Topic: More Flying Hellfish Censorship (Read 810 times)

I appreciate the comments theymos. I feel like my opinion has been heard and my point made. Thank you.

Nobody's unbiased, and anyone who pretends to be is lying to either you or to themselves. The idea reminds me of the bureaucrats who run government, appearing to be neutral while actually pushing strongly for an agenda, especially tending to promote the expansion of bureaucracy as well as the continuation of the status quo. (This largely-invisible but very powerful political force is sometimes what people mean when they use the term "deep state".) Fair moderation requires that you understand yourself well enough to know what your biases actually are, and then take conscious action to avoid letting them cloud your judgement. One's skill at doing this is totally independent of political beliefs: a radical might be able to do it, and a centrist might not.

It was incorrect for OgNasty's post in that thread about the California shooting to be deleted; I restored it. I read that post as not an ad hominem; its main point seemed to be expressing a preference for localism vis-à-vis gun control, and gun control is clearly on-topic in that thread. But my impression is that Flying Hellfish has been moderating fairly on the whole. Mistakes happen.

While Flying Hellfish is pretty far left, I am an anarcho-capitalist; I view his political beliefs as ~80% insane. Having two diametrically opposed viewpoints here is a good combination which will hopefully prevent the formation of an echo chamber for one viewpoint or another. I think that people in the last several years have become largely unable to face opposing viewpoints, which isn't good.

Mods can delete whatever they want in their self-moderated threads, just like anyone else.


It'd be OK IMO for topic-starters to express a preference for more or less moderation. But in general, on-topicness is especially important in political discussions so that one side doesn't filibuster the other with nonsense. I'm also concerned with off-topic thought-terminating clichés in political discussions (from all sides).

This stuff is all subjective. There's no such thing as perfect moderation, since everyone has a different idea of what perfection would be. You just do the best you can.

Do you understand English or do I need to translate to French for you?

Eh, politics.

From what is presented in this thread and some other threads in reputation, FH is doing his job just fine.

Perhaps theymos should change some rules there and moderator should remove spam only. Off topic replies, trolling and personal attacks are suitable for discussion about politics, as it is crucial part of politics.

Do you even read what you write?

Well IMHO, a good moderator for a section should at least have an interest in the main topic. I'm not certain that it is possible to find another candidate that is interested in P&S, yet is also totally unbiased. Perhaps a better solution is to add an additional moderator to the P&S section. Perhaps someone with an perspective that leans more to the right.

You are focusing on the wrong topic. I see now that is because Flying Hellfish named this thread, not me. I’ve updated it to accurately reflect the correct discussion.

Hmm OK, thanks for the correction!

To clarify, this would be considered close enough to on-topic to the discussion of "13 Dead at mass shooting in California Bar"?


Not trying to stir the pot here, just wanting to know for my own understanding of what is and is not considered on/off topic.
 

---

Side note: The accidental typo by LoyceV at least adds some humor to the thread..

LOL

And yes, that post can be considered off topic but at least it mentions guns etc. Og's post has nothing on the topic. So if the line has to be drawn somewhere it's quite reasonable to draw it there.

Thank you. I also wish you good luck with defending a biased moderator because they moderate based on your shared beliefs. I’m sure that won’t backfire down the line at all. 

OgNasty's post was posted just 5 posts (give or take 14 seconds) after bones261's post. Therefore, I think OgNasty's reply was a response to this post instead:
(correct me if I'm wrong here, I can't be sure)

The posts were saved on my PC at these times (but allow for a few seconds margin for scraping):

---

Update: I fixed my dirty mind

I think Og was replying to this:


Most of the other posts were at least tangential to the topic (mass shooting in a bar). Og's deleted post was entirely a personal potshot with no apparent connection to the topic.

---

Wait, are you now censorshipping me out of your thread? Ima create three new threads about this.

Good luck finding a moderator that doesn't have political opinions and is willing to moderate the shithole that is P&S.

OK. Then we have a fundamental difference of opinion. That’s really where the argument between you and I should end unless you have some other motive here.

Can't we all just get along?    .. and why again did we have to wait for LoyceV to post the info needed here.    

I'm not going to argue whether the post was off-topic or not... it was off-topic.
This seems to be how it went:







If this is how it went down, and you're going to remove the last post by OgNasty, why not delete any others?

Unlike you I read the whole thing before forming an opinion:



Yes.

There is no reason to believe that FHF is not a fair moderator.

He said he was biased. First read, then form an opinion.

Let me make it simple for you.

Do you think it is OK to have a politically biased moderator in the P&S section, yes or no? Are you capable of answering a question with a yes or no? Let us find out.

That's not really a fact. That's your opinion at most. FHF has removed and moved plenty of off-topic posts on all sides of these debates when they go off rails and this made P&S readable again. Your contribution after 7 years of avoiding it was to come in and troll it.


Well, you've made your point and it's quite useless. Try again in 7 years.


I don't see a problem with off topic posts being removed. You can create a new thread professing your love for Canadians.

Who’s whining now?  

Are we getting emotional? Do you need me to say it again? I don’t hate Canadians. I have found them to be great peaceful people in real life. You keep deflecting from the fact that you are biased and moderating based on your opinions. Do you have any real argument against that, or would you like to try and make up more lies about me?



Since you’ve deleted my posts saying I like Canadians and asked me not to post here, I can only assume you are hell bent on trying to damage my reputation with untrue statements. Have fun with that.