Post Ratings Review Board.

[Informant]

Can I complain?

 

[Joe Shearer]

@WebMaster I just happened to see that Joe Shearer has given Irfan Baloch a negative rating Here: Indira Gandhi planned a mass invasion of Pakistan | CIA Records | Page 26

I believe it is not warranted. Irfan Baloch may not think its important, but fair is fair. IMV, this negative rating should be removed.

I am willing to remove it myself (if it hasn't been removed by someone else) if you can tell me why it should be removed.

I was shocked to see a murder being justified, even, perhaps, gloated over.

@Irfan Baloch is a poster who is normally interesting and readable. I found this particular post in extremely bad taste, and revolting, in fact.

@Chak Bamu

Please let me know why you disagree with me. I am listening with an open mind.

 

[Joe Shearer]

He was an "awesome" mod though, some other members who qualify for rating a post would be irfan baluch, rescueranger, sandy, joe, fauj, penguin etc....worth getting ratings from...no one else.

I found myself giving Irfan Baloch a negative rating, much to my own surprise. In my opinion, it was deserved, because of the nature and the content of the post, but another very respectable member, Chak Bamu, felt that it was not.

I feel that first the member awarding a negative rating should be questioned, if need be, and only a failure to resolve it at that level should lead to an appeal to the mods or to the Webmaster.

Entirely a personal opinion.

Doesn't negate my point. Most negative ratings that Indians get are from Pakistanis, and most negative ratings Pakistanis get are from Indians. That's an empirically verifyable fact.

Is there a way to verify this systemically? I believe my ratings are the reverse.

 

[janon]

Is there a way to verify this systemically? I believe my ratings are the reverse.

Not by me, since I am not an admin of the site and cannot access such data. We would have to ask the webby or admins to quantify it, if we want to be sure. I made that statement on the basis of my observation, and am willing to withdraw it temporarily until data pertaining to that is provided. My gut feeling is that I am right, at least on the issue of negatives received by Indians.

About your own ratings - for one thing, you have not got any negative ratings, so the point is irrelevant in your case. Earlier on this thread, @Manticore told me the same thing about his ratings. You are both exceptions to the norm. You (Joe) have pissed off more Indians than Pakistanis, and I'm sure that if more Indians had the power to give ratings, you would have had a few negatives. And Manti usually posts factual threads about aircrafts and tactics, and both Indians as well as Pakistanis would be happy to give him positive ratings for those. (He doesn't have any negatives either.)

But if one says anything pro or anti Pak or India (which the majority of members do), then it is usually the other countrypeople who give negatives.

@Manticore: Since you presumably can access such data, check whether or not it's Pakistanis who have mostly given negatives to Indians. The contrary may not be true any more, because of a few Pakistanis getting a large number of negatives on threads about Pak politics, which Indian raters don't really care for.

 

[Manticore]

Doesn't negate my point. Most negative ratings that Indians get are from Pakistanis, and most negative ratings Pakistanis get are from Indians. That's an empirically verifyable fact.

We know how many positive / neg every member has received / awarded but I dont have any data to chalk out some stats based on nationality

 

[Chak Bamu]

I am willing to remove it myself (if it hasn't been removed by someone else) if you can tell me why it should be removed.

I was shocked to see a murder being justified, even, perhaps, gloated over.

@Irfan Baloch is a poster who is normally interesting and readable. I found this particular post in extremely bad taste, and revolting, in fact.

@Chak Bamu

Please let me know why you disagree with me. I am listening with an open mind.

Well sir, I had hoped that I would not have to explain this. You are right, the post was borderline. However there were three circumstances:

1. Irfan sb is a former SSG, so one has to expect him to take a hardline approach to begin with. A look at that thread shows how charged the 'discussion' had become.

2. Irfan sb did not share something that had not already been said or shared on that thread already. Look at post #319 on that thread, for example. And that is just one example and that too from another Pakistani. There were a number of posts from Indians that are just beyond description.

3. Irfan sb has a high sense of self-esteem. He is not one to complain. I felt compelled to act because it was a case that, in my view, should have been looked at by a moderator to take appropriate action.

I have disagreed with Irfan sb sometimes. But in this case seeing that the discussion had gone toxic, Irfan sb's being a very patriotic former SSG, and that what he said was perhaps less than some Indian member's jingoism, all led me to question the post rating.

Before I give a negative rating, I ensure that there are no complicating circumstances, so that only a pure troll gets the rating. I do not make distinction between Indian and Pakistani in this matter. I suppose each of us has our own guidelines.

The difference between us two is perhaps the difference between Bengal and Punjab? We do not quite see violence in similar terms.

 

[janon]

We know how many positive / neg every member has received / awarded but I dont have any data to chalk out some stats based on nationality

From my observation, it is true - that most negatives received by Indians are from Pakistanis. And at the time I made that statement, the contrary was also true. (That has changed now because of Pakistanis getting negatives from Pakistanis on threads about Pakistani politics.)

Anyway, your earlier point to me about your own ratings is irrelevant, because it is atypical - as I said in the post above to Joe, your factual threads/posts are uncontroversial, and Indians as well as Pakistanis would give positive ratings to those. But for the large majority of people who express their opinions (as opposed to only facts), that doesn't hold.

 

[Manticore]

Rating power has not been given to every member. It has been given to tag holders and I am sure maturity will prevail in the long run. Regarding rating guidelines you can mention the TT leadership

 

[Joe Shearer]

Well sir, I had hoped that I would not have to explain this. You are right, the post was borderline. However there were three circumstances:

1. Irfan sb is a former SSG, so one has to expect him to take a hardline approach to begin with. A look at that thread shows how charged the 'discussion' had become.

2. Irfan sb did not share something that had not already been said or shared on that thread already. Look at post #319 on that thread, for example. And that is just one example and that too from another Pakistani. There were a number of posts from Indians that are just beyond description.

3. Irfan sb has a high sense of self-esteem. He is not one to complain. I felt compelled to act because it was a case that, in my view, should have been looked at by a moderator to take appropriate action.

I have disagreed with Irfan sb sometimes. But in this case seeing that the discussion had gone toxic, Irfan sb's being a very patriotic former SSG, and that what he said was perhaps less than some Indian member's jingoism, all led me to question the post rating.

Before I give a negative rating, I ensure that there are no complicating circumstances, so that only a pure troll gets the rating. I do not make distinction between Indian and Pakistani in this matter. I suppose each of us has our own guidelines.

The difference between us two is perhaps the difference between Bengal and Punjab? We do not quite see violence in similar terms.

A great analysis; typical @Chak Bamu, humbling in its effect. But I still feel you are being a little soft on @Irfan Baloch. Bear with me while I (humbly) explain.

1. Are former members of the SSG dehumanised, or have their senses numbed in some way? Are they not obliged to respond in the same way as the rest of us?
2. I agree that the general tenor of the thread was quite distasteful. But I did think at that time - I intend to return, thanks to your very gentle rebuke, and re-read it, post by appalling post - that posting a picture of the assassination, and invoking the treachery implicit in the act, and all the bestiality that followed, all together, was a bit too much. Incidentally, if you re-read the rules I pasted, there is an explicit prohibition at exulting in someone's death. Technically, leaving aside your other two points, on this alone, my negative was justified.
3. I take your point about his pride and self-esteem. I have no difficulty in apologising. I also have no difficulty in proposing that you and two others of your choice look at this instance and come to a conclusion. If you think, after joint consideration, that it is undeserved, I shall withdraw it.

Is that fair?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Not by me, since I am not an admin of the site and cannot access such data. We would have to ask the webby or admins to quantify it, if we want to be sure. I made that statement on the basis of my observation, and am willing to withdraw it temporarily until data pertaining to that is provided. My gut feeling is that I am right, at least on the issue of negatives received by Indians.

About your own ratings - for one thing, you have not got any negative ratings, so the point is irrelevant in your case. Earlier on this thread, @Manticore told me the same thing about his ratings. You are both exceptions to the norm. You (Joe) have pissed off more Indians than Pakistanis, and I'm sure that if more Indians had the power to give ratings, you would have had a few negatives. And Manti usually posts factual threads about aircrafts and tactics, and both Indians as well as Pakistanis would be happy to give him positive ratings for those. (He doesn't have any negatives either.)

But if one says anything pro or anti Pak or India (which the majority of members do), then it is usually the other countrypeople who give negatives.

@Manticore: Since you presumably can access such data, check whether or not it's Pakistanis who have mostly given negatives to Indians. The contrary may not be true any more, because of a few Pakistanis getting a large number of negatives on threads about Pak politics, which Indian raters don't really care for.

After this incident, I did some analysis of my own.

I've given more negative ratings to Indians than to Pakistanis. Some of the posts were truly abominable. However, in retrospect, this is too powerful a weapon, and I abjure use of this. Instead, I propose to reply formally to any offending mail and state that my rating of that mail is negative. It may sound pompous, it may have far less impact than the actual negative rating, but it will keep me humble and keep my feet on the ground.

 

[janon]

...
1. Irfan sb is a former SSG, so one has to expect him to take a hardline approach to begin with. A look at that thread shows how charged the 'discussion' had become.
...
I have disagreed with Irfan sb sometimes. But in this case seeing that the discussion had gone toxic, Irfan sb's being a very patriotic former SSG, and that what he said was perhaps less than some Indian member's jingoism, all led me to question the post rating.
...

Holy eff, is @Irfan Baloch a former SSG? I wish I knew this earlier - I knew from his posts that he has been in the army, but had no idea that he was in the special forces. Very honoured to read your posts, Mr Irfan Baloch (though being an Indian, I disagree with quite a few of your posts related to Indo-Pak stuff).

This validates a point I made earlier, that former and current military profesionals on the forum ought to give us a very brief background about themselves, maybe in a sticky thread. Without compromising anything sensitive, of course. @WebMaster

 

[Chak Bamu]

A great analysis; typical @Chak Bamu, humbling in its effect. But I still feel you are being a little soft on @Irfan Baloch. Bear with me while I (humbly) explain.

1. Are former members of the SSG dehumanised, or have their senses numbed in some way? Are they not obliged to respond in the same way as the rest of us?
2. I agree that the general tenor of the thread was quite distasteful. But I did think at that time - I intend to return, thanks to your very gentle rebuke, and re-read it, post by appalling post - that posting a picture of the assassination, and invoking the treachery implicit in the act, and all the bestiality that followed, all together, was a bit too much. Incidentally, if you re-read the rules I pasted, there is an explicit prohibition at exulting in someone's death. Technically, leaving aside your other two points, on this alone, my negative was justified.
3. I take your point about his pride and self-esteem. I have no difficulty in apologising. I also have no difficulty in proposing that you and two others of your choice look at this instance and come to a conclusion. If you think, after joint consideration, that it is undeserved, I shall withdraw it.

Is that fair?

Sir, thanks for (much undeserved) appreciation of my reply. While I understand your view / perspective quite well. I must point out the following:

1. Sir, you are taking this rating business too seriously. More than half of ratings received by me are probably undeserved. Some people do not seem to have a set criteria in awarding ratings. I appreciate your methodical approach. I agree with you to a great extent.

2. Our difference is perhaps that of perspective. When we award ratings, we are not quite passing sentences in my view. I sometime use negative rating as a warning. Once such a rating has served its purpose, I withdraw it. If someone challenges me, I try to explain why I have done so. If they convince me, I retract; If they can not, I do not retract. I leave the rest to mods, since they do as they see fit. Suppose a mod were to overturn a negative rating given by me, I would have no problem with that.

3. SSG are very hard, tough, and patriotic persons - no matter where they are. They are trained to follow orders and kill. One has to take that into account.

4. I do have a soft corner for Irfan sb. It matters even more to me since I know that he would not raise his voice to complain about rating. Look at it from his perspective. He would probably not complain at receiving a bullet in line of duty. Complaining about a rating by bringing it to a mod is nothing in comparison. So, I felt that I should do so on his behalf. I have done so for others too - its not just him.

5. Sir, I would suggest that you move on, like the rest of us. In the grand scheme of things, you would be wasting your time going through awful posts in that thread. Compared to what else happens on PDF, this is small change.

I have tried to provide rationale and perspective. Please do not take any of it too seriously. I mean nothing but respect for you.

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Chak Bamu

Sir, thanks for (much undeserved) appreciation of my reply. While I understand your view / perspective quite well. I must point out the following:

1. Sir, you are taking this rating business too seriously. More than half of ratings received by me are probably undeserved. Some people do not seem to have a set criteria in awarding ratings. I appreciate your methodical approach. I agree with you to a great extent.

2. Our difference is perhaps that of perspective. When we award ratings, we are not quite passing sentences in my view. I sometime use negative rating as a warning. Once such a rating has served its purpose, I withdraw it. If someone challenges me, I try to explain why I have done so. If they convince me, I retract; If they can not, I do not retract. I leave the rest to mods, since they do as they see fit. Suppose a mod were to overturn a negative rating given by me, I would have no problem with that.

3. SSG are very hard, tough, and patriotic persons - no matter where they are. They are trained to follow orders and kill. One has to take that into account.

4. I do have a soft corner for Irfan sb. It matters even more to me since I know that he would not raise his voice to complain about rating. Look at it from his perspective. He would probably not complain at receiving a bullet in line of duty. Complaining about a rating by bringing it to a mod is nothing in comparison. So, I felt that I should do so on his behalf. I have done so for others too - its not just him.

5. Sir, I would suggest that you move on, like the rest of us. In the grand scheme of things, you would be wasting your time going through awful posts in that thread. Compared to what else happens on PDF, this is small change.

I have tried to provide rationale and perspective. Please do not take any of it too seriously. I mean nothing but respect for you.

@Chak Bamu

Thank you for the enormous patience you have displayed with a windy old man. I am withdrawing my negative rating of Irfan sahib. He has a loyal friend in you.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

Holy eff, is @Irfan Baloch a former SSG? I wish I knew this earlier - I knew from his posts that he has been in the army, but had no idea that he was in the special forces. Very honoured to read your posts, Mr Irfan Baloch (though being an Indian, I disagree with quite a few of your posts related to Indo-Pak stuff).

This validates a point I made earlier, that former and current military profesionals on the forum ought to give us a very brief background about themselves, maybe in a sticky thread. Without compromising anything sensitive, of course. @WebMaster

no dear I never got the chance to qualify for SSG.. the regime is very very tough. but we all got the taster of what its being a commando. I have served along the LoC and being a native Baloch I was in FC as well but thats about 20 odd years ago.

difference of opinion is very much welcome. thats what makes debate interesting.

ex military personnel dont brag about their past and only give few glimpses if the discussion goes that way and in our current environment its only fair that we keep this information limited because of our terrorism issue.

 

[Audio]

@WebMaster

vostok still refuses to take off the negative rating he gave to me for exposing his shameless stalinist lies and historical revisionism.

He uses age old excuses like Goebbels, even when confronted with video obviously created after Goebbels was taken in custody, and even when confronted with information that originates from Soviet archives.

How can you have such a substandard debater as a representative? Or much worse, someone that actually gives ratings away?

Here's the latest example:

Remember - Red Army in 1945 - an organization with an iron discipline and cruel punishment for breaches of discipline

There's books on this, how it happened, tales of women still living and this guy comes and says it's all Goebbels propaganda and then when confronted with numerous evidence he gives me a negative rating for exposing his BS.

@WebMaster if the rating didn't get removed, because of the comment towards PDF, my explanation is:
this wouldn't have been your first bad choice for a TT, Safriz comes to mind, and in this spirit that comment was made.
You eventually removed him, correcting a wrong, but right now you are punishing me for your another mistake, ie appointing unstable, untrusted people as representatives of this site, whose comments (lies!) get debunked in seconds.

I appeal to you to remove the wrong rating and correct the unjustice that has happened to me. I cannot be held accountable for pointing out mistakes. I realize this must be hard to read for you, as Pakistani's arent particularly fond of criticism (you know it's true, this isn't a jab at Pakistan) but two wrongs don't make a right.

With all due respect....

#edit:

i also reported every one of his offtopic posts, which are lies and denial, but even that aside, it's offtopic, and moderators are nowhere to be seen? I sort of understand they think it's making me mad, but it really isn't, it's just one more clue of the sort of unfair treatment we foreigners who don't go with the narrative are treated. If you'd be family, it would be called nepotism.