I’ve been researching France in World War 2 recently, and I stumbled upon this article on JSTOR:
Unfortunately, my regular free JSTOR account cannot access this.
Please let me know if you have access to this article in any way. Thank you!
Leaving the forum
-
Right, except or my posts on a regular basis, which violate none of those stipulations above.
LOL. Now that is really funny!
You are too kind sir!
-
@Imperious:
Right, except or my posts on a regular basis, which violate none of those stipulations above.
LOL. Now that is really funny!
You are too kind sir!
Hence why it’s best just to delete the entire post.
Think of it as Character Insurance. You say something completely out of character - sounding more like a petulant 9 year old boy who doesn’t want to eat his peas - instead of your normal, well thought out, dissertation. IL, DM, Myself, someone else with authority sees it, and we just remove it. Bam. Damage mitigated - flame war (hopefully) averted. This is commonly referred too as our JOBS. :-o
-
I really have no words for this, Kurt how many times have I pointed this out to you and begged you to stop? Falling on your sword before one of the mods removed you may seem more noble but the end result is the same. The forum will be a lesser place because of this.
While someone leaving is always a lousy thing to see happen, what is more disgusting is watching people gloat over it, that is the real tragedy of this.
Thanks for writing this. I put a lot of thought and effort into my longer posts, and it’s nice to know people like you appreciate them.
I would also like to address two incorrect statements Imperious Leader has made. The first is his implication that the only real issue is his decision to close threads which have gone off topic. That has nothing to do with why I’m leaving, as I’ve repeatedly explained. (And he has repeatedly ignored.)
His second incorrect statement is the claim that I’m staying. I have not sent him any PMs since I began this thread. He has no inside knowledge about whether I’m staying or going. Other than participating in djensen’s thread about how list moderation rules might be changed, I’m adhering to the limits I’d set for myself in my OP. This means I’m removing myself from regular discussions until it is made clear that list moderators are no longer allowed to censor ideas.
In the extremely unlikely event I significantly change my position, I will communicate that to the forum directly. I will not use Imperious Leader, or any other third person, as a go-between. If anyone seems to be making statements on my behalf, those statements should be ignored.
I’d like to make one final statement about Clyde’s post. I realize that if I leave voluntarily, the effect will be the same as if I’m banned for having expressed non-mainstream ideas. However, there are only so many hours in a day. How many of those hours should I invest into a forum in which moderators exert pressure to discourage or prevent people from expressing non-conformist ideas?
I have been a participant on discussion lists in which people are allowed to express any idea at all, as long as they are civil. That model works extremely well, especially if the moderators nip violations of civility standards in the bud. (It’s also important that the mods be neutral; rather than applying one standard of civility to someone they like, and a different standard to someone they dislike.) I’d much rather invest my time in a forum like that than one in which the mods believe it’s their right–even their responsibility!–to censor anything “politically sensitive.”
-
How many of those hours should I invest into a forum in which moderators exert pressure to discourage or prevent people from expressing non-conformist ideas?
Invest the same hours as you did before since nobody ONCE changed any post you ever made in any manner, but did close 5 threads because the ended up in flame wars or totally off topic commentary. If by closing threads like “making a chocolate shake” ended up into “Stalin shipped 50,452 into forced labor camps and selected a number of these for eugenics tests to determine who was superior” you get and deserve a closed thread.
Not because we don’t like the topic, but because it freaking don’t belong with ‘chocolate’ threads.
Funny how you never once have any proof about where you got a post changed or altered, since a claim of censorship might have currency but you don’t even have a starting point to even discuss that.
And you were already told that politics are not allowed here by the owner of the site. Also, he said all topics should have some relevance to the game in some manner because really this is an Axis and Allies site and not Republican vs. Democrat or Holocaust talk.
Bring your “non- conformist” ideas to the table as long as its about the GAME, or History with a direct relation to the same ( battles, equipment, leaders, campaigns).
I’ve repeatedly explained. (And he has repeatedly ignored.)
But you have to have evidence of how your posts were censored. If you don’t have edited posts or removed posts you got nothing to complain. Its’ pretty basic right?
SHOW WHERE YOU WROTE SOMETHING THAT SOMEBODY REMOVED OR EDITED. CAN YOU DO THAT KURT?
Otherwise, anybody who never posted can cry “censorship” and leave.
-
SHOW WHERE YOU WROTE SOMETHING THAT SOMEBODY REMOVED
How’s he’s supposed to show it, when it’s removed?
DUH
-
Thats easy.
Look for continuity in those threads. His posts are always reposted in rebuttals by other forum members. Also, look at Kurt’s posts themselves. If somebody removed the ones about race, eugenics, Nazi transport stats, etc….then how come those 5 threads are full of that commentary?
Second, look for something like this: � Last Edit: Today at 08:59:35 am by Imperious Leader �
Talk about grasping for straws… geez
DUH
-
@Imperious:
How many of those hours should I invest into a forum in which moderators exert pressure to discourage or prevent people from expressing non-conformist ideas?
Invest the same hours as you did before since nobody ONCE changed any post you ever made in any manner, but did close 5 threads because the ended up in flame wars or totally off topic commentary. If by closing threads like “making a chocolate shake” ended up into “Stalin shipped 50,452 into forced labor camps and selected a number of these for eugenics tests to determine who was superior” you get and deserve a closed thread.
Not because we don’t like the topic, but because it freaking don’t belong with ‘chocolate’ threads.
Funny how you never once have any proof about where you got a post changed or altered, since a claim of censorship might have currency but you don’t even have a starting point to even discuss that.
And you were already told that politics are not allowed here by the owner of the site. Also, he said all topics should have some relevance to the game in some manner because really this is an Axis and Allies site and not Republican vs. Democrat or Holocaust talk.
Bring your “non- conformist” ideas to the table as long as its about the GAME, or History with a direct relation to the same ( battles, equipment, leaders, campaigns).
I’ve repeatedly explained. (And he has repeatedly ignored.)
But you have to have evidence of how your posts were censored. If you don’t have edited posts or removed posts you got nothing to complain. Its’ pretty basic right?
SHOW WHERE YOU WROTE SOMETHING THAT SOMEBODY REMOVED OR EDITED. CAN YOU DO THAT KURT?
Otherwise, anybody who never posted can cry “censorship” and leave.
You are refuting straw men. I have not claimed that any of my posts have been edited or deleted. I have expressed acceptance of the idea of keeping threads on-topic. What I am not okay with, and do not accept, is the idea that there are certain pieces of history which must not be discussed because they are too “sensitive.” A policy such as that is not appropriate for a WWII history forum. It represents censorship of ideas and of history.
Please confine your future remarks to the things I’ve actually stated, without wandering off down rabbit trails completely unrelated to my one area of concern.
-
What I am not okay with, and do not accept, is the idea that there are certain pieces of history which must not be discussed because they are too “sensitive.”
And how then did that effect you in the forums? And second, why blame moderators for closing off topic threads when Djensen clearly said no political talk or matters not relating to Axis and Allies the game in terms of military History?
If you want to talk about how Jews got murdered in the gas chamber and we got perhaps Jewish kids as members, don’t you think some topics are a bit too taboo for a AXIS AND ALLIES GAME WEBSITE?
Also, because threads of this nature are not handled with careful hands and any two bit racist can get on a soapbox and flame these threads with hurtful words. The point being is to touch on this topic or related topics gets the most simplistic ignorant commentary that we have ever seen and it does not belong on this site. It may not be you ( it isn’t) but it is the multitude of half baked idiots who will respond to your post.
If you want to get a long thread in about a sensitive matter, perhaps post in the Dupuy Institute, or the World Center for Holocaust Research website. This is a game website and we don’t have the wherewithal to deal properly with very sensitive topics because our membership is mostly young people. And some of them seem to know about everything and nothing but
will post flames or ignorant rebuttals, resulting in closed threads… -
In Fairness, he posted in the subsection called WORLD WAR II HISTORY
Which is listed under OTHER FORUMS
Clearly implying that OPEN DISCUSSION, about WORLD WAR II HISTORY is meant to be had in that forum.
Per Djensen, in the rules revision discussion thread, it’s that exact issue, which may see this part of the forum closed, because as it currently stands, comment is allowed.
P.S. For the record, everything Nazi is Taboo. So unless we’re going to start playing Grey Pieces vs Allies, we’d better just accept that WWII history has some ugly components, that may undeniably offend people.
-
ignorant rebuttals
Oh- and Yes -, I’ve learned to become quite familiar with reading those.
-
In Fairness, he posted in the subsection called WORLD WAR II HISTORY
In fairness the 5 threads he was involved in got off topic and got closed, not censored. Just because the thread says “did Hitler have a stunt double” does not mean somebody can start posting " hey the NAZI’s transported 43,926 slaves from Belorussia on 4th July 1943 and Stalin was worse than Hitler"
It has no relevance to the closed thread.
Which is listed under OTHER FORUMS
And?
Clearly implying that OPEN DISCUSSION, about WORLD WAR II HISTORY is meant to be had in that forum.
Implying that threads can go off topic too right? how bout flame wars? Are the rules just not applying because it is a History forum?
Per Djensen, in the rules revision discussion thread, it’s that exact issue, which may see this part of the forum closed, because as it currently stands, comment is allowed.
No silly it does not. The rules do not allow off topic commentary or as per Djensen, topics not related to Axis and Allies. The rules of the site are still in force.
P.S. For the record, everything Nazi is Taboo. So unless we’re going to start playing Grey Pieces vs Allies, we’d better just accept that WWII history has some ugly components, that may undeniably offend people.
Well no. If we compare Battleships and the Bismarck is part of the conversation, that is not taboo.
Talking about cremation methods should be. Or even Hitlers Gas Bill :mrgreen: ( even for students who are too old to be students)
Not allowed. I have yet to see any evidence where Kurt’s posts got censored.
-
I just want to say tanks to whoever posted the cake recipe in the heavy tank vs tank buster thread
Tanks for stayin round Kurt
-
[quote author=Imperious Leader link=topic=27355.msg961931#msg961931 date=1337487493]
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=27224.15
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=26769.45
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=26412.75
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=25395.30
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=23148.30
[/quote]From reading these, I would agree with IL that the threads should have been closed. (not just because they were off topic, but also because of the content)
I disagree with any modification or deleting of posts though. Instead, posts should just be replaced with a blanket statement saying that this post was deleted by ___.
You can read my thoughts on that here: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=27387.msg969393#msg969393I would also say that it really sounds like you have an axe to grind, Kurt. Maybe that axe would be better placed in a different website, one that specifically deals with those kinds of things? It is very easy to see how your posts create flame wars, regardless of how well you write them.
-
Moderators are vested with certain powers to ensure no one is bullied (including other moderators) and that threads don’t dissolve into flame wars or cry fests.
So do we sometimes remove an inflamatory remark from a post? Sure. I like how DM does it better, what with the asterisks, but sometimes it just goes away leaving the content of the post behind. As Dr. Suess said, eating the puff ball and spitting out the puff.
Do posts sometimes disappear? Sure. Can they reappear? Yup. Has any post that has been disappeared, that I know of, ever been reappeared because a Moderator was over ridden by the admin? No.
I cannot speak for anyone else, but if I disappear your post, you get a PM from me explaining why - if you quibble, then you get a link to the rules. Am I really easy going and laid back about enforcing some of the rules? Yes. Sure, your AA Gun discussion digressed into the merits of Mechanized Infantry. Course, if it goes from AA Guns to how awesome Mao Tse Tung was, we’d have words (mainly because Mao wasnt nice.)
-
@Cmdr:
@Imperious:
Right, except or my posts on a regular basis, which violate none of those stipulations above.
LOL. Now that is really funny!
You are too kind sir!
Hence why it’s best just to delete the entire post.
Think of it as Character Insurance. You say something completely out of character - sounding more like a petulant 9 year old boy who doesn’t want to eat his peas - instead of your normal, well thought out, dissertation. IL, DM, Myself, someone else with authority sees it, and we just remove it. Bam. Damage mitigated - flame war (hopefully) averted. This is commonly referred too as our JOBS. :-o
I disagree. Deleting an entire post that has some value simply because a portion of it violates the rules is unfair. We didn’t ask you guys to be moderators, YOU wanted to be a moderator. Accept the workload. Just because it’s easier for you to dish out heavy handed judgement, doesn’t mean you should. Act responsibly.
sounding more like a petulant 9 year old boy who doesn’t want to eat his peas
This is antagonistic, unneccesary, and off topic. Maybe it should be edited or deleted. If only I could find a moderator to review it. Oh, wait……
I believe this is the crux of Gargantua’s argument. Member character is always under scrutiny, yet moderator character is unquestionable.
@Imperious:
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=27224.15
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=26769.45
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=26412.75
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=25395.30
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=23148.30From reading these, I would agree with IL that the threads should have been closed.
I disagree with any modification or deleting of posts though. Instead, posts should just be replaced with a blanket statement saying that this post was deleted by ___.
You can read my thoughts on that here: http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=27387.msg969393#msg969393I too read those threads, and I disagree that they all should have been locked. In only 1 case was a warning issued for a thread to stay on topic. Locking an interesting thread without warning and without giving the participants an opportunity to get it back on topic seems a bit extreme.
I would also say that it really sounds like you have an axe to grind, Kurt. Maybe that axe would be better placed in a different website, one that specifically deals with those kinds of things? It is very easy to see how your posts create flame wars, regardless of how well you write them.
This is something that also caught my attention. It appeared that Kurt was unfairly singled out as the main cause of the threads being locked when there was no shortage of members willing to maintain the off topic discussion. You, yourself, seem to have fallen in line with that mode of thinking despite the fact that other member’s posts were clearly bait and/or far more inflammatory than Kurt’s.
-
[quote]I disagree. Deleting an entire post that has some value simply because a portion of it violates the rules is unfair. We didn’t ask you guys to be moderators, YOU wanted to be a moderator. Accept the workload. Just because it’s easier for you to dish out heavy handed judgement, doesn’t mean you should. Act responsibly.[/quote]
IN many cases the ENTIRE POST was a flame, so the ENTIRE POST had to be removed. And on top of that was move them to moderation, not delete. Edit function is only used to remove a few words ( usually f words or racial slurs) I prefer to edit frankly. None of Kurt’s posts were edited or removed. Just closed threads because so many people hit that “report to moderator” button and we saw the problem and took action, so yea we do our job.
This is the #4 rule:
[quote]4. Try to stay on topic. If a thread about a giant crab is started and the topic of the historical changes in earth’s gravity comes up in the dialogue, create another thread for discussion on earth’s gravity.[/quote]This is why those threads got closed. Go reread them and ask how in Kurt’s case did he address the OP or his topic? Then see how the conversation ended up into something totally different.
[quote]It appeared that Kurt was unfairly singled out as the main cause of the threads being locked when there was no shortage of members willing to maintain the off topic discussion.[/quote]
Yea but he lead the discussion down the off topic road. Others were involved and did flame as well, but they were responding to ….kurt.It is not really a thing of who was at fault for getting those threads closed, so much as a matter that Kurt was censored. Unfortunately, you need a post edited or removed to get designated “censored” and that never once happened to Kurt. The threads were closed and yes they went off topic and people complained and action was taken.
-
Thanks for the kind words U-505.
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
-
@Imperious:
I disagree. Deleting an entire post that has some value simply because a portion of it violates the rules is unfair. We didn’t ask you guys to be moderators, YOU wanted to be a moderator. Accept the workload. Just because it’s easier for you to dish out heavy handed judgement, doesn’t mean you should. Act responsibly.
The ENTIRE POST was a flame, so the ENTIRE POST had to be removed. And on top of that was move them to moderation, not delete. Edit function is only used to remove a few words ( usually f words or racial slurs) I prefer to edit frankly. None of Kurt’s posts were edited or removed. Just closed threads because so many people hit that “report to moderator” button and we saw the problem and took action, so yea we do our job.
The post to which you are referring was gone long before I entered this conversation so I am not privy to it’s content. I am neither saying that you should be handcuffed with respect to your JOB, nor am I citing this as a specific instance where I believe you were out of line in doing so.
The Commander, I believed, was speaking in general terms and so was I. I stand by my statement. Deleting an entire post when only a portion of it violates the rules is an unacceptable policy.
@Imperious:
This is the #4 rule:
4. Try to stay on topic. If a thread about a giant crab is started and the topic of the historical changes in earth’s gravity comes up in the dialogue, create another thread for discussion on earth’s gravity.
This is why those threads got closed. Go reread them and ask how in Kurt’s case did he address the OP or his topic? Then see how the conversation ended up into something totally different.
I’m not arguing the fact that those threads were off topic or not. I KNOW they were off topic But, yet again, here we come back to naming Kurt while the rest of the culprits go free. So Kurt is a repeat offender for leading threads off topic. Big deal. He certainly isn’t the first and he won’t be the last. A thread has probably gone off topic while I’m typing this post. Should we ASSUME that it’s Kurt’s fault? The rest of the mob is just as culpable as the guy who formed it. Just because Kurt has formed off topic mobs doesn’t mean you should single him out and let the rest off the hook.
And the rule states “Try to stay on topic.” It doesn’t say: “stay on topic or else the mods will lock the thread without warning”. I noted that there was only 1 warning issued amongst all 5 of those threads. I can’t see it being hard to give a couple of warnings to give the participants a chance to get back on topic. As long as they are adequately warned, I can’t fault you for locking a thread if members don’t comply.
@Imperious:
It is not really a thing of who was at fault for getting those threads closed, so much as a matter that Kurt was censored. Unfortunately, you need a post edited or removed to get designated “censored” and that never once happened to Kurt.
Locking a thread with a post saying <paraphrase>: “This thread is locked and it’s your fault, Kurt.” suggests that issuing blame was noteworthy. And locking a thread IS a form of censorship. You’re just censoring everybody for the sake of one person in this case.
And I believe that locking a thread should be a mod’s right. When you choose to use it is another matter.
The threads were closed and yes they went off topic and people complained and action was taken.
Come on, man. We both know that people weren’t complaining that the posts were off topic, they were complaining about the content of Kurt’s posts and they wanted him censored. And my instincts tell me that the people who “reported him to moderator” were probably the same people who were baiting and flaming him in those threads. Nobody’s finest hour, for sure. I actually applaud you for not censoring his posts, but, again, I disagree with you for locking the threads.
I don’t envy your position as moderator. When you get it right, there is rarely any credit given, but when you get it wrong, you’re going to take some heat. When you’re given the position of moderator, you aren’t given an iron fist and told to go smash things. You’re given a scalpel with a tacit suggestion to be discretionary and even-handed. The manner in which you do your job is as important as the job itself, in this case.
Look, this isn’t my fight as I have no horse in this race. I’m trying not to make any personal judgements. Judgement is someone else’s job. My only personal interest is in fairness. However, I do know that if you are heavy-handed you won’t make a lot of friends and if you are non-existent some people will run roughshod over these forums. You, as a moderator, are going to have to find a happy medium or this is a problem that will keep coming up.</paraphrase>
-
I have never seen a forum make so much of a song and dance about one person  announcing  he is ‘leaving’!
Does this forum revolve around Kurt?
For the record several of my posts (made in reply to Kurt’s revisionism) were instantly placed in ‘moderation’ and then simply disappeared. They never even  got  on the forum. I did not cry,  have a hissy fit  or report anyone.  Nor did I complain about it.I reworked the offending examples and they were accepted.
Kurt should try the same tactic instead of spamming every thread in pursuit of  his desire to rehabilitate the Nazis.
The rules are there and if you don’t like them or think they only apply to other posters then the solution is to start your own board.
Until that time shape up or ship out!I give the Mods here complete freedom to post my deletion history and tell the other posters if I have ever complained or tried to have Kurt censored. I hope that is enough to satisfy the conspiracy theorists.
-
Does this forum revolve around Kurt?
Yes it does Doctor Lazarus!
Kurt’s leaving is just one of the symptom’s - not the disease, thus it’s a microcausim of the macrocausim.
Suggested Topics
