Captain Ewok - what in the world is going on?

[^_^ 5,021]

I reported a post last night that contained the following : "The Great Lie told and retold over and over again for the last 9 years, is that Islam was not responsible for 9/11."

The implication clearly being that Islam - not a group of Muslims, but the entire faith of Islam - was responsible for 9/11.

Any objective person will see this as a smear, as an attempt to degrade an entire group of people.

But not a VJ moderator. A VJ moderator (I won't name him/her) has responded to my report claiming the post to be "factual" and "scholarly".

Captain Ewok - what in the world is going on? Are these 'changes' by design or are you so removed from this website that you've allowed your moderators to run amok?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You got my vote for moderator!

[LaL 418]

But not a VJ moderator. A VJ moderator (I won't name him/her) has responded to my report claiming the post to be "factual" and "scholarly".

I am not surprised that this was posted in OT. Nor am I shocked that this filth received a +1 from some other douche. Quoted above has shocked me though.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think even without the context of the shooters other posts on that subject, including a link to a notorious hate site, its hard to see how that blog wasn't defamatory.

Things that are full of loaded language are definitely not scholarly.

[^_^ 5,021]

Things that are full of loaded language are definitely not scholarly.

I have a feeling the moderator who PMd me doesn't know much about scholarship.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Too bad it's against the TOS, but it would be informative to see that PM....

[^_^ 5,021]

Too bad it's against the TOS, but it would be informative to see that PM....

It is against TOS. Now, if the moderator would come on here and deny ever having said that, I'd reproduce it in full (and get suspended).

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This is what was posted in that thread. There is nothing scholarly about this. Anyone of a Muslim persuasion reading VJ would likely feel victimized by this.

sultanknish.blogspot.com/2010/08/muslim-hijacking-of-ground-zero.html

If "profane" words are being censored for being against the TOS of a "family based" immigration board, what the eff is this ####### going to add to an immigration board with a diverse international membership?

[^_^ 5,021]

Saying who sent you the PM does not violate the TOS.

Ok, I assumed it did. But even then, I think I'll give the admin team some time to resolve this internally.

[^_^ 5,021]

LOL! Well I suppose anything is possible. Breath-holding not recommended.

[^_^ 5,021]

Well...I should clarify. The admin team will indeed handle it internally. And by "handle it internally," I mean that somebody will step forward with a few weasel words about how the mods and admins are volunteers and how it's ever so hard and yes mistakes are made (but you won't get an actual admission to a specific "mistake") and oh hey, dontchaknow that the TOS only applies in nebulous shadowy terms when it comes to OT, which basically means that people are free to be racist and/or misogynist a**holes, but for ####'s sake do not post an ACTUAL scholarly work in latin because that will result in a suspension.

So yeah, it'll be handled internally.

What I'm looking for is an admission by moderation that the post in question violates TOS. How they get there is unimportant.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Cap'n Ewok, as a regular on the OT and a knowledgeable practicing Muslim who spends waaay too much time defending my faith and my co-adherents from hateful posters on a site that ostensively champions diversity and cross-cultural accommodation, I demand to know who the moderator is who believes that links to anti-Muslim sites are ok and that Islam was responsible for 9/11. I demand to know who hides behind a moderating authority and is either so ignorant or so biased to believe this to be so. They help to make my presence and participation here much less pleasant and dialogue among us all much less rational. I hope that's not ok.

[^_^ 5,021]

The moderator in question has responded to me with another PM. He or she has retracted his/her description of the post as "scholarly" but insists the post does not violate TOS. He/she has also suggested I appeal to Ewok if I feel the post in question was biased.

And he/she threw in a comparison to my "Cordoba, summarized" thread which I don't quite understand.

[LaL 418]

Are they skipping the first part of the sentence and just reading the second half? I really cannot understand this, and if this is the case - other moderators agree as well?

[Brad and Vika 129]

As the newest mod, I wanted to add my two cents in here - starting with - Wow! I am thoroughly surprised that even AJ would create a separate thread about all this. I looked at a post or two, ran an errand, and - Wow

Ah. Then my original point stands. Breath-holding not recommended.

Welcome back mox! I wondered where you have been hiding/lurking. Good to see you.

Cap'n Ewok, as a regular on the OT and a knowledgeable practicing Muslim who spends waaay too much time defending my faith and my co-adherents from hateful posters on a site that ostensively champions diversity and cross-cultural accommodation, I demand to know who the moderator is who believes that links to anti-Muslim sites are ok and that Islam was responsible for 9/11. I demand to know who hides behind a moderating authority and is either so ignorant or so biased to believe this to be so. They help to make my presence and participation here much less pleasant and dialogue among us all much less rational. I hope that's not ok.

Sofiyya - It was me - the new guy. I wanted to respond to you specifically because it looks to me that you have a serious, legitimate concern here that is faith based, and you aren't creating drama for its own sake. First, I do not agree that hate language is OK, and have sanctioned members already for doing so. I apologize if my leaving the site link up offends you, and that was not my intent. Of course I will abide by any decision Ewok makes without protest here.

I do believe that all of us have a right to an opinion, especially here. The article seemed at first quick read to contain mostly opinion, with an amount of historical perspective. And yes, scholarly was way too strong. I also did state that the Cordoba thread has some pics that are also inflammatory (although I think they are amusing too). As a moderator, I don't think my job is to defend any one's faith, you all are capable of that if you care to do so. Also, I believe that all members should be able to take and illustrate a position, and be given SOME latitude to do so.

The moderator in question has responded to me with another PM. He or she has retracted his/her description of the post as "scholarly" but insists the post does not violate TOS. He/she has also suggested I appeal to Ewok if I feel the post in question was biased.

And he/she threw in a comparison to my "Cordoba, summarized" thread which I don't quite understand.

Even though your response doesn't really surprise me much, don't you think it a silly waste of time to attack me without asking questions? Your message was pretty clear "If I don't like it - you WILL remove it, or hear me scream to eternity". Next time dial it down and just ask me, try presenting a persuasive argument instead of hysteria and attacks. And please understand, absolutely no one was responding to this with a PM. I was responding to your PM with a PM. I suggested you appeal to Ewok because that is how the system works in my understanding. You weren't really suggesting anything other than that I immediately reverse myself because you reported something and didn't like the result. You also suggested I am biased, presumably because I don't agree with you. Seriously, dialogue is better.

Are they skipping the first part of the sentence and just reading the second half? I really cannot understand this, and if this is the case - other moderators agree as well?

I do tend towards a fairly liberal interpretation of what is strong (or slanted) opinion, and therefore a subject for debate here (as opposed to name calling and hate). Sometimes letting some edgy stuff in is a good thing, as it encourages a healthy debate. That was the idea. You would find me letting in sites that claim outrageous things about other religions too, for the same reasons.

Again, apologies to any who are truly offended. For those among us who just like to scream, let 'er rip.