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?

[ChaosBorders]

I can understand the idea that moderators should be entirely above the fray, perhaps not engaging in debate at all. I think someone used the term "robotic."

I'll freely say that I don't expect that ever to happen, and I personally would not want it to happen. I think all of us who are now mods are not really interested in participating in the forum if our only participation is to enforce the rules. I think all of us, except otseng, were members for several months if not years before we became moderators. We want to participate in debate, just like any other member.

That being said, if you ever do want a mod who doesn't actively participate in debates, let me know. I no longer really have the time to actively debate anymore, but I'm sure I could find some time here and there to respond to reported rule violations.

[EduChris]

...a lot of your objections are at the level of whether Murad's evidence is reliable...

That is true regarding his claims about the growth of Islam, and McCulloch challenged him repeatedly. Someone who is qualified to moderate should back up their claims when asked, rather than keep repeating the claim without ever providing corroboration.

...If your objection has to do with Murad not following Rule #5...We typically are not going to step in unless a poster has repeatedly refused to provide any evidence despite being challenged several times...Your beef with Murad on the thread you allude to is largely one of his not having supported his case adequately...

My claim is that:

1) Murad repeatedly gave false information, over a period of time, on at least two threads. Specifically, he claimed that homosexuality and homosexual marriage are "completely legal in Indonesia."

2) His claim is not true in any conceivable sense, and he had to have known this

3) He claimed to have provided evidence, when in fact he did not give the source

4) When I finally was able to track down the source of his information, the source turned out to say the opposite of what he had claimed

5) I provided numerous sources of information that refuted his claim

6) Finally when faced with irrefutable evidence of having repeatedly commited a factual error, he did not admit his error but rather resorted to chicanery, subterfuge, and deliberate deceit.

I have provided all the evidence for these six points. No one can read the posts carefully and reach any conclusion other than that Murad got caught in a deliberate deception. Otseng simply dropped the ball with regard to my report (probably for the reasons you mention about not having enough time).

The fact is, Murad is in no condition to moderate anyone who is caught in a bald-faced lie; all the guilty party would have to do is point to the threads that I listed and see that dishonesty is rewarded rather than punished.

Regarding the six-month-old thing, is there a statute of limitations for deceit here? Is Murad finally willing to acknowledge now that his behavior was deceitful?

And let's not forget about his very recent and repeated use of the term "oxyMORONIC" in his debate with Theopoesis.

[Adstar]

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.

Really? How much leeway?

If you want to go 30 mph over the speed limit, you can post here without getting a ticket. If you want to drive on the autobahn, send me a PM.

I wish to drive on the autobahn. So i will not bother.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

[EduChris]

Murad apparently moved the discussion here without my consent.

[EduChris]

...I admit I disagree with the choice of picking Murad as a moderator. I do not know how he's been doing as one, but based on his debating history it is my perception that some serious affirmative action was going on when they chose him...

You are on the right track with the "serious affirmative action" thing, but there is more to it than just that. There is a reason my Murad was the atheists' "favorite" for "best rookie" or "best debator" or whatever--and without that (bogus) nomination, I doubt anyone would have thought of Murad as even a prospective moderator.

[otseng]

Murad apparently moved the discussion here without my consent.

I moved it. And your consent is not required. Murad is not allowed to post in HH, so I moved the posts.

[EduChris]

Murad apparently moved the discussion here without my consent.

I moved it. And your consent is not required. Murad is not allowed to post in HH, so I moved the posts.

Is it not standard practice to let people know when a thread has been moved?

[otseng]

Murad apparently moved the discussion here without my consent.

I moved it. And your consent is not required. Murad is not allowed to post in HH, so I moved the posts.

Is it not standard practice to let people know when a thread has been moved?

Sorry. That was an oversight on my part. I've been a bit preoccupied with many things lately here.

[EduChris]

...If your plea is to have the moderators as a group hold to even higher standards of civility as an example to the forum at large, I would certainly accept that as a constructive suggestion...

Okay, on reflection I can admit that my expections for moderator behavior have been unrealistic. However, given that we must expect some incivility from at least some moderators on at least some occasions, the problem becomes a matter of degree. If a regular member engages in repeated incivility, we can place him or her on the Ignore List. But we can't place moderators on the Ignore List. There should be some way that incivil moderators can be placed on the Ignore List--except of course for posts that are flagged as "Moderator Action."

[otseng]

But we can't place moderators on the Ignore List. There should be some way that incivil moderators can be placed on the Ignore List--except of course for posts that are flagged as "Moderator Action."

It would not be feasible to programmatically do this. There is nothing special about a moderator's post when posting as a moderator versus a regular user. However, you can still choose to ignore reading and responding to a moderator's post if you wish.