BR Forum Piskology Thread

[shiv]

I am beginning to feel that it may be a good idea to allow forum members to ignore moderator posts (and vice versa). I say this for the following reasons:

1) Moderators too have to take part in discussions and may have opinions that others do not like and may prefer to ignore to avoid causing a flamewar with a mod.
2) In any case most moderator actions are made within the body of a post by a person and since a member cannot ignore his own posts the moderator action on his post will be visible to him even if a particular mod is on the ignore list.
3) Whatever the status of the mod on a member's ignore list, private messages will get through and if a member chooses to ignore a private message from a mod it may only be more bad news for him

One of the best things of not being a mod is the ability to have an ignore lists of people whose posts do not show up at all unless you choose to see them. I would heartily recommend this nifty feature to mods as well - who are currently hamstrung by the inability to ignore posts.

I think the forum would do even better if mods could ignore posters and posters could ignore mods. I do not believe that function would seriously inhibit moderation - given that there are multiple mods and I am sure curiosity would get the better of any mod and make him open a twit's post only to say "Oh noo. No need to moderate - it's only the usual stupidity being displayed. Nothing actionable".

Of course the software may not allow this.

[ldev]

1) Moderators too have to take part in discussions and may have opinions that others do not like and may prefer to ignore to avoid causing a flamewar with a mod.

If I may add to this point by quoting the following:

R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy ([1924] 1 KB 256, [1923] All ER 233) is a leading English criminal case famous for its precedence in establishing the principle that the mere appearance of bias is sufficient to overturn a judicial decision. It also brought into common parlance the oft-quoted aphorism "Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done."

Since moderators are effectively serving a judicial function on BRF, an alternative way of overcoming any moderator bias is to have the moderator/(s) for every thread clearly listed at the start of every thread. Such moderator/(s) cannot participate in that particular thread.

[archan]

First you need to establish which mods are biased and in which direction. I can speak of myself, there was a user who, after getting a warning from me posted the following:

Archan.
You know what? I've thought about it, and I've decided remaining on BR is no bog deal, esp when I can change IP addresses like others change socks. I certainlky dont need to conform to some oversensitive asshole's idea of 'ray-cism' ...
So,
Go ****** yourself. It is because of people like you that Indians are beaten by Aussies, Muslims and everyone else.
Indians are pussies who never fight back. Feel proud for defending your white masters from a racist like myself, if you wish.
You really are a politically correct pussy arent you?
I'll enjoy it when eight bearded mullahs gang rape your wife, mother, and all your sisters... that is what you deserve.
Think I care about your 'warning' 'ban or otherwise??? PUSSY, your race was 200 years slave of British, 800 years slave of Muslims, and currently slave of Italian slut Sonia Gandhi.
And all that slavery was the fault of people like you! so , so eager to defend Muslims, whites, chinks, pakis, everyone from attack, but doing nothing to defend Hindus.
Be a man first, then issue warnings. Hindus are kicked all over the world because of people like you.

So I would have thought that I came across as a pseudo sec, IOW, a "pussy" to them. The user still posts on these forums, even after the above. I must really be a pussy to not permanently ban them.
Anywho. Then there was this user who got permanently banned by me for an outrageous remark against a particular community in an earlier iteration of this very thread. He returned with another user name and tried a few little IEDs elsewhere, was caught by another so-called Hindutva biased moderator and was banned again. He sent a damning email to an internet mailing list about how BRF moderators are pseudo-sec and yada yada. It got forwarded to us.
Then there are some who have been blaming me for the opposite kind of bias.
Hmmm.. I am confused. Who am I? now that is one loaded philosophical question.

So let us not beat around the bush and talk in sign language when we have the ability to speak. All I say is, either speak clearly, taking names, which moderator you think is biased and why. Please provide evidence of their biased actions. If that is not possible, don't provide feedback in sign language. Fair enough?

[Rahul M]

Then there are some who have been blaming me for the opposite kind of bias.

actually that 'some' would be precisely 'one'.

I might add that there was a hate-site on blogspot (since taken down) which called for my (and some other BR mods) head daily because apparently I was an "anti-hindu muslim apologist'. (whatever that means)
pretty damning for my 'hindootva' reputation, I guess.

oh well, you can't show light to those who have willingly closed their eyes, from whichever camp they may be.

[ldev]

So let us not beat around the bush and talk in sign language when we have the ability to speak. All I say is, either speak clearly, taking names, which moderator you think is biased and why. Please provide evidence of their biased actions. If that is not possible, don't provide feedback in sign language. Fair enough?

This what I can only term as a "massively defensive" response from you is evidence enough that moderators are human and feel slights or even imagined slights as much as regular posters. In this particular case you are assuming that I personally am trying to beat around the bush. Why do you assume that? I am not beating around the bush at all but it is a simple and straightforward suggestion with no hidden agendas.

If clearly listing moderators for each individual threads is not possible, for whatever reason, say so clearly without becoming
defensive about it.

In terms of specific examples lets say in terms of my personal position on various threads, I think you do not have to be a genius to realize that my "secular" positions may be at variance with moderators such as Ramana who have a very "indic" viewpoint? But I do not think that his viewpoint affects his moderator functions on most occasions. On the one occasion when it did (and I was not even a participant in that thread, the AP emotive issue I believe), I think Rahul M stepped in and "moderated" Ramana.

But Archan, take it easy, why the very aggressive and defensive response from what was from my side at least a very straightforward post.

[BajKhedawal]

Since moderators are effectively serving a judicial function on BRF, an alternative way of overcoming any moderator bias is to have the moderator/(s) for every thread clearly listed at the start of every thread. Such moderator/(s) cannot participate in that particular thread.

Obviously each of our moderators is gifted at least with knowledge, that’s why they are the chosen ones. We will be doing a disservice to the forum if we disallow a moderator to participate in any given thread.

Furthermore, if you are saying let moderator “A” moderate a thread wherein he has no expertise, so there is no scope/interest for him to contribute to that thread. Then that again is a disservice to the forum as the moderator is not knowledgeable to understand the nuance of what is being argued or disputed about in the said thread, thus would be at a loss to moderate.

By and large BRF is blessed with good moderators and oldies, they should be put on periodic rotation as moderators. Serve a term of moderation and then enjoy a vacation as a normal poster, to let off some steam. Just so that they do not go loco and randomly AK fire, IED blast. Like the Israelis armed forces do, work hard and then let off pot steam at Goa, Manali.

[Arjun]

Since moderators are effectively serving a judicial function on BRF, an alternative way of overcoming any moderator bias is to have the moderator/(s) for every thread clearly listed at the start of every thread. Such moderator/(s) cannot participate in that particular thread.

Agree with ldev on this - tho' I recollect this being more of an issue with some ex-mods rather than the current ones.

[Sagar G]

Moderators must not be barred from posting in any thread, I think this forum lacks an Unjoin button (I haven't been able to locate it if it is already there then read on). People having issues with any mod for whatever reason it may be, either they settle those "issues" on a personal level with that mod(s) or use that button and leave instead of making a scene in the forum.

If the moderators don't want any religious issues to crop up then don't have such threads at all. This site is best left to discuss issues related to Indian defence.

[Jagan]

In terms of specific examples lets say in terms of my personal position on various threads, I think you do not have to be a genius to realize that my "secular" positions may be at variance with moderators such as Ramana who have a very "indic" viewpoint? But I do not think that his viewpoint affects his moderator functions on most occasions. On the one occasion when it did (and I was not even a participant in that thread, the AP emotive issue I believe), I think Rahul M stepped in and "moderated" Ramana.

err. since you said moderators. Anyone in addition to Ramana in the current crop? Thats probably what archan is driving at. If it is one single moderator, then thats what we wanna know. if its a bunch of moderators, we wanna know too.

[Rahul M]

Agree with LDev that Mods need to post a clear disclaimer - one cannot be a moderator for a thread in which one is vested in any manner.

Moderators are people; people have opinions, which lead to a different perception of an issue which might be at odds with a few members. The perception of a "bias" is always possible. (Several previous mods either took or were given a bidai over the past years, so differences of opinion seem to be the only given.)

the clear disclaimer thing sounds nice and is possible in the ideal world. in the real world there are practical restrictions with mods not being available at a particular moment, mismatch with their expertise and choice of topics and so on. mind it, the informal understanding already applied says just that, mods involved in discussion will not moderate that thread. it can't be made a formal one because that would make moderation impossible in many cases.

[ShauryaT]

one cannot be a moderator for a thread in which one is vested in any manner.

Moderators are people; people have opinions, which lead to a different perception of an issue which might be at odds with a few members. The perception of a "bias" is always possible. (Several previous mods either took or were given a bidai over the past years, so differences of opinion seem to be the only given.)

Why do people feel that they cannot go against a moderators views? I for one, have gone against many moderators' views, and have relatively come out clean. I do not know any ONE moderator, who would use his moderator privileges to stifle your point. Moderators are there to moderate a discussion - not to enforce their view points on others. There is a clear line and a line, which most/all moderators understand very well. I think this discussion is another attempt to play the "victim" syndrome.

[Prasad]

I'm not a high-volume postor here but if I may.

In threads like the TSP thread, the opinions and viewpoints are almost unanimous - Give Peace a chance,.... Postors, imo, come to this thread to contribute news and to garner insight into the various terrorist incubators in porkistan and also understand the porki mind (an oxymoron i know!). So, the job of moderation in this thread is by and large restricted to administrative functions such as editing users posts when they make textual errors or in the rare case go over the top. SSridhar sir is doing a great job over there.

In the other threads where there isn't any 'news' as such but general discussion about india's future and the like, there is no general consensus and hence everyone has an opinion. In such cases, mango postors may feel that if their thoughts are radical, they might get moderated. Hence there is a possibility of 'fear' against a moderator who also posts on the same thread because the postor can turn into a moderator any second and according to his/her whims resort to a ban or a warning. I'm not saying mods are fickle minded insecure people who will resort to force as soon as they come across differing viewpoints. Far from it. But it is a perception imho because there is no black and white here. But mods are human too and bias is inherent. That is not bad! But to moderate, to give a sense of fairness, I would suggest that if a mod participates in such a thread, thread moderation duties may be delegated to any other mod. I'm not insinuating anything against any postor or mod. So take it fwiw.

[ShauryaT]

I do not know any ONE moderator, who would use his moderator privileges to stifle your point.

I think this discussion is another attempt to play the "victim" syndrome.

2. Not sure who you're thinking of, but I haven't been a victim, so cannot comment. My point was related to the previous comments posted above and are entirely honest in their intent. Please do let me know via a PM if there's a specific issue related to me that you were thinking of.

No, not with you.

[Rahul M]

ts, that's a valid understanding of normal forum psyche. mods too are aware of it which is why the informal understanding I wrote of earlier is in place. whether it is true or not, moderation by a mod in a thread he is involved in is invariably taken to be a case of bias. mods themselves are no fan of such 'incidents' and prefer to leave the job to others unless it is unavoidable. (postors sending each other to pakistan like there's no tomorrow, for example ! )-
as it is, important mod decisions are taken collectively and individually taken decisions have to be vetted by others. some decisions may even be overturned if others disagree ! so it is wrong to think that a mod can do whatever he pleases without supervision. the established procedure already caters to that. it is only when a mod decides to ignore advice and suggestions from all others that we have a problem, as we did recently.

On the two forums that I was part of the team of moderators, we added a couple of mods that would engage only in clean-up and policing.

I don't think cleaning crew mods would be possible on BR. I would guess that those forums were technical/career oriented ones, IOW one-dimensional in certain ways ? am I right ?

even if we did have a cleaning crew, that won't solve the problem here. AFA normal cleaning/policing is concerned I daresay BR does well enough with its current set, the members too play a vital part in that.
it's the marginal borderline cases that create the problems, given the vast expanse of topics here. cleaning crew mods won't be able to handle that if they are not knowledgeable enough.

[putnanja]

In terms of specific examples lets say in terms of my personal position on various threads, I think you do not have to be a genius to realize that my "secular" positions may be at variance with moderators such as Ramana who have a very "indic" viewpoint? But I do not think that his viewpoint affects his moderator functions on most occasions. On the one occasion when it did (and I was not even a participant in that thread, the AP emotive issue I believe), I think Rahul M stepped in and "moderated" Ramana.

I always thought that "indic" viewpoint meant india-centric viewpoint, or something from Indian traditions like an "indian" answer to "indian" problems. I never thought "indic" was not "secular". You are defining "indic" like it is "hinduism viewpoint". Can you please explain?

[shiv]

As a former mod I have some views on moderators not joining threads. This is wholly unrealistic for the following reasons and I will mince no words in saying them since I carry no moderator responsibilities.

1) Moderating BRF is not a job, its a pain in the ass that people with an interest in BR do voluntarily in their own time.
2) In many topics - more than 50% of posts are utter boring crap - often people just sniping at each other and then saying "Mods please do something". This reminds of a child who craps in his chaddis and needs someone else to clean him up but protests when that is done. If you are asked to moderate a thread that does not interest you, you are forced to read the crap and still argue with the morons who are posting crap.

There is no alternative to allow mods to be human. Let them take part in discussions and let them moderate. But just allow people to ignore mods opinions. Mods can get in touch with a poster by making a note on his post which he cannot ignore or sending a PM which he must not ignore.

One should really use the "report post" button if you don't like something but the temptation to insult someone is often irresistible. So what we actually see on the forum is "When I crap, mods must clean me up only if I agree, but they must clean everyone else whenever I feel like it"

[shiv]

I always thought that "indic" viewpoint meant india-centric viewpoint, or something from Indian traditions like an "indian" answer to "indian" problems. I never thought "indic" was not "secular". You are defining "indic" like it is "hinduism viewpoint". Can you please explain?

Hardehar har!! Maybe I should report this post! You have not asked a question but you have started a thread in the guise of a question. I think this could be the topic of a thread that will get to 72 pages and still go nowhere . That should be typical BRF tradition. After that I will curse mods for allowing the thread to survive 72 pages.

Just you wait....

[ldev]

RaviBg,

I always thought that "indic" viewpoint meant india-centric viewpoint, or something from Indian traditions like an "indian" answer to "indian" problems. I never thought "indic" was not "secular". You are defining "indic" like it is "hinduism viewpoint". Can you please explain?

Please see my response to Jagan below,


Jagan,

I meant moderator(s) in plural in the event there are other members (philosophically opposed to me) who might think that certain moderators who are not "indic" enough.

I dont want to reopen the subject matter of that locked thread again (by answering RaviBg's question), unless mods are willing to discuss it. The bottom line is that the real issue is where the mods/owners want to take the forum.

[Arjun]

Re 'Indic' vs 'Secular' don't think the reality is as black 'n white and one-dimensional as made out to be. There are shades of opinion that traverse the full spectrum.

Furthermore, as someone who would prefer to describe oneself as both Indic and secular, I am constantly amazed and amused by the attempts I see by either side to malign the other term. Hindus claim to be the most plural of all religions -why they would not want to co-opt the word secularism on their own terms rather than trying to malign it, is something I have never understood. Conversely, Indic by definition stands for 'India-centric'. Why professed secularists should try and malign the term rather than co-opt and define it in their own terms is beyond me!

The bottom line is that the real issue is where the mods/owners want to take the forum.

That's dangerous territory. Other than setting guidelines that discourage flame-baiting, unwarranted generalizations and other defined disruptive posting, why should the mods want or be allowed to 'take' the forum in any direction? As much as India is a democracy, BR should be a democracy. The mods set the guidelines and define the rules, the ideas come from the forumites.

[Rahul M]

The bottom line is that the real issue is where the mods/owners want to take the forum.

That's dangerous territory. Other than setting guidelines that discourage flame-baiting, unwarranted generalizations and other defined disruptive posting, why should the mods want or be allowed to 'take' the forum in any direction? As much as India is a democracy, BR should be a democracy. The mods set the guidelines and define the rules, the ideas come from the forumites.

arjun ji, ldev ji here is trying once again to push his agenda by ascribing various non-existent motives to BR mods. this, after I explained quite clearly to him that mods don't set *any* agenda, they have *no* pre-planned path on which to take the forum nor do they intend to do so. I suggest you don't fall for his trap.

[ldev]

Push his agenda

Wow, I did not realize I had an agenda.

why should the mods want or be allowed to 'take' the forum in any direction

Because if they do not, other people will. You may have the most efficient moderating team in place savagely pruning individual posts. But you will target the trees and and not see the forest that has grown around you in the meantime. So even if the mods do not want to take the forum in any direction, they should be aware and vigilant if the forum is being taken in any direction by others. I would not define this as traditional moderation, but more of being a sort of a conscience of the forum. From RahulM's defensive reponse I can see he has no idea what I am taking about.

I suggest you don't fall for his trap

Wow!! Fighting words. Huh. So you think that other people do not set traps on the forum. Just LDev. And other members are just babes in the wood who have to warned about this scheming diagolical LDev Other members are all goody goody lambs filled only with good intentions in their hearts. Hey thanks for letting me also see how your mind works.

You have taken what has been a very straight attempt at least from my side to give my genuine input and are ascribing malafide motives to it out of what I can consider either ignorance or malice. So much for an earnest attempt at forum feedback.

Added later:
Talk to Shiv to and ask him (if he has not shared it with you) as to how he handled a situation relating to a past webmaster and me. IMO he handled it with class and offline. You will learn a lot.

[negi]

Ldev you are reading too much into the posts made in the heat of discussion by a small fraction of posters ;likewise if you did not observe mandir banao party, RSS, Sri Ram sene, LKG, Rajnath Singh and others have been made fun of and ridiculed on this very forum when the said posters deemed fit .
Yes there was a time when there were dedicated threads on topics like EJs and Islamists but that was long time back at least now there are no such threads on HAF don't know why you are raking it up now.
As for discussing religion well isn't it ironical/absurd that you wish to shy away from a topic which for whatever reasons is given so much importance by the GOI that there are committees busy profiling people churning out reems of reports and recommending reservations left right and center ?

[Rahul M]

ldev ji, in spite of your denials to the contrary your agenda is quite transparent.

Because if they do not, other people will.

thank you for that advice. I think you are absolutely mistaken on this.

actively pushing an agenda is not going to be allowed anytime soon (including yours, sorry to disappoint you). however, if majority of the members reach some kind of common ground without any active design on their part, it's not our job to try and modify it, even if it disagrees with our own POV (provided forum rules are not violated). (by 'we' I mean POV of mods, which itself is not a monolithic bloc, there are many varying POVs within that bunch)

So even if the mods do not want to take the forum in any direction, they should be aware and vigilant if the forum is being taken in any direction by others.

forum 'being taken' on a certain path and forum 'took a path on its own' are two different things. but I doubt you will appreciate the difference, given your obvious discomfiture with the mere 'existence' of thoughts other than your own.

I would not define this as traditional moderation, but more of being a sort of a conscience of the forum.

the forum 'conscience' is limited to a tolerant world view and a desire to see upliftment of India and her people.
beyond that, suggestions of thought policing masquerading as calls for 'conscience' and alleging bias if said suggestion is ignored verges on trying to control the forum by blackmail.
(e.g "if you don't listen to me, I will call you a nazi and a hindutvawadi !!")
I can only to that !!

From RahulM's defensive reponse I can see he has no idea what I am taking about.

on the contrary I have an excellent idea of what you are talking about. I'm also aware of your past posting record (which common members are not aware of) and that gives me an excellent idea what this is all about.

to put it in simple words, you want all viewpoints contrary to your own declared verboten on BR and you have tried to achieve this more than once, usually taking a sneaky potshot using a forum upheaval to put the mods on defensive with accusations of bias and what not.
or to put it in even simpler terms, you want thought policing in favour of your POV and against all other POV. I've seen enough over-jealous posts from you on this topic to understand what is going on.
but sorry to burst your balloon, it's not going to happen.

So much for an earnest attempt at forum feedback.

I'm sure the irony is lost upon you.

[Suraj]

Since moderators are effectively serving a judicial function on BRF, an alternative way of overcoming any moderator bias is to have the moderator/(s) for every thread clearly listed at the start of every thread. Such moderator/(s) cannot participate in that particular thread.

That is not possible. Forum moderation is a 24-hour job, while us moderators are not online at all times. We're all located in different parts of the world, in different time zones.

However, there's an informal agreement that a moderator actively participating in a thread will not moderate it, unless he is personally attacked or baited. To be honest, this was not always done uniformly, because each moderator has his own style, which others don't agree with, leading to arguments behind closed doors.

The easiest way for us to track a hot thread is if forumites report posts. However, from experience, most don't do that. There are some who do, and far from viewing them as snitchers or whiners, we're grateful that they report posts and make our jobs easier. Many instead get into the argument themselves, and then argue 'he started it!' when they're formally or informally warned.

As to driving agendas or bias, that's quite frankly ludicruous, and unworthy of response except where specific broad instances and actions are provided as evidence. Most of us moderators have never met each other. On my part, I've only ever met ramana during a few BRF meets, but don't know him personally beyond that. There are no blocs, whether it is old mod vs new mod, new vs new, old vs old or whatever - there have been vocal disagreements between mods of all those categories; every moderator has had vocal opinions that others were not in unanimous agreement with.

We've voted both to pick and remove moderators. Information on who favoured the selection of a new moderator is not known to those selected. Removal voting is similarly anonymous. Some of the inter-moderator arguments are as fractitious as the arguments among regular forumites. The moderator team is just a microcosm of the larger forum in as much as the level of agreement or disagreement is concerned. Most of our day to day communication is at best informal in the 'thread XYZ is getting derailed but I'd like someone to look at it since I'm busy' sense.

The general tone of discussions on the forum has evolved over the years. However, that is a result of the view of the largest group of posters. To about it brings to mind images of an old man sitting on a rocking chair complaining about the present and wishing for the 'good old days'.

Moderating opinion is something we tread carefully around. Once again, this is an ideal, and not one we've been always good at accomplishing uniformly, because we're a collection of independent people. Several excellent posters were lost, but some excellent ones were gained, or regained. If someone wants the forum to go in a particular direction, it is upto them to come (back, if applicable) here and coherently argue their case. The only institutional memory this forum has is an IP ban on blatant disrupters, after all.

[ldev]

Suraj,

Fair enough. If you cannot do it so be it. Thanks for that straight response.


RahulM,

Insinuations, incorrect characterizations, defensive and agressive phrases. And you are a moderator? You first have to have the ability to command respect from members. Learn from people like Shiv, JE Menon, Suraj, Calvin, SSridhar that come to mind immediately. Display some command of anything besides aggression and throwing your weight around as a moderator and getting into flame wars with posters. Frankly if there was an ignore feature for mods I would employ it in a hurry for you.

[Suraj]

ldev, please provide specific examples of the bias you are alleging, including examples of moderator-driven bias.

Further, what exactly is the issue with RahulM's responses to you ? He's clearly mentioned that this forum will go in the direction where the majority or most vocal minority of the posters lead it, just as I stated in my previous post. What exactly is your issue with that ? What do you suggest we do, considering I've already stated that moderating opinions is something we try not to do ?

[Rahul M]

ldev ji, so you can't respect me ? I'm quite OK with that.
my job is to run BR smoothly along with other mods. if people respect me, that is fine. if they don't respect me that too is fine, I expected from day 1 that I'm not going to win any popularity contest.

oh and btw, I do stand by my "Insinuations, incorrect characterizations, defensive and agressive phrases", as you call it. you might think that trying to drive a wedge through the mod team is a very sophisticated method to isolate the one mod who spoke out against your 'method', on the contrary, such tactics are quite transparent to most. FYI, my opinion on your posting trends is fully shared by a number of the mod team, though I may have been the only one to speak my mind.

Display some command of anything besides aggression and throwing your weight around as a moderator and getting into flame wars with posters.

accusing mods of misuse of power, this and that is nothing new, most members display similar behaviour when they are called out by mods for foul-play. we get that all the time.
calling them worthless (as you did in a rather long-winded fashion !) is also a commonplace if a rather lame attempt to get back at a disciplining mod.

to wrap up, I will make just one observation, many of the people you mention as ideal genuinely believe that throwing out a disturbing element is the best way to ensure peace and tranquility on BR. it is precisely because I do NOT throw my weight around that we are still having this conversation here. in case this happened with most other mods, your user ID would already have been history by now !

----------------------

J-gun saar, can this please be taken offline? This does not reflect well on us, and this is not feedback anymore.
People should agree to disagree, but I see the good Dr.'s point in action right here.

PS: Don't pounce on the messenger. We would like to avoid another unsavory episode.

marten sahab, don't worry. pushing things under the carpet is not BR's way of doing things.
BR mods understand that they will be unpopular in certain quarters, namely those who are not an asset to this forum and are therefore treated accordingly. believe me, they couldn't care less. and no, this does not harm the forum's reputation in any way.
these exchanges, while rather tiring, are not a complete waste of time. some people indulge in shoot and scoot tactics under the guise of 'honest feedback' during states of flux (this is decidedly not the first time) which tends to mislead impressionable readers. they choose the timing well enough so that most mods are busy with other things which allows them to sneak under the radar.
Now, what they say may be inconsequential by itself but BR can't allow such baseless allegations and attempts at 'remote controlling' to stand time and time again. otherwise they become the 'truth' over time, if repeated often enough, if you know what I mean.
there are two ways to stop this, either to debate the points and expose the claims (this process is nearing its end at the moment) or to ban the user outright for making unsubstantiated insinuations. I think the first way is a better way to convince the handful of readers of this forum who chose to believe the allegations.

[niran]

reading this thread one feels it is dhishum-dhishum thread

BTW a question to the Admins, can we have the RSS capability as in the previous version.
it is very helpfull and time saving feature.

[Rahul M]

reading this thread one feels it is dhishum-dhishum thread

BTW a question to the Admins, can we have the RSS capability as in the previous version.
it is very helpfull and time saving feature.

hindutvawadi !
your inner bias came out, what ?

muslims and christians are not Indians ?

try replying to that !
( )
-------------------

marten sahab, I've no intention to ban anyone for disagreeing with me. In fact I even ignore most personal attacks if they are directed solely towards me. but repeated attempts at derailing this thread and forum will bring its own consequences and not necessarily from me.

If you notice, the past four such instances ended up in personal attacks and expulsions.

you are mistaken on this. it is personal attacks elsewhere that led to those incidents here, not the other way around. the 'cause' was different from what you think.
secondly, no one has been expelled on this to my knowledge.

However, can the conversation be conducted in a manner so it does not get personal?

of course, it is being conducted in an impersonal manner AFA I understand.
do you disagree ?

pursuing the conversation by yourself will end up looking like a lynching.

asking someone to back up his/her statements or even to substantiate the "to whom it may concern" type of accusations is not lynching, or is it ? If someone is attacking me personally, I do have the right to defend myself don't I ?

[niran]

hindutvawadi !
your inner bias came out, what ?

muslims and christians are not Indians ?

try replying to that !
( )

-------------------

teh!heh! heh! you have the crown saarji, so you are to format a reply, not an abdul.
BTW by RSS i meant this RSS and yes you should be ashamed of yourself to even to hint of that RSS here.

[ramana]

Marten of your total 11 posts more than half are here. Whats up?

BTW this is my first post in this thread and previous one.

[Rahul M]

About the expulsions - was talking only about member G**va and the other that I cannot remember

how is that related to this issue ? gandharva was banned for a completely different offence. (offensive post against a particular community)
I'm sorry but you are bringing in subjects that are not germane to this discussion.

[Dmurphy]

BTW a question to the Admins, can we have the RSS capability as in the previous version.
it is very helpfull and time saving feature.

Yeah, I have been sugggesting the same since quite some time now. Its a superb feature and one can jump directly to the 'subscribed' threads without having to wade through the entire list of threads. One can even bookmark particular posts if one wants to. Mods, a kind request to look into it.

[Dmurphy]

Mods, why is PM disabled for mere mortals like me?

[krishnan]

It was never enabled.

[ldev]

ldev, please provide specific examples of the bias you are alleging, including examples of moderator-driven bias.

OK, lets say that poster x says, "I dont believe official statistics, I am sure that the Christian population of Tamil Nadu is 20% and AP is 20%. This damn YS Rajashekhara Reddy is a bloody EJ appointed by that Italian madam and the Pope."

What does one make of a statment like that. Numerous statements, too numerous to count and remember such as this have been posted on BRF over the last 2-3 years. If you want me give you every instance I will have to go through every single such thread for the last 2 years and find someone who has archived them. Has there been any mod censure of something as outrageous as that? If so how many times. The latest example is in the AP/Telengana thread in terms of the succession for the AP CM's post . Now, I am a Christian, but certainly not an EJ. Its statements such as these that make me wonder whether BRF has any need for anyone other than Hindus (preferably right wing Hindus holding extreme viewpoints). Statement such as that imply that Christians are not Indians or not loyal to India or concern as to why is it that a person who is a Christian can and should become the CM of an Indian state. That somehow the Indian state "khatrey mein hain", because this Christian is the CM of AP. The unspoken implication seems to be that anyone who is not a Hindu cannot be trusted to be loyal to India or to have the best interests of India in mind. Because numerous statements which either directly state that or imply that have not been challenged by moderators. Also that official statistics collected by the Census Bureau about the Christian population at 2% are lies. Would there have been moderation apathy if similarly xenophobic statements had been made about Hinduism repeatedly over a year? Will such posters have the privilege of staying on BRF or will they be unceremoniously booted out? Dont you think that this is bias? Arent these the kinds of reasons why people like BRaman made comments that BRF has become a right wing website? Why would somebody like RayC, with all his service to the country call RahulM, a RSS fanboy? Is RayC mad? Or is he an apologist for EJs?

Most of my participation on BRF has been either in the economics area or the nuclear thread and some in geopolitical discussions. If I had an agenda as has been alleged by RahulM I would have participated in an area where I have an agenda. In fact I would have got 50 other like minded people and asked them to all join and participate in those threads where I want to push my agenda. BRF would then go in the direction where my most vocal minority of posters would lead it as you say in your post. As to what my agenda is supposed to be is a mystery to me because I participate in those threads where I have an interest and have avoided supercharged threads where such xenophobic comments have been posted repeatedly. If I participate in the economics thread e.g. I would love to find out what my agenda there is.

This feedback thread is the only one where I have posted my position on such issues based on what I perceive has been happening as given in the example in the para above. And my very first post on this thread during all of time on BRF since Nov 2002 was made not more than 1 week ago. RahulM calls this shoot and scoot and having an agenda, whatever that may mean. I have already indicated very clearly that I have an issue in terms of time posting on BRF. He has twisted that into "shoot and scoot".

What do you suggest we do, considering I've already stated that moderating opinions is something we try not to do ?

Looking at the way this has turned into a tamasha, I am not sure what you can do.

[Dmurphy]

It was never enabled.

I know, but why? Don't you think some of these public tussles would stop and shift to an underground level, beyond the public view, if we enable PMs? That would also mean lesser work for the Mods.

No offence meant to anybody.

[ldev]

Suraj,

One more point of clarification.

Going through the dregs of my memory I remember the last time I participated on a discussion on religion was a few years ago when it had become quite charged up with Shiv, Alok_N and Calvin among others participating. My personal view at that time based on my not very irreverant attitude towards religion was that people should have free choice in terms of available religions i.e. the wider the choice the better off is the consumer. And if Christianity or any other religion wanted to prosleytize so be it. However, I subsequently realized how sensitive the whole issue of religion is and my personal opinion changed 2-3 years ago that in the interests of harmony in India laissez faire in terms of spreading religion is not advisable. I am adding these dregs from my memory now in the event that RahulM is busy trying to dig out my posting record to prove to other moderators,"See this LDev fellow is a fraud. he has posted on religion in 2005 and he claims that he only posts on economics and nuclear matters...."

There used to be a prolific poster by the name of Vick. See why he stopped posting and under what circumstances. I think if you want to look for evidence there is enough that a lot of people who are non Hindu have stopped posting on BRF. I am one of the few thick skinned ones who has continued posting.

[Jagan]

Brig Ray Chaudhary

Your posts have been moved to Trash -

you know what your problem is with the rest of the Mod team, so do the rest of us. Whatever was posted in by you in your previous posts is unsubstantiated and false. If it had been posted by a regular poster, it would have earned that poster enough warnings to get him banned by now. But Most of the Moderator team has been extending you the courtesy as an ex mod, as a retired army veteran, that we respect. However we only take it to an extent. If you contnue to post unsubstantiated allegations. you leave me with no choice but to moderate your posting rights.

-Jagan

[RayC]

DELETED