Did you get mod privilege from Webby yet?
China-US-Taiwan Economic (Temp closed-pls read my last post)
- Thread starter Orthan
- Start date
- Status
Did you get mod privilege from Webby yet?
I said hat I would become a mod if I had the ability to ban people.
Otherwise, being a mod would be pointless.
You should have access to the extended moderation privilege once you are granted mod status.
Let's return to the topic.
@siegecrossbow
Sorry Jobjed, but frankly, on many of these issues you do not know what you are talking about.
I am capable...despite my health conditions...and have monitoed things. I agree witht siege
The problem has been, and @Bltizo , you should hear this part too...is that for an extended period of time NO MOD had been able to ban anyone. We oculd delete single posts, but not do any suspending or banning...and it became obvious and people noticed.
This is why BD has been gone. NOT because he did not want to do his job. The forum has taken a noticeable anti-US and anti-west slant to it...which has hurt the forum.
For months I took it upon my self to try and ban people who needed it by saying they were banned...and then watching them and deleting their posts each time they posted after banning until they realized that their posts would not be up for more than a day or two. As my cancer got worse, that became more difficult.
Webby has fixed that now...so we are back to the rules...and I suggest everyone re-read the rules. They were written some years ago and agreed to by the entire moderation team and webby at the time and they are still in force.
So, job, before you "take your shots" and try and make a case that is not there, do me a favor and re-read the rules. When you join you are expected to have read them and implicitly agree with them...or at least agree to follow them.
SD worked best when everyone did...and we need to get back there IMHO.
I intend to do all I can to help make THAT happen, because SD has been, and once again can be, the best defense forum on the web.
Last edited:
Okay, that is news to me that no mod anywhere has been able to ban members.
Why was that function even removed to begin with, and has it been/will it be reinstated?
People have been pushing me to put my name up for mod, and I've talked with webmaster about it but I said I will only take it on with the ability to ban people because otherwise it is indeed an empty position.
As for having a noticeable anti-US and anti-west slant -- unfortunately, that comes with every forum, which has their biases.
The more egregious offences need to be removed and warned, but there are too many good members who provide good PLA watching and commentary who may have opinions that can be called anti-US and anti-west (though they would argue it is rather pro-China).
If we want SDF to actually do its job for proper PLA watching in the way that it's been known for, some degree of anti-US and anti-west sentiment unfortunately comes with the territory.
Ever since the forum changed its look...some time ago.
Webby restored...re-programmed the functionality last week or so.
I was able to individually handle the most egregious things as I indicated above...but when moderators do not have the power to moderate...things (on either side) tend to get worse and worse.
I believe we have excellent tools now to get back to where we ought to be an uphold the rules of the forum. When we are able to do that...things run much more smoothly.
Just do your job properly. And it's your ability or willingness to do so that I'm calling into question.
Your rant against Manqiangrexue's post makes no sense whatsoever.
Firstly, he posted in July and it's already December, so unless you've been prowling in the shadows for five months waiting for an opportunity to jump at him, the only realistic explanation is you're late. Very late. So late you might as well consider his post to have past the statute of limitations. However, this point is moot due to my second point below.
Secondly, his comment contained no content that fits the criteria for which you warned him. He did NOT advocate for nuclear war. He did NOT profess a desire for war at all, neither nuclear nor conventional. He literally just stated the obvious, the facts of existence, the indisputable reality, without any eagerness for conflict. How did you even begin to interpret his comment as bellicose???
Before you accuse me of making a case that's not there, why don't you examine your own conduct? You have accused Manqiangrexue of something he's not guilty of. You only think he's guilty of it because you either failed to read his comment properly or you are intentionally trying to stamp out discussion highlighting a fact of life you dislike, both of which are strikes against your competence or suitability as a moderator.
I understand you dislike your country's being overshadowed by another that does not share your dogma of "all men are created equal under God" but if you cannot dispassionately do your job without coming under the influence of your nationalism and spiritualism, then you have no place holding authority in this forum. I am aware of my own biases which is why I declined the possibility of a moderator's position in my private conversations with another moderator. If you, like me, cannot separate your enforcement of rules due to biases then, like me, you have the obligation to decline, or rather, relinquish your position.
Anyhow, regardless of your decision on whether to continue moderating, you have to admit your warning to Manqiang is illogical and inappropriate. I expect you to recant your warning and if Siege hasn't already done so, revoke his ban.
Sorry Jobjed...it is not your position to order or command or demand that we do any such thing. You are already questioning moderation on an open thread which is against the rules itself.
In so doing you are treading on thin ice.
In two weeks he will be back if he wants. Some of the things he said on more than one or two threads were things that could have been cause for an immediate bad before.
'Nuff said. Just step back.
Best if we just let it drop now.
Anyhow...this discussion is finished.
Please do not try and stir it up any more.
A USN ship entering a Chinese port without authorization can be interpreted as an act of war. The ship might be destroyed while in that port. It is a risk US shouldn't take.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
There are also practicality concerns. If port visits becomes the norm, why not a naval base to help support those port visits?
Apart from the slippery slope argument, there is also the fear that an administration hell bent on independence might try to force America’s hand, by unilaterally declaring independence when an USN fleet is on a port call stopover.
China cannot launch military operations without effectively guaranteeing US direct military involvement in the conflict while the US fleet is there, but nor could Chins just wait for the USN fleet to pull out before attacking, as it would be very easy to imagine a situation where one or more USN ships suddenly started suffering ‘mechanical problems’ and could not depart for some time.
The US does have past form into stretching such temporary arrangements into longstanding facts on the ground.
By drawing the red line at the point where foreign warships crosses the 12nm mark, China will have some legal merit, since even the US recognises Taiwan as part of China, so China can very reasonably argue that any foreign warships within 12nm of Taiwan is violating Chinese territorial waters.
In addition, if China obliterates the port that the USN ships wants to dock at while they are still several miles out, the USN cannot dock there, and only a fool would keep his ships in the area when missiles are raining down, since the USN are not in a habit of promoting fools to captains, the odds are good the USN fleet will make full speed for open water immediately in such a scenario.
That means the US will have to make the very deliberate choice to get involved militarily, instead of being involved by default from the start with the choice of whether to stay involved or pull out.
Apart from the slippery slope argument, there is also the fear that an administration hell bent on independence might try to force America’s hand, by unilaterally declaring independence when an USN fleet is on a port call stopover.
China cannot launch military operations without effectively guaranteeing US direct military involvement in the conflict while the US fleet is there, but nor could Chins just wait for the USN fleet to pull out before attacking, as it would be very easy to imagine a situation where one or more USN ships suddenly started suffering ‘mechanical problems’ and could not depart for some time.
The US does have past form into stretching such temporary arrangements into longstanding facts on the ground.
By drawing the red line at the point where foreign warships crosses the 12nm mark, China will have some legal merit, since even the US recognises Taiwan as part of China, so China can very reasonably argue that any foreign warships within 12nm of Taiwan is violating Chinese territorial waters.
In addition, if China obliterates the port that the USN ships wants to dock at while they are still several miles out, the USN cannot dock there, and only a fool would keep his ships in the area when missiles are raining down, since the USN are not in a habit of promoting fools to captains, the odds are good the USN fleet will make full speed for open water immediately in such a scenario.
That means the US will have to make the very deliberate choice to get involved militarily, instead of being involved by default from the start with the choice of whether to stay involved or pull out.
- Status