Moderators in Persistent Violation of Forum Rules

hashem replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 6:10 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

nirgrahamUK:

you obviously have no recourse but to contact a higher authority. good luck with that.

I rest my case.

So where do we go from here? Where do we draw the line? Can the members break the rules too, or just the rules that the moderators break?

nirgrahamUK replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 6:17 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

I answered this. mods can ban members, and the LvMi can ban mods. you can break whatever rules you like but I and other mods are very likely to ban you for such as a direct result. I might also go on a rule breaking spree myself. anythings possible. but I wouldnt be suprised to be banned for so doing. So don't stay up nights over it.

hashem replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 6:17 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

More importantly, much of the rules is concerned with generally reflecting well on Mises.org; with maintaining its good reputation. Can't this be said to be in violation of the whole rules policy by reflecting so poorly on mises.org (That even the mods don't obey the rules, indeed, are in stubborn and outright defiance of such a simple rule, and yet retain the power to ban people on a whim)?

nirgrahamUK:

you can break whatever rules you like but I and other mods are very likely to ban you for such as a direct result.

That's like a speeding cop passing someone on the shoulder while pointing and laughing. You guys are the cops of the forums, why don't you just follow the rules like everyone else instead of powermongering?

nirgrahamUK replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 6:23 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

You are asking the wrong people aren't you?

If the LvMi agree with you that the Mods and posted rules (circa 2007) arent working well and that they could do better for their 'reputation' then you can expect the current paradigm to change. If the LvMi disagree that the current status quo reflects poorly then you can expect more status quo.

I'm sure you understand that it was not 'the mods' that created the 'simple rule' and the ability for mods to 'ban people on a whim', and so your objection that the Mods are poorly moderated is falling on rather the wrong ears.It is rather the Gods of LvMi that bequethed us this system. oh so many years. Im sure you've considered this...

hashem replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 6:26 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

nirgrahamUK:

I'm sure you understand that it was not 'the mods' that created the 'simple rule' and the ability for mods to 'ban people on a whim'

I'm sure you are aware that the simple rules apply to mods. That's precisely what I'm pointing out. Surely you've considered this.

nirgrahamUK replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 6:27 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

lol. consider it an object lesson in 'public choice theory'. who watches the watchmen etc.

hashem replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 6:34 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

You're hilarious. What's funny is that I didn't find anything about public choice theory, or the "mod free interpretation/free-to-follow theory" in the rules that the mods as well as myself agreed to when we created our accounts. Now that I think about it, I didn't find any section excusing mods from any of the rules.

Consider it a lesson in "nobody moderates the moderators, so they powermonger and do what they wan't".

nirgrahamUK replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 6:41 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

Mods and Members are not excused of anything, at least not automatically. any excusing is by the property owner, the LvMi. so don't strawman me.

I don't have to follow any forum rules. it is not a law of nature. of course, if i dont follow 'house rules', and this offends the homeowner, then I may face consequences, or I may not. what is unfair about that?

I think you are confusing mere-promises with contracts. and advice/rules-of-thumb, with legal rules.

odd for a 'Rothbardian'

hashem replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 6:46 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

nirgrahamUK:

Mods and Members are not excused of anything

That's what I said. Except, mods ARE excused from following the rules, as I have been pointing out for 3 pages. If you care so much about logic, try focusing on something I said and talking about it instead of constantly changing the direction. If you did that, you would be forced to admit that I'm right, and if you were a useful moderator, you might try doing something productive and helpful about it instead of reationalizing everything like the mods are flawless and the members need to be warned about how powerful the mods are.

Nitroadict replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 6:48 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

hashem:

Consider it a lesson in "nobody moderates the moderators, so they powermonger and do what they wan't".

Except for the mods, like me, that don't powermonger all they want.  I think you are generalizing the actions of a few mods to the rest of them & being a bit of an asshole in the process, despite my agreement with you that the mods should not ignore simple rules, which is why I do not ignore them.     

Would you like give the owners of this forum a blueprint for a non-hirearchial forum software?  Because as far as I know, none exists.  You should also extend your criticism to the anarchism & libertarian sub-reddit's @ Reddit.  They haven't come up with an answer either.   

nirgrahamUK replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 6:50 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

hashem:

nirgrahamUK:

Mods and Members are not excused of anything

That's what I said. Except, mods ARE excused from following the rules, as I have been pointing out for 3 pages.

fine. as you chose not to read past the comma i placed after 'anything'. I will adopt your perspective.

Mods are excused for their unruly behaviour. this excusion is a defacto acceptance of the status quo by the LvMi.(until it so happens to not be excused)

Long live the mods, long live the LvMi!

We are damned yet we are not be punished.

Now run and along and play nice.

hashem replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 6:58 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

nirgrahamUK:

Mods are excused for their unruly behaviour.

Exhibit B:

Nitroadict:

Except for the mods, like me, that don't powermonger all they want...you are...being a bit of an asshole...which is why I do not ignore them.

"Upon registering, each individual has read, understood, and agreed to the following rules and conditions:

#2. You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this bulletin board to post any material which is...defamatory...abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane...

#4. Avoid all personal attacks

#7. Healthy debate is encouraged, but if your argument with another poster becomes heated, remember...Do not resort to personal attacks...Instead of making it personal, use rational, persuasive skills to make your point or criticize theirs."

This is absolutely absurd. How did you guys get appointed to run this monkey show? Two days ago I was banned for language that would seem heavenly compared to that. But what should I expect from the mods around here anyway. Hah, I'm the asshole. What a joke.

nirgrahamUK replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 7:04 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

witty editing my Rothbardian/NotRothbardian friend.

you missed out. (until it so happens to not be excused)

you might not be aware but one reason that you arent banned currently is that some mods (including myself) have thus far excused you.

hashem replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 7:07 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

Standard distraction. Did you even read my last post?

nirgrahamUK:

you might not be aware but one reason that you arent banned currently is that some mods (including myself) have thus far excused you.

Am I supposed to bow down before your angelic benevolence? I, for one, haven't broke any rules, so don't ban me. Thanks. On the other hand, another friendly moderator there just broke the MAIN rule (ironically, much worse than any offense I might have been banned for -- I was never told why -- and in the prosess of professing to be a non rule breaker).

nirgrahamUK replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 7:09 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

hashem:

Thanks.

You're welcome.

peace.

Jacob Bloom replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 7:15 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

This reminds me of the SPE. 

Nitroadict replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 7:35 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

hashem:

What a joke.

hashem replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 8:01 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

First you call me an asshole while claiming not to ignore rules, and now this? You're an awesome moderator, I don't care what anyone says about you.

Knight_of_BAAWA replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 8:03 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

Ok....are we all done? Had our say?

Time to put this to bed if so. And time for someone to stop throwing a tantrum. You made your point; continuing to bitch will not help.

Andrew Cain replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 8:51 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

I'm formulating an exploratory committee to ascertain whither or not running as a representative of the this forum on the platform of changing the forum rules will be benefical to the members. I need at least 16 million. 

Harry Felker replied on Wed, Jun 17 2009 9:37 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

Anarchist Cain:

I'm formulating an exploratory committee to ascertain whither or not running as a representative of the this forum on the platform of changing the forum rules will be benefical to the members. I need at least 16 million. 

I got like 8 games of monopoly!!!!!

Jon Irenicus replied on Thu, Jun 18 2009 5:05 AM | Locked

rated by 0 users

Consider it a lesson in "nobody moderates the moderators, so they powermonger and do what they wan't".

I appoint and remove them if they cause a problem. None of them have so far, minus your fixation on a rule I do not enforce unless it is obviously pertaining to spam, e.g. spam-posting cheap chinese shoes or WoW gold. If the mods were actually "powermongering" you'd have been banned indefinitely by now, FYI. In future if you have a problem with a mod report it to me or Jeffrey Tucker or Geoffrey A. Plauche or HeroicLife, and don't waste forum space with this nonsense. The forum is essentially property of the LVMI and is administered by the mods appointed by it, like any other club or institution based on private property (and not vague "free speech" rules which your beloved Rothbard himself refuted.) BTW, read the rule carefully:

Spam

Spam (multiple copies in one area or the same communication in multiple areas) or advertising/commercial solicitation messages are prohibited, including links to commercial sites. In addition, do not use this forum to promote any other web site or solicit the members of this board without the approval of the moderators (this includes promoting another site via a signature). Signatures may not contain images or links.

This is to prevent advertising spam. It's not a blanket prohibition on images &c. in sigs if the mods are OK with it, and the mods definitely can do the approving in their own case, and if they're a problem one of the admins (i.e. myself and others I mentioned) can reprimand them for it.

Locked.