Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΒ  permalink

A Question about impartiality to Andrew (only)

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Thursday, 23rd July 2009

  Andrew,
  
  you have removed my post and shut down the thread deteriorating into an ugly quarrel. Fare enough. However, your impartiality here is in doubt, as far as I am concerned. I have objected to this discussion from the start and stuck to it only not to let the other side to get a pass unchallenged. You certainly should enforce the rules, but you should enforce the rules for everybody. It is often the case that, say, a football player gets called for retaliation after a referee misses the original foul. However, you have all time in the world to review all the records, so my guess is that there is bias at play here.
  
  Cheers.

  Link to this forum: A Question about impartiality to Andrew (only)

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Andrew Host (U1683626) on Thursday, 23rd July 2009

  Hi suvorovetz,
  
  The Mods who removed your post will have told you in an email to your account precisely how your post was in breach of the House Rules. If, having read that mail, you are still unsure as to the reason your post was failed you are welcome to take it up with them.
  
  As for my part as Host - I had issued several warnings about not making abusive/personal comments - this continued to happen which is why I finally closed the thread.
  
  
  Andrew

  Link to this forum: A Question about impartiality to Andrew (only)

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Thursday, 23rd July 2009

  This is not what I am objecting to. I concede that my post could very well be in violation of the rules. My objection is that the other side is blatantly given a pass for same.

  Link to this forum: A Question about impartiality to Andrew (only)

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by Andrew Host (U1683626) on Thursday, 23rd July 2009

  Suvorovetz,
  
  I do not have "all the time in the world" to read every last word written in the threads. My role is to help maintain a healthy atmosphere and help keep the threads on topic - not scrutinise every post. Other than that I have more than enough work away from the boards to fill my day.
  
  If you feel other messages in the thread were in breach of the House Rules it somewhat begs the question as to why you didn't report them to the Mods.
  
  You message had the dubious distinction of being the latest - and most clearly offensive - post in a thread I had intervened in more than once. I hadn't referred any posts up till that point in the hopes that a simple request might be enough to pull the thread round to a more civil discussion.
  
  If I had the time possibly I might see other messages in that thread that might merit referral to the Mods - including more written by yourself perhaps?
  
  As it is the discussion is closed. It would be good to take this as an opportunity to move on to more constructive debates.
  
  Cheers
  
  Andrew
  
  

  Link to this forum: A Question about impartiality to Andrew (only)

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Thursday, 23rd July 2009

  If you feel other messages in the thread were in breach of the House Rules it somewhat begs the question as to why you didn't report them to the Mods.Β  I refuse to be part of any censorship of any kind as a matter of principal. I do recognize the need to maintain "healthy atmosphere" and I voiced it in this particular case just as clearly as you did. If your reply - as I understand it - is that you just happened to catch up with the "foul" and called it as you saw it, I accept it. But if you are implying that I was the one who crossed the line first, I firmly disagree. Thank you for taking your time in any case.
  Best regards.

  Link to this forum: A Question about impartiality to Andrew (only)

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 23rd July 2009

  It should not have ended like that. Especially when I was about to open a side issue (and a very interesting one, on world terrorism - I might reopen it in a seperate topic).
  
  I am too in favour of auto-control in the boards and have never flagged any posting even if I have been ridiculed sometimes for some of my views (patience always pays off). Most of the times people really do regulate the discussion successfully and that is the best way to keep the discussion since our views do not coincide most of the times - that is way I stress on providing points and discussing on those rather than transferring the discussion on the level of what... football team is everyone of us (I remember my epic posts about Macedonia where fellow commenter from FYROM did not want to comment on my points but used "wooden language" to repeat pre-fabricated slogans taught at his school. We have to take that into account in our discussions; when talking about history this arrives very often and thus we have to constantly strive and bring the discussion back to the point rather than to the trivial or personal etc. Even when we feel we have to use some irony to make our speech more flamboyant, it is a good idea to add in the bottom a little comment that this is not meant to belittle the other in anyway... at the end there are many ways to have a sharp & cutting language while maintaining respect towards the other.

  Link to this forum: A Question about impartiality to Andrew (only)

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Frank Parker (U7843825) on Thursday, 23rd July 2009

  Well, your post telling us that the other thread was closed compelled (metaphorically, not literally) me to browse it, having ignored it previously. Having done so I see perfectly well why Andrew closed it. It had been used as a pretext for a debate between a committed zionist and a rational/liberal/intellectual which I found by turns fascinating, amusing and frustrating, especially in regard to the refusal of the committed zionist to listen to reasoned argument.
  Thanks for entertaining me Suv.

  Link to this forum: A Question about impartiality to Andrew (only)

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Thursday, 23rd July 2009

  It had been used as a pretext for a debate between a committed zionist and a rational/liberal/intellectual which I found by turns fascinating, amusing and frustrating, especially in regard to the refusal of the committed zionist to listen to reasoned argument.
  Thanks for entertaining me Suv.Β  As well, I thank you and the unnamed "modes" for proving my point about the rich Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ culture and traditions. Well done.

  Link to this forum: A Question about impartiality to Andrew (only)

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 8.

  Posted by Andrew Host (U1683626) on Friday, 24th July 2009

  Time to move on chaps.
  
  Thread closed
  
  Andrew

  Link to this forum: A Question about impartiality to Andrew (only)

• Message 10

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Friday, 24th July 2009

  Rational, liberal, intellectual - versus zealotry!
  No wonder it was banned!

  Link to this forum: A Question about impartiality to Andrew (only)

  Report message10

• Message 11

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Monday, 27th July 2009

  Andrew,
  
  Have you or anyone else at the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ considered a new format for posting on these forums? Consider delphiforums.com. Over there when someone becomes boorish or offensive anyone else can click on his name and click "ignore." It minimizes the damage caused by trolls.

  Link to this forum: A Question about impartiality to Andrew (only)

  Report message11

• Message 12

  , in reply to message 11.

  Posted by Andrew Host (U1683626) on Monday, 27th July 2009

  Hi WC,
  
  I thought I'd closed this thread - prob still a good idea to do so. However I'll forward your comments onto the DNA people. As with stickies and search functions etc I'm sure it has been considered - whether it's financially viable may be another thing.
  
  Thanks
  
  Andrew

  Link to this forum: A Question about impartiality to Andrew (only)

Back to top