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
-
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.
-
WOW! U-505 Great post!
But a few items you may not be aware of:
[quote]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. [/quote]
Kurt never lost any post or got any edit. The post i was referring too was a hypothetical post, not a specific one. We are asked to move these to Moderation and we do just that. It is not deleted.
[quote]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.[/quote]
We are instructed to close off topic threads, At least one of them ended up in a flame war. We are not interested in who started it, we just close threads and deal with problem if necessary. Kurt has many other posts in other threads that were never closed.
Also, Kurt never made any assertion other than to say he felt he was being censored. Closing a thread that is off topic is not censorship. To even gain a starting point, you must have a post edited or removed because it was an idea that we don’t agree with. Kurt never once had this happen to him.
Lastly, the people who complained in those threads were not people who participated in the thread. They happened to read the posts and hit “report to moderator”.
[quote]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.[/quote]
Well obviously in a flame war that warning will not be taken. People will still flame each other. Also, we have FIVE threads like this. Don’t you think the same people would learn that off topic threads after having four other threads closed.
-
What about Dr. Lazarus’s missing posts?
Was it Colonel Mustard in the Lavoratory with the Candlestick?
-
If he did lose a post he does not care, and this is about Kurt anyway…
-
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.
1. If you don’t like the rules, the solution isn’t to start your own board, it’s to appeal to the site admin to change the rules. It appears someone has already done that.
2. Speaking of rules. Calling Kurt a “Nazi apologist who thinks Hitler was really a nice guy and has a desire to rehabilitate the Nazis” is character assassination. Ergo, they are flames. So, aaaanyway, you were saying something about people who think the rules apply only to other posters.
3. I stand corrected. My apologies for inferring that you were one of the people who reported Kurt. You didn’t report him, you just flamed him. Check.
4. I’ve never been called a conspiracy theorist before, but now that I think about it, a “crashed weather balloon” does seem like a pretty fishy story.
@Imperious:
WOW! U-505 Great post!
But a few items you may not be aware of:
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.
Kurt never lost any post or got any edit. The post i was referring too was a hypothetical post, not a specific one. We are asked to move these to Moderation and we do just that. It is not deleted.
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.
We are instructed to close off topic threads, At least one of them ended up in a flame war. We are not interested in who started it, we just close threads and deal with problem if necessary. Kurt has many other posts in other threads that were never closed.
Also, Kurt never made any assertion other than to say he felt he was being censored. Closing a thread that is off topic is not censorship. To even gain a starting point, you must have a post edited or removed because it was an idea that we don’t agree with. Kurt never once had this happen to him.
Lastly, the people who complained in those threads were not people who participated in the thread. They happened to read the posts and hit “report to moderator”.
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.
Well obviously in a flame war that warning will not be taken. People will still flame each other. Also, we have FIVE threads like this. Don’t you think the same people would learn that off topic threads after having four other threads closed.
I understand your position. But, I think we’re both going in circles here. Long story short, you think the rules should be enforced in one way, I think they should be enforced a different way. Kurt’s issue with censorship, other people’s issues with editing, moving and deleting posts, and my issue with closing threads all fall under the same rule enforcement umbrella. Since rule changes and moderator purview are both currently being discussed in another thread, it would be wasting everybody’s time for me to go any further.
I still think that something funny is going on around here. I AM a conspiracy theorist, you know.
-
U-505:
I agree. Only the infracting portion of a post should be removed - and the entire post being deleted if there is no redeeming aspect of it.
As for off-topic, if it’s still related to game play, then it cannot (in my mind) be off topic as the entire forum’s “topic” is playing the game. So if you shift from what ship gives you the best bang for the buck to how best to clear an enemy’s air force, well, you are still “on topic” if you ask me.
Lazarus:
I think it’s just a post in general - which is WAY off topic. The topic being Kurt leaving, and the current content being how to justify moderator rulings.
I believe Djensen said it best in the rules section: Don’t argue with moderators. (Instead, complain to Djensen. It doesn’t clutter the boards, and there’s not a dang thing we can do too each other, but Djensen can do stuff to moderators.)
In general:
I have not deleted a post on this forum since 9 January, 2012 at the very latest. I have not needed too. I have moved posts out of the public eye, I have sent warnings to specific users that their posts are getting dangerously close to crossing the line, but have not actually deleted any posts.
Are there a few people that really, REALLY need their brains deleted, that happen to post here? Yes. The problem with freedom of speech is that it is not freedom FROM BAD SPEECH! As long as the ID-10-T error refrains from slander, flaming, trolling, and disrespecting moderators - there’s hardly anything any of us can do about it.
Last thought, if, IF, you attempt in any way to defend Mao Tze Tung, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, or any other individual, group or affilliation that is commonly seen in a negative light (and I am not talking republi-crat or demon-rat parties, or any other low level thing, I am talking about Skin Heads, Terrorists, Black Panthers, National Socialists {NAZIs} and the like) then you deserve to have your post either truncated or terminated.
-
So in other words… the moderation at AA.org IS politically charged.
How fascinating.
-
[quote]So in other words… the moderation at AA.org IS politically charged.
How fascinating.[/quote]
No buddy you got it wrong again.
We stop politically charged commentary of any type whether we agree or not it is not allowed as per the established rules.
-
My thread about allied war crimes was closed. And it was specifically non political.
How does that fit into this equation?
-
stay on topic.
-
-
@Cmdr:
Last thought, if, IF, you attempt in any way to defend Mao Tze Tung, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il, or any other individual, group or affilliation that is commonly seen in a negative light (and I am not talking republi-crat or demon-rat parties, or any other low level thing, I am talking about Skin Heads, Terrorists, Black Panthers, National Socialists {NAZIs} and the like) then you deserve to have your post either truncated or terminated.
There are two philosophies about how one can arrive at the truth:
-
To allow a free and open debate. The thought here is that during the debate, the truth will gradually become clear.
-
For some small group of power holders to decide on the truth, and to censor anyone who disagrees with them.
The above-quoted text represents a rejection of the first philosophy, and an acceptance of the second. It is exactly this kind of thinking which has prompted my exit from the forum. I feel, strongly, that people should be free to question mainstream views, to subject them to critical scrutiny, and to reject them whenever they don’t stand up to said scrutiny. For some small group of power holders to censor those who don’t agree with the mainstream view is unnecessary, and unhelpful to the pursuit of truth.
As a specific example, communist apologists claim that the Ukrainian famine was not deliberately engineered, and that the Soviet occupation of postwar Germany was nothing out of the ordinary. Claims such as these can (and should) be viewed as a defense of Stalin, and a misrepresentation of history. But I don’t want to see them censored. In the debate between pro- and anti-communists, facts about the Ukrainian famine and the Soviet occupation of Germany will emerge which might have remained hidden, had such a debate not occurred. Being challenged by those who disagree with you causes you to research more, and be more vigorous than you otherwise would have been. Conversely, the censorship of dissent leads to intellectual laziness and the acceptance of error as truth.
It is not a violation of the terms of service to express a non-mainstream view. Nor would it be even remotely appropriate to change that fact. I cannot even begin to express how completely unacceptable it is to censor ideas. The role of moderators should be to warn or (if needed) ban those who violate the terms of service’s prohibition against personal attacks. Moderators should not play a role in determining which thoughts and ideas are acceptable, and which should be policed.
Finally, I’d like to thank U-505 for his eloquent and well thought-out posts. I agree with every word he’s written, and I appreciate the time and effort he put into creating intellectually rigorous posts.
-
-
It is not a violation of the terms of service to express a non-mainstream view. Nor would it be even remotely appropriate to change that fact. I cannot even begin to express how completely unacceptable it is to censor ideas. The role of moderators should be to warn or (if needed) ban those who violate the terms of service’s prohibition against personal attacks. Moderators should not play a role in determining which thoughts and ideas are acceptable, and which should be policed.
The rules say that off topic threads must be closed. Since nothing with respect to any post you made was ever edited or removed ( which might be censoring), they are in those closed threads.
Thus you didn’t get censored unless you have an edit or something ( i already looked, you don’t)
It’s not just about personal attacks, it’s about hijacking threads and leading them off topic. To me the only thing would be to provide warning before thread was closed.
The owner of the site made it clear that topics should relate to Axis and Allies, and Military History does this. Military History is about battles and they clearly relate to the game.
Political talk is also a no no. That is not from the Moderators but again from the site ownership/administration.
Why not make a thread about eugenics or whatever and see how it goes?
Rather than posting in threads about “Could France hold out after Paris falls” with info on slave labor train schedules for 1943, a thread specifically about your own topic can be created. At least it would not be off topic.
Lets try that. OK?
-
Finally, I’d like to thank U-505 for his eloquent and well thought-out posts. I agree with every word he’s written, and I appreciate the time and effort he put into creating intellectually rigorous posts.
You’re welcome, but no thanks is necessary. Fair play is of the utmost importance to me. This site holds a special place in my heart and it seems Fate had decided it’s the perfect time for me to return from a lengthy absence and get involved in this discussion simply because I have a knack for rubbing people the wrong way. My work is never done. :-D
Suggested Topics
