JTF.ORG Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Trumpeldor on May 18, 2007, 11:38:23 PM
-
What happened to the idea of a moderators-only section? I thought that was a good idea. If this is implemented in addition to an official policy, all the moderators who are online at the time can quickly gather and ideally reach a consensus before rash decisions are made and the order of the forum is turned upside down.
For those of you who haven't been here recently, this is how things went down:
The poster Chaimfan, in a thread about military solutions to the Gaza crisis, stated that the terrorist Arabs of Eretz Yisrael should be shot in the streets, the children killed, and the women raped. He then said that the Bible backs this up. Obviously, his absurd statement garnered general criticism.
The moderator Jeffguy left an ambiguously-worded post, in which he described that he was beginning to "question Chaimfan's position here." Chaimfan then reiterated his point.
Chaimfan got banned for a week by Jeffguy (and solely Jeffguy), on the basis of this post and because of past posts that have been retroactively deemed harmful to the forum. Never was Chaimfan warned on those past posts that they would go "on his file". He got a slap on the wrists and had to edit or delete some comments. There was no policy!
Allen-T wrote, at the time of the banning, "I would like to add that Jeffguy has made me aware of a problem with Chaimfan since about 2 weeks ago. Though I haven't personally gone over the postings in question."
It seems that Jeffguy has a long-standing problem with Chaimfan. Why couldn't this be worked behind the scenes? Why couldn't the two of them have a discussion?
Why couldn't Jeffguy show the 'offending' posts to Allen-T? The burden of proof must lay with the prosecution.
Further, Chaim personally likes Chaimfan! Do all of Chaimfan's quality posts go out the window because of some recent controversy? Why wasn't the line clearly drawn? If other posters can get away with equally offensive postings (there are many, and I can find them for you), why is Chaimfan punished? I don't believe that the more offensive comments are even bannable offenses anyway.
Several posters, including myself, argued that what Chaimfan said was wrong, but that he should not have been banned. Several moderators questioned his banning yet added said they 'understood' Jeffguy.
Our Chief Admin, Yacov, said he was unaware that a banning took place. He immediately questioned the banning. He then posted a poll, entitled "Should Chaimfan be banned?" Several posters and moderators objected to the poll, for various reasons. Yacov removed the poll.
Here is what the JTF Forum stipulates:
4. Threats and personal insults are not acceptable, and will lead to the banning of members who engage in such conduct. The administrators may decide to first provide a warning to any member making threats or personal insults, or may to decide to ban such members immediately [note, "immediately"-not arbitrarily weeks later...by the way, Chaimfan and Yacov had recently reached some sort of agreement on personal attacks and he has honored that agreement).
Now, you may ask, was Chaimfan posting a personal insult? No.
Was he posting a threat? No. He wasn't about to hop on El Al, take a machine gun, and start gunning down Muzzies. Nor was he encouraging, or inciting others do so. He was simply offering his interpretation of the bible. Some would say it was twisted, most would call it offensive, but few would call it a threat, and hence ban-worthy.
Was it bad judgment to push it as far as he did? I would say so.
2. In accordance with this goal (rule 1), the JTF Forum seeks to provide JTF supporters with the opportunity to express their views, to develop their debating skills, and to learn facts which may not be available elsewhere. JTF hopes that this experience will build new and effective leadership for both the Jews and the Righteous Gentiles in the struggle to save both America and Israel.
Chaimfan, as a JTF supporter, was merely expressing his views. Nowhere else on the internet can Chaimfan say that stuff he said on this forum for the last few months. I think we can all agree on that. Opponents of Chaimfan's views should debate him with facts and information.
For the most part, I have avoided conflict on this forum. Though I have been posting here since September, it's fair to say that I haven't pissed off too many people. I have watched this forum grow and for the most part, I have shown myself to be pretty mild mannered. If you feel I have personally slighted you in this thread or in any thread on this topic, I apologize. That wasn't my intention. However, no one is above criticism and in this case, there is a lot of it to go around.
It is my sincerest hope that those in charge will accept responsibility for this 'miscommunication' and will take immediate steps to rectify the situation. Chaimfan is owed a reinstatement and an apology. I am confident that by Sunday evening at the latest, he will receive both.
-
We have that but only moderators can see it!
I stand corrected. But why wasn't it utilized in this case?
-
Ask Jeffguy. I was gone from the computer for maybe half an hour and it was already done. He made the decision on the spot.
I'm not blaming you, Yacov.
Also, I like Jeffguy. I stood up for him when he was nominated as a moderator and when he took some heat from two posters.
-
yaacov, I actually am of the belief that this forum was better when only you and Jimmy were in control. We have moderators who are offended when we attack shvartzas and who are even showing some signs of sympathy for the Islamic cause as evident in the Chaimfan case. We have too many moderators who clearly do not share Chaim's views. I actually know where Chaim lives in Queens. I feel like ringing his doorbell and letting him know that if he wants this forum to remain his mirror image, he better see to it that only Yaacov and Jimmy have any authority.
-
yaacov, I actually am of the belief that this forum was better when only you and Jimmy were in control. We have moderators who are offended when we attack shvartzas and who are even showing some signs of sympathy for the Islamic cause as evident in the Chaimfan case. We have too many moderators who clearly do not share Chaim's views. I actually know where Chaim lives in Queens. I feel like ringing his doorbell and letting him know that if he wants this forum to remain his mirror image, he better see to it that only Yaacov and Jimmy have any authority.
I think that for the most part, the moderators do a great job. I think they are all fantastic people. They would have to be, in order to be selected for such a job. We have some great people here! What is needed, however, is some concrete rules/guidelines for moderators.
If the trust between posters and moderators is destroyed further, through similar incidents, this cannot be a successful forum.
I agree with DownWithIslam's sentiments on another thread that the power to ban should rest only with Yacov and Jimmy. Of course, the moderators should have input. However, if the power to ban will still rest with the moderators, as I presume it will, there must be a policy in place as to avoid abuse/chaos/etc...
I am hoping that some good comes of all this. Hence, the thread title.
-
I think we have too many left wing moderators on here.
-
I think we have too many left wing moderators on here.
Go on, name names and stop being cryptic
-
What some might call "left wing", I call reasoned. Just because someone has a less violent opinion than you doesn't mean they're left wing. When you advocate mass violence against people you're running off the far right wing and landing on the far left. They're one in the same.
-
What some might call "left wing", I call reasoned. Just because someone has a less violent opinion than you doesn't mean they're left wing. When you advocate mass violence against people you're running off the far right wing and landing on the far left. They're one in the same.
We all agree that what Chaimfan said was wrong. However, does that mean he deserved to be banned? What about people here who say G-d caused Hurricane Katrina? What about people here who say the government planned 9/11? Don't those statements make us look bad? How about the affirmative action part of the forum, which features thread after thread of some of the most racist views on the internet?
Chaimfan was not warned. He was banned by a single administrator.
If he was warned, he would have removed the offending post and he would still be here today. Isn't that what we all want?
-
But didn't God cause hurricane Katrina? I mean He controls the weather doesn't He?.....Or is there something im missing? :-\
-
But didn't G-d cause hurricane Katrina? I mean He controls the weather doesn't He?.....Or is there something im missing? :-\
That's one way of looking at it. But was it really a punishment for the Gaza withdrawal? Was it really a punishment aimed at evil blacks, as some here say it was? How do you know?
I have no problem with people expressing these views. I have a problem when the line is arbitrarily drawn and Chaimfan is getting a McCarthy-like censure.
-
Trumpeldor, it's one thing to call someone evil, it's one thing to say that we should declare war on some country or other, but saying that we should send men to rape arab women that is going far beyond what is acceptable. And that is what chaimfan did.
-
Trumpeldor, it's one thing to call someone evil, it's one thing to say that we should declare war on some country or other, but saying that we should send men to rape arab women that is going far beyond what is acceptable. And that is what chaimfan did.
I agree that it is unacceptable. Now, we have get over it and decide on a mechanism for dealing with unacceptable comments. Do we ban the person immediately? Do we first send a clear warning that such behavior will not be tolerated?
Where do we go from here?
-
I'd like to state my opinions about a few things so there is no confusion. Excluding war, murder is always wrong. In the context of war, and we are at war with muslims, it is necessary to be victorious at all costs. I would not refrain from taking a necessary action because the children of our enemies might be killed. I would not, however kill the enemies children just to do it. Raping ANY WOMAN UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE IS EVIL, and the rapist should be tortured first then murdered immediately, regardless of circumstance. In certain cases the mother of the rapist should be killed also.
-
Raping ANY WOMAN UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE IS EVIL, and the rapist should be tortured first then murdered immediately, regardless of circumstance. In certain cases the mother of the rapist should be killed also.
What about all the sluts that taunt and tease every man in sight every chance they get? >:(
Women and CHILDREN can afford to be careless, never men.
-
Raping ANY WOMAN UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE IS EVIL, and the rapist should be tortured first then murdered immediately, regardless of circumstance. In certain cases the mother of the rapist should be killed also.
What about all the sluts that taunt and tease every man in sight every chance they get? >:(
Women and CHILDREN can afford to be careless, never men.
Scriabin, this is not the issue being discussed here. Why are you always so angry?
-
Raping ANY WOMAN UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE IS EVIL, and the rapist should be tortured first then murdered immediately, regardless of circumstance. In certain cases the mother of the rapist should be killed also.
What about all the sluts that taunt and tease every man in sight every chance they get? >:(
Women and CHILDREN can afford to be careless, never men.
Scriabin, this is not the issue being discussed here. Why are you always so angry?
I was addressing Allen.
I'm frank. If I come off as angry, oh well.
Anyhow, we've got plenty of reasons to be angry in this world, have we not?
-
Torturing good people is always bad. Chaimfan was referring to muslims and they are not people. You people need to rethink your positions.
-
Allen-t, the muslim whores are not "Women." They are savage beasts who teach their children to hate Jews and infidels. Please try and bring Chaimfan back.
-
That is why in another thread I said that I disagreed with the raping comments Chaim fan made. I agree with everything else he said. yacov, you know in the past I disagreed with you on some issues a little while back but at least you never tried to shove your ideas down anyone throat and you never misused your authority even though you actually started this forum and you really should have the right to do whatever you want. I think that you really have done an excellent job your whole time here. Why can't we just have a few less sections on here and then you could be in charge of everything. I liked the forum better when only Yacov menashe was in charge.
-
I think the mistake that Chaim is making by having people other than Yacov and Jimmy in charge of things will backfire on him in a much worse way than the money he gave marzel.
-
ChaimFan posted a lot to this forum and I liked his contributions. I think good posters like him should not be banned because of a single post, stupid or not.
-
ChaimFan posted a lot to this forum and I liked his contributions. I think good posters like him should not be banned because of a single post, stupid or not.
Caryle, you are the third to give unqualified support to him. So far, it had just been myself and Downwithislam.
-
Raping ANY WOMAN UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE IS EVIL, and the rapist should be tortured first then murdered immediately, regardless of circumstance. In certain cases the mother of the rapist should be killed also.
What about all the sluts that taunt and tease every man in sight every chance they get? >:(
Women and CHILDREN can afford to be careless, never men.
ANY circumstance. Rape is one of the highest forms of cowardice.
-
Allen-t, the muslim whores are not "Women." They are savage beasts who teach their children to hate Jews and infidels. Please try and bring Chaimfan back.
There is never any legitimate reason to rape a woman, no matter how evil she may be. Why would you sin against God by fornicating just to administer a punishment? Muslim women breed murderers. Execute them in order to stop them. Torturing them as payback I don't condone. It is much harder, and requires a bigger man, to resist the base desire to do evil than it does to give in to it. That is just weakness. It's the difference between self defence which is acceptable, and revenge which isn't.
-
Whatever, if anything you do will save righteous lives then I believe it should be done. Raping a muslim woman is straight out beastiality. I agree that raping anyone should never be done. Killing every last muslim is something that should be done though.
-
I think the obvious issue that is being overlooked is that I temporarily banned him for 2 days until it was discussed with the others in which I already had a thread with the other administrators and moderators. Since you can't see this thread, you couldn't know.
The ban was not even a complete ban... it was only a ban on posts. Again... it was set for 2 days.
It was decided in that thread that it should be a week. I changed it to a week. He tried to hijack the ban and come back in to post a completely new thread, and this doesn't say anything to you? This should be ok? I mean... even if I was wrong (which I believe was the right thing to do), is this the way to handle a temporary ban on posts? He could still log in, send private messages, read the forums... all while it was being discuss in a diplomatic fashion.
If someone came into this forum and saw that it was ok to rape people... anyone... would you have stayed or taken it seriously? And what about the legal implications? Have you thought about that?
Chaimfan... using Chaim's name in his nick, needs to realize that what he says can be construed to any new poster as JTF's position on a matter. And if we allowed this... then what do you think the chances are it would happen again or with more frequency?
Do you honestly think I LIKE banning someone? Especially a long time poster?
-
I think Jeff just said it all in the previous post... MOVE ON!!!
-
But didn't G-d cause hurricane Katrina? I mean He controls the weather doesn't He?.....Or is there something im missing? :-\
That's one way of looking at it. But was it really a punishment for the Gaza withdrawal? Was it really a punishment aimed at evil blacks, as some here say it was? How do you know?
We don't.