Narks (or what is the real problem here)

That there are narks on SC should come as no surprise to anyone. That some of the more egregious breakers of the rules fall into this category is simply human nature. What is, in my opinion, the real issue is that the cowardly, bullying and anonymous Mods seem to act solely on the complaints, never investigating the facts first.

The deletions of whole threads rather than mere posts, the refusal to explain or justify their arbitrary actions, the apparent complicity of SC Admin in this behaviour, all point to a dysfunctionality of monumental proportions.

I also wonder why thieves and liars, lunatics and racists, conspiracy theorists and new age nutters are allowed to ignore the rules with impugnity whereas simply pointing out this fact will get the likes of me banned for unfeasably long periods.

I'd say SC aren't willing to pay anyone to follow up the complaints. I have sent a few emails asking them to explain bannings and thread deletions but no answers. We need more Meraks.

ChelseaT wrote:I'd say SC aren't willing to pay anyone to follow up the complaints. I have sent a few emails asking them to explain bannings and thread deletions but no answers. We need more Meraks.

Nail on the head.

Blank

There does not seem to be the old nark button, at least not in the browsers I am using. There is only the 'report this post' option. However, you need to fill in a reason why you're reporting it.

Frankly, I can't be bothered with the constant posting of rubbish by the same twits. And the same questions time after time. They have just enough clues to turn a computer on and access the Internet, but not enough to use Google. The IQ level appears too have gone past zero Kelvin, and contrary to the Laws of nature, is accelerating further downwards.

SC, on the face of it, does not seem to think the Forum has much, if any, merit. Virtually all of the good Posters have left, or been banned. I haven't bothered posting since my last banning. This was for calling a liar just that. And I was correct. Yet an idiot like D_B can get away with doing the same, when he is wrong. And as for the Q_M moron, she can cut & paste rubbish to her heart's content. In addition, both get away with freely offering medical advice, despite having no qualifications in the field; one being a seller of potions of dubious worth, and the other a disciple of quackery.

I think the daftest thing SC Admin has done was call for Moderators from amongst those interested in acting as such. And then appointing them. Without, so far as I can see, any oversight. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? No one apparently. Who, in their right mind, would appoint someone who wants to be a Moderator?

bullseye wrote:It was my understanding that the original mods in SC were chosen by SC Admin for being regular contributers who appeared to be capable of being unbiased and using common sense and fairness in their decision making, while keeping to SC's guidelines. They were invited to be mods.

It seems to me that, as the forum has attracted more and more 'deep thinkers', SC Admin is incapable of sorting the wheat from the chaff now. It's not that obvious anymore.

I'm no one to advise them on how to solve the problems, but if they were able/willing to define terms like 'harrass, abuse, debate' etc, it might be easier for the membership to avoid the seemingly arbitrary deletions and bannings that have been happening for too long.

The position has always been a thankless one, but the original mods did a much better job than any of the current ones. SC has made the job too difficult. I wouldn't be surprised if Merak and Sophie are the only ones attending the forum at all because of it.

What? Deep thinkers on SC?

bullseye wrote: Yeah, maybe that's the wrong term.

I mean people like Psalter with a bit of intelligence.

Really?

You are aware he is a Schoolteacher? A Primary Schoolteacher.

Lynz wrote:

bullseye wrote: Yeah, maybe that's the wrong term.

I mean people like Psalter with a bit of intelligence.

Really?

You are aware he is a Schoolteacher? A Primary Schoolteacher.

Look at your avatar, take the advice.

Too easy.

Lynz wrote: Too easy.

Yeah? Well so's your face.

Psalter wrote:

Lynz wrote: Too easy.

Yeah? Well so's your face.

Ilold

feigeleh wrote:That there are narks on SC should come as no surprise to anyone. That some of the more egregious breakers of the rules fall into this category is simply human nature. What is, in my opinion, the real issue is that the cowardly, bullying and anonymous Mods seem to act solely on the complaints, never investigating the facts first.

The deletions of whole threads rather than mere posts, the refusal to explain or justify their arbitrary actions, the apparent complicity of SC Admin in this behaviour, all point to a dysfunctionality of monumental proportions.

I also wonder why thieves and liars, lunatics and racists, conspiracy theorists and new age nutters are allowed to ignore the rules with impugnity whereas simply pointing out this fact will get the likes of me banned for unfeasably long periods.

So you don't at least think yourself one of those you mention? Interesting.

Sorry summoner... I am a bit slow today... what are you getting at?

feigeleh wrote:I also wonder why thieves and liars, lunatics and racists, conspiracy theorists and new age nutters are allowed to ignore the rules with impugnity whereas simply pointing out this fact will get the likes of me banned for unfeasably long periods.

Ok... in simpler terms. You say "the likes of me" as if you yourself don't fit any of those labels. I find that interesting As I see you fitting at least two... or three.

Ok, Summoner, I'll bite. Which of those categories do I fit into, in your opinion, and why? I would appreciate evidence as, to the best of my knowledge, I do not, in any case, fit.

feigeleh wrote:Ok, Summoner, I'll bite. Which of those categories do I fit into, in your opinion, and why? I would appreciate evidence as, to the best of my knowledge, I do not, in any case, fit.

Bite what?

I'm simply pointing out that you are not above those you are talking about... it is not a dig or whatever you are perceiving it as.

But seriously? You don't see yourself as any? that's, I guess, what I find so strange especially when I have seen you on more than one occasion rant like a lunatic and claim outrageous things that still have yet to be proven truth.

I don't really believe I need evidence as it's not an open and shut situation... more a general view on things. Take it as you will though as it is no biggie... I just think it was strange that you placed yourself apart from those labels.

Um, ok. But could you cite just "one occasion [that I have] rant[ed] like a lunatic and claim[ed] outrageous things that still have yet to be proven truth"?

I would appreciate it.

feigeleh wrote:Um, ok. But could you cite just "one occasion [that I have] rant[ed] like a lunatic and claim[ed] outrageous things that still have yet to be proven truth"?

I would appreciate it.

Why is it so hard for you to just be one of those people?

But ok... your rant in SC about another member who you made outrageous claims about for one instance.

I, myself, am above getting so drunk I literally sleep where I fall in the hallway but sometimes I'm happy to admit I can be a total lunatic too.

Summoner: I would appreciate a straightforward reply rather than a cryptic one. I am not trying to pick a fight, I am trying to learn something. I am sorry that I fail to get just what you are talking about in the above post. Let me promise you something: If you will simply be straightforward, honest and truthful with me (and, if possible provide references) then I promise you that I will offer you the same courtesy. However, cryptic allusions and apparently snide (but largely indecipherable) comments aren't really very helpful.

Cheers