Zone1 who is the most outrageous liberal moderator? Why are there no conservative moderators?

[BlackSand]

I can’t say exactly who because they’re ******* cowards who don’t have the ******* balls to identify themselves but there are some real ******* Nazis now “moderating” at USMB

White 6

.

Hey Crusader ... Man, I feel your frustrations and have encountered it myself before ...
But watch your language in Zone 1 ... Don't give them a reason.

You can make it sting ... Take a smarter shot ... You got this ...

.​

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I can’t say exactly who because they’re ******* cowards who don’t have the ******* balls to identify themselves but there are some real ******* Nazis now “moderating” at USMB

White 6

I do have to admit that I often find myself nonplussed at times by the fornicating national socialists who lack the intestinal fortitude nesessary to reveal themselves as the source of questionable censorship.

 

[BlackSand]

I do have to admit that I often find myself nonplussed at times by the fornicating national socialists who lack the intestinal fortitude nesessary to reveal themselves as the source of questionable censorship.

.

It allows the impression of a "United Front" in execution ... And is intentionally ambiguous.
It's the same as attempting to use the excuse of ... "The Mods are allowed to use their own discretion".

That in and itself ... Would speak nothing towards the integrity or worthiness of the Mod's discretion ...
And like the idea of actions taken by an unidentified moderator ...
Is simply a means by which to provide cover, ignore issues, and fail to provide anything of substance to the member ...

.​

 

[Dogmaphobe]

.

It allows the impression of a "United Front" in execution ... And is intentionally ambiguous.
It's the same as attempting to use the excuse of ... "The Mods are allowed to use their own discretion".

That in and itself ... Would speak nothing towards the integrity or worthiness of the Mod's discretion ...
And like the idea of actions taken by an unidentified moderator ...
Is simply a mean by which to provide cover, ignore issues, and fail to provide anything of substance to the member.

.​

I always remind myself that the moderators are unpaid volunteers who are only here to serve the community

of moderators

 

[boedicca]

We are the dregs? I thought we was a high-class joint. Well, except for the basement.

We are definitely the dregs - so un-noteworthy that snowflakes with permanent atomic wedgies do not bother to try to cancel us.

Ain't it grand?

 

[Meister]

I love you all.
Well, most of you.
Hmmm, come to think of it, there are just a few.

Anyways, until I catch up to you.....Happy New Year.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I love you all.
Well, most of you.
Hmmm, come to think of it, there are just a few.

Anyways, until I catch up to you.....Happy New Year.

Did you get the Christmas present I sent?

Costco had such a great deal on Metamucel that I just couldn't pass it up.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

.

It allows the impression of a "United Front" in execution ... And is intentionally ambiguous.
It's the same as attempting to use the excuse of ... "The Mods are allowed to use their own discretion".

That in and itself ... Would speak nothing towards the integrity or worthiness of the Mod's discretion ...
And like the idea of actions taken by an unidentified moderator ...
Is simply a mean by which to provide cover, ignore issues, and fail to provide anything of substance to the member ...

.​

My favorite ruse used over and over again is when a poster questions the obviously targeted nature of an infraction they have received by a very biased mod, that person is then accused of arguing against the rules, themselves.

 

[BlackSand]

My favorite ruse used over and over again is when a poster questions the obviously targeted nature of an infraction they have received by a very biased mod, that person is then accused of arguing against the rules, themselves.

.

Not to totally dismiss your point, because it does have relevance ...
The degree to which a member may have a question in regard to who does what for what reasons ... Is a product of a very simple consequence.

Where it would be easy to assume actions bare a certain prejudice ...
What remains is the simple fact the Staff has no desire whatsoever to address the issue ... Valid or Not ...
And will do whatever they deem necessary to avoid doing so.

That in and of itself ... Is a strong enough reason to understand the futility of trying to make any sense whatsoever out of the whole cluster you know what ...
And understanding that anything we may think ... Is simply due to a woeful neglect of any true transparency or dedication to the community.

But what would you expect from a bunch of unpaid volunteers ...
Look at the bright side ... This place is okay, they hold it together ... And we aren't banned ... Yet ...

.​

 

[Persuader]

I think reparations are in order.

Yes....white folks need to be paid for all their tax monies stolen to help Negroids.

 

[Persuader]

Did you get the Christmas present I sent?

Costco had such a great deal on Metamucel that I just couldn't pass it up.

Not even to mention the descendants of white slaves

 

[Natural Citizen]

I noticed that the Sink Warrior is now closing threads (in the FZ, no less) and then clarifying the action by taking the initiative to state that ''I am locking as this attacks the few Democrats on this board as well''

The other reason was that ''This thread was reported''

Okay. Well he took the time to clarify to us all that his maude actions are in part because he personally feels that attacks on Democrats (again, in the FZ, no less) are a violation of some sort. Which must be a Sink Warrior modification/amendment to the rule book, I'm assuming, since I haven't seen an announcement made about that anywhere.

But..if a maude feels that it is necessary to invoke unsolicited clarification with regard to why he or she locked a thread in terms of how it affected his or her personal feelings, I, for one, would also expect clarification on what rule was actually broken, rather than just stating that performing a mod action was in part because "This thread was reported."

Are we closing threads (again, in the FZ, no less) merely because they were reported now?

Seems to me that some folks are getting a little too comfortable being unsupervised and attempts at setting some rather conflicting precedents are being made. Collectivist give and take in terms of what maude actions are taken with regard to what content specifically are not supervision, I'd add) That phenomenon is the root problem! It's why the inconsistency in enforcing the actual rules as they actually are, to favor twisting and bastardizing them in order to placate the feelings of peers in the office thrives.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I noticed that the Sink Warrior is now closing threads (in the FZ, no less) and then clarifying the acton by taking the initiative to state that ''I am locking as this attacks the few Democrats on this board as well''

The other reason was that ''This thread was reported''

Okay. Well he took the time to clarify to us all that his mod actions are in part because he personally feels that attacks on Democrats (again, in the FZ, no less) are a violation of some sort. Which must be a Sink Warrior modification/amendment to the rule book, I'm assuming, since I haven't seen an announcement made about that anywhere.

But..if a maude feels that it is necessary to clarify why he or she locked a thread in terms of how it affected his or her personal feelings, I, for one, would also expect clarification on what rule was actually broken, rather than just stating that performing a mod action was in part because "This thread was reported."

Are we closing threads (again, in the FZ, no less) merely because they were reported now?

Seems to me that some folks are getting a little too comfortable being unsupervised and attempts at setting some rather conflicting precedents are being made.

Well, at least this was an admission that certain political views are favored over others

Now, I'm sure many of us already knew that, but at least the site bias is being placed right out into the open, here.

They should make an announcement for the race forum, especially, where the double standards used to support hatred against white people is as obvious as all get up.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Well, at least this was an admission that certain political views are favored over others

Now, I'm sure many of us already knew that, but at least the site bias is being placed right out into the open, here.

They should make an announcement for the race forum, especially, where the double standards used to support hatred against white people is as obvious as all get up.

It's fodder for a new sig line anyway...

 

[BlackSand]

Seems to me that some folks are getting a little too comfortable being unsupervised and attempts at setting some rather conflicting precedents are being made.

.

Thanks for the feedback and desire to gain clarification in certain aspects.
I would also like to make a suggestion in regard to the particular comment above.

You mentioned the idea of ... "too comfortable being unsupervised" ...
And also, in respects to a staff that is comfortable taking actions under an anonymous account.

Where your examples did demonstrate a staff member's actions ... And no hesitation on their part to claim them in doing so ...
Members attempting to "police the staff" individually will almost certainly be fruitless ... As would be expected.

It is too easy for the staff to assume you simply have an axe to grind ... Based in your own perceptions of fairness.
Often in these instances any logic you may provide, will be summarily ignored under the auspices of a personal conflict.

As with any organization ... It is always more effective to change it from inside, instead of the outside.
Try to make the complaint more generic ... If possible do not assign individual blame ... Make the entire staff responsible for the actions of one ...
And express your desire to ensure they do a better job of policing each other.

.​

 

[Natural Citizen]

.

Thanks for the feedback and desire to gain clarification in certain aspects.
I would also like to make a suggestion in regard to the particular comment above.

You mentioned the idea of ... "too comfortable being unsupervised" ...
And also, in respects to a staff that is comfortable taking actions under an anonymous account.

Where your examples did demonstrate a staff member's actions ... And no hesitation on their part to claim them in doing so ...
Members attempting to "police the staff" individually will almost certainly be fruitless ... As would be expected.

It is too easy for the staff to assume you simply have an axe to grind ... Based in your own perceptions of fairness.
Often in these instances any logic you may provide, will be summarily ignored under the auspices of a personal conflict.

As with any organization ... It is always more effective to change it from inside, instead of the outside.
Try to make the complaint more generic ... If possible do not assign individual blame ... Make the entire staff responsible for the actions of one ...
And express your desire to ensure they do a better job of policing each other.

.​

As an after thought, I edited to add to that which you've responded here, clearly while you were responding, Black.

And I'm not trying to be fruitful. I'm not trying to police anyone. For me it's nothing personal.

I'm just telling it like it is.

Because that's I roll.

With regard to your thought about making the entire staff responsible, I'll only repeat that which I've elready stated. Collectivist give and take in terms of what maude actions are and are not taken, with regard to what content specifically, is not and should not be in any way be construed or pawned off as supervision or self-policing. That give and take phenomenon up there is the root problem! It's managing the rule book for one's own purpose rather than enforcing it and making it applicable equally as it is written. It's why the inconsistency in enforcing the actual rules as they actually are, to favor twisting and bastardizing them in order to placate the feelings of peers in the office thrives.

Anyway. Appreciate the feedback. And while I generally do agree with your sentiment, the fact of the matter is that somebody has to say it like it really is. That's what men do.

 

[BlackSand]

Collectivist give and take in terms of what maude actions are taken with regard to what content specifically is not and should not be in any way sbe construed or pawned off as supervision or self-policing.

.

A Community cannot exist without a Collective in some form ...
Self-policing in my opinion is always a better option in Collectives than blind Authoritarian Rule.

In accepting that ... If those in charge are failing ... Don't give up ... And insist they change.
Nail down the escape routes they will attempt to use ... And corner them.

That how a silly girl with a pocketknife cleaning her fingernails rolls ...
Don't let her pick up an axe ... Cause she'll kick the door in and clean house ...

.​

 

[Natural Citizen]

.

A Community cannot exist without a Collective in some form ...

.​

I'm not talking about collectivism in terms of a community existing.

I was referencing it in terms of ''you support my position on performing a maude action with regard to this content I want to perform a maude action on and I'll support your maude action action with regard to that content that you want to perform a maude action on'' scenario.

Because that's precisely how it goes down.

 

[Meister]

I noticed that the Sink Warrior is now closing threads (in the FZ, no less) and then clarifying the action by taking the initiative to state that ''I am locking as this attacks the few Democrats on this board as well''

The other reason was that ''This thread was reported''

Okay. Well he took the time to clarify to us all that his maude actions are in part because he personally feels that attacks on Democrats (again, in the FZ, no less) are a violation of some sort. Which must be a Sink Warrior modification/amendment to the rule book, I'm assuming, since I haven't seen an announcement made about that anywhere.

But..if a maude feels that it is necessary to invoke unsolicited clarification with regard to why he or she locked a thread in terms of how it affected his or her personal feelings, I, for one, would also expect clarification on what rule was actually broken, rather than just stating that performing a mod action was in part because "This thread was reported."

Are we closing threads (again, in the FZ, no less) merely because they were reported now?

Seems to me that some folks are getting a little too comfortable being unsupervised and attempts at setting some rather conflicting precedents are being made. Collectivist give and take in terms of what maude actions are taken with regard to what content specifically are not supervision, I'd add) That phenomenon is the root problem! It's why the inconsistency in enforcing the actual rules as they actually are, to favor twisting and bastardizing them in order to placate the feelings of peers in the office thrives.

Thread re-opened

 

[Natural Citizen]

Thread re-opened

Thank You, Meister!

Have a Wonderful New Year, all.

I'm going to the bar...