GW's constituency

[ptmusic]

Best Thread In Politics Forum In A Week.

-ptmusic

[MMMMMM]

Dear Jokerswild,

You were seriously warned to not maliciously misrepresent other posters. The vicious name-calling is secondary but wrong also.

It is too bad you don't have the maturity to carry on a discourse or debate in a civil manner.

Sorry but you have had your chance. I hereby extend to you all my best wishes for any other endeavors you may undertake in this life (besides posting on 2+2, that is).

Best Regards,

M

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Dear Jokerswild,

You were seriously warned to not maliciously misrepresent other posters. The vicious name-calling is secondary but wrong also.

It is too bad you don't have the maturity to carry on a discourse or debate in a civil manner.

Sorry but you have had your chance. I hereby extend to you all my best wishes for any other endeavors you may undertake in this life (besides posting on 2+2, that is).

Best Regards,

M




[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

How I long for better days.

Mack

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
How I long for better days.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so, Mack?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
maliciously misrepresent

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds rather subjective to me.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
maliciously misrepresent



[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds rather subjective to me.


[/ QUOTE ]

How is that subjective? He claimed I advocated violence against US citizens, which was clearly NOT suggested by my post. Nor have I ever advocated violence against Americans. Jokerswild made this false claim deliberately and in a defamatory manner. That's pretty clearly malicious by any objective standard I would think.

This is also far from the first time he has been warned about doing things like this. This has been going on for years and he has been banned before only to re-appear under different user names. After I took on the task of moderating, he did it again--and I warned him about it in a clear yet reasonable manner and even offered him the chance to start anew. Instead he shortly repeated the offense in an even more egregious manner.

Deliberately posting falsehoods about what other users do or do not advocate is a serious matter especially when it is done in a defamatory manner. That is exactly what he has done--again--and I don't see how that can be viewed by anyone as being anything other than deliberate and malicious.

If you have a different take on this somehow I'd welcome your input (though I really can't imagine what a different take could be in this case).

[andyfox]

You know that my politics and MMMMMM's are 180 degrees opposite one another, but did you read jokerswild's post in this thread? Had I been the moderator, I would have banned him too.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
How is that subjective?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is not one man's 'malicious misrepresentation' another's 'strongly-worded accurate description'?

I can't see how this turns into anything other than "the moderators will decide when XYZ becomes offensive." Have the moderators cornered the market on objectivity? This isn’t about partisanship; I think MMMMMM has done a fine job moderating. But even the fairest among us can never be completely objective. I think it’s clearly a function of being human and nothing more.

'Malicious misrepresentation' and 'insulting' are poor standards, IMO, because they're so vacuous that they could be construed to occur in almost any post.

I agree with you (Mx6) and andyfox that you (Mx6) never advocated violence against Americans. And I agree that you in no way, shape, or form deserved to be called a racist. So let’s let our communal scorn and disapproval suffice as punishment for jokerswild, and save banning for people who circumvent the censors and consistently use profanity, or who threaten physical harm against other posters, etc.

I think there’s a legitimate claim (and I certainly blame myself here) in that the forum does not do a good job of policing itself – in other words, my first response to this situation ought to have been to strongly condemn jokerswild, not criticize the moderation policy. Perhaps it’s fair to demand posters (at least posters who care about and get enjoyment from this forum, as I do) condemn those who make unfair attacks on others, and let the community decide for itself. Clearly, posters condeming other posters is subjective as well - but it doesn't remove anyone's abilities to post.

At the very least, sticky the guidelines and include whatever the standard for ‘malicious representation’ is going to be; predictability goes a long way towards fairness, IMO.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

Is not one man's 'malicious misrepresentation' another's 'strongly-worded accurate description

[/ QUOTE ]

Not when the representation is clearly and objectively inaccurate.

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you (Mx6) and andyfox that you (Mx6) never advocated violence against Americans.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you must agree that jokerswild misrepresented me, because in the title of his post he asserts that very thing. Hence his post is not just "another man's strongly worded accurate description".

I will sticky the guidelines when they are ready to be stickied, as I've stated before. That should be in the fairly neare future. In the meantime posters should not claim other posters have done, written or advocated things THAT THEY CLEARLY HAVE SHOWN NO EVIDENCE OF DOING.

If I were to write that you had "clearly advocated violence against the government of the USA", but in actuality, nothing you had ever posted suggested that you did, do you not think that would have been far WORSE than insulting you or calling you a profane name?

Posters who do that risk banning. That's my stance as moderator. Posters cannot post outright defamatory falsehoods about other posters. I'll get the full guidelines sticked when I feel comfortable with the principles and wording. In the meantime, I suggest you ask yourself which is worse: someone calling you a profanity, or someone spreading defamatory lies about you.

[Boris]

You are abusing your powers as a moderator. You should be ashamed of yourself. JW is stating the logical (in JW's mind, not mine) implications of your political views. You should know that.