Down with conservatives!

Last week (28th or 29th), I was banned from EoEO and EotW. Now, I wouldn't have too much of a problem getting banned, if I had done something to deserve it (or anything close to it), and if the person who banned me at least had the respect to explain him or herself. However, I don't recall anything I had said recently that would have warranted a ban, and after sending out a few PMs (the first of which served the objective to find out who it was that had me banned, the rest of which to find out why), I still have gotten no response from the one who banned me. I have sent this person two PMs--one on the 29th, one just earlier today (2nd)--and neither has been replied to, but I have seen more than once in this person's profile that they have been active since both of them have been sent. Either this person is acting irresponsibly, or is deliberately ignoring me, neither of which I would imagine is something y'all wound want your mods to do.

I want to figure out why I was banned. Not just because I "offended" somebody, but I want to see a legitimate reason for me to be "punished"--whom did I directly insult?

And why is it that the very few conservatives here who voice their opinion are the first ones to be banned, when they're not doing anything more "against the rules" than anybody who's arguing against them? This doesn't just concern me, but the couple other conservative-minded folks who come into the lion's den of the extremely liberal debate forum here.

Five bucks says this thread don't last three days before it gets locked off.

We aren't institutionally or even individually biased against conservatives. However, we do try to preserve civil discourse. If you bait others and belittle their opinions often enough you will get on the wrong side of at least one staffer here. You know perfectly well what you are doing, so don't try to play the victim.

So nobody else does that? Hell, I've gone through and clicked the "warn" button on a few posts, only to see that there's absolutely nothing done--not a ban, not even an edit. No edit for "some people are miserable and need to be shot", and no edit for somebody saying he hopes everybody that disagrees with him on a certain subject gets shot, but I get banned for "baiting"?

Again. I use no tactics that aren't used against me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eestlinc

We aren't institutionally or even individually biased against conservatives. However, we do try to preserve civil discourse. If you bait others and belittle their opinions often enough you will get on the wrong side of at least one staffer here. You know perfectly well what you are doing, so don't try to play the victim.

---

Could you provide quotes to prove this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agent Proto

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eestlinc

We aren't institutionally or even individually biased against conservatives. However, we do try to preserve civil discourse. If you bait others and belittle their opinions often enough you will get on the wrong side of at least one staffer here. You know perfectly well what you are doing, so don't try to play the victim.

---

Could you provide quotes to prove this.

---

I'm sure he could, if he takes them out of context. If I was allowed to respond to each quote with what that quote was a reply to, they would make much more sense.

Also...There is one post which I could POSSIBLY see as being misconstrued for "baiting". That was when somebody made a thread about their faith in Jesus, and I responded to it with something like "I agree with you, but this isn't the place to post it, and you're gonna be insulted, people hate Biblical things here", or something to that affect. I can see how somebody might could see that as "baiting". Of course, this doesn't compare to the actual baiting that Akira Makie has done for me, concerning racism, to which I believe I replied "don't bring that bull in here", or something of the like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Again. I use no tactics that aren't used against me.

---

"But other people get away with it" is not a good defense.

Since you can't see the thread where your explanation lies, here is the specific line you said which got you banned:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

I know a lot of people here would just like to see America and Americans hurt, as would a majority of the world.

---

and here is Big D's response:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big D

You're saying that I and others here would like to see civilians harmed with chemical weapons? That's utterly disgusting and you can have yourself a ban from this forum.

---

How do you prove something you aren't?

Sasquatch, we have no problem with conservatives, and I'm sorry you feel otherwise. eestlinc explains it very well. For example, titling your thread 'Down with conservatives!' is not the best way to get your opinion taken seriously. The warnings you issue were looked at, but we didn't feel that they were necessary of editing. That doesn't mean you shouldn't keep warning posts if you think someone is breaking the rules. Just remember that what we consider against the rules might not be the same as what you consider it to be.

If you present your opinion in a polite fashion you will not see any trouble from us. The fact that others 'get away with it' is not an excuse for anything you do, and I am tired of people using it.

I will find what you were banned for and send that to you in pm form, because I do feel that is important.

EDIT: I should have known that eest would be way ahead of me. :D

Or I will post it here for you.

The way you annoint yourself as some sort of victim because we "punish" you for breaking the rules just causes further alienation, but you know this. The majority of the people in the world (and at these forums) disagree with me on many issues but that doesn't give me an excuse to pick fights. Be proud that you think and form your own opinions rather than just eat the slop being fed to all of us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eestlinc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

I know a lot of people here would just like to see America and Americans hurt, as would a majority of the world.

---

and here is Big D's response:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big D

You're saying that I and others here would like to see civilians harmed with chemical weapons? That's utterly disgusting and you can have yourself a ban from this forum.

---

---

Holy , THAT's what got me banned? You serious? Hahahahaha, what a...misunderstanding...

Is it Cloud No. 9 that has made multiple references to the idea that he would like to see Manhattan sink into the ocean, the United States economy crumble and America in another Great Depression, where millions upon millions of people would starve to death and the majority of the population live in poverty? Well, there's one person that would like to see America and Americans hurt.

I never said anything about whether or not Big D felt that way, I said there were people in this forum and around the world that felt that way. And there is at least one person in this forum that feels that way, is there not? Would there be any arguments against the fact that some people around the world hate America? Does this really need to be explained?

I apologize if Big D severely misunderstood my comment of "there are people that would like to see Americans hurt" and interpreted it as "you want to slaughter American civilians with chemical weapons".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Murder

The warnings you issue were looked at, but we didn't feel that they were necessary of editing.

---

Nothing is necessary when somebody says "I hope everybody that disagrees with me is shot"? You're saying that telling somebody you hope they get shot isn't against your interpretation of the rules?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Murder

The fact that others 'get away with it' is not an excuse for anything you do, and I am tired of people using it.

---

Then why do people get away with it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Murder

Sasquatch, we have no problem with conservatives, and I'm sorry you feel otherwise.

---

In America's past, groups like the KKK got away, literally, with murder, because society--and thus authority--was racist. If a black guy, however, were to commit anything close to the same type of crime against a white person that some white people routinely committed against black people, they would immediately be "dealt with", often times without a trial, extremely often without a fair trial. You're telling me that half the people in Eyes On The World do the same things I do, to a deeper extent, and the one conservative gets banned while the rest aren't even edited--even when clearly pointed out--and that's not bias?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Nothing is necessary when somebody says "I hope everybody that disagrees with me is shot"? You're saying that telling somebody you hope they get shot isn't against your interpretation of the rules?

---

I'd definitely give someone the ban for saying that. I must have missed it. A lot of times I delete "warned post" emails while I'm at work because I don't have time to check and they tend to pile up in my inbox.

I agree that Cloud No. 9 says some inflammatory things in there and I'll keep my eye out. Still, one person wishing harm on America doesn't add up to "the majority of the world" even if you add in the other small groups who truly do hate America.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Nothing is necessary when somebody says "I hope everybody that disagrees with me is shot"? You're saying that telling somebody you hope they get shot isn't against your interpretation of the rules?

---

I do not remember seeing that. If the fact that this wasn't dealt with really bothers you, you can pm the link to me once you regain access to that forum and I will take a look at it. It is certainly not something that should be taken lightly.

Quote:

---

Then why do people get away with it?

---

Two reasons. One is that we are not perfect and cannot deal with every specific thing. I think for what this place is we do a very good job of keeping it civil, and that's all that really matters. The second reason is that your definition of what is against our rules is not the same as ours, and that is something you will have to get used to.

Quote:

---

In America's past, groups like the KKK got away, literally, with murder, because society--and thus authority--was racist. If a black guy, however, were to commit anything close to the same type of crime against a white person that some white people routinely committed against black people, they would immediately be "dealt with", often times without a trial, extremely often without a fair trial. You're telling me that half the people in Eyes On The World do the same things I do, to a deeper extent, and the one conservative gets banned while the rest aren't even edited--even when clearly pointed out--and that's not bias?

---

What the heck are you talking about? We are just a bunch of people running an internet forum. I think you are taking this too seriously. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eestlinc

A lot of times I delete "warned post" emails while I'm at work because I don't have time to check and they tend to pile up in my inbox. ... Still, one person wishing harm on America doesn't add up to "the majority of the world" even if you add in the other small groups who truly do hate America.

---

Quite frankly, that lends a lot of credit to the "just click the "warn" button and justice will be served" idea, doesn't it?

Sorry, it might not be the majority of the world. Just most of the Muslim world, France and Germany (actually most of Europe), most developing and/or third-world nations... Maybe not 51% of the world population hates America, but I wouldn't doubt it.

EDIT:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Murder

I do not remember seeing that. If the fact that this wasn't dealt with really bothers you, you can pm the link to me once you regain access to that forum and I will take a look at it. It is certainly not something that should be taken lightly.

---

I realize this. Isn't that what the "warn" button is for, to make sure people see things they need to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Murder

I think for what this place is we do a very good job of keeping it civil, and that's all that really matters.

---

Of course it's easy to keep it civil, when you ban every conservative that comes in and voices their opinions. When everybody debating agrees on most things, problems don't come up near as often, do they?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Murder

What the heck are you talking about? We are just a bunch of people running an internet forum. I think you are taking this too seriously.

---

I'm simply pointing out the bias in the moderation.

Quote:

---

and the one conservative gets banned while the rest aren't even edited--even when clearly pointed out--and that's not bias?

---

:D The two conservatives get banned.

And as I noted in my Revelations upon Forum Policy post, inflammatory, crude, or just plain hateful statements are fairly common, from the left side of the aisle, and suffer no consequence.

Like I've also noted, our fair and impartial mods have an amazingly short temper when it comes to such comments from conservatives... and a noticably longer fuse when much worse comments come from the other side of the aisle. Looks like he's got his eye on you too, buddy.

As for the comment itself--"A lot of people here would just like to see America and Americans hurt" translates to "Big D, specifically, and others besides him would like to see civilians harmed with chemical weapons"? Which translator are we using to decipher this, here? I hope I don't ever log on here drunk and type "SAG FAKLjasdfjiuh asdhf;kl poiurien ltkm kjryeiuanf a'jf;adsfj!!!!" or else D will probably be calling the police on me for terroristic threats...

Quote:

---

The fact that others 'get away with it' is not an excuse for anything you do, and I am tired of people using it.

---

Strange, but I didn't see 'others get away with it' as an excuse (it must be hidden in his post like the chemical weapons thing was). From what I gather, he was asking just why he got banned (Which I got from the part where he said "I want to figure out why I was banned." Although that may actually mean something else--probably something like "Big D, you want to use chemical weapons on me!")

Sasquatch's question, as mine was before it, was why comments from one side of the political spectrum are judged "inflammatory" or "flaming" and punished with an immediate ban while comments of equal severity or far worse are allowed to pass without comment. Considering the ridiculous idea that the comment for which he was banned was actually something that should be punished at all, much less with a three-week ban, his question is still completely valid.

Sasquatch... No racism comparisons (especially since you'll probably get busted for calling Big D a KKK member). That's for the other guys to pull, man. The forum administrators (or one of them, at least) are handing out bans with an extreme and obvious double-standard. This is not racism, nor is it as bad as lynchings and racial crimes, nor does this have anything to do with the KKK. It's an act of bias and double-standard, something completely different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

I know a lot of people here would just like to see America and Americans hurt, as would a majority of the world.

---

Granted that I don't know the specifics of the situation that came before this, but banning someone for saying this does seem a bit extreme, from my POV. A lot of the world does feel resentment toward America; that's obvious. Some of them would like to see Americans hurt - that's proven by 9/11 to begin with. There have been things said that were a lot worse than this and I still did not find too offensive. This seems to be just a misunderstanding, though ^^

However, I've never seen the staff have a bias toward conservatives :) I think that aside from a few mistakes/misunderstandings that people tend to make, they do a good job of being unbiased.

This banning is wrong. I have not seen him say anything worth the banning at all...in fact I just might use that warn button to death now. TO DEATH I Say...but that might require effort and time I don't have anymore ;_;

Like I am one to talk. I say some pretty sick in there sometimes :D

Ummm...Redneck, I don't think it was Del Murder that banned me.

Oops.

Dang, I expected better from Big D. My bad.

This thread made my night. :p

Heh, I don't have anything against you two. You guys are getting a little too deep for me over a two week ban. I am sorry that you are frustrated, but I really don't see any problem with the rules in place as they are. We do our best to make the right judgements on bannings and so far it has worked since this place is still going strong. You can't please everyone.

I disagree with Sasquatch quite often, but I must say that this ban is completely absurd. I'd like to see D explain this one.

[q=The Redneck]As for the comment itself--"A lot of people here would just like to see America and Americans hurt" translates to "Big D, specifically, and others besides him would like to see civilians harmed with chemical weapons"? Which translator are we using to decipher this, here? I hope I don't ever log on here drunk and type "SAG FAKLjasdfjiuh asdhf;kl poiurien ltkm kjryeiuanf a'jf;adsfj!!!!" or else D will probably be calling the police on me for terroristic threats...
[/q][q=Sasquatch]I never said anything about whether or not Big D felt that way, I said there were people in this forum and around the world that felt that way[/q][q=Sasquatch, in the thread]Would you rather us leave him alone and have been right, but not find out until one of our cities gets attacked with a chemical agent? Don't answer that--I know a lot of people here would just like to see America and Americans hurt, as would a majority of the world.[/q]This is easily construed as being directed personally at the person to whom he was responding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch, in the thread

Hell, even if that "100,000 civilian deaths" crap

---

A statement I expressed is "crap", rather than utilising civil means to question its accuracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch, in the thread

The NAACP would love you. (Unless you're white, of course...well, even with that mentality, they could use you.)

---

Again, a personal attack - or statement easily construed in that way.
In all, there were numerous elements of that particular post that were plainly intended to be personal provocations or insults. The ban was the product of all such comments made in that one instance.

I've stated so many times that I simply disagree with many aspects of US foreign policy and how they're implemented. I question the legality of some implementations of that policy. For having, expressing and explaining this view, I get suggestions that I somehow hate America as a whole, and that I don't mind if more innocents are killed. Along with that, I get accused of racial prejudice and lying.

I shouldn't be discussing Staff stuff publically, so I'll make the minumum amount of disclosure here... [q=The Redneck]inflammatory, crude, or just plain hateful statements are fairly common, from the left side of the aisle, and suffer no consequence.[/q]I number of "left" individuals have been EotW banned recently. I banned one or two myself. We just don't make public announcements about those bannings.

I basically agree with eestlinc and Del Murder over these issues. Deliberately constructing arguments in such a way as to provoke and inflame a response - such as by making personal attacks or insinuations against those who think differently - isn't the best way to seek a constructive, balanced debate. If you choose to stop debating issues and start making personal accusation and attacks, then it's difficult to complain when others follow suit. This goes for everyone, as is demonstrated by the number of EoEO/EotW bans currently in place. People should be able to discuss these big, world-changing issues without making the argument personal, yet individuals repeatedly turn the debate into a personal one -

"Oh, so you want your people to take over my country next?"

"Why should we wait to be attacked? So naive pacifists like you won't complain?"

"Ah, I see - you're one of those sick perverts who enjoys it when your beloved 'armed forces' kill another foreigner. Wow, you're cool."

Not the best way to go about things.

Also, I can't respond to every PM because I don't receive every PM that's sent to me. That's due to a quirk in my profile settings.

People like you and Redneck, Sasquatch, are why people think conservatives are obnoxious, egocentric, and nuts. Your abrasive and pushy rants aren't converting anyone to your (our, really) side, and only serve to give liberals ammo to rant about crazy conservatives.

You are not being treated differently because of your views; you are being forced to shut up because you refuse to show any respect for others. And, no, having the courtesy to put a thin veil over your rants and insults doesn't count as being respectful.

I've been holding that in for at least a couple of weeks. :p

There is one other thing I've been thinking about, though...

When I read Sasquatch's post in that World Events thread, I was enraged - in just the way, and for just the reasons, that ShlupQuack described.
Because of my angered state, I immediately imposed the most severe penalty I could without it being wildly inappropriate.

While I do not regret using an EoEO ban in that case, I do admit that my response was disproportionately severe. I punished out of anger, which is unprofessional and unhelpful.

I apologise for this act, and Sasquatch's ban period will be reduced accordingly.

Moderators are not immune from the forces of provocation; however, I could simply have got another moderator to deal with this matter, or waited until the feelings of hurt and anger had subsided.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Sorry, it might not be the majority of the world. Just most of the Muslim world, France and Germany (actually most of Europe), most developing and/or third-world nations... Maybe not 51% of the world population hates America, but I wouldn't doubt it.

---

Just wanted to react to that one. Most of joedude-level France (and I'm pretty sure Germany) doesn't really give two damn what happens to you Americans. When they do, they usually point at you and laugh at the "crazy Americans", and that's about the extent of our wishing bad things on you (Edit: and they feel concerned when bad things happen, a very very small minority of not even French people may have partyied after 9/11, the rest of us were following the news nervously). Reasonable people even wish you *gasp* well. And as for politicians... they do whatever is going to net them votes.

Edit:
Ah, forgot the rest. Most East european countries like you, because it means out of the Russian influence. Spain is like France, Portugal doesn't care, Italy same except when one of their guys dies, Norway I'd guess doesn't care given their situation, Sweden and Finland I don't know. Belgium and the Netherlands, like France, UK same. Switzerland, see Norway.
In short, you mistake a somewhat general disliking of Psdt Bush for a "wishing death on America".

Instead of discussing this for the tenth time, I am going to go ahead and close this thread. We are debating the matter in staff currently, and I promise you that we will have an answer concerning EoEO bans shortly.

Please don't make anymore threads in Feedback concerning EoEO bans. They will be closed. Thank you.