I have no idea if you are old and cranky but I certainly don't agree with you.Lemurz said:Am I just getting old & cranky or does anybody else agree?
Can you give some examples (links where possible) of what you consider to be unwarranted or heavy handed censorship or moderation of discussions?Having been a member and contibutor to AAM for many years I find the site in recent months has gone very right wing, with administrators censoring good debate.
I don't think that this is obvious or true at all. Again can you give some examples to back up this accusation with examples/links? In particular where moderators/administrators have habitually been (a) right wing (b) offensive and (c) collectively (?) one sided.It's fairly obvious most/all of the AAM administrators are right wing, however I find many of their responses offensive and one sided.
ClubMan said:Can you give some examples (links where possible) of what you consider to be unwarranted or heavy handed censorship or moderation of discussions?
ClubMan said:In particular where moderators/administrators have habitually been ... (c) collectively (?) one sided.
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Brendan moderate and eventually close that thread and he was not involved in the discussion much or at all?podgerodge said:The Rip off Republic 3 thread's censorship/deletion of comments was heavy handed - the 'nasty' words could have been taken out with the contributors points of view left in. When my wife saw the comments that had been deleted her reaction was "God, they're easily upset aren't they".
See above. The fact that some moderators may have similar views on some issues is irrelevant. Also, according to the :The deletions and support for them were by people that were involved in the actual debate - and with the same view. I would have been happier had a neutral person made the decisions - one that had not contributed their opinion.
Whether people choose to believe this or not this is actually the real situation. Brendan is usually more direct about this and encourages people who don't like the moderation policy around here to look elsewhere for another bulletin board that is more tolerant or permissive. I would never be as blunt as that though...Moderators do not edit posts simply because they disagree with the opinions expressed therein.
ClubMan said:and he was not involved in the discussion much or at all?
I think this demonstrates some of the challenges of moderation. First of all, let's keep in mind that all moderators are volunteers, and we all have a lot better things to do than pick through posts and decide which words/phrases/clauses are acceptable. If a post goes over the line, it is really unreasonable to expect the mod to spend precious time reworking the post.podgerodge said:The Rip off Republic 3 thread's censorship/deletion of comments was heavy handed - the 'nasty' words could have been taken out with the contributors points of view left in. When my wife saw the comments that had been deleted her reaction was "God, they're easily upset aren't they".
The deletions and support for them were by people that were involved in the actual debate - and with the same view. I would have been happier had a neutral person made the decisions - one that had not contributed their opinion.
People may have felt "ripped-off" !
RainyDay said:and we all have a lot better things to do than pick through posts and decide which words/phrases/clauses are acceptable.
ClubMan said:Anyway, do you honestly believe that Brendan moderates, closes or deletes threads just because he or any other moderator differs with a point of view being expressed?
OK - so do you think that any of the other moderators do/have done?podgerodge said:No, in fairness I don't.
I also assumed that the original post might have been a reference to this sort of situation alright. Maybe Lemurz can confirm or deny that? However I think that the RoI threads might be an example of those who don't toe the emotive and populist line and instead try to dig deeper and root the discussion in facts rather than assumptions and generalisations being accused of some sort of marginal (at either end of the political spectrum) and contrarian viewpoint, often just for the sake of it (e.g. Devil's Advocacy).CCOVICH said:People may have started to form this opinon based on the recent 'Rip Off Republic' threads, where Admins/Mods may have appeared right wing (not to me btw) just because they suggested that 'Rip Off Ireland' is a misnomer, and that consumers shouldn't feel ripped off just because they are paying high prices etc.
My point was that many people are prone to unreasoned/emotional responses to issues which leads them to conclusions not necessarily supported by the facts. I cited my own initial reaction to Robert Winston's views as reported in the newspaper as an example of just such a reaction not based on any logical reasoning and, as such, possibly fallacious. I just wondered in the same applied in this case of some people jumping to conclusions about some or all moderators motivations or views? I'm not sure how I can be patronising when I am admitting that I am prone to the same tendancies that I was talking about?daltonr said:I don't want to start this all up again and I'm loathe to even post on this thread, but I have to say your last post sounded a bit patronising. On more than one occasion you used phrases like unreasoned, emotional response, populist line. You drew comparisons with topics where people form unreason knee-jerk views such as on Nulear fuel, etc, etc.
I'm not saying that all people fall into that category but I do believe that many of them do. For example I base this on many arguments I've had with people who started off moaning about RoI and after I had pointed out certain facts to them they agreed with me that things were not as simple as they had initially assumed.You may not have intended it but you seem to be suggesting that those on the other side of the fence on the ROI threads are being mindlessly whipped along on some sort of emotional crusade with nothing to support their views but knee-jerk reactions to percieved problems, that those of you on the more rational side of the fence can see are all in our heads.
Anyone who thinks you are wrong has formed that impression only because of some
"unreasoned/emotional response".
I personally don't think that it's unreasonable to back arguments up with supporting evidence obviously within reason. I haven't been following that thread so I'm not familiar with the ins and outs. As such I'm not sure what it has to do with my comments above?On another thread right now a simple statement by me that drivers are dying due to driving inappropriately met with a call for clarification of whether I was offering an opinion or if this was a fact. This is getting out of hand.
If you don't agree with labels why do you label some people as being in the middle, some on either extreme and some as idiots?As to the original question I don't believe there's a question of Right and Left. I've never agreed with the labels because the huge majority of people straddle both sides on different issues. Many who claim to be left wing will hold very right-wing views on how a free market should operate. Many who consider themselves right wing will hold very liberal views on issues like abortion, euthenasia, etc.
Those who truly are on one or the other extreme are what we in the middle might call idiots.
By contrarian I meant in opposition to the popular or populist opinion on matters. I suspect that most people are in favour of "renewable" energy sources. As it happens Robert Winson's view was that they may be unsustainable and uneconomical in many cases and that the most promising source of cheap energy in the future might be nuclear power. That I would consider as a somewhat contrarian position.For what it's worth on virtually all of the issues listed by Clubman I am in the contrarian camp. I don't know what that makes me other than contrary.
I don't know what the populist view on renewable energy sources is, but I'm in favour of them.
I cited my own initial reaction to Robert Winston's views as reported in the newspaper as an example of just such a reaction not based on any logical reasoning and, as such, possibly fallacious.
I personally don't think that it's unreasonable to back arguments up with supporting evidence obviously within reason. I haven't been following that thread so I'm not familiar with the ins and outs. As such I'm not sure what it has to do with my comments above?
If you don't agree with labels why do you label some people as being in the middle, some on either extreme and some as idiots?
Hi RD - We're not all out to get you, all of the time. In asking for clarification of whether your comments were facts or opinion, I was doing just that. I wasn't actually disagreeing with you. I was simply exploring the issue. I happen to believe that it's important to distinguish between the two. As I think you well know, when I want to disagree with you, I've no qualms about doing so directly.daltonr said:I don't have a problem with that either. I do have a problem when someone says something we all know to be true, but because it hurts our argument we suggest that it's only an opinion and could the person please find statistics to prove it.
If you disagree with something then say it straight out and put the challenge up to the person to back it up and prove you wrong. Don't use the need for statistics as a means on delaying having to admit to something you know to be true.
There's a subtle difference between trying to clarify the facts and trying to diffuse the effectiveness of another person's argument by quibbling about things you know to be true. It's the difference between polite discussion and a court of law.
And I don't mean to single out Rainyday unfairly in this, he is not the only one who does it and he's far from the worst offender. It's just that in this case he's quibbling over a point that he himself made forcefully in a previous thread. It happens to be a prime example of how annoying and pointless such tactics are.
Hi Roy - As explained above, you are absolutlely free to offer your opinion. It will be valued as opinion. If you have verifiable facts that you wish to throw into the pot, that would have a different value.onekeano said:It's been a great source of info for myself and numerous colleagues but I would like to ensure that people are free to offer an opinion without thinking that they will be subjected to forensic examination or have to go off googling for reference documentation.
Having been a member and contibutor to AAM for many years I find the site in recent months has gone very right wing, with administrators censoring good debate.
In asking for clarification of whether your comments were facts or opinion, I was doing just that
"the bleeding obvious" is often challenged
with administrators censoring good debate.
My point was that I am not immune to this foible even if I generally endeavour to try and think independently and reach my own conclusions based on the evidence available to me.daltonr said:I didn't get from your post that you were making that point. You just said you were surprised and "I could well imagine some people inferring from his views that he was at one or other end of the political spectrum or was some sort of contrarian."
Not just on AAM - I think that very many (not all) people who toe populist lines on matters do so without thinking too much about the underlying facts/evidence. I do so myself when supporting my football team every week but I try to make that the only time that I engage in the mob mentality even thought it's quite enjoyable to be swept along by raw emotion without thinking too much.I didn't realise you were pointing out a bit of unreasoned thought on your own part. The general thrust of your post seemed to be one of saying other people who toe the populist line on AAM do so out of some sort of unreasoned/emotional response.
But when are things obviously true? RoI is a blindingly obvious "reality" to many people even though when challenged they fail to come up with evidence or convincing arguments that this is the case. Prompting such an examination of the evidence through challenging peoples' arguments cannot be dismissed as mere semantics or nit-picking as sometimes happens. It is all part and parcel of the cut and thrust of discussion.I don't have a problem with that either. I do have a problem when someone says something we all know to be true, but because it hurts our argument we suggest that it's only an opinion and could the person please find statistics to prove it.
As RainyDay says sometimes it's not a case of agreeing or disagreeing but one of trying to tease out the matter through examination of the unerlying facts and evidence. I can't see how fact based discussion can be seen as a burden or an inconvenience by some people. Do they think that we'd be better off just all spouting the prejudices and assumptions that we each assume to be true without testing these against the facts?If you disagree with something then say it straight out and put the challenge up to the person to back it up and prove you wrong.
I don't think that things have gotten out of hand and become impolite too much over the years on AAM.There's a subtle difference between trying to clarify the facts and trying to diffuse the effectiveness of another person's argument by quibbling about things you know to be true. It's the difference between polite discussion and a court of law.
The problem is that we're all still trying to second guess Lemurz's (and others'?) opinions on this and reasons for objecting to some of the moderation on the board and, as Brendan has pointed out, no evidence has been presented to support these agruments so far. For example I genuinely have absolutely no idea what recent comments by me or others anybody could reasonably term "right wing" so if somebody (preferable Lemurz) can enlighten me then I'd be very interested. Of course somebody may now accuse me of trying to deflect the discussion by actually asking for facts/evidence but there you go...I suspect the origins of this thread might be from seeing some so called Right of Center Opinions on specific topics. I don't think that's a valid thing to do because you may be seeing the only topic or one of very few on which that person's views would be considered Right of center.
Hi RD - We're not all out to get you, all of the time. In asking for clarification of whether your comments were facts or opinion, I was doing just that. I wasn't actually disagreeing with you. I was simply exploring the issue. I happen to believe that it's important to distinguish between the two. As I think you well know, when I want to disagree with you, I've no qualms about doing so directly.
I didn't realise that by expressing an preference I would be the subject of a scientific vivisection style laboratory study. I must bear that in mind next time I express an opinion in one of these threads.
I don't think that things have gotten out of hand and become impolite too much over the years on AAM.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?