A Critique of NS Moderation Policy

[Luveria]

I've fallen victim to it more than once from how utterly idiotic the Summer Jugend posts can be.

I haven't, but then I have a window open to Moderation and another to the General forum at all times. A real professional of how to contain the out of hand summer crowd.

I should probably have window to Moderation open at all times to remind me to behave.

[Farnhamia]

I've fallen victim to it more than once from how utterly idiotic the Summer Jugend posts can be.

I haven't, but then I have a window open to Moderation and another to the General forum at all times. A real professional of how to contain the out of hand summer crowd.

How quaint. The implants are so much better.

[The Serbian Empire]

Well, go elsewhere and you will see that it's either flaming on 4chan which in reality actually approaches on civil lawsuits if they weren't named anonymous or you'll see far more tyrannical moderation.

Not really. I've been around the net for awhile now, and I've seen plenty of communities that run on the basis of democratically elected staff, and function just fine.

Though admittedly, I tend to hang around small communties. It's atypical for me to be an active member of a forum like this.

The larger it gets, the more wild it gets as the anonymity factor grows in a crowd.

[Edlichbury]

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=263933 Racist title. Racist ideas. All aimed against one particular group who gets the blame for everything that has happened to mankind. And where did we hear that before ? 1930s maybe ?

Yes, locking a thread and refusing to open it after several appeals is certainly "letting a racist thread run riot."

[Dyakovo]

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=263933 Racist title. Racist ideas. All aimed against one particular group who gets the blame for everything that has happened to mankind. And where did we hear that before ? 1930s maybe ?

You not understanding the thread =/= the mods having an ideological bias.

[Free Tristania]

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=263933 Racist title. Racist ideas. All aimed against one particular group who gets the blame for everything that has happened to mankind. And where did we hear that before ? 1930s maybe ?

Yes, locking a thread and refusing to open it after several appeals is certainly "letting a racist thread run riot."

They only dealt with the criticism.

[Edlichbury]

Yes, locking a thread and refusing to open it after several appeals is certainly "letting a racist thread run riot."

They only dealt with the criticism.

You also realize that you missed the point of the thread entirely as it only advocated for eliminating the social construct of the "white race," correct?

Now back on topic, any ideas to ensure consistency in moderation?

[The Serbian Empire]

I haven't, but then I have a window open to Moderation and another to the General forum at all times. A real professional of how to contain the out of hand summer crowd.

How quaint. The implants are so much better.

Budget cuts have hit me hard.

I haven't, but then I have a window open to Moderation and another to the General forum at all times. A real professional of how to contain the out of hand summer crowd.

I should probably have window to Moderation open at all times to remind me to behave.

Well that might not be a bad idea. I don't do that during the slow season though.

[The Black Forrest]

My main critique would be that they are not-neutral and themselves protective of ideologies that suit their own ideas.

They are people. Bias will slip in and that's why there is a process to challenge a mod ruling.

Now if you are claiming that process does not work....then an example would be good.

[Free Tristania]

They only dealt with the criticism.

You also realize that you missed the point of the thread entirely as it only advocated for eliminating the social construct of the "white race," correct?

Now back on topic, any ideas to ensure consistency in moderation?

Social construct. The term itself is a post-1968 social construct. Invented in a time when everyone was "oppressed" or at least claimed to be and can now just be used to call for the elimination of one particular race. Well I have made my point: I have no real trust in the functioning of the team as it is. Unfortunately.

[The Black Forrest]

Well, go elsewhere and you will see that it's either flaming on 4chan which in reality actually approaches on civil lawsuits if they weren't named anonymous or you'll see far more tyrannical moderation.

Not really. I've been around the net for awhile now, and I've seen plenty of communities that run on the basis of democratically elected staff, and function just fine.

Though admittedly, I tend to hang around small communties. It's atypical for me to be an active member of a forum like this.

And how large where those communities. Do you know who many people frequent this site?

What were the topics of those communities?

The topics here are rather divisive.

Popularity contests aren't a way to get decent moderation for a site like this.

[Luveria]

I should probably have window to Moderation open at all times to remind me to behave.

Well that might not be a bad idea. I don't do that during the slow season though.

But summer never truly ended, due to climate change.

[Grenartia]

You also realize that you missed the point of the thread entirely as it only advocated for eliminating the social construct of the "white race," correct?

Now back on topic, any ideas to ensure consistency in moderation?

Social construct. 1. The term itself is a post-1968 social construct. Invented in a time when everyone was "oppressed" or at least claimed to be and 2. can now just be used to call for the elimination of one particular race. 3. Well I have made my point: 4. I have no real trust in the functioning of the team as it is. Unfortunately.

1. You have no clue how sociology works, do you?

2. Bullshit.

3. What is your point, exactly? That you have no clue what you're talking about?

4. And you have failed to prove that you have any real reasons for that mistrust.

[The World Famous Octagon]

And your point? That does not even begin to make an argument against what I've said.

You really are not able to see the point in "Hitler was elected democratically"?

And yes, tyranny of the majority cannot deny rights. As righs are determined by people, what makes a right a right withi society is whether or not the majority of that society believes in it. If the majority doesn't believe in it, it's not a right.

Yet we see rights having been denied right after Hitler was elected into power.

The only time rights can be denied are in situation where the majority believe in a right, but do not have the power to recognize it, because a minority holds power over them. Only minorities can deny rights.

Rights of minorities can and have been denied throughout history through majority decisions.

That every member clicked "agree" does not mean they actually agree that it should be that way, nor does it mean thei opoinion may not change at a later date. Agreeing to abide by preexisting rules does not mean you agree with those rules.

Then you shouldn't have joined.

I don't ignore your arguments. I address them, and explain to you why they are flawed. Simply put, I'm right, you're wrong. There is a differene, and your refuse to recognize it. This is not a matter of opinion, but of fact.

And I do the same. But I don't need this latter part to back my position up.

Justness deals with the feulfillment of societal expectations. Justness deals with the upkeep of rights. As I've explained to you previously, rights cannot be violated by the majority.

If justice is your definition of "best", then by definition, democracy is "the best".

And you'd be wrong, for reasons previously explained and linked.

What's your point? That a majority of a society does things you don't like? Okay. Bu they aren't violating rights. Rather, they are denying the existence of those rights within their society. Big difference there.

That depends on what rules society is bound to. Under the circumstances of this forum, clearly not.

If you don't like that they don't recognize those right, the solution is to enagge in argument with members of that society, and attempt to change their minds. Not force them to conform to your will by oppressing their ability for self-determination.

Hard to argue with someone that wants you gone, isn't it?

[Free Tristania]

Social construct. 1. The term itself is a post-1968 social construct. Invented in a time when everyone was "oppressed" or at least claimed to be and 2. can now just be used to call for the elimination of one particular race. 3. Well I have made my point: 4. I have no real trust in the functioning of the team as it is. Unfortunately.

1. You have no clue how sociology works, do you?

2. Bullshit.

3. What is your point, exactly? That you have no clue what you're talking about?

4. And you have failed to prove that you have any real reasons for that mistrust.

1. You can look it up for yourself. It has nothing to do with sociology but all the more with ideology.

2. Proof it.

3. Keep on reading. I have no confidence in them for a good reason as they are not neutral.

[The Black Forrest]

Yes, locking a thread and refusing to open it after several appeals is certainly "letting a racist thread run riot."

They only dealt with the criticism.

Yes and you could have handled it better. You were warned for trolling.

Parkus isn't a racist. It was a fair question and it looks like you went in to fight.

This site tries to allow for free speech and it seems you wish to define what that means?

[Free Tristania]

They only dealt with the criticism.

Yes and you could have handled it better. You were warned for trolling.

Parkus isn't a racist. It was a fair question and it looks like you went in to fight.

This site tries to allow for free speech and it seems you wish to define what that means?

What has racism to do with freedom of speech ?

[Aurora Novus]

You really are not able to see the point in "Hitler was elected democratically"?

Yes, I'm not seeing it. Even if you're trying to draw a parallel to the actions of the Nazis, the fact that Hitler was democractically elected does not help you advance that point. Hitler, after all, abolished democracy in his nation, and therefore the people could not act against him when he began performing some of the atrocious actions we associate him with.

Yet we see rights having been denied right after Hitler was elected into power.

If Hitler did not recognize rights that the majority of the population recognized, we would see a denail of rights, yes.

But if the majority of the population did not believe in them either, no rights were denied. Those rights ceased to exist. Again, rights are not given from on high. They are not intrinsic to the universe. They are man-made.

Rights of minorities can and have been denied throughout history through majority decisions.

Then those rights were not being denied. They did not exist in that society.

If there is a society in which the majority of people do not ban murder, and someone commits murder and is not punished, person killed did not have their rights violated. The society does not recognize a right to life to begin with.

You don't seem to understand that for a right to be violated, that society has to accept that right as being a right to begin with. That is why only minorities can violate right. If a majority agrees something isn't a right, it isn't a right.

Then you shouldn't have joined.

Your opinion is your own, but also meaningless.

And I do the same. But I don't need this latter part to back my position up.

You do not do the same. Rather you refuse to recognize reality. Unless you believe rights are intrinsic or handed down to us from on high, you have no grounds to disagree with anything that I'm telling you.

And you'd be wrong, for reasons previously explained and linked.

No, I would not be. Justice is the upholding of rights. Majorities determine what a right is. Ergo, majorites cannot violate rights. Only minorities can violate rights.

That depends on what rules society is bound to.

No, it doesn't. It's a fact of life that pervades all socieites.

Hard to argue with someone that wants you gone, isn't it?

That it may be hard doesn't change reality. And it is for this reason that we need to be encourging intellectualism in our societies.

[Aurora Novus]

Octagon, before we continue, answer this.

Rights are not handed down from on high. They are not intrinsic to life. They are man made, and are determined by the majority of a society. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

[Caecuser]

Octagon, before we continue, answer this.

Rights are not handed down from on high. They are not intrinsic to life. They are man made, and are determined by the majority of a society. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

What about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

[The Archregimancy]

I'll gently note that this is not a thread for discussing whether or not "the white race" is a social construct or not.

Stay on topic, please.

[Grenartia]

1. You have no clue how sociology works, do you?

2. Bullshit.

3. What is your point, exactly? That you have no clue what you're talking about?

4. And you have failed to prove that you have any real reasons for that mistrust.

1. You can look it up for yourself. It has nothing to do with sociology but all the more with ideology.

2. Proof it.

3. Keep on reading. I have no confidence in them for a good reason as they are not neutral.

1. I've taken sociology. Its a sociological term. Saying that the term "social construct" has nothing to do with sociology is like saying that the term "spacetime" has nothing to do with cosmology.

2. Its self-evident to anybody who has ever taken a high school sociology course. But if you really think that "social construct" is used for "eliminating a particular race", then read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_construct

3. Nobody is truly neutral. If you're going to bitch and complain about "non-neutrality", then bitch and complain about everybody. Including yourself.

[Verdum]

NS would be a lot better if Mod's stopped stealing pieces of peoples souls after they warn them.

[Aurora Novus]

Octagon, before we continue, answer this.

Rights are not handed down from on high. They are not intrinsic to life. They are man made, and are determined by the majority of a society. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

What about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

What about it?

[Hurdegaryp]

NS would be a lot better if Mod's stopped stealing pieces of peoples souls after they warn them.

That is just a myth.