Moderators Are Pointless

[TheScashMan]

The concept of moderators (not just on this forum, but in principle) is lost on me (and I'm assuming most others who tend to follow Libertarian values).

A moderator should not exist. A webmaster (Administrator) should. BUT, their role should be to create a site for fans (of whatever genre) to enjoy/debate/discuss/argue even, but they should remain silent on all topics and ideally only log in once a month just to make sure endless spam posts of ''buy Viagra'' are deleted.

The problem with mods who like to throw their weight around is that they will always let their personal feelings get in the way of debate rather than do what they should do: stay neutral/silent and ONLY delete spam. But, because they cannot be even trusted to do that, they should be stripped of their status and be on the same platform as everyone else. I am confident that most people are put off by moderated forums, as it severely restricts what the web SHOULD be about: the free exchange of ideas and to debate without censorship (or the lingering threat of it).

Now moderators (and you're not going to like this) are only confident in debate not because of any intellectual capacity, but because they hold unfair advantages of thread locking/banning and other totalitarian practices that stink of fascism.

I do not care if I am unpopular for this belief, but let us see how many fascists and how many free minds actually linger on this forum.

So, the question is: are moderators even needed? My answer is a certified NO.

[James]

Have you ventured over to CommanderBond yet?

[katied]

You know, I've had my issues with the mods here but I have to say: They have a thankless job. This board has gone through quite a few periods where people were fighting with each other and trying to ref(because that is the only word for it!) this board was the mods' job. And it is not one I would take, were I asked(like I'm going to! ) It's other stuff-keeping the board up and running,maintenace, too.

As for the locking threads, less the ones that have been closed because of threadjacking I don't see it being done excessively here.

[Kristatos]

Just because you have opinions doesn't mean that people are obliged to listen to them. You strike me as the sort of person who traps people in a corner at parties and bellows at them for hours about what's wrong with the world. I see the job of the mods as to extricate the poor sods who have been trapped in this way and allow them to rejoin the party.

[TheScashMan]

Just because you have opinions doesn't mean that people are obliged to listen to them. You strike me as the sort of person who traps people in a corner at parties and bellows at them for hours about what's wrong with the world. I see the job of the mods as to extricate the poor sods who have been trapped in this way and allow them to rejoin the party.

You're personalising this. Plus, you're a mod. Now, if you and I get into heated discussion, I am EXPECTING you to either ban me and/or to lock this thread. Thus, you will prove my point already stated in my OP that mods should really refrain from debate. Let us see if you are fair minded or dictatorial.

Also, you don't know me, and no, I don't trap people in corners in debate. What I do do, however, is open very simple, uncomplicated concepts like free discussion and debate, and then to see just how many people ACTUALLY believe in said concepts. Curiously, and from my own research, it seems the majority of sheeple do NOT care about liberty, which would also explain why Ron Paul didn't even get a look in during the 2008 US elections.. but that's slightly off topic. Let's try to stay with this particular issue, shall we?

[TheScashMan]

Have you ventured over to CommanderBond yet?

Yes, unfortunately. That has to be the most mindless, thought-controlled Bond forum I have ever encountered.

[Kristatos]

Ron Paul is considerably smarter than most of the weird, socially inept members of his cult, and so understands that "it's only censorship if the government does it". There's no absolute right to freedom of speech on a private forum, and your right to express your opinions has to be balanced against the right of people not to have to read (for example) your inevitable 3-page diatribe expounding the "truth" about 9/11 if and when you decide to post it. Yes, I know where all this is leading. Wherever there's a Paulbot, there's a conspiracy theory.

[TheScashMan]

There's no absolute right to freedom of speech on a private forum.

The forum is intended to be displayed, and, indeed, COMMENTED on and BY members of the PUBLIC! Plus, the values of free speech and debate should be encouraged on such platforms, rather than discouraged.

It is clear that whilst you may like the 1st Amendment in theory, in pactice, you seem to dislike it, hence your strong opposition to dropping your mod powers and to actually engage with your peers at the same level. THAT is why moderators are NOT needed on fan forums other than to clean up copyrighted materials or blatant spam (i.e. the viagra reference I already outlined in my OP).

[katied]

The copyrighted stuff has never really been an issue here..doesn't mean we don't need mods though.


This place would be a free for all without them(not that it hasn't been a bit of a free for all at times..there is a limit, though )

[Kristatos]

It is clear that whilst you may like the 1st Amendment in theory, in pactice, you seem to dislike it,

Firstly, I'm not American, though I lived in the States for 6 years. Secondly, the First Amendment, like the rest of the constitution, is designed to limit the powers of government, not of private individuals. I would defend your right to expound on Roger Moore or anything else without fear of arrest or imprisonment. But that doesn't mean you have a right to harangue people on this forum without any negative consequences.

[Kristatos]

The copyrighted stuff has never really been an issue here..doesn't mean we don't need mods though.

Not true, we've had at least one example of a poster submitting links to illegal copies of movies that were still playing in cinemas at the time (I think it was back when The Dark Knight was first released).

[katied]

The copyrighted stuff has never really been an issue here..doesn't mean we don't need mods though.

Not true, we've had at least one example of a poster submitting links to illegal copies of movies that were still playing in cinemas at the time (I think it was back when The Dark Knight was first released).

I stand corrected


I know it's a big deal elsewhere;that doesn't mean that people don't still do it(ones who know better, at that!)

[TheScashMan]

It is clear that whilst you may like the 1st Amendment in theory, in pactice, you seem to dislike it,

Firstly, I'm not American, though I lived in the States for 6 years. Secondly, the First Amendment, like the rest of the constitution, is designed to limit the powers of government, not of private individuals. I would defend your right to expound on Roger Moore or anything else without fear of arrest or imprisonment. But that doesn't mean you have a right to harangue people on this forum without any negative consequences.

What's the point of opening up a public forum designed, by it's very nature, for public and free debate if you AREN'T going to adhere to the basic principles of free speech and expression (The CORE values protected in not just the 1st Amendment, but in any society that values liberty)?

I'm sorry, but your excuses just don't cut it I'm afraid. Leading by example is clearly not one of your strong points!

[katied]

I don't buy the "No free speech allowed here" stuff. Differences of opinion? Yes.But lack of free speech? Not really.


Personally, while I like being able to discuss the Bond films, I also really like the general discussion forums. There's some really cool threads going on there(turns out there's some commonality with the posters here as far as TV and movies goes!)

[The Sweeney]

It is clear that whilst you may like the 1st Amendment in theory, in pactice, you seem to dislike it,

Firstly, I'm not American, though I lived in the States for 6 years. Secondly, the First Amendment, like the rest of the constitution, is designed to limit the powers of government, not of private individuals. I would defend your right to expound on Roger Moore or anything else without fear of arrest or imprisonment. But that doesn't mean you have a right to harangue people on this forum without any negative consequences.

What's the point of opening up a public forum designed, by it's very nature, for public and free debate if you AREN'T going to adhere to the basic principles of free speech and expression (The CORE values protected in not just the 1st Amendment, but in any society that values liberty)?

I'm sorry, but your excuses just don't cut it I'm afraid. Leading by example is clearly not one of your strong points!

The problems with many of your posts Scashy, is that they often attack others if they don't agree with your opening post. This is not looking for a debate, but looking to provoke a fight. There is a difference.

You can actually start a debate, but coming out with statements like Roger Moore could still play Bond in his 80's, clearly this will never happen, and you must be the only person on the planet that would actually want to see an old grandad kissing young Bond girls. The fact that you still think Moore looks no more than a man in his 50's means you are deluded, and are seeing something in him no one else can clearly see. Starting this kind of debate, you have to expect some kind of negative reaction to your OP. People either think you are doing this as some kind of wind-up, a joke, or if you are being deadly serious, then maybe you are ill and need some kind of therapy. It is very difficult to try and engage in a serious debate with someone who states that Roger Moore should still be playing Bond, or that Moonraker should have bagged loads of Oscars. You are either taking the p!ss, or having an extremely poor taste in what an Oscar-winning film should be.

And if someone doesn't agree with you that Moore put in an Oscar-winning performance in Octopussy, you reply with `hogwash!' This isn't continuing the deabte from your side then either, but merely looking as though are just trying to wind everyone up.

[Kristatos]

In my experience, what happens without strong moderators is not a flowering of open debate, but its domination by loudmouthed bullies like yourself. If you don't like the way we do things here, there is nothing stopping you setting up your own forum and applying your own rules. The domain name rogermooreshouldstillbebond.com is available, I just checked. But I suspect you'd be talking to yourself in there, and I think you suspect it too, which is why you're so keen to ensure a semi-captive audience here.

[Captain Nash]

There were members who were upset to see Scashy removed for a second time from Mi6, so you may get an increase in membership.
I'm one of the select few who find Scashy neither funny or clever.
Reminds me almost of Andy Kaufman, what with his bizarre comments, aggressive style, getting a rise out of people no matter what.
But then I remembered. Andy Kaufman was funny.

[The Sweeney]

In my experience, what happens without strong moderators is not a flowering of open debate, but its domination by loudmouthed bullies like yourself. If you don't like the way we do things here, there is nothing stopping you setting up your own forum and applying your own rules. The domain name rogermooreshouldstillbebond.com is available, I just checked. But I suspect you'd be talking to yourself in there, and I think you suspect it too, which is why you're so keen to ensure a semi-captive audience here.

[TheScashMan]

The problems with many of your posts Scashy, is that they often attack others if they don't agree with your opening post. This is not looking for a debate, but looking to provoke a fight. There is a difference.

I am usually ridiculed/insulted first before I tell my foes that their opinions are worthless!

You can actually start a debate, but coming out with statements like Roger Moore could still play Bond in his 80's, clearly this will never happen, and you must be the only person on the planet that would actually want to see an old grandad kissing young Bond girls. The fact that you still think Moore looks no more than a man in his 50's means you are deluded, and are seeing something in him no one else can clearly see.

Actually, I recently came across a Bond reunion: http://www.photoshelter.com/c/capitalpi ... UAHT4bhA--

Those photos not only offer conclusive PROOF that Sir Rog is still looking youthful (And more than able to pull of a Bond movie or two again) but that also Jaws and Lee are looking in excellent shape too.

It is very difficult to try and engage in a serious debate with someone who states that Roger Moore should still be playing Bond, or that Moonraker should have bagged loads of Oscars. You are either taking the p!ss, or having an extremely poor taste in what an Oscar-winning film should be.

The Oscars get it wrong 99% of the time, and by not giving any of Moore's Bond films the awards was outrageous!

And if someone doesn't agree with you that Moore put in an Oscar-winning performance in Octopussy, you reply with `hogwash!' This isn't continuing the deabte from your side then either, but merely looking as though are just trying to wind everyone up.

Frogwash!

It's not just hogwash but frogwash too! And poppycock and coddswallap if I am even more appalled!

[TheScashMan]

In my experience, what happens without strong moderators is not a flowering of open debate, but its domination by loudmouthed bullies like yourself. If you don't like the way we do things here, there is nothing stopping you setting up your own forum and applying your own rules. The domain name rogermooreshouldstillbebond.com is available, I just checked. But I suspect you'd be talking to yourself in there, and I think you suspect it too, which is why you're so keen to ensure a semi-captive audience here.

Considering that I am always fending foes solo, usually against 3 or more people at a time, suggests that it is not I who bullies, does it not?

And your response only proves to me yet again how little people ACTUALLY believe in the free-flow of debate and discussion that the early web USED TO embrace. As an example, you and the other mods here should drop your mod powers and become regular members. The fact that you won't appalls me. How disappointing. I am disgusted!