Taking CFC break due to AoA - Page 2

Shabbaman · 14-03-2003, 08:20

Quote:

quote:Originally posted by Lt. Killer M.

it is the fact that the site owner seems to support nazism

Brrr... That one gives me the shivers. I hope you mean that in correspondence to the moderating business, and not in any other way. It's not 'nice' to say that, Killer...

anarres · 14-03-2003, 13:12

A decision on TF's part to not throw out AoA may not be solely because of TF's personal political views.

I am sure there are several factors being weighed up, and as much as AoA is more right wing than most, I would stop short of calling him a Nazi. That word has strong connotations, and I would prefer the term 'fascist', but calling someone that is not easily justified either IMO.

col · 14-03-2003, 14:16

Personally I think TF handled the situation pretty well. AoA does a good job on issues that he isnt personally involved in and he does keep a lot of crap out. . Look at Poly's OT if you want to see a mess. His polical views are irrelevent as long as he mods fairly. Sometimes though, AoA seems to lose it and gets himself backed into a corner. Yes - I have read all the thread at CDG. Yes, one or two bans were unjustified. But yes most of the bans were fully justified - as the individuals concerned would admit.

What is clear that many people have lost faith in AoA's ability to moderate OT evenhandedly. That's sad.

Lt. Killer M · 14-03-2003, 15:08

anarres: yes, 'facist' covers it better. It is classical facist methods (but also communist) how he tries to moderate opinons. I know TF has other views, but he made a fucking rule and now lets AoA blantantly bypass it. No thanx!

col: how did he handle it? The fact that AoA makes certain opinions that are in accordance with the rules suddenly bannable (i.e. you may not voice the opinion that 'the US is the agressor in Iraq') has NOT been addressed at all!

as for his bans: a lot of people have PMed or mailed me after the last incident, saying theyfeared to voice their opinions or to discuss anything with AoA. Now, he may usually ban with reason, but making people afraid of being banned unfairly is enough!

Elden · 15-03-2003, 04:33

After being banmned for having an opinion (anti-war)I've decided that I'm not going back except to finish my current PBEM and post this message:

Goodbye CFC -

I've decided after my recent ban that I am sick and tired of the way this place is run. I will not be coming here again until at least one of the following occurs:

1) WAR IN IRAQ IS CANCELLED OR OVER
2) THE UNFAIR/BIASED MODERATORS LOSE THEIR POWERS

Shabbaman · 15-03-2003, 17:47

Gee, you've been banned here at the Anarchist's forum? That's quite some accomplishment.

Lt. Killer M · 16-03-2003, 17:36

Shabba: I think he was quoting about CFC

TF has NOT answered about the Bush-rule, but both he and AOA have made *very* reasonable posts in site feedback. These convinced me that AoA just overreacted a bit on the 'Bush rule'-comeback. From what they now say that thing and the resulting ban were kind of the toughest you could get, and AoA also stated publicly his exact position on US-critizism, in essence refining the Bush-rule to an acceptable level. It seems the SiteFeedback forum may anger the guy, but be a good way to get a precise answer....

I am not really enthused by CFC.

Sween · 17-03-2003, 19:41

that kind of stuff will only make me post more. better to be in the way then marked a victory.

Shabbaman · 17-03-2003, 20:19

HEY KILLER! I SAW YOU! YOU POSTED IN THE NEWBIE THREAD!!!

:lol:

Anyway, I've read the thread you're referring to. It's kinda easy to debate in that way with the 'new rule', but it's probably a good thing that there is being discussed with at least some form of ratio.

14-03-2003, 13:12	#12
anarres anarchist butcher Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: United States of Whatever. Posts: 4,677	A decision on TF's part to not throw out AoA may not be solely because of TF's personal political views. I am sure there are several factors being weighed up, and as much as AoA is more right wing than most, I would stop short of calling him a Nazi. That word has strong connotations, and I would prefer the term 'fascist', but calling someone that is not easily justified either IMO. __________________ <b>Calculate the probability of culture flips: Flip Calc</b>

14-03-2003, 14:16	#13
col King Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: South Sandwich Islands. Posts: 1,529	Personally I think TF handled the situation pretty well. AoA does a good job on issues that he isnt personally involved in and he does keep a lot of crap out. . Look at Poly's OT if you want to see a mess. His polical views are irrelevent as long as he mods fairly. Sometimes though, AoA seems to lose it and gets himself backed into a corner. Yes - I have read all the thread at CDG. Yes, one or two bans were unjustified. But yes most of the bans were fully justified - as the individuals concerned would admit. What is clear that many people have lost faith in AoA's ability to moderate OT evenhandedly. That's sad. __________________ I can't be arsed.

14-03-2003, 15:08	#14
Lt. Killer M Emperor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: HAWK!. Posts: 4,365	anarres: yes, 'facist' covers it better. It is classical facist methods (but also communist) how he tries to moderate opinons. I know TF has other views, but he made a fucking rule and now lets AoA blantantly bypass it. No thanx! col: how did he handle it? The fact that AoA makes certain opinions that are in accordance with the rules suddenly bannable (i.e. you may not voice the opinion that 'the US is the agressor in Iraq') has NOT been addressed at all! as for his bans: a lot of people have PMed or mailed me after the last incident, saying theyfeared to voice their opinions or to discuss anything with AoA. Now, he may usually ban with reason, but making people afraid of being banned unfairly is enough! __________________ One more turn..... just one more turn... one MORE!

15-03-2003, 17:47	#16
Shabbaman Administrator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Costa La Haya Posts: 8,493	Gee, you've been banned here at the Anarchist's forum? That's quite some accomplishment. __________________ "Our spam is backed with COMETS!"

16-03-2003, 17:36	#17
Lt. Killer M Emperor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: HAWK!. Posts: 4,365	Shabba: I think he was quoting about CFC TF has NOT answered about the Bush-rule, but both he and AOA have made very reasonable posts in site feedback. These convinced me that AoA just overreacted a bit on the 'Bush rule'-comeback. From what they now say that thing and the resulting ban were kind of the toughest you could get, and AoA also stated publicly his exact position on US-critizism, in essence refining the Bush-rule to an acceptable level. It seems the SiteFeedback forum may anger the guy, but be a good way to get a precise answer.... I am not really enthused by CFC. __________________ One more turn..... just one more turn... one MORE!

15-03-2003, 04:33	#15
Elden Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: . Posts: 4	After being banmned for having an opinion (anti-war)I've decided that I'm not going back except to finish my current PBEM and post this message: Goodbye CFC - I've decided after my recent ban that I am sick and tired of the way this place is run. I will not be coming here again until at least one of the following occurs: 1) WAR IN IRAQ IS CANCELLED OR OVER 2) THE UNFAIR/BIASED MODERATORS LOSE THEIR POWERS

17-03-2003, 19:41	#18
Sween Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: USA. Posts: 124	that kind of stuff will only make me post more. better to be in the way then marked a victory. __________________ system warning: sween virus found. press ctrl w to disinfect.

17-03-2003, 20:19	#19
Shabbaman Administrator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Costa La Haya Posts: 8,493	HEY KILLER! I SAW YOU! YOU POSTED IN THE NEWBIE THREAD!!! :lol: Anyway, I've read the thread you're referring to. It's kinda easy to debate in that way with the 'new rule', but it's probably a good thing that there is being discussed with at least some form of ratio. __________________ "Our spam is backed with COMETS!"