Stormfront To Black Panthers. Mod Prejudices In Subjective Decisions

The problem with ignore feature is that it doesn't prevent attacks against the innocent, while rather allowing such behavior through inaction. In my view, ignoring an internet warrior won't cause them to go away and not taking action against such won't protect the innocent from their battle. The trick is to figure out how to defuse the battle without getting blamed for it.

 

Indeed Liebe. You were semi kidding but subjectivity sneaks around waiting to bite us in the butt when we least expect it, eh ?

Rev A

 

I agree thats why I replied to Liebe on page four (I think); Rev A>>>> "I haven't read the thread but that is where that subjectivity comes in. I could go back and pick out a hundred replies that skirt or break the forum rules. Some times it happens that subjective crosses the line to bias in moderated actions, which is ethically and sometimes morally wrong! But mods being human it happens, sometimes intentionally IMO. I have actually quit some forums when certain opinionated people made moderator, because I knew their bias would emerge in decision making."

How can anyone be called a raciest when they are attempting to stop Hamas from rocketing their sovereign nation killing school children, women etc? That is beyond subjectivity and its not even artistic license. Or if someone insists on using such long shots as emphasis etc one should post a disclaimer explaining the unorthodox use of a word or phrase. But the kicker is how can you say someone is a racist when the people (the Palestinians) are not a race of people, even that they are a people is questionable, for Palestine is not a Nation!

>>>>Excerpt>>>>

What's a paid Zionist agent? Ha ha? Eh? Do you have a source for that claim? As for Nazi this and Nazi that, its overwhelmingly the Jewish people and the Jewish state ie that suffered the worst at the hands of the Nazis. Yes I realize you are using the word 'Nazi' in an allegorical sense. Nevertheless, it’s kind of a slap in the face to holocaust survivors and most Jewish people IMO. Lastly, I am all for free speech including the most vile unpopular and nasty forms of speech. Tolerance makes us stronger as a species. I am a Christian, however even atheists must realize that we are all brothers and sisters by our DNA and blood.

Restituo contemno per intelligendo quod diligo mos subsequens ut nostrum fantastic fatum ero presto !

Or ; Replacing hate with understanding and love will ensure that our fantastic destiny will be fulfilled

Rev A

 

Two points. First of all a member cannot be called a racist, period. This is an issue of the Forum Rules.

From a political standpoint unrelated to moderation I don't see how anyone could be considered to be a racist simply because they oppose attacks on civilian populations but it must also be realized that Israel is at war with the People of Gaza as it has imposed blockades (an act of war) and frozen the assets of the People of Gaza. Israel has also engaged in ethnic cleansing and the violation of the Rights of Citizenship and Property of the non-Jewish population in Palestine. This could be considered as the attempted establishment of a racist aparthied regime by Israel. That is, as noted, a political opinion and has nothing to do with moderation as such statements and opinions can be freely expressed on Political Forum.

A member can make a statement that Israel is a racist aparthied regime or they can state that Hamas is a terrorist organization as both are political opinions that are not dergagatory statements about other members of Political Forum. They are both attacks on political entities where, no doubt, supportive facts and evidence can be provided.

From a moderation standpoint we don't enforce political opinions but we do enforce the Forum Rules.

Shiva_TD
Site Moderator

 

New IDF unit to fight enemies on Facebook, Twitter... The new unit, as well as an initiative by the Information and Diaspora Ministry to train people to represent Israel independently on the Internet and in other arenas
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/new-idf-unit-to-fight-enemies-on-facebook-twitter-1.3088



Israel’s foreign ministry is reported to be establishing a special undercover team of paid workers whose job it will be to surf the internet 24 hours a day spreading positive news about Israel.

Internet-savvy Israeli youngsters, mainly recent graduates and demobilised soldiers with language skills, are being recruited to pose as ordinary surfers while they provide the government’s line on the Middle East conflict....

“Our people will not say: ‘Hello, I am from the hasbara department of the Israeli foreign ministry and I want to tell you the following.’ Nor will they necessarily identify themselves as Israelis,” he said. “They will speak as net-surfers and as citizens, and will write responses that will look personal but will be based on a prepared list of messages that the foreign ministry developed.”
http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/ne...ropaganda-internet-warfare-team-unveiled.html


Of course, it is impossible to identify which statements are payed for by the Israeli government, but assumptions exist.

 

It is also irrelevant. I wish someone would pay me to post on Political Forum and more power to anyone that can achieve this. An expressed opinion is an expressed opinion regardless of whether the person making it is paid or not. I'll bet if we could "look under the table" there are members of Political Forum that are paid campaign workers for Democrats and Republicans on Political Forum as well. So what.

 

It might depend upon the intent of the paid opinion and its consequences. A democrat paid to talk nicely about Obama in a forum would be rather harmless with no negative consequences. An individual paid to promote a positive image of Israel for tourist purposes, would be harmless PR. Yet, a Chinese internet warrior paid to insult, condemn or take any measure possible to prevent or discourage a Tibetan from expressing a political opinion, would be a rather undemocrat fascist-leaning behavior which would not promote civil debate. A Tibetan should have the right and ability to express political views even if some Chinese tried to prevent such. I just used China as an example, but I'm not claiming that China actually does this, but it might.

 

For example, have a look at this thread:

http://www.politicalforum.com/lates...ms-seek-750-million-compensation-army-20.html

When some unconditional supporters of Israel go out of their way to slur unproven hostile claims against American veterans over and over and over again simply because they cannot prove that they are not targetting American Jews with anti-Semitism, then one can't help to wonder if they are getting a big paycheck, considering that the forum rules do not define such behavior as being valuable political contributions. Such behavior is practiced for only one reason -- to censor political criticism which does not comply with the interests of the Israeli government.

 

If a "a Chinese internet warrior paid to insult, condemn or take any measure possible to prevent or discourage a Tibetan from expressing a political opinion" were to do this on Political Forum they would soon be banned for Forum Rules violations and assuming the Tibetan didn't violate the Forum Rules they would still be here posting long after the "Chinese internet warrior" was long gone for violating the Forum Rules.

Outside of annoying the moderators who have to take actions because of Forum Rules violations there isn't a real problem from my perspective. Members, whether paid or not, must still comply with the Forum Rules which allow freedom of speech and expression.

Shiva_TD
Site Moderator

 

Political opinions are not suprressed regardless of whether they are supportable and true or pure BS so long as the Forum Rules are complied with. If a false statement is made then it's up to the members to establish it's false. I've yet to see any member really "get away" with making false statements that haven't been responded to by other members.

Shiva_TD
Site Moderator

 

I can't but agree, but (purely subjective feeling of course!) I feel that talking to a recording or a parrot is tedious and unproductive, while life is short. The persons I have on ignore have no interest in defusing battles - they just want us silenced.

 

I' not one to sit back and be silenced by those that want to silence me. That is an admission of defeat.

 

It seems to me that zionists are persons who share Hitler's nonsense about Jewish and other 'races' and who make the native people of Palestine into permanently second-class citizens on that basis. I don't say it about you, but it is very striking that all the old-time racists in the UK are suddenly interested in religion!: these people will go on and on lying and (if possible) killing. Listen to the zionists talking about 'Arabs' and tell me they are not racist!

I always used to ask the USSR embassy for lists of their agents, but, to my amazement, it seems they never had any! Come ON, Rev, don't let's be silly! Why are there so many people concentrating on one issue and never coming up with a single argument, just parrotted accusations against others? And unlike most of them, I have known survivors of the camps and liberators of the camps, and my family were shouting about the camps when Churchill and Co didn't want to know.

What the racist imperialism that murders children while denouncing the elected Government of Palestine for armed resistance might have to do with Christianity is not to me evident. Explain.

 

I have been thrown off too may sites by the organized claque of bully-boys, and too frequently warned here to charge into racist ambushes, thanks. There are other ways to work, fortunately.

 

Well, one thing about Political Forum is that the moderators don't use their powers for political censorship. We do enforce the rules against personal attacks, flamebaiting, objectionable images and graphics, etc. but that is all based upon maintaining a forum where there is vigorous respectful debate in compliance with the Mission Statement. Members that engage in vigorous respectful debate never have any real problems with the Forum Rules regardless of their political opinions or beliefs.

Of note for those that might have missed it formal warnings and infractions are not punative in nature but instead are intended to correct a member's behavior so that they don't violate the Forum Rules in the future.

Shiva_TD
Site Moderator

 

Well - yes and no! It seems it is sometimes flamebaiting here to state the obvious, if it means reminding the extreme right of reality.

 

I believe that flamebaiting was addressed previously in this thread but I will cover it again briefly. It is never related to the respectful discussion of a topic regardless of how inflammatory the topic might be. The moderators look for intent and if the intent of a word, such as a racial or ethnic slur, a sentence or a complete post is intended solely to elicit an emotional response then it's flamebaiting. It doesn't matter what is being discusses if the statement is purely to elicit and emotional response then it's flamebaiting.

This is something the staff has discussed extensively and the moderators are fairly well tuned to addressing whether something is flamebaiting or not. Some member think that just because a statement is inflammatory that it's flamebaiting and that is not the case. The decision is really about if it's only inflammatory and then it's flamebaiting.

Shiva_TD
Site Moderator

 

Intent is in people's heads. The American Rights' fanatical hatred of their President is so totally irrational that it seems to me that it can only be explained by surviving racism. That is my opinon, and I consider it as rational as anything that is said on here, but it was regarded as flamebaiting. Why?

 

No doubt intent originates with the individual, whether they're actually aware of it or not, but it is decernable in that which they write. As noted we limit our actions to those cases where the intent is clear and evident in what is written. Is the author attempting to address a subject in a respectful manner where debate and discussion will be the result or are they merely attemtping to (*)(*)(*)(*) other people off? If there is a doubt then we leave the post untouched. We're not draconian in our enforcement preferring freedom of speech whenever possible.

Of course any member can appeal our decision through the Suggestion Box if they believe that our judgment was incorrect. Threads and posts have been restored through that process in the past. I've had my actions overturned by the other moderators before and there isn't a problem with that. All of the moderators agree with this policy and none of us take offense when it's determined that we made a mistake. The only way to avoid mistakes is to do nothing and that is really what's unacceptable IMO.

As I've noted over and over again any member can post whatever they basically want as long as they're following the intent of the Mission Statement which is to engage other members in vigorous respectful debate. A member can address inflammatory issues so long as it is done in a respectful manner in compliance with the Mission Statement of Political Forum. I don't understand why that is so hard for some people to do but obviously it is.

Of course I cannot comment on any specific moderator actions related to a member on this thread. That is private between the member and the moderator(s) as it should be.

Shiva_TD
Site Moderator

 

Then, you'll have to be more specific to provide a clue as to what you are trying to say, because it's a mystery.

 

Its not his skin color <<< Mod Edit: Personal Insult/Attack >>>, they hate his socialistic liberalism. We've all seen how well its worked in other places, so can you really be surprised by folks seething over a man who continues to push an agenda most Americans dont want?

 

I don't believe that was what was being referred to. It is ligitimate to object to political agenda's that one disagrees with. It is the irrational attacks that don't make sense

Examples could be the condemning the Obama's immigration policies where overall undocumented aliens coming into the country have actually been reduced to a net zero and deportations of illegal criminal aliens are at the highest point in history or, as another example, the condemnation of the Obama adminstration not intervening militarily in Syria by the same "conservatives" that objected to the Obama adminstrations interventionism in Libya. I believe these are the irrational attacks that are being referred to. They don't make sense and are irrational based upon either misinformation or intentional hypocracy.

In any case so long as the posts are addressing a political issue, whether the statements are based upon fact or irrational hypocracy, it is a matter for members to address and not the moderators.

Shiva_TD
Site Moderator

 

This is what I mean. You are talking about a conventional right-wing President, rather to the right of everyone but Reagan since before FDR took office. <<< Mod Edit: Flamebaiting >>>

 

I would like to point out that I've made a couple of Mod Edits to remove personal attacks and flamebaiting in this thread and that is evident. In these cases I've addressed statements that were directed at a member and which were derogatory in nature (personal insult) or that were not addressing the topic and were intended to be inflammatory without furthering the discussion (i.e. flamebaiting). Addmittedly some of these might have received a "pass" by the moderators on other threads but I've been using a fairly strict application to demonstrate where members go over the line.

This is to exemplify that a member's point can be made without resorting to namecalling or to making statements that would elicit an emotional response without adding to the discussion. We can discuss anything without personal attacks and flamebaiting and we can do so in a manner that is respectful of other members regardless of what we think of their opinions.

That my friends is the entire purpose of Poltical Forum. "Vigorous respectful debate" as expressed in the Mission Statement is ultimately what makes Political Forum a great place to discuss politics.

Respectfully,
Shiva_TD
Site Moderator

 

You are in a position to know more than I. However I assume that there are paid trolls and front men for various groups including positions. I would agree for a disclaimer be posted to any paid solicitations etc. Who wants to debate someone paid to parrot the party's agenda?

Rev A