Captain Ewok - what in the world is going on?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Cap'n Ewok, as a regular on the OT and a knowledgeable practicing Muslim who spends waaay too much time defending my faith and my co-adherents from hateful posters on a site that ostensively champions diversity and cross-cultural accommodation, I demand to know who the moderator is who believes that links to anti-Muslim sites are ok and that Islam was responsible for 9/11. I demand to know who hides behind a moderating authority and is either so ignorant or so biased to believe this to be so. They help to make my presence and participation here much less pleasant and dialogue among us all much less rational. I hope that's not ok.

[^_^ 5,021]

The moderator in question has responded to me with another PM. He or she has retracted his/her description of the post as "scholarly" but insists the post does not violate TOS. He/she has also suggested I appeal to Ewok if I feel the post in question was biased.

And he/she threw in a comparison to my "Cordoba, summarized" thread which I don't quite understand.

[LaL 418]

Are they skipping the first part of the sentence and just reading the second half? I really cannot understand this, and if this is the case - other moderators agree as well?

[Brad and Vika 129]

As the newest mod, I wanted to add my two cents in here - starting with - Wow! I am thoroughly surprised that even AJ would create a separate thread about all this. I looked at a post or two, ran an errand, and - Wow

Ah. Then my original point stands. Breath-holding not recommended.

Welcome back mox! I wondered where you have been hiding/lurking. Good to see you.

Cap'n Ewok, as a regular on the OT and a knowledgeable practicing Muslim who spends waaay too much time defending my faith and my co-adherents from hateful posters on a site that ostensively champions diversity and cross-cultural accommodation, I demand to know who the moderator is who believes that links to anti-Muslim sites are ok and that Islam was responsible for 9/11. I demand to know who hides behind a moderating authority and is either so ignorant or so biased to believe this to be so. They help to make my presence and participation here much less pleasant and dialogue among us all much less rational. I hope that's not ok.

Sofiyya - It was me - the new guy. I wanted to respond to you specifically because it looks to me that you have a serious, legitimate concern here that is faith based, and you aren't creating drama for its own sake. First, I do not agree that hate language is OK, and have sanctioned members already for doing so. I apologize if my leaving the site link up offends you, and that was not my intent. Of course I will abide by any decision Ewok makes without protest here.

I do believe that all of us have a right to an opinion, especially here. The article seemed at first quick read to contain mostly opinion, with an amount of historical perspective. And yes, scholarly was way too strong. I also did state that the Cordoba thread has some pics that are also inflammatory (although I think they are amusing too). As a moderator, I don't think my job is to defend any one's faith, you all are capable of that if you care to do so. Also, I believe that all members should be able to take and illustrate a position, and be given SOME latitude to do so.

The moderator in question has responded to me with another PM. He or she has retracted his/her description of the post as "scholarly" but insists the post does not violate TOS. He/she has also suggested I appeal to Ewok if I feel the post in question was biased.

And he/she threw in a comparison to my "Cordoba, summarized" thread which I don't quite understand.

Even though your response doesn't really surprise me much, don't you think it a silly waste of time to attack me without asking questions? Your message was pretty clear "If I don't like it - you WILL remove it, or hear me scream to eternity". Next time dial it down and just ask me, try presenting a persuasive argument instead of hysteria and attacks. And please understand, absolutely no one was responding to this with a PM. I was responding to your PM with a PM. I suggested you appeal to Ewok because that is how the system works in my understanding. You weren't really suggesting anything other than that I immediately reverse myself because you reported something and didn't like the result. You also suggested I am biased, presumably because I don't agree with you. Seriously, dialogue is better.

Are they skipping the first part of the sentence and just reading the second half? I really cannot understand this, and if this is the case - other moderators agree as well?

I do tend towards a fairly liberal interpretation of what is strong (or slanted) opinion, and therefore a subject for debate here (as opposed to name calling and hate). Sometimes letting some edgy stuff in is a good thing, as it encourages a healthy debate. That was the idea. You would find me letting in sites that claim outrageous things about other religions too, for the same reasons.

Again, apologies to any who are truly offended. For those among us who just like to scream, let 'er rip.

[^_^ 5,021]

Brad,

I learned a long time ago that having exclusively back channel discussions with the mod team was a waste of time. In fact, I believe you guys intend for it to be a waste of time.

You want me to appeal to Ewok? That's what this is. He doesn't answer PMs nor does the case system he set up work anymore.

This is just about the only way to get his attention. Thank you for your input.

[^_^ 5,021]

... all members should be able to take and illustrate a position, and be given SOME latitude to do so.

Not if that position is one that violates TOS.

"Islam was responsible for 9/11" is a clear cut violation.

[LaL 418]

I do tend towards a fairly liberal interpretation of what is strong (or slanted) opinion, and therefore a subject for debate here (as opposed to name calling and hate). Sometimes letting some edgy stuff in is a good thing, as it encourages a healthy debate. That was the idea. You would find me letting in sites that claim outrageous things about other religions too, for the same reasons.

Edgy stuff - like the stupid poem that gets removed, unlike this sort of stuff that is completely and unabashedly bigoted.

k.

[Brad and Vika 129]

Brad,

I learned a long time ago that having exclusively back channel discussions with the mod team was a waste of time. In fact, I believe you guys intend for it to be a waste of time.

You want me to appeal to Ewok? That's what this is. He doesn't answer PMs nor does the case system he set up work anymore.

This is just about the only way to get his attention. Thank you for your input.

Based on the number of incarnations, amount of arguing, and bird-dogging and reporting you do here, we all recognize how important VJ must be for you. Since I haven't been around for ages - or been banned, sanctioned, or otherwise kept off the site at all (since you are today concerned about violating the TOS), I can only imagine how frustrating it must be to not have your legitimate complaints heard. That is why I suggested dialogue. I am happy to ask Ewok or other mods for a second opinion if asked. I can't fix the system though - not my call. In fact, once upon a time, I was equally frustrated by it.

Not if that position is one that violates TOS.

"Islam was responsible for 9/11" is a clear cut violation.

The legitimacy (or lack thereof) of a statement like that, implying that "all islam" was responsible, is exactly the sort of discussion that needs to be had. I don't think many people believe all muslims, or all Americans, or all grandmothers, could agree about anything - let alone be responsible for anything as a complete group. But you never get there if you don't throw the statement, or article, into the light and take a close look at it, right?

Edgy stuff - like the stupid poem that gets removed, unlike this sort of stuff that is completely and unabashedly bigoted.

k.

Well, the poem was pretty unabashedly profane wasn't it? I didn't read it myself, so tell me. Good point though, illustrating that the system is far from uniform.

[^_^ 5,021]

Based on the number of incarnations, amount of arguing, and bird-dogging and reporting you do here, we all recognize how important VJ must be for you.

I'd report you for baiting but seeing how the report would just go to you...

The legitimacy (or lack thereof) of a statement like that, implying that "all islam" was responsible, is exactly the sort of discussion that needs to be had.

Really? You want to have discussions on blatantly bigoted opinions? Even though TOS explicitly forbids racist content?

What other blatantly racist views would you like to see given a pedestal for discussion on OT? And... why?

[LaL 418]

These two threads are just getting worse!

Edited August 15, 2010 by LaL

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I imagine a thread about Holocaust denial would go down well at this point. At least... as well as it has on here in the past.

[mox 298]

Brad,

I learned a long time ago that having exclusively back channel discussions with the mod team was a waste of time. In fact, I believe you guys intend for it to be a waste of time.

You want me to appeal to Ewok? That's what this is. He doesn't answer PMs nor does the case system he set up work anymore.

This is just about the only way to get his attention. Thank you for your input.

THIS.

FECKING THIS.

Nothing works in the back-channels, and believe me I've spent a LOT of time trying to work in the back channels. Nothing works back there at all. Your next step for appeals if you disagree with a .moderator should be this forum, and it should be shouted long and hard. NOTHING else works.

Having said that, I get the sense that Brad realizes that he made a bad call with the "scholarly" remark. I've known Brad for awhile, and he's one of the good guys. Time will tell if moderating suits him (I personally think he's got more class than to be branded as a "Visa Journey Moderator" but that's just me, I only hope he can impart some of that class on the current class.) but I take him at his word on this.

The legitimacy (or lack thereof) of a statement like that, implying that "all islam" was responsible, is exactly the sort of discussion that needs to be had.

I absolutely disagree with this. This is NOT the conversation that needs to be had, any more than the conversation "black people in your city make the crime rate go up" needs to be a discussion that has to happen. It's all bullcrap, meant to incite and further racism. These are exactly the kinds of conversations that do NOT need to happen because, to unashamedly borrow a phrase, there's nothing of scholarly merit in them

Edited August 15, 2010 by mox

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Back channels don't work with Ewok either, people.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

it's very interesting what attracts moderator attention and what it allowed to remain.

dumpster sluts porn = acceptable; latin porn (understood by maybe a handful of people)=automatic suspension

[mox 298]

it's very interesting what attracts moderator attention and what it allowed to remain.

dumpster sluts porn = acceptable; latin porn (understood by maybe a handful of people)=automatic suspension

Once again, nebulous "loosely enforced" TOS in OT for the win. And slowly but surely that laissez faire attitude has crept into other areas of VJ.

When you hire mods based on a popularity contest (or who you are personally friends with) (and I'm not talking about the most recent hire) instead of demonstrated ability to actually moderate in the truest sense of the word, this is what you get.