Jump to content
Lui

What's the criteria for selecting mods?

Recommended Posts

Some enlightenment please. 

Just so viewers know. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Screamingeagle said:

I was asked by Gareth(after he discused with senior members and other mods)

 

i can only guess about criteria!!!

I see, do you know who these so called "senior members" might be,, is a "senior member" one who has made many posts, been here a long time, made friends in low places etc. Are there more levels of recruitment and is there always discussion about who is eligible? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lui said:

I see, do you know who these so called "senior members" might be,, is a "senior member" one who has made many posts, been here a long time, made friends in low places etc. Are there more levels of recruitment and is there always discussion about who is eligible? 

yes long time members(on the DavidIcke.com)

people who have been with DI from the start(sort off)

 

levels? not sure ,after i accepted the invite and got the mod status i saw a thread with discusion about me 

(you could call it a voting)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your response, was your approval mentioned on the forum.? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

deleting entire threads is not moderation its censorship

 

For a moderator to.also declare they do not believe in freedom of speech on David Ickes own platforms is a tragedy of epic proportions 

 

We dont need moderating we need to SPEAK and speak freely 

 

Now more than ever ! 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Lui said:

Thanks for your response, was your approval mentioned on the forum.? 

 

you mean as notification to the all members of the forum?

 

i honestly don't remeber,i can go to the old forum and look it up (but not today😇)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that's what I meant, it seems like a good idea to let members know after all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2019 at 1:59 AM, MrA said:

deleting entire threads is not moderation its censorship

 

For a moderator to.also declare they do not believe in freedom of speech on David Ickes own platforms is a tragedy of epic proportions 

 

We dont need moderating we need to SPEAK and speak freely 

 

Now more than ever ! 

 

Seeing no one is willing to debate with you Mr A, I will, we do need total freedom of speech and also freedom from pure malice, malignancy in its many forms is not true debate, it is destructive upon epic proportions and creates negativity within the same realms.

 

Over on the Truth Zone is many sections of the same ideology, religious bigotary being one speciality with no let up, where your dictated too until it becomes unbareable, where your often hounded by the idiots doing it.

 

I remember when the SHTF on the old forum and the TZ poachers were out in force almost immediately, where I abstained at first and was labelled a traitor for exposing the poachers.

 

I like the meme where sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind, like a cruel King, but one without a higher than thou throne, that is now being governed by wealth and social climbing lunacy in a missionary prectorate angle for profits, because the ex post facto derivatives of monetary gain versus ignorance, is where we are sat right now.

 

I was invited to become a moderator on the old DIF and soon realized what was afoot, it was like another form of governance where the rulers were no better that our current political situation.

 

Now the tides have turned in the complete opposite direction and the rot is allowed to remain using the FOS model, but no FIO is given on decisions, like a closed childrens court, so what does this tell us what is taking shape, disguised as fairness, it will not work and only end in tears if it is allowed to carry on and the instigators or beligerance does not recognise itself for what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know what life is for if we cant learn and share 

 

Freedom to express our thoughts is a gift but IMO its a gift we have to fight.for in every generation

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally, we've lost the ability to civilly debate.  I can take the opposite position of my beliefs with zero dissonance or going ad hominem.  Often, I learn new things outside of my sphere.  I continually question my own beliefs.

Edited by JacksonsGhost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, JacksonsGhost said:

Generally, we've lost the ability to civilly debate.  I can take the opposite position of my beliefs with zero dissonance or going ad hominem.  Often, I learn new things outside of my sphere.  I continually question my own beliefs.

When they unleashed the internet on us they probably thought "Yeah, the people will be so shocked by how fucking stupid the rest of the world is they will BEG for us to censor them and BEG for censorship all round." I think that worked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Crom said:

When they unleashed the internet on us they probably thought "Yeah, the people will be so shocked by how fucking stupid the rest of the world is they will BEG for us to censor them and BEG for censorship all round." I think that worked.

 

We are seeing a mindset among some people which has certain traits. Principles such as the principle of free speech have developed to protect society from this mindset. the mindset has been widely observed among what has been termed the 'snowflake society' or 'social justice warriors'. I believe that the cabal behind the conspiracy have occult knowledge about human psychology that has been passed down through the centuries within their mystery schools as part of the art of control and that the information age/technological age is enabling them to apply that knowledge in a way that divides the workers in a devestating way.

 

The traits are as follows:

 

-a desire to impose onto society a subjective reality that has no basis in objective reality (narcissism)

-a desire to silence anyone who disagrees (ego centric)

-a vindictive desire for an authority to crush dissent (authoritarian streak)

-feels over facts

 

I was scanning RT's headlines today and read the following story about a guy who has killed himself after his ex made accusations against him as part of the metoo movement. The points made in the article could be applied to other areas other than the metoo movement for example if you look at the debates that have been had with 'progressives' you  can see particularly an entrenchment of their views even when solid information is shown to them. Instead of adapting to the new objective reality they simply double down on their position because they are not really guided by information; they are guided by a subjective desire and the information is really in their eyes just a means by which they can impose their subjective desire. This means that the concrete thing is not objective facts but rather their intransigent subjective desire. For them facts are completely flexible. It is their subjective desire (which they usually conceal but which you can discearn through debate) that is completely set in stone

‘Adorkable’ or rapist? Uncovered documents challenge Zoe Quinn’s abuse story (but #MeToo won’t care)

Published time: 12 Sep, 2019 07:32 Edited time: 12 Sep, 2019 07:38
In 2012, feminist activist Zoe Quinn called her romance with game creator Alec Holowka “adorkable”. Seven years later, she decried the same relationship as abuse. The troubled Holowka was then disgraced and took his own life.

There is something touchingly naïve about journalists at Canadian alternative news site The Postmillenial going on an old-fashioned internet deep dive to compare Quinn’s contemporaneous accounts of her relationship with indie developer Holowka, with her current description. As if they assume that her credibility with the mainstream media and #MeToo campaigners rests on facts, the psychological plausibility of her narrative, or personal trustworthiness, consistency and objectivity.

Nonetheless, it all makes for interesting –if somewhat macabre– reading now.

 

A quick summary of the accusations. Quinn, already a lightning rod for her originating role in the online culture war Gamergate, made allegations against Holowka, renowned for breakout indie hit Night in the Woods, posted on her Twitter late last month.

She alleged that Holowka “physically confined” her to his apartment in Winnipeg, where she flew out to stay with him, that he'd “degraded” and “screamed” at her, was “mean and violent” during sex, before she was rescued by a friend who “helped her get out” and fly back to Toronto. He also purportedly inserted himself into her career, by taking over the programming of the text game she had been writing, a romantic satire called It’s Not OK, Cupid, despite her “protests.”

Yet, a podcast from the time suggests a different emotional hue, as the couple bashfully recall their online meet-cute, their shared feminist ideals – such as encouraging more women coders in gaming – and both use “adorkable” to describe their fast-blooming relationship.

Meanwhile, her constant tweets from her time in Winnipeg suggest not a man wrestling in on a woman’s project, but endless days of fulfilling and exhausting work done side-by-side.

“When a boy game dev and a girl game dev love each other verrry [sic] much, they smash their heads together and a game comes out,” reads a typical message, screenshotted from Quinn’s Twitter, which has been locked to outsiders in the aftermath of Holowka’s death.

Nor is there any confirmation of Quinn’s fear-induced getaway. Instead, she discusses her flight from Winnipeg more than a week in advance, and her public exchanges with Holowka on social media date to well after she had returned to Toronto in May 2012 (when she dumped him by email).

So, what does this prove? Nothing, definitively. Many women in abusive relationships put on a brave face in front of others while suffering in private, and Quinn was careful in her since-deleted messages to mention that Holowka, who by all accounts was plagued by mental illness and mentioned thoughts of suicide, “acted normal in public.” Or maybe Quinn did not fully realize the extent of the abuse until she got home, and was able to evaluate her relationship. Or perhaps she lacked the necessary awareness and bravery altogether to process her past until her multi-page Twitter exposé.

But the main point remains; that actual details do not matter. Even by virtue of these emails it had been possible to somehow prove what her plentiful social media detractors had accused Quinn of. Namely, that she had opportunistically misrepresented a failed but not strictly abusive dalliance from years ago, in a bid for attention and sympathy, and thus pushed a man she knew was emotionally unstable towards suicide, the path that Holowka chose on August 31, shortly after being dismissed from his latest project due to the allegations.

What then? Within the paradigm of “Believe all women” that is embraced by #MeToo, it changes nothing. A woman can be in a consensual coupling, but the moment she decides that it wasn’t such, she is the victim. A woman can be in a complex, mutually-abusive relationship, but whatever her view of it is the final view. All prior facts can point to a woman being armed with a less convincing narrative than the man she is accusing, and yet her account is, by default, accepted over his.

Sifting through the facts to make a balanced or nuanced judgement –even asking Holowka for his side while he still could give it– is anathema to the #MeToo movement. The entire point is blind, unquestioning faith, an abandonment of truth-seeking.

In fact, there seems to be a perverse and tribal tendency here – the more toxic the person on the movement’s own side of the cause is, the harder they get defended, as a matter of principle. Despite countless accounts of Quinn’s dubious conduct and integrity – regardless of what happened in Winnipeg - each time she gets into a new pickle her supporters double down. Inconvenient facts are tossed away or aggressively countered.

One example: most of the mainstream media has stayed awkwardly silent on Holowka’s suicide (despite covering the allegations). A column in Wired bemoaned “male fragility” – the feminist equivalent of the “snowflake” putdown. Apparently, Holowka’s very real death was about keeping women “hostage” to male feelings. That hardening, that lack of empathy, that cruelty is only possible for decent people when you are no longer aware of your biases. At best what we will get now is a treatise on how questioning the victim is just another form of male abuse.

There are many scenarios where such self-serving tribalism is harmless – Messi or Ronaldo – or at least socially acceptable – Trump or Clinton. But bringing justice into private lives is not one of them.

By Igor Ogorodnev, senior writer at RT

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/468636-zoe-quinn-holowka-adorkable-metoo/

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×