The moderating team is still unfair and biased

[WinePusher]

It's disheartening, but not at all surprising, that otseng's moderating team and policies are still horribly unfair, biased and inconsistent. I understand that otseng runs and pays for this forum and that it is his prerogative who he puts on his moderating team, but anybody who's been here a while will remember that at one point the moderators used to consist of fair minded, civil debaters such as Lux, micatala, Jester and Confused. Seems like otseng has now chosen to put bomb throwing flame baiters on the moderating team (both Christian and non Christian).

Here's the latest example of what I'm talking about. This statement by Mithrae received a moderator warning:

I've answered most if not all questions asked of me. I'd guess that what's irking you is the fact that I have also tried to correct the weird and wonderful assumptions you've been making.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 5&start=80

However, I reported this post by Clownboat about a week back and the mdoerators gave it a pass.

Holy crap! You know who wrote the gospels?!? Please enlighten us.

If you don't know who wrote the gospels, nor when, your entire post is meaningless and ironically shows a lack of education about the book in question.

Perhaps you are trying to show us that we are less educated now. Was that your point, or do you really know who wrote the gospels and you are just holding out on us?

Please clarify or enlighten the world with your knowledge.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 86&start=0

Now, here's what Elijah John wrote in his moderator warning.

This part is problematic and can be easily taken as mocking in tone, the words AND the context of the emoticon. Please refrain from such personal attacks and address only the content of the post without characterizing the other poster's assumptions, as you see them.

So, Mithrae's harmless statement gets a moderator warning. But Clownboat's post, which includes cussing, mocking and personal attacks gets a pass from the moderators.

I've brought up this issue with otseng many times in the past and I'm familiar with all his excuses. However, my take on this is very simple, it appears that many of the moderators like Clownboat and that they don't like Mithrae. Perhaps this is why they chose to give Clownboat's cussing and personal attacks a pass.

Question: Does this example show that there are problems with the moderating team?

[WinePusher]

I too see the first example being more intentionally demeaning than the second.

Saying 'Holy Crap' or 'you lack and education' or 'please enlighten us' multiple times isn't intentionally demeaning according to you?

[Divine Insight]

I too see the first example being more intentionally demeaning than the second.

Saying 'Holy Crap' or 'you lack and education' or 'please enlighten us' multiple times isn't intentionally demeaning according to you?

'Holy Crap' is merely an expression of emotional reaction. It shouldn't be demeaning to anyone. I wouldn't even personally consider it to be uncivil. For me the term "Crap" can simply mean "Junk" it doesn't necessary even need to be taken as a cuss word unless a person is so inclined to give it that perception.

"you lack and eduction" is taken out of context.

That was actually stated in a conditional statement that begins with the word "IF", and then suggest that if the "IF" is true, this "shows" a lack of education.

Here's the original statement in context with the conditional statements highlighted in red.

If you don't know who wrote the gospels, nor when, your entire post is meaningless and ironically shows a lack of education about the book in question

This allows the opponent to offer rebuttal concerning the truth value of this conditional statement.

And what's wrong with "Please enlighten us"?

Nothing could be more civil. It's simply a request for a more detailed explanation.

[Wootah]

For whst its worth I believe holy crap is a swear word. I don't advise anyone to use in a post. I don't think it would generate a warning the first time.

[McCulloch]

For whst its worth I believe holy crap is a swear word. I don't advise anyone to use in a post. I don't think it would generate a warning the first time.

Agreed. It is a very common sign of disrespect of religion to combine words that describe what is sacred with words associated with defication. However, such incivility has become so commonplace that even those who are religious denigrate and demean the sacred in this way without a second thought.

[bluethread]

For whst its worth I believe holy crap is a swear word. I don't advise anyone to use in a post. I don't think it would generate a warning the first time.

Agreed. It is a very common sign of disrespect of religion to combine words that describe what is sacred with words associated with defication. However, such incivility has become so commonplace that even those who are religious denigrate and demean the sacred in this way without a second thought.

I understand the problem with the mixing of a word some find sacred with one that one might find repugnant. However, if we are to be literal the reference is to holy(set apart for a purpose) crap (excrement). So, it is a reference to fertilizer. That said, the statement had nothing to do with fertilizer. So, it was an expression of astonishment. The primary problem I generally have with this thing is that it is not an accurate portrayal of what one wishes to communicate. The proper wording would be "Really?" or "That is amazing." I generally do not make much of such crude use of language.

What I find concerning is the apparent difference between what is seen as preaching and diatribes opposed to certain beliefs. Both are generally off topic and both are primarily propaganda, designed to wear down resistance via long winded repetition. I personally believe that regulation of propaganda must be subjective because of the nature of propaganda. However, I think that it would be best if the rule was against propaganda in general and not just theistic propaganda.

[OnceConvinced]

If you look at the first example, it's a clear put down, stating "weird and wonderful" as a description of the other person's thinking. Quite direct.

No, actually Mithrae called the persons 'assumptions' weird and wonderful which hardly constitutes a personal attack.

And personal assumptions are not part of a person's thinking?

On the otherhand, Clownboat starts off his post by cussing, which is against the rules, and personally attacks the person by saying they lack an education.

Have you actually seen anyone being warned by a moderator for using the term "Holy crap" before? Perhaps they are being consistent in NOT warning people for using such mild terms?

Should we perhaps have a list of all words that moderators deem to be cussing? That seems like going way too far. Who should get to judge what is cussing or not. You or the moderators? Should we also class words as "Gee Whizz" and "Crikey" as being cuss words too? Some people would say they are. Do we really need to get that pedantic? Do we really want a website where we have to be that careful about offending someone else's sensitivities? A website where we can't express our own emotions without worrying about breaking rules?

But, unlike you I'm not saying that Clownboat should be warned and Mithrae shouldn't. I'm saying that you either warn both and don't warn both.

I would agree that both should be warned if they broke the rules. I do not agree that Clownboat was breaking the rules. There needs to be some discernment made and as far as I can see the moderators have discerned correctly.

Being inconsistent and selective about who gets warnings even though the same offense is being committed is precisely the problem with otseng's moderatoring team.

I think the problem is with people who don't like to have to obey forum rules, not Otseng's moderating team. Why should you get to be the judge?

I don't want perfection, I want consistency.

As far as I can see they ARE being consistent. Anyway, these people are here voluntarily doing this job and are not getting paid for it. They are constantly issuing warnings to people as it is. If they were to be as pedantic as you want them to be that's all they'd ever be doing.

Holy crap! Even Christians alone can't be in unison with each other and can't be consistent, even with the supposed holy spirit in them, what makes you think that a bunch of people all with different walks of life, values and beliefs can?

What really is the big deal here? You're just convincing me even more that this is a case of "sour grapes" here.

I don't want the moderators to warn Mithrae but give Clownboat a free pass for doing the exact same thing.

It seems most people here do not agree that they were doing the exact same thing. It seems you may be a lone voice in the wilderness.

[Goose]

Question: Does this example show that there are problems with the moderating team?

It's a good example of bias, Winepusher. But I wouldn't worry about it.

I used to get really bent out of shape with how inconsistently the mods enforced the rules. For example, a while back I returned to the forum after a lay off and within a day or two was blasted by Danmark with a warning over an infraction that Otseng conceded in a PM to me should have received only a mod comment. I asked for the warning to be challenged since it was questionable and put me one step closer to banishment. I still haven't heard back.

The bias doesn't bother me as much anymore though. The reason is I've come to see things a little differently. Overt mod bias is a reflection of weakness, not strength. I see blatant bias among certain mods as a feather in the Christian cap.

[Zzyzx]

.

I don't want perfection, I want consistency.

"I want perfect consistency"

I see blatant bias among certain mods as a feather in the Christian cap.

Would you be so kind as to identify what you see as "blatant bias among certain mods" via PM to me (and to Otseng if appropriate)?


Edited to add: All of us have personal biases; however, moderating is structured to minimize reflection of personal biases in moderator action. It might be illuminating for some to know that moderators report posts with rule infractions as often or more often than do other members combined. This our way of saying, "Someone else handle this matter."

Of course, this may be meaningless to the most avid complainers, but others may appreciate knowing that the matter of minimizing bias is a priority item with the Moderating Team.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 16 by OnceConvinced]

Are not posts part of a person's thinking? Are you saying that we are not allowed to attack posts? There is nothing in the rules against attacking assumptions.

[WinePusher]

No, actually Mithrae called the persons 'assumptions' weird and wonderful which hardly constitutes a personal attack.

And personal assumptions are not part of a person's thinking?

What? Attacking a person's ideas, assumptions or their 'thinking' is fair game here. What is against the rules are personal attacks such as calling other people ignorant or saying that they are uneducated.

Have you actually seen anyone being warned by a moderator for using the term "Holy crap" before? Perhaps they are being consistent in NOT warning people for using such mild terms?

Swearing is against the rules, and 'crap' and 'holy crap' are inarguably swear words. OnceConvinced, I understand that you love the moderators but this is clearly an instance of failure on their part and you are going to great lengths and engaging in a lot of 'fancy footwork' to try and defend them.

I would agree that both should be warned if they broke the rules. I do not agree that Clownboat was breaking the rules. There needs to be some discernment made and as far as I can see the moderators have discerned correctly.

Let's see, Mithrae attacked another person's assumptions while Clownboat swore (against the rules) and personally attacked someone by saying they lack an education (against the rules. Now, you have tried to the best of your ability to defend the moderators actions here and for that I commend you. However, your argument was pretty much destroyed the moment you said that Mithrae should have been warned but Clownboat should've been given a free pass. Not even I am saying that. I'm saying that both should have been warned or both should've been given a pass.