Chekhov has this to say over on The Untrusted:
BTW: I've thrown in the towel on CIF.
They are obviously expecting me to go back with a grovelling apology, appealing for a reprieve. Well they can go and fuck themselves.
I stuck with CIF from the outset and gave it the benefit of the doubt but the Mods have ruined it.
Pity really but I suppose it was inevitable since the whole thing is run by Oxbridge fuckwits who haven't got a clue what it's like trying to survive at the "coal face"
And later:
I haven't been banned "technically". I'm in "pre mod" for calling Lord Adonis to account for his scaremongering article on splitting the left wing vote.
I didn't contravene their talk policy so there is no reason why I should have to make a grovelling apology to be allowed back in and I don't intend to do so.
Incidentally, no one seems to have missed me, and there was no collective indignation at my being ostracised, unlike Lord Summerisle who was actually banned.
However he wasn't banned for his usual reasonably thought out wisdom but for this:
"Which part of your brain do you need to have removed to become a moderator"
Anyway, like I said, It's a shame. There was the makings of a sort of on-line community on CIF and they totally fucked it up. Maybe they did it deliberately. Who knows?
Sorry, Chekhov. Obviously, you just didn't quite make it into the Air-Kiss Gang.
Better than being banned because of complaints from The Untrusted I suppose.
ReplyDeleteCome off it, BTH, how long are you going to keep up this sour grapes, “I’ve been persecuted by the nasty Untrusted cabel who have always hated me and have such power at Cif that they can repeatedly get me banned” nonsense?
ReplyDeleteI’ve said it on Untrusted and I’ll say it again here – you are clearly too deluded to realise that you have brought your banning on yourself by having too many nasty comments deleted too many times, and by being put in pre-mod too many times. I don’t know exactly what formula CiF moderators use to decide on bannings – I’m one of the last people they would be likely to share their thoughts (if they can truly be described as such) with, but they’ve obviously decided that you (among many, many others) are now persona non grata.
The only input anyone on Untrusted can have (the only input anyone can have so we’re regularly told) is to report any of your comments they find offensive as such. Are you really so surprised this has happened? (I suspect the answer to that question is still yes.)
What happens then, up to and including banning, is entirely beyond mere mortals like you and me. You were banned from CiF by CiF. It’s obviously still eating away at you, but you might actually find it eases the pain, at least a little, if you recognise who is responsible and stop pointing the finger at others who are generally more concerned about unfair moderation and bannings in general than in whining on and on about imaginary behind the scenes persecutions.
It’s not all about you, so maybe you should attempt to grow up…
Andysays:
ReplyDeleteAt least two members of The Untusted have admitted to seeking the removal of both my posts and my posting rights from CiF, so whatever my views on being banned, those admissions stand.
And while a tiny number of my posts have been deleted, they have never been for using obscenities, foul language and other insults against posters. Recently I posted on WDYWTTA, a list of really quite obscene posts about me from The Untrusted site and CiF which quite shocked one of the new Untrusted innocents. Of course the post was deleted and I was immediately banned, while those who made the posts remain.
But what has clearly irked the likes of BeautifulBurnout, scherfig, Montana, GPO1, Monkeyfish, HankScorpio, Fencewalker, etc. and it would appear you Andysays, is that unlike others I refuse to intimidated by their obscene bullying and continue clinically to dissect their arguments whether above or below the line.
It is I think significant that in the times I was in moderation and on being banned, I had no warning whatever about this, it just happened. Neither have the moderators been able to come up with any reason for their action other than the non sequitur "the fact that you maintain you have never contravened our community standards illustrates that perhaps CiF is not the forum for you." And neither have I grovelled to get back but have merely adopted a different user name and waited until the likes of sheffpixie and t'xuss have announced who I am. Mind you I do have some sympathy for the poor innocent souls who've been accused of being me.
Here's something I posted on a recent Nick Cohen piece which you might like to take to heart Andysays:
ReplyDeleteNick Cohen writes:
"The deluded woman clearly thought that we should be proud to be the land of John Milton, John Stuart Mill and George Orwell ? a beacon of liberty, not liberty's enemy; that if the Saudis or Congolese could not criticise their kleptomaniac rulers, they should know that at least writers could stand up to them in England."
"The English invented free speech. In 1644, Milton denounced Parliament's censorship of the press by saying that a free people did not need judges to tell them what to read. "Lords and Commons of England, consider what nation it is whereof ye are, and whereof ye are the governors: a nation not slow and dull, but of quick, ingenious, and piercing spirit, acute to invent, subtle and sinewy to discourse, not beneath the reach of any point the highest that humane capacity can soar to."
Something that should be remembered by all those CiF posters who would censor the posts of others.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/07/nick-cohen-law-courts-libel
Sadly the poster auxesis was exposed by one of The Untrusted and has now also been banned.
And here Andysays from the same thread:
ReplyDeleteBeautifulBurnout wrote:
"Do you not see the internal contradiction in what you have just said? How can people "take up the legal cudgels" without involving judges, who must then decide the rights and wrongs of a case and make judgment accordingly?"
"I'm afraid this makes no sense at all."
Well here it is in simple language Mrs B.
Judges should not be allowed to ban books and people who feel the writers of books have libeled them should fund their own cases in the courts.
The very idea of judges banning books in the 21st Century should go the same way as those monarchs and religious leaders in earlier centuries who also felt they had this god given right.
And here's Mrs Burnout admitting to being the censor:
ReplyDeleteI had written:
"And furthermore if anyone posts anything here that she objects to she goes running to the moderators to have the post deleted and the poster banned."
To which she replied:
"No auxesis. You, under another nick, published lies about me (and my child), distorting posts I had made on another website, and I reported you for abuse, because it was abuse. In the same way that you once attacked MontanaWildhack through her child on here."
"You even created another nickname for a night just to abuse me personally on CiF, knowing that if that nickname was banned you would still be able to post with this one.
"Give it up."
And for the record Andysays, the only thing I've ever said about MrsB's son is to repeat some of the more flattering things she's posted about him on both CiF and The Untrusted.
Have a look at this thread and then ask why Ultimathule and I were banned, and who made the complaints to the moderators?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/video/2009/apr/06/pornography-jacqui-smith?showallcomments=true#start-of-comments
And here's yet more evidence of how some ciffers can defy the community standards with impunity. Post on WDYWTTA last July:
ReplyDelete"I made a comment on the so called 'light bulb' jokes which was deleted, presumably because the post to which it referred was also deleted. However I feel the point I wanted to make about sexist comments, for that's what they've been, needs to be stated again.
These are sexist remarks because the target of them, feminists are mainly women and it surprises me that the moderators haven't dealt with them accordingly.
The fifth Community Standard states:
We will not tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia or other forms of hate-speech, or contributions that could be interpreted as such.
Would you go along to a thread on Race Issues, say one of Joseoh Harker's articles and post racist jokes about how many black men does it take to change a light bulb, or a Disability thread and post jokes on one of Polly Toynbee's articles about how many people in wheelchairs? Or on one of Peter Tatchell's threads on how many gay men or women? How about old people, surely you must have some great jokes about them changing light bulbs?"