Whatever You Will
Being ACTIVE and being ACTIVELY BIASED are two different things. Such as allowing one to freely and repeatedly manifest their PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE attacking behavior . . just like now (including posting as "Guest"). . . nobody said anything about "another member". It's just unacceptable. But that's just the current problem. The fact of the matter is that there were big problems here long before "another member" ever showed up, starting with the "moderator" seemingly believing that it was OK to let some anonymous troll openly espouse the racist, hate-filled rhetoric of the Klu Klux Klan (and more) on this site.
"Let them be pilloried in the court of public opinion", he said. No, that's not active moderation. That is an abrogation of responsibility. A failure to act. And OH, just don't let that opinion be too strong though, don't let it be too strong (even if the abuse itself is strong and repugnant)! Because OH now all of a sudden "poor little him" needs to be protected (whoever "him" is)! I won't do anything. You just take the abuse why don't you? From wherever and whomever it comes. No matter how offensive. And if you don't, then you're the one who's going to jail! That's been the consistent message for nearly EIGHTEEN YEARS. Straight from Minneapolis' finest! Eighteen years of abuse, off and on. Plenty have come through here and quit in a year or less because they couldn't take. Wild, wild west!
Understand. I don't take shit from other people in life period, and I'm prepared to stand up and call for what's right. I don't fear authority, because "the authorities" are often wrong, but often won't admit it without being challenged. Respect all but do not fear none. And I don't play that weak BS, "I don't want to get involved." NOBODY is going to tread on me. That said, with respect to the internet, I've never been kicked off of a site for bad behavior either. Not ever. Not a single time. But, I have gotten plenty of OTHER people removed and/or banned because of THEIR bad behavior. People just like "another member" in fact, and worse. He would have been gone on Foro Chikan a loooong time ago.
Because you see, when the playing field is fair and not RIGGED, I know how to work it. But, it can't be done by one self. It can't be done alone. It doesn't take a village, but if people want change they do have to stop saying, "I don't want to be involved." Get involved and DEMAND change! AND, at the very least when it comes to the internet, it DOES take a MODERATOR willing to ACTIVELY manage the site in an UNBIASED way! We don't have that here, we've NEVER had that here, and I'm not afraid to say it. Call a spade a spade!
Now at one time, we convinced the "moderator" to get rid of the abuse page. Why have that here anyway??? What does it add? Just get rid of it. And if somebody posts something on the main page that could be fairly considered to be abuse, then just delete it. Throw it in the cyber trash can. Get rid of it! And combine that with required registration too so that you can boot the offending member as well! So, he gets rid of it for a few months as I recall, then brings it back after only after a short period of time. Why? Apparently out of some belief that a woman or women might show up here, and they may need an outlet or a way to express their anger towards chikans, and the abuse page would be the mechanism for that. That's what I recall. Well, I would suggest that after my near EIGHTEEN YEARS of experience, that's kind of like waiting for the Great Pumpkin to show up on Halloween! And besides, if a woman did show up and wanted to hurl insults against chikans, why not allow her that right here on the main page then? Put it front and center in a chikan's face and require him to read it! As Master Frotteur once so aptly stated . . . "one dishonorable scroll" . . . and I add, but with mandatory registration for everybody, a ZERO TOLERANCE policy towards abuse from ANYBODY, and an ACTIVE moderator prepared to enforce said policy EVENLY. I'm first in line to sign up for that and been calling for it for like . . . uh . . . nearly 18 years.
[ back to the menu ]