Christianity

GuanYin

Is there any chance of reviewing the need for a second impartial mod here?

I've just had an innocuous post asking the mod to point out my alleged "infringement" deleted.

The irony is, this was all because another posted made to pointed insult/jabs at me, which he apologised for, and claimed one was a joke.

The mod took no action on this matter but accused me of being insulting. He then PM'd me and refused to discus sthe matter with me, having told me to discuss thematter with him off thread.

Now I post on this forum and am very respectfuls of others beliefs, yet if I disagree with one of the mods friends, I, like all the others, get singled out for abuse and hassle by the mod.

Perhaps for such a volitile forum where personal beliefs and bias may cloud the judgement of one mod, a second impartial mod should be installed, such as ioxy or hobbes?

Amz

There's a certain level of obstinacy evident in the moderation of the Christianity forum that I feel puts a lot of people off entering discussion/debate. If they feel their points of view or opinions are going to be deleted, edited or made fun of by those put in place to moderate the forum then they’re unlikely to bother.

There have been many occasions where I’ve seen an interesting thread on the Christianity forum but for fear of harassment or unfair censorship etc. I’ve refrained from posting. I’m fairly positive that I’m not alone in this.

One question however, how would an impartial moderator be chosen?
In the case of the Christianity forum, what would make someone “impartial”?
Would having an impartial moderator lead to conflict amongst the posters and between the moderators themselves?

dangerman

I've watched with interest from a non-christian perspective whats been unfolding on the Christian forum in the last while and I agree with Syke on this; the forum would benefit from a second impartial moderator. It is a community forum...but Christianity certainly isn't a club where one person decides what goes so the moderation of the forum should reflect that.

flogen

I'd support syke on this. And as Amz says, there's little point in entering a debate there if the mod is going to edit or delete your comments, and perhaps even ban you.
Surely all religions should be open to fair debates, it's not as if they can say "its a christian forum, christians only".

As for picking an impartial mod... well there are plenty of present mods that have proven themselves to be impartial under volatile debates, such as in politics (I'm not putting all your names down, just an example!).

Perhaps syke would be interested in the job

flogen

BuffyBot

There have been many occasions where I’ve seen an interesting thread on the Christianity forum but for fear of harassment or unfair censorship etc. I’ve refrained from posting. I’m fairly positive that I’m not alone in this.

It's a forum I generally don't post on also, it's a shame because a lot of interesting debate could be had.

DapperGent

I don't see much wrong with JustHalf's moderation to be honest. Apart from that one incident with keu (since banned), which JustHalf admitted was poor judgement on his part.

I would think that most of the problems syke experiences on the Jesus forum are due to his own conduct and personality.

It also seems to me that the only reason he posts on the forum is to attempt to debunk christianity or elements of it. As an exercise in subtle unpleasantness that's quite hard to beat.

Yoda

Amz wrote:

One question however, how would an impartial moderator be chosen?

Appoint a Buddhist.

damien

At this stage there should be a gathering card for "another fight in the Christian forum". Maybe have a pic of Lions and people in sandles.

flogen

DapperGent wrote:

It also seems to me that the only reason he posts on the forum is to attempt to debunk christianity or elements of it. As an exercise in subtle unpleasantness that's quite hard to beat.

debunk? Perhaps he's trying to open up a rational debate on the ins and outs of christianity. Rather than just believing it because the bible says so, people should know (and be able to explain why) they believe it.
If he was being aggressive, or was spamming saying that Christianity is stupid, then fair enough, but from what I've seen he's just trying to have a rational debate

flogen

JustHalf

syke wrote:

The mod took no action on this matter but accused me of being insulting. He then PM'd me and refused to discus sthe matter with me, having told me to discuss thematter with him off thread.

Syke, I've highlighted something here which is completely untrue. Not only have I never refused to discuss this matter with you, but I am involved in a discussion with you via PMs about this very issue.

Why do you repeatedly lie and make false claims about me and my actions?

The post was deleted as, as I have told you, I directed you to take up that issue with me via PMs and you took it up in the thread itself. Not to "cover up my mistakes", as you claim.

DapperGent wrote:

I don't see much wrong with JustHalf's moderation to be honest. Apart from that one incident with keu (since banned), which JustHalf admitted was poor judgement on his part.

Yes. That was certainly a case of poor judgement on my part, and I was very much in the wrong to publically label her beliefs "crazy talk".

Amz wrote:

There have been many occasions where I’ve seen an interesting thread on the Christianity forum but for fear of harassment or unfair censorship etc. I’ve refrained from posting. I’m fairly positive that I’m not alone in this.

Apart from the incident with Keu, I can't think of anything that would give you this impression. Is it possible that your opinion of the board is coloured with experiences you've had with Christians elsewhere?

Regardless of the answer to that question, it's a pity that people don't post to the board for this reason. If you can think of anything I can do to solve this problem, please suggest it. I do want to encourage serious debate.

With regards to the appointing of a co-mod, I've asked Excelsior would he be willing and he has said yes. I'd like to put his name forward.

ecksor

Can you see why excelsior wouldn't appear to be a good choice on the basis of the contents of this thread?

DapperGent

flogen wrote:

debunk? Perhaps he's trying to open up a rational debate on the ins and outs of christianity. Rather than just believing it because the bible says so, people should know (and be able to explain why) they believe it.
If he was being aggressive, or was spamming saying that Christianity is stupid, then fair enough, but from what I've seen he's just trying to have a rational debate

The chrisitianity forum is a community forum for christians to discuss christian stuff. From what I've seen of syke on it he doesn't post there enquiring about christianity in an attempt to understand better those who believe in it or the religion itself. His only interest in the forum (as it appears to me) is to attempt to point out inconsistences or fallacies in their belief system.

I'm an atheist, so clearly I think a belief in christianity is completely flawed. There are places to express such an opinion, I don't think an appropriate one is a forum created as a christian community. I'm not asshole enough.

I think syke has been trolling (subtly of course!) the christainity forum for a long time and I think the mod is fúcking sick of it. I would be.

JustHalf

ecksor wrote:

Can you see why excelsior wouldn't appear to be a good choice on the basis of the contents of this thread?

No, unless you're talking about some sort of guilt by association.

ecksor

Also, people keep going on about how the Christianity forum is a community forum. It's a community forum for an unusual reason and therefore it isn't always a given that it will be treated like a public clan forum or similar.

JustHalf

ecksor wrote:

Also, people keep going on about how the Christianity forum is a community forum. It's a community forum for an unusual reason and therefore it isn't always a given that it will be treated like a public clan forum or similar.

Agreed.

ecksor

Actually, sod this.

I can see that people have problems with the way that JustHalf moderates, but the first person to complain couldn't actually make a coherent or civil complaint from my point of view and the second one has his postcount locked at 666 by request and has a tagline with the word 'Armilus' in it and then complains about his treatment by the Christianity mod. The usual concerned onlookers (by which I chiefly mean DapperGent) are lining up for this weeks installment of the ongoing row that nobody (by which I mean me) gives a ****ing **** about and I really don't see the point.

syke, I know you feel that you have a genuine grievance but I really just can't bring myself to entertain it under these circumstances.

Thread locked.

PS. JustHalf, it's not guilt by association. When the charge is that you're impartial to the point of always backing up your mate, then the same mate doesn't seem like the best choice to make the forum's moderation appear impartial.

DeVore

Yeah, I'm pretty much with Ecksor on this (with a touch of Dapper's "hey, dont poke bears with sticks so that they'll bite you and you can run to the admins to complain about being bitten" though perhaps not as strongly as he put it )

We need another mod anyway, if for nothing other then to give the appearance of even handedness and in this too I'm with Ecksor that a carbon copy of JH isnt a good way to do that. In closing I think JH has a rough patch to mod, he's got clearly strong feelings about his faith (which doesnt bother me) and its always going to be a rough board (see my first post there where I guarunteed them a safe area to discuss stuff between themselves in return for no-prosletyzation).

Fook it, lets make it like the Soccer forum... that worked!!

DeV.