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.

[ChaosBorders]

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.

Notice the part where you call people cowards? That's breaking the rules. Did you actually read the rules? Or are they written at a reading level above and beyond whatever education you have received?

[Confused]

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.

If this is an issue, please send myself or one of the other moderators the links to your opinion of biases.

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 read my OP, you should have noted how many moderators we have for this forum. If you look at the bottom of the pages, you will see how many members we have on this forum. We don't have enough moderators to "constantly stalk or harp" posts. Nor do we have enough moderators to monitor every single post on this forum. If you have an issue with a post, then do as is required in the forum rules: Report the post.... you can even send a PM if you want to be more specific about your complaints. If anyone is posting sans evidence or without citing their sources, then report them. Is that really too much to ask?

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.

Again, cite the posts that you consider "harassment. If your true opinion is one in which the atheists cry for evidence is nothing but an escape route then I will have to refer you to looking up what "debating" actually is and remind you that this is a debate forum. It requires evidence. If something is true, then there should be evidence to validate it.

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.

Again, I will have to suggest you review what constitutes a debate. If you feel it is ridiculous to demand evidence for claims, then you shouldn't be debating. If you feel we are overlooking violations made by unbelievers, then once again, report the post or PM one of us moderators the link to the post in which validates your accusations here.

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.

Anyone can demand evidence and in a debate, the person who presented the claim is required to substantiate it, not "shifting the burden of proof".

If you feel that this forum is so unfair and offensive, then feel free not to participate. If you would like to continue to participate, then I would strongly suggest you adhere to the same rules you are claiming others are violating.

[sarabellum]

my dad always told me....
"where ever three or more are gathered in my name, confusion and arguing will follow shortly there after...."

considering the nature of the material that is covered here i think the mods keep it civil and are doing a good job....
(up to 30 tolkiens so i bought you moderators a smiley)

[dixieann]

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.

Archaeologist here thinks that requiring evidence before blindly swallowing is not debate, it's cowardice. Now if I point out the complete idiocy of such a position, I will get one of those super cool wham bam moderator notices. I would very much like for a Moderator to inform us as to what they want idiocy called. I mean, is idiocy to be referred to as pie poke? Lamb leg? Koodle noodle? You have made it clear that idiocy is not to be used. So when a position is utter idiocy, what word do you want me to use? I am willing to cooperate. What I'm not willing to do is to be forced to call a cow pattie a pansy.

As for bias, yes.....there is most certainly bias. I can't mock the belief in an imaginary Sky Daddy as it's an insult. Yet show me one single time where a Moderator has called a Christian down for claiming that if we don't blindly swallow what they blindly swallow then we will be cast to hell. That is an insult to my intelligence. An insult is an insult, is it not?

[Jester]

Moderator Comment

Please review the Rules.

I'll try to make this as explicit as I can.

Now if I point out the complete idiocy of such a position, I will get one of those super cool wham bam moderator notices. I would very much like for a Moderator to inform us as to what they want idiocy called. I mean, is idiocy to be referred to as pie poke? Lamb leg? Koodle noodle? You have made it clear that idiocy is not to be used. So when a position is utter idiocy, what word do you want me to use? I am willing to cooperate. What I'm not willing to do is to be forced to call a cow pattie a pansy.

Try "incorrect", "wrong", "false", "inaccurate", or "untrue".
The rules specify that you are allowed to say that a claim is wrong. You are not allowed to comment on the intelligence of a claim or of the claimant.
Beyond being uncivil, it is pointless. We are discussing the truth of claims, not the intelligence involved in making them.

As for bias, yes.....there is most certainly bias. I can't mock the belief in an imaginary Sky Daddy as it's an insult. Yet show me one single time where a Moderator has called a Christian down for claiming that if we don't blindly swallow what they blindly swallow then we will be cast to hell. That is an insult to my intelligence. An insult is an insult, is it not?

I've not recently read any post which contains the words "if you don't blindly swallow what I swallow, you will be cast into hell". If such a one exists, please report it, and we will address.
You are right to say that you are not allowed to mock, however. You can claim that God is imaginary as often as you'd like, just as theists can claim that God exists. But I see no reason why mocking, from either party, should be required to make a cogent point. In my experience, it distracts from rational conversation.
______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.
Do not respond to moderator comments in the thread. If you have any questions or comments, send a private message.

[dixieann]

And I'm not allowed to comment on your post. Priceless.

[Jester]

And I'm not allowed to comment on your post. Priceless.

Moderator Comment
Please review our Rules.

This constitutes commenting. If you have anything to say, use a private message.
______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.
Do not respond to moderator comments in the thread. If you have any questions or comments, send a private message.