Leaving the forum

If he did lose a post he does not care, and this is about Kurt anyway…

@Lazarus:

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.

@Imperious:

stay on topic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMDV3eISLPs

Hehehe :lol: :lol: :lol:

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?

@KurtGodel7:

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

IMNSHO,

1. We went off topic in this thread PAGES ago.
2. Moderators HAVE to stop anything political in nature due to the regulations on the site. Sorry, I know I was not asked for an opinion on this rule, but it is what it is.
3. Moderators have a duty to use their best judgement to determine if a comment is incendiary in nature.  Incendiary comments (or flames) destroy conversations.
4. In my OPINION, the site is to help play the game of Axis and Allies (and variants.)  Whether by discussing rules, being a place to play with others, finding opponents, or what have you.  So technically, if you want my opinion on it, any conversation that isn’t either a game, or a discussion about a game or game rules, is off topic.

@Cmdr:

IMNSHO,

2. Moderators HAVE to stop anything political in nature due to the regulations on the site. Sorry, I know I was not asked for an opinion on this rule, but it is what it is.
3. Moderators have a duty to use their best judgement to determine if a comment is incendiary in nature.  Incendiary comments (or flames) destroy conversations.

It’s not hard to spot a comment that is off topic, inflammatory, or political in nature. Virtually everyone can figure that out and nobody is questioning moderator best judgement in that regard.  It’s HOW moderators choose to deal with those comments that is the powder keg issue here. Many people seem to feel that moderator judgement, in that respect, is lacking, biased, or uneven in it’s distribution and there is definitely evidence to support their claim.

@Cmdr:

4. In my OPINION, the site is to help play the game of Axis and Allies (and variants.)  Whether by discussing rules, being a place to play with others, finding opponents, or what have you.  So technically, if you want my opinion on it, any conversation that isn’t either a game, or a discussion about a game or game rules, is off topic.

Well, in that case, the entire General Discussion forum is off topic.

U-505:

If you ask me, then yes, the GD forum is off-topic.  That doesn’t mean it should be closed, rather, it’s a demonstration of how off topic might not be anti-the forum.  Kind of like trash talking your opponent, in your own game, isn’t something that should be moderated either (unless your opponent complains - none of mine ever have, but then, it’s in the spirit of the game. Don’t try to tell me that General Patton would have kissed up and been all nicey-nice to Adolf Hitler.)

Just my feeling on it.

As for the “powder keg” issue - the problem there is that when we edit/remove a post for being so against the rules, we cannot also frame it up and post it for the world to see so they can also judge that it should be removed.  Although, I have quite a few gems, I think if I pull some details out (so as to make them more generic) we could post them as examples.

Virtually everyone can figure that out and nobody is questioning moderator best judgement in that regard.

But this is the main issue. They don’t they KNOW what they are doing or even worse THEY DO and CHOOSE to throw/create Molotov cocktail threads/posts just to **** with some people. When we according to you respond with action, we get called biased.

So i guess they complain like children and what they do is never once put into question. All we are doing is following the rules about what is basic moderation. Yes they get targeted because they cause the problems time and time again and don’t get punished.

So when does this thread get closed?

I like eggs, but I digress.

Legally, Eisenhower has no political opinion when he was a general, which encompasses his entire tenure during the time frame in question (1938-1946).  Even if he was allowed to have a political opinion, it would have no bearing on a tactical discussion - I cannot say there is an instance where Eisenhower’s political leanings impacted his ability to take orders from the CIC.

As for ambiguity, it is generally very obvious what is, and is not, against forum policy.  If you call someone a “flaming son of a *****, Republican bottom-feeding scum bag” then we know, beyond any ambiguity, that is both a flaming and political post.

@ghr2:

I like eggs, but I digress.

I love lamp!