Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

Adrian


  • Please log in to reply
932 replies to this topic

#761 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 23 May 2003 - 12:00 PM

Indrid,

I think this problem stems from moderators posting their opinions here on the board. Since opinions are usually biased in one way or the other, people tend to generalize this and believe their moderation is also biased by these viewpoints.

I've been acused of being pro-russian and anti-american in my moderation. This conclusion has been drawn from my various opinions on the board and not necessarily my actions as a moderator. I think the same has been done with vikingamerican.

At any rate, I've not seen evidence of our personal biases influencing the moderation. This should be the key issue here - not wether you like the moderator or what they have to say in threads.
  • 0

#762 Indrid Cole

Indrid Cole

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 74 posts

Posted 23 May 2003 - 12:05 PM

Plsek:

Your response speaks to a small part of the issue. The
moderator known as "vikingamerican" has used his position
as moderator here to give weight to his opinions. And,
according to my analysis of the semantic content and linguistic
profle of the writings of "American Samurai," those same
remarks are being espoused under at least two different
user names here.

Why are we being deceived by one of the forum's moderators?

Is this ethical in some sense?
  • 0

#763 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 23 May 2003 - 12:19 PM

Indrid,

I have checked the IP's and they are different. I also don't understand how you can use your position as moderator to give weight to your opinions? Do I do this as well? It's a tricky situation to play both moderator and poster. I've actually thought of getting a different user name just so I could post my opinions with being critized as being biased. You know, it's kind of a double-edged sword. All of a sudden, you're not expected to have anything but an objective view on every issue. Sometimes, you don't want to play the role of "moderator" but just be like everyone else and debating issues.

I know you have been campaigning for to be a moderator. Don't you think people will take their previous dealings with you and accuse you also of being unfair in your moderation based upon past opinions?
  • 0

#764 Indrid Cole

Indrid Cole

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 74 posts

Posted 23 May 2003 - 12:27 PM

Plsek:

Internet Providers (IPs) are easy to fake. I have NEVER
used my own IP to post on Pravda, and employ a number
of security techniques to maintain my internet anonymity
here, as well as, in general. This I.P. argument is meaningless.
Vikingamerican often boasts of his IT knowledge. Are we
to expect that he doesn't know this simple fact? Please.

Moderators on this forum cannot be put on Ignore the same
as regular users. Therefore they can tag along after
posters they don't like and submarine that person's threads
with commentary that can't be placed on "Ignore". That
gives any biased moderator an unfair advantage in posting
here. That is only obvious, and I am surprised you would
bother to ask.

As to my campaign for moderator, my actions on this forum
speak for themselves. If an unwillingness to spend endless
hours rebutting childlike arguments is my greatest offense,
then I stand guilty of being impatient with nonsense. I
don't think any other critique of my performance here
will hold much water.

Read the posts by American Samurai and compare them
by content and form to Vikingamerican. Tell me you don't
think those are from the same source, if you can.
  • 0

#765 zxb

zxb

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4574 posts

Posted 23 May 2003 - 12:31 PM

"Read the posts by American Samurai and compare them
by content and form to Vikingamerican"

That desn't prove anything. Many of these types speak virtually the same. AS, AV, AF1, Americaneagle, GIJoe etc.
  • 0

#766 Indrid Cole

Indrid Cole

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 74 posts

Posted 23 May 2003 - 12:39 PM

zxb:

Possibly correct, but statistically unlikely. I have found
several examples of Vikingamerican and American Samurai
using the same exact sentence structure and word choice.
Too high a correllation to be coincidence.
  • 0

#767 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 23 May 2003 - 12:40 PM

Indrid,

>>"I don't think any other critique of my performance here
will hold much water."

That's what you might think. However, you do post some very controversial threads and people will remember that - fair or not.

I've never used the "ignore" feature before being moderator. It's just not that hard to scroll down past the message if you don't want to read it. Anyways, I agree with zxb, similarities of content does not mean anything. Think about it. There are probably tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people in america that share his viewpoints.
  • 0

#768 Indrid Cole

Indrid Cole

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 74 posts

Posted 23 May 2003 - 12:47 PM

Plsek:

I am somewhat disappointed in you. I had been lead
to believe that you were of a higher calibre than to dismiss
what I've said here out of hand, but a protracted discussion
is pointless; which is why I haven't bothered to point out
that Vikingamerican is American Samurai in the past.

Ethics: They can't be bought; they have to be cultivated.
  • 0

#769 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 23 May 2003 - 12:56 PM

Indrid,

I just don't see what the big deal is really. Even if vikingamerican is American Samurai, what does this prove if anything? Out of all the moderators here vikingamerican interferes the least. That is a fact, so I just don't understand what all the fuss is about? It would be different if posts and/or threads were disapearing that were contrary to his opinions, but I haven't seen evidence of this. If it were the case, then I certainly would take issue with that. Is there something I'm missing here?
  • 0

#770 Indrid Cole

Indrid Cole

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 74 posts

Posted 23 May 2003 - 01:04 PM

Plsek:

I you cannot discern why it is unethical for a forum's
moderator to post here under various pseudonyms, then
there certainly isn't any point in continuing this discussion.
Sorry to have bothered you with anything so trivial.

Why not just call the forum a work of fiction that is produced
by one writer under various names? That's not quite
the intent of the Pravda staff to my knowledge, but
perchance you have some special understanding that
enables you to dismiss things you don't want to see.
A usefull skill for an American these days, I'm told.
  • 0

#771 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 23 May 2003 - 01:16 PM

Indrid,

>>"I you cannot discern why it is unethical for a forum's
moderator to post here under various pseudonyms, then
there certainly isn't any point in continuing this discussion.
Sorry to have bothered you with anything so trivial."

No, I don't see this as unethical. Like I said, I've thought about this myself. Just so I could be on the same level as everyone else. So no one could accuse me of having an "agenda". Do you understand this? I don't think any of us are half as power hungry as some of the people make us out to be. Sometimes, we just want to be like everyone else here you know? What is wrong with that? Seriously? Can't you see the other side of it? We all came to this forum to interact and debate issues. Somehow becoming moderator changes this and you're not allowed to have an opinion? Why is that?
  • 0

#772 Indrid Cole

Indrid Cole

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 74 posts

Posted 23 May 2003 - 01:24 PM

Plsek:

Sophistry.

A lie is a lie. Posting here under various pseudonyms is
unethical. Concealing the fact is deception. Denying that
it is wrong is merely a continuation of that deception.

Why would the moderators of Pravda's forum feel the need
to lie to and deceive the people who read here? What
purpose does that serve, and who benefits from this
deception? Certainly not the people who read here thinking
they are dealing with people in an open venue, when in
fact they are being lied in a passive manner.

Frankly, I'm glad I brought this out. I think it's now obvious
that Pravda's moderators have an ethics problem, and, like
an alcoholic after a binge, think that simply denying
that fact will make it go away.

I won't, however, banter this with you further. You have
made it clear that you don't consider it a problem for
the moderators to deceive the readers here and that is
now on the record, like it or not. So much for 'truth.'
  • 0

#773 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 23 May 2003 - 01:39 PM

Indrid,

Well I've always been very vocal against using multiple nicks which is why I decided not to. I was just trying to show you the other side of the coin here. Ultimately this board is controlled by the administrators and not the moderators. We are not employees of pravda. We are not here to further some type of agenda. This is just a message board for christ's sake!

What do you think your mission would be as moderator? Seriously? Would you stop posting your anti-american articles in an effort to be seen as objective? I wouldn't expect that of you, as I see no real conflict in expressing an opinion as long as the moderating actions were fair and balanced. But don't you think that those who find these posts offensive would then start accusing you of pursuing an "agenda" here if you were made moderator? Can't you even try to see the other side of this?

I understand you have little trust for vikingamerican. You've certainly made that clear. I guess I would take this more seriously it you could point to criticisms in his moderation and not his viewpoints or his personality or whatever.

Okay, I think we both made our points here. Have a nice day. :)
  • 0

#774 publius

publius

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2914 posts

Posted 23 May 2003 - 03:58 PM

the thread "the UN has voted" was deleted, apparently arbitrarily, this morning. it seemed no more or less offensive than any other thread in the forum, and contained some interesting dialouge that it seems should be the purpose of the site.

would any of the moderators please do me the courtesy of explaining what happened to it and why?

thank you in advance.
  • 0

#775 vigorous

vigorous

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53988 posts

Posted 23 May 2003 - 04:23 PM

I support publius' request for some explanation of the
deletion of this thread.

This is the first time I've ever made contributions to
a thread which was deleted and I don't like it.

Who did this and why?
  • 0

#776 KoWT

KoWT

    Guest

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8238 posts

Posted 23 May 2003 - 04:35 PM

Who started the thread?

Did they delete it?
  • 0

#777 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 23 May 2003 - 04:38 PM

I honestly don't know what happened to that thread. I remember seeing it here this morning. I never read it though.
  • 0

#778 publius

publius

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2914 posts

Posted 23 May 2003 - 04:41 PM

charlytwo, i believe...

i doubt he deleted it
  • 0

#779 vigorous

vigorous

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53988 posts

Posted 23 May 2003 - 04:45 PM

It was a pretty good thread IMO and I agree,
C2O would be the _LAST_ person to delete it.
  • 0

#780 KoWT

KoWT

    Guest

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8238 posts

Posted 23 May 2003 - 04:54 PM

I'm inclined, until told otherwise, to think that it was Charlie who axed it. There was nothing sufficiently offensive in said thread to draw the attentions of a moderator.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru