DaveDodo007... I mean... Rationalskepticism,lol.

[Fallible]

ooOOOOOOooo!!

[aspire1670]

If one person's perception of what someone else said is wrong who the fuck cares.

Well 13,000 plus posts by yourself says you care a great deal.

Obviously I mean who cares enough to eject that person from a discussion forum for stating his opinion, jackass.

But if my perception of what you said is wrong then why do you care enough to reply, young Seth? Nice shot to your own foot, jackass.

[Seth]

If one person's perception of what someone else said is wrong who the fuck cares.

Well 13,000 plus posts by yourself says you care a great deal.

Obviously I mean who cares enough to eject that person from a discussion forum for stating his opinion, jackass.

But if my perception of what you said is wrong then why do you care enough to reply, young Seth? Nice shot to your own foot, jackass.

Because, jackass, debate and stating one's opinion are the purpose of the forum and therefore agitating to eject someone for stating their opinion is antithetical to the purpose of the forum, which makes those who agitate in such a manner gross hypocrites.

[Scott1328]

Who has been ejected?

[Hermit]

Seth, of course. When Seth posts, it's all about Seth.

[aspire1670]

If one person's perception of what someone else said is wrong who the fuck cares.

Well 13,000 plus posts by yourself says you care a great deal.

Obviously I mean who cares enough to eject that person from a discussion forum for stating his opinion, jackass.

But if my perception of what you said is wrong then why do you care enough to reply, young Seth? Nice shot to your own foot, jackass.

Because, jackass, debate and stating one's opinion are the purpose of the forum and therefore agitating to eject someone for stating their opinion is antithetical to the purpose of the forum, which makes those who agitate in such a manner gross hypocrites.

Talking of gross hypocrisy, you're still moving the goal posts and still giving a fuck, young jackass.

[DaveDodo007]

Honest question: Are you defending The_matatron because you feel he is being misrepresented as I have no clue what this is about.

That wasn't particularly my intention. For a start there's nothing here to defend him against, and even if there were I'm sure he's perfectly capable of defending himself. I don't even particularly agree with his position in that thread vis a vis ADHD.

I was only pointing out that Mr Samsa was indeed misrepresenting him. Blatently and unquestionably so.

You say you have no clue what this is about but it's really very simple. Go look at Metatron's posts in that thread and try to find any that say anything about how "Big Pharma is drugging children to make money". Just look up to page three if you can't be bothered as that's where the accusation was first made.

It didn't happen. Samsa just made it up.

The reason I mentioned it at all is there is some discussion in the manosphere about normal boys behaviour being considered 'bad' and ADHD which needs treatment with drugs, this would fit in with my worry about the feminist indoctrination of primary education, well fuck that as feminism and SJW (liberal progressives) influence on all education at every level of academia. If this is true then I might have to change my opinion of a Nazi mod at ratskep and that would never do.

That may be Metatron's view, I don't know. He didn't say anything about feminism or liberalism in the thread. All he said was that he thinks there's a spectrum of behaviour from "normal" to what we call hyperactive; he disagrees with the categorisation and stigmatisation of kids at one end of that spectrum as "ADHD"'; he disagrees with giving those kids drugs to control their behaviour; and he thinks the motivation for doing that comes from a desire to keep them quiet and under control.

I got that from reading his posts. Cos I can read.

Fuck, it's no fair. Do I really have to agree with a mod on something, not sure I can handle that. Though if that is what he is implying then I have to agree.

[DaveDodo007]

Seth, of course. When Seth posts, it's all about Seth.

This comment is absolute bullshit and this is what pisses me off. Seth made a comment and he actually made some points. Whether his points were valid or not is another issue, thought if Seth's points are so weak why not destroy them in open debate. It is basically this person has opinions that I don't like and therefore he is wrong. Can't you see how retarded this is and how it will come back and bite you on the arse? If Seth is wrong them show it by dismantling his arguments. Just saying Seth is wrong because his thoughts hurt my fee fees shows you up to be a pathetic loser.

[Warren Dew]

He didn't say it in as many words but if you read carefuuly all his comments he clearly implies that chidren are being needlessly drugged, presumably for the benefit of Big Pharma.

Why do you presume it's for the benefit of Big Pharma? the fact that you have to presume shows that's your assumption, not anything that can be deduced from what The Metatron actually said.

He's promoted a conspiracy theory (that drugging kids is done to make them easier for society to handle)

How is that a conspiracy theory? Even the people pushing the drugs say that.

[Warren Dew]

Go fuck yourself.

Is this really necessary? I think the rest of your arguments stand up better without this.

[aspire1670]

Seth, of course. When Seth posts, it's all about Seth.

This comment is absolute bullshit and this is what pisses me off. Seth made a comment and he actually made some points. Whether his points were valid or not is another issue, thought if Seth's points are so weak why not destroy them in open debate. It is basically this person has opinions that I don't like and therefore he is wrong. Can't you see how retarded this is and how it will come back and bite you on the arse? If Seth is wrong them show it by dismantling his arguments. Just saying Seth is wrong because his thoughts hurt my fee fees shows you up to be a pathetic loser.

Pathetic pot meet the Kettle with hurt fee fees.

[Warren Dew]

Getting away from the Samsa-Megaton kerfuffle, let me return to the original topic for a moment. I agree with Fallible. Moderation at Ratskep has evolved into a "what I feel like", arbitrary mode, and the increasingly convoluted, Byzantine Forum Users Agreement reflects this.

While we've only heard one side's description of the policy change, if that was the change, it was a good one, because the quality of Ratskep moderation suddenly improved greatly around that time. Previously, the moderators had used the rules as a weapon to get rid of those who disagreed with their collective political position, while overlooking egregious behavior from those they agreed with. Afterwards, moderation became less totally one sided.

[Fallible]

Absolute, unadulterated bollocks.

[DaveDodo007]

Seth, of course. When Seth posts, it's all about Seth.

This comment is absolute bullshit and this is what pisses me off. Seth made a comment and he actually made some points. Whether his points were valid or not is another issue, thought if Seth's points are so weak why not destroy them in open debate. It is basically this person has opinions that I don't like and therefore he is wrong. Can't you see how retarded this is and how it will come back and bite you on the arse? If Seth is wrong them show it by dismantling his arguments. Just saying Seth is wrong because his thoughts hurt my fee fees shows you up to be a pathetic loser.

Pathetic pot meet the Kettle with hurt fee fees.

WTF, How many times must I ask you 'what is your fucking problem with me as I haven't a clue who you are.' Though if you are going to comment on every post I make, can you at least make it interesting and relevant to the discussion, thanks.

[Beatsong]

Getting away from the Samsa-Megaton kerfuffle, let me return to the original topic for a moment. I agree with Fallible. Moderation at Ratskep has evolved into a "what I feel like", arbitrary mode, and the increasingly convoluted, Byzantine Forum Users Agreement reflects this.

While we've only heard one side's description of the policy change, if that was the change, it was a good one, because the quality of Ratskep moderation suddenly improved greatly around that time. Previously, the moderators had used the rules as a weapon to get rid of those who disagreed with their collective political position, while overlooking egregious behavior from those they agreed with. Afterwards, moderation became less totally one sided.

Absolute, unadulterated bollocks.

Yep.

There was a thread about this a while back. Can't remember who brought the subject up, it might have been SD.

Anyway, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth about how the mods had been so blatent in banning people for holding right wing political views. So we started a list of exactly which members of strongly right wing tendencies had been banned. Tyrannical wasn't included because he was clearly banned for racism, which has nothing to do with where you are on the economic spectrum. After that, the list went something like this:

1. Seth

2. Er, that's it.

(This was before Hugin was banned, FWIW).

Not even those who had brought the whole sob story up in the first place could actually think of anyone, other than Seth, who had presented a right wing persona and then been banned - LET ALONE show that the banning was on account of the politics.

Warren - can you add anyone to that list? If not, you're buying into a load of cobblers I'm afraid. There may have been moderator bias against right wing members, I don't know. But noone was "got rid of" on account of their politics - except possibly Seth, if you don't accept their judgment of trolling.