Censorship is out of control

[moicherie]

It's not ridiculeAnnie--don't you get the point?

The tone of response suggests that you are hinting it is Sophia, so why deny the charge against you?

 

[sentipente]

Sometimes it is best to keep quiet when exposed than to add "peddler in terminological inexactitudes" to one's online resume.

 

[honorthesabbath]

The tone of response suggests that you are hinting it is Sophia, so why deny the charge against you?

How would you know what my 'tone' is? I'm just finding it very funny that Annie seems to be accusing Sophia of something here--NOT ME!! ROFL!!

 

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

I really do wish you all could see the reports and full discussions, however, I guess that wouldn't really help all would it? No one is ever going to fully agree with actions taken, especially when they are against themselves in a negative context. That's just human nature, though.

As for this truce thingy, I will say something. How does anyone know that the reports even came from someone who knew about the truce? Not everyone reads all the threads or goes into all of the subforums.

For all I know it could have been myself who broke it! I had no idea there was even a truce until I stumbled across the thread after it'd already ended. I will, on occasion, report posts that appear a RV to myself.

Please note I'm not saying it was someone who didn't know about it, as I have no right to say either way due to privacy. And, to be honest, I don't even know myself. I'm just saying that we can't really put the blame on either side because there's no way of really telling, is there?

And about this mod bias thing, it is against the site wide rules to discuss issues with moderator discission in the open forums. The rules list the proper way of handling it. Yes, I understand that those who have discussed it wished to bring it out to the others..but when there's a clear rule against posts containing that, it will be ruled RV if reported. Doing anything other would create issues that would snowball.

Sure, it hurts to see the mods being classified as such (especially considering I am one and do my best not to be bias..to the point I even stepped down in one case where I knew I couldn't be neutral). It's hard that we cannot, due to privacy, even fully defend ourselves either. However, this was something that I took on when I accepted..so what can I say?

People want to say what they want, and rarely see error in what they say. Moderators are supposed to keep a certain tone and peace in the forum by following the rules as a guideline for judging. If we judge something that others don't agree with, we're considered bias and it's considered censorship. On the other hand the other group agrees. You simply cannot win.

We're all human, and we all have our own perspectives of what is right or wrong.

Yes, I understand that we can overstep our boundaries very easily..and for that, we need to be careful.

Blessings and Love,
Sarah

 

[tall73]

How would you know what my 'tone' is? I'm just finding it very funny that Annie seems to be accusing Sophia of something here--NOT ME!! ROFL!!

She is saying that Sophia is the only one with ties to the progressives, having been one.

She did not say that she was biased. It is your claim that one of the female staffers is biased.

 

[tall73]

First of all Night—why do you keep insisting that I was referring to Sophia in my post about the mods? For you to do this is pure conjecture and is terribly unChristian like.
Then you go one an say that if I had provided proof—then it would have been a different thing. The reason I did not provide proof is because I preferred to keep that person’s name confidential.

So please-STOP insinuating that I was talking about Sophia. When and if I choose to reveal the person I was referring to—I WILL do it. And I will give my proof.

So for Night to "conjecture" regarding your partial identification (gender) of the person is "terribly unChristian like"

But for you to conjecture that Woob's posts may have been forced edited by the mods you formerly claimed were biased is not terribly un-Christian-like?

You have been adding characterizations of people's posts for a while now. "Rude" "unChristian" etc. Are you going to apply the same standard to your posts?

 

[honorthesabbath]

Sometimes it is best to keep quiet when exposed than to add "peddler in terminological inexactitudes" to one's online resume.

Who are you addressing Sent? And who are you calling a liar?

 

[sentipente]

Who are you addressing Sent? And who are you calling a liar?

In the words of the late Robert Nesta Marley, "Who the cap fit let them wear it."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL6qMnRP6_U

Man to man is so unjust, children:
Ya dont know who to trust.
Your worst enemy could be your best friend,
And your best friend your worse enemy.

Some will eat and drink with you,
Then behind them su-su pon you.
Only your friend know your secrets,
So only he could reveal it.
And who the cap fit, let them wear it!
Who the cap fit, let them wear it!
Said I throw me corn, me no call no fowl;
I saying, cook-cook-cook, cluk-cluk-cluk.

Some will hate you, pretend they love you now,
Then behind they try to eliminate you.
But who jah bless, no one curse;
Thank god, were past the worse.
Hypocrites and parasites
Will come up and take a bite.
And if your night should turn to day,
A lot of people would run away.
And who the stock fit let them wear it!
Who the (cap fit) let them (wear it)!

And then a-gonna throw me corn,
And then a-gonna call no fowl,
And then a-gonna cook-cook-cook, cluk-cluk-cluk.
---
/instrumental break/
---
Some will eat and drink with you,
Then behind them su-su pon you, yeah!
And if night should turn to day, now,
A lot of people would run away, yeah!
And who the cap fit, let them wear it!
Who the cap fit, let them wear it!
Throw me corn, me no call no fowl;
A-saying: cook-cook-cook, cluk-cluk-cluk.
... : cook-cook-cook, cluk-cluk-cluk.
Throw me corn (cook-cook-cook);
Me call no fowl (cluk-cluk-cluk)

 

[honorthesabbath]

She is saying that Sophia is the only one with ties to the progressives, having been one.

She did not say that she was biased. It is your claim that one of the female staffers is biased.

This is where you are wrong. I clearly stated that there were a couple of female mods that I didn't trust--(and a few males too.) So you guys are WAY reaching here.

 

[WarEagle]

The mods have deleted over 15 of my posts and threads in the last couple of days and nailed me with another infraction.

Censorship is alive and well in this forum, the Prog subforum included.

I think I have just about had it with this place.

If it makes you feel any better, you're not the only one. I've heard so many people complain about the same thing.

Just today, I had to ask to have a thread closed because one of the moderators took it upon himself to censor my posts. He claimed it was "flaming", but the question in the post wasn't even remotely a flame and even the girl he claimed I flamed didn't think it was a flame.

CF is a private board and they can run it any way they like. That includes censoring posts and ideas they disagree with.

I don't think it's right, but it's still their board and they have the right to do it, I guess.

I wonder who Jesus would censor.

 

[honorthesabbath]

In the words of the late Robert Nesta Marley, "Who the cap fit let them wear it."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL6qMnRP6_U

Well then--I hope someone else likes the hat!

 

[honorthesabbath]

Who are you addressing Sent? And who are you calling a liar?

Then I sure hope whoever this applies to enjoys the hat--it sure doesn't fit me--thanks!

 

[tall73]

This is where you are wrong. I clearly stated that there were a couple of female mods that I didn't trust--(and a few males too.) So you guys are WAY reaching here.

But only one did you refer to with a singular female term, "god-mother". So no, I am not wrong in that respect.

 

[sentipente]

Then I sure hope whoever this applies to enjoys the hat--it sure doesn't fit me--thanks!

In the words of another Caribbean poet: "Who have cocoa in sun always looking for rain."

 

[NightEternal]

Hey Night--why would these items you listed be your only agenda in a forum designed to glory Christ? Just curious.

You tell me. Why is it that because of some Trads who love to spite-report and target specific individuals for banning, I have to make self-defense and self-preservation a high priority on a CHRISTIAN forum?

You guys leave me no choice in that I have to look after my own interests, and then you judge me and condemn me for having to do what I have to do as a natural response to your own vindictive actions.

Nice.

 

[NightEternal]

And about this mod bias thing, it is against the site wide rules to discuss issues with moderator discission in the open forums.

You guys have locked the report section from comments and deleted my whole thread. That tells me our input is not wanted or desired.

We have been provided no venue or forum where we can speak in our defense and address our concerns with mod action in the reports against us and even our own reports!

What are we supposed to do Crimson? You guys left me no choice but to post my stuff HERE.

The rules list the proper way of handling it. Yes, I understand that those who have discussed it wished to bring it out to the others..

That is not why I started that thread. I HAD NO OTHER OPTION. There was no other way I could speak in my defense!

but when there's a clear rule against posts containing that, it will be ruled RV if reported. Doing anything other would create issues that would snowball.

You tell me what I am supposed to do then. Where can I speak in my defense?

People want to say what they want, and rarely see error in what they say. Moderators are supposed to keep a certain tone and peace in the forum by following the rules as a guideline for judging. If we judge something that others don't agree with, we're considered bias and it's considered censorship. On the other hand the other group agrees. You simply cannot win.

So why was my whole thread deleted and Honor's post is still standing there? Why did my thread warrant swift reprisal and hers has yet to be deleted? Because she didn't mention any names?

Please.

 

[Sophia7]

This is where you are wrong. I clearly stated that there were a couple of female mods that I didn't trust--(and a few males too.) So you guys are WAY reaching here.

It's not reaching when you have recently made other false charges against me specifically:

Well--if I read it correctly--it looks like Tall and Sophia are having their brand of secret meetings with the progs to let them know whats going on behind the scenes.

Hmm...honor, do you have any specific examples?

I have not followed closely what's happening in the prog area.

I know Tall and Sophia align with the 'progs', but I can not and don believe (until proven wrong) that Sophia would do this.

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=41165795&postcount=5

Here is what I am referring to DL. They both have friends in 'high places' and know whats going on behind the scenes.

http://christianforums.com/t6478828&page=4


Tall—
Anyone interested in some off -site discussion about these issues?

pm for details.

Night—
I don't know how I accessed it! It was through one of the links in the 'staff appeal' section.

But, yes, I can access both the archived and present reports.

I would be very interested that discussion Tall.

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=41168335&postcount=10

Actually I thought too that he might be getting info from someone. Turns out they just changed the system and you can view reports you made. Not sure why they did that, but it is the way it is. So no, he didn't get any info from anyone.

As to our discussions we are going over the current rules at CF and how they have changed as well as how the current report system is problematic.

Sophia has not even asked to join the forum so I am not sure what she has to do with it. We have no information that a normal member would not have.

Woob asked me not to discuss him there so I have not.

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=41168619&postcount=32

Lol. Inside information. That is rich.

No, the truth of the matter is much more mundane and non-clandestine than Honor's paranoid conspiracy theory.

I was in the Staff Appeals section where links galore were posted throughout the exchanges. I don't even know how I got there, but I somehow ended up in the reports section through one of those links, which suprised me at the time because I though we did not have access.

So, we have a good example here of what assuming does.

As for secret meetings and inside information from mods, no, that is not happening. How ridiculous. Yes we have a private forum away from this place where we can discuss issues that pertain to the rules here, but Sophia has not been a participant.

Last I heard, it was a free country and we are allowed to have a private forum if we want.

So, yes, Honor did bear false witness and made unsubstantiated claims.

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=41171045&postcount=33

This is correct. I am not a participant in such discussions, and I won't be. And I don't give people information that would violate my confidentiality agreement as a staff member here.

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=41180633&postcount=41

Now, Honor, unless you have proof of your accusations, you are bearing false witness against this unnamed female staff member that you call a "godmother." Please produce such evidence, or stop making insinuations.

 

[tall73]

Night, you can make an official appeal.

 

[NightEternal]

Oh and I did tell Night that he rants. But I don't think I upset him. I do believe if I offended him I would hear it from him, and not through the grape vine.

Nope, not offended at all. Ranting is good for the soul.

But make no mistake, my rants are not just aimless shotgun blasts of meanderings. There IS a specific purpose and intended point to get across with each one. People who just carelessly write them off as 'attacking' EGW and the SDA church are ignorant at best. They have not carefully read what I have typed nor are they willing to address the real issues. They would prefer to focus on HOW I say something rather than WHAT I am saying and hit the report button. Or, worse still, they deliberately misrepresent what I am saying in order to cast aspersion on my motives and intentions with my posts.

I have neither the time nor the patience for such sidetracking, hyper-sensitive nonsense and dishonest tactics.

 

[NightEternal]

I see Annie got reported.

Typical.