Welcome to Debate and Discussion Watch

This discussion is closed.
samba
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#241
Report 12 years ago
#241
(Original post by JonathanH)
I've seen a couple (2) of people on this forum express open and full support for Hezbollah in recent days, want to suggest an appropriate word apart from 'hezbollah supporter'?
A high velocity bullet from 1000 yards aimed at their heads would be more appropriate than any word

Its just for the sake of fairness: I see a lot of idiots on here, but thats "offensive" to say; therefore accusing people of supporting terror is also so on the flipside
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#242
Report 12 years ago
#242
Since there is plenty of debate that ensures an airing of Israel's justification for their current actions, I would open a debate asking people if they could give the justifications of the opposite side for their current actions - all in the name of fairness and balance.

I am loathe to however, since what we already have has created some much friction on our sub forum, I'm fearful of the consequences - a 'verbal' blood-bath.
Bismarck
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#243
Report 12 years ago
#243
(Original post by ghost101)
I think it was obvious that i was exaggerating in my intial post. My exaggerations are making a point. The point is that in all of the situations they are not very far from the truth.
It's called trolling. Intentionally misrepresenting someone's argument will lead to 5 warning points in the future.
0
Evil-Tuna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#244
Report 12 years ago
#244
(Original post by yawn)
Since there is plenty of debate that ensures an airing of Israel's justification for their current actions, I would open a debate asking people if they could give the justifications of the opposite side for their current actions - all in the name of fairness and balance.

I am loathe to however, since what we already have has created some much friction of our sub forum, I'm fearful of the consequences - a 'verbal' blood-bath.
This is sadly the case. My disappointment is the people from which some of the friction is being generated.

And I even thought it was unintentional at the start (the problem with misrepresentation and exaggeration by Bismarck) but now it is self-evident that it was not. And even though I have perfectly valid claims that are unaddressed I've been told to ignore it all and the mod in question.

So now using ask a mod is obviously handicapped for me.I guess I'll just have to wait and see how my relaying of this to admin goes.
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#245
Report 12 years ago
#245
(Original post by Bismarck)
Intentionally misrepresenting someone's argument will lead to 5 warning points in the future.
Does that go for all threads, all subjects, all debates?

Is your autocratic decision going to be advised of on the forum rules section?

Who has the crystal ball to determine whether one is intentionally misrepresenting someone's argument?

How do mods demonstrate their accountability for decisions they make?

Are mods totally autonomous without referral to higher administration?

I honestly don't see how your intention to give 5 warning points in the above scenario can be implemented since it is so arbitary and subjective.

You might be digging your own grave, Bis.
Thud
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#246
Report 12 years ago
#246
(Original post by samba)
Thud clearly needs a good spanking.

I see no good reason why Bismarck should be demodded. Hes passionate. Surely you guys dont want a vegetable?
clearly.


and re: Bismarck, personally I've got no beef with the guy.
0
Bismarck
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#247
Report 12 years ago
#247
(Original post by yawn)
Does that go for all threads, all subjects, all debates?

Is your autocratic decision going to be advised of on the forum rules section?

Who has the crystal ball to determine whether one is intentionally misrepresenting someone's argument?
It's trolling pure and simple. The intent is to ilicit a less than kind response and spark off a flame war.

He admitted to it.

How do mods demonstrate their accountability for decisions they make?

Are mods totally autonomous without referral to higher administration?

I honestly don't see how your intention to give 5 warning points in the above scenario can be implemented since it is so arbitary and subjective.

You might be digging your own grave, Bis.
Yeah, how dare I suggest that someone who has admitted to trolling might be warned for it in the future.
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#248
Report 12 years ago
#248
(Original post by Bismarck)
It's trolling pure and simple. The intent is to ilicit a less than kind response and spark off a flame war.

He admitted to it.



Yeah, how dare I suggest that someone who has admitted to trolling might be warned for it in the future.
Don't try to 'duck out' of the questions I posed following your decision that you will slap a 5 point warning on anyone who intentionally misrepresents someones argument.

Here is your threat again which was made in a generic fashion, applying to everyone presumably.

Intentionally misrepresenting someone's argument will lead to 5 warning points in the future.
Evil-Tuna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#249
Report 12 years ago
#249
(Original post by Thud)
clearly.


and re: Bismarck, personally I've got no beef with the guy.
dont mention anything about fox news and then im sure itll be ok.
0
Bismarck
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#250
Report 12 years ago
#250
(Original post by yawn)
Don't try to 'duck out' of the questions I posed following your decision that you will slap a 5 point warning on anyone who intentionally misrepresents someones post.
Trolling is already against the rules. I don't see what more you want to know. The warning would obviously only be given in clearcut cases.

And of course it would be applicable to anyone. You know, with all your implications of Vienna's and my supposed bad conduct, you have yet to provide a single example.
0
Helzerel
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#251
Report 12 years ago
#251
(Original post by Evil-Tuna)
This is sadly the case. My disappointment is the people from which some of the friction is being generated.

And I even thought it was unintentional at the start (the problem with misrepresentation and exaggeration by Bismarck) but now it is self-evident that it was not. And even though I have perfectly valid claims that are unaddressed I've been told to ignore it all and the mod in question.
Are you referring to the JSoc stuff at all of a coupla weeks ago? :confused:
0
Evil-Tuna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#252
Report 12 years ago
#252
(Original post by Helzerel)
Are you referring to the JSoc stuff at all of a coupla weeks ago? :confused:
Nope, some more stuff about my personal character (that i am basically holding prejudice against the right wing) and how i am being abusive about them. which now leads onto the fact that by asking questions it means i hate him. then being told you ignore it and him. - which i would love to do, but id like my answers first. you know general rudeness? hes a mod, you have a certain perception of how mods conduct behaviour.

but thats all been sent to admin and there are issues of a delay in response etc. I dont want to bring up all of those details again. If you are interested Ill tell you after I get more indication on the matter.

although im not sure why you would be? :confused:
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#253
Report 12 years ago
#253
(Original post by Bismarck)
Trolling is already against the rules. I don't see what more you want to know. The warning would obviously only be given in clearcut cases.

And of course it would be applicable to anyone. You know, with all your implications of Vienna's and my supposed bad conduct, you have yet to provide a single example.
I am not talking of trolling - I am talking of "intentionally mispresenting someone's post." How can one definitively say that something was intentional without getting inside that person's head. Any claim that it was would be subjective and lead to the accusation of immoderation.

I haven't implied, I have stated categorically and have taken it up with admin. Of course, you have the ear, more than the members of admin and are able to defend more robustly because of this. My post that was deleted 3 times was deleted without merit and is the reason it remains on this thread - although I have taken it to a new thread to ensure it's continuation since it is very relevant to the crisis in the ME, imo.

There is an underlying current of disquiet with more than a few members over the ability of the depleted moderation team (where is Agent Smith btw?) to moderate in an impartial manner on threads that mods have vigorously debated and contributed to.

One has to follow the flow of the posts carefully for it to become apparent and those that are, say there is unequal treatment.

I would be prepared to let this rest, bring the thread back on track and continue debating, albeit keeping an eye of the standard of moderation. That should be sufficient to ensure equal treatment for all.
yawn
Badges: 13
#254
Report 12 years ago
#254
(Original post by JonathanH)
OK guys, don't bring the Modding arguments in here.
You know what it's like Jon?

People keep bringing up stuff and others' are called to defend themselves!

..and so the merry-go-round keeps going around.

I've tried to end it hopefully with the post above yours.
Bismarck
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#255
Report 12 years ago
#255
(Original post by justfarhan)
Why don't israel just release the illegally held prisoners? The idiots. They're the ones who're in the wrong, and they know they're wrong. How stupid can they get?

Release them, and you'll get your two tiny soldiers back. If the Lebanese prisoners were legally held with good reason, that's a different story. But they're illegally held and the windbags don't realise that it's a very simple process.
Please tell me how this contributes to debate other than to inflame the other side?

(Original post by yawn)
I am not talking of trolling - I am talking of "intentionally mispresenting someone's post." How can one definitively say that something was intentional without getting inside that person's head. Any claim that it was would be subjective and lead to the accusation of immoderation.

I haven't implied, I have stated categorically and have taken it up with admin. Of course, you have the ear, more than the members of admin and are able to defend more robustly because of this. My post that was deleted 3 times was deleted without merit and is the reason it remains on this thread - although I have taken it to a new thread to ensure it's continuation since it is very relevant to the crisis in the ME, imo.

There is an underlying current of disquiet with more than a few members over the ability of the depleted moderation team (where is Agent Smith btw?) to moderate in an impartial manner on threads that mods have vigorously debated and contributed to.

One has to follow the flow of the posts carefully for it to become apparent and those that are, say there is unequal treatment.

I would be prepared to let this rest, bring the thread back on track and continue debating, albeit keeping an eye of the standard of moderation. That should be sufficient to ensure equal treatment for all.
Everything about modding is subjective. If it wasn't, we'd have a bot do the modding for us. Frankly, I'm still waiting for specific instances of bad modding.
0
Longshoredrift80
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#256
Report 12 years ago
#256
It doesn't, he's been trolling unbelievably. There's been no debate or discussion, he just pops up, repeats something he's said before and been replied to, and goes again.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#257
Report 12 years ago
#257
(Original post by Bismarck)
It's called trolling. Intentionally misrepresenting someone's argument will lead to 5 warning points in the future.
Intentionally beyond any reasonable doubt and where the discussion is severely undermined. I'll judge it case by case because the responsibility to defeat a strawman is on the poster.
0
Bismarck
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#258
Report 12 years ago
#258
(Original post by Vienna)
Intentionally beyond any reasonable doubt.
Obviously.
0
yawn
Badges: 13
#259
Report 12 years ago
#259
(Original post by Vienna)
Intentionally beyond any reasonable doubt and where the discussion is severely undermined. I'll judge it case by case because the responsibility to defeat a strawman is on the poster.
OK - now we've got that clear, if the membership feel the moderation is unevenly applied we can call you to account on this thread, yes?

Are you sure you want 'beyond reasonable doubt' or would 'on the balance of probability' suffice? May I remind you that this is not a court of law so the first is strictly speaking, not a requisite?
Longshoredrift80
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#260
Report 12 years ago
#260
FFS are you still going? I have received far more warning points in the last 18 months than any of you. I currently have more than double your combined number (yawn and E-T), and I have not whined or complained about the modding a HUNDREDTH of the amount you have. Just shut up, no-one CARES anymore.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

The new Gillette ad. Is it:

Man-hating bullsh*t (57)
47.11%
Pro-humanity (64)
52.89%

Watched Threads

View All