RugbyRebels

It's so bent to the right wing it isn't even pretending to be fair.

Drunk with power.

Not that anyone on the left would ever stand up to them.

The right would call them names and they'd be ashamed.

Pathetic.

There is a process for complaints. If you wish to make one, use it.

Nah, the modding is about on par with most other forums.

Sandydragon wrote:There is a process for complaints. If you wish to make one, use it.

You have refused to enter into any dialogue whatsoever.

How is that a process for complaints?

It's just more of your bull shit.

You and Wrayburn need to back right off from imposing your political views here.

If you can't win the argument, your argument stinks. Change your views.

UGagain wrote:You and Wrayburn need to back right off from imposing your political views here.

If you can't win the argument, your argument stinks. Change your views.

Won any arguments lately?

Of course, for grown ups, arguments aren't really about winning and losing, that tends to be a more childish view.

Personally I think the modding is Ok, although there are always going to be a handful of posters who abuse the situation, and other posters. Mods can't win them all, but these guys do a pretty good job.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:There is a process for complaints. If you wish to make one, use it.

You have refused to enter into any dialogue whatsoever.

How is that a process for complaints?

It's just more of your bull shit.

Since you have made this public.

You requested clarification on why you received a warning. It was for ignoring a moderator's instructions. I stated to you, quite clearly, that if you disagreed with my action, you should escalate the complaint to an administrator, as per the rules of the board.

You chose to ignore the process and whine instead. Your call.

Sandydragon wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:There is a process for complaints. If you wish to make one, use it.

You have refused to enter into any dialogue whatsoever.

How is that a process for complaints?

It's just more of your bull shit.

Since you have made this public.

You requested clarification on why you received a warning. It was for ignoring a moderator's instructions. I stated to you, quite clearly, that if you disagreed with my action, you should escalate the complaint to an administrator, as per the rules of the board.

You chose to ignore the process and whine instead. Your call.

You point blank refused to discuss the issues going on here after I offered to do so.

There is no process and you know it.

You want to ban people who you can't win arguments against. You will invent reasons to do so and try to block any means of appeal.

That's the process.

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

UGagain wrote:

You have refused to enter into any dialogue whatsoever.

How is that a process for complaints?

It's just more of your bull shit.

Since you have made this public.

You requested clarification on why you received a warning. It was for ignoring a moderator's instructions. I stated to you, quite clearly, that if you disagreed with my action, you should escalate the complaint to an administrator, as per the rules of the board.

You chose to ignore the process and whine instead. Your call.

You point blank refused to discuss the issues going on here after I offered to do so.

There is no process and you know it.

You want to ban people who you can't win arguments against. You will invent reasons to do so and try to block any means of appeal.

That's the process.

Incorrect. You moaned after receiving a warning for not following a moderator's instruction. I am not going to debate with you why you got that warning, the rules are clear.

This is nothing to do with censorship, plenty of posters routinely offer their opinions on here which I don't agree with, or any of the other moderators for that matter. The issue is one of attitude. Be the martyr if you wish, but any action taken against you is because of your attitude to other posters, not for your views.

Crying about it doesn't change that basic fact.

Sandydragon wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
Since you have made this public.

You requested clarification on why you received a warning. It was for ignoring a moderator's instructions. I stated to you, quite clearly, that if you disagreed with my action, you should escalate the complaint to an administrator, as per the rules of the board.

You chose to ignore the process and whine instead. Your call.

You point blank refused to discuss the issues going on here after I offered to do so.

There is no process and you know it.

You want to ban people who you can't win arguments against. You will invent reasons to do so and try to block any means of appeal.

That's the process.

Incorrect. You moaned after receiving a warning for not following a moderator's instruction. I am not going to debate with you why you got that warning, the rules are clear.

This is nothing to do with censorship, plenty of posters routinely offer their opinions on here which I don't agree with, or any of the other moderators for that matter. The issue is one of attitude. Be the martyr if you wish, but any action taken against you is because of your attitude to other posters, not for your views.

Crying about it doesn't change that basic fact.

Imagine that. Your demand to not even indirectly criticise your ethos.

It is everything to do with censorship.

You can't tolerate people who consistently expose your arguments for the nonsense that they are.

You're full of shit.

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

UGagain wrote:

You point blank refused to discuss the issues going on here after I offered to do so.

There is no process and you know it.

You want to ban people who you can't win arguments against. You will invent reasons to do so and try to block any means of appeal.

That's the process.

Incorrect. You moaned after receiving a warning for not following a moderator's instruction. I am not going to debate with you why you got that warning, the rules are clear.

This is nothing to do with censorship, plenty of posters routinely offer their opinions on here which I don't agree with, or any of the other moderators for that matter. The issue is one of attitude. Be the martyr if you wish, but any action taken against you is because of your attitude to other posters, not for your views.

Crying about it doesn't change that basic fact.

Imagine that. Your demand to not even indirectly criticise your ethos.

It is everything to do with censorship.

You can't tolerate people who consistently expose your arguments for the nonsense that they are.

You're full of shit.

Those are the rules you agreed to on joining this place. You get to abide by them, just the same as everyone else.

yup,.....no,.....
one of them.
feck, .

The problem would be resolved by appointing a representative of The Left to the moderation of this Politics Forum. Moderation requires respect from posters to accept the judgement. It's clear that this is lacking in a few cases. UG is not the only poster to have raised doubts about the impartiality of the mods (valid criticism or not).

Or in fact, better would be to have an election for the mods here. It would make sense for a Politics forum to have democratically selected mods.

Sandydragon wrote:

UGagain wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
Incorrect. You moaned after receiving a warning for not following a moderator's instruction. I am not going to debate with you why you got that warning, the rules are clear.

This is nothing to do with censorship, plenty of posters routinely offer their opinions on here which I don't agree with, or any of the other moderators for that matter. The issue is one of attitude. Be the martyr if you wish, but any action taken against you is because of your attitude to other posters, not for your views.

Crying about it doesn't change that basic fact.

Imagine that. Your demand to not even indirectly criticise your ethos.

It is everything to do with censorship.

You can't tolerate people who consistently expose your arguments for the nonsense that they are.

You're full of shit.

Those are the rules you agreed to on joining this place. You get to abide by them, just the same as everyone else.

I didn't agree to you censoring my posts or you banning words.

And don't pretend that that isn't what you've done.

You've deemed that no one is allowed to identify your or your clique's views as f---ism and that you can't be called on your r--ism.

Who the fuck are you to deem this so?

Fuck you.

Zhivago wrote:The problem would be resolved by appointing a representative of The Left to the moderation of this Politics Forum. Moderation requires respect from posters to accept the judgement. It's clear that this is lacking in a few cases. UG is not the only poster to have raised doubts about the impartiality of the mods (valid criticism or not).

Or in fact, better would be to have an election for the mods here. It would make sense for a Politics forum to have democratically selected mods.

If you follow the house rules then there is no problem. Perhaps you could ask other left leaning posters how often they have been banned?

You can try to make a martyr case for this if you want, but the proof just isn't there.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:The problem would be resolved by appointing a representative of The Left to the moderation of this Politics Forum. Moderation requires respect from posters to accept the judgement. It's clear that this is lacking in a few cases. UG is not the only poster to have raised doubts about the impartiality of the mods (valid criticism or not).

Or in fact, better would be to have an election for the mods here. It would make sense for a Politics forum to have democratically selected mods.

If you follow the house rules then there is no problem. Perhaps you could ask other left leaning posters how often they have been banned?

You can try to make a martyr case for this if you want, but the proof just isn't there.

You've decided that the rules mean that you can exclude the left.

The number of bans is a direct ratio of winning arguments

You can't win your arguments.

You never could.

And it's just absurd that someone like you (Sandy) could win an argument.

You're a low IQ mouth breather.

Neither of you are fit to mod this board.

The honourable thing to do would be to resign.

The honourable thing to do would be for you to resign from RR in protest. No doubt the vast mass of members will rise in support of you and demand that these terrible mods be fired and that you be begged to return.

Lizard wrote:The honourable thing to do would be for you to resign from RR in protest. No doubt the vast mass of members will rise in support of you and demand that these terrible mods be fired and that you be begged to return.

The lat time I left the posting rate soared of course.

Who the fuck are you trying to kid here?

The fact is that you clowns regurgitating what you've read in the tabloids or been beamed on the telebox isn't very interesting.

Do you have anything original?

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:The problem would be resolved by appointing a representative of The Left to the moderation of this Politics Forum. Moderation requires respect from posters to accept the judgement. It's clear that this is lacking in a few cases. UG is not the only poster to have raised doubts about the impartiality of the mods (valid criticism or not).

Or in fact, better would be to have an election for the mods here. It would make sense for a Politics forum to have democratically selected mods.

If you follow the house rules then there is no problem. Perhaps you could ask other left leaning posters how often they have been banned?

You can try to make a martyr case for this if you want, but the proof just isn't there.

Did you refuse to discuss this or did you not?

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:The problem would be resolved by appointing a representative of The Left to the moderation of this Politics Forum. Moderation requires respect from posters to accept the judgement. It's clear that this is lacking in a few cases. UG is not the only poster to have raised doubts about the impartiality of the mods (valid criticism or not).

Or in fact, better would be to have an election for the mods here. It would make sense for a Politics forum to have democratically selected mods.

If you follow the house rules then there is no problem. Perhaps you could ask other left leaning posters how often they have been banned?

You can try to make a martyr case for this if you want, but the proof just isn't there.

Suit yourself, but you will kill this place if you carry on like this.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:The problem would be resolved by appointing a representative of The Left to the moderation of this Politics Forum. Moderation requires respect from posters to accept the judgement. It's clear that this is lacking in a few cases. UG is not the only poster to have raised doubts about the impartiality of the mods (valid criticism or not).

Or in fact, better would be to have an election for the mods here. It would make sense for a Politics forum to have democratically selected mods.

If you follow the house rules then there is no problem. Perhaps you could ask other left leaning posters how often they have been banned?

You can try to make a martyr case for this if you want, but the proof just isn't there.

Suit yourself, but you will kill this place if you carry on like this.

In your opinion.