Bias in moderation?

[Confused]

This is for members who wish to log complaints of perceived bias. First, let me point out our current statistics as of 5/4/09:

Christian moderators: 3
otseng
Jester
Micatala

Jewish moderator: 1
cnorman18

Atheist moderators: 2
McCulloch
Fallibleone

Undeclared: 1
Confused.

Let me take a moment to give you all some insight into a few things. While your reports are always viewed by us, it has come to my understanding that when member don't see responses, they might feel as if their reports have been shrugged off or been ignored based on a "bias". I want to assure you that most often, that is not the case. They are logged in to the moderators section where all of us try to post our actions and any current issues related to the forum. Often, rather than clutter threads with our responses, we will opt to send a PM to the offending poster. When we do so, it is done by private methods so the action and results are not always viewed by the general population. More often than not, issues are resolved this way as opposed to in public. However, that isn't always the case. Despite how it is resolved, a record of the history is kept in our section so we have something to refer to that keeps a cumulative history of the members violations so when we deal with them publicly, even to issue notice of probation/banning, we have a reference of all their violations to review before passing our interventions, warnings, or notices of probation/banning.

As we log our actions into the moderators section, we open the issues up to every member of our team and as such, we open them up to other faiths opinions and advice. If any of us thinks that something was or wasn't justified, we have no qualms about stating such things. Often, when a report is made in a thread a specific moderator is involved in a heavy debate, said moderator will abstain from handling reports in that thread. There are even times when we ask moderators of specific faiths to handle reports about a specific member in the hopes that they might be more amendable to critiques from someone of the same faith.

All we ask is that when challenging us, you don't do it in the threads so as to avoid derailing the topics. Before you consider our interventions as public chastisement or consider our handling reports via PM, I would ask you to consider the following:
If we handle things in private, we avoid the public display of admonishment, but we make it so that members don't actively see their reports being addressed.
If we handle things in public, we risk derailing topics as well as get accused of either being to aggressive or not aggressive enough.

If you feel a PM won't address your concern, could you consider posting them here rather than in the active threads so we can discuss them publicly without the derailment of the other threads? If you have any suggestions that might make for more civil debating while still addressing reports/violations, I am more than willing to hear them.

Thanks.

[Skyangel]

Jesus could also perform miracles to show he was speaking the truth. Can you do that? If someone starts performing miracles in front of you and you reject it anyways, then them calling you a fool is fair enough. Someone telling you someone else was performing miracles, with no way of proving that fact, and you rejecting it, does not give the person doing the telling the right to call you a fool as there is little reason for you to accept what you are telling them as true.

The "blind guides" which Jesus was referring to could not even see the miracles He performed. They accused Him of doing wrong when He was doing miracles. They accused Him of working on the Sabbath day and told Him He ought not have been working. They disputed a man was ever blind in the first place when He healed a man who was born blind. They simply did not believe the Truth and therefore could not see the Truth. They saw lies and they saw evil. They called the Truth a lie and they called Jesus evil and of the devil. These scriptures will verify what I am saying > Mat 9:34, Mat 12:24, Mar 3:22, Jhn 10:20, Luk 13:14, Jhn 9:19-20


If people call Truth a lie and perceive miracles as evil works , how do you suppose the evil and lies which they perceive would convince them of Truth?

Would not that take a miracle in itself to cause them to see things in the exact opposite way to what they have previously perceived them?

Jesus never performed any miracles. He said he could do nothing of himself.

Jhn 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.


I say the same. I can do nothing of myself. I do what I see the Father do. I have seen the Father do miracles.

[Cathar1950]

Jesus could also perform miracles to show he was speaking the truth. Can you do that? If someone starts performing miracles in front of you and you reject it anyways, then them calling you a fool is fair enough. Someone telling you someone else was performing miracles, with no way of proving that fact, and you rejecting it, does not give the person doing the telling the right to call you a fool as there is little reason for you to accept what you are telling them as true.

The "blind guides" which Jesus was referring to could not even see the miracles He performed. They accused Him of doing wrong when He was doing miracles. They accused Him of working on the Sabbath day and told Him He ought not have been working. They disputed a man was ever blind in the first place when He healed a man who was born blind. They simply did not believe the Truth and therefore could not see the Truth. They saw lies and they saw evil. They called the Truth a lie and they called Jesus evil and of the devil. These scriptures will verify what I am saying > Mat 9:34, Mat 12:24, Mar 3:22, Jhn 10:20, Luk 13:14, Jhn 9:19-20


If people call Truth a lie and perceive miracles as evil works , how do you suppose the evil and lies which they perceive would convince them of Truth?

Would not that take a miracle in itself to cause them to see things in the exact opposite way to what they have previously perceived them?

Jesus never performed any miracles. He said he could do nothing of himself.

Jhn 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.


I say the same. I can do nothing of myself. I do what I see the Father do. I have seen the Father do miracles.

So what is it you see the Father do?
I find it amusing and maybe even a bit arrogant to put yourself in the same company as the unknown author of the Gospel of John put Jesus.
Are you saying the things you do are just imitating what you see the Father going? What do you see the father doing? It sounds a little empty to me.
At least the unknown author of the Gospel of Mark had Jesus doing signs as did the author of John. They were literary devices.
Personally I doubt Jesus, if he existed, did any miracles. Sure there were miracle workers and such and I sometime think some of the Jesus stories might have come from some of these wonder workers. Jesus doesn't seem to have been killed for doing miracles, he was killed by the Romans for treason. Most likely from the disturbance at the Temple.
Just to show you how unbelivable the Miricles were look at the two feeding in Mark. Even after he supposedly feed a few thousand before they still wondered and worried when he did the second feeding.

[McCulloch]

Moderator Notice

This is not a debate thread. This is a thread for comments, suggestions and questions regarding this site, with the topic of bias in moderation. Please let's stick to that topic here.

[Cathar1950]

I don't see much of a bias and I think for the most part the moderation is pretty fair. I don't see many getting kicked out for their beliefs and I think there are some pretty crazy ideas out there. They always get kicked out because they are jerks or just disrespectful.

Some don't seem to think they are hear to debate or discuss but are hear because for some reason they feel called to preach.
Then they can feel like they have somehow suffered for their god against the evil and godless skeptic and atheists...
You might here such things as "No one wants to hear the truth and quote some warning from the Bible that somehow is supposed to mean what ever they want it to mean depending on the situation which is to always beat their projected Satan.

Many if not most of us have pretty much heard them all and the novice might feel put off when his great revelation falls on seemingly dull ears.
Sometimes it is done so bad it takes time to even recognize the apology.

I enjoy the subject.
Most believers hardly think about some of the question raised here. I always appreciated those that took little interest in doctrine as much as disliked those that gave to much credence.

[Skyangel]

I guess I would be the 1? However, I'm not sure how I would even label myself.

But in terms of bias, it is only those that we have disciplined that accuses us of bias. To the Christians we put on probation, they accuse us of being biased towards non-Christians. And vice-versa. To me, they're all just looking for some excuse to justify their behavior. However, in all of the cases, appealing to bias has never changed any probation decision.

I would though acknowledge that individually, the moderating team has biases. However, as a team, I would say it is one of the most balanced moderating teams for a religious debating forum. And if anyone does know of a religious debating forum that is more fair than us, I'd be extremely curious to know about it.

I know of such a forum where each member is allowed to moderate themselves and speak freely without fear of banning or probation of any kind. All members have equal say and none are more important than others. Each person is allowed to express themselves as freely as they wish and no one is told what to say or how to say it. All are adults and all are free to post or not post as much as they wish. The benefits of such a forum is that no person feels restricted in any way and no one needs fear banning or probation.
The down side is that because they do not feel restricted by anyone they tend to restrict themselves to not posting at all. Maybe for fear of offending others or maybe they dont like getting too much of their own "medicine" fed back to them or they prefer to say nothing at all than say something which might be perceived as "not nice".
However, it is invite only and very few can handle it when they do get invited so they tend to not stay very long and leave of their own accord as they complain about bad treatment from the moderators who don't moderate at all but give the members all the freedom they want.

[archaeologist]

i find that some of the moderators are very biased against christians andmake unrealistic charges against them even when the thread or post does not require physical evidence at that time.

the constant stalking, the harping, the ignoring of other posts which have presented evidence or the ignoring of unbelievers whose posts are sans evidence shows that it is a double standard here and very hypocritical.

if you want to debate with christians then you need to be realistic and honest. the harassment needs to stop. the athesitic cry for evidence is nothing more than an escape route to avoid dealing withthe truth and makes it easier for the atheist to dismiss what is said.

that is not debate but cowardice. it is ridiculous to demand evidence for every comment, statement, sentence uttered especially when you overlook the very same violations committed by unbelievers.

i have cited bart ehrman's debate with craig evans a couple of times as examples that atheists and agnostics do not follow their own rules thus you cannot demand what you refuse to produce. that just shows you lack character, integrity and are dishonest; which means you have no credibility.

[ChaosBorders]

i find that some of the moderators are very biased against christians andmake unrealistic charges against them even when the thread or post does not require physical evidence at that time.

They aren't biased against Christians; they're biased against people who can't follow the rules or figure out where the Shift Key is on the keyboard.

[archaeologist]

They aren't biased against Christians; they're biased against people who can't follow the rules or figure out where the Shift Key is on the keyboard.

i have not broken a rule and insults by someone who cannot accept different ways of doing things only insult themselves and display their own depravities.

as i have stated, it is absurd to expect evidence for every statement, comment, point for evolutionists cannot do it, nor can atheists. it is biased because in the same thread the unbelievers are committing the same so-called infractions without being called on it.

it is clear that the unbelievers on this forum are cowards and must fabricate unrealistic demands to protect their unbelief and cannot be real men and discuss/debate with honesty, integrity and character.

[Cathar1950]

i find that some of the moderators are very biased against christians andmake unrealistic charges against them even when the thread or post does not require physical evidence at that time.

the constant stalking, the harping, the ignoring of other posts which have presented evidence or the ignoring of unbelievers whose posts are sans evidence shows that it is a double standard here and very hypocritical.

if you want to debate with christians then you need to be realistic and honest. the harassment needs to stop. the athesitic cry for evidence is nothing more than an escape route to avoid dealing withthe truth and makes it easier for the atheist to dismiss what is said.

that is not debate but cowardice. it is ridiculous to demand evidence for every comment, statement, sentence uttered especially when you overlook the very same violations committed by unbelievers.

i have cited bart ehrman's debate with craig evans a couple of times as examples that atheists and agnostics do not follow their own rules thus you cannot demand what you refuse to produce. that just shows you lack character, integrity and are dishonest; which means you have no credibility.

I disagree with your finding about bias and they are unfounded. The first post I read of yours I didn't know what you were talking about and you were belligerent and arrogant, the second post I realized you didn't know what you were talking about but the arrogance and belligerence remains.
You have created one straw man after another equating atheists with anyone that disagrees with whatever it is you believe and accusing them of a" lack character, integrity" and and of being "dishonest", and showing "cowardice" as well as being "ridiculous".
You are rude and crude.

Hartshorne in Beyond Humanism wrote:
Quote:

The more the rational elements of culture, that is science and critical metaphysics, advance, the less need or excuse there will be, it seems to me, for authoritative revelation as a rival or supplement to knowledge. We need inspiration as well as proof; but infallible inspiration seems a meaningless idea. Even if God dictated the Bible, it would be of no help until he taught us how to translate it into modern language and thought and life, and if we were taught to do this infallibly, we should acquire a degree of insight clearly incompatible with human limitations.
Popular Fundamentalism is either a negative evil, a callowness of culture which should be kindly assisted to cure itself; or a positive evil, an unloving and therefore unchristian dogmatism which is to be greeted, like every other form of arrogant power, with indignation and ridicule. An infallible dogma or book or church is a boast or a bludgeon, not a call to comradeship in human strength or human modesty and repentance.

[LiamOS]

Nice to see ChaosBorders' strange wit, again.

i have not broken a rule

Even a fundamentalist Christian told you you've broken the rules, along with an Atheist and a Jew.