I read the terms and conditions and the other stickies in the Announcements section very carefully and did not observe either a vision or a directions statement. An individual vision of what these forums are for can not be attributed to all users as a whole.Obie wrote:Well this forum has a vision and direction.
It purpose is not compromise fringe views, which are totally unsupported, or even contrary to fact.
The purpose of this forum is to repudiate these views in the strongest possible terms..
If a forum were to truly foster discussion, it should have space to allow all forms of speech, even disagreements and adversarial statements, otherwise one can (a) never learn and (b) never develop.
The issue with Stormfront is not the views that they espouse, but that they allow no alternative views to be expressed. It is effectively an echo chamber of people having the same thoughts.
What we need on these forums is to "let a hundred flowers bloom" and have a diverse range of opinions, not the immigration equivalent of Stormfront, where only pro-immigration voices can be heard.
As an aside, can we use a better example? For a few moments, I got confused between Stormfront and Stormont and wondered what you had against Northern Irish politicians.
That is pretty much precisely what is concerning about some posts on these forums. They are unnecessarily strongly worded and can be interpreted as hectoring and even bullying. Opposing points of view are attacked ferociously, in a manner unseemly of a moderator.Obie wrote:The purpose of this forum is to repudiate these views in the strongest possible terms ...
So long as I remain a moderator, I will not sit down quiet whiles EU citizens are smeared. I will repel any view that seek to belittle the immense contribution that EU citizens make to the UK, in the strongest possible terms.
As a moderator, you ought to guide the discussion, be the traffic policeman, not a driver. I suggest to you that if you wish to correct somebody's point of view, that you do so like another moderator, who states his points succintly, in terse language, but crucially with links to documentary evidence of his viewpoint. That is much harder to rebute than hectoring posts. And if the person persists in stating incorrect facts, other people reading the forums can compare the two sides of the arguments (presented by the person and moderator) and decide for themselves. It is not for the moderator to judge an argument of which he is one party, it is for him to present a positive case and leave.
You did not provide any proof of your side of the argument. If she is at fault for presenting arguments unsubstantiated by proof presented on these forums, I suggest that others are as guilty.Obie wrote:I have corrected Petaltop, and made her understand that her views are unsupported by facts.
