Responding to
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 34#p792134
Rahul M wrote:
Honestly, I don't think any of Dhiman's posts on this thread merited a ban. What did he do? Criticize Israel? Since when is that against the rules here?
RD ji, may I know why you are '
imagining' some reason when the actual reason has been already given above in the post edits ?
I've no problems with posts criticizing israel (or even India for that matter)
provided it is backed up by facts and logic.
at least, that's BR for me.
The reason given in the post edits has been "trolling" (and in one case, "yakyaking"). However, what has been left behind of Dhiman's posts (regardless of its merits in terms of logical argument) does not seem to constitute anything objectionable. And like it or not, that is what anyone coming to this discussion thread at a later point is going to see of it... what has been left behind.
As far as I can see, Dhiman has not engaged in trollish behaviour.
which is correct, because you cannot 'see' the trollish content anymore.those posts have been edited.
you were not there when the 'trolling' happened, so this taking a strong stand without knowing what happened is not justified IMO.
Well of course, my impression is going to be based on what I can see, not what has been edited out. So is anybody else's that comes along later, whether or not they share my opinions or choose to say anything about it.
And what I see on that thread is that one poster who expressed an opinion critical of Israel has been jumped by others who are pro-Israeli, not with rational arguments alone but with ad-hominem attacks as well. Yet, only the poster critical of Israel has had his posts edited and has eventually been banned outright (evidently without being accorded the usual process of official warnings). Whether or not that is an accurate impression, that is how it appears.
May I suggest that, when banning a poster for "trolling", it might make sense to do one of two things.
1) Leave the poster's "trollish" posts intact, so that they may serve as a justification for the ban, and also as an example to others of what kind of posts are not tolerated. This could be accompanied by a request to other posters not to respond further to what the banned person has said (in case they actually need to be told, which they shouldn't).
2) If the above alternative appears unseemly, then delete the entire discussion initiated by the banned poster, including posts responding to the alleged troll. If the whole thing was a flame-worthy bit of nonsense anyway, there's no sense in leaving any of it hanging around.
Either of the above approaches would avoid conveying the impression of any issue-based one-sidedness on the part of the Admins. I may be unjustified in assuming that such one-sidedness exists regarding the issue of Israel, but again, I was responding to the impression that I'm currently receiving on that thread.
Note : if you have problems with my moderation you are free to approach any other mod or the site owner. in case you have a reply I would appreciate if you can put it in forum feedback thread, I'll do likewise then.
I don't have problems with any moderator's actions in general, and whenever I've had problems or questions in a particular instance I have raised them, as here.
) let's just say I'm willing to take that risk. it's impossible to please everyone and I'm not going to try.
statements/declarations. Spent half the morning searching for these threads, but got diverted by other stuff as usual. Where are these, pls?
or it is AdM removing it there?