tenkani wrote:
> Good Times, maybe the reason I don't just ignore your posts is because I like most of them. You're funny and intelligent.
Thank you.
> I just hate seeing the massive generalizations and baseless assumptions you make in every single post that concerns the DV mods.
I know that's been ticking you off but my statements, as much a generalization as they may appear to be, are far from being baseless. I'm speaking from first hand practical experience.
And when you come to think of it in practical terms, what you're saying is no different than what I'm saying. We're only using different criteria to reach our conclusions, as eventually we both end up in the same spot. (You'll see what I mean shortly.)[/DIV] > My point isn't that no mods are on a power trip. I think I've said in other posts that some proabably are
Aren't these 2 sentences contradicting each other?
> , although it's tough whenever we try to speak about MOTIVE rather than action.
Eventually one has to focus on the motive. Without a motive, all our actions are meaningless. It's our motives that drive us to act or react in one way or another.
> Your statements that all the mods (there are at least 6 or 7, I'm not sure about the exact number) have the same motives and persective just flies in the face of human nature. Each mod is an individual.
Obviously I can't read their minds, so I'm looking at the end results of their actions.
And it's from the end result of one's actions that one can make an educated guess about the perpetrator's motives.
So far the results I've observed have always indicated the same thing: That those mods are vindictive a**holes hellbent on powertripping while using moderation as their pretext for self satisfaction.
> Some of them are my friends and I know for a fact (as much as I can know anything like this) that for at least a few of them, they mod because they believe doing something (even something that may be doomed to failure) is better than just giving up completely.
I think we've already discussed this before. We don't need to go over how pretending to be "doing some good" under such hoopdidoopal circumstances is an indication of their addiction to co-dependent behavior and has nothing to do with charitable action.
> Why is it so hard to understand that yes, SOME mods delete too often. At the same time SOME mods delete almost nothing. SOME mods would prefer to squash any debate where racial epithets start flying. SOME mods may not like what they read,
I have no problem understanding what you're saying and I agree with all of it. In theory you're right and this is where our views converge.
So obviously individual styles of moderation will vary, however in practical terms I question if those mods who don't do anything can actually be called mods:
Technically yes can still call them mods, because they still have mod access to the forums. However in practical terms no, because you see no outward evidence of their moderation.
The only result you and I can see, are those results brought about by the a**hole mods. (So the tame or harmless ones get burnt and labelled along the a**hole ones, and this is what's pissing you off.)
Can anything be done about this? Unfortunately no.
Simple because as you've said it yourself, there's no way of telling who did what.
Then the initiative has to come from the inactive mods. They should insist on having some guidelines of conduct, and even a means of identifying who does what - which of course brings us to the thorny issue of accountability.
> but let the debates rage out of respect for freedom of expression.
In all honesty, I don't think that any single one of those asswipes (or those whose actions are visible to you and I) really give a rat's arse about freedom of expression.
> The problem is this, when a thread suddenly dissapears, there is no way for a poster to know who deleted it, so what happens?
Next the user creates a thread asking "Who deleted my thread?" and those f*cktards delete that also infuriating everyone in the process.
> Some, like you, decide that all the mods are responsible,
Yes, because they are responsible. (Simply because as explained above the inactive ones can not really be called mods as they're not really performing their duties as frequently as the a**hole ones are. We can only go by the results, not by who theoretically has access to mod functions.)
> and further argue that nearly all troll activity is the result of the abuse of power by "the mods".
True. I put that to 90%.
And I further assert that perhaps if people were treated with a bit more respect (meaning those f*cktards that claim to be running that place will have to drop their personal agenda and grudges) then DV may not have had a Naughty Priest problem today. Just an idea.
> I think you would be surprised to know just how inactive some of the mods are, only stepping in when absolute chaos prevails. Then again, I think the very idea of that would challenge your simplistic perspective in such a way that you would immediately dismiss it.
I'm not dismissing that possibility at all. On the contrary, my view encompasses it.
On a related note, if my views were not realistic I wouldn't be receiving 10 negative karma points (from the spineless apologists who've fled here) every time I post my views.
And furthermore if my views were so simplistic I wouldn't be able to elaborate them, nor could they stand to close scrutiny.[/DIV]
