Moderator abuse

[smersh]

I'm sorry to bring this up at all, but a supermod suggested that this was the best place to seek some clarification and a response.

In a contentious thread about the Civil War and the Confederate flag, moderator Ken Cox has been both a spirited participant and an increasingly aggressive moderator. In response to views that challenge his own, and to my suggestion that he turn the reins over to another moderator, he has begun to issue infractions. The following challenge to his arguments was met with a second infraction for me, and a warning to another participant who also questioned Ken's objectivity.

Rather than respond to my substantive arguments, he has repeatedly made it personal, and abused his authority as a moderator to intimidate those who disagree with him.

Ken has called me a liar, and a troll, and he has given me an infraction for having the temerity to suggest that it might be more appropriate for another moderator to look in on this thread. He can do all of those things again, and he has the power to have the last word, either by closing the thread, deleting my posts, or infracting me into suspension.

None of those, however, will strengthen his arguments.

Ken has claimed that the US federal government is responsible for the racist connotations associated with the Confederate battle flag. He has done so without evidence, other than his own characterization of that history. He takes offense at my use of quotation marks around "the government" as a description of how he has characterized his chief suspect. I did so because it's a vague characterization, one that implies culpability, but which cannot be followed up on in any substantive way. When Ken says "the government", what does he mean? Who? When? What were the agents of propaganda, and how did they exert their power?

In response to Ken's assertion, I returned to his retelling of how the Klan was founded by former Confederate soldiers, whom he tells us flew the battle flag to dignify their terrorist deeds. Such actions, it seems, would likely have a much more direct effect of degrading that flag than unnamed and unspecified actions of "the government." I asked him, repeatedly, to respond to this apparent contradiction.

He has failed to do so.

I continued, and showed evidence suggesting that for many decades after the war, the primary Southern heritage groups defending Confederate history (the Daughters of the Confederacy, the United Confederate Veterans and its successor the Sons of Confederate Veterans) openly praised the Klan and its founder Nathan Bedford Forrest as defenders of Anglo-Saxon purity and Southern pride. They did so under the Confederate battle flag, which continues to this day to be their symbol.

So I asked again, surely, don't these racist organizations bear some culpability for the tarnished image of that symbol? Or is "the government" to blame?

I challenged Codger's characterization of heritage groups (including the above, and to which he added the Children of the Confederacy) as organizations that, in Codger's words, "preserve the truest meaning of the flag." What, I asked, are we to make of the history of racist statements and endorsements of the Klan by those organizations and by their members and guests? They are, after all, the groups that Codger feels "preserve the truest meaning of the flag" -- so what "true meaning" do they preserve?

In response, Codger says that if I have a problem with these groups, I should contact them. I certainly can do so, but that leaves Codger's claims in tatters.

In defense of the flag, Codger offered a sketch of the 2001 Mississippi referendum on changing the state flag, which featured an emblem derived from the Confederate flag. He suggested that the voting record on this referendum meant that significant numbers of African-Americans must have supported the Confederate flag (presumably also suggesting that it's not appropriate to characterize it as a racist symbol). I questioned Codger's characterization, and he persisted.

So, I did a little research, and found two peer-reviewed political science studies of the flag referendum that directly refuted Codger's characterization. I also went into the election results, and compared the recorded vote with the racial demographics in three of Mississippi's most racially homogeneous counties. The tallies there suggest strongly that public opinion on the Confederate flag was intensely polarized along racial lines, which corroborates both the cited political scientist's research on the topic as well as my critique of Codger's assertions.

So where does this leave us? I could see a fruitful discussion about whether and how Confederate heritage groups have struggled to overcome their own racist past. In fact, it seems pretty clear to me that at multiple times in their history, these groups have been fractured by conflict over this issue -- with reformers urging racial tolerance, and traditionalists encouraging racial antagonism. That's a complicated history, and it's worth exploration. Unfortunately, what supporters of these groups have done, in this thread, is leapfrog past that vicious past, pointed to these groups' current race-neutral language, and suggested that these groups offer a true line of continuity to values of the Confederacy that have nothing to do with racism. That's a creative assertion, but it does not square with the recorded history of these groups.

But I'm the troll.

The complete thread is here:

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=795811

I would ask that a less defensive and more objective moderator review the thread, and the infractions Ken has issued, or explain why they feel his actions are legitimate.

Thanks.

 

[Karda]

Although i don't participate in the forum i have been keeping somewhat of an eye on the situation.

Ken repeatedly asked that things be kept civil and the discussion not be made personal. He asked that positions be backed by evidence and that prior derogatory posts not be repeated.
You refused to listen and earned the infractions given. IMHO, Ken Cox does a fine job in an almost impossible situation. He has been objective and lenient to the point of letting you derail the thread. He has been far more lenient, with you especially, than he could or maybe even should have been.

IMHO, you should probably take a step back to review your actions and position on the whole matter and reassess your involvement in that forum, because if you continue in the same vein as you have been, you might find yourself on the outside looking in.

just my .02

 

[smersh]

Ken repeatedly asked that things be kept civil and the discussion not be made personal. He asked that positions be backed by evidence and that prior derogatory posts not be repeated.

Can you point out where I made unsubstantiated claims? On the contrary, I offered multiple citations, in response to claims that had none. Most of the evidence in the thread is information which I contributed (and which none have contested).

"Derogatory posts" is a bit fuzzier, but I believe I kept my posts focused on arguments and evidence, not personalities.

 

[jhakken]

Ken repeatedly asked that things be kept civil and the discussion not be made personal. He asked that positions be backed by evidence and that prior derogatory posts not be repeated.

With all due respect, if you're going to accuse another forum member of not keeping things civil you should provide an example. I actively particiapated in this thread and did not think that smersh was out-of-line in any way. In return, Ken Cox called him a liar, but didn't provide any support for that view. If anyone got insulting in this thread it was the moderator. When I offered my opinion respectfully, I was warned for trolling.

 

[GWashington1732]

You earned your infractions. You were warned several times before your infractions to discuss the issue and not other members. Your very first post in that thread clearly showed your attitude and the last line was clearly meant as an insult to any member who had an opinion other than your own. You ignored the posts warning about doing exactly what you were doing and you got rewarded for your behavior. Ken Cox moderates that forum, he makes the rules for that forum, if you don't like his rules, don't go into that forum. He does a good job managing a subject matter that most people around here won't touch with a 300 mile pole.

 

[Scott Free]

Ken Cox moderates...makes the rules for that forum, if you don't like his rules, don't go into that forum.

I don't think this is true—is it?

 

[GWashington1732]

I don't think this is true—is it?

It's my understanding that moderators can make general rules for the forums they moderate.

 

[Karda]

It's my understanding that moderators can make general rules for the forums they moderate.

You would be correct in your understanding. While we all must understand and conform to the rules of the site. Moderators may make additional rules for their particular forum, if necessary to curtail problems.

 

[Spark]

If you can't keep it civil, stay out of the discussions. If you don't like how someone is posting, hit the report button. If you can't keep it from being personal, leave the site.

 

[smersh]

If you can't keep it civil, stay out of the discussions. If you don't like how someone is posting, hit the report button. If you can't keep it from being personal, leave the site.

I home that advice applies to moderators, as well.

 

[Kiah]

The personification of why I don't post in the PA as much as I'd like. Any thread posted there is gonna be heated, that's just the way it is. Sometimes people step over the line and it devolves to insults and flat out arguing without any actual discussion. It's gonna happen, and will always need to be dealt with.

Ken has recently decided to take a stand against the "trolls" who toss out insults or argue needlessly. The problem, from my "outside looking in" perspective, is that he seems to be playing favorites, or the opposite of favorites maybe. In the "Wailing Wall" thread, one member insults another. Ken acknowledges the insult, and issues an infraction. Afterwards another member insults another. Ken acknowledges the insult, and tells everyone to "take a tummy breath". Not so much as a warning issued.

I see this way too often. Someone classifying the highly religious as savages (using the word savage in relation to a previous post) gets a trolling infraction. Someone classifying homosexuals as degenerates, not a peep. It seems as well that anyone can refer to their fellow members as fools, pigs, whatever as long as they do so by quoting Bible verses and adding a cute little smiley to it. Does the PA need to be a bit stricter? Probably. Does it need that strictness to be dealt out evenly? Of course. That doesn't seem to be the case though.

As I've said before, I don't think Ken should stop posting or moderating. I enjoy his posts. Maybe the solution is for Ken to take a few minutes to confer with the other PA mods before hastily issuing infractions or letting something slide, as his views and who agrees with him does appear (even if it's not the case) to be skewing his decisions. While insults and arguments need to be dealt with, at this rate the PA is in danger of becoming nothing more than a bunch of guys patting each other on the back and making fun of those that don't share their views. The dissenting voices are being forcefully removed or leaving of their own volition to avoid having to tiptoe through the infraction minefield, while others continue on as they always have.

Just my opinion.

 

[jhakken]

Just my opinion.

I think you summed things up pretty well. There is much mean spiritedness directed at the liberal members of the forum that goes unchecked. I try to participate with a genuine interest in what everyone adds of value. Ken told me I had a history of trolling when he warned me, and I was flabergasted. I've been accused by the conservative members of many things, but never a troll. I may not participate in the forum anymore. Ken got very heated and emotional today and behaved inappropriately for a moderator. That's bound to happen but he needs to reflect, apologize, and change his style and the treatment of those with opposing views or as you said there will be a lot of padding eachother on the back or crickets chirping. I don't expect Ken will apologize. He will point to antagonistic comments of the liberals without noting that there is far worse being said by conservatives.

 

[Ren the devils trailboss]

I home that advice applies to moderators, as well.

My advice Is to get over yourself. Its the internet for heaven's sake.

 

[Kiah]

My advice Is to get over yourself. Its the internet for heaven's sake.

True that. It is just the internet. But(did you see that one coming ), it's a relevant concern when participants of a forum (especially one that requires a paid membership) feel like they're being held to a higher standard of posting than those who happen to share the views of the moderator.

Quick example and I'm editing posters names. Of course there are others, but these are off the top of my head.

I, for one, do not believe ...... is a troll, nor did he troll in this thread. I think he showed respect for thoses posting while vigorously refuting many of their arguments. I respect the great effort that Ken puts into this forum as moderator, but respectfully note that sometimes even he can loose objectivity in the midst of heartfelt topics.

This gets a warning for trolling. Undeserved in my opinion, but it should've been taken to tech support.

you have a very unique perspective. i always enjoy reading it.

on a side note, i would bet someone 100 bucks that ...... falls into that 56% that i've mentioned in the past. anyone this paranoid, and fearful, has certainly dabbled and is deeply ashamed of who they really are.

This gets an infraction for Insulting another member. Deserved in my opinion.

How truly enlightend and magnanimous of you. If you happen to get some bimbo pregnant you will find it in your heart to see her still and maybe even date her.

Again, I feel very sorry for any children that you might bring in to the world.

Where did you get the idea that ...... plans to raise a child? It sounds to me more like he plans to have a human pet, one that he can visit every once in a while. Maybe. If he happens to be dating its mother.

These were posted in the same thread Today by the same poster (who repeatedly trolls the PA IMO) towards the same person and both reported. Ken chose to ignore those. Is it because they were directed at someone he considers a "troll" and were made by a member who shares Ken's views? No clue, as they weren't even addressed.

Maybe Ken (and the majority of PA posters) just sees the former as actual trolling and the latter as polite conversation, but from some people's perspective it comes off as a bias against those who don't subscribe to his views. In my opinion if the rules are gonna be enforced selectively, the PA is either gonna become one big lovefest or the trolls that have gotten away with it for so long are gonna be looking at the posters that remain for their argument fix and then you're really gonna have a mess.

 

[Longtrang]

After reading the thread this seems to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black. The mods are human too and have a right to express their opinion as much as anyone. You can't be confrontational and get mad at the response you get. Sorry to say this but grow some thicker skin or better yet talk to people the way you want to be talked to.

 

[dericdesmond]

Glad my brain is too small to participate in that forum, dbl standards drive me crazy, esp when power is involved.

 

[tomcrx]

There is a definite bias in that forum. I stopped participating once "ninja keyboard null raking hacks" became "OK" for certain members to do with out consequences.

 

[Balislinger]

Wouldn't be the first time we've had mod abuse on BFC. I was issued an infraction (in a condescending tone) for following the new forum rules after I clarified them in the Help section. Apparently the mod doesn't like the rule changes and is still enforcing the old ones. Despite complaining about it, no apology from the mod and apparently no speaking to that mod by the administration.

 

[Kiah]

Referencing my earlier post, and since Ken is now aware of this thread and reading it, I ask if Ken finds it more insulting to imply that someone may have homosexual tendencies than to imply that someone would abandon their child if they didn't happen to be boinking the child's mother anymore?

 

[Ken Cox]

This gets a warning for trolling. Undeserved in my opinion, but it should've been taken to tech support.

The timing of the post and the subject, after multiple admonitions in the thread, earned the warning.

Ken chose to ignore those. Is it because they were directed at someone he considers a "troll" and were made by a member who shares Ken's views? No clue, as they weren't even addressed.

I didn't choose to ignore anything.

Although the forum lists three moderators, I typically moderate it alone.

When I check in, I check in at the ends of threads to gauge the tone, and so I sometimes miss large portions of conversations.

Further, when I start having problems with a specific forumite, I follow that forumite's posts and police them more rigorously than the forum members in general.

...if the rules are gonna be enforced selectively...

Yes, "if."

I welcome Kiah's participation in the Political Forum.

I have from the beginning attempted to create peer moderation.

I welcome and encourage moderation by peers.

And, I regularly explain how to do it.

It doesn't involve talking about other forumites, but, rather, taliking about the specific content of the post and how it effects the forum culture.

As for bias against so-called liberals, I consider myself extremely liberal in the social meaning, and so that doesn't make sense to me.

However, I do have a problem with relentlessly inflammatory and insulting language.

At other times, when I don't have a pressing issue with a known troll, I do admonish and correct the so-called conservative regulars who push sarcasm and general disrespect to its limits.

One's impression of the Political Forum will vary depending on when one visits, and in which threads one looks.

At times, the adult level of the conversation amazes me, and, at other times, it embarrasses to visit the forum, and, at those times, I hope no one I know visits it.

In closing, when trolls visit the Political Forum, they will get more attention than those typically behave badly, but not as badly as the troll, and it might seem inconsistent to some.

You choose your battles.

And, fellow moderators, please consider the Political Forum your home and please exercise your will as moderator while there.

I've had a moderator from another BladeForums sub forum who took up residence in the Political Forum; he made it his mission to clear up a long-standing bad practice in the Political Forum, and I thank him for doing a thankless job.

So, y'all come and moderate.