The Soldier's Murder in Woolwich/Racism debate

I'm sorry but nobody made Gert disappear except Gert himself. He wasn't banned he decided to go all by himself. I ask again what is the point of having elected moderators on this forum if everytime they make a decision, which is what they are asked to do by being elected, it is argued and somebody does a hair advert flounce.

Everybody was patting them on the back for their success in the elections a few days ago and now it seems they aren't fit for purpose.

In fairness it would be wrong of me to comment if Angry was right or wrong in his actions because I thankfully never saw Cobi's post but I do wonder what the response to moving the post would have been should Frank, pepsi or any of the longer standing mods had done the deed. Could this be becuse Angry is a newbie and was faced with doing something that doesn't sit well on this great site so early in tenure? Just a thought. COME BACK GERT.

Written into the constitution is a clause that recognises the possibility of the mods having to remove posts that are unacceptable within the law or the bounds of common decency. That latter phrase is vague - inevitably and desirably so. That leads to Mods being put into the inevitable & unenviable position of agonising over whether a particular post approaches or crosses over the line. That's not a complaint of it's a tough job - that's a statement of fact. That is part (a small part) of what Mods do. That's the position we chose to put ourselves into. That's what you elected us to do. I put up for election on the basis that I handed it out on pasoti so I ought to be prepared to take it.

I am sorry that Gert chose to leave. That was his decision. I happen to totally disagree with his comment "I for one don't need nannying on a small forum of this kind". It wasn't him that Angry was nannying. It was this site that was being protected.

I removed two or three photos of cocks the other day. My thought process included, "It's a cock. It's not erect. I assume everyone on here has at least seen one. If anyone wants to look at mine I'm happy to show it (for a small charge). A trip to most galleries or museums would show as much etc.....". But I then decided that maybe a line had been crossed. Maybe the next step would be a semi or an open-crotch. Where do we stop? Links to porn sites (where have I heard that before)? After a cock-up (pun intended) I managed to eventually share the pictures in the mod room. My decision got a vote of approval with one of the mods summing up the decision by saying "ATD should be a cock-free zone". That's how the process works. I'm certain I get things wrong. I am certain other mods have & will in future. Those decisions ought to be up for question. But not abuse.

It is inevitable that the call over whether something has crossed the line of acceptability will vary. It will vary from mod to mod. It will also vary according to mood, tiredness etc. The protection for individual mods as well as for the site is that normally such decisions should be discussed by a group of mods. It's not a perfect situation but then only God is perfect as my Muslim friends used to say.

As a final question to the site: should individual mods be asked to account for themselves and how they voted or should that be part of the confidentiality of the mod-room?

Fair post Knecht, we all know whats acceptable and yet to a point it's nature to push the boundries in some, but not all aspects which is where you mods come in. We elected the mods to do as you say a tough job for no more than our thanks so to my mind unless some mod is glaringly cocking up like changing colours or wearing dodgy jumpers in public we should trust their judgement, even angry newbies.

Highwayman wrote:

Fair post Knecht, we all know whats acceptable and yet to a point it's nature to push the boundries in some, but not all aspects which is where you mods come in. We elected the mods to do as you say a tough job for no more than our thanks so to my mind unless some mod is glaringly cocking up like changing colours or wearing dodgy jumpers in public we should trust their judgement, even angry newbies.

I'm knackered & probably shouldn't be wittering on so a quick response. We don't all know what's acceptable - we all have different levels of that. The voting process to some degree sifts out those that the site considers would do the least worse job.

When I leave the mod-room I shall donate my jumper with an amendment to the constitution that says "any mod attending a public function in an official capacity will be required to wear this jumper". That would sort out the game-players from the serious candidates!

Fwiw, I think the absolutely correct decision was made.

Please come back Gert. I miss you.

So Voltaire's often wrongfully mis-credited phrase of "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", that is on occasion quoted on ATD, went straight out of the window at almost the first test!

I understand Mock's reasoning that now the damage is done, it's pointless to reinstate the thread, however, it was gross misjudgement to remove it in the first place.

Angry wanting to make his mark I feel...
Angry, were you the poster and mod on the old AT site that went under the name 'Phenom'?

Knecht talks of protecting the site. In this case - protecting it from what?

How on earth are you going to teach another fifteen year old - or adult for that matter -that might be looking at this forum, right from wrong, if your just going to delete a point of view you find offensive?

Cobi is going to turn to his mates and say... "See I told you they couldn't handle the truth, and they would delete it. They are hypocrites, coz they always accuse Pasoti of doing that sort of stuff - typical of a bunch of old men"!

The only chance you have to save people from the error of their ways is to present reasonable arguments that prove their viewpoints wrong.

ATD missed a chance to do that.

Cobi's post wasn't what I'd call overtly racist - it was espousing the usual argument that Islam/Muslims are dangerous to our way of life (whatever that is).

Basic points were - Islam doesn't fit ideologically with Western culture - that it's incompatible.
Muslim families are larger than non-Muslim families so, by that theory, Muslims will eventually 'take over'.
Following that, Sharia law will inevitably replace our current legal/political system.

Stuff that this guy would say basically.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Quote :

Hey you guysssssss!

And most of that Christopher Hitchens would have said.

I'm definitely in his camp.

I tend to stand with the view of allowing contentious remarks to be spoken and having the subsequent argument made in public and as others have already said, it provides the opportunity to either change the opinion of the person or it allows the opportunity to belittle the contentious remark so as the remark cannot be used to persuade others.

However, there is a line that has to be drawn and all of our lines will be different, hence why we have moderators to draw the line for us or we risk anarchy and a boring site that would soon be forced to shut down and, rightly so.

I do not know what was said so it’s hard for me to know if my line was crossed or not, but even if my line wasn't crossed I have given my trust to the moderators to draw where they think the line should be and I am happy to accept their line until the next election when I will have the opportunity to move the line is by voting for someone that has a view that is more aligned with mine. That’s how ATD operates and was always intended to operate.

If Gert has withdrawn his membership from ATD than so be it, elections often bring about the loss of one or two that find the resulting changes that are brought about from the election difficult to accept. Personally I hope that Gert returns but the process is the process and the balance will drift with each election and with that so will the moderation, if that cannot be accepted than ATD isn't the site for them.

Rickler wrote:

And most of that Christopher Hitchens would have said.

I'm definitely in his camp.

I hope that's irony. It's a completely stupid A + B = C argument. I'm all for respecting people's views but sometimes, views are so abhorent and so ignorant that they deserve no respect at all.

These extreme Islamist families are going to have to have about 100,000 children each for that to even happen. Even if they did, it wouldn't happen. To even suggest they are is delusional at best. I don,t actually want to disprove it as it's not worth even considering.

Way to derail a thread.

To sum this up - Angry wanted to cross the ball but, at the last minute decided to shoot and ended up hitting the ball high and wide into the crowd. He claimed a corner but everyone in the ground knew he had no right to appeal for one.

Tringreen wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

I sincerely hope that Angry's latest stint in the AT/ATD modroom is not going to coincide with increased censorship, as it did previously.

Most of us know where that all ended up.

I hope that the decision by the majority of ATD users is respected.

Angry made the original call as he was around at the time.

After a lengthy discussion in the mod room we decided we agreed with the decision and the post would be taken down.

We knew it wouldn't please everybody but when it contained stuff like what i've quoted it crossed the line from a well written piece to something that isn't needed on a football forum.

If Cobi wants to compare the Islamic religion to Nazism he can do it on his own twitter account or use one of his BNP forum accounts.

When you also add in the fact Cobi hasn't posted on here in months then decides to make his return here to simply post what he did before buggering off again you have to ask why?

From Cobi's post wrote:

See the similarities between Islam and Nazism?

Yea Man wrote:

Angry made the original call as he was around at the time.

After a lengthy discussion in the mod room we decided we agreed with the decision and the post would be taken down.

We knew it wouldn't please everybody but when it contained stuff like what i've quoted it crossed the line from a well written piece to something that isn't needed on a football forum.

If Cobi wants to compare the Islamic religion to Nazism he can do it on his own twitter account or use one of his BNP forum accounts.

When you also add in the fact Cobi hasn't posted on here in months then decides to make his return here to simply post what he did before buggering off again you have to ask why?

From Cobi's post wrote:

See the similarities between Islam and Nazism?

The bold bits sum it up nicely.

hairy j wrote:

Rickler wrote:

And most of that Christopher Hitchens would have said.

I'm definitely in his camp.

I hope that's irony. It's a completely stupid A + B = C argument. I'm all for respecting people's views but sometimes, views are so abhorent and so ignorant that they deserve no respect at all.

These extreme Islamist families are going to have to have about 100,000 children each for that to even happen. Even if they did, it wouldn't happen. To even suggest they are is delusional at best. I don,t actually want to disprove it as it's not worth even considering.

Well if its a completely stupid argument, since all the words are your own - you only have yourself to blame!

All I said was... Hitchens would have said most of that, and I was in his camp.

Hairy, are you all there?

If only 1% of the Islamic word is currently radicalised, that amounts to over 10 million worldwide.
Their stated intent is to eventually take over the world and introduce sharia law.

I fear that the vast majority of moderate muslims will stand back and do nothing as more turn to the darkside. I don't know whether they fear these extremists, or simply don't have the deep rooted desire to stop them.
One thing is for sure and that is , if these atrocities continue and the preachers of hate are not locked up, there will be increased cross community violence, where sadly, many innocent people will be hurt.

It's all very well Islamic leaders condemning these extremists but I'm fairly confident that they know who is preaching and who is listening and they could expose them much earlier..........if they wanted to.

I voted to pull it because I thought it was inciting racial hatred, I didn't like the post or a lot of the arguments from both sides, I also tried to keep off the thread as I thought it was only going one way, straight down flounce street, that was before I was a Mod, as a mod I made a decision on what I thought was right, I am not always going to get it right, but I am happy with the decision made here. Anybody wishing to make a worthwhile argument go ahead, anybody linking friends of mine with Nazis is inciting racial hatred in my view.

There's no need to justify yourself Iggy, you guys made the call and if others don't like that they have the use of a vote to change it at the next election.

A mosque in Hull was burned down in an arson attack last night, a few hours after an EDL march there. Ban anyone wearing an England shirt! Arrest anyone with a lighter!

OTT? Of course it is. If only one percent of white people in the world are racist and anti-muslim and one percent of Muslims want war then it's going to happen. Doesn't mean we should all jump on the bandwagon.

I didn't vote on the Cobi post and I am in two minds about it now, but if you want to use this site with elected mods then I think you have to respect their decision.

Rickler wrote:

hairy j wrote:

Rickler wrote:

And most of that Christopher Hitchens would have said.

I'm definitely in his camp.

I hope that's irony. It's a completely stupid A + B = C argument. I'm all for respecting people's views but sometimes, views are so abhorent and so ignorant that they deserve no respect at all.

These extreme Islamist families are going to have to have about 100,000 children each for that to even happen. Even if they did, it wouldn't happen. To even suggest they are is delusional at best. I don,t actually want to disprove it as it's not worth even considering.

Well if its a completely stupid argument, since all the words are your own - you only have yourself to blame!

All I said was... Hitchens would have said most of that, and I was in his camp.

Hairy, are you all there?

I was paraphrasing Cobi for your benefit as you'd missed it. You then said it's similar to what Hitchens would say and said you were 'in his camp' - I disagree and believe divisive opinions are worthless.

You're a pretty rude guy Rickler and I am all there. Not sure what your beef is but you seem to get a little hard-on every time I post anything and try and belittle me. If that floats your boat sweetheart, fill your boots.

GOB wrote:

There's no need to justify yourself Iggy, you guys made the call and if others don't like that they have the use of a vote to change it at the next election.

I know that gob, but I want to be transparent, I would rather someone disagreed with me for something I did rather than something that someone thought I did, if that makes sense? Also there are a lot of posters here who I admire for the way to look at an argument differently to myself and other posters and I would read any comment they made about this with interest,I am just trying to do the right thing in the right way.
Maybe in hindsight we should have taken a few lines out of the post, and left the rest, we will live and learn.

Greenjock wrote:

A mosque in Hull was burned down in an arson attack last night, a few hours after an EDL march there. Ban anyone wearing an England shirt! Arrest anyone with a lighter!

OTT? Of course it is. If only one percent of white people in the world are racist and anti-muslim and one percent of Muslims want war then it's going to happen. Doesn't mean we should all jump on the bandwagon.

I didn't vote on the Cobi post and I am in two minds about it now, but if you want to use this site with elected mods then I think you have to respect their decision.

Totally agree Jock and the elected mods/ Admin, will in turn keep their part of the house in order too.