Moderation Issue

  • This topic has 3 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 4 years ago by Clark.
Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • Author
  • #54158 Reply

      With reference to the post of mine that you deleted on page 1 of the “Why Barnard Castle” article:

      I don’t know if you guys are just trying a bit too hard to be even-handed with people who contribute nothing to Craig’s costs at the expense of people who contribute a lot, or if you just enjoy being arsey.

      Two points:

      1. A dozen or so posts above mine there is a post from “djm”. The entire post reads:

      “I know you’ve had a rough time recently but going down the Icke route is not going to help.”

      I could spend the rest of my life reading this post and then mine and then trying and failing to understand why this post is fine by the moderation rules while mine falls foul.

      “Address arguments not people”.

      There isn’t a shred of an argument in djm’s post. It neither advances nor counters any argument. It’s just a cheap, obnoxious sneer at another person, seeking to ridicule him by equating him with David Icke. If I wanted to find a post that epitomises the idea of playing the man not the ball, I’d struggle to do better.

      But hey, you’re the guys with the stick, and I’m all ears. Feel free to explain to me in as much detail as you like, all the qualities that you can see in djm’s post that are absent from mine.

      “I know you’ve had a rough time recently but going down the Icke route is not going to help.”

      “No taunting”.

      Aye. Right.

      2. “Do not impugn the motives of others…”

      I take exception to this, because it’s objectionable bullshit. There is not one single word in my post that makes any reference, implicit or explicit, to Kempe’s ‘motives’, far less impugning them. I have no interest in his ‘motives’.

      I’ve challenged him on a fact, with arguments – that (literally) all he ever does, in hundreds and hundreds of posts (today being yet another example) is wait for Craig to put forward a point, and then say the opposite. That (literally) all he ever does is slavishly regurgitate the establishment line on every subject under the sun.

      Kempe could perfectly easily respond to my argument without ever having to so much as whisper about his ‘motives’. All he has to do is offer an argument of his own: “Actually Stonky, you’re wrong. I stand behind Craig on issues X, Y and Z. And I reject the establishment narrative on issues A, B and C…

      But feel free to point out to me the precise words in my post that you consider “impugn Kempe’s motives” and justify it being censored.

      • This topic was modified 3 years, 6 months ago by modbot.
      #54165 Reply

        Just for the record, there are now two new posts on the thread. In one of them, Craig is described as a “Rag Mag Media idiot”. In the other one, someone is told “Do not be an arse”.

        I fail to see how my rather anodyne post to Kempe contravenes the moderating rules more than either of these two posts, neither of which has been deleted. But I await your explanation, which I’m sure will be forthcoming in due course.

        #54173 Reply

          Hello Stonky

          For reference, your suspended comment is reproduced below:

          2020/05/25 at 12:03 am
          And just as a matter of interest, Kempe, have you ever, ever, even once in your life, questioned anything that you’ve been told by “the government”? Can you give me an example? I’m pretty certain that in all the hundreds of posts I’ve seen from you on this site, I’ve never seen a single one that did anything other that faithfully parrot the establishment line.
          Is Craig simply wrong about every single thing he ever writes about? The UK-sponsored torture in Uzbekistan? Was he wrong about that too? Is that another thing you know more about than he does?

          This is a clear case of criticising the person rather than the point. Indeed your comment doesn’t mention, much less challenge, the point to which you’re replying (i.e. that GSK’s HQ is in Brentford, so Cummings could be expected to travel there rather than to Barnard Castle). Instead your reply merely impugns the integrity of the person who made the point. That’s why the Fair Play rule (“play the ball, not the man”) was cited when your comment was suspended.

          When an argument is being criticised fairly, other readers can step in to defend the same point. In this case, the only person who could respond appropriately was Kempe, by explaining his own behaviour and motives. It’s a clear case of argumentum ad hominem and was suspended correctly with a note about the corresponding rule.

          The other issues you raise will be considered separately.

          #54239 Reply

            Stonky, a couple of points. The comments you quoted but which moderators did not remove: “I know you’ve had a rough time recently but going down the Icke route is not going to help”, “Rag Mag Media idiot”, and “Do not be an arse” ; when I was moderating, and under the circumstances, I too would have let these stand even though they do break the rules, because they serve as examples of Craig’s assertion that “there appears to be organised pushback” and “this astonishing Twitter pile-on…”

            And I had an exchange with moderation recently. One commenter insinuated that I’d relish acting like the Khmer Rouge because I’m active with Extinction Rebellion, and another accused me of having “asked for” the invasive tracking software from Gould’s company, because I argue against the Off-Guardian nonsense that covid-19 is no worse than seasonal flu. In both cases I responded with obscenity, hoping to draw moderators’ attention to the insinuated smears against me. The first time, moderation removed my obscenity but permitted the insinuation to stand, so via the comments I pointed out the veiled personal attack and explained my purpose in posting obscenity. On the second occasion moderation needed no prompting. Some commenters are very skillful at slipping ad hominem attacks past the moderators by either sly insinuation or by interspersing personal insults among valid political argument, so I regard this as an improvement in moderation standards.

            I have seen Kempe criticise government positions, generally for being too far to the right. My impression is that Kempe’s political position is roughly equivalent to that of the right of the Labour Party, and that Kempe objects to uncritical thinking, but is too inclined to dismiss suspicions as conspiracy theory.

          Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
          Reply To: Moderation Issue
          Your information: