"Israel: Illegitimate State?" thread, in connection with an older one

[23meg]

I have several issues about this thread, which I will name one by one, and demand clear explanations for. I will also draw a connection between it and another lasting related issue I've had left over from another similar thread, whose hidden basis seems to have surfaced thanks to this thread.

1) The closure: There was no name calling, no personal attack, no degrading of any particular religion or nation. But it was going to happen anyway; I just wonder if there's any particular breach of the Backyard rules that can be pointed to in the last rush of posts to justify it, or if it is the same preemptive "this thread was getting petty" approach, which is mysteriously taken by certain moderators and on certain topics only.

2) The renaming: The OP wanted to discuss whether Israel was a legitimate state or not; it was discussed, and inevitably, the discussion went on to include details on the broader issue. Removing the "Illegitimate State?" part from the title is imposing one's opinion that "no, it's not an an illegitimate state", and saying that it's not possible to question Israel's legitimacy here.

3)The "new antisemitism" allegation / accusation: Now, the real important one. A while ago, I had started a thread related to Israel, and it was closed and jailed.. When I objected to this, I got the reply that "some of the posts were antisemitic by nature". I asked in the resolution center three times which parts of which posts were antisemitic, and there was no reply; I was instead given a definition of "new antisemitism", on which the decision was based.

Now that the same dubious line of "new antisemitism" was brought up by the same moderator who jailed the older thread against the normal procedure, without even giving a warning, I understand whom it was coming from in the first place.

"New antisemitism" is used as a censorship device applied on completely legitimate discussions of Israel, Palestine and the surrounding conflict in an effort to give Israel an immunity. Since no clear proof of the usual definition of antisemitism can be found in these discussions, a "new" definition is needed to preemptively judge opinions that "may be hiding antisemitism behind them".

I don't see any effective difference between calling a statement "new-antisemitic" or antisemitic. And given that a clear answer was deliberately avoided to my request for the basis of the "new antisemitism" accusation in the older thread, I'll have to assume that the original post, which belongs to me, is thought to be antisemitic.

I demand that this assumption be confirmed or denied clearly. If denied, I once more demand an explanation of which parts of which posts in that thread are "new-antisemitic". If confirmed, I will refrain from posting to the Backyard entirely in the future as long as the moderator in question, as well as the bias and offensive accusatory nature in the general understanding of the matter, is in place.

Discussion of the policies of state of Israel has to be completely decoupled from any possible allegation of antisemitism. Naming a group of people as antisemitic, no matter "old" or "new", under whichever guise, is a very serious accusation that should be justified, or retracted with a proper apology.

[23meg]

Now that the same dubious line of "new antisemitism" was brought up by the same moderator who jailed the older thread against the normal procedure, without even giving a warning, I understand whom it was coming from in the first place.

Correction, since I can't edit the original post: here I meant to link to this post. I'd appreciate an edit to the original post, after which this one can be deleted.

[matthew]

I'll look into this. It may take a day or two to get back with a good answer. We have a forums council meeting today that needs some time and I'm quite busy at work...if another Admin has time to get to this before I am able please feel free to do so.

[matthew]

23Meg, you made a lot of demands. That's not a good way to win friends nor is it a way to make me more likely to do anything. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Overall RavTux is a good member of this staff and I support him. I understand your points and here's what I'm doing to address them:

I'm talking with Rav Tux about the issues you raised with his moderation and posts in the thread. We will try to prevent a similar occurrence in the future.

The thread has been renamed back to its original title.

Finally, I am going to leave the thread closed, but for other reasons that I will post in the thread itself soon.

[23meg]

23Meg, you made a lot of demands. That's not a good way to win friends nor is it a way to make me more likely to do anything. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Aside from the demands others have made in other threads on the same issue, and you've adressed quite reasonably, I'm making just one demand. And I'm just very serious about it; I don't think I'm being unreasonably bitter. I have tried the honey method multiple times, and was ignored, as you can see in the thread I linked to. The only reason I'm taking a harder line than before is that my request for an explanation has been completely ignored four times as of now, including your not addressing the main issue in this very thread.

Ignoring demands for explanations of moderation actions, especially in the Resolution Center, which exists solely for this purpose, isn't a good way of dealing with people. You should expect some vinegar in return, especially if the issue at hand is a very serious potential accusation such as antisemitism.

A literary world equivalent of locking as well as jailing a whole thread, citing antisemitism as the reason, and not coming up with an explanation of which post is antisemitic, let alone why, would be banning a book, ordering all existing copies to be buried, citing, say, racism (or why not, antisemitism) as the reason, and not providing any proof of what is racist in it, and not answering requests of clarification, which is effectively forbidding any discussion of whether it has to be banned.

As a writer, would you not take as hard a line as necessary on authority that does that to your book? And wouldn't you be even more sensitive if you felt the dubious and very much debated excuse of, say, "new-racism" was being put forward as a device of censorship to block the kind of discussion you proposed with your book, that you felt had to take place?

Overall RavTux is a good member of this staff and I support him.

Given that he has clearly misused his power as a moderator multiple times based completely on his own position on certain issues, as well as other less important reasons that I feel shouldn't be disclosed and discussed here, I disagree. I think we'll just agree to disagree.

I understand your points and here's what I'm doing to address them:

I'm talking with Rav Tux about the issues you raised with his moderation and posts in the thread. We will try to prevent a similar occurrence in the future.

I appreciate that, but it has been done before as well, and as the case at hand illustrates, it hasn't worked. There's not much I can do other than hope once again that he learns from his mistakes, and that the administration is stricter when making and monitoring moderator choices and policies.

The thread has been renamed back to its original title.

Good call, appreciated.

Finally, I am going to leave the thread closed, but for other reasons that I will post in the thread itself soon.

I have two little things thing to add to your explanation in the thread, which I find otherwise appropriate:

You made the "one day cool off period" post while I was writing my last post in response to BLTicklemonster, and I only saw it after I submitted my post; you can check the timestamps to verify if needed. If you feel it's important to be fair regarding who gets the last word (I don't), it's at your discretion to remove my post from the jail.

And in my next and last post in response to yours, I did state that I was leaving the thread.

I'm still expecting attention to my main query.

[matthew]

I just sent you a PM addressing this.

[KiwiNZ]

I don't see any effective difference between calling a statement "new-antisemitic" or antisemitic. And given that a clear answer was deliberately avoided to my request for the basis of the "new antisemitism" accusation in the older thread, I'll have to assume that the original post, which belongs to me, is thought to be antisemitic.

.

The previous thread you refer to being this http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=235358

You were never accused of being antisemitic. The statement was "After careful consideration and taking advice from several sources.A number of posts are considered anti-semitic in nature and as such are against the rules for the Backyard".

[23meg]

The statement was "After careful consideration and taking advice from several sources.A number of posts are considered anti-semitic in nature and as such are against the rules for the Backyard".

That's not an explanation. You're just restating the problem.

I asked for that statement to be clarified multiple times, and it wasn't. Since the same moderator who merged, closed and jailed the Galloway thread without a warning brought up the same line of "new-antisemitism" in the "Illegitimate state?" thread, I'm inferring that it was probably him who was consulted and who brought up that reason in the older thread.

I don't want blanket statements that intentionally leave things vague; I want clear, precise explanations that point to specific statements.

You were never accused of being antisemitic.

Besides, it doesn't matter much if it's me or someone else who was accused of being antisemitic; there was no trace of antisemitism in either thread, and if anyone is saying there is, I have a problem with that regardless of who is being accused. That's why I chose the term "potential accusation"; things were left so vague that it's impossible to determine who is being accused, and due to what exactly.

[23meg]

During the long time this thread has been inactive, I've been in private contact with matthew. He's updated me on the status of the issue, and we had a good discussion which I thought was going to lead to a satisfactory resolution... until yesterday, when I asked once more for a "yes or no" answer on whether an agreement had been reached on the anti-semitism issue, and he replied to me that the staff weren't planning to revisit the Galloway thread at all (without citing a reason), and that he couldn't help me any further with my queries.

KiwiNZ, who had ruled that the thread was anti-semitic in the first place, also hasn't shown an interest in clarifying his own judgement by pointing to what exactly was anti-semitic, and due to what reason.

Sadly, it's back to square one. Things are still intentionally being left vague, and thus unresolved.

It seems I've run into a brick wall here. I don't have much left to do other than request that the other administrators, jdong, ubuntu-geek and Mike, look thoroughly into the issue and give me a clear answer.

To recap, what I'm requesting is:

1) Clarification of whether or not the Galloway thread is still thought to be of anti-semitic nature.

2) If positive, disambiguation of the allegation. Pointers to the specific statements that have caused the thread to be labeled anti-semitic.

3) If negative, removal of the thread from the jail, with a proper retraction of the anti-semitism allegation.

I'm completely puzzled as to why the staff, who have made mistakes before (which is to be expected, since they're human) and have done very well at making up for them by revisiting the threads in question and readjusting their judgements, have been incredibly reluctant to provide a simple clarification of this issue. If it was a mistake to label the thread as anti-semitic, it should be a simple matter to retract that labeling and say "We're sorry; we've misjudged, and we're correcting our mistake". It's been done before; why not now? When I ask that to myself, all I can think of is that the thread is still considered to be anti-semitic; in that case, they should be able to stand behind their judgement and point to what led them to it, right? But since they apparently can't, they should... I've been running in that circle of thought, and I want it to be broken.

No clarification will mean no resolution.

I'd like to thank matthew for his sensitivity on the matter, and what help he has given me.

[KiwiNZ]

We have made our position clear. We have provided explanation . We have given links where this matter can be researched .

As far as we are concerned this matter is closed.