Should moderation be applied equally - even to theists?

This and That

I hear this complaint a lot from members, but, in truth, rarely ever witness the event in question. Can you point me to the example? I'm looking at your infraction record, and also our suspension logs in the back room, and not seeing it.

• • •​

Variations on a theme, to be honest—James hears that one a lot. From liberals who think Republicans are being racist; from conservatives who think it's unfair to accuse one another of racism; from theists who think they're being brutalized by atheists; from atheists who think their atheism entitles them to treat other people poorly; from Zionists who think genocide is okay; from Muslims who think all anyone in the West does is make excuses for Israel; from scientists; from pseudoscientists; from conspiracy theories. In fact, as I've discovered over the years, the only real problems with internet communities, it turns out, are rules and moderators. If only we'd simply shut up and let the people do what they do best, sites like Sciforums could have solved all the world's problems by now.

Members ought to remember that every time they complain about someone else, they are, essentially and functionally, proposing a standard that will apply to them as well. And I admit that, when someone who—like you—has benefitted greatly over time from unfair application of rules complains because someone put a check on his bigotry, yes, we do chuckle and, no, it doesn't help your prestige any.

The reality is that no, this staff is not perfect. Indeed, we make plenty of mistakes. But you probably, on balance, owe my colleagues a great measure of thanks, as more of their mistakes have played to your favor over time than against you. I would even go so far as to suggest that the reason your name has never been permanently stricken from the roles of active members is that we've catered to thin-skinned, prissy types. You know, like atheists who think they can simply declare all theists dishonest, but cry if a theist is allowed to speak their mind.

Yeah, you've received great benefit, Phlogistician. You owe some people your thanks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

um..wanted to jump in with my two cents..

But JamesR addressed them all.:bawl:

If there was a token system in place i would Donate tokens to you James..(hint,hint) (see here)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Great post James. :bravo:

 

Well, that's an interesting claim. I would just ask you back it up. I demand you retract the claim I'm a bigot, meanwhile.

 

James, you need to revise what the word 'atheist' means, because I'm not going to go round the houses and burn the straw man you are so busy stuffing. If you can't make your point using the accepted definitions of words, give up.

 

Yeah, I just got that line "You've been given much benefit" on another forum I recently left due to inept moderation.

 

I figure it thus: If you want a high grade site, you must have high grade contributors. If you provide a good environment, they will come, stay and contribute, making the site better as they do so. That will draw more high quality posters and make the site even better.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

On the contrary, if you moderate unfairly or arbitrarily, play favourites and slap folks around without cause, those quality posters will go away. You will lose their contributions while you aquire....hooey from the remnants. Hooey does not draw quality posters or loyal members, so your site goes from bad to worse, and Internet reputations are just like RW reps - word gets around and folks stay away.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It is very much more difficult to keep me around than it is to get rid of me.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If I don't care for the atmosphere, I take my ball, glove and mitt with me as I go out the door. I am so very fortunate as to be exceptionally well versed in several complex subjects, take great pictures and write pretty well. I have lived a diverse and entertaining life thus far and can tell a good story. The more comfortable I am, the more entertaining I get and the more I contribute. I shall illustrate and elaborate as we go along....as long as I am comfortable here.

 

Well said stoni...

 

James, now you are being deliberately obtuse. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in god(s). We have been over this time and again, right here in Sciforums. Yet, here, you start acting ignorant. It's not becoming.

No point in debating with you when you are starting on false premises, is there?

Oh cute, I see you split this off and renamed the thread. You really are sinking to new lows.

 

I ask them what they mean by gods.

Yes, I get that, but the name you gave it is taking the piss.

 

http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2642109&postcount=22

 

I don't of course have one.

 

How Dare He!

To: Adoucette

re: Political Suspension Claim​

​

Briefly:

Certainly, sir, you directed me to #2642109/22, which details Superstring's action note in the relevant thread. However, I fail to see anything in that note that suggests your suspension results from disagreement with political leanings.

Furthermore, as Superstring was appointed to his position in part because he is a political conservative, and as many times as my colleagues can tell you he and I have fought over how politics might possibly influence his moderation, one can only wonder just how right-wingnut you must have gone in order to get him to take action against you merely because he disdains your political leanings.

Thus it might occur to some to actually wonder about the allegedly offending post, the one that voiced your politicial leanings so grotesquely violated by Superstring.

That, of course, would be #2642059/15, reproduced in full below:

You're right, Arthur. It could only be your political leanings. Superstring suspended you for the crime of making conservatives look stupid. That's what it was. It couldn't possibly be an off-topic, viciously goading post that contributes nothing to the discussion while trying to poison it. Superstring was politically suppressing you; that's the only thing it can be, right? I mean, look at that post. Just look at it. What the hell is wrong with that? How could anyone who isn't a dolt or simply a two-bit thug find anything wrong with that glorious example of rhetorical perfection for which we all owe you our undying thanks?

Really, man, what am I missing?

 

That's one way to say it, if you are now trying to be derogatory.

But I'm not actually talking about gods, am I? Rather, a lack of belief in whatever definition others have tried to sell me. I hold no personal definition, to do so would mean that some part of what others have told me stuck. It didn't.

 

That James split and renamed this thread,.... and perhaps this reply should have gone elsewhere,...?