I was hoping to quietly ignore that one. In all seriousness though, it's a fair and honest opinion. I don't agree as I appreciated the option of feedback when I was a member at old PF even though I understand that feedback discussions can often be counter-productive.

Ah I didn't realize that about TGW. Totally understandable that he got banned if he refused to follow simple forum guidelines. Strange that he would be so obstinate concerning such a seemingly trivial matter.

Anyhow more respect earned for your integrity in not making exceptions to the rules, even for high quality contributors like TGW. I've become a stickler in my old(er) age when it comes to the importance of promulgating rules and expectations and then abiding by them impartially.

Thanatos Sand — Erik

Thanatos Sand was insufferable, and that's one of the instances where the mods were entirely inconsistent and biased. If anyone with right-wing views was like Thanatos, he wouldn't have lasted even 2 days. And yet Thanatos was going for weeks, strawmanning, interrupting discussions, insulting, jettisoning threads etc. - nothing was done about him. I alone reported his behaviour to different mods several times.

I banned him just a couple of days after being alerted to his behaviour and giving him a warning, so I don't think that's a fair assessment.

I banned him just a couple of days after being alerted to his behaviour and giving him a warning, so I don't think that's a fair assessment. — Baden

I've alerted some of the mods many times before. And I'm sure many others flagged his posts... I don't remember if I ever contacted you personally about him.

I'll admit it, I developed a soft spot for Sand after initially loathing the guy. I think we developed a camaraderie of sorts in the 'Post Truth' thread that clearly biased the way I perceived him.

Along with his many flaws, I think he had a couple very good character traits that I found admirable and rare.

I've seen way too many innocuous, sarcastic posts deleted... — Thorongil

Speaking for myself, I rarely delete sarcasm. As well as that, posters themselves may delete their own posts. So, you need to give a more specific example/examples.

...and yet most of the mods do nothing but post bitter sarcasm — Thorongil

The mods in general are anything but bitter. There is quite a bit of sarcasm though, mostly intended to be humorous as far as I can see.

I've seen certain posts deleted or censured for apparently being "offensive" and yet many of the mods themselves, depending on one's perspective, post highly offensive dreck. — Thorongil

What's "offensive dreck" does depend on perspective to a degree, I agree.

I think you did. I also think it's a bit much to complain that we are biased because we didn't ban the person you wanted us to ban quite quickly enough for your tastes. As I said, I banned him within a few days of being alerted to his behaviour. And not everyone (as you can see from Erik's post) would even agree that he should be banned. And his political views were irrelevant. What got him banned was the complaints plus the fact that he didn't heed the warning he was given.

I'll admit it, I developed a soft spot for Sand after initially loathing the guy. I think we developed a camaraderie of sorts in the 'Post Truth' thread that clearly biased the way I perceived him. — Erik

Well, I haven't followed his posts much in that thread, but apart from you (and maybe some of the moderators), other posters found his behaviour totally anachronistic and unproductive. I'm not sure what "admirable" and "rare" qualities you saw in him.

I also think it's a bit much to complain that we are biased because we didn't ban the person you wanted us to ban quite quickly enough for your tastes. — Baden

No, I didn't want you to ban him, I wanted you to do what was necessary to get him to behave like a civilized human being, and for many weeks I noticed that nothing was changing in his behaviour.

I've checked and I can't find any message from you about him actually. Also, I've just told you I warned him. He was also moderated in other ways. Failing to heed the warnings, he was banned. But I don't know what you want from us. Now we were too strict on him for banning him? How do you suggest we force people to be civilized without the possibility of a ban?

Now we were too strict on him for banning him? — Baden

No, obviously if he didn't heed the warnings you had no other choice. My point was that I think it was inconsistent because if someone with right-wing views behaved the way he did, they would have been banned or taken action against much sooner.

For example, this was one of the last messages I sent before he got banned:

You're the only Moderator online, would it be possible to ask John Harris to respect the topic of my thread (The Guidelines one) as I set it out and clarified it more than 6 times for him? Please ask him to start his own thread if he wants to discuss something else. At the moment he's derailing the thread purposefully. Thank you. — Agustino

And guess what? His posts were still there after that :s

No, I didn't want you to ban him — Agustino

if someone with right-wing views behaved the way he did, they would have been banned or taken action against much sooner. — Agustino

So, you are both saying you didn't want him banned and you wanted him banned sooner. Therefore we are biased against right wingers. Can you begin to see how irrational your complaint appears to be? Let me repeat, there were a couple of complaints, then he got a warning and was banned all within a few days. To accuse us of being biased in his favour is unsupportable.

It's possible the moderator was online but not actually at his computer at the time or that he disagreed with you. That we don't always do things exactly as you want does not make us biased against you, and certainly not biased against you on the basis that you are a right-winger. I would appreciate it if you and others would realize that.

So, you are both saying you didn't want him banned but you wanted him banned sooner. Therefore we are biased against right wingers. Can you begin to see how irrational your complaint is? — Baden

I complained about the leniency that was shown to him, and that it shows bias because his views were in agreement with the moderators, who wouldn't have treated someone with opposing views in the same way. Really, this wouldn't be such a problem if the moderator team wasn't heavily leaning towards the left and atheism by default.

Once upon a time, I was warned for simply posting a comment like "naval gazing" in an OP, which caused the poster to remove the thread. There was a big firestorm over that. And yet in this Thanatos case, I was the OP of that thread, and asked Thanatos to follow the OP, warned him 6 times or more that he should follow the OP, etc. - so why is it that action is taken against someone like me on the right almost immediately, and yet someone on the left like Thanatos doesn't even get those posts deleted?

I complained about the leniency that was shown to him — Agustino

You didn't want him banned yet we banned him. But we were too lenient? And that is because we are atheistic and left-leaning. OK, let's leave it at that. Your complaint is duly noted.

And yet in this Thanatos case, I was the OP of that thread, and asked Thanatos to follow the OP, warned him 6 times or more that he should follow the OP, etc. - so why is it that action is taken against someone like me on the right almost immediately, and yet someone on the left like Thanatos doesn't even get those posts deleted? — Agustino

Just to note, I can't answer to this specific issue because I wasn't the moderator involved.

Well, I haven't followed his posts much in that thread, but apart from you (and maybe some of the moderators), other posters found his behaviour totally anachronistic and unproductive. I'm not sure what "admirable" and "rare" qualities you saw in him. — Agustino

Most significantly, I found him to be extremely magnanimous in his ability to not take disagreements so personally, and to not let testy exchanges that he may have had with other posters affect his judgments of their arguments on threads of a different topic. IMO this isn't always an easy thing to do, and those hard feelings can linger on and make us extremely uncharitable towards these perceived personal adversaries after some initial hostility has commenced. I'll include myself in this petty and vindictive group.

I also noticed a related generosity of soul in Sand on occasion in his dealings with others, along with a certain sincerity that came out every so often. I may not be articulating this well, and as mentioned he did have many flaws (e.g. his annoying tendency to cut people off from further debate and to engage in petty insults), but I do believe he was a decent guy whose intent was more playful than malicious. Just my impression, of course, and I may have been entirely wrong about him.

He was actually quite reasonable in our interaction by PM, but he was given a warning and repeated the same behaviour again, so that, added to the litany of complaints, made the banning warranted in my view.

Once upon a time, I was warned for simply posting a comment like "naval gazing" in an OP, which caused the poster to remove the thread. There was a big firestorm over that. And yet in this Thanatos case, I was the OP of that thread, and asked Thanatos to follow the OP, warned him 6 times or more that he should follow the OP, etc. - so why is it that action is taken against someone like me on the right almost immediately, and yet someone on the left like Thanatos doesn't even get those posts deleted? — Agustino

I don't know anything about your post that was deleted, but I remember Thanatos' and I didn't think it warranted that they should be deleted. You said something in your OP (about Mongrel or TimeLine?) that Thanatos felt was deserving of comment. You can't demand that he not address it, as you did.

There really is no left-wing conspiracy against right-winger posters, Agustino. Someone's political views have no bearing on our moderating decisions.

But we were too lenient? And that is because we are atheistic and left-leaning. — Baden

No, you were too lenient in the sense that you let him misbehave as he wanted to for far too long. Not letting him misbehave = deleting his posts, warning him, etc. If you did do that, then there were certainly no visible effects. Of course, in the end, you had to ban him, as what he was doing was utterly ridiculous. The fact that you ultimately banned him doesn't mean you weren't biased though - you seem to think that because you banned him, that clearly shows you weren't biased. When things are that extreme, you're given little alternative, whether you like the poster and his/her views or not.

Most significantly, I found him to be extremely magnanimous in his ability to not take disagreements so personally, and to not let testy exchanges that he may have had with other posters affect his judgments of their arguments on threads of a different topic — Erik

>:O >:O >:O - that's the exact contrary of my experience with him.

whose intent was more playful than malicious. — Erik

Yeah, that's probably true.

Things were "extreme" in your view. Not in others', for example, Erik's. Anyway, as I said, your complaint is duly noted.

Actually, sorry, I may have been confusing Thanatos with John Harris. Thought you were talking about this discussion.

I don't know anything about your post that was deleted, but I remember Thanatos' and I didn't think it warranted that they should be deleted. You said something in your OP (about Mongrel or TimeLine?) that Thanatos felt was deserving of commenting. You can't demand that he not address it, as you did. — Michael

I remember being told when I was warned that I must follow the requirements of the OP - especially if the OP clarifies. I clearly did that in my own OP, and yet Thanatos did not relent.

Things were "extreme" in your view. Not in others', for example, Erik's. — Baden

When you say something like this it sometimes makes me wonder if we're using the same forum - like if you watched his interactions with John, Thorongil, Buxtebuddha, myself, Mongrel, etc. - how is it even possible to think that wasn't extreme behaviour I don't know. But I'll leave it at that, since we obviously disagree.

Actually, sorry, I may have been confusing Thanatos with John Harris. — Michael

Thanatos is John Harris :-} - you don't know that?

When you say something like this it sometimes makes me wonder if we're using the same forum - like if you watched his interactions with John, Thorongil, Buxtebuddha, myself, Mongrel, etc. - how is it even possible to think that wasn't extreme behaviour I don't know. But I'll leave it at that, since we obviously disagree. — Agustino

Your disagreement is with Erik. I didn't comment on my view. I did ban him though. You can draw your own conclusions from that.

I remember being told when I was warned that I must follow the requirements of the OP - especially if the OP clarifies. I clearly did that in my own OP, and yet Thanatos did not relent. — Agustino

As I said, I don't know anything about your case, but in the case of Thanatos I didn't think it deserving of deletion. It had nothing to do with him being left-wing (was he?).

Thanatos is John Harris :-} - you don't know that? — Agustino

If I did I've since forgot.

It never ceases to amaze me why you people persist in these futile exhibitions on subjects that have no end. Everybody will have a different opinion; political, all too political I say.

On the flip side, Agustino has been a respected member here for quite some time while pushing certain positions that I'm almost positive most of the moderators find abhorrent. — Erik

Like this?

Pretty much THE common experience, considering the number of moronic women that exist out there... Smart women are a rare find bruv ... many women I can't tolerate for two seconds, much less for more >:O The brain the size of an almond ... :s But it's not just lack of intelligence... It's lack of intelligence combined with arrogance, pettiness, and pride that is the real problem. I've met some quite dumb women who were nevertheless enjoyable to be around simply because they were interesting people, who at least had some decency and humility. — Agustino

There is content that is abhorrent and there are people who do not agree with what you write or have a different attitude to a particular subject. I have never complained and I too have admitted to making errors even against Agustino, but I do agree with him that there is a leftist swing to this forum.

I WANT some right-wing action so that I can use my superior rhetoric skills that has since lied dormant being here, like that character on the old forum who started that racism thread and I went wild for about a month with 180proof trying to destroy that man' argument. You lot are a bunch of wimps.

I've seen certain posts deleted or censured for apparently being "offensive" and yet many of the mods themselves, depending on one's perspective, post highly offensive dreck. — Thorongil

According to your perspective, but of course, you are infallible?

Like this? — TimeLine

:-} You should provide a context for that comment. But yes, most women and men for that matter aren't very intelligent, so you cannot discuss much about philosophy, science, religion, etc. with them. But the fact that they're dumb isn't the problem, it's being dumb mixed with arrogance, pettiness and pride that makes it problematic, since such people are usually highly opinionated, and frequently resort to violence of some kind or another, or otherwise attempts to manipulate others when things don't go their way. I've had friends (both men and women) who weren't very smart, but they didn't pretend to be either - like when the conversation would get to religion, philosophy and the like they'd just humbly say I don't know what to say, since they haven't thought much about those things. There's nothing wrong with that, that attitude is actually quite admirable. That's why I like spending time on a philosophy forum, since men and women here are more intelligent than the average - even though unfortunately they're not usually also humbler.

That's why I always tend to be very loyal and very close to my friends, who have good characters (most importantly) and are usually smarter than the average (by smarter I don't mean higher IQ necessarily, but rather they think about their life, etc. more than the average).

People change. They can progress, begin to doubt their opinions, maybe - as I myself have proven - felt ashamed or guilt for being rude. I sometimes feel terrible when I am writing jokes in the shoutbox because I hold myself to such a high standard in real life. It is called being human, making mistakes, thinking without thinking and just having fun.

If your post was deleted because I made a complaint requesting it and if you were banned for your behaviour, how is change possible? I think moderation is about managing content, not people, unless they are really extreme (do you remember that weird dude in the old forum who hung out in the banned section posting some of the most random stuff)? We all have different opinions and sometimes it can be really frustrating having to deal with them, but that is what makes discussions interesting.

I believe that if there is tension somewhere, there is a strategy not being used, where there is no compassion neither is there a humbleness where one remembers that they themselves can be just as bad as the next person.

Who knows, you could have possibly become friends with Thanatos.