Political bias by moderators

[Conservationist]

Got this in email this morning:

Board warning issued

Sent: Wed Oct 07, 2009 8:15 am
From: greenteadrinker
To: Conservationist
The following is a warning which has been issued to you by an administrator or moderator of this site.

READ THE RULES RE: FLAME BAITING

Legitimate moderation requests cite posts and behaviors.

This is just a prelude to censorship by someone who disagrees.

If moderation here is legitimate, you will provide specific instances.

Thanks!

[tigerlily78]

I was already quite clear in posting an excerpt of the visitor agreement. It was even handed in pointing out transgressions from parties on both sides of the debate by putting the relevant points in bold.

I haven't caught up with reading the boards yet this morning, so maybe further warning was needed? Maybe it was not. My public warning to the whole community was probably sufficient in my opinion, but it is helpful over the long run if we have a warning note on the administration side in case problems continue in the future. GTD did you a courtesy in my opinion even letting you know you have a warning on file. Notifying the member is optional as I recall.

The wording of many of some of your posts and the inferred validity of lies can be taken as inflammatory (rather than naive) and could very well be considered flamebaiting:

"Wasn't ACORN our new president's big project?

And it's totally corrupt?"

I'm not even sure the Olympics are even relevant since everyone is cheating on the blood doping, hormone adding, steroid consuming, etc.

Which is Greener, USA or Al Queda? ... Who should we support?

(really? like is someone really going to think radical extremism should be supported because it is greener?)

And of course there is the bus thread where you infer that the only people who ride the bus are poor people with criminal intent on their minds. And Obama is influenced by radicals like William Ayers. (I sit on several committees. I am not necessarily influenced by the opinions and philosophy of those other people sitting at the table.)

I know there are a couple more, but I shouldn't have to cherry pick them all for you. If you read the visitor agreement it should be pretty obvious which points you have violated.

Don't make me regret that I defended your right to free speech. If your points are worth making, then work on making them worth reading. Don't get stuck in the pitfall of making superficial claims which you cannot support with fact.

[Conservationist]

The point was that the infraction sent DID NOT include references.

This is generally moderators baiting users as a prelude to getting rid of them.

Regarding my comments --

You have shown that you disagree, but not flame baiting.

Perhaps you're just insecure?

Flame baiting means asking provocative questions for the sake of provocation only, and you haven't shown that to be the case.

Weak defense, and dishonest. I am totally disappointed in you.

[tigerlily78]

Considering that none of us does this as a full time job (or gets paid like it is even a part time job), we shouldn't have to spend an hour cataloging your violations. If you were sending a warning to someone while eating your breakfast and getting ready for your REAL job, would you take an hour to make it comprehensive? I seriously doubt it.

You certainly have a strong sense of entitlement for someone who has made less than 100 posts. I am disappointed that you don't seem to have any appreciation for the consideration you have already been granted without really earning it.

I really could care less if you are disappointed in me, since you continue to show your lack of sound judgement.

[outsidethebox]

The post Which is greener, al-Qaeda or USA? Was terribly offensive and disrespectful to me personally. I am surprised the Moderators allowed it to remain. Censorship is not the issue just some common sense and mutual respect. Just think about it, I wish you the best.

[greenteadrinker]

The point was that the infraction sent DID NOT include references.
This is generally moderators baiting users as a prelude to getting rid of them.
Regarding my comments --
You have shown that you disagree, but not flame baiting.
Perhaps you're just insecure?
Flame baiting means asking provocative questions for the sake of provocation only, and you haven't shown that to be the case.
Weak defense, and dishonest. I am totally disappointed in you.

A pm was sent to you on 10/07/09 which you never opened, so I will post it here. Maybe you
will read it.

"Flame baiting by our standards simply means posting to cause a fight.
As tigerlily mentioned in the thread that this post came from, there
are several instances.
Giving a warning to a poster is NOT CENSORSHIP. Moderators have
the power to EDIT any post, and as you know, we have not
REMOVED
one word
from any of your posts.
Politics and religion always get people roused up. That's fine. All we
ask, is debate the issue in a civil manner.
Many websites let their members say anything. We do too, as far as
that goes, but when it goes over the line, we tell them.
Your "freedom of speech" is alive and well here, just play nice-ok?
(and no, I'm not insecure)"
gtd

[Conservationist]

The point was that the infraction sent DID NOT include references.
This is generally moderators baiting users as a prelude to getting rid of them.
Regarding my comments --
You have shown that you disagree, but not flame baiting.
Perhaps you're just insecure?
Flame baiting means asking provocative questions for the sake of provocation only, and you haven't shown that to be the case.
Weak defense, and dishonest. I am totally disappointed in you.

A pm was sent to you on 10/07/09 which you never opened, so I will post it here. Maybe you
will read it.

"Flame baiting by our standards simply means posting to cause a fight.
As tigerlily mentioned in the thread that this post came from, there
are several instances.
Giving a warning to a poster is NOT CENSORSHIP. Moderators have
the power to EDIT any post, and as you know, we have not
REMOVED
one word
from any of your posts.
Politics and religion always get people roused up. That's fine. All we
ask, is debate the issue in a civil manner.
Many websites let their members say anything. We do too, as far as
that goes, but when it goes over the line, we tell them.
Your "freedom of speech" is alive and well here, just play nice-ok?
(and no, I'm not insecure)"
gtd

Was this the message that later got deleted? I was absent from forums (in general) for a week or more during that interval.

I would like to see you indicate which posts are flame baiting, please.

[tigerlily78]

Examples:

"Wasn't ACORN our new president's big project?
And it's totally corrupt?"

I'm not even sure the Olympics are even relevant since everyone is cheating on the blood doping, hormone adding, steroid consuming, etc.

Which is Greener, USA or Al Queda? ... Who should we support?

you infer that the only people who ride the bus are poor people with criminal intent on their minds.

Obama is influenced by radicals like William Ayers.

All these were listed in a previous message in this exact thread. It was never deleted.