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?

[fewwillfindit]

I haven't noticed the moderators personal biases reflected in their rulings. I've asked for intervention numerous times, and I've had moderators rule according to my request even though these same moderators have vigorously opposed me in open debate. If they were biased, they would allow their personal distaste for me to cloud their judgment, and I haven't experienced that.

I've had my wrist slapped a few times, but it's because I deserved it. Those cotton pickin' liberals tend to get my dander up. (Oops...was that out loud? )

In my opinion, Murad injects too much personal commentary into his rulings, but I see that as personality rather than bias.

It's WAY to early to tell if Darias' ideologies will interfere with his rulings, especially in discussions regarding homosexuality, sin, people going to hell, the exclusivity of Christianity, etc. Time will tell. However, if I'm going to take him seriously as a moderator, he's going to have to lose the whole "satire" theme, as he is rarely able to pull it off without instigating provocation. It is my opinion and my opinion only, that his motto, "civil satirist," in a setting such as this, is an oxymoron. Try as he might, he just hasn't been able to harmonize those two ostensibly conflicting words.

If I had noticed bias in moderator rulings, I wouldn't hesitate to bring it up here, but I simply haven't seen it.

As far as the whole, "do as I say and not as I do" thing, I think it's perfectly acceptable for a moderator to castigate and even disparage Christianity, as long as it within the purview of the rules, and as long as it doesn't exemplify a double standard. The moderators aren't here solely to moderate. They are here primarily to debate. There wouldn't be much incentive for them to hang around if their opinions were castrated in exchange for acting like automotons.

This goes for the non-theist members as well. Not many of them would hang around if the moderating team were comprised of conservative and fundamentalist Christians who ruled with an iron fist with a bias towards their ideologies. (I understand that this is not what educhris is asking for, I just want to add this)

That said, I sympathize with and even admire educhris (and theopoesis for that matter) because he tackles the heavy hitting issues in C&A, and I tend to shy away from them. He draws more fire than I do, so he has more exposure to potential moderator injustices.

However, my experience has been just the opposite, and that's all that I can fairly comment on.

[Kuan]

Real fast actually, I am a terrible debater so I stay away from topics I cant debate. The large ones that other theists tackle and this may be why I have not had the experiences EduChris has had, as he and others are heavily involved in those debates.

I also agree a lot with Theopoesis and fewwillfindit.

[WinePusher]

First, I think it's great that otseng encouraged the creation of this topic, kudos.

I am concerned with the amount of fair representation this moderating team. Sorry, but I know of absolutely no moderator who is sympathetic with the fundamentalist christian position (the only one who may be is Jester, but I have read only a few of his posts to gain an insight into his convictions). Conservative fundamentalism is not represented on this team, in fact we have a moderating team composed of people who have shown time and time again there distaste for fundamentalism and conservatism and that makes me think that they aren't living up to their duties of being objective.

I also think that it would be a useful tip to keep moderators from posting comments unless it has been reported. Obviously, if something is in clear violation of the rules and hasn't been reported a moderator should intervene. But if there is a personal dispute between two members and moderator intervention hasn't been requested, they should stay out of it. I don't think we need unwarreneted moderator opinions that make it seem like they're taking sides. The moderator that moderates least moderates best, IMO. Free expression should be allowed across the board, not at the whimsical decisions of a certain moderator.

Also, it is simply pathetic, IMO, to be lectured by a moderator on civility when that moderator in turn does not behave civily in their posts. Moderators should be the utmost civil people on here, and this team has a lot of civil members. But there are a few who aren't civil yet go around telling others to be civil.

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)?

Funny how I've seen people on here praise the supposed diversity of this team but when pointed out that not one single fundamentalist christian (other than Jester, which I am unsure of) is represented in the group you try to brush this point aside. From what I have seen the majority of moderators on here have shown disdain for fundamentalism. So yea, if you want a fair and balanced team maybe you should try to balance the perspectives represented on it.

otseng believes many of the core tenants of Christianity and has defende them in debate. He's an excellent apologist and is a great asset to Christianity. Yet, I am troubled when I see comments like this attributed to him:

you think I'm biased, perhaps you're right. I do expect more from Christians

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=13880

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make for a fair and balanced forum when the moderation team is heavily orientated towards liberalism and have the power to put people on probation. With that said, I cannot honestly say that otseng is biased in his actioons. I have taken many grivences to him over moderator actions and he's approached my concerns from an objective perspective.

My solution would be to set up something akin to a committee that would work to counteract the unbalanced representation on the moderating team. The members of this committee would have no moderating powers, but would have a say in whether a member were to be put on probation or banned as I have witnessed some unjust probation decisions in comparison to other instances. It would be similar like a court, were a person could take their concern or grivence to the committee and a vote would be held whether the moderator was justified in his comment or if the member was clearly in the wrong.

[Jester]

As a moderator, I'll quickly admit that I'm subject to biases. Whether my biases are slight or severe is probably not a question I can answer.

Rather, I'll stick to claiming something that I believed long before I was a moderator: that being more civil than the next guy helps win debates. It also helps people respect your opinion, and read your thoughts more seriously.
I know this is not really on the subject of moderator bias, but I thought it was worth mention. I make it my goal to so consistently show the fruit of the spirit that even a biased moderator won't have any excuse to get onto me.
When I manage to do that, it makes it harder for non-theists to believe that Christians are unthinking or hateful toward them.

[EduChris]

...If I had noticed bias in moderator rulings, I wouldn't hesitate to bring it up here, but I simply haven't seen it...

Just to be clear, I am not claiming that this or that moderator ruling has been biased. I very seldom report abuse or expect a ruling. The threefold problem is much more serious than simple moderator rulings:

1) Recent egregious posting behavior by the moderators McCulloch and Cnorman. They have in the past shown themselves to be capable moderators, but recently they have adopted a nasty, uncivil outlook that would make the typical barroom atheist proud.

2) An increased level of abusive, slanderous posts from non-theists which has not been addressed by the moderators. I admit that I haven't reported many of these, but it literally seems that I would have to spend all of my time reporting these posts. I think these posters are simply keying off of McCulloch (and to a lesser extent Cnorman's) recent turn toward slanderous postings.

3) I had not been aware until today that Murad had become a moderator. Far from being a moderator, he should be on probation for deceit and plagiarism. Also, I had not previously had any opportunity to form a firm opinon on Darius, but his initial strawman post here demonstrates conclusively that he is not moderator material.

In short, McCulloch and Cnorman must re-commit themselves to modelling civil behavior. Murad and Darius must be replaced--anyone would be better than them, just pick someone at random if necessary.

I of course admit that I am prone to as much incivility as anyone, and I hope to improve in this area, but the moderators here have to lead by example. If a member is uncivil, they can be ignored--but we don't have the option of ignoring moderators such as McCulloch and Cnorman (to say nothing of Murad and Darius).

[EduChris]

...I am troubled when I see comments like this attributed to him:

you think I'm biased, perhaps you're right. I do expect more from Christians

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=13880

In theory it's probably okay if a moderator holds "those of his own kind" according to a higher standard than others. This would work especially well if McCulloch would hold himself and his fellow atheists to a higher standard, if Cnorman would hold himself and Goat to a higher standard, and so on. The trouble is, so many non-theists have developed such a "master vs. plantation slave" attitude toward Christians that they simply do not recognize uncivil behavior when it is directed against those they despise. And again, we probably should expect this from the general members, but we should not expect this attitude to exhibit itself among the moderators themselves.

[Slopeshoulder]

I agree with fewwillfindit. Except for one from Murad recently that seemed a little less than fully mature, I've never once read a moderator comment or warning that I disagreed with in substance,including the few times they've slapped my wrist. I love the rules here and think the mods do a great job. I also notice the bias in the poll that excluded this possibility.

Edit: I also have to add that i have never once disagreed with a probation or banning decision and have instead applauded each of them. The rules here are a precious thing. I do think very established members are often given a little slack if their respect for the rules is generally known to the moderators. I think I've got away with a few doozies. But I really do sweat the rules.

EduChris, as you well know I respect your intelligence, education and intent. And while we'd disagree about some things if were sitting around talking religion, I like to think we'd do so respectfully and with mutual appreciation, and I also think we'd agree on more than these threads might suggest. I find that I often enjoy and admire your line of thinking...at first. Then something happens and you seem to get into a state of high dudgeon and get really quite pugilistic, and your reasoning seems to falter as blind spots creep in and heels get dug in. I once mentioned it to you in an otherwise friendly PM exchange, and I recall that you responded rather pugilistically! So I often wish you'd dial it back, pull a few punches, and see the other side a bit, throw them a bone. I often feel like opportunities for agreement and accord are missed as the punches keep coming. It often has me scratching my head. This thread itself seems to reflect this aspect. And this from a person who hereby admits he often represses anger and cuss words, thinks fundamentalism is the devil's work, struggles to suffer fools, and feels a lot dumber than my sometimes blustery posts would suggest, especially when the learned show up.
In short, chill pills are cheap. Take one maybe. Go hug an atheist maybe. Just a thought. I'll try to find a fundy to hug (actually two of my very best friends in the world are fundies! Great guys, great musicians, too bad they are agents of satan ).

[Kuan]

The trouble is, so many non-theists have developed such a "master vs. plantation slave" attitude toward Christians that they simply do not recognize uncivil behavior when it is directed against those they despise. And again, we probably should expect this from the general members, but we should not expect this attitude to exhibit itself among the moderators themselves.

I actually agree somewhat with the master vs. slave attitude. I am not accusing the moderators at all, but very often in evolution debates I see non-theists claim that the other side does not understand science because they dont believe in the theory of evolution. Sometimes they then refuse to debate the topic until they deem the other side "fully educated." I also am trying to be as unbiased as possible as I write this, so if anyone feels that view leans in one direction please explain why to me.

[Darias]

I actually agree somewhat with the master vs. slave attitude. I am not accusing the moderators at all, but very often in evolution debates I see non-theists claim that the other side does not understand science because they dont believe in the theory of evolution. Sometimes they then refuse to debate the topic until they deem the other side "fully educated." I also am trying to be as unbiased as possible as I write this, so if anyone feels that view leans in one direction please explain why to me.

I can't speak for anyone else but I have posted many times on this issue, and have not shied away from explaining my position -- with videos and documentaries and evidence. I don't go around saying "you're dumb and unworthy of debate." I've never done that.

[Fisherking]

To clarify, my main concern is not that of bias, but of hyposcrisy. Moderators are the "police officers". It does not reflect well on the department if they are out picking up prostitutes or brawling in the street when they are off the clock.