Why is a member here allowed to knowingly lie when there have been plenty of complaints?

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
How does a warning (and removal of quoted text) translate to bias?

It does when that post is almost a month old and I get a warning for it today after making this thread. THAT'S how it shows your biassness.

that ALWAYS gets a warning for large/unnecesary quoting.

Really? Again, I beg to differ. It was fine for a month but not now? Please explain.

Originally posted by Griff
It was fine for a month but not now? Please explain.

It simply wasn't noticed until now. There's no reason for this level of drama over a 20 point warning for a large quote.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
There's no reason for this level of drama over a 20 point warning for a large quote.

I could care less about the 20 points. You can take em all. What I do care about is the fact that I start this thread and all of a sudden, I am getting warns for excessive quoting.

Can I ask. Has CaptainObvious been reprimanded for excessive quoting? There's plenty in that thread.

Is this the way you guys treat everyone who complains? To run them out?

[edit on 10/24/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
It simply wasn't noticed until now.

Actually SO I don't blame him for calling that warning into question, a month after it is posted? That does seem a little odd.

reply to post by Griff


Griff, what exactly has seanm posted that you know to be a lie? I have been posting on many of the same threads as seanm and believe his posts to be on the same level and factual quality as yours, and Ultima1, and Graig Ranke just to name a few.

Please provide a few examples of his outright lies.

Originally posted by uberarcanist
reply to post by niteboy82

 

Your heavy-handed approach to squelching dissent via quarantining criticism in a forum where only staff can read it is very counterproductive to maintaining good relations between the mods and the rest of the board. I kindly suggest you butt out of this thread unless you see the grossest violations of the T&Cs.

As I recall the title of this thread is, "Why is a member here allowed to knowingly lie when there have been plenty of complaints?" Not a general let's slag the site and those that maintain it, without pay, I might add.

NB was just directing the thread back to its purpose. I KINDLY ask you to show, I won't say respect, but at least decorum to a member that works to keep this site running and "suggest you butt out" isn't it.

Wow look at how fast the responses are coming in complaining about mods...

HURRY delete them all and or close this thread mods..

Instead of addressing the clear problems that are shown to you almost daily now,you rather hide it and run from your problems......

You will fail horribly if you do not address these issues.And yes this is still generally on topic.

This topic is about mods not doing their job or taking advantage of their powers like FredT or MirthfullMe..

Surely my posts will not be addressed.

Its against the T&C to create threads that attack other threads or to attack other posters, isnt it?

While I believe the OP is a point and has every right to call BS, I think it should have been done in the thread itself rather than creating an entirely new thread about a thread.

Originally posted by Project_Silo


This topic is about mods not doing their job or taking advantage of their powers like FredT or MirthfullMe..

Surely my posts will not be addressed.

No it's not, see my post above yours to see what the topic is.

ADDRESSED!

reply to post by Griff


I didn't see any other large quotes of posts in that thread, if you have an example I'd be happy to look at it.

Large-quote warnings happen as they're noticed. As we've often said, we can't review every post as it happens, and sometimes things like this happen after-the-fact. The point with the large-quote warning is a very-slight "tap on the shoulder" of just 20 points to avoid unnecessary quoting... especially the entire post just before yours.

The only connection between this thread and that one is that this thread led me to it... I didn't connect the authorship until I got your U2U about it... but given your reaction to such a minor thing, I doubt you'll believe that.

Originally posted by wsamplet
Please provide a few examples of his outright lies.

Hopefully, I won't get warned for quoting you but he says that the evidence NIST has is open for the world to see. I asked him about the structural drawings that are illegal to own and he flat out continues to say that the evidence is open for the world to see. That is a lie and he knows it.

I'm all for disagreement, but to sit there and lie and lie and lie is not what I thought ATS was about. Maybe I was wrong seeing as now I'm under fire for bringing up "board drama".

Originally posted by intrepid
NB was just directing the thread back to its purpose.

I disagree. NB is telling us the posts about complaints having been made are irrelevant to the topic, and threatening to remove any post he feels is irrelevant. Wh determines what is relevant to a thread? What criteria is applied? If in this case it's NB's opinion that makes that determination, then I absolutely object to that filtration.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Its against the T&C to create threads that attack other threads or to attack other posters, isnt it?

Yes it is I believe. Notice that I never attacked anyone or anything in my opening post.

I think it should have been done in the thread itself rather than creating an entirely new thread about a thread.

The reason for this thread was because I asked for mods to come in at least three times in that thread and nothing was done. I then complained and nothing was done.

Now, I'm the one being railroaded out of here.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
While I believe the OP is a point and has every right to call BS, I think it should have been done in the thread itself rather than creating an entirely new thread about a thread.

But then that could be labeled derailing of a thread or trolling.

Board Business & Questions, as I understand it, are for these types of threads. I'm not sure why the mods take such offense to opposing views of their job performance. Criticism can be good.

I agree that railroading against them or overreacting is a little too much, but pointing out opposing views of how this site is run should be welcomed and considered. Hopefully it is.

It seems the mods have a different view of this thread, but the way I see it, it was made complaining about the moderation of a certain member, as well as the type of debating that that member uses, as well as all of the other people who debate that way. So it seems this is more of a complaint about the moderating performance of people who post their opinions and word them as fact, without providing evidence to back up their claims.

So given that, I'm not sure why we're being told to stay on topic, when it appears that the complaint of moderation is on topic.

Just my .02

Originally posted by twitchy
Wh determines what is relevant to a thread?

The topic obviously. But this thread has been jacked by a few that are continually griping about the site and its moderation, which ISN'T the topic.

In the interest of fairness, I'm going to say that I partially agree with SO in that a slap on the wrist for excessive quoting does not equate with an attempt to beat down protest. If the mods really wanted to silence you, Griff, there are more direct and punitive sanctions at their disposal.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
I didn't connect the authorship until I got your U2U about it... but given your reaction to such a minor thing, I doubt you'll believe that.

Actually, I do believe you. You have never given me a reason not to.

I was just wondering how that poster must feel that there is an entire thread in attack of his BELIEFS here. Even if his BELIEFS are mistaken, I dont like the idea of talking about some other ATS-member behind his back.

reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi


Agreed. To restrict this thread to ONLY the problem poster and ONLY the SPECIFIC response to that problem poster is to stifle the thread altogether. If I were the mods, I would just let this thread run its course. Eventually people will get bored with it and tempers will subside. The more "clampy" the response, the more fuel on the fire of anti-mod sentiment.

Originally posted by uberarcanist
If the mods really wanted to silence you, Griff, there are more direct and punitive sanctions at their disposal.

Not if I have done nothing against the terms and conditions. They can't just ban me for nothing can they?