Religion Sub-Forum Moderation

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i've often wondered the same thing. 3, count 'em, 3 mods for one forum, all atheist.
the question we need to ask is "what exactly is to be discussed in the religion forum".
this is, in essence, a science board therefor it's safe to assume the topics discussed in the religion forum will, or should, fall along those lines.
topics such as religion vs. evolution belongs there.
"preaching the bible" does not.

i can see why it would take 3 mods and why they are atheist.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

James R.:

I'm quite honoured, then! Very amusing and interesting that no one has out and out asked your religious affiliation in that time, though.

Would you mind elaborating? Would you say you are rather like, say, Bertrand Russel rather than a Daniel Dennet or Richard Dawkin?

This is a good point. However, can you not also see a situation where both Moslem and Christian are held to be inferior to the Atheists? Although I am not willing out right say that Atheists are immune to moderation on the religion board, it would seem that some users are indeed given a hard time by other members, when if the tables were turned, such would not occur.

Again, perhaps not systematic bias, but I think this could be rectified by giving -one- theist - specifically good, non-partisan theists - a chance. LightGigantic is hardly going to attack a Christian for not being a Hindu, nor TheoryOfRelativity a Buddhist for not being her "general Theism".

I am not suggesting an Adstar or Lixluke, mind you.

I agree totally, but Theists should have at least -one- representative out of three to make sure they are being treated failure.

I'd say they are sometimes hostile to some Theists through omission. LightGigantic is ragged upon horribly and no one does anything. Others get away with similar behaviours.

 

"If things get out of hand, I urge anybody who is really offended to hit the "report" button. Or, as things stand, you can actually hand out infraction points to misbehaving members who break the rules."

Glad you brought that up. I don't seem to be able to find any records entailing the tallies. Is it confidential information until we're hit on the head with an infraction, like, pre-banned??

 

James R.:

Well put.

Agreed. It is a mark of immaturity and insufficient reason when an Atheist is completely vicious to Theists. However, I worry if some of that viciousness displayed, at times, to religious posters is not tolerated a bit more.

Here on Sci?

I shall certainly be judiciously employing such, however, I still maintain that the presence of at least one theistic moderator would do more to assure these things are not usual.

 

Moderation is not about 'equal representation'. Either you assess the moderator's actions based on what he/she is expected to do or you leave them alone. Your argument is as logically defective as a person who insists a president who has lived all their life in the country is the only one who knows whats best for the country. If you have examples of where the moderators have failed, present them. If they are arguing from their own personal beliefs but have not shown any predilection for closing down theist's threads then I see no problem.

And no, meanwhile, MW is NOT the moderator to look for...

Oh, and there was a time back in the day when not only were there a lot more theists active in the Religion forum, but discussion was actually 'delightful', if not pleasant. I remember the good old days when Proud Muslim used to be active on the boards. That was the heyday of the Religion forum.. Now no one worthwhile bothers to post because we have threads derailed in the first 2 responses by imbeciles like Baron Max and sderenzi.

 

I remember you saying elsewhere on the board that you were agnostic.

 

the problem is that scoring infractions and replying abuses of persons who are mods is completely fruitless

while I do agree that the ability to moderate should not be determined by one's predilection, its obvious that having a team of atheists as mods could lead to an 'inherant' blindness in following up on transgressions of ettiquette for intelligent discusion - for instance there are numerous atheists who are capable of intelligent discussion (if they weren't they wouldn't be able to get books on the shelves of academic circles by labelling theism as "Bullshit" etc), but when that gets sold out to mod endorsed and even mod emmanating ad homs, the discussion gets derailed

Or to speak very frankly, why do I have to deal with skinwalker moaning about "poppy cock/bullshit/plagurizing" on every thread? What would happen to me if I hung off every thread of someone else and labelled them in such nasty terms, regardless of the thread topic and what was posted?
And why was satyr able to get away with doing that to me unchecked?
And why does skinwalker do the same to a lesser degree?

personally this is my perception of the mods

JamesR - impartial and equipoised, but not really present in the forum - seems like he is more into hitting on to sock puppets and advertising spammers

Cris - not impartial, but capable of coming close to it by dint of his intelligence and reasoning - also a bit absent on the field - he has to be really pushed to bring notice to someone who is off the wall (seems like he usually locks nutcase theistic threads and thats about it)

Skinwalker - not impartial - has a personal vendetta against the intelligent discussion of religion (unless of course it falls within his personal tastes of what he considers to be truth) - has a very open ear to the claims of atheists - and in fact canvases for it, but remains totally deaf to any complaint from a theist on the same grounds

If it was possible to add skinwalker to the ignore list, perhaps it would be more tolerable. The religious thread was not so bad before skinwalker came on as a mod - I would like to see him lose his status as a mod, but of course that will never happen

It would be good if there was a theistic mod on board - my personal vote goes to sam since she seems capable of handling a scene of unanimous animosity with intelligence and reason.

even this might disturb the status quo of the ruling atheists so perhaps it could be better to bring on a more reasoned atheist such as Prince James (although it might get a bit confusing with two mods named james)

 

The question is is he using his position and powers as a mod to disrupt discussion? Or is he just a moderator with an opinion?

If the former, then you have a right to bitch.
If the latter, then you should get over it.

Skinwalker's always been there in the religious forum bashing the religious. You'll find him in pseudoscience and parapsychology as well.
It's his hobby.

Just because he's now a mod doesn't mean that he should give up his hobby, now does it?

 

no -thats why i think the solution is to bring in someone else as a mod - when someone is on the rampage with their value system that is ok - when they become doubley haughty from the pearly towers of mod ship by doctoring posts to suit their needs interests and concerns and are immune to infringements and ignore listing it makes minesweeper intriguing

 

You're accusing Skinwalker of editing the posts of those he is debating in order to gain an unfair advantage over them?

 

nothing quite so direct - I mean he doesn't edit the content (although he has canvassed for atheists to give him a vote of confidence to send a thread I was participating in to the cess pool - http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1244387&postcount=59)- its more like he will go on with a diatribe of antagonism within a thread and if after responding abusively to refined requests for clarity and examination of the thread issue at hand, one responds by suggesting he is slightly silly, he deletes one's post to the effect of "don't you know its against the rules to ad hom" - its more an issue of haughty hypocrisy - it seeems like he would prefer to discuss religion in the assembly of atheists, or more correctly have an assembly of whimpering theists to bow down before him while he slaps the backs of his atheist chums

Its kind of like modship transforms run of the mill ad homming into over the top ad homming that disregards any pretense of civility.

 

he specifically deleted posts of mine in the history forum...documented, referenced posts....for no particular reason, as far as i can see.

 

What is evident above, with regard to LG, is that he is upset that someone with an opinion that summarily rejects his silliness as valid arguments has found status as a moderator. At no time have I ever used my position as a moderator to further "my side" of the argument. Indeed, I've used my position on several occasions to ensure that he is not insulted or berated by other atheists who have used terms such as "moron," "idiot," and the like.

LG is upset because I deleted several of his off-topic posts, as I did with others, including those of atheists. One of his off-topic posts were clearly baiting and trolling. Instead of issuing an infraction, I deleted it, which ensured that some other member doesn't use this as an excuse to issue one.

Finally, LG mentioned above that I "canvassed for atheists to give [me] a vote of confidence to send a thread I [he was] participating in to the cess pool." Surely LG isn't daft. Anyone who looks at the post in context with his prior to that can see that I was answering his thinly veiled insult (which I did not give an unseemly infraction for) challenging me to move to the cesspool.

What is clearly occurring here is that LG has his/her panties in a wad because I'm opinionated and also a mod. Tough shit. He/she can get over it or keep crying. My money is not on the former.

 

The result of having to face an on slaught of mod endorsed ad homs is not one of being distraught - it is one of boredom - if, as a moderator, you are actually interested in getting a variety of views to participate in a discussion, you should think about adopting policies similar to your counterparts (cris and jamesR) and display the ability to refrain from trolling - its not that you are am opinionated mod - it is that you are an arrogant mod who feels free they can drop in with insults any time they want , such as this

couple this with your extreme reluctance to discuss the philosophical premises behind your assertions

and wouldn't you expect an insult to be delivered?

 

It must be noted that LightGigantic does not even -deserve- ad hominem attacks. He is not unreasonable and he is well versed in his religion and philosophy and a competant and intriguing debater. In fact, he is the most rational Theist proponent on SciForums. If he was a lunatic like some of our whacky Christians, this would be different.

Can we not have some fairness? Can we not have professionalism? Must we flame people?

Science stems from "knowledge". As we're supposed to be scientists after a fashion, why then are we acting like ignorant bastards that must resort to insults?