moderation open thread
#49
Consider that as nirmukta's official position about affirmative actions, we don't expect all others to agree but we expect all others to follow the rules as they disagree, and i would like to reply to your PM to me publicly here.

Quote:As Sudhir already said, you can choose to go with your admin team or you can choose to look into this matter fair.

Also, I've raised this question on the forums too and I'm raising it here too. Is this incident a singled out moderator rage case or is this genuine expression of how nirmukta functions?
There is no case of single-admin rage at nirmukta, the procedure is admin proposes a ban and others give their +1/-1 , Just so you know , i voted +1 for you since i knew we could not handle you on FB, anyway the real question is, what are you going to do, are you going to continue to play the victim or would you start afresh, i see this thread going nowhere, let's just finish this off, send us a message combining all you have to say in a single message at moderators@nirmukta.com so that it can be sent to all the moderators for a review.
Reply
#50
(26-Mar-2012, 04:17 AM)LMC Wrote: what are you going to do, are you going to continue to play the victim or would you start afresh, i see this thread going nowhere, let's just finish this off, send us a message combining all you have to say in a single message at moderators@nirmukta.com so that it can be sent to all the moderators for a review.

I'm going to fight the fight (bad one as you call it) till a fair decision is made or I know that the institution functions like you did.
About "play the victim", we raised it for unfair moderator action. The moderator who looks like having taken the action has already explained his views here. You've +1'ed it, so I've nothing more to expect here. I'll drop an email and wait for other mods reaction to get a clear idea of how cases are handled at nirmukta.

Reply
#51
After extensive discussions with moderators and local group organisers related to the events that led to the ban of Sudhir Kumar and Piyush Mishra on the Nirmukta group and, Sudhir Kumar's ban on the Bengaluru Freethinkers group, we have come to a decision on the ban appeal above.

The reasons for the ban in the main Nirmukta group and the Bengaluru group are due to gender insensitivity and crass language displayed by Sudhir and Piyush on this thread on the Nirmukta Facebook group, and posting and bumping up the thread even after a moderator announced that the thread was closed.

The stated goal of Nirmukta is to promote Freethought and Secular Humanism in India. In furtherance of these goals, Nirmukta aims to be an environment where marginalized groups - women, for example, or someone with a disability, or a dalit - will speak their minds freely and make it their own space. In light of this, we would like to make the following points about this case:

1) Being unaware of male privilege is not in itself a ban-able offence. Indeed, a large number of men in Nirmukta are probably not fully aware of their male privilege. It comes up from time to time, and we do our best to educate them. In this incident, it was a case of aggressive privilege-denial - aggressive to the level of "shit-stirring". Once this point is reached, (a) the Nirmukta values must take priority, and (b) we need to think about women already in the main group and in the Bengaluru Freethinkers local group who are reading that thread.

2) Can even an aggressive privilege-denier learn and change? Possibly. But - conference room rights must take precedence. That is, there is only so much educating we can attempt; we cannot let such an education happen at the expense of the marginalised members of the group. If someone feels more educating should have been done, they are free to do so on their own Facebook page, or any other discussion forum that will have them.

3) Nirmukta is a pro-feminist space and will remain that way.

We at Nirmukta, do not want to make the same mistakes as other social change movements -

Quote:"Personally, I have been hurt much more by racist people than by religious people. If they’re going to fight against one but not the other, are they really making the world a better place? And what about other issues like sexism, homophobia, ableism, transphobia, poverty, social injustice… the list goes on. If you’re going to fight against religion claiming that it’s evil, but pretend every other bad thing doesn’t exist, and even actively engage in racism and misogyny yourselves, then why the fuck am I even on this website?"
- from http://freethoughtblogs.com/blackskeptic...-rdf-site/

Taking into account the views of moderators, administrators and local organisers of Nirmukta, we have decided to make this a limited time ban ending on 1st May 2012, giving Sudhir and Piyush a chance to consider a more humanist outlook. However if the offences are repeated, we will impose a permanent ban. The ban in the local Bangalore group will also be lifted on 1st May.
Aditya Manthramurthy
Web Administrator & Associate Editor
Nirmukta.com
[+] 5 users Like donatello's post
Reply
#52
This was posted in the Debate group by an admin. I wish to know if this is true

This is a private group and there is no freedom of expression in private domain. I don't know why people use this term, considering that applies to public domains and governments and public institution. Membership in this group is a privilege, not a right and is based on the discretion of the moderators.
Once a thread devolves and turns into a trollfest while others get their jollies by bashing a troll--the thread is done with.

Anyway, I didn't bring this to your attention so you can vent about moderation issues. I updated it so that you may read it and use proper channels to address your concerns.
Do not post in this thread about admin issues. Contact us through the links and email add provided.


If the above is true and there is no freedom of expression i think Nirmukta is very very wrong. Atheism and free thought are based on the freedom to express ourselves.
Creating a private debate group makes no sense what so ever. Are we supposed to debate only what is allowed to be debated by the admins?
Membership is privilege? That really sounds obnoxious.
I am sincerely hoping it was a misunderstanding. Please do let me know soon
Reply
#53
If an admin posted it ,why wouldn't it be true?
But yes ,there is a misunderstanding there,about freethought,which is apparent both in the conversation of yours with that admin,and in this post on how freethought was written,nirmukta is not about free thought,it is about freethought,confusing both is as wrong as confusing butterfly and flying butter.

The statement of the admin is not obnoxious and is explained in detail here

But very quickly, atheism is not based on anything and freethought is all about forming decisions and beliefs on the basis of logic and reason and not on authority or dogma,neither freethought nor atheism are based on the freedom to express ourselves.

But organised promotion of freethought and atheism entails scrapping of the concept of holy,no belief is sacred enough to not be questioned,the motto of the Indian atheists is to question everything.

While everything can be questioned,it does not mean any question can be asked irrespective of whether it is harmful,questions loaded with bigotry would not be allowed in our forums.

The reason for this is what the admin's statement explains,entry to any forum is conditional to it's policies,when you joined the debate Facebook group,and these forums,it is assumed that you agree with it's posting rules,some forums do not allow certain languages,some forums do not allow advertisement,some forums do not allow extreme violence,besides these common rules we also do not allow bigotry,simple.

From the linked article:
Quote:Free-Speech and Rights

There is some confusion among the general public on the distinction between the concept of free-speech and the conditional limitations on its practice.

The common understanding about freedom of speech in a democracy is that all its forms should be protected unless physical harm is implied (with a few exceptions, such as for cases involving minors and sexually explicit material). This sort of freedom of speech is considered a fundamental right of all citizens. Most freethinkers respect such rights, and some may even think of them as the foundations of a free society. However, the right to free-speech is conditional on other fundamental rights, such as the right to owning property.

Here are some examples of this distinction: You may be free to write what you want to, but you may not use my pencil or keyboard to write it unless I permit you to do so. You may be free to talk about the importance of religion, but you may not expect to air your views on the BBC, unless they want you to. You may be free to sing Church songs all day long, but you may not barge into my living room and unleash your oh-so-blessed hymns on me.

In the case of moderating freethought, the trolls may be free to say what they want, but they may not expect a private entity to provide them with a platform to express their views. In practice, their rights are conditional upon finding an accepting medium for them to express themselves.

Freedom of speech allows one to say what one wants without the intent to cause harm, but the right to freedom of speech is conditional upon finding a platform to air one’s views.

Who Decides?

Quote:The fact that the promotion of freethought is a socio-political ideology requiring moderation of user-posted content, requires that there be a political infrastructure to build and enforce the protections that nurture each community. Freethought groups can be classified into many different types based on their political infrastructure. The most egalitarian ones are not always the most rewarding, from the perspective of promoting freethought and providing moral and more satisfying social/cultural alternatives to religion. But the egalitarian approach to managing online communities can be very effective, provided a sense of fairness and community spirit is guaranteed.


The Open Source community is the best example of an egalitarian framework for managing online communities. The Linux OS communities and certain blog/forum software communities such as the ones for wordpress and MyBB are good examples of these. Such communities usually operate under a hetearchical organizational structure where each individual user is also an independent agent acting on her/his own imperative to create innovation and foster change. Individuals may collaborate with other individuals and actively seek common solutions to common problems. Crowdsourcing strategies emerge in such groups as a means of getting the most labor intensive work done with relatively little individual input and practically no centralized command. In such groups, the political infrastructure is built on strong bonds that develop due to dynamic relationships between members of the group. There may be hierarchical elements in a hetearchy, but the group exercises power through a participation-merit system. Thus the system maintains fairness while being effective in achieving its goals. In such a system, the rules of engagement are agreed upon through mutual agreement, weighted by degree of participation in the group.

(23-May-2012, 11:55 AM)Jabali Wrote: Are we supposed to debate only what is allowed to be debated by the admins?
Membership is privilege? That really sounds obnoxious.
Then let me state it this way,In whichever group you join,unless your request to join is approved,you do not have posting rights in that group, facebook won't allow you to post,whether or not you can post or comment in that group is based on whether or not admin approves your request, some groups also empower members to approve requests,for more exclusive groups,often a personal message is sent to conform if you have read the rules and agree to them,in some groups it is just assumed that you have, in any case the request is approved assuming that you agree to the rules,the privilege ,the privilege to post and comment in a forum is given on the condition that rules will be followed,this is not only how nirmukta works,this is how each and every forum on world wide web works.
Nirmukta being a freethought and atheism driven movement just has different policies than most of the forums,these policies also differ from group to group,but zero tolerance for bigotry is applicable to all the groups.
Although IMO these policies is not the major reason for nirmukta receiving the free-speech argument so frequently,the reason I believe, is that while most atheists grow to understand that certain beliefs need not be considered to be true,that certain rules need not be followed just because they are written in some book or just because everyone else around them follows them,which is only half of the concept of freethought,they fail to understand and appreciate the other half.
Certain policies that have been discussed,debated and refined iteratively in our forums and agreed upon because of logical and rational reasons in their favor will have to be followed in the forums by new members once they join.
as stated before:
Quote:In such a system(such as ours), the rules of engagement are agreed upon through mutual agreement, weighted by degree of participation in the group.
You are ofcourse free to propose changes and present your reasons for the proposals,though honestly it is unlikely that the core policies will be changed to free to post anything ,just because otherwise it is very very wrong .
[+] 3 users Like LMC's post
Reply
#54
oooooohh what a long post. Iv'e gotta a long way to go before i become a freehthnker. my brain is to frail to process all that info.
Reply
#55
(23-May-2012, 08:30 PM)stupidseeker Wrote: oooooohh what a long post. Iv'e gotta a long way to go before i become a freehthnker. my brain is to frail to process all that info.

Here's a tl;dr - No trolling please.

[+] 2 users Like Lije's post
Reply
#56
(23-May-2012, 08:46 PM)Lije Wrote:
(23-May-2012, 08:30 PM)stupidseeker Wrote: oooooohh what a long post. Iv'e gotta a long way to go before i become a freehthnker. my brain is to frail to process all that info.

Here's a tl;dr - No trolling please.

I apologise for the infraction. Request the same be kindly excused.
Reply
#57
This is a post from a facebook group regarding the removal of one of the members. The concerned people are Lalit Mohan Chawla, myself and Rahul (the person who was removed). I am posting this here on as requested by Lalit. Please refer to the group post for the background.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/mumbaiat...772338321/

This is my first comment:
Quote:I am speechless. There are 3 things that I don't like about this move by the admin(s):

1. There was no warning or any notice of the removal. SERIOUSLY, how much effort does it take to send a one line message to someone? I hate this sort of behavior. If you are taking a decision about someone, at least have the common courtesy to tell them about it! The same had happened to me in another group, and needless to say, I was furious, just like Rahul.

2. The post was OUTSIDE the community. As long as someone is conforming to the rules of the group INSIDE the group, there is no reason for a moderator of the group to take any action against that person, irrespective of what they do outside the group. The moderators have no right to take something from OUTSIDE the group and use that as a ruse to remove/ban someone. That is totally unethical.

3. Censorship. As I have seen in most bans/removals, the moderators will not entertain any discussion on this topic on the facebook forums. They will delete comments about it and they will ask you to post any grievances on the Nirmukta forum, that is ONLY frequented by the mods. It does not serve any purpose.

I know that "Nirmukta is not trying to lead the freethinking scene in India." However, as evident, it has become that way. In such a case, the community should be more accommodating and accepting. That is the only way forward. By spurning fellow atheists just because they don't conform *strictly* to your line of thought, the moderators are not helping the cause, they are harming it.

Lalit's reply:
Quote:‎Aamil Syed Naeem
Agreed on 1 in general cases, but i don't think rahul was friends with him and he does not allow public messages,i later unfriended him too,i have open messages,you can always message or ask me, you can also always message the moderators email which is right there in the group description, or the MOT which is right there in the group description too.
Again i think it is a good practice and often followed too ,also in cases the removed post is original and seems to have taken time in development ,we copy paste ,so that the person can use it as a backup copy
That said it should not be an obligation ,removal is different from banning,in case of banning you are helpless,you can't see the posts in the groups, you don't know what went wrong,and if you are new you can't see the admins or who to contact,in case of removal,you can always request to join again,you can always check who the admins are and who to contact,removal just means ,re-analyse your position and try to start afresh,often warning will be given after the person requests to join as it is only needed if the person wishes to be a part of it anymore,if they don't what's the use?

On 2 , there have not been any cases of outside comments or posts influencing decisions or even discussions inside,i too personally keep both my outside conversation and moderation discussions separate ,but in cases where there have been denigration with obvious malicious intent,if it comes into notice,why shouldn't have it's effects,one is entitled to free speech but should also be ready for consequences.
In this case if someone finds nirmukta moderators to be abuse worthy by one of the most misogynistic words that exist,of which the group is often against,why shouldn't it have any effects,considering that the person's only reason for being in the group is because he enjoys some discussions of the group that moderators work hard to develop and mantain skipping parties, sacrificing both time and nerves,but still there has been no banning,just a request for re-accessment.

On 3.1
and on this i will also reply to Mad Scientist , and Yash Gadhiya i still hold the record for longest dissenting thread at nirmukta ,and i am a moderator,yash too has been there,done that,so it is obviously not what any removed member would wish to prove it to be ,it is not only about dissentment.
It's fine if you do not agree with most of the moderation policies ,neither did i from the start,nor did yash till some time ago,also it is not about "By spurning fellow atheists just because they don't conform *strictly* to your line of thought"
The policies have been developed and refined in both open and closed discussions ,influnced by your inputs too,
As this link says:http://nirmukta.com/2010/09/08/trolls-and-other-disrupters-a-pragmatists-guide-to-moderating-online-freethought-groups/

In such groups, the political infrastructure is built on strong bonds that develop due to dynamic relationships between members of the group. There may be hierarchical elements in a hetearchy, but the group exercises power through a participation-merit system. Thus the system maintains fairness while being effective in achieving its goals. In such a system, the rules of engagement are agreed upon through mutual agreement, weighted by degree of participation in the group.

Furthermore,having participated for some time,i came to appreciate the reasons and need for their existence,so has yash,nirmukta has never been more accommodating than needed even though there have always been people suggesting that it should be,so if you think that ""Nirmukta is not trying to lead the freethinking scene in India." However, as evident, it has become that way. In such a case, the community should be more accommodating and accepting. "
Perhaps it has worked,right?

on 3.2 and here i will also reply to Piyush Mishra
Facebook and forums are different by design,and often dissenting discussions also tend to be war-of egos ,with single button press commenting,one can easily fight the wrong person,and with instant likes fuel their ego,which is why such discussions are shifted to the MOT.
Because that is what most of the discussions against moderation on facebook to be about,hurt egos,and people seeking validation and endorsement from others/
you said:
"They will delete comments about it and they will ask you to post any grievances on the Nirmukta forum, that is ONLY frequented by the mods. It does not serve any purpose."
Who else do you wish to show to? if you have some suggestions for improvement and the intention is not to get attention or ego pumped,why is posting on the forums a problem,it is public so anyone can comment ,also the problem of most people only seeing some part of the comments are only last two comments due to the facebook "see more" thing is not there,it allows for quoting,hyperlinking,splitting.

The comments belonging to MOT are never removed or moderated,piyush's comments were moved to a separate thread because they were diverting,http://nirmukta.net/Thread-split-moderation-open-thread-On-affirmative-action-and-not-being-sexist

You too are free to start a new thread or comment on MOT to suggest changes to rules and it will be appreciated as long as the intention is the cause ,if it is change you are looking for or productive discussions ,facebook is not the place,facebook has great role,in getting to know new people and being friends with them,but it is different by it's very design and goal ,from forums.

Now while writing this comment ,i got several notifications,obviously i could not read those comments and this comment does not take those into account,another reason such discussions are meant for the forums,where it is only about productivity,not ego.

My reply:
Quote:So Lalit, I am done.

It is unfortunate that the admin was not a friend of Rahul's. I can understand that he/she was helpless. But what about you and Yash? Clearly you were aware of this decision (right?).

//That said it should not be an obligation ,removal is different from banning,in case of...if the person wishes to be a part of it anymore,if they don't what's the use?//

There is use. Often, people have ego and when it is hurt, they retaliate in the strangest of ways. If I were removed from a group without any notice, I will not have a realization of my mistake, I will be furious and I will swear never to interact with the group or its members again and spread the news about that wherever I can, so that people know how the group treats its members.

A warning on the other hand or a notice helps people understand EXACTLY where they went wrong. In case they want to join back, they already know what they need to work on and in case they don't, well, they learnt a lesson. In either case, the warning will help them.

//there have not been any cases of outside comments or posts influencing decisions or even discussions inside,i too personally keep both my outside conversation and moderation discussions separate ,but in cases where there have been denigration with obvious malicious intent,if it comes into notice,why shouldn't have it's effects,one is entitled to free speech but should also be ready for consequences.//

So you mean to say that we should be *careful* with free speech? Where is the freedom in the speech then? It is just like the Islamists saying - "Yes you have the freedom of speech to criticize our religion, but beware of the consequences!"

Irrespective of that, the group and its admins have no right to be concerned with what the members are doing OUTSIDE the group. Even if you are subscribed to the person. Because outisde the forum, they are not admins, they are friends and subscribers. If they don't like such "malicious" posts, they may PM the person and clear the misunderstanding. Using that as a ruse to ban a person is wrong.

//In this case if someone finds nirmukta moderators to be abuse worthy by one of the most misogynistic words that exist,of which the group is often against,why shouldn't it have any effects,considering that the person's only reason for being in the group is because he enjoys some discussions of the group that moderators work hard to develop and mantain skipping parties, sacrificing both time and nerves,but still there has been no banning,just a request for re-accessment.//

No, there has been removal. A request for reassessment would have been a warning message. Please don't use wordplay to justify your stand.

I understand the problem with the choice of words, but it was OUTSIDE the group and warranted at most, a friendly message requesting reassessment. NOT REMOVAL. This I say, not because Rahul is a friend or because I am a closet male chauvinist. I say this because Nirmukta is at the forefront of the atheist movement in India (on the internet at least) and it will be in the wider interest of the community to have admins who are more accomodating and accepting of people who don't conform to the high standards that Nirmukta sets. Only AFTER acceptance, will such people understand the importance of such issues.

Lastly, I understand that the admins work hard for the group and I applaud their efforts, but they have taken it on themselves to entertain the members with their posts. No one asked them to, so they have no right to "expect" anything in return. No amount of hard work they put in will grant them the privilege of being above criticism.

//and on this i will also reply to Mad Scientist , and Yash Gadhiya i still hold the record for longest dissenting thread at nirmukta ,and i am a moderator,... Perhaps it has worked,right?//

Perhaps because no other organization with a similar goal has come up. Or because Nirmukta has the first mover advantage. I don't know really. But there are reasons other than a successful experiment, that I can enlist here.

I am not a social scientist, but from what I have seen in groups, I can say that a group that believes in pruning rather than nurturing its members, only turns into an elitist cult.

//Facebook and forums are different by design,and often dissenting discussions also tend to be war-of egos ,with single button press commenting,one can easily fight the wrong person,and with instant likes fuel their ego,which is why such discussions are shifted to the MOT.//

The same can happen on the forum too, there is an option to +1 a post and since it is not frequented by most memebers, except the admins, it is likely that their ego will get pumped up.

//Because that is what most of the discussions against moderation on facebook to be about,hurt egos,and people seeking validation and endorsement from others <..> Who else do you wish to show to? if you have some suggestions for improvement and the intention is not to get attention or ego pumped,why is posting on the forums a problem,it is public so anyone can comment ,also the problem of most people only seeing some part of the comments are only last two comments due to the facebook "see more" thing is not there,it allows for quoting,hyperlinking,splitting.//

I feel that facebook groups have far better reach than the forums. I want to show it to others who may not be part of the forum or frequent it. It will make the process transparent and dispel the myth that the admins can't handle the public and call people to their "den" for such discussions.

//You too are free to start a new thread or comment on MOT to suggest changes to rules and it will be appreciated as long as the intention is the cause ,if it is change you are looking for or productive discussions ,facebook is not the place,facebook has great role,in getting to know new people and being friends with them,but it is different by it's very design and goal ,from forums.//

Of course it is, but it is fast replacing forums and you need to have a way to discuss such issues here too.

//Now while writing this comment ,i got several notifications,obviously i could not read those comments and this comment does not take those into account,another reason such discussions are meant for the forums,where it is only about productivity,not ego.//

Well, it is a matter of preference and perspective. I think that what happens on facebook should stay on facebook. Other forums are no different from facebook, all arguments are essentially about ego wars.
Reply
#58
Quote:Nirmukta is at the forefront of the atheist movement in India (on the internet at least) and it will be in the wider interest of the community to have admins who are more accomodating and accepting of people who don't conform to the high standards that Nirmukta sets.
Wouldn't that be going against what exactly brought us so far?
not sacrificing reason based policies just for the sake of accommodating.
The mistake that almost every atheist and humanist movement committed.
Please watch:

So repeating:
Quote:The policies have been developed and refined in both open and closed discussions over a period of more than 3 years ,influnced by your inputs too,
As this link says:http://nirmukta.com/2010/09/08/trolls-and-other-disrupters-a-pragmatists-guide-to-moderating-online-freethought-groups/

In such groups, the political infrastructure is built on strong bonds that develop due to dynamic relationships between members of the group. There may be hierarchical elements in a hetearchy, but the group exercises power through a participation-merit system. Thus the system maintains fairness while being effective in achieving its goals. In such a system, the rules of engagement are agreed upon through mutual agreement, weighted by degree of participation in the group.

Furthermore,having participated for some time,i came to appreciate the reasons and need for their existence,so has yash,nirmukta has never been more accommodating than needed even though there have always been people suggesting that it should be,so if you think that ""Nirmukta is not trying to lead the freethinking scene in India." However, as evident, it has become that way. In such a case, the community should be more accommodating and accepting. "
Perhaps it has worked,right?

Quote:Well, it is a matter of preference and perspective. I think that what happens on facebook should stay on facebook. Other forums are no different from facebook, all arguments are essentially about ego wars.
It is empirical ,just notice the difference between tone of discussions here and on the forums and it's evidence-based and intuitive based on features such as:
quoting,hyperlinking,splitting,automated banning,trasnparent warnings.
And doing away with ego-pumping instant likes, news feeds,notifications
and conversation spoilers of facebook such as see more to see complete comment,little wrap width,see more to see previous comments,single button press comments which infact caused the avoidable tussle between rahul and mad scientist.


Quote:I feel that facebook groups have far better reach than the forums. I want to show it to others who may not be part of the forum or frequent it. It will make the process transparent and dispel the myth that the admins can't handle the public and call people to their "den" for such discussions.
All productive discussions and planning have always been on the forums ,still is the same,sure facebook is far more active,but everyone remotely interested in development has joined the forums includes you,i don't consider dispelling the myth of den a reason enough to have such discussions in marshland of facebook groups,slowly swallowing and burying all our time and efforts we put to comment there,facebook has it's usage,forums have theirs.
Furthermore i doubt people who say that believe it themselves,or is it just a cowardly excuse considering this place is far more transparent, anyone who does not have confidence in their arguments would prefer a place where they can easily misrepresent facts, change positions anytime easily,ignore previous comments,here at forums,it is all open, all bare,naked.
We can link to you previous reply, link to an exact reply ,not just the thread,quote it ,also complete reply is always open,audience won't have to click on see more.
It is obvious why anyone who does not have confidence in their arguments should be scared of this place,search for excuses call it den.
When someone gets their argument refuted,the refutation will stay here,for as long as the forums are alive,this is a coward's nightmare,student's heaven and freethinker's haven.
Reply
#59
Aamil,

I'll put aside my mod hat and try to think this through as a member of Nirmukta who fully agrees with its humanistic stance. Of course, it is impossible to not be biased, but I'll give it a try.

Firstly, I agree that a warning or a note should be sent for mod actions.

Secondly, R called the admins "cunts" because he disagrees with the feminist position that Nirmukta has taken and for having a zero tolerance policy for some issues. I think that much should be obvious. Let's not pretend that it is something else. Having said that, I agree that what people say outside the group shouldn't matter.
Reply
#60
Why Don't I get reply from Super Moderator when I ask him for explanation about sending me warning????

When I take effort to change my mistakes why don't he reply to my questions????

If he is busy and he asked other moderators handle my problems, he could atleast say that to me right????

Why Nirmukta and Chennai Free Thinkers, Admins are so tight lipped and not replying to the messages sent??
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)