Jump to content
Darth Vader

Make Shiachat Shiachat again

notme

We have given leeway for members to air their grievances in a polite and reasonable manner, but this is definitely not permission to condemn individual moderators or discuss specific details of a moderator action (beyond generalities). According to rule #9, discussions on moderator actions are to be discussed privately by PM.

 

 

Message added by notme

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, hasanhh said:

remarred

Do you purposely use 'marred' instead of 'married' every time, to connote the sinister aspect of the phenomenon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I note how people sit on the fence and refer to certain mods as being "abusers of power" etc. etc. without mentioning actual names. What is the value in that? It's like being at High School when everyone talks about people and events in hushed tones but no names are mentioned to teachers. I don't like this kind of duplicity. How can SC improve if they don't know who you are referring to in particular? I guess no one wants to be seen as the bad guy by outing people  - people want to be seen as being neutral and PC.

If I mentioned a mods name it is not a personal attack and neither am I underestimating his dedication or commitment to his role. In my opinion, I don't think that he bought closure on a particular thread correctly before closing it and this has coloured my view of his ability to fulfil his role aptly. It's my opinion. I also acknowledge with hindsight that this may have been a one off incident but at least I am brazen enough to refer to actual people. At least there's transparency for the reason of my complaint. A complaint without actual names is just slander in my opinion. 

I do appreciate all the hard work and hours that the mods put in. Thank you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Aflower said:

I note how people sit on the fence and refer to certain mods as being "abusers of power" etc. etc. without mentioning actual names. What is the value in that? It's like being at High School when everyone talks about people and events in hushed tones but no names are mentioned to teachers. I don't like this kind of duplicity. How can SC improve if they don't know who you are referring to in particular? I guess no one wants to be seen as the bad guy by outing people  - people want to be seen as being neutral and PC.

There was a time over a few months that there was literally a banning spree and many posters left.  At least some of it was based on personal ideologies and had nothing to do with violating site rules.  Subjective criteria (always open to abuse) was used.  I was told by an angry mod with whom I disagreed (hence the anger) that they could ban me; I also heard this from others.   However, this is in the past and at this time, there is absolutely no value or constructive reason to identify anyone or I would... and I am definitely not one who needs to be seen as neutral or PC.

Edited by Maryaam
grammar....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Aflower said:

I note how people sit on the fence and refer to certain mods as being "abusers of power" etc. etc. without mentioning actual names. What is the value in that? It's like being at High School when everyone talks about people and events in hushed tones but no names are mentioned to teachers

Lolz. Well, you did choose one of the few good mods to speak about. You're lucky. If you mentioned the name of a mod who would be considered a "power" abuser you'd probably be kicked off in the blink of an eye. :hahaha: Or you'd get threatened. Or you'd get banned and be told to write an apology, because that's the only way you'll be allowed back on. 

Edited by 2Timeless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Aflower said:

I note how people sit on the fence and refer to certain mods as being "abusers of power" etc. etc. without mentioning actual names. What is the value in that? It's like being at High School when everyone talks about people and events in hushed tones but no names are mentioned to teachers. I don't like this kind of duplicity. How can SC improve if they don't know who you are referring to in particular? I guess no one wants to be seen as the bad guy by outing people  - people want to be seen as being neutral and PC.

If I mentioned a mods name it is not a personal attack and neither am I underestimating his dedication or commitment to his role. In my opinion, I don't think that he bought closure on a particular thread correctly before closing it and this has coloured my view of his ability to fulfil his role aptly. It's my opinion. I also acknowledge with hindsight that this may have been a one off incident but at least I am brazen enough to refer to actual people. At least there's transparency for the reason of my complaint. A complaint without actual names is just slander in my opinion. 

I do appreciate all the hard work and hours that the mods put in. Thank you. 

Bismehe Ta3ala, 

Assalam Alikum.

Dear sister if you have been on SC long enough you know who has beef with others.  I like how you compared it to h.s., because most definitely there is cliquish behavior.

For sure SC is not a secular site, I love how shias from across the globe come to this platform and exchange ideas, information and their opinions.  It's diverse and that's what keeps me coming back.  I know people who have unregistered who couldn't stand some individuals for their secular views and claim they follow Islam but are more likely to follow their brand of Islam and not Pure Islam of Rasoul Allah and AhulBayt.  I tell them, it's fine that's not the majority of the members, there are mo2mineen who are striving and are respectable.

I hope you participate more and stay active.  God bless you and thank you for your comment.

M3 Salamah, FE AMIN Allah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

Do you purposely use 'marred' instead of 'married' every time, to connote the sinister aspect of the phenomenon?

YES !    :yahoo:

Besides, it is not a 'phenomenon' but a curse.

l was not happy and truly regret it.

l need add something. When l grew up, 'marriage jokes' were a norm with a lot of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey since when did a make shiachat shiachat again thread turn into a mod bashing thread. 

Somethings should be kept to yourself till someone who is reforming the site asks for your opinion. 

The site is improving in terms of picking information , the only thing probably missing is the quality and honesty of the past members. 

Prior it was mainly the salafis/literalists who used to lie and make a thousand excuses. Nowadays this trait is found in literalist shias too. 

Such people should never be put in any position full stop. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hasanhh said:

YES !    :yahoo:

Besides, it is not a 'phenomenon' but a curse.

l was not happy and truly regret it.

l need add something. When l grew up, 'marriage jokes' were a norm with a lot of people.

Not very big on being 'marred' myself, but my beloved Prophet (sawa) was surely not 'accursed' 9-fold!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

Not very big on being 'marred' myself, but my beloved Prophet (sawa) was surely not 'accursed' 9-fold!!

Ehhhh, but He-s.a.w.s did have 'awkward moments' (l am trying to avoid a Mod's rant). CITATION: Ayats 66:1-3 <---------------

Although He-s.a.w.s. didn't have Lut's-a.s. wife, Ayat 11:81, inshallah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Darth Vader said:

Yes , good sister. Apparently I am a monster.

On this post l went back to review mine -my points.

on 11Nov14 l got 3 + 1 = 4 points for "Trolling" which have recently been changed to "lnapproprite Language".  l can't remember the details, but l do remember l thought-after-reviewing that a follow-on post wasn't 'necessary' and l was using up space. l still otherwise do not understand it.

Now, the one recently re-characterized as "Spamming" is really the Carelessness l wrote about above. As the Mod commented, what was around that article was "grotesque" and clearly not appropriate for SC. l agree and agreed then. The mistake was not the article but the other contents of the publication. So with this and all the contrived/false "news" out there  l am much more careful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, haideriam said:

The site is improving in terms of picking information , the only thing probably missing is the quality and honesty of the past members. 

I wish @Irfani313 posted more often. He is very knowledgable and his contribution is always value adding.

What happened to @Intellectual Resistance? Such a loss to the SC community that he left. Can anyone ask him if he would like to return?

@Wholehearted Shi'a is a brother I respect and whose posts I look forward to reading. Always balanced and calm. 

@Laayla and @Maryaam are very wise sisters and aren't afraid of stating an unpopular viewpoint if they believe it to be so. I respect that about them. Also, they don't confine themselves to any cliques.

When some people submit posts I can predict within seconds who is going to respond and who will like their posts by the dozen (irrespective of whether it's a like worthy post or not). C'mon people - have some objectively. This is SC not Instagram or FB where you automatically like your friends and families posts. 

I guess ultimately as @haideriam highlighted, it's not about the quantity of the threads/posts, or even the number of likes, but the quality of the threads/posts that matters.

Let's make SC a great site that people want to return to and that people learn about Shiasm from. 

 

 

Edited by Aflower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, 2Timeless said:

Lolz. Well, you did choose one of the few good mods to speak about. You're lucky. If you mentioned the name of a mod who would be considered a "power" abuser you'd probably be kicked off in the blink of an eye. :hahaha: Or you'd get threatened. Or you'd get banned and be told to write an apology, because that's the only way you'll be allowed back on. 

There have already been quite a few instances of people openly criticising mods and, as far as I know, there are no cases where someone was banned for simply criticising a mod, and most certainly not by the mod who was criticised. Yes, we do generally maintain that mod decisions are not to be discussed in public and all appeals should be made via PM to avoid turning every disciplinary action into a public spectacle - that only invites chaos - and so people might face some action for that, but I don't know of any instances when a mod banned someone solely for criticising them. Even if action is to be taken, most of the time, the mod involved in the debate would ask others on the team to look into it, and I've seen this happen numerous times. As @notme pointed out, there's a lot you don't see behind the scenes so you may never know when a mod has excused him/herself from the process because they're involved in the debate themselves. I do see what's going on behind the scenes so I can tell you that I've seen mods do this on various occasions.

I would also like to point out, on an unrelated note, that some people tend to point out that our rules are at times ambiguous. That much is certainly true and the rules that are laid out aren't perfect or all-encompassing because none of us are lawyers; however, we are always working on updating them. There have been numerous occasions in the past year that the whole team found a user's actions to be questionable but there was no explicit rule regarding said behaviour so we updated the rules to reflect that and ensure that future infractions of the kind cannot be skirted. Just last week, one of the mods refrained from taking action against a member because they wanted to not be unfair if there was no explicit rule about the member's misdemeanours. This was despite many other members actively asking mods to ban/discipline the person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Khadim uz Zahra said:

There have already been quite a few instances of people openly criticising mods and, as far as I know, there are no cases where someone was banned for simply criticising a mod, and most certainly not by the mod who was criticised. Yes, we do generally maintain that mod decisions are not to be discussed in public and all appeals should be made via PM to avoid turning every disciplinary action into a public spectacle - that only invites chaos - and so people might face some action for that, but I don't know of any instances when a mod banned someone solely for criticising them. Even if action is to be taken, most of the time, the mod involved in the debate would ask others on the team to look into it, and I've seen this happen numerous times. As @notme pointed out, there's a lot you don't see behind the scenes so you may never know when a mod has excused him/herself from the process because they're involved in the debate themselves. I do see what's going on behind the scenes so I can tell you that I've seen mods do this on various occasions.

*Persecution Complex*

A lot of folks like to play e-shuhada, whenever their will is crossed.

Edited by AbdusSibtayn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AbdusSibtayn said:

*Persecution Complex*

Well, would you rather users complain about our actions and we don't explain them? If we did that, we'd be accused of being indifferent tyrants who rule from Olympus with nary a concern for the poor, everyday Spartan on the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Khadim uz Zahra said:

Well, would you rather users complain about our actions and we don't explain them? If we did that, we'd be accused of being indifferent tyrants who rule from Olympus with nary a concern for the poor, everyday Spartan on the ground.

I am not against transparency. My point is against useless alarmism which loves to portray the admins as the oligarchs of some virtual banana republic, with the sole life- goal of staying hooked to the screen and banning each and every member who dares disagree with His/Her Majesties' decree.

As many other members of the admin panel, yourself included, have said umpteen number of times, a lot goes on behind the scenes. Involving all and sundry will not only complicate the decision-making process, but will make it degenerate into name -calling and mud- slinging (as we have seen in so many threads where 'strong' opinions are expressed). And you can reason with the one who is not willing to consider an alternate perspective only so much.

Just because an opinion happens to exist, it cannot be accorded equal validity with a valid one for that reason alone.

I am on your side, actually.

Edited by AbdusSibtayn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody is going to lock your thread brother @Darth Vader 

You know what brother, you never explained your trip to Imam al Ridha 3la salam.  When are you going to talk about your ziyarat?

Have you went for ziyarat to Amir al mo2mineen and Imam Hussain 3la salam?

M3 Salamah, FE AMIN Allah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was discussing SC with my friend and trying to encourage her to join. She sent me this link:

https://www.reddit.com/r/shia/comments/8l4ugz/shiachat_rant/

I haven’t read all of it properly because as the name suggests... it’s a rant! Sad that people are complaining about SC even outside of SC. :(

 

Edited by Aflower

Share this post


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

I was discussing SC with my friend and trying to encourage her to join. She sent me this link:

https://www.reddit.com/r/shia/comments/8l4ugz/shiachat_rant/

I haven’t read all of it properly because as the name suggests... it’s a rant! Sad that people are complaining about SC even outside of SC. :(

There have been 'rants' like this from the time SC started.More than anything else I find these things amusing. There have been entire blogs dedicated to complaining about SC. Those blogs have died. SC has stayed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, starlight said:

There have been 'rants' like this from the time SC started.More than anything else I find these things amusing. There have been entire blogs dedicated to complaining about SC. Those blogs have died. SC has stayed. 

Ranting is certainly much easier than coming up with concrete,workable solutions.

The SC community has been, is, and shall remain a support- system for reverts and introverts, inshaallah!! 

Share this post


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

I was discussing SC with my friend and trying to encourage her to join. She sent me this link:

https://www.reddit.com/r/shia/comments/8l4ugz/shiachat_rant/

I haven’t read all of it properly because as the name suggests... it’s a rant! Sad that people are complaining about SC even outside of SC. :(

SC is not going anywhere dear sis.  Since 1998 until Dhuoor Sahab al 3sri wa zaman, Insh'Allah!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Aflower said:

I was discussing SC with my friend and trying to encourage her to join. She sent me this link:

https://www.reddit.com/r/shia/comments/8l4ugz/shiachat_rant/

I haven’t read all of it properly because as the name suggests... it’s a rant! Sad that people are complaining about SC even outside of SC. :(

As it happens with any other big community, such problems take place. Problem is that in many debates, specifically these controversial ones that make Islam look like the worst set of beliefs you could possibly have, people prefer to stay in the "safe zone" and defend the undefendable positions instead of using common sense. Just check the threads on cheating, locking women, slavery, etc. These are things that any decent man would not allow for his own sisters, and any loving mother would dislike for her own daughters.

Sexism is a reality, and is deeply ingrained in our understanding of Islam altogether. But it seems you can't expect people to grow the intellectual confidence to question such realities. We have to grow some integrity when it comes to our opinions, and defend them. We have scholars for a reason. Of what use are they if we don't ask them and demand serious intelligent replies that convince us (or not).

Once you discuss these topics and use reason with scholars, you will see most of them making countless remarks to the point that these apparently conservative positions on topics you later read in SC make no sense and aren't solid even for them. It's mostly culture, of the ignorant type.

But it's always easier to judge based merely on fiqh, and not behaviour/intentions. Especially when it is a topic that has to do with men's dominance. The topic mentioned in that reddit thread is a perfect example of a wrong human behaviour that is ignored in the name of fiqh. It's really necessary to think outside the box. Otherwise, you can also allow yourself to see intercrural sex with a nine year old kid as something lawful and good.

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

×