I alluded to Debate & Relate in my opening post. Boondocker linked this board on DR and I followed my way here.  :D

I post at DR as Green Eggs & Ham, but I lurk more than post. I can't fault the moderation as being unfair, but I think if anything, there isn't enough moderation. As such, these are the types of debates you can find at DR:

This, to an aboriginal poster no less:


Quote:

This really makes my blood boil. It's a bloody outrage. Them marching separately - and not behind the banners of their respective military divisions - is a clear case of reverse racism at its most extreme. And it's just so typical of the gutless, no-balls, PC RSL leadership that they should buckle to the wishes of abos wanting to march upon racist lines rather than along lines of which units their fathers and their grandfathers had belonged to. Your RSL leadership is packed with faggots. When during the Cronulla riots a Muslim kid tore down the Australian flag and had his mates spit and trample on it - and then the police caught this offender - the RSL leadership turned to water and buckled at the knees rather than demand that this deliquent be given a damn good caning and six months in jail. As for the abos... since the Second World War the urban aboriginal community has been teaching its youth to hate 'Whitey'. It has been one of the first requirements of urban aboriginal tribalism that their youth display an attitude of hatred and animosity towards us 'Whiteys'. It's a badge of honour to them. And acts of criminality against 'Whitey' is always excused by their community as this being nothing more reprehensible that it is recompense for 'Whitey' have invaded their Australian homeland. Give me a break! TOUGHEN UP, AUSTRALIA!

http://www.debaterelate.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1135&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60

That's fairly typical of the debate you'll find on DR. That's not even looking at the rampant Islamiphobia, of the kind you may find here: http://www.debaterelate.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1058.

Does the debate here get moderated? Are words like "abo"and "sandmonkey" on the table? Do the owners of Debate & Relate have a moral obligation to steer certain of the more rigourous debates over there to a higher moral ground?

Viva la revolution!

Glen

Nasty piece of work.

It's hardly likely the moderator of this forum would allow it as it is downright discriminatory and full of hatred.

I'm surprised other posters haven't written to the moderator and complained, but maybe there is a white supremacy element in that particular forum.

Hi fastestdraw,

how are you ?
I dount the moderator will be concerned with that.
It looks like a pretty mindless ignorant posting to me.

If Aborigines fought for my freedom They are entitled to march wherever they wish, or not march if they wish. If they defended me, they are good men in my books.

The RSL have my respect. They are not "full of homosexuals". What a bizarre comment by you .
They forgave the young muslim kid that acted in the haste of youth.

Well, they do have valid reasons for hating whitey.
But they dont hate whitey or commit crimes against whitey as much as whitey commits crimes against the aboriginal peoples.  

Do you have a point or reason to your posting ?

Hi all --

I'm one of the two owners of Debate & Relate. As the board is being discussed here, I thought I would take this opportunity to comment, and I thank freediver for providing me a platform to do so.

Firstly, any claim that DR doesn't have rules and isn't moderated is false. We have a number of rules, detailed in a thread in the welcome section. Any poster who habitually breaks these rules get shown the door. Permanently.

Glen, your dispute appears to be not with our rules, but with the fact that you want more of them. Specifically, I imply you want us to moderate the debate.

We won't do that.

As board administrators, Boondocker and I draw our line in the sand, and set the rules around that line. It doesn't please all of the people, all of the time. It can't, possibly. Some folks want more moderation; some folks want less. But as the owners of the board, Boondocker and I hold the preserve of drawing that line, and seeing that line is enforced. The board is averaging nearly 150 posts per day, and that number is climbing steadily. We can't please all of the people all of the time, but an active and rapidly growing board would suggest that most people are fairly happy with DR.

Here's our line, Glen. Let me show you where it lies.

The post you quote above of Herbert's contains the following statement:


Quote:

As for the abos... since the Second World War the urban aboriginal community has been teaching its youth to hate 'Whitey'.

Herbert is allowed to use that word on our board. Yes -- even to an aboriginal poster, as you mentioned.

Where's our 'line in the sand'? Because it does exist.  ;)

Herbert can write the above, but what he CANNOT do, is to write something like this:


Quote:

As for stinking abos like you Corran....since the Second World War (etc)

The difference between the first and the second, is that the second is a personal attack, using race as a denigrating descriptor. That would not be tolerated. In that case, Herbert would cop a warning, and then a permanent ban if it became habit.

The problem with moderating debate and banning use of "naughty" words is that these things become a very slippery slope, with Freedom of Speech becoming the ultimate casualty.

We do have a line in the sand Glen, and I admit the debate is robust. Personally, I like the debate robust. It's a debate board, not a knitting circle.

That said, DR is not for everyone, and I've never believed in a "one board fits all" approach. It may be that the robust style of DR is not for you, Glen.

And that's ok!  :)

I welcome any and all here to check out DR, and hook in to some admittedly robust debate.

Cheers

Nicole

Nicole Page wrote on Apr 28^th, 2007 at 7:29pm:

Hi all -- <snip> I welcome any and all here to check out DR, and hook in to some admittedly robust debate. Cheers Nicole

A very good post mate.

And that's probably why I stay out of most areas except for politics.    I prefer a civil debate but the ride can be quite bumpy in some of the other areas.     Not to say I'm afraid of a 'robust debate' but often they lose their way and get caught up in a semantic discussion with a lot of rudeness.    ;)

Nicole Page wrote on Apr 28^th, 2007 at 7:29pm:

Hi all -- I'm one of the two owners of Debate & Relate. As the board is being discussed here, I thought I would take this opportunity to comment, and I thank freediver for providing me a platform to do so. Firstly, any claim that DR doesn't have rules and isn't moderated is false. We have a number of rules, detailed in a thread in the welcome section. Any poster who habitually breaks these rules get shown the door. Permanently. Glen, your dispute appears to be not with our rules, but with the fact that you want more of them. Specifically, I imply you want us to moderate the debate. We won't do that. As board administrators, Boondocker and I draw our line in the sand, and set the rules around that line. It doesn't please all of the people, all of the time. It can't, possibly. Some folks want more moderation; some folks want less. But as the owners of the board, Boondocker and I hold the preserve of drawing that line, and seeing that line is enforced. The board is averaging nearly 150 posts per day, and that number is climbing steadily. We can't please all of the people all of the time, but an active and rapidly growing board would suggest that most people are fairly happy with DR. Here's our line, Glen. Let me show you where it lies. The post you quote above of Herbert's contains the following statement: Quote: As for the abos... since the Second World War the urban aboriginal community has been teaching its youth to hate 'Whitey'. Herbert is allowed to use that word on our board. Yes -- even to an aboriginal poster, as you mentioned. Where's our 'line in the sand'? Because it does exist.  ;) Herbert can write the above, but what he CANNOT do, is to write something like this: [QUOTE]As for stinking abos like you Corran....since the Second World War (etc)

The difference between the first and the second, is that the second is a personal attack, using race as a denigrating descriptor. That would not be tolerated. In that case, Herbert would cop a warning, and then a permanent ban if it became habit.

The problem with moderating debate and banning use of "naughty" words is that these things become a very slippery slope, with Freedom of Speech becoming the ultimate casualty.

We do have a line in the sand Glen, and I admit the debate is robust. Personally, I like the debate robust. It's a debate board, not a knitting circle.

That said, DR is not for everyone, and I've never believed in a "one board fits all" approach. It may be that the robust style of DR is not for you, Glen.

And that's ok!  :)

I welcome any and all here to check out DR, and hook in to some admittedly robust debate.

Cheers

Nicole









[/quote]

Nicole, some who have come from debate and relate have problems with the terms abs and coons. Very upset by it.

There is a reason these words are offensive even without the use of  'descriptors '. If this offends some of your members why does that not concern you?



Nicole , can you tell me why Aboriginal Australians find the word 'abo' and 'coon' offensive? Perhaps if you knew why you would SEE why.

deepthought wrote on Apr 28^th, 2007 at 7:49pm:

Nicole Page wrote on Apr 28th, 2007 at 7:29pm: Hi all -- <snip> I welcome any and all here to check out DR, and hook in to some admittedly robust debate. Cheers Nicole A very good post mate. And that's probably why I stay out of most areas except for politics.    I prefer a civil debate but the ride can be quite bumpy in some of the other areas.     Not to say I'm afraid of a 'robust debate' but often they lose their way and get caught up in a semantic discussion with a lot of rudeness.    ;)

Indeed. The board represents an accurate cross-section of Australian society. ;)

Quote:

There is a reason these words are offensive even without the use of  'descriptors '. If this offends some of your members why does that not concern you?

Precisely.

If we moderated every time someone felt "offence", we'd have a board that looks very much like Public Debate right now.

Cheers

Nicole

I haven't read this entire thread yet and I may not have much time now. Please don't start some kind of 'board war' between OzPolitic and DR. Every forum will have different moderating styles and standards for what is acceptable. This is a good thing as it gives you choice. Think of it as multiculturalism  ;)

the RSL leadership turned to water and buckled at the knees rather than demand that this deliquent be given a darn good caning and six months in jail

I think I remember reading about this. They went to some length to diffuse the entire situation and connect with the perpetrator. I thought it was very mature on the RSL's behalf. I guess that sort of maturity comes with the full experience of human nature they have endured. The hotheads complaining would do well to try to learn something from them.

This vitriol sounds very similar to what is being said about muslims in Australia - that they are a threat to our society. I guess some people just look for boogey men round every corner.

Does the debate here get moderated? Are words like "abo"and "sandmonkey" on the table?

We don't yet have a firm policy on this sort of thing. So far this has worked well for us:

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1172540626

freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2007 at 8:39pm:

I haven't read this entire thread yet and I may not have much time now. Please don't start some kind of 'board war' between OzPolitic and DR. Every forum will have different moderating styles and standards for what is acceptable. This is a good thing as it gives you choice. Think of it as multiculturalism  ;)

I agree with this.   If the words concern you oceans why not join D & R and take it up with those who use them.   Here is not the place to do that.

deepthought wrote on Apr 28^th, 2007 at 8:54pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 28th, 2007 at 8:39pm: I haven't read this entire thread yet and I may not have much time now. Please don't start some kind of 'board war' between OzPolitic and DR. Every forum will have different moderating styles and standards for what is acceptable. This is a good thing as it gives you choice. Think of it as multiculturalism  ;) I agree with this.   If the words concern you oceans why not join D & R and take it up with those who use them.   Here is not the place to do that.

As do I Deepthought.

So what exactly is the issue here? If D&R is thought by some to be under-moderated, then this opinion is certainly not supported by the sheer number of people who in the past few weeks have been banned for having persistently demonstrated themselves to be congenital idiots beyond any hope of rehabilitation.

And furthermore... HEY! WHERE'S EVERYONE GONE... ?! Was it something I said, or has everyone rushed off to a Fire Sale somewhere... ?

Anyway, as I was saying...

Aw, forget it.

Well, well, well, what do we have here.

Above is only a tiny sample of what goes on there. If you think the anger displayed toward Aboriginals and Muslims is bad, wait until you read what gets said about those who don't hate Aboriginals and Muslims. It's absolutely sickening the amount of personal abuse that goes unmoderated there.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 15^th, 2010 at 5:36pm:

Well, well, well, what do we have here. Above is only a tiny sample of what goes on there. If you think the anger displayed toward Aboriginals and Muslims is bad, wait until you read what gets said about those who don't hate Aboriginals and Muslims. It's absolutely sickening the amount of personal abuse that goes unmoderated there.

Don't misunderstand this Time, but I have to ask how many Posts did you make there before you left?  I reckon you made many and I know you stood against the tide, especially that of my old nemises Animal Mother.  But, hey, why did it take you so long?

:)

Aussie wrote on Sep 15^th, 2010 at 10:37pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Sep 15th, 2010 at 5:36pm: Well, well, well, what do we have here. Above is only a tiny sample of what goes on there. If you think the anger displayed toward Aboriginals and Muslims is bad, wait until you read what gets said about those who don't hate Aboriginals and Muslims. It's absolutely sickening the amount of personal abuse that goes unmoderated there. Don't misunderstand this Time, but I have to ask how many Posts did you make there before you left?  I reckon you made many and I know you stood against the tide, especially that of my old nemises Animal Mother.  But, hey, why did it take you so long? :)

I made about 2,000 posts. The reason I stayed there for so long was because it was fun to refute their positions and then watch them have a coronary. But in the last month or so the personal abuse had reached an all time high, and the moderators stood by and let it all happen.
As for AnimalMother, he's an extremely sensitive individual and gets so uppity when his position is questioned or refuted. One wonders why he bothers going onto debate forums in the first place if he can't stand criticism.