right!" Any bets whether the person who was moderated will react favorably to that?
I'm all for public moderation of generalities ("Getting a little rude in here, let's calm it down") or public statements of policy that don't target individuals ("Remember, attacking ideas is fine and welcomed, attacking people is not") but when it comes down to singling out people I prefer to keep it private.
There are exceptions for extreme cases but over 5 years of at-times extremely contentious forum posting, including an invasion sent over by a white supremacy website whose stated goal was to overrun our site, respectful moderation had a much higher degree of success in building a comfortable place to talk.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
*shrug* Personally, I think JanitorBlade has said he's doing something about it, and that very few if any of the folks complaining about his moderation are really in much of a position to continue chastising him.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The justification to ban the mosque is no more rational than banning a soccer field in the same place because all the suicide bombers loved to play soccer.
quote:People are un-ironically arguing that if we let Muslims enjoy religious freedom in America, the terrorists have won.
This may seem bizarre, but that's only because it is. There's a meme floating around among those who are opposed to the Park51 community center (the "Ground Zero Mosque!") that it's tradition to build a mosque after a conquest. The earliest source I can casually find for this in relation to the Park51 thing is this post at The American Thinker (I was sure Glenn Beck made it up or had a guest make it up; clearly I got my right-wing dickbags confused). For whatever reason, probably because it sounds ominous and secretive, this idea has caught on and is now mandatory to bring up whenever someone wants to oppose the mosque/community center without being branded as unreasonable. Of course in theory Muslims should have the right to build mosques anywhere, but THIS, you see, is a coded message that says "WE DID IT NYAH NYAH!" Even though the Imam behind the project is totally anti-extremist, let alone associated in any way with Al-Qaeda. But because it's Islamic, it must be part of that great big homogeneous and alien entity that is ISLAM, the one group that throws airplanes into buildings! We obviously CAN'T let them send this message of gloating that we just made up, so obviously they can't practice their freedom of religion there otherwise the terrorists have won!
it's still boggling. some of the standards I've heard presented for what allows the Muslims to 'win at terrorism' makes it so that its effectively impossible to not have the terr'ists 'win' without, well, engaging in a totalitarian campaign against islam that effectively rusts the first amendment to nothing.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can think of at least 2 groups of people who I DON'T want controlling my life--
1. American jingoists 2. extremist Muslims
The ideal world is one in which neither group has much power over my life. IOW, I don't like airport security nonsense...nor do I like Islamic terrorism. I think that, if the mosque doesn't get built, we are definitely tending toward the direction of letting #1 have excessive control of our lives.
Remember, you may not like the Muslim extremists, but airport security is pretty darned annoying, too. Wiretapping is nothing I love, although, as long as we have a truly democratically elected government, it doesn't worry me overly much.
Ask yourselves this...what direct effect would this mosque have on your daily life? Unless you live/work in NYC, then it really won't affect you when you're going to work, taking care of your kids, spending time with friends and family, etc.. Right? 9/11 definitely affected our daily lives for a while, and still does, by taking money to fight the two wars, and making airport security a giant pain.
This mosque isn't going to touch our daily lives, for the most part.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: ... if the mosque doesn't get built, we are definitely tending toward the direction of letting #1 have excessive control of our lives.
posted
Has anyone in this thread mentioned the Zionist angle to this hysteria?
Pamella Gellar, along with the likes of Daniel Pipes, are hard-line right-wing Zionists who have decided that the best way to shore up support for Israel amongst the U.S is to perpetually vilify Muslims. These hardliners think: If Muslims become accepted in the U.S, they will gain political traction, which means they can come to influence policies regarding the Middle East, etc.
When recently a woman of Muslim background won a major beauty pageant, the anger from these people was quite staggering. A Muslim won the pageant! It must've been rigged! It's Affirmative Action! And so on. Why would they think this? It isn't mere bigotry but rather a narrow, zero-sum political consideration: if muslims become mainstream, Zionism is challenged.
This is why Abraham Foxman of the ADL, a staunch Zionist, came out against the mosque. It's a "what's good for the Jews" calculation. But other Jews disagree and think that rousing White Christian anger at a religious minority is playing with fire.
The hate campaign against Muslims coming from right-wing Zionists is very real. Here are two examples:
This guy, who's ethnically Jewish but religiously Christian, is the cousin of novelist Paul Auster. He's also pretty much a white supremacist, but I know that he's read (and sometimes quoted) by the writers of the National Review.
posted
I just want everyone to remember that this is clive candy. He's still allowed to post for reasons obviously beyond my understanding but keep that in mind before opting to respond to him (hint: don't respond to him)
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
