Banning criteria.

[Beto]

Thought Criminal was recently banned. All I read in the Probation subforum was:

"If you can't see this, then this is your mental defect and I don't want to hear another word about it."

I'm perfectly aware of TC's general political incorrectness and bluntness, and granted, TC wasn't always very polite, but is it enough to ban a member like TC, someone who often wrote very interesting posts, and with a verbosity level well above average, while members that add zilch to debate like InTheFlesh keep on cluttering threads? Moderators may tell me "if you don't feel ITF adds to debate, than ignore him, but he's not being impolite to anyone". True, but is being "polite" (and I'd argue that about ITF) more important than anything else? Why can't people that feel offended by TC ignore him? This is ridiculous. You're all perfectly aware the level of TC's debating skills. I'm honestly very disappointed at the criteria this forum has for banning people. Daedalus was another one that was capable of very interesting posts.

I'm now deprived of their opinions while members like ITF are free to ignore rule #5 to their heart's content. I was learning a great deal from TC, and this simply isn't fair.

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

I would agree that TC was very intelligent and made many good points, and it really is a shame to see him banned. If I were admin of this forum, I would probably amend the rules to give them a bit more leeway, but I am not the admin. Otseng paid several hundred dollars (or so I would think. I'm not sure how much the hosting costs, but getting a license from a place like vBulletin runs about $150 the last time I checked) to get this forum up and running, and, as such, he should have the right to make whatever rules he wants, whether we like them or not. If he wishes to keep things as civil as possible, then he holds every right to do that, even if I or anyone else disagrees.

TC knowingly disobeyed rules that he found to be unfair (repeatedly, in fact). I don't necessarily like him being banned, but he just wasn't willing to follow the rules (fair or unfair) that every one of us have a chance to read before we join the forum. If he objected to those rules, he should have joined another forum, instead of claiming the right to disobey them because he thought they were wrong.

[JoeyKnothead]

Gotta back up HC on that one. This is Otseng's forum, and we are bound by his rules.

At least he allows us to debate decisions that have been made, whether we agree with them or not. The decisions so far have been pretty even handed. Though I disagree on a major point, I am allowed to at least bring that up, and debate it. This to me shows the admins are doing the best they can with divergent views.

I came here after being banned from a previous forum, here briefly is why:

Admin: I ban anyone who disagrees with scripture, because they are bad and they lie (lie being disagreeing with a point, not a real lie)

Me: Ain't that unfair?

Admin: Banned for disruption

[Cephus]

While I completely agree that it's Osteng's forum, he pays the bills, he makes the rules, once you have rules, it is really unfair to enforce them selectively. If you're going to bother codifying a rule, it should be applied equally and across the board to everyone and that just doesn't happen here, at least some of the time.

There are fundamentalist Christians, we all know who they are, who just make empty claims and expect that to stand as fact. When called on it, they invoke "faith". Sorry, rule #5 doesn't mention faith, if it did, then this wouldn't be a debate forum, it would be a discussion forum. Simply being able to say "I believe X, therefore X is true" isn't a debate, it's the antithesis of debate, yet it is allowed here every single day.

Joey, I know how that goes, I left a forum that basically did the same thing. They claimed to be objective, but the owners simply went around shutting down any thread they didn't personally agree with and those who spoke out against any topic they supported suddenly started getting suspended. That kind of a forum isn't about debating, it's about preaching to the choir.

[JoeyKnothead]

When folks make empty assertions, we have the right and perhaps the obligation to call them on it. Religion, and their texts are based almost solely on these kinds of things, so it would be hard for theists to debate without them. I say let these happen, they are proof that there is no rational basis to hold religious beliefs.

[otseng]

Sorry, rule #5 doesn't mention faith, if it did, then this wouldn't be a debate forum, it would be a discussion forum.

Unsupported claims are not as severe as personal attacks, so we've put those on the back burner. Since the more serious rule offenses have diminished, I have given the moderating team the go-ahead to crack down on unsupported claims. For the general public, feel free to use the report button on violations of rule 5.

[C-Nub]

I don't have a problem with unsupported claims, let them make them all they want. We, and by 'we' I mean the non-theist members of this board, crush them. Unsupported claims are easy to deal with, and require very little 'counter-posting' (I made that term up, just now, I like it.) to refute.

Granted, we spend a lot more time than we'd like to dealing with these unsupported claims, but the only alternative is to collectively enroll in university and spread ourselves around the Christian nations of the world to teach science.

[Confused]

I would agree that TC was very intelligent and made many good points, and it really is a shame to see him banned. If I were admin of this forum, I would probably amend the rules to give them a bit more leeway, but I am not the admin. Otseng paid several hundred dollars (or so I would think. I'm not sure how much the hosting costs, but getting a license from a place like vBulletin runs about $150 the last time I checked) to get this forum up and running, and, as such, he should have the right to make whatever rules he wants, whether we like them or not. If he wishes to keep things as civil as possible, then he holds every right to do that, even if I or anyone else disagrees.

TC knowingly disobeyed rules that he found to be unfair (repeatedly, in fact). I don't necessarily like him being banned, but he just wasn't willing to follow the rules (fair or unfair) that every one of us have a chance to read before we join the forum. If he objected to those rules, he should have joined another forum, instead of claiming the right to disobey them because he thought they were wrong.

I would disagree with you on a few points here. Yes, TC was intelligent. Yes, this forum does belong to otseng. But we didn't ban TC because he broke "Otsengs" rules. We banned him because he broke "Forum" rules. There is no leeway for this person or that based on their intelligence or ignorance. We hold a level of respect. If you cannot hold it, then you won't last long here. We have those who pop in here and there and break a few before they disappear again for a while, and when we are able to catch them soon enough, action is taken. Those who consistently break the rules and make it perfectly clear they couldn't care less what anyone thought of it have no right to remain on this forum. The mere fact that this thread is still even ongoing is sad, just as was the one on Daedalus. They made their choices. They are now history. I see no reason to carry on a conversation announcing their intelligence etc... when they had essentially no social skills that enabled them to remain civil and respectful. End of discussion.

[Beto]

The mere fact that this thread is still even ongoing is sad, just as was the one on Daedalus.

If even the OP has been convinced the banning criteria is acceptable as it is, than perhaps it isn't so bad.

I wonder if the first post could be edited to reflect that change in mindset.

[OnceConvinced]

Unsupported claims are not as severe as personal attacks, so we've put those on the back burner.

I think this says it all really. Personal attacks can put people off posting here, more so than unsupported claims, which seem to go with the territory on message boards like this. I think it's great we do have a rule #5 though and am glad to see the mods are starting to speak up about violations of it.

[Zzyzx]

.

Since the more serious rule offenses have diminished, I have given the moderating team the go-ahead to crack down on unsupported claims.

I applaud this decision. Thank you.