Free Speech

[bomber]

Sorry but whilst Vincent attempts to instigate more conflict how can there be a conversation ?

Go back to the first page and re-read.. see my questions, my suggestions. ..

The response

Simon.

[bomber]

And whilst we're at it, I'd like an investigation into Vincents accusation that I've lied.

If Jwocky can make a complaint so can I.

Simon

[IAHM-COL]

So J-wocky made a complaint to the moderators...

suggestion... lets see this complaint 'in full' uncensored....

Simply put, JWocky found Lydiot's argumentation being mostly a series of personal attacks to Jwocky.

This is last JWocky post, before requesting via PM that moderation take place
viewtopic.php?f=27&t=935&start=40#p18622

and this community will be the judge.

6. I do not support democratically-functioning judicial systems -- let aside democratically-functioning lynching systems (such as voting to ban or impose a signature change for anyone here).

The response to the moderation I briefed to you right in my answer above. I can not disclose the exact PMs sent to each Jwocky and Lydiot myself. That's a violation of their privacy and their right to have private communication with me.

The reason we decided sending each of them a private separate communicate is to prevent the moderator's team to go down in the same fighting spiral with them .

But in voice of transparency I do not mind if each of them want to make the moderator's petition public by posting it. I can't speak for Vincent and Skyboat on this matter, thou.

This is ALL a bit weird.

Simon

I can't but agree.

[IAHM-COL]

And whilst we're at it, I'd like an investigation into Vincents accusation that I've lied.

If Jwocky can make a complaint so can I.

Simon

Are you serious?
You can ask for that, but keep in mind:
1) it would involve all other moderators but Vincent
2) I don't have a clue right now how can we figure out if you did or not or whether this is a misunderstanding between what you said to him and what he got from you and viceversa.


So are you serious you want us to start looking into this? or is this just a point you want to make?

PS:

Just to make sure we all understand that this being a "free speech" forum operates under the presumption that we are all adults capable of keeping a conversation; not a pre-kinder classroom gone the snot way.

[bomber]

He's just another ordinary user that's accused me of lying... what's the big deal... either I have or haven't.

But you know I think I'd prefer to involve the whole of the community and in the open.

But lets go back to the start of this topic.... a topic you say is a conversation and that Vincent says he's 'interested' in. Now also remember that I have no knowledge of anything that's gone off in the background that's involved investigations or moderator involvement, BUT Vincent does have that knowledge and he also knows who else has that knowledge which is frankly rather key as it's embolden him to start this topic in what in his mind is for protecting the owner.

I notice that for some people free speech is too complex to handle. So i'll try to explain it a bit here.

A slightly condescending start after which he goes on to define freespeech and follows it with this quote from a users signature.

"Free Flight, Free Speech".... as long as you only say what Der Fuhrer says is acceptable...

Which drags the user Lydiot into this conversation.... a conversation clearly aimed at denigrating him and as such it requires a response from him... ALL of this Vincent knew was likely to happen from the moment he started the topic, based on knowledge that something had gone off in the background from being a moderator.

Now lets look at the quote....

"Free Flight, Free Speech".... as long as you only say what Der Fuhrer says is acceptable...

I read it and read it and read it...... and still can't summon up enough to feel offended by it.... as it's basically true and frankly what I'd expect from a forum... even amnesty international defines free speech as coming with some limits of acceptability.
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/free-speech- ... uman-right
So it's the Der Fuhrer bit... but it's can't be as this forum was founded on the very concept of being able to come here and call Curt, Stuart, Bugman and others names with genocidal references.
So maybe it's the use of the word 'Der' instead of 'A' .... well I think we're clutching at straws here.
And the most ironic suggestion considering the nature the initial private complaint - that it's not spelt correctly.

So anyone else got a problem with this signature that can reason in an adult manner ?

[bomber]

Oh gawd I've just followed the link and it's from a topic in "unrelated nonsense' forum...

You guys are unreal, most forums that have a forum of similar intent have this one 'UNMODERATED for the very reason that they're a mush pit of angst...

Are you guys in charge so nieve as to not know this ?

I'm a member of AGW-warbirds offtopic forum... it's the oldest flightsim forum on the internet starting out as a newsgroup, you guys wouldn't last 5minutes on there (talk about rednecks) and because I'm on there I don't post in yours.

Now because I have the courage to stand up and say something I'm accused of being scared from my previous internet experiences... well how about considering my experiences as being a positive because I'd not have made this school boy error you've made.

[KL-666]

Bomber attributes a text he quotes to me, which is not mine. Next he blatantly denies that he did that. In my book that is what is called lying. I do not know in what realm Bomber lives, where that is not called lying. Would that be the realm of the trolls?

Kind regards, Vincent

[IAHM-COL]

He's just another ordinary user that's accused me of lying... what's the big deal... either I have or haven't.

But you know I think I'd prefer to involve the whole of the community and in the open.

OK. I'm glad not to look forward to another 15 days of witch-hunting for all the good reasons, and when we, as forum, have decided not to have witch-burning stakes.

But lets go back to the start of this topic.... a topic you say is a conversation and that Vincent says he's 'interested' in. Now also remember that I have no knowledge of anything that's gone off in the background that's involved investigations or moderator involvement, BUT Vincent does have that knowledge and he also knows who else has that knowledge which is frankly rather key as it's embolden him to start this topic in what in his mind is for protecting the owner.

We have had a couple of Moderation events. All happening in the background till now. Mostly people complaining they are ill-treated. A bit of "get tick skin" and a bit of "phrase yourself better" have been thrown here and there. Not many. Never moderated a topic in the sense of delete words or make editions on people's statements, or the sort.

I think you wouldn't find surprising that Lydiot and JWocky have their own "Moderate me" tournament thing going on, right?

I notice that for some people free speech is too complex to handle. So i'll try to explain it a bit here.

A slightly condescending start after which he goes on to define freespeech and follows it with this quote from a users signature.

"Free Flight, Free Speech".... as long as you only say what Der Fuhrer says is acceptable...

Which drags the user Lydiot into this conversation.... a conversation clearly aimed at denigrating him and as such it requires a response from him... ALL of this Vincent knew was likely to happen from the moment he started the topic, based on knowledge that something had gone off in the background from being a moderator.

Well yeah. It's clearly a call to Lydiot and his signature to introspect and consider. About the signature itself: it is not forbidden in this forum to have the signature he has. But I'm far not surprised that such signature ends up in a "let's talk about it" thread. Isn't the signature itself an invitation?

The reason why Vincent wanted to dig in and indeed involve the community in the topic is --if I can interpret him ; and I can be wrong-- to try to figure out how much our rules require a revision in terms of name calling.
I kept my head out of it for a while. Look I called Thorsten thousand names by name (and I'm still figuring out what name I shall give him during the SEASia 17), I've called Curtis his own share of adjectives, and Stuart as well.
Vincent has used Smurftown to drive points as well.

But while bein' Moderator and dealing with J+L romance, we kind of got in the conundrum of allowing name calling in the name of Free Speech and having to wrestle with the situation that this makes both tolerable and unquestionable when Lydiot calls JWocky some adjective, and JWocky calls Lydiot another substantive. The thing gets into a vicious circle and nothing breaks that.

So Vincent wanted to converse whether we can let our members self regulate or whether we need to consider placing sort of lines-to-not-cross thing.

As you clearly put it. It is quite not an easy choice.

Now lets look at the quote....

"Free Flight, Free Speech".... as long as you only say what Der Fuhrer says is acceptable...

I read it and read it and read it...... and still can't summon up enough to feel offended by it.... as it's basically true and frankly what I'd expect from a forum... even amnesty international defines free speech as coming with some limits of acceptability.
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/free-speech- ... uman-right
So it's the Der Fuhrer bit... but it's can't be as this forum was founded on the very concept of being able to come here and call Curt, Stuart, Bugman and others names with genocidal references.
So maybe it's the use of the word 'Der' instead of 'A' .... well I think we're clutching at straws here.
And the most ironic suggestion considering the nature the initial private complaint - that it's not spelt correctly.

I partly agree.

It's a thing more of intensity than of colors.

So anyone else got a problem with this signature that can reason in an adult manner ?

Probably. It is inflammatory. We can't deny that. Wasn't it devised to cause stir?

[IAHM-COL]

Oh gawd I've just followed the link and it's from a topic in "unrelated nonsense' forum...
ETC

Well yeah.
point taken

The situation on our hands is this. we have zero experience and zero clue of what to do when it comes to lead a forum. Learning as we do, we're bound to error-think-change(hopefully to improve) kinda absurdity.

So, hopefully you can bear with us.

On the case of L+J you still have not allow me to know what would you've done differently (at least I did not grasp it)

It seems to me all you'd do differently is let the community decide who's right who's wrong and get anyone involved in the witch-hunt?

And to what end?
Looking to ban Lydiot?
Looking to ban JWocky? (From his own board?)
Looking to ban them both?
Or just thinking that public scolding is hot enough?

As the Admin, I thought, better to send them a letter in term of conflict mediator telling them what we think they can improve. And let them choose their own behaviors and paths.

[bomber]

So anyone else got a problem with this signature that can reason in an adult manner ?

Probably. It is inflammatory. We can't deny that. Wasn't it devised to cause stir?

But IT didn't stir, not by itself...... [if a non moderator had started this topic, there wouldn't have been my follow up posts and this thread wouldn't have gone the way it did]

It required the knowledge that Vincent had gained as a moderator to inflame his sensibilities so much that upon seeing it he had to start a topic not as a moderator but as an ordinary user.

So something went from being private and moderator, to public and users.

And that's one of the issues I'm trying to raise is that most people can't separate being an ordinary user and moderator..... it gets too emotional.

Now you say you've had this private debate whether to allow name calling or not and I can only assume that you've instructed Lydiot that he can't.... but you didn't tell me or everyone else on this forum that the rules have changed. So I must assume (again) that it's only Lydiot that can't name call, maybe even Jwocky but I can't be sure and nor could Lydiot.

So Vincent attempts to have a conversation/debate 'after the fact' of issuing a private demand to an individual user with regards his actions..

Why ?
You've already decided the new rules, you didn't involve any of the users who originally came here on the grounds that they could let off steam and call bugman a wanker... so why have the conversation at all..?
Was their ever the possibility that if the community had decided that name calling as it was a 'founding action' of this forum should remain a right of all it's users, that you'd contact Lydiot and tell him "yeh you can go slag off Jwocky, the big girls blouse to your hearts content".... was their heck as like.

So owner(s) and moderators.... you've created this mess.
When what you should have done is to have

1) involved the community as a whole in a neutral discussion, ie naming no names or obvious quotes
2) made a proclaimation to this community about any resulting rule changes
3) privately informed Lydiot, Jwocky and me that it will not longer we tolerated that I call bugman a wanker,,, even if it is only a healthy past time.

As they say the ball is in your court.

Simon