Unexplained and unjustified binning of a discussion

101 posts / 0 new
Last post
Tarwater's picture
Tarwater
Offline
Joined: 29-12-08
Oct 31 2010 20:15

Liars and cops psshh-I'm a racist

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Nov 1 2010 05:47

allybaba:

Quote:
Sam thought I was a cop once.

When?

gypsy
Offline
Joined: 20-09-09
Nov 1 2010 09:18
Samotnaf wrote:
allybaba:
Quote:
Sam thought I was a cop once.

When?

I was only joking when I said you thought that(it was when I asked where you lived in an older thread).

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Nov 1 2010 09:46

I should have realised you weren't a cop - they know where i live, when i fart, how often I scratch my arse (the file on this alone, complete with photos, runs into thousands of volumes, and will one day be at the top of the bestseller list).

dinosavros
Offline
Joined: 5-05-10
Nov 1 2010 12:51

I have been offline for a couple of days.

As has been pointed out, only 3 out of 18 threads I have contributed to involved criticism of moderation (to be honest there was also one more comment on a news article about Obama that was deleted). The ratio becomes much larger if instead of just counting threads you count number of posts and the amount of time that goes into them. Last month I spent more than 2 hours translating a couple of articles for this site. My contributions involving moderation are limited to a few sentences each time and relatively little effort.

So when said I'm

Quote:
"barely able to post on anything but moderation decisions"

it's more than "too strong" (as Rob Ray called it) but an outright lie with the intent of discrediting me in the eyes of others. followed on in his next post by saying

Quote:
"You obviously have quite the predilection with moderation decisions - tho I have far more time for genuine comments like this one than the sniping most of your others have been."

Yes I unashamedly admit to having a predilection with moderation decisions like the one on this thread, but again he falls back (haha) to lying by separating "genuine comments" with "the sniping most of my other posts have been", what complete dishonest bullshit.

The problem here is not whether I am "offended" or not, that is a non-issue. The issue is that an administrator uses deliberate lies in order to save face, discredit me as some kind of internet nerd who is obsessed with the moderators, and so appear to win the argument. And this strategy also has a follow-up effect since next time I voice my disagreement with a moderation decision it is now easier to ridicule me and invalidate my criticism.

It is one thing to disagree and another to be intentionally dishonest & drop to such a low level of debate. Not only is it an indication of an opportunistic lack of principles but in the long term it's a practice that is harmful to antiauthoritarian movements when this is allowed to happen unchecked. My experience (in real life groups not the internet) is that dishonesty can be devastatingly effective in breaking up movements, reinforcing distrust and pushing many to solitary despair. We're not politicians, and we can't afford to alienate each other this way.

Steven I agree with Samotnaf's criticism of you. Why are you apologizing for ? And of course what he said was intentional, don't talk to me like I am a child.

Samotnaf thanks for sticking up for me.

gypsy
Offline
Joined: 20-09-09
Nov 1 2010 13:06
wrote:
Amazing.

Give a full apology.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Nov 1 2010 23:11
Costas wrote:
I have been offline for a couple of days.

was it any good?

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Nov 1 2010 23:48
Weeler wrote:
Aithníonn ciaróg ciaróg eile.

This is an English-only forum, take it elsewhere.

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Nov 2 2010 06:09

It literally means "it takes one beetle to know another". You'd think, since he bothered to put it in a language most people reading this don't understand, he'd have been a bit insulting. Can't even think of a joke about it - can anyone?

As for 's 'response' to Costas -

Quote:
Amazing

- I'd say Costas has been amazingly clear - especially this:

Quote:
It is one thing to disagree and another to be intentionally dishonest & drop to such a low level of debate. Not only is it an indication of an opportunistic lack of principles but in the long term it's a practice that is harmful to antiauthoritarian movements when this is allowed to happen unchecked. My experience (in real life groups not the internet) is that dishonesty can be devastatingly effective in breaking up movements, reinforcing distrust and pushing many to solitary despair. We're not politicians, and we can't afford to alienate each other this way.

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Nov 2 2010 14:23

of course 'clear' does not entail 'correct', and imputing lying to someone may be a satisfying thing to think you have a right to do, but is a serious accusation and has to meet a high burden of proof to avoid a countercharge of slander, yes? you tried it on me so i know not to take it seriously when you do it to others, but i hadn't heard it from costas.

Jason Cortez
Offline
Joined: 14-11-04
Nov 2 2010 17:00

Storm, teacup, contain within come to mind reading this thread.

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Nov 3 2010 04:25

petey - since i can't remember when i accused you of lying and since you're accusing me of slander, to defend myself, or apologise if wrong, I need to see what you're talking about.

But is very clearly lying - as i said 3 out of 18 threads is hardly worthy of the accusation

Quote:
barely able to post on anything but moderation decisions

and all the rest of the dismissive crap. And though most journalists - like weeler - think that accusing someone of lying is like being mental, what can one expect from professional liars, since the life of almost all journalists is a lie and most journalists can't tell what's true and what's not and anyway don't care.

Storm in a teacup? Since accusing someone of lying is

Quote:
a serious accusation

(petey) then clearly so is lying.

Making molehills out of mountains is what those who, in this upside down world, do to make the significant insignificant and vice versa.

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Nov 3 2010 10:58

Tommy Ascaso - how do you know what his intentions were? If the road to hell is paved with the good ones, I'd love to know what these were in 's case. Costas has a particular view of his intentions:

Quote:
the intent of discrediting me in the eyes of others.

I guess you think this not a valid assessment.

I don't judge what people say or do on the basis purely of their intentions - it's a relation between the intention and the practical concrete results. In ideologists, dominant or oppositional, such intentions are hidden behind what might be considered socially acceptable intentions - as in "We invaded Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein and his WMDs". "I didn't meant to" doesn't really say anything about what someone really means to do. If someone gets hurt 'unintentionally' then you have to think about what you really intended and how to make sure that you don't repeat the act that led to the hurt you apparenty didn't want, in which case, "good intentions" are just an evasion of the question of what to do about the practical situation created.

As for the rest of his points - well no one has responded to what i wrote, which implicitly questions what said:

Quote:
let's have some explicit list of reasons why some people get deleted or binned or censored and others, who, as far as i can tell, remain immune to this even though their "crimes" (extreme aggression, in particular) are no better. I guess it's more a question of who you know, who you're friendly with, whose feathers you don't want to ruffle because it would cause too much tension, who's 'in' and who's 'out' - purely subjective reasons given, usually self-contradictorily, some 'objective' criteria (I've seen loads of aggressive posts and lies that never get even a bit questioned).

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Nov 3 2010 12:23

So what were his intentions?

And I for one have not questioned the need for some rules, merely how these rules are arbitrarily - purely subjectively - applied, a point you have avoided answering. But then you're a friend of and know for certain that in this application of the rules it's nothing to do with

Quote:
who you know, who you're friendly with, whose feathers you don't want to ruffle because it would cause too much tension, who's 'in' and who's 'out' - purely subjective reasons given, usually self-contradictorily, some 'objective' criteria (

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Nov 3 2010 12:57

As you yourself have pointed out about the practice of journalism Samotnaf, the application of modding rules on a forum is always, ultimately, going to be subjective - it's not like everyone's always going to agree that, for example, calling thousands of people "professional liars, since the life of almost all journalists [train guards, park rangers, teachers, whatever other sphere crosses your mind where oppressive paid behaviour sometimes takes place] is a lie" is acceptable behaviour.

What do you work in btw? I mean I may be apparently be a compulsive liar by virtue of my job title but I've actually been pretty open about what I do - maybe I should have pretended to be an organic vegan cupcake-maker instead (though obviously not selling them, cos I might be ordered to detain someone who tries to take them without paying).

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Nov 3 2010 14:35

robray:
i'm pretty well unemployed at the moment, in receipt of the RSA (crap low paid social security which allows you to officially work sometimes) though sometimes, though virtually not since june, i work as a teacher, teaching almost invariably adults (something i've mentioned once or twice or thrice before elsewhere in passing, including, iirc, the teachers/prison guards thread), and yes that sometimes involves "oppressive paid behaviour", which, on the very rare occasions i have no choice but to apply it because someone else is directly controlling me, means i am certainly acting against my and others' class interests, though i should point out that i've never criticised train guards, park rangers, organic vegan cupcake makers, park teachers, organic train makers, or cup cake guards so what that has got to do with the price of moderators' underpants i don't know - but you seem to have lost your thread because this is not "revolutionary journalism" nor the "daily mail" and not about work and you seem to have avoided the question, so is there any reason why i should even begin to bother to continue responding to these evasions...? ( answers on the back of an organic stamp maker please) .

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Nov 3 2010 14:39

p.s. i said "almost all journalists": clearly you identify with the vast majority of them, and not the few that may retain some degree of integrity.

_LIAM_
Offline
Joined: 12-09-10
Nov 3 2010 14:45
Samotnaf wrote:
i have no choice but to apply it because someone else is directly controlling me

By remote control? That would be fun! Just imagine having your own remote control right on lefty radical.

gypsy
Offline
Joined: 20-09-09
Nov 3 2010 14:50
_LIAM_ wrote:
Samotnaf wrote:
i have no choice but to apply it because someone else is directly controlling me

By remote control? That would be fun! Just imagine having your own remote control right on lefty radical.

I think he means that if he didn't abide by the school/colleges' behaviour policy he would probly be sacked.

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Nov 3 2010 15:11

I mean just that, allybaba; and RobRay - maybe I'm being paranoid, and if so, I apologise ahead of what I, in my paranoia, think your posts may be leading to - but I should warn you that if you reveal the name of a site or url written by the combined efforts of Pinnochio and Baron Munchausen in which my real name is revealed, I would consider that very much police behaviour, as it could lead to me being sacked and who knows what. As i said, I apologise if this is not your intention, but I've seen this kind of thing being hinted at by someone else (who fortunately got banned, though turned up under another name...).

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Nov 3 2010 16:35
Samotnaf wrote:
petey - since i can't remember when i accused you of lying

http://libcom.org/forums/feedback-content/deleted-union-thread-08082010?page=1#comment-391497

there's 20 minutes of my life i'll never have back.

oh - did i say slander? maybe it's libel:

Quote:
Easyjet founder Sir Stelios Haji-Ioannou accepted libel damages yesterday over Ryanair advertisements which accused him of lying.

http://www.scotsman.com/business/Stelios-accepts-libel-damages-over.6423305.jp

_LIAM_
Offline
Joined: 12-09-10
Nov 3 2010 16:33
allybaba wrote:
_LIAM_ wrote:
Samotnaf wrote:
i have no choice but to apply it because someone else is directly controlling me

By remote control? That would be fun! Just imagine having your own remote control right on lefty radical.

I think he means that if he didn't abide by the school/colleges' behaviour policy he would probly be sacked.

As would most journalists. So whats his gripe with them?

fruitloop
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Nov 3 2010 16:33
_LIAM_ wrote:
Samotnaf wrote:
i have no choice but to apply it because someone else is directly controlling me

By remote control? That would be fun! Just imagine having your own remote control right on lefty radical.

I've got one. He just seems to sit there, but you can make his finger point at anything.

dinosavros
Offline
Joined: 5-05-10
Nov 3 2010 17:07

Could we move the journalist/employment discussion to another thread?

Tommy Ascaso wrote:
We're not particularly interested in hearing from users who think that we're being authoritarian for having rules in the first place.

Tommy Ascaso why did you feel the need to include that in your post, has anyone here said that they think you're authoritarian for having rules in the first place? This is a very obvious "straw man" argument.

Samotnaf has repeatedly posted some questions for the administrators and they are not responding. I just read "the rules" (http://libcom.org/notes/content-guidelines/forums-posting-guidelines) for the first time and I agree that there are double standards involved in their application.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Nov 4 2010 05:31

@Costas: fwiw those rules were updated only a couple of weeks or so ago, although I can't remember exactly what the changes were and they likely don't apply to the thread being discussed here, but it's worth bearing in mind. I think you can see revisions from that page if you're interested.

There are plenty of reasons why the rules get applied inconsistently, and I don't think anyone would claim that they're not:

* As the site has got busier the number of people moderating hasn't increased, just as regular posters aren't reading every single thread, nor are the admins. So attention gets focused on things that people bring our attention to directly, or which we happen to come across.

* Due to that lack of time, at least my own personal list of moderation priorities looks like this:
1. spammers 2. spammers 3. spammers, 4. new posters who only troll 5. posting of real names or other stuff that's dangerous 6. splitting good/important threads if they get derailed.. then quite distantly once those are dealt with 7. splitting or trying to un-derail other threads when they get derailed 8. banning or otherwise dealing with posters when things get unpleasant but aren't spam.

* While it might not be fair, it's fairly common human behaviour to be more forgiving of people you've known for some time than those you've just met. For me at least this applies to long term posters whether I agree with them or not, or have met them in real life or not - there's more context if the person has a longer posting history. Also generally if we're going to temp or perma-ban a long term poster then we try to have an internal discussion first, and usually this takes time and isn't always very conclusive. Whereas a spammer or obvious troll will get banned pretty much instantly.

* Also frankly, even new posters who might otherwise get banned, will also get a bit more time if they've got some kind of connection to existing posters. For example the poster on 'anarchism and left marxism' who appeared to be extremely confused and was also calling out various individuals, who'd registered a long time ago but not posted for ages, I nearly banned them immediately on seeing their posts, but then wanted to try to figure out who they were before doing so. In between that, we got an e-mail from a regular poster who knows them, who explained the background, and said that banning them was the best course of action since they were having a lot of personal issues, so someone else on the admin team did that once the e-mail came in. If they'd said "please don't ban I'll try to talk to them" instead, then likely that would've been respected as well. So yes people who are 'known' outside the forums - whether that's via membership of an organisation, or because they were involved in a scene 20 years ago and resurfaced (like 'yelt'), are also going to get a longer rope as well (or conversely might get banned quicker if a negative reputation precedes them).

That's by no means and exhaustive list, but there's plenty of reasons why the rules are applied inconsistently which don't boil down to nepotism.

Quote:
let's have some explicit list of reasons why some people get deleted or binned or censored and others, who, as far as i can tell, remain immune to this even though their "crimes" (extreme aggression, in particular) are no better. I guess it's more a question of who you know, who you're friendly with, whose feathers you don't want to ruffle because it would cause too much tension, who's 'in' and who's 'out' - purely subjective reasons given, usually self-contradictorily, some 'objective' criteria (I've seen loads of aggressive posts and lies that never get even a bit questioned).
Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Nov 4 2010 16:47

The "what are his intentions" question? Better answered by Jack than me tbh, I'm no expert in what goes on in his head. I was just responding to this:

Quote:
I for one have not questioned the need for some rules, merely how these rules are arbitrarily - purely subjectively - applied

Which given how big a thing you've made about writing being subjective in the past, seemed to lack consistency - of course modding decisions are going to be subjective find me a forum where they aren't.

Quote:
p.s. i said "almost all journalists"

Ah yes good point you did throw an "almost all" in there, I do seem to be getting somewhere at last if you're finally admitting that not all journos have sold their soul to the devil.

Interesting too, that you admit having done some repressive work as a teacher in the past - could it be that in real life many roles do this, forcing people to act against their class interests in small ways in order to continue being paid for roles which have the capacity to act for their class interests in others?

Edit: sorry Costas wrote that before I saw your post.

Edit2: Sam no I would never name anyone publicly who doesn't want to be (well, unless I was outing them for being a shitty employer or something), I was aiming at finding out whether you doing your job sometimes required compromises to your political ideal.

Edit 3: Slander is verbal, libel is written. Both come under the heading of defamation (though libel is taken much more seriously in legal terms).