Trolled By A Moderator?

I feel as if I’ve been trolled by a moderator:

[quote=“timbandtech, post:577, topic:7850”]
Not only did the U.$. starve Iraqis, and much of this was under the Clinton administration as I recall, we then, after starving them to death, invade… In Godzilla We Trust. [/quote]

Worst of all I provided a link to a very fair source. This is history now. It is not even controversial.
And as for relevancy: this parallels how Ukraine’s recent history is going to be written.
Now, this is a prediction, yeah?

The power of a troll is merely a verbal dispute.
The power of a moderator is of an utterly other nature.
To combine these two and wield them as one…
As to who needs to be dropped from this site…
I’d rather appeal above and beyond the moderators here
who happily weigh in on topics with their own beliefs,
then threaten substantial contributions with censorship for those who are of another belief.

I appeal to higher powers at CFI to reign in censorship and the mere threat of censorship.
For I have seen it already applied too many times in my short stay here of recent weeks.
I suspect that you have a cadre of moderators who are dubious.
Such is the sort that likes control.
Rare are the few that can hold such a position with integrity.
Since contributors are so rare on these forums, so might the censors be rarefied as well.
I suggest you drop your worst censors based on community participation in a move to brighten what appears to be a compromised space. In these times especially such an action would provide us some sense that CFI has integrity.

To keep this coherent, I’ve copied here the threat of censorship, which is completely unsubstantiated by write4u:
“But of course to you, conspiracy theorist, that is just a devious plan to addict all poor nations to US devious plan of conquering the world.
Why is it that poor people stream to the US asking for sanctuary?
(as moderator) You are threading thin ice. We give lot of freedom in posting , but we do not have a lot of patience with Trolls.
Make honest arguments instead of slinging mud, seeing what sticks.”

In fact this question by write4u is worthy of discussion, and we’ll see how the U.$. has marginalized countries to our South, and even how the rich want the cheap labor immigrating here. But these details are simply worthy of discussion without the threat of censorship, so why bother with that? I’m sorry, but by the sheer density of censors to contributors here there is an excess of censorship. I hereby nominate write4u loose moderator powers. Then in a discussion he can actually try to hold his side as an equal, rather than rely upon some asymmetrical tactic. Clearly and explicitly the moderators have tremendous power as documented by the CFI website. Such powers ought be wielded more carefully than this.

When censors meet the definition of trolls, what is one to do?

Our modetators are also members. This is a common practice. Did Write4U give you an actual warning? I missed that. If you write shorter posts i can evaluate them quicker. Please give us a few days to evaluate this.

FYI I remember the history of the US starving Iraqis.

1 Like

Is that why we are building a wall in the Rio Grande river?

EAGLE PASS, Texas - The floating barrier wall in the Rio Grande is nearing completion. Work started over the weekend. Texas Governor Greg Abbott said it is a way to stop immigrants from crossing into Eagle Pass, Texas. One lawsuit has already been filed against Texas because of the floating border barrier.Jul 13, 2023
image image

But now we have the beginning of a productive discussion. You have made your claim, now provide supporting evidence.

My response to your seditious statement was not trolling you. It was challenging you to put your data where your mouth is. It is you who made the derogatory statement.

Americans not only divided, but baffled by what motivates their opponents

Only one in four Republican voters felt that most or almost all Democratic voters sincerely believed they were voting in the best interests of the country. Rather, many Republicans told us that Democratic voters were “brainwashed by the propaganda of the mainstream media,” or voting solely in their self-interest to preserve undeserved welfare and food stamp benefits

I don’t even know what I said that you disagree with. I did substantiate my claim. It is disgusting what we did in Iraq, and it will go down in history as even more disgusting what we are doing now in Ukraine, based upon a corrupt government that has built a circle of lies about Russia. I need only point to this recent hearing: to expose the desperation with which the ruling party is operating. I am not a partisan. I am an independent. I see our two party system as ultimately fitting the uniparty criticism, and guess what? Our arch enemies; those commies; one party system? Oh, gee… Propaganda state? Oops, I did it again…

No: write4u: your method of argumentation relies solely upon your stature here as a moderator. I have no idea what you are falsifying in my statement. I certainly get the gist that you don’t like it, though, and that you are happy to use weak tactics within a debate. If you could dodge any more here; well, I can pretty well guarantee that there won’t be any content that returns us back to your supposed falsification. Dodge away, sir. If you could get a little more dodgy; ah, but you see, what, you want me to troll you by you trolling me? So I will argue that I am authentic on my request that write4u be alleviated of his censorship abilities. Why is it that I as a user have to straighten out a moderator? Isn’t this supposed to work the other way around? As to who abuses a regard for the truth: can you write this into policy? Obviously what we aspire to here varies amongst participants. Certainly I do have an agenda to prove my side as correct; as the truth. If you want to discuss border walls maybe open up a thread on the topic. It is not the topic that I am discussing here, nor back on the thread that I supposedly deserve censorship on. As well it was not the source of some disagreement, so what can it be but a dodge?
I’m sorry, people, but write4u is not a moderator.

1 Like

As moderator, I warned you to provide proof when you make IMO wild and unsupported accusations.
As fellow poster, I am happy to engage in a productive exchange. But I will reserve the right to call you wrong when I believe you are in fact wrong. But if you can prove your points, I’ll be the first to acknowledge your veracity. But I do not play by troll rules.
But you come close sometimes.

p.s. note that as fellow poster, I have given you several likes when I agreed with your observations.

Do you deny that today Putin is targeting Ukraine civilians in a display of "crimes against humanity?

Certainly I do have an agenda to prove my side as correct; as the truth. If you want to discuss border walls maybe open up a thread on the topic. It is not the topic that I am discussing here, nor back on the thread that I supposedly deserve censorship on. As well it was not the source of some disagreement, so what can it be but a dodge?

We were discussing why so many people want to immigrate into the US, if the US was such a bad place to live. I posted that link as part of that discussion.

Mods are also members and they are allowed to join in on the conversations. When any of us mods give an actual warning, a member knows it because it’s generally in blue and highlighted as a moderation comment. Now a mod can ask a member to provide evidence/proof of claims without making it an official warning that counts against a member. As a third mod of this forum, it seems to me a troll is attempting to troll mod by turning the tables to make it seem as though they are the innocent one in the game.

1 Like

This particular claim here is already falsified. We were not discussing immigration at all. This was taken up by write4u in order to divert or bury the topic at hand. This method is actually documented as ground for suspension:

"A common problem is that someone is passionate about their opinion but is not as well informed as think they are. If the passion continues, but the response to input from other members is not acknowledged, there is no point in further attempts to engage them.

Just as common, but more complicated, is someone who brings up a lot of issues and presents information, but again, not in a way that engages the topics. There is no rule that all posts must stay on the topic of the thread, but one definition of trolling is to respond to comments by bringing in unrelated information. In politics, this is a debate tactic, if you can’t respond to your opponents’ question, bring up something they did that you can attack. For this forum, it’s disruptive, and not conducive to dialog.

The switching of topics is not a simple rule, like no name-calling. The suspension won’t happen immediately, only after the pattern continues. If it appears the new topics are introduced haphazardly, and any comment on the new topic is met with an insult or generalizations of people or more new tangents, then it’s trolling."

These are the words of lausten in an OP on “Why are accounts suspended?”
I must recommend again that these conditions have been met by write4u, and that to unwind the thread to make sense of it will certainly require decoding the burial by this exact topic in the thread “Wardrums in the Ukraine”.

Then again, it occurs here on this thread. And this ‘contributor’ has moderation privileges?
It is little wonder that the usership here is so thin.

Certainly write4u’s methods are not conducive to dialog. I suggest that they might be more conducive without the threat of censorship to back them up, but even this will not alleviate this dodge method which is documented as grounds for suspension.

This then certifies my claim here of being trolled by a moderator. It will take some unwinding at this point to direct you back to where the offense occurred. Still, this is pretty readily found by date as my response here opening this thread was fairly timely, and further he even carries on here with the dodge. We were not ever discussing immigration. It is a fine topic, and I would have quite a few thoughts to share… particularly the pressure that the U.$. foreign policy has caused in Europe of immigrants from the countries that it has pestered; starved; bombed; destroyed. That on our own Southern border we see the same is no wonder, but this is not the point of this thread here, is it? That some moderator might be so offended by this position, which is so readily proven, that they would bother to switch the subject say now, from immigration to Nazis in Ukraine, but now I go back there, and it looks very different.

No: clearly write4u is an inauthentic contributor whose agenda is written by the deep.
He might have come to power by legitimate means here, but no doubt there has been such creep all the way along, and I am just a new application for it.

As the funds dry up maybe the game will be played a little differently, eh?
Well, that could still be a ways off. Still, it seems those times are coming.
Cheers to free speech, and to quality discussion; may it be taking place somewhere…

What is the difference between getting an actual warning and being threatened with censorship by a moderator?

This is only barely even the crux. You are dealing with a contaminant here that is depraving the quality of this site. If you want to look any further for the poor usage rate here, you need look no further than write4u and its methods.

No difference. A warning that you will be banned should use the admin color, or note, sometimes we forget. We usually also give a reason. Is there a particular post you didn’t like. This has been going on for days and I don’t feel trying to figure out what you are taking about.

I followed Write4U quote. I see you quoted me. But did you not like the 3rd paragraph? That addresses your question. It’s not simple, it’s patterns, continued actions.

We were discussing the moral behavior of the US in world affairs.
The introduction of a fact that proves the historic volume of immigrants wishing a “better home” is a perfectly acceptable post in context of comparison with competing world powers.

Ahh… I could see such a tolerance for ordinary users. But for a moderator this is totally unacceptable behavior; even once. I seriously doubt that this is the first time, but I don’t have much other than SunnyJim’s suspension as evidence. Did write4u have something to do with that?

Above here we see write4u perpetuate his behavior in his direct response to my OP. This sort of shield I am happy to say you yourself have gone out of your way to document. I consider this quite a find in my favor. And so I ask you the favor of doing in your fellow moderator.

I say do it for Sunny Jim’s sake.

I initiated it and followed through, but we discuss all bans. You’re a rather special case. I hope we’ve learned something. There is no ongoing discussion of warning you or banning you. Whatever threat was intimated or perceived is in the past and will not be acted on.

So am I to take from this that anybody could write:

“What have you been smoking? After bombing Iraq into submission, it was starved so that we can invade after everybody has died? Are you insane?”

and it would not be trolling? I’m afraid I’ve been a bit conservative here…
he then goes on:

“(as moderator) You are threading thin ice. We give lot of freedom in posting , but we do not have a lot of patience with Trolls. Make honest arguments instead of slinging mud, seeing what sticks.”

Is it in my prerogative to ask whether you have your head up your hat?
Or is this reserved speech for moderators?
You all certainly have established your class and prowess here.
You talk down to individuals here as if we are school children.
Worse, really, in the case of write4u.

This place has no regard for the truth.
The double jeopardy of write4u is as bad as it gets.
Imagine being on my side at what is supposedly the Center For Inquiry…
He’s stuffed words in my mouth, called me insane, and theatened me with censorship.
This is not a moderator’s behavior. Eliminate him.
Preferably now.

No. Especially if they do that in every post, and keep doing it after it has been called out. You seek out argument. Like now, arguing about something that happened days ago. It matters very much how often, how egregious, and how recently something happened. It’s a fine line to keep speech free and conversations flowing, AND stop endless exchanges of insults.

1 Like