Do we have a well functioning moderating team here?

[EduChris]

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this question. Does the moderating team overall exemplify and encourage civil debate and discussion? Are there some notable exceptions? Is the moderating team well representative of various viewpoints? Does it seem that thoughtful arguments are being presented an atmosphere that is free from condescension, stereotyping, strawman arguments, red herrings, and even insults?

Most importantly, are serious and thoughtful people leaving (or discouraged from joining) the forum due to moderator bias?

[EduChris]

I will go on record as saying that:

1. McCulloch engages in incivility, strawman arguments, red herrings, stereotyping, and condescension. He is unfit as a moderator.

2. Cnorman wears his "I was a (partially) seminary trained preacher before converting to Judaism" on his sleeve, and has engaged in smear tactics against the Christian faith. He is unfit to be a moderator.

3. I have just been told that Murad is now a moderator. Murad is deceitful and spends most of his time here engaging in spamming the forum with anti-Christian polemical Islamic website drivel. He is unfit to be a moderator. The fact that the current group of moderators admitted Murad is proof enough to me that the moderators (as a group) are dysfunctional and incompetent.

4. Darias appears to have a bias against Christians who believe that there is a genuine spiritual dimension in the world--one that can impinge at times within our physical reality and our spiritual thoughts. This is nothing more than cultural arrogance disguised as modernism. It's too early to tell whether his biases will affect his moderating.

5. Jester is one of the few decent moderators, but he is not active enough to make a difference by himself.

In short, I contend that the moderating team has become a self-perpetuating system for ensuring that civil debate is diminished on this forum.

[otseng]

BTW, I asked EduChris to create this thread. And I'm also going to be giving a bit of a leeway for people to express their thoughts here. Please be as honest as you can about your perception of how things are run here.

[Darias]

I will go on record as saying that:

1. McCulloch engages in incivility, strawman arguments, red herrings, stereotyping, and condescension. He is unfit as a moderator.

2. Cnorman wears his "I was a (partially) seminary trained preacher before converting to Judaism" on his sleeve, and has engaged in smear tactics against the Christian faith. He is unfit to be a moderator.

3. I have just been told that Murad is now a moderator. Murad is deceitful and spends most of his time here engaging in spamming the forum with anti-Christian polemical Islamic website drivel. He is unfit to be a moderator. The fact that the current group of moderators admitted Murad is proof enough to me that the moderators (as a group) are dysfunctional and incompetent.

4. Darias appears to have a bias against Christians who believe that there is a genuine spiritual dimension in the world--one that can impinge at times within our physical reality and our spiritual thoughts. This is nothing more than cultural arrogance disguised as modernism. It's too early to tell whether his biases will affect his moderating.

5. Jester is one of the few decent moderators, but he is not active enough to make a difference by himself.

In short, I contend that the moderating team has become a self-perpetuating system for ensuring that civil debate is diminished on this forum.

So basically are you saying that only moderators who are of the same opinion as yourself are capable of enforcing the rules, and that all these "liberals" and "non-theists" shouldn't be enforcing the rules because they only penalize those they disagree with?

Are you just hoping that if more conservatives join the forum team that they will overlook your infractions because they agree with you? Is that how you think moderating should work? Is that how you think moderating functions now (in favor of liberals)?

I've only been moderator for a day, and I intervened in the thread and I quoted McCulloch's comment and your comment about him. I did not personally find what he said to be pointless; I believed it was a legitimate question -- but I acknowledged that it was a one-liner.

You on the other-hand thought he should quit being a moderator and you called him names -- so I posted a moderator comment. I had not been following that thread so I had no place in the debate...

I think the duration of my time in this forum should be an accurate forecast of how I will moderate. By that I mean, I strive not to engage in personal attacks (and I have been on the receiving end of many personal attacks -- all of which have come from Christians btw -- and I only reported one such instance) -- so I will not tolerate name calling, no matter who does it, because I know how it feels.

My views, and the respective views of the other moderators, have nothing to do with our moderating abilities. We enforce the forum rules. We discuss and monitor every report -- we give repeated rule-breakers more second chances than they deserve (bjhulk, Rant, etc.).

We don't act as moderators in the same thread we are actively debating in.

etc. etc.


While you may have a general dissatisfaction with the left on this site, and a personal disdain for McCulloch, I don't think you have strong enough evidence to accuse the moderators of collective incompetence.

Whether you like our opinions or not is irrelevant to the matter -- because we enforce the rules and the rules apply to everyone.

[EduChris]

...So basically are saying that only moderators who are of the same opinion as yourself are capable of enforcing the rules...

A competent moderator should be capable of doing better than this sort of strawman argument.

... and that all these "liberals" and "non-theists" shouldn't be enforcing the rules because they only penalize those they disagree with?...

Their presuppositions and preconceived notions make some moderators incapable of enforcing the rules across the board. Moreover, some moderators regularly and actively slander the Christian faith, reducing it to ridiculous caricatures--and this sets the tone for the rest of the members.

...I think the duration of my time in this forum should be an accurate forecast of how I will moderate...

I agree.

[Kuan]

I wish there was an option in the poll for other. Personally, I have seen nothing wrong with the moderating team. Although, communication through text online is misinterpreted a lot. There is a possibility that EduChris, or I (or anyone else) are interpreting the meanings incorrectly. I always give someone the benefit of the doubt when communicating online. If a post comes across as being hateful, I just need to remember that a lot of these debates are personal and do involve some emotion. How we control the emotions is a big deal.

[Fisherking]

I will go on record as saying that:

1. McCulloch engages in incivility, strawman arguments, red herrings, stereotyping, and condescension. He is unfit as a moderator.

2. Cnorman wears his "I was a (partially) seminary trained preacher before converting to Judaism" on his sleeve, and has engaged in smear tactics against the Christian faith. He is unfit to be a moderator.

3. I have just been told that Murad is now a moderator. Murad is deceitful and spends most of his time here engaging in spamming the forum with anti-Christian polemical Islamic website drivel. He is unfit to be a moderator. The fact that the current group of moderators admitted Murad is proof enough to me that the moderators (as a group) are dysfunctional and incompetent.

4. Darias appears to have a bias against Christians who believe that there is a genuine spiritual dimension in the world--one that can impinge at times within our physical reality and our spiritual thoughts. This is nothing more than cultural arrogance disguised as modernism. It's too early to tell whether his biases will affect his moderating.

5. Jester is one of the few decent moderators, but he is not active enough to make a difference by himself.

In short, I contend that the moderating team has become a self-perpetuating system for ensuring that civil debate is diminished on this forum.

I agree with every point, and have expressed this both publicly and privately. I'm hesitant to single any one of them out, but as a group most are as hostile to Christianity as any atheists debating site (with atheists moderators). I've seen several from this group of moderators actually doing exactly what they were appointed to prevent.
The majority of moderators since I've joined have always been strongly anti-orthodox/ fundamental Christianity. Are these supposed to be discouraged from expressing their point of views (within the sites rules)? It seems civil debate is encouraged as long as the right group of people are being civil (those that agree with the moderation don't seem to have to be as civil).

[Fisherking]

I will go on record as saying that:

1. McCulloch engages in incivility, strawman arguments, red herrings, stereotyping, and condescension. He is unfit as a moderator.

2. Cnorman wears his "I was a (partially) seminary trained preacher before converting to Judaism" on his sleeve, and has engaged in smear tactics against the Christian faith. He is unfit to be a moderator.

3. I have just been told that Murad is now a moderator. Murad is deceitful and spends most of his time here engaging in spamming the forum with anti-Christian polemical Islamic website drivel. He is unfit to be a moderator. The fact that the current group of moderators admitted Murad is proof enough to me that the moderators (as a group) are dysfunctional and incompetent.

4. Darias appears to have a bias against Christians who believe that there is a genuine spiritual dimension in the world--one that can impinge at times within our physical reality and our spiritual thoughts. This is nothing more than cultural arrogance disguised as modernism. It's too early to tell whether his biases will affect his moderating.

5. Jester is one of the few decent moderators, but he is not active enough to make a difference by himself.

In short, I contend that the moderating team has become a self-perpetuating system for ensuring that civil debate is diminished on this forum.

So basically are saying that only moderators who are of the same opinion as yourself are capable of enforcing the rules, and that all these "liberals" and "non-theists" shouldn't be enforcing the rules because they only penalize those they disagree with?

Are you just hoping that if more conservatives join the forum team that they will overlook your infractions because they agree with you? Is that how you think moderating should work? Is that how you think moderating functions now (in favor of liberals)?

I've only been moderator for a day, and I intervened in the thread and I quoted McCulloch's comment and your comment about him. I did not personally find what he said to be pointless; I believed it was a legitimate question -- but I acknowledged that it was a one-liner.

You on the other-hand thought he should quit being a moderator and you called him names -- so I posted a moderator comment. I had not been following that thread so I had no place in the debate...

I think the duration of my time in this forum should be an accurate forecast of how I will moderate. By that I mean, I strive not to engage in personal attacks (and I have been on the receiving end of many personal attacks -- all of which have come from Christians btw -- and I only reported one such instance) -- so I will not tolerate name calling, no matter who does it, because I know how it feels.

My views, and the respective views of the other moderators, have nothing to do with our moderating abilities. ]We enforce the forum rules. We discuss and monitor every report -- we give repeated rule-breakers more second chances than they deserve (bjhulk, Rant, etc.).

We don't act as moderators in the same thread we are actively debating in.

etc. etc.


While you may have a general dissatisfaction with the left on this site, and a personal disdain for McCulloch, I don't think you have strong enough evidence to accuse the moderators of collective incompetence.

Whether you like our opinions or not is irrelevant to the matter -- because we enforce the rules and the rules apply to everyone.

This is a perfect example of how IMO a moderator should not act. My vision of a good moderator would be like a robotic logic machine (I know, robotic and logic in the same description is kind of redundant ) They would not engage in bickering type post (other than to moderate them), would not get emotionally involved in a topic, and would not be openly hostile to any one.

Imo a moderator should avoid personal comments period (bolded text) about others or oneself.

[Fisherking]

I just need to remember that a lot of these debates are personal and do involve some emotion.

A moderator should not engage in a topic if it becomes personal or emotional whatsoever (imo), other than to enforce civil debate.

[Kuan]

I just need to remember that a lot of these debates are personal and do involve some emotion.

A moderator should not engage in a topic if it becomes personal or emotional whatsoever (imo), other than to enforce civil debate.

But members can? The moderators are members to, they came here to be in these discussions. If we kick them out of discussions, why would they stay? They are doing this in their free time, they arent paid.