Moderators' neutrality vote

Give your feedback, make new suggestions to improve, is there anything else we can do for you?

Are the moderators still objective?

Poll ended at 21 Jul 2012, 07:45

Yes, absolutely.
Sometimes they get involved too much.
They tend to take sides.
No, they are biased.
Total votes: 47

User avatar
Posts: 1366
Joined: 31 Mar 2010, 20:15

Re: Moderators' neutrality vote

Post by KriVa » 22 Jun 2012, 16:08

Once more, why not start your own forum? You obviously don't like it here and have some ideas on how to improve things, go ahead and try them out!
You'll be rid of the "biased" moderators, and they won't have to argue with you anymore. Hell, you can even become one yourself, think about the possibilities!
I don't think anyone is forcing you to stay here, are they?
Draw your own conclusions, but this looks fairly familiar:
(Time to get a big bucket of popcorn, sit down and enjoy!)

Posts: 2020
Joined: 14 Feb 2012, 14:30

Re: Moderators' neutrality vote

Post by Inquirer » 22 Jun 2012, 23:53

Flanker wrote:I think that you know very well what I accuse you of.
Firstly, how can I know?
I am nothing but a drunk man, intellectually unable to understand your enlightened posts, right?
Secondly, accusing people is not what this forum is about; we are here to discuss the posts, not the people making them, a distinction you fail to make.
flanker wrote:In many of your posts, you develop your idea's in a very confusing way and come to very irrational conclusions. This breaks the discussion and forces me to write hundreds of lines to try to rectify your analysis.
Nobody is forcing you to do anything at all and in fact it would be very sobering for your inflated self esteem if you'd start to get to grips with the reality of it all, which is that obviously nobody is waiting for any of your rectifications either....
I think I express my opinion in a respectful way (and clearly the moderators think so too) and I expect the very same from people willing to reply,whether they agree with what I write or not.
flanker wrote:That's why your analysis deserved to be called drunk.
May I point out you are not called upon to judge on other people's post as you are but an ordinary member to this forum, just like me. Clearly you haven't understood your place here and think of yourself as being entitled to more privileges that others, despite repeated efforts by the moderators to make it clear to you you should start to behave properly, or risk a permanent ban...
flanker wrote:I used the word drunk to see if the moderators were monitoring the discussion at all, and this resulting in a deletion of that post, proved to me that there is clearly a double standard.
So whenever you don't agree with some of what you read here, you feel you should be automatically entitled to outright insults of the poster too, as part of your reply?
Besides, it probably takes a bigger brain to grasp your concept, but to me it looks irrational to be willing to test the neutrality of the moderators that way and be genuinely surprised with the outcome, which was a post deletion and a permanent ban warning?
flanker wrote:The last time that I was banned is because I replicated your way of running away from the heat: develop entire texts of full nonsense that looked like they made sense, in order to break the conversation. Might I add, I had everyone confused for a week or so.
If it truely makes you happy believing so, then please do....
I do wonder however what kind of an achievement causing shortlived confusion would be, since you are clearly very proud of it? :?

User avatar
Dr. Strangelove
Posts: 14
Joined: 28 May 2012, 19:53

Re: Moderators' neutrality vote

Post by Dr. Strangelove » 23 Jun 2012, 00:02

“Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be—or to be indistinguishable from—self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time.”

― Neal Stephenson
Cobalt thorium G

User avatar
Posts: 268
Joined: 13 Feb 2011, 21:56
Location: 13,8nm from BRU

Re: Moderators' neutrality vote

Post by Treeper » 23 Jun 2012, 01:59

"Are the moderators still objective?"
Well, yes, absolutely.

I don't want to make to much time on these words (it sounds better in Dutch "ik wil hier niet te veel woorden aan vuil maken"), but I'm of the opinion that the moderators are more causious of some members then others. If you're (permanently) banned once (twice?) before, the mods are definetley in their right to be more causious of you then others who weren't (permanently) banned before. I think this sounds quite logical, no?

Maybe it isn't logical enough. I'll give an example: if you drive too fast, you'll be receiving a penalty. If you drive too fast again, your penalty will be more expensive. Simple as that. Does this mean the police became subjective? I think not. You're just someone who obviously doesn't learn from his/her mustakes.

I wouldn't be honest by saying that I never saw someone else post something which seemed offensive/insulting to another member, but I'm not aware of insults by other members that kept on going, day after day, week after week, months after months.

On a side note - I may add that I'm a normal aviation enthusiast, without a job or training related to aviation, I'm just here for fun, and, mostly for the very interesting posts, from time to time to ask another dumb question - there have been multiple times that I just clicked on the "Go back one page" just because I saw another everending post of you, endlessly trying to make your point. For the gazillionest time.

So please, behave in the future, cause occasionally you do write things that are spot on, and it would be ashame to lose, lets face it, the most colourful member of this board.

Posts: 5140
Joined: 02 Sep 2004, 00:00
Location: Bruges

Re: Moderators' neutrality vote

Post by regi » 23 Jun 2012, 02:20

It must be very frustrating for the launcher of this subject to see that the moderator has followed a humble advice from one of the culprits : to put this subject in the right forum. ( at the bottom of the page )

Welcome in the dungeon.

User avatar
Posts: 297
Joined: 12 Aug 2007, 00:14
Location: plane heaven

Re: Moderators' neutrality vote

Post by travellover » 23 Jun 2012, 03:49

Hello everybody,
Hello Flanker,

Reading this forum for a while and browsing this topic, one thing comes to my mind: if your interventions on various matters and especially on SN are spicy and why not, could you realize that you have your own faults ? it could help and this would be much less shameful than bashing everything and nothing. Sincerely yours.

User avatar
Posts: 36121
Joined: 13 Feb 2003, 00:00
Location: Rosières/Rozieren, Belgium

Re: Moderators' neutrality vote

Post by sn26567 » 23 Jun 2012, 14:03

Being the subject of this topic (along with the other moderators), I feel not entitled to react. I will only mention that such a poll on another forum (try with, just to see!) would not have been allowed for more than one hour before being removed. Just to underline that here on we are very tolerant.
ex Sabena #26567

User avatar
Posts: 722
Joined: 25 Mar 2006, 00:00
Location: Universe

Re: Moderators' neutrality vote

Post by galaxy » 23 Jun 2012, 14:58

I hope sincerly that the moderators are not suffering of air pockets at " Luchtzak " ! ! ! ! :roll:

Posts: 5140
Joined: 02 Sep 2004, 00:00
Location: Bruges

Re: Moderators' neutrality vote

Post by regi » 23 Jun 2012, 18:02

galaxy wrote:I hope sincerly that the moderators are not suffering of air pockets at " Luchtzak " ! ! ! ! :roll:
There is just one suffering from a "luchtzak", and it is the one who posted this subject, to find his brainchild back at the bottom of this page :)

Posts: 5140
Joined: 02 Sep 2004, 00:00
Location: Bruges

Re: Moderators' neutrality vote

Post by regi » 23 Jun 2012, 18:04

Just watched the results of this poll:
46 votes and just 1 says that it is biased. Wonder who that 1 is.

Post Reply