First of all, let me be very clear:
Dimka’s ban had absolutely nothing to do with homosexual rights. If you think otherwise, just know that you are wrong, and further discussion to dispute this will fall on deaf ears since it is irrelevant. In fact, I am personally disappointed and insulted that anyone would think that the moderating team would not ban someone who advocated any such posts regarding any group of people. But, I can live with that disappointment.
I've noticed that too. Maybe Swords is the mod in disguise?
I can only presume that if a moderator had made a comment like that he or she would not only not be a moderator anymore, but would be banned, too. Nobody is bigger than the game. In fact, if any of the moderators had said such things, I would vote in favor of a permanent ban, because moderators, of all people, should know better, and in my opinion, should be held to a higher standard.
but so far, Swords seems to be getting a pass on all of his hate speech
As I recall, never once in my time as a moderator have I seen a single reported post about swords except for the recent title change of the thread, which the title was changed before I even saw the reported post. In my opinion (speaking on my behalf and from my background) swords has repeatedly made it clear and obvious that he is a learner and prefers learning about any and all that he can. There is a world of difference, and which, again in my opinion, reinforces that his intentions were not malicious. Dimka’s comment had the intent of hate and disrespect. Is intent the litmus test of bannable offenses? Of course not. An unintended hateful post warrants a ban just as much as the other, but in the case of gray area, it is taken into consideration.
(the original thread title that a mod had to change)
translated:
Democrats = peace and love.
Republicans = fear and hate.
And, as swords explained, it was about the tone of the campaigns and not about political affiliations or personal belief systems.
So its only "bad" if its about gays?
As has now been explained several times, this is irrelevant and hopefully will not be brought up again.
His second comment I personally see as a nothing more than heavy sarcasm. Yes it is critical of Palin but he has just as much right to gripe about her as you have to gripe about Obama. In this thread alone the new President elect has been referred to as a terrorist and a heathen and scads of other things and yet none of you take issue with that but swords "disrespects" Palin by saying she wants to draw and quartet him and suddenly it is not okay to talk trash about a politician.
This is exactly how I felt about the post. If anyone else felt differently (and apparently nobody did since there was no reported post) then discussion would have been raised and any action would have been taken if warranted.
I know this will come as a surprise, but the moderating team is not perfect, and that is why we rely on community policing. I used to read every single post but that is practically impossible. Just because someone reports a post, doesn’t mean that something is going to happen. And, on the other side, just because nothing is publically announced doesn’t mean nothing is happening.
This IS NOT ABOUT CONSERVATIVE OR LIBERAL leanings
Exactly. Hopefully this will not muddle the discussion anymore.
If Dimka's comments were towards Christians, or religion and those who follow one, he wouldn't be banned right now.
And again, I am personally insulted and disappointed that you would think this; but, I can live with that.
Let me also add this, as I feel somewhat responsible that there have been all these discussions and questioning of the moderating team’s intentions and motivations. Several months ago (after some other incident of which most of you are probably unaware) the moderating team created a new infraction: the three day ban. This was at my suggestion because I’ve seen effective use of it at other forums. The intention is that, while we here at terraforums promote an inclusive, muti-faceted membership where all opinions are valued while keeping in mind civility and respect. We don’t want to permanently ban anyone, and there are rarely incidents here since the membership (most days) is respectful and tolerant. However, it is good to have a standardized system in case that something does happen.
Fast forward three months or so during the height of the political discussions. I was very impressed at the tone of all the conversations and proud of the way everyone was engaging in various volatile discussions. However, it was obvious that the potential to spiral out of control was looming. I, without consulting with any moderators, posted the three ban notice in hopes of steering it further out of control. As we all know, moderators are not here every minute of every day, and in the cases where two or more people got into it and low and behold we have five pages of disrespect and personal attacks. The goal was to curb that in hope to keep everyone engaged in the discussion points. I know I’m not the only one who gets tired of seeing comments such as “you need a better education” or “your brain is so small” etc. etc.
As I’ve already said in that post, I should not have been so absolute in my statement, since sometimes the best thing to do is to work things out quietly and get people to resolve things on their own, without disrupting the entire community.
Furthermore, my intention (though not made clearly or made at all), was focused on the political discussions. Afterwards, the intent would be to return to business as usual where we address things more personally and subtly, without disruption of the community. I work with large populations of people on a daily basis and routinely work with judicial cases and conduct violations. I know what I’m talking about when working out conflicts, creating solutions, and mediating problems.
Here is the point, and hopefully everyone will recognize this and respect this: the difficulties of being a moderator is balancing the good of the one with the good of the whole. We want an inclusive community that thrives on intelligent and positive debate and discussion.
From my personal moderating philosophy, this forum, for the most part, is about education and sharing (most specifically about carnivorous plants), and we want to support not only the entire community as a whole, but the individuals and work with them to make better choices and provide a learning experience for everyone involved in any conflict.
I too have not been happy with some of the moderator's actions of late but they do listen and act accordingly, despite some comments to the contrary.
I hope I’ve addressed how this all happened and have tried to take personal responsibility for some of your (and anyone’s) disappointment at the process. If not, or there are more specific concerns you have, I would be happy to continue the conversation.
xvart.
