The Soldier's Murder in Woolwich/Racism debate

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.

There isn't a need to justify, but as an elected mod rather than a site owner I would always tend to do so.

Likewise, all feedback is helpful. I wouldn't criticise those bringing things up if they're not comfy with something.

The post-revisionist in me wonders whether we'd have moved it if it wasn't Pitbull posting it. Some of the other views in this thread are equally unsavoury, after all. I'd like us to be consistent...

I dunno.

EDIT: Iggy's post is a pretty good one.

Unless there is a clear or highly likely breach of the law, I think that mods should not act unilaterally.

Mock Cuncher wrote:

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.

There isn't a need to justify, but as an elected mod rather than a site owner I would always tend to do so.

Likewise, all feedback is helpful. I wouldn't criticise those bringing things up if they're not comfy with something.

The post-revisionist in me wonders whether we'd have moved it if it wasn't Pitbull posting it. Some of the other views in this thread are equally unsavoury, after all. I'd like us to be consistent...

I dunno.

EDIT: Iggy's post is a pretty good one.

I understand the point Mock and yes, I think the mods should to an extent have a need to justify themselves but as a group, not as an individual.

Tringreen wrote:

Unless there is a clear or highly likely breach of the law, I think that mods should not act unilaterally.

I think they should. We will have to agree to disagree Tring until we can cast a vote once again.

Thing is, the Moderators are still 'individuals'. Some will be, shall we say, more keen to 'do stuff', now they've got to the Modroom than others.

Brothers! Sisters! We don't need this fascist groove thang.



Is this appropriate?

Czarcasm wrote:

Thing is, the Moderators are still 'individuals'. Some will be, shall we say, more keen to 'do stuff', now they've got to the Modroom than others.

As any mod will tell you I'm sure, there are always those more keen to do stuff than others, that's a good thing.

I partly agree Gob. For me it depends entirely on the nature of the 'stuff' you're keen to do.

As I see this a number of people commenting on the Mod decision didn't stand for election yet seem to want to dictate what the Mods do or don't do. If you wanted to be a Mod then surely you should have stood for election in the first place. Despite the word "Democratic" in the title of this site there simply cannot be total democracy in terms of Modding it. You elected these people to do that and should let them get on with it. If not then have a vote to get rid of them all and have none at all. That would be a road to chaos in my view but hey ho. With only around 10% of the membership having voted in the elections you can always claim to be speaking for the silent majority which is topical in a lot of things at the moment.

Sensiblegreeny wrote:

As I see this a number of people commenting on the Mod decision didn't stand for election yet seem to want to dictate what the Mods do or don't do. If you wanted to be a Mod then surely you should have stood for election in the first place. Despite the word "Democratic" in the title of this site there simply cannot be total democracy in terms of Modding it. You elected these people to do that and should let them get on with it. If not then have a vote to get rid of them all and have none at all. That would be a road to chaos in my view but hey ho. With only around 10% of the membership having voted in the elections you can always claim to be speaking for the silent majority which is topical in a lot of things at the moment.

That's about the rub of it SG and I agree that it can never be totally democratic with only 10% permitted to cast a vote but as the site grows so will the percentage that are able to vote. It's not perfect, no democracy is, but it prevents those from preventing any form of democracy from doing so....maybe!

I have been thinking about this this morning as I've been shifting furniture.

Firstly, I have no problem with anyone questioning our decisions. As long as it's not simply abusive, that's democracy! I do not think that individual mods should be hauled over the coals for what is a mod-room decision.

Secondly, my position is almost illogical. On the one hand I have always said that I believe people should be allowed to make prats of themselves. This site is usually perfectly capable of putting them right. But on the other hand I agreed with Cobi's post being taken down. I guess that's the sort of contradictions we are all made up of. I can live with that. I guess it shows that we all have our limits.

As long as the constitution says that the mods should moderate to ensure ATD sticks within the law and within bounds of social norms it is clearly up to the mods to do that.

Band on the button Knecht!

If you question a mod decision how is that dictating to the mods? and just because you did not want to stand for election does that mean you are not entitled to a opinon? or is that some dullards want to make a big deal out of it, all sounds a bit nooly to me.

To be frank, I think the actions of 'a mod' within hours of entering the modroom, is what some of us with longer memories are concerned about.

Tringreen wrote:

To be frank, I think the actions of 'a mod' within hours of entering the modroom, is what some of us with longer memories are concerned about.

Angry set out to get cobi at the first opportunity he's be taking a pop at him for weeks, cobi's post probably was a pile of shite ,but angry did not censor it because of its content but because who posted it.

Sufferedsince68 wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

To be frank, I think the actions of 'a mod' within hours of entering the modroom, is what some of us with longer memories are concerned about.

Angry set out to get cobi at the first opportunity he's be taking a pop at him for weeks, cobi's post probably was a pile of shite ,but angry did not censor it because of its content but because who posted it.

Really? I'd of thought/hoped Angry would be above that sort of thing.

Sufferedsince68 wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

To be frank, I think the actions of 'a mod' within hours of entering the modroom, is what some of us with longer memories are concerned about.

Angry set out to get cobi at the first opportunity he's be taking a pop at him for weeks, cobi's post probably was a pile of shite ,but angry did not censor it because of its content but because who posted it.

So it's not the mods decision then, it's because you have a problem with Angry?

GOB wrote:

Sufferedsince68 wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

To be frank, I think the actions of 'a mod' within hours of entering the modroom, is what some of us with longer memories are concerned about.

Angry set out to get cobi at the first opportunity he's be taking a pop at him for weeks, cobi's post probably was a pile of shite ,but angry did not censor it because of its content but because who posted it.

So it's not the mods decision then, it's because you have a problem with Angry?

I dont have a problem with angry gob sorry to disappoint you, i'm just giving you my take on it if thats ok with you x

hairy j wrote:

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.

So spot on the money then.

The modding of this site is utter gash, unless of course you happen to be one of the 'gang', Gert was one of only a handful of posters on here that made it worth a visit, one of the few who doesn't constantly bleat on about the Newellites.

Cobi had a point, he made it, the PC tossers in the mod room gutted it simply because their subjective consensus was truly weak ass, as I said, total gash.

Sufferedsince68 wrote:

GOB wrote:

Sufferedsince68 wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

To be frank, I think the actions of 'a mod' within hours of entering the modroom, is what some of us with longer memories are concerned about.

Angry set out to get cobi at the first opportunity he's be taking a pop at him for weeks, cobi's post probably was a pile of shite ,but angry did not censor it because of its content but because who posted it.

So it's not the mods decision then, it's because you have a problem with Angry?

I dont have a problem with angry gob sorry to disappoint you, i'm just giving you my take on it if thats ok with you x

That's how I perceived it to be from your comments, like it or not.

Tring, are you talking about the guy that handed over the keys of Argyle Talk or are you going back further to PAFCtalk ?

Sufferedsince68 wrote:

Tringreen wrote:

To be frank, I think the actions of 'a mod' within hours of entering the modroom, is what some of us with longer memories are concerned about.

Angry set out to get cobi at the first opportunity he's be taking a pop at him for weeks, cobi's post probably was a pile of shite ,but angry did not censor it because of its content but because who posted it.

You didn't see the post but you can comment on its removal. Holy contradictions Batman.

Lord Tisdale wrote:

hairy j wrote:

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.

So spot on the money then.

The modding of this site is utter gash, unless of course you happen to be one of the 'gang', Gert was one of only a handful of posters on here that made it worth a visit, one of the few who doesn't constantly bleat on about the Newellites.

Cobi had a point, he made it, the PC tossers in the mod room gutted it simply because their subjective consensus was truly weak ass, as I said, total gash.

Feel free to add any constructive criticism that I could use? I mean PC tossers? This post has divided nearly everybody on the site but because I don't fall on your side of the fence I am weak ass? Or should I make decisions on how I think other people may feel about things? Whatevs.

Lord Tisdale wrote:

hairy j wrote:

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.

So spot on the money then.

The modding of this site is utter gash, unless of course you happen to be one of the 'gang', Gert was one of only a handful of posters on here that made it worth a visit, one of the few who doesn't constantly bleat on about the Newellites.

Cobi had a point, he made it, the PC tossers in the mod room gutted it simply because their subjective consensus was truly weak ass, as I said, total gash.

Feel free to stand for the next election and see if you can do a better job.

Or if the moderating is that "gash" then don't come on here and post, simple really.

You don't offer much to threads anyway.