Banned from Christianity.

himnextdoor

Thread concerned: http://boards.ie/tre/2056209744

I was handed a three-day ban by Fanny Cradock this evening and would like to take issue with this.

I have PM'ed the mod concerned and asked him to indicate the nature of my offence with regard to the charter and he directed me to you without indicating which part of the charter I violated.

It is fair to say that he and I never really 'hit it off' but his attitude toward me from the off has been one of disdain and constitutes an abuse of position in my view.

It seems that my attempts to 'pin down' a premise of Christian faith have been interpreted as trolling whereas in fact it was reasoned and logical enquiry.

I might add that any 'unkind' comments I have made were retorts and in response to what can be described as rudeness on the part of others.

The forum is for discussion and I feel that sometimes discussion is stifled by over-zealous moderating especially when the views of the moderator become challenged.

I would appreciate it if someone could look at this problem 'in the whole'.

PDN

While not the moderator who handed out the ban, I had already infracted this poster earlier in the thread, and could see where this was headed.

The thread in question was started by an atheist who wanted to discover what Christians believe on a certain subject (whether God causes earthquakes etc.) He would have preferred a Christian-only tag, but these are not allowed any more, so he made a very strong plea for non-Christians not to derail the thread:

Wicknight wrote:

We can't have Christian only threads any more but to all non-Christians PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do not derail this thread with such responses. There have been quite a few 'Whats your thoughts on this...' threads and as soon as a Chrisitan gives an honest answer they are set upon with faux outrage and anger.

This is just silly baiting in my view, this 'Say something offensive so I can be offended'. Atheists, get over it.

That is NOT the purpose of this thread, if you want to be offended take it to the A&A forum please. This is a genuine question that I don't know the answer to and would be interested to hear from Christians about.

The thread began in a very good spirit with a good interchange of views and atheists and Christians thanking one another's posts with a frequency rarely seen on the religious fora. A couple of non-Christians tried to manufacture some mock outrage about how horrible God is, but the OP (atheist though he is) asked them to respect his request in the first post.

Round about post 55 himnextdoor began asking rather off-topic questions. He was given some links to more information he could read, to avoid taking the thread off-topic, and also rreceived some patient answers to his questions.

Unfortunately he kept on trying to argue about these side issues, at times deliberately misrtepresenting the answers he had received, and coming out with an attitude of "Why should I read these links to stuff by academics? If your religion's message is straightforward then why should I have to read books to understand it?"

Next he went down the route of wanting to argue about why there are different churches and how God should smite and destroy the wrong ones.

Then he bagan accusing Christians in the thread of being xenophobic, and how horrible we all are for not condemning this. Which, besides doing what the OP had specifically asked not to happen, was really rather baffling since no Christian poster had made any xenophobic commenmts whatsoever.

He continued to make accusations of xenophobia and was warned inthread not to do so (post number 151 - boldfaced and clearly designated as a mmoderating instruction, not a poster's personal view).

A few posts later he received an infraction for suggesting that some people might be happy about the AIDS pandemic in Africa because it will reduce overpopulation. I also made clear that at this point my only participation in the thread would be as a mod, not as a poster. This was because the escalation in himnextdoor's trolling was obviously going to lead to bother, and I didn't want to give any impression that my private views as a poster were influencing any decisions I had to make as a mod.

His response to this was to post:

himnextdoor wrote:

Can I say that the answer to to OP appears to be yes, no and sometimes?

I pointed out, still with my mod hat on, that was rather silly since the whole point of internet discussion fora is for people to be able to express different views. If we all believed the same abnout everything then there would be nothing to discuss.

himnextdoor's response was to call me supercilious and rude and to state:

himnextdoor wrote:

Pity there's no discussion though.

This thread has demonstrated the vagueness of Bible teaching; there is no consensus between Christians regarding the nature of the same God.

I would have thought that a true Christian would want to tease out what the Bible actually says regarding Intervention.

This was muppetry on several levels:
a) There had been discussion, and yet he was simultaneously criticising the lack of discussion, while also criticising the divergence of opinion that is inherent in any such discussion.

b) The person most responsible for prematurely stopping a good discussion had been himnextdoor's continual low-level (but escalating) trolling, and his dragging us off topic.

c) His attempt to drag in the alleged vagueness of the Bible was about to take us down another rabbit trail.

So, while it was another moderator who implemented the 3-day ban, I wholeheartedly support his action. If it was me it would have been longer than 3 days, but Fanny Cradock is most definitely the good cop to my bad cop. This poster has exhibited a persistent and progressive pattern of behaviour that is simply spoiling discussions for the other posters.

himnextdoor

PDN wrote: »

While not the moderator who handed out the ban, I had already infracted this poster earlier in the thread, and could see where this was headed.

The thread in question was started by an atheist who wanted to discover what Christians believe on a certain subject (whether God causes earthquakes etc.) He would have preferred a Christian-only tag, but these are not allowed any more, so he made a very strong plea for non-Christians not to derail the thread:



The thread began in a very good spirit with a good interchange of views and atheists and Christians thanking one another's posts with a frequency rarely seen on the religious fora. A couple of non-Christians tried to manufacture some mock outrage about how horrible God is, but the OP (atheist though he is) asked them to respect his request in the first post.

Round about post 55 himnextdoor began asking rather off-topic questions. He was given some links to more information he could read, to avoid taking the thread off-topic, and also rreceived some patient answers to his questions.

Unfortunately he kept on trying to argue about these side issues, at times deliberately misrtepresenting the answers he had received, and coming out with an attitude of "Why should I read these links to stuff by academics? If your religion's message is straightforward then why should I have to read books to understand it?"

Next he went down the route of wanting to argue about why there are different churches and how God should smite and destroy the wrong ones.

Then he bagan accusing Christians in the thread of being xenophobic, and how horrible we all are for not condemning this. Which, besides doing what the OP had specifically asked not to happen, was really rather baffling since no Christian poster had made any xenophobic commenmts whatsoever.

He continued to make accusations of xenophobia and was warned inthread not to do so (post number 151 - boldfaced and clearly designated as a mmoderating instruction, not a poster's personal view).

A few posts later he received an infraction for suggesting that some people might be happy about the AIDS pandemic in Africa because it will reduce overpopulation. I also made clear that at this point my only participation in the thread would be as a mod, not as a poster. This was because the escalation in himnextdoor's trolling was obviously going to lead to bother, and I didn't want to give any impression that my private views as a poster were influencing any decisions I had to make as a mod.

His response to this was to post:


I pointed out, still with my mod hat on, that was rather silly since the whole point of internet discussion fora is for people to be able to express different views. If we all believed the same abnout everything then there would be nothing to discuss.

himnextdoor's response was to call me supercilious and rude and to state:


This was muppetry on several levels:
a) There had been discussion, and yet he was simultaneously criticising the lack of discussion, while also criticising the divergence of opinion that is inherent in any such discussion.

b) The person most responsible for prematurely stopping a good discussion had been himnextdoor's continual low-level (but escalating) trolling, and his dragging us off topic.

c) His attempt to drag in the alleged vagueness of the Bible was about to take us down another rabbit trail.

So, while it was another moderator who implemented the 3-day ban, I wholeheartedly support his action. If it was me it would have been longer than 3 days, but Fanny Cradock is most definitely the good cop to my bad cop. This poster has exhibited a persistent and progressive pattern of behaviour that is simply spoiling discussions for the other posters.

Does the Dispute Resolution Charter not apply to moderators?

himnextdoor

PDN wrote: »

The thread in question was started by an atheist who wanted to discover what Christians believe on a certain subject (whether God causes earthquakes etc.) He would have preferred a Christian-only tag, but these are not allowed any more, so he made a very strong plea for non-Christians not to derail the thread:

From the Christianity forum: Early Christian writings discovered in Jordanian cave - 70 new books

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056224064

Post #8:

PDN wrote:

What the mods want is more important than what the OP wants.

I must say that PDN's sensitivity to the wishes of OP's seems somewhat contrived if not convenient.

An example of PDN's attitude to 'awkward' questions:

From the 'Interventionist God' thread:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056209744&page=7

Post #92:

Desert Rose wrote:

How would you explain Mark 4:35-41 where it says Jesus rebuked the wind in the storm?

And Post #93:

PDN wrote:

Jesus commanded the wind to cease and it ceased. I'm not sure what there is to explain?

Is such sarcasm either necessary or becoming of a Christianity moderator?

PDN wrote: »

Round about post 55 himnextdoor began asking rather off-topic questions. He was given some links to more information he could read, to avoid taking the thread off-topic, and also rreceived some patient answers to his questions.

Unfortunately he kept on trying to argue about these side issues, at times deliberately misrtepresenting the answers he had received, and coming out with an attitude of "Why should I read these links to stuff by academics? If your religion's message is straightforward then why should I have to read books to understand it?"

Utter fiction. Where? Show me.

The questions I asked were relevant to the post and were posed due to perceived contradictions which are evident throughout the thread.

PDN wrote: »

Then he bagan accusing Christians in the thread of being xenophobic, and how horrible we all are for not condemning this. Which, besides doing what the OP had specifically asked not to happen, was really rather baffling since no Christian poster had made any xenophobic commenmts whatsoever.

He continued to make accusations of xenophobia and was warned inthread not to do so (post number 151 - boldfaced and clearly designated as a mmoderating instruction, not a poster's personal view).

Utter fiction. I accused no-one of xenophobia.

Wolfsbane wrote:

No. Just no special, on-going curse like at the beginning. God does intervene - all the time, to bring all things to accomplish His goals. No one dies, not even a sparrow, without His say-so. We are never just victims of chance.

Which absolutely implies that God caused the earthquake in Japan. Then:

himnextdoor wrote:

Although no-one has said specifically that the Japanese are being punished by God, that view can be inferred from one or two of the posts in this thread.

but:

PDN wrote:

I don't think it can be inferred by any reasonable person from what Christians have posted in this thread.

Well, it can!

PDN wrote:

So, while it was another moderator who implemented the 3-day ban, I wholeheartedly support his action. If it was me it would have been longer than 3 days, but Fanny Cradock is most definitely the good cop to my bad cop. This poster has exhibited a persistent and progressive pattern of behaviour that is simply spoiling discussions for the other posters.

No, I was stimulating it.

Finally, I would say that PDN's intervention here is both cynical and dishonest. I suggest that an examination of the 'Interventionist God' thread will reveal who is misrepresenting what.

himnextdoor

I know that the ban has expired but none of the issues raised have been addressed or resolved.

Could I get some acknowledgement please?

Scofflaw

himnextdoor wrote: »

I know that the ban has expired but none of the issues raised have been addressed or resolved.

Could I get some acknowledgement please?

Hi himnextdoor,

apologies for the delay - will look into this.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

himnextdoor wrote: »

I must say that PDN's sensitivity to the wishes of OP's seems somewhat contrived if not convenient.

Then it's unfortunate that you're unable to see the difference between apples and oranges - but that's where quote mining gets you.

There's a world of difference between these two scenarios:
a) Where an OP starts a thread on one subject, then another poster takes it off-topic. A mod intervenes to keep it on topic, at which point the OP contradicts the mod and says, "I'm happy for this to go off-topic."

In that case it is perfectly proper to point out that the OP cannot act as a defacto mod.

b) Where an OP specifically asks that posters avoid derailing the thread with faux outrage. If the other posters and mods are agreeable then that sets the tone for the rest of the thread.

Although, in this particular case, my fellow mod did have to intervene to ask the OP not to do the modding for us (when the OP tried to remonstrate with those who were ignoring his initial request).

Modding generally works better when it's conducted from the front seat.

Is such sarcasm either necessary or becoming of a Christianity moderator?

There was absolutely no sarcasm there. The poster asked for an explanation. I asked him what there was to explain. He clarified his question, and so I provided him with an explanation.

Maybe this helps explain why you're experiencing problems? It's better to deal with what people actually post rather than trying to imagine their feelings.

Utter fiction. Where? Show me.

The questions I asked were relevant to the post and were posed due to perceived contradictions which are evident throughout the thread.

I suggest you reread the thread.

The relationship between the Old Testament Law and the Gospel, while an interesting topic for discussion in themselves, are certainly off-topic to the subject of that thread.

Utter fiction. I accused no-one of xenophobia.

himnextdoor wrote:

Some on this thread have indicated that they believe that the Japanese are being punished for their sins. Does Christianity stand for xenophobia? Yes, it does in that no Christian here has denounced such a position.

Evil flourishes where good men do nothing. Did you forget? ....

Does Christianity stand for xenophobia? If the God of Christians is associated with the slaughter of non-Christian nations in Divine Judgement then yes, Christianity stands for xenophobia.

And even though you may disagree, not one of you has challenged that position. .....

If the Christian position is that the greatest suffering is endured by the greatest sinners and under the auspices of God then Christianity can be accused of condoning xenophobia.

Although no-one has said specifically that the Japanese are being punished by God, that view can be inferred from one or two of the posts in this thread. ....

(addressed to antiskeptic) And do I detect a hint of xenophobia?

Xenophobia is the fear or unreasonable dislike of foreigners, no-one in the thread even remotely hinted at such a thing.

Which absolutely implies that God caused the earthquake in Japan.

Wolfsbane is a Calvinist. He believes that God causes everything in history. While it's not a point of view I agree with, it would be daft to call it xenophobia since it applies to the Irish just as much as to anyone else. In Wolfsbane's theology God also caused the Potato Famine and the Great Fire of London.

Scofflaw

PDN, were you asked to intervene on this thread?

moderately,
Scofflaw

PDN

Scofflaw wrote: »

PDN, were you asked to intervene on this thread?

moderately,
Scofflaw

I PM'd the Cat Mod (Dades) and explained that I was unsure as to whether I should be contributing or not, and if not then could he please delete my comments. That was several days ago and I've received no answer.

Perhaps the PM system is broken, which is why we're not using it now?

openly,
PDN

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

I PM'd the Cat Mod (Dades) and explained that I was unsure as to whether I should be contributing or not, and if not then could he please delete my comments. That was several days ago and I've received no answer.

Perhaps the PM system is broken, which is why we're not using it now?

openly,
PDN

I don't think the PM system is broken, but the idea of DR is transparency - so if you're asking why I asked you in the thread, rather than by PM, it's because himnextdoor has the right to know I've done so. So the alternative there would have been to PM you, and also to say on-thread here that I'd PM'd you, which seems a rather redundant way of approaching the issue!

cordially,
Scofflaw

himnextdoor

I am willing to address PDN's assertions if required, particularly the points made in relation to 'xenophobia'.

It will be apparent that what I have said is that if Christians believe that divine retribution is aimed at non-Christians then tacitly, Christianity tolerates xenophobia which, I am sure you will know, has a wider meaning than that ascribed to it by PDN.

It is precisely this type of misrepresentation of views that concerns me. I did not accuse anyone of xenophobia.

I know it is a discussion forum and that opinion will vary but I see no reason why people who state conflicting views of the same scenario cannot be asked questions on their reasoning.

PDN and Fanny Cradock have no right to impede a discussion that might mean more to someone else than it does to them.

I would like to develop this further; should I?

Scofflaw

OK - this is not a particularly creditable case on any part. I'm not sure why himnextdoor chose to make repeated references to xenophobia, something for which there was no evidence whatsoever. He was asked to drop it, and didn't, for whatever reason - and on that basis, and that basis alone, I have no particular issue with a ban, although I think 1 day would have been quite sufficient to make the point.

What concerns me is that it is very far from clear that that was the sole motivating factor in the ban, or in the length of the ban, and the waters are further muddied by PDN's intervention on this thread, which appears to drag in a variety of other points.

I don't have any issues with the rest of himnextdoor's behaviour on that thread, which was at the very least matched by the behaviour of the two Christianity mods, and PDN in particular. He gave as much as he got, but no more than that. It's not sufficient for a poster simply to have exhausted the patience of the mods to be described as 'trolling'.

I would not have overturned this ban, because I think there's sufficient material cause for a ban in the repeated and baseless accusations of xenophobia - but I don't regard the behaviour of the Christianity mods on that thread as particularly creditable either. I think that there would be justifiable concern that the ban, or the length of the ban, was motivated by somewhat more than just that issue, and that that lack of clarity arises from the behaviour of the mods immediately prior to the ban.

moderately,
Scofflaw

himnextdoor

Scofflaw wrote: »

OK - this is not a particularly creditable case on any part. I'm not sure why himnextdoor chose to make repeated references to xenophobia, something for which there was no evidence whatsoever. He was asked to drop it, and didn't, for whatever reason - and on that basis, and that basis alone, I have no particular issue with a ban, although I think 1 day would have been quite sufficient to make the point.

Let me quickly address that.

My repeated references to xenophobia were an attempt to try and get some people 'off the fence', so to speak.

Also, they were presented as if-then clauses - not accusations.

Can I also say that that there was a degree of frustration on my part due to the fact that my accurate assessment of Wolfsbane's position was absolutely denied by PDN in the thread; but not here!

PDN wrote:

Wolfsbane is a Calvinist. He believes that God causes everything in history. While it's not a point of view I agree with, it would be daft to call it xenophobia since it applies to the Irish just as much as to anyone else. In Wolfsbane's theology God also caused the Potato Famine and the Great Fire of London.

This is less than pouring oil on troubled waters and it was PDN and Fanny Cradock's unreasonableness that allowed the situation to escalate to the point where a ban would be appropriate.

But I can assure you that I am an intelligent and reasonable adult human being and do not require to be 'slapped down' by authoritarian moderators who, I think it would be fair to say, don't like me.

I believe that any ban would have been unfair under the circumstances.

Scofflaw wrote: »

What concerns me is that it is very far from clear that that was the sole motivating factor in the ban, or in the length of the ban, and the waters are further muddied by PDN's intervention on this thread, which appears to drag in a variety of other points.

I believe you have a handle on this and will have noticed that PDN would have banned me for even longer.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't have any issues with the rest of himnextdoor's behaviour on that thread, which was at the very least matched by the behaviour of the two Christianity mods, and PDN in particular. He gave as much as he got, but no more than that. It's not sufficient for a poster simply to have exhausted the patience of the mods to be described as 'trolling'.

Indeed and since 'a variety of other points' have been dragged in, some of the insults levelled at me have drawn no response at all from either PDN or Fanny Cradock.

And the strange thing is, my views on Christianity are more in line with PDN's views than PDN's views are with Wolfsbanes, for example.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I would not have overturned this ban, because I think there's sufficient material cause for a ban in the repeated and baseless accusations of xenophobia - but I don't regard the behaviour of the Christianity mods on that thread as particularly creditable either. I think that there would be justifiable concern that the ban, or the length of the ban, was motivated by somewhat more than just that issue, and that that lack of clarity arises from the behaviour of the mods immediately prior to the ban.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Well, for all PDN and Fanny Cradock knew, I might have been someone looking for real help. Their behaviour is ill-advised at best.

In the end, I believe that I deserve at least an apology and the removal of my infractions.

And now it's in the open, let's repent and forgive and move on.

What do you say, guys?

Dades

PDN wrote: »

I PM'd the Cat Mod (Dades) and explained that I was unsure as to whether I should be contributing or not, and if not then could he please delete my comments. That was several days ago and I've received no answer.

Sorry, my bad. I did get PDNs PM last week but I was AFK for most of that week (and up to my neck in paint) and saw no problem with the input/clarification he had made in the thread.

I should have mentioned this before.

himnextdoor

Should I expect further correspondence?

Scofflaw

himnextdoor wrote: »

Should I expect further correspondence?

I have to say it doesn't look that way....

cordially,
Scofflaw

himnextdoor

It's funny; it doesn't feel resolved.

Ah well, thanks for keeping me informed.

Unsurprisedly,

himnextdoor.

himnextdoor

Wait! Can I get an Administrator to make an assessment here?

himnextdoor

I would also point out that PDN has described him/herself as the 'bad cop' to Fanny Cradocks' 'good cop'. Why then, since Fanny's intervention was between me and PDN, didn't PDN impose the ban?

You will notice that when I interact with one, the other is not far behind (usually one responds to a post that is my response to the other) and that there is an atmosphere of blind protectionism going on between the two of them.

The Christian forum is a place of discussion and I have every right to press for clarification!

Also, please note that although Scofflaw acknowledges that my references to xenophobia justified some sort of ban that that wasn't the reason for the ban.

The reason I was banned is for challenging PDN's obvious 'superciliousness' toward me.

And in fact, I received an infraction for refering to xenophobia.

I accept that the moderator's authority should be maintained but bad moderating should not.

himnextdoor

It is only fair that the infractions and the ban should be removed from my record; as it stands my record would create the wrong impression of me in the mind of another C-Mod that I may call upon in the future.

And that is simply wrong.

nesf

himnextdoor wrote: »

Wait! Can I get an Administrator to make an assessment here?

Yes, one should take a look at this case in a bit.

himnextdoor

nesf wrote: »

Yes, one should take a look at this case in a bit.

Thank you.

himnextdoor

I'm sorry but this is insufferable. Fanny Cradock has closed a thread that I started and refuses to answer for it.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=71613655&utm_source=notification&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=notify#post71613655

I have PM'ed him three times in order to fix this but I have no response and a perfectly reasonable thread has stayed closed.

Please... can we sort this out.

himnextdoor

I must have dropped down the list again.

I'd love to have this resolved and then we could draw a line under it.

nesf

Can an Admin have a look at this case please.

*For the benefit of the user in case this was missed.

himnextdoor

nesf wrote: »

Can an Admin have a look at this case please.

*For the benefit of the user in case this was missed.

Thank you.

Trojan

I've reviewed this case.

himnextdoor: Although I understand your frustration in the inconsistencies in moderation on these types of issues, on boards we are mostly humans and that comes with certain human flaws. Please try and respect the spirit as well as the letter of the forum charters.

PDN: I also understand your yearning to reply here, but you should not have done so before being invited by the Cmod (see the DR forum charter). Update: a CMod has PM'd me to advise that PDN did PM him as CMod to see if it was okay to post here, thus fulfilling the criteria of the charter.

Scofflaw has summarised precisely how I see the issue:

Scofflaw wrote: »

I would not have overturned this ban, because I think there's sufficient material cause for a ban in the repeated and baseless accusations of xenophobia - but I don't regard the behaviour of the Christianity mods on that thread as particularly creditable either. I think that there would be justifiable concern that the ban, or the length of the ban, was motivated by somewhat more than just that issue, and that that lack of clarity arises from the behaviour of the mods immediately prior to the ban.

I can't say it any better than that. I don't think we're going to reach a resolution here that satisfies everyone. The original ruling upheld, just about.