Christianity forum moderating problems

ISAW

I have a personal issue which may be subject to a ban appeal but the issue I am raising here is a more general one.
It is about the christianity forum in general but the clerical child abuse thread in particular.

Should I resolve my personal ban problem first and revert here or continue this general discussion in parallel?


In the child abuse thread a number of anti christian anti catholic and atheist posters some of which were banned or warned or infarcted in the past for soapboxing, personal attacks or posting already contradicted material returned to soapbox, personally attack people and post already contradicted material.

I was personally attacked and though I myself admitted being abused ( by brothers and others and not by clerics) I was accused of enabling abuse by not reporting it. A series of doctored and out of context cut and paste claims from the same one or two ( moistly from one well discussed report the figures of which I have explained are being misquoted and twisted). In order to explain how the rate of clerical abuse is low I have to refer to several peer reviews researched reports Irish and international. I was informed the thread was only for clerical abuse discussion. I then pointed out that while it should not be restricted to only referring to this few percent minority even then, Protestant and other clerics have higher rates of abuse then Roman Catholics. I was told I would be banned for posting sectarian views should I point this out. I was also told I "attracted trolls" and this was a reason to ban me.

Anyway I reposted the references to the earlier counter arguments. They were ignored. I posted them again and I posted the evidence of non Catholic clerical abuse being higher.

I was banned. Apparently some ( i thinki they were mostly if not all Catholic) posters complained and they also were banned. They had probably broken rules for posting about moderation . I had not broken any rules yet I was banned for a month and they probably for less.

I note the posters who were posting insulting and unsupported opinion which I had already countered were allowed to post this . Their nasty comments remain without challenge. Anyone who posts against them is banned.

Surely this is a moderating problem? Why are anti Catholic sectarian posts allowed and anyone posting extensive counterargument banned? I am talking about a series of rather viscous personal attacks on me as well as on priests in general and sweeping statements about abusers linking them only to the Roman Catholic church.

ISAW

Some casesin point.

A number of Catholic posters are deleted and banned from this thread for being off topic.

At the same time the following offensive posts are left there:
If they were in Islam or were anti Protestant they would be dealt with
This one claims it is on topic!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75236883&postcount=2376

Back on topic:
-Priests ****ed a load of kids,
-The RCC covered it up,
-Followers of the RCC in the civil service supported the coverup.
-A follower of the RCC in the government proposed a limited liability 'child sex abuse insurance policy' for the RCC with a figure negotiated with the RCC before the full extent of the abuse was exposed.

-All tax paying citizens regardless of involvement or faith are financially liable all of the increasing difference, and for all new cases of clerical child sex abuse.

-This is like a licence to abuse kids and is ethically wrong.
-If you are a Catholic it might be seen as being morally right to protect the RCC which you may believe to be essentially good.

Such is the difference between morality and ethics.

-Now for those of us who are not followers of the RCC, and who didn't cover up any child abuse, and who do not defend the RCC's right to hide the abuse of a child an any situation. Can any of you explain to me why we should pay a single cent, when the RCC pays nothing?

Or this:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75236982&postcount=2377

Back to the topic
Pope: Child rape is cool! Trust me!
Pope Blames Child Abuse Scandal on Society
Pope’s child porn 'normal' claim sparks outrage among victims
The biggest, gayest brothel in the world Vatican Pope
Pope sees the Devil behind timing of sex abuse crisis
The Great Catholic Cover-Up - The pope's entire career has the stench of evil about it.

These are just two example from a page with several deleted "Catholic" posters

Guitar_Monkey

I'd just like to say that i support ISAW's position....and i think that his ban needs to be reconsidered. It's become infuriating around here lately with some of the personal attacks and nasty comments that some posters of an anti-Catholic bent get away with. And some of the comments about Catholicism in general are just not acceptable. It has become a soft target in some peoples eyes....but that dosn't excuse some of the things that people get away with on this, which is meant to be a Christianity forum !

gimmebroadband

I am one of the posters who was banned for back-seat modding because I asked why ISAW was banned from the Christiany Forum. I never saw anything in his posts that warrented being banned. And I agree with him that the pet trolls there are allowed free reign in any thread that has any Catholic content! Several other Catholic posters were banned en-masse several months ago when they made the same complaint about moderator/s that seem to side with anyone that wasn't Catholic!

The Quadratic Equation

I too would like a proper explanation, and not a fob of, of why ISAW was banned from the Christianity forum. Despite the constant unmoderated trolling and provication he was subjected to he continued to present and clarify the actual facts. A mod directed me to start a feedback thread to discuss the matter, I did so and posted a link to same. The feedback thread was immediately closed (Why was I directed to open one so ?) and then I was banned from the Christianity forum. Meanwhile the trolling of Catholic posts continues unabated on the Christianity forum. I realise discussing the matter with any of ye is pointless, but at least the neutral observers will clearly see what's going on. So carry on.

cybercellesta

I too support ISAW's position, he didn't post anything to incur a ban and should be reinstated. The real culprits were the anti-Catholic Trolls that have overrun the Christianity Forum, they're the ones that should have gotten banned! One has to question why the mods turn a blind eye to some of the offensive posts by drive-by trolls!

Zaph

As gimmebroadband and cybercellesta are the same person, both have been sitebanned for sock-puppeting.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

ISAW

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Really? When?
They were still there two days after you banned me which is why I quoted them.
How were they "actioned"?
Did you warn or infarct them while leaving them in place while at the same time banning others for posts which exposed the factual problems with them?

ISAW's ban is a matter for the Category Moderators/Admins if he wishes to appeal it in the Dispute Resolution forum.

I poisted that out at the start. I reserve that right.I am posting here about the moderating of Christianity. Yes my personal ban may be related but that isn't the issue. The issue is that posters who point out a myth about Catholic priests being rampant pedophiles when in fact the rate in Protestants is much higher and the whole rate in Christians is a few per cent compared to the 95 per cent plus of non clergy - are banned whole posters who post anti catholic hate speech are left to post!

If I remember correctly, they spammed the forum with Catholic forum request threads, even when pointed to the Forum Requests forum, and cried anti-Catholicism at every turn. Some of them are still here under different usernames.

That isn't the issue! Deal with the issue! I posted about anticatholic posters too! I never claimed to be a Catholic. I just claimed to post what I thought was the Roman Catholic position and to ask for fair play. Playing the "they were criminals before" card isn't dealoing with the issue. If the point is valid it is valid. It does not matter if an atheist makes the point! In fact one of the main sources for my "anti Catholic" research is an ex Catholic!

Whay re such posts allowed and others banned for posting counter evidence?

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

ISAW

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So you "dealt with" posts by allowing the unsupported parroted mythical clims to remain and by banning anyone who contradicted them?

Judging from the above, it appears that your problems with the moderation of the Christianity forum, on the one hand, and with your recent ban, on the other, are hard to distinguish.

Ill deal with my own ban elsewhere. I did ask on coming into this whether I should do that first. I was not told I should. Yes, it involves PDN the same moderator, which is indistinguishable from the moderator who banned other people and the same moderator who explained what "reduction to absurdity" was.

You claim that posters were banned "for posts which exposed the factual problems" underlying others' assumptions regarding clerical child abuse, and that anti-Catholic posts were allowed while "others [were] banned for posting counter evidence," yet the only people I can think of who might fall into such categories are you and andyjo, who was banned for a while too.

Nope. You are factually Wrong about that! If you look at the thread you will see gigino Spacedog and a number of other posters who posted unsupported mythical claims before and AFTER I was banned and unable to contradict them! In fact two cases in point are listed above.

Persistent troublemakers, irrespective of their affiliations, are banned if they cause too much trouble in the forum. In your case, your ban was only instated when other routes (on-thread warnings, PMs, cards) were exhausted.

Wrong again! I received one infarction! That's one. You do realise how the infarction process works? I disputed the infarction and I was banned. That isn't the issue here however. Other posters posted anti Catholic posts after my ban and anyone supporting my point of view was also banned. Those anti Catholic post remain unchallenged! What did you do about them???

ISAW

Okay let us leave out my posts and look quantitatively at whether there is any truth to this Anti Catholic claim shall we?

The Clerical abuse thread has about 160 pages now.
Let us go back ten pages and catagorise the posts
And we can even leasve out my posts.
RCC=Roman Catholic Church

Starting at page 150 post 2236

Accuses me of being an enabler of child rape and endorses the comment that the RCC are.

2237&2238-me
2239- accuses mer of lying and claims 4% of the RCC are accused of child rape and no other group compares to that
2240 -me
2241 – claims the deaths of jews gypsies and deaths under HSE care in last ten years dont compare with RCC
2241- me
2243 – makes an allegation ( about RCC I believe ?) which was deleted
2244 – repeated claim about 4% of RCC priests being accused of child rape
2245- Claims RCC enabled child rape
2246 -me
2247 -me
2248 – again ignored my evidence personally attacks me and repeats the 4% RCC claim
2249 -me
2250 – another personal attack on me linking me to child rape repeats the 4% claim and ignores the counter evidence
2251 – me – more peer reviewed counter evidence
2252 – Ignores the counter evidence and claims the RCC in particular as a special target for child rape claims
2253 – me again posting more reports and asking people to read the evidence
2254 - “you still have not come up with a survey / study which found any other group in society which has 4% of its members accused of child sex abuse/rape, like RC Priests. If 4% of all babysitters had been accused of child abuse / rape, there would be a national outcry. “
2255- accuses me of being a Protestant
2256- defends my posting – thanked by two people
2257 -”Good debater, yup....Majorly looking Roman Catholics as heartless scum also.”
2258 – claims abuse by a Christian Brother ( who also happen to be RCC) on me has left me psychologically inept.
2259 -he ISAW may be a pervert with a power fantasy of being a "Prince of the Church" (a Parish Priest a actually used that term to describe himself to my dad
2260 -I don't know if he/she is of any traditional descent that I could actually pin down, all I know is that they don't suffer fools gladly, and he/she is very truthful and scholarly in debate...and I think 'this' person is a very valuable asset to the forum – thanked by one
2261 – posts asking about personal attacks on me being allowed
2262 – duplicate of 2260
2263 – comment about a psalm
2264 – comment about me not admitting sexual abuse at the hands of a brother
2265 – possibly pro RCC
So far we have two pages 28 posts 11 making direct reference to RCC related abuse and only one mentioning something positive about RCC which as it happens isn't related to abuse
page 152
2266 – explains what my posting philosophy is thanked by three including me
2267 – post about me being abused by a RCC brother
2268 - counter post that not only brothers abused Two pro RCC so far
2269 – claims I was sexually assaulted ( I assume by the same RCC brother)
2270 – counter post asking for supporting evidence for that claim
2271 – compares me to a member of a Loyalist death squad
2272 – the first clearly pro RCC post claiming a few bishops do not a corrupt church make
2273 - pointless reference to me whild avoiding producing their own backup
2274 – a false claim about me but attacking the RCC “ISAW has made little of abuse by members of the RCC. He did not report his own abuser and does not advocate that people should report clerical abusers. “
2275 – compares the RCC to internment camps
2276to 2279 – me
2280 – defends my posting style and philosophy and points to anti Catholic posts.
Page 153
2281- I post saying I resent being personally attacked .
2282- PDN moderation post threathening people might be banned ifg they post any more attacks.
These attacks are going for two days by this stage. Also note the anti RCC bias in the last three pages of posts.

2283 -me
2284 – post about lay teachers being worse than priests or brothers could be regarded as pro RCC
Thats 15 anti and 5 pro so far

2285 and 2286 more personal attacked -deleted posts poster banned.
2287 – 4 days later – anti direct reference to RCC
2288 – me
2289 - anti RCC
2290 – anti RCC
2291 -me
2292 -me
2293 – compares HSE death count to RCC – pro RCC
2294 – refers to laundries and “all of the abuse from the Catholic church” - anti
2295 – neutral but refers to “all child abuse”
19 anti 6 pro

NB the pro posters use stats and refer to cases. The anti posters seem to use personal attack unsupported claims and very nasty comments.

Page 155
2296 – PDN moderation post Claims all clerical child abuse threads were merged into one thread.
I dispute this(in 2304) as I remember all the threads of the time. One was about Bishop/Cardinal Brady who had taken evidence years ago . It was about his position and whether it was tenable today. It was not directly about Brendan Smyth's child abuse. The decision was to move all matters related to clerical child abuse into one single thread. This would include non sexual abuse and even comparable instances of non clerical abuse. It is also important because a poster can post about only Catholic or only protestant abuse but he can't stop others comparing catholic to protestant otr clerical to non clerical.

Note also that there are no anti Protestant posts only anti RCC so far.

2298 – claim that Irish clerical abuse is all RCC
2299 – counter evidence
2300 – evidence ignored “Ireland has only RCC clerical abuse” re entered
2301 – counter evidence posted about non clerical rate of abuse
2302 – again refers to RCC abuse
2303to 05 – me
06-07 – more anti RCC
2308 PDN restates only clerical abuse can be referred to > again this rules out abuse or harassment of adults ( specifically in the SAVI report being discussed om page 154) as well as other related matters such as cover up claims or the rate of clerical abuse ( whioch can only be calculated by reference to non clerical abuse).
2309-10 me

that's 23 anti catholic and 8 pro ( almost exclusively in reply to the anti catholic posts)
Possibly one anti protestant post ( wher I am accused of being a protestant and not related to child abuse.)

Ill analysis post the pages 155-160 later if necessary

There is a clear picture building of “attack the RCC” in fact in later posts the Pope is accused of aiding and abetting rape and of being”objectively evil” . But PDN wants to restrict the discussion to only priests. This basically is setting up a pillory on the RCC as PDN wants no Catholic Protestant “sectarian” posts all that is left is attacking the RCC.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

ISAW

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I was banned I thought by PDN after disputing his one infarction.
As far as I understand infarctions expire.
I'll discuss the warnings if you want. But probably elsewhere e.g. DR over that particular ban is better
I recently archived all my PMs.
You are only a recent mod so you must mean since you became a mod.
Ill have to look it up. Are you specifically referring to the clerical abuse thread?

The fact that you keep saying things like "Yes my personal ban may be related but that isn't the issue," and "I disputed the infarction and I was banned. That isn't the issue here however," makes it difficult to tell where your ban appeal ends and where your general moderation query begins.

The appeal begins in DR when I appeal the infarction which led to me being banned for a month. I am not disputing that ban here. The facts seem to be I was banned after disputing an infarction with PDN. I will resolve that in DR. The general discussion about christianity involves the fact that after my ban posters who ignore the facts given to them and just post back the same already contradicted claims are still posting. Myself and others are banned and can't contradict these claims.
For example claims that 4% or %% of RCC priests linking them to child sexual abuse!
Claims about the Pope facilitating child abuse!
Claims about Irish police having hundreds of cases of priests sexually abusing children.

These are only in the last page since the ban!
I think the viscious personal attacks I was subjected to in five pages of pasts above ( and I only picked page 150 as a round number ) are testament to the anti catholic nature of the posts.


Do you really dispuite the abive evidence from five pages of posts?
Should we look at the next five pages?
Tell you what why not look back before you were a mod? Without looking into the thread you pick a number and ill tell you a week and month to do with it. Then we can look at pages from that month and rate the level of anti catholic versus antio protestant versus non about Catholic at all posts? How about that?

I mean do you really think that is necessary? It is bleeding obvious to me what kind of posting has been allowed. But I suppose it is better to spell it out.

They were banned for backseat moderating, not for supporting your point of view.

Funny how you left other posters post from the above sample. After two days of abuse and attacks on me a moderator did eventually fact ban people ( several days later and not all oif them) but those people returned to post the same frivel they had poste4d and which was already shown up to be in error and misquoted and twisted.
And they are still posting this! However backseat modding results in immediate bans and not allowing the posters a few days of viscous attacks first.

You weren't banned for your point of view either. The tendency for threads you got involved in to deteriorate rapidly, and your interminable, disjointed posts were making a mess on the forum.

Funny how many of the posters you just banned don't happen to agree with you . see their comments in the above sample. If someone is posting makey uppy figures I disect their post and look for the primary source. I display in detail how the source they claim is not saying what they claim it is saying. If they post the same twisted claim again I look for other primary sources which further show how their claims are false.

They are not disjoint and they logically follow a clearly defined philosophy.
Basically you are saying you and others just don't like how I post! LOL!
And you are going to ban me any anyone like me because you don't like my posting style?
The fact that I post the truth and expose lies insult and ignorance makes no difference to you and takes a second place to "how things look" or how you want them to look.

You allow some posters who post honestly to be crucified by a viscous anti Catholic and anti christian element but apparently you certainly want to make sure they don't come back from the dead by banning them as well? That is "fair play" is it?
Now can we deal with the issue please? Do you are do you not accept the above evidence of an anti catholic bias in discussions about clerical abuse? What do you think would constitute such a bias?

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

ISAW

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I would expect you don't ban people for posting counter evidence and you ban posters for
posting the same contradicted evidence over and over again! Clearly it can be seen that the number of anti catholic posts were allowed and had been already contradicted, some of them over a year ago. While some of the clearly personal and viscous attacks were deleted others were left remain. Certainly the already disproved claims were left and when people post against these clearly anti Catholic posts they are banned and when people try to restrict the debate to "only clerics" you then ban people for comparing Catholic top Protestant clerics on the grounds that that is "sectarian".
1. It isn't level handed or fairt play is it?
2. Are you really asking me "what would you like me to do"? That seems a conflict in terms. You ban people for "back seat modding" and then you ask them what they would do if they were moderating?
Is it really necessary for me to answer that? I want you to treat people fairly!

The fact that you'd like to count the number of anti-Catholic posts versus the number of anti-Protestant posts suggests to me that you don't quite understand the thrust of the thread.

The thrust of the posts clearly indicate continued attacks on the Roman Catholic Church and promulgationof the myth that child abuse ( particularly sexual abuse of pre pubescent kids) is almost exclusively RCC priestsand that clerical abuse is overwhelmingly related to RCC. These are falsities! and moderators are facilitating them.

I appreciate that you are trying to add balance to the debate, but surely you realise that a thread about clerical child abuse on an Irish website will focus mainly on Catholicism,

This just shows up more of your bias! You are assuming clerical abuse is mainly RCC in nature. It isn't! The posters posting anti RCC are using twisted figures from US reports which they haven't even read! You are basically assenting that if Irish people discuss child abuse that the main focus will be on RCC priests! It just confirms the suspicion I suggested.

Why should child abuse or clerical child abuse focus mainly on Catholics?

given its historical significance in Irish life, and will attract a lot of criticism of the Catholic Church from Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

But the State and the British State had a huge influence on Irish history. Why single out catholics? You realise you are directly admitting that "clerical abuse" should in your moderators opinion be "mainly RCC related abuse". I rest my case!

As I said already, your above evidence was actioned before you reported it here, which makes your bias accusation questionable.

Actioned in what way? You allowed the posts with false claims to remain!
You allowed posters who ahad been bannedfor soppboxing the "endemic" claims about SAVI to repeat these false assertions unchallenged. But of course why would you counter an"endemic" claim if you in fact believe the discussion should be moistly about RCC abuse.

Clearly I pointed out over a year ago that victims should be the first concern and there was a clear agenda of people who only wanted to attack the RCC. This agenda is advanced fiorst bby banning any comparison with non clerical abusers and then banning reference to non Catholic abuse or assenting to the the discussion as naturally involving mostly Catholic abuse.

If you didn't insist on having the last word and losing sight of the bigger picture by rebutting everyone line by line, trolls wouldn't wind you up so easily, and the thread would be less of a mess.

If someone posts "blacks/jews/RCC priests are to blame" every time they do it I will
post counter evidence and contradict them! If that is messy I see no reason why anyoine should be banned for it!

In general, if mere criticism of the Catholic Church's failings regarding child abuse constitutes "anti catholic bias in discussions about clerical abuse," then I'm afraid the thread is polluted with it.

A ridiculous comment! If you have followed my posts I have myself criticised the authorianism in Ireland both church ans State. It is quite clear where the "antiCatholic " bias is. I have produced long tracts outlining it and quantifying it using clear metrics! But of course if and when I do that you accuse me of "being messy". Im quite happy to discuss the Church and other institutions and how they failed and what they should have done and what they have done since then. In fact I have tried to progress the debate to this but I am told not to refer to how child abuse should be dealt with or how the State or others should follow the Church example (listing what changes the Church made and the others still haven't caught up) but this is deemed off topic and posters only want to discuss priests sexually abusing kids.

If you want genuine anti-Catholic bias, however, try a statist regime like China or a theocracy like Saudi Arabia.

Of course should I refer to any such regime like the atheistic Stalinists or Maoists I am deemed off topic and threatened with a ban for that comparison? More double standards?

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

ISAW

In spite of claims that I draw trolls it appears that in the absence of myself and others posting the anti Catholic trend continues.

In two new threads already the points of hating the RCC and hierarchy of the RCC have surfaced. Immediately the allegations of cover up and large share of pedophiles in the RCC began. So much for "all reference to clerical abuse are moved to that thread"?
It is quite clear that there is an element who want to attack all religion and another element who want to attack only the RCC. One poster clearly indicates how a discussion of the church hiostory quickly turns into a pillory of RCC clerics Yet if I was to point out to atheist posters that atheistic regimes killed far more people I would be threatened with a ban?

If posters referred to problems because "Jewish" Israel they would probably be accused of antisemitism but if they refer to "Catholic" Ireland with terms of abuse that is tolerated. Why?

These posters are still posting hate speech and I can't post because I might "disrupt"? Disrupt whom?

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

ISAW

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

As for where bans and moderation problems of others part...
For "I can't" read "the people who were banned can't because moderators banned them on the basis that they were attracting these trolls/anti Catholic posters " But the evidence shows that even in their absence the anti Catholic and anti Christian element remain.
It therefore couldn't be people who are not ther who are keeping them there can it?
QED

And they are retained posting this stuff that you would not allow if it was anti Islam or anti jew or anti black or anti woman or anti gay.

PDN

ISAW wrote: »

As for where bans and moderation problems of others part...
For "I can't" read "the people who were banned can't because moderators banned them on the basis that they were attracting these trolls/anti Catholic posters " But the evidence shows that even in their absence the anti Catholic and anti Christian element remain.
It therefore couldn't be people who are not ther who are keeping them there can it?
QED

And they are retained posting this stuff that you would not allow if it was anti Islam or anti jew or anti black or anti woman or anti gay.

Come on ISAW, you must realise that mods are not at liberty to discuss the specifics of bans and infractions of third parties with you. FWIW, you refer to a number of posters and posts that have received bans and infractions in the Clerical Child Abuse Thread. What most of them have done, however, is to learn from the experience and moderate their posting accordingly. Those that don't end up perma-banned.

In fact, looking at this thread, I would strongly advise you to do the same. You would be much better served making the adjustments necessary so that, when your ban is up, you don't end up getting permabanned for continuing the same as you did before. Instead you seem to be obsessing about other posters and whether they have been infracted or banned.

If people ignore moderating instructions and requests, engage in backseat modding, spam the forum etc. then they are going to get infracted or banned. My PM inbox is full of complaints that say either:
a) I stifle criticism of the Catholic Church because I'm a blind adherent of Rome who is every bit as bad as the child abusers by shielding them and not allowing more criticism of them.
b) I'm part of a boards-wide conspiracy to discriminate against Catholics because I'm a frothing at the mouth bigot of a Protestant.

ISAW

PDN wrote: »

Come on ISAW, you must realise that mods are not at liberty to discuss the specifics of bans and infractions of third parties with you.

1. It may include my ban so it might also be first party
2. Even if the third parties are quite willing to discuss?


Look it is quite clear . after the farce of a show trial in the dispute resolution which clearly demonstrates bias, I for example was banned for making point by point criticisms and drawing trolls like a magnet. the quotes I use by the way were in PM to me from moderators and not third parties.

Now after banning me, even more trolls arrive and post unsupported stats ( I post documentary and page reference) and indulge in the same line by line rebuttal I did but they are not banned!

FWIW, you refer to a number of posters and posts that have received bans and infractions in the Clerical Child Abuse Thread. What most of them have done, however, is to learn from the experience and moderate their posting accordingly. Those that don't end up perma-banned.

They are still posting and still posting in styles you banned me for doing!

In fact, looking at this thread, I would strongly advise you to do the same. You would be much better served making the adjustments necessary so that, when your ban is up, you don't end up getting permabanned for continuing the same as you did before. Instead you seem to be obsessing about other posters and whether they have been infracted or banned.

So you apply one standard to me and another to other posters?

If people ignore moderating instructions and requests, engage in backseat modding, spam the forum etc. then they are going to get infracted or banned.

I was infarcted for one instance of backseat modding. When I queried it I was banned. I didn't spam anything.

My PM inbox is full of complaints that say either:
a) I stifle criticism of the Catholic Church because I'm a blind adherent of Rome who is every bit as bad as the child abusers by shielding them and not allowing more criticism of them.

So what? Cl;early you don't stifle it. I have produced statistical evidence! If you take any ten pages of the child abuse thread of 100 messages I would reckon about half attack the Catholic Church, about ten attack religion maybe one refers to Protestants or Jews or atheists. It is unequivocal quantitative evidence. I provided an alanysis of 5 pages at random in message 12 of this thread
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75314180&postcount=12

74 messages that's 23 anti catholic and 8 pro catholic 1 possibly critical of Protestants

I am sure you do another since my ban and you will find the situation much more anti catholic. In particular there is the now usual anti Catholic graphics

b) I'm part of a boards-wide conspiracy to discriminate against Catholics because I'm a frothing at the mouth bigot of a Protestant.

Nope. You are part of how the mainstream media mainstream. You may not even be aware of it just like some racists are not aware of racism.

I have posted support for this as well
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710--.htm

The point of that is, if you’re an editor of a newspaper in Dayton, Ohio and you don’t have the resources to figure out what the news is, or you don’t want to think about it anyway, this tells you what the news is. These are the stories for the quarter page that you are going to devote to something other than local affairs or diverting your audience. These are the stories that you put there because that’s what the New York Times tells us is what you’re supposed to care about tomorrow. If you are an editor in Dayton, Ohio, you would sort of have to do that, because you don’t have much else in the way of resources.
...
People within them, who don’t adjust to that structure, who don’t accept it and internalize it (you can’t really work with it unless you internalize it, and believe it); people who don’t do that are likely to be weeded out along the way, starting from kindergarten, all the way up. There are all sorts of filtering devices to get rid of people who are a pain in the neck and think independently. Those of you who have been through college know that the educational system is very highly geared to rewarding conformity and obedience; if you don’t do that, you are a troublemaker. So, it is kind of a filtering device which ends up with people who really honestly (they aren’t lying) internalize the framework of belief and attitudes of the surrounding power system in the society.
...
They say, quite correctly, "nobody ever tells me what to write. I write anything I like. All this business about pressures and constraints is nonsense because I’m never under any pressure." Which is completely true, but the point is that they wouldn’t be there unless they had already demonstrated that nobody has to tell them what to write because they are going say the right thing. If they had started off at the Metro desk, or something, and had pursued the wrong kind of stories, they never would have made it to the positions where they can now say anything they like. The same is mostly true of university faculty in the more ideological disciplines. They have been through the socialization system.

See what I mean? and in the meantime the trolls are still there and using the same style you banned me for.

Zaph

ISAW wrote: »

2. Even if the third parties are quite willing to discuss?

Boards policy is not to discuss individual infractions/bans with 3rd parties.

ISAW

Zaph wrote: »

Boards policy is not to discuss individual infractions/bans with 3rd parties.

Which I accept. It usually isn't wise to go into individual cases when one is discussing a general rule. But I am specifically pointing out where the third party is happy to discuss it and says so. That makes them party to the discussion i.e. a first party.

The thing is though what if rules are cited and standards suggested and then in practice they are contradicted? For example in the Christianity forum I am banned for making posts which multi quote several issues in another post and going through the logical and unsupported allegations in several posts and posting the lot. Then other anti Catholic posters arrive and do nearly exactly the same thing and are not banned? Not alone that but they do it by going through my posts line by line which is what I am accused of doing. By the way I cant post back now so so much for balance I say nearly because I provide source report and page reference to support my point they just say " a recent report said" and quote the name of the report but not the page where it said this or any verbatum quote.

While I appreciate the reasons and try to avoid referring to specific cases of individual
racism hate speech or anti Catholicism, the question about this really is even if I object to the standards of modding (I'm quite happy on return to critique these posters and I believe in free expression for them as well as me -even if I find their points misinformed or anti Catholic) How do we know if the same standards apply to all posters? This is a difficult question to which I have no answer. I respect mods are honest and reasonable people. But as I posted above in the Chomsky reference a system may tend to influence and select out people who protect the system or act solely in it's interest. Being aware of this is an important issue in my opinion. Don't you think so?

And so there is the danger that mods in the background use their own idolect and secretly discuss "trainwrecks" and "trollfests" and may get involved in a gropupthink exercise which culminates in individuals in public without any access to a defence being lambasted by this power group. I'm not claiming it is true or not in my personal case just that should it happen in any case it is clearly a use of power to suppress reasoned debate. Don't you think that could be addressed?

If they are balanced they will listen to my points here won't they? In my particular case I was banned for my style of posting and not for anything personal or any rule I broke but there is no point in going into just an individual case is there? What I am asking about is general standards.
One point comes up again and again. You don't seem to have a coherent reference to principles not listed in charters. What I call "natural law" Im not saying it has to be written down by the way just coherent. You rely on admins etc. who are more versed in technology and who are not necessarily adept in conflict resolution or mediation. I'm not trying to attack them so much as improve boards and fight for fair and balanced debate. Also cases such as I raise may only happen one in a thousand but a system needs to be there to accommodate them. Just as Supreme Court cases say are few but have widespread effect. In the end it is about fair play and free speech.

Another question is about falling back on the "mods are volunteers " or "boards is not a democracy" excuses. When discussing clerical child abuse there is no way the mods would allow a "few bad apple clerics who made mistakes" or " the Church is not a democracy" excuse for child abuse so why apply the same principle to themselves?

Zaph

ISAW wrote: »

Which I accept. It usually isn't wise to go into individual cases when one is discussing a general rule. But I am specifically pointing out where the third party is happy to discuss it and says so. That makes them party to the discussion i.e. a first party.

If you and another poster want to discuss your respective infractions/bans with one another there's nothing we can do about it. However we will not be joining in and making it a 3-way discussion to debate the reasoning behind that person's infraction/ban with you even if they're happy for us to do so.

ISAW

Zaph wrote: »

If you and another poster want to discuss your respective infractions/bans with one another there's nothing we can do about it. However we will not be joining in and making it a 3-way discussion to debate the reasoning behind that person's infraction/ban with you even if they're happy for us to do so.

Maybe then this is a broader debate for feedback?

The point may be broader but this thread is about the anti Catholic bias in the christianity forum.
This bias continues.

As you refuse to discuss the lack of bans and the bans of other posters how do you intend to discuss the bias in moderating when one can't actually refer to the moderators decisions or lack of them?

As to banning people for "posting style" while allowing anti Catholic posts to continue maybe you should have a limit on posting length? Or a style guide? I mean I was not abusive or offensive like the anti Catholic posts are. Recently there are a plethoa of offensive graphics with particular attacks on the Pope and the Catholic Church. If they were critical of a black Jewish or gay group you would be quick to act but why is it you don't seem to care about Catholics?

And why allow multi quoting if you ban posters for multiquoting numerous posts? - the so called "trainwreck" accusation? If multiple posters piost anti Catholic hate speech and that is criticised by me how come I am banned and they allowed continue. Why is it that multiple hate speech is okay and a single poster critiquing all of them is considered "bad style"?
And how is it bans are based on number of complaints received and then also not based on number of complaints received?

ISAW

Zaph wrote: »

If you and another poster want to discuss your respective infractions/bans with one another there's nothing we can do about it. However we will not be joining in and making it a 3-way discussion to debate the reasoning behind that person's infraction/ban with you even if they're happy for us to do so.

Probably a good reason to move this to feedback.
But you have a dispute resolution system.
That system makes decisions.
Then one is unable to compare those judgements to other judgements?
How come that?
The point is about whether moderators are level handed. I am claiming clearly they aren't.
If we can't refer to other cases how can you claim they are?

On one hand the discussion can't be about my indivuidual case because that is a personal dispute.
On the other I can't refer to anyone else because you refuse to discuss that.

So how do you suggest we discuss the standards of moderating if we cant refer to any actual moderating decision?

Then we have the "you didn't break any rules but..." the but being that Iannoy people and cause more trolls to post a therad. But isn't the moderation there to remove trolls and not to remove people just because they are not liked? So why are the offensive posters allowed and the ones pointing out their lack of logic and reason banned for a posting style which is cumbersome or too long? Whatever next Wearing a loud shirt in a built up area? Possession of thick lips and and curly black hair?
If you don't want multiple replies to multiple posters why do you have multi-quote?

ISAW

I have posted 3 replies in the lastmonth and they have been ignored and not put up.
You are telling me I cant refer to moderation with respect to my own case.
You are telling me I cant refer to moderation with respect to anyone else.
So how do you suggest we deal with a moderation issue if we can't actually refer to any issue to do with moderation?

ISAW

Zaph wrote: »

If you and another poster want to discuss your respective infractions/bans with one another there's nothing we can do about it. However we will not be joining in and making it a 3-way discussion to debate the reasoning behind that person's infraction/ban with you even if they're happy for us to do so.

Hoiw can a moderation problem be resolved her if you say

1. I cant refer to my own case
2. I cant refer to anyone elses cases

so how do you propose we discuss a moderation issue if I cant actually discuss the moderation?

ISAW

Another week slips by.
My one month ban from Christianity has expired over a week ago..
My permanent ban from Politics and Cookoos nest aren't.
My questions in this thread haven been answered.
Happy Christmas.

Sarky

ISAW wrote: »

My permanent ban from Politics and Cookoos nest aren't.

Well I can't speak for the other forums, but I thought I was pretty clear.

ISAW

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056439067&page=3

This claims to be clear and isn't!
Help desk is not Cookoos nest
If the ban has not been lifted why not?

Tom Dunne

I'm sorry, but there comes a time when you have to accept it's not us, it's you.

All I can say at this stage is drop it.