A&A Feedback

Turtwig

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I have some feedback for the mods as a user of this forum,

If you must insist on censoring views you don't approve of and delete threads for no apparent reason then some kind of note informing the person who took the time to post it would be desirable, It is a matter of decency and common courtesy.

I'm sorry that you feel we censor views that we don't disagree with. Every intention is made to accommodate all viewpoints. Naturally errors will be made but it's regrettable that you think we actively censor you.

Here's why I closed that last thread of yours.
- Posts implying legal liability and culpability were posted. (Deleted obviously!)
- There were several personal spats taking place.
- Posts became frequently more about semantics and definitions of words. Nitpicking on minutia, often getting rather condescending and uncivil in tone.
- Thread descended into a general attack on R Dawkins and another totally irrelevant secularist. Neither of which was really one bit relevant.

That and other stuff that I can't recall offhand led to its closure. The thread was a mess!

Brown Bomber

Jernal wrote: »

I'm sorry that you feel we censor views that we don't disagree with. Every intention is made to accommodate all viewpoints. Naturally errors will be made but it's regrettable that you think we actively censor you.

Here's why I closed that last thread of yours.
- Posts implying legal liability and culpability were posted. (Deleted obviously!)
- There were several personal spats taking place.
- Posts became frequently more about semantics and definitions of words. Nitpicking on minutia, often getting rather condescending and uncivil in tone.
- Thread descended into a general attack on R Dawkins and another totally irrelevant secularist. Neither of which was really one bit relevant.

That and other stuff that I can't recall offhand led to its closure. The thread was a mess!

I can sympathise with your reasons above. Though surely the mods need to take some action to keep things on track first. For example, someone called someone else an ass-hole. Or more to the point a regular atheist user called an "outsider" an ass-hole. He didn't even receive an infraction!

Also, <Another Poster> all but admitted trolling the OP in the very first response in the thread. I respect you, you've always been fair and polite with me but all things being equal the forum needs you to police to the self-appointed police to give everyone a fair shake.

Don't worry I'm not going to pull you into a drawn out argument. It wasn't even that thread locking I was referring to, it was a later thread which disapeared down the memory hole. All I was saying was that it would have been proper to have been informed that this was the case.

MagicMarker

Your later was merged with the original thread, which is understandable as they were both the same thread about different people.

Turtwig

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I can sympathise with your reasons above. Though surely the mods need to take some action to keep things on track first. For example, someone called someone else an ass-hole. Or more to the point a regular atheist user called an "outsider" an ass-hole. He didn't even receive an infraction!

Also, <Another Poster> all but admitted trolling the OP in the very first response in the thread. I respect you, you've always been fair and polite with me but all things being equal the forum needs you to police to the self-appointed police to give everyone a fair shake.

Don't worry I'm not going to pull you into a drawn out argument. It wasn't even that thread locking I was referring to, it was a later thread which disapeared down the memory hole. All I was saying was that it would have been proper to have been informed that this was the case.

In both cases in thread warnings were made. If folks escalated beyond that then we'd have been looking cards and possible bans. Didn't happen though (possibly because they weren't given the chance!). Generally speaking moderation on this forum is lenient. One error on my part was that I didn't snip the 'asshole' remark.

I only just spotted that thread addition now. Starting a thread about something in a previously closed thread is generally a very bad idea. Other fora would very likely have warned/infracted you for that. Like I said, this forum is lenient.

Brown Bomber

MagicMarker wrote: »

Your later was merged with the original thread, which is understandable as they were both the same thread about different people.

Nope. Different threads. Different people.

Thread 1: Dawkins comments on "mild paedophilia"
Thread 2.: The secularist of the year's affilitaions with paedophilia groups.

And this thread on the main page of the forum is the first ever thread on clergy/sexual abuse right? Must be, all things being equal yeah?

"US Priest Sentenced to 50 Years for Child Porn, bishop convicted for not reporting it"

Brown Bomber

Jernal wrote: »

In both cases in thread warnings were made. If folks escalated beyond that then we'd have been looking cards and possible bans. Didn't happen though (possibly because they weren't given the chance!). Generally speaking moderation on this forum is lenient. One error on my part was that I didn't snip the 'asshole' remark.

I only just spotted that thread addition now. Starting a thread about something in a previously closed thread is generally a very bad idea. Other fora would very likely have warned/infracted you for that. Like I said, this forum is lenient.

And if you as a mod didn't know how was I supposed to know? Like I said it is a matter of common courtesy to give some form of notification when a mod takes such an action.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Nope. Different threads. Different people.

Thread 1: Dawkins comments on "mild paedophilia"
Thread 2.: The secularist of the year's affilitaions with paedophilia groups.

And this thread on the main page of the forum is the first ever thread on clergy/sexual abuse right? Must be, all things being equal yeah?

"US Priest Sentenced to 50 Years for Child Porn, bishop convicted for not reporting it"

He has no affiliation with paedophilia groups. It's like saying MLK is associated with a racist because a racist quoted him.

Turtwig

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And this thread on the main page of the forum is the first ever thread on clergy/sexual abuse right? Must be, all things being equal yeah?

"US Priest Sentenced to 50 Years for Child Porn, bishop convicted for not reporting it"

We have a megathread for hazards, ongoing scandals and other stuff. Sometimes a poster may feel an event warrants their own thread. Sometimes, they get peeved when we merge their threads into a megathread. That's at the discretion of the mods to decide. The thread you linked to seems to be dying of its own accord anyway. Don't really see any reason to merge it with a mega or close it.

It's pretty irrelevant to the reasons yours were closed. Which were the first thread descending into a mess and the second one being merely an attempt to continue on the original one. (And/or whatever other reasons Rob had, if any.)

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And if you as a mod didn't know how was I supposed to know? Like I said it is a matter of common courtesy to give some form of notification when a mod takes such an action.

As you posted in/created the thread, you should have been automatically following it. (Unless you opted not to.) So any posts made you'd have in seen listed in your CP. I just hadn't got around to reading all mine. That's why I didn't see it. I presume also the same happened to you? But if you were actively looking for it then it should have been listed as a new posts in the CP's followed thread list.

Brown Bomber

Jernal wrote: »

We have a megathread for hazards, ongoing scandals and other stuff. Sometimes a poster may feel an event warrants their own thread. Sometimes, they get peeved when we merge their threads into a megathread. That's at the discretion of the mods to decide. The thread you linked to seems to be dying of its own accord anyway. Don't really see any reason to merge it with a mega or close it.

It's pretty irrelevant to the reasons yours were closed. Which were the first thread descending into a mess and the second one being merely an attempt to continue on the original one. (And/or whatever other reasons Rob had, if any.)



As you posted in/created the thread, you should have been automatically following it. (Unless you opted not to.) So any posts made you'd have in seen listed in your CP. I just hadn't got around to reading all mine. That's why I didn't see it. I presume also the same happened to you? But if you were actively looking for it then it should have been listed as a new posts in the CP's followed thread list.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I simply click on a forum and then the thread - but there was no thread. Not asking for much here, just a basic level of respect from the mods.

Sometimes, they get peeved when we merge their threads into a megathread.

Can you provide some examples in that case? We'll even ignore for the moment the fact that it was dumped into an already locked thread. It only seems to happen to me and it only seems to happen at the hand of Robin.

Dades had promised that some kind of action would take place if this kind of dicking around took place again. Empty words I suppose...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=85200737

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

He has no affiliation with paedophilia groups. It's like saying MLK is associated with a racist because a racist quoted him.

That is if MLK wrote a chapter in a book called "BOY" published and edited by a racist group. If another racist group were a spin-off from MLK's organisation and MLK wrote a gushing obituary for one of the founding members of a racist group and if MLK had said

"While it may be impossible to condone RACISM it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all RACISM involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful. "

Of course this is neither the time nor the place. In fact it appears A&A is not the place to discuss abuse (unless it's by the religious) or even scandals involving atheists unless it's some meaningless bull**** about some man atheist saying something sexist to some woman atheist in a lift.

Turtwig

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I have no idea what you are talking about. I simply click on a forum and then the thread - but there was no thread. Not asking for much here, just a basic level of respect from the mods.


Can you provide some examples in that case? We'll even ignore for the moment the fact that it was dumped into an already locked thread. It only seems to happen to me and it only seems to happen at the hand of Robin.

Dades had promised that some kind of action would take place if this kind of dicking around took place again. Empty words I suppose...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=85200737

Top right corner beside your name has a number in red. Place the mouse pointer over it. Click 'followed threads'. That's what I was talking about.

I won't. They were in private PMs betweens users. Of which I think there weren't many (two?) but I expect Rob and Dades have encountered many many more.

As has been said to you before the reason it was dumped into an already locked is because you effectively attempted to start the same discussion over again. That's a no no. Once a thread is closed you generally don't start another thread in attempt to keep a particular line of discussion going.

Edit : I honestly don't see how the above feedback thread is comparable here. A thread that was in CT moved to A&A then moved to Hazards. This is about the closure of a firebomb of a thread and the dumping of another potential one.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That is if MLK wrote a chapter in a book called "BOY" published and edited by a racist group. If another racist group were a spin-off from MLK's organisation and MLK wrote a gushing obituary for one of the founding members of a racist group and if MLK had said

"While it may be impossible to condone RACISM it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all RACISM involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful. "

.

It has been explained to you what happened. What you post above indicates that you didn't read the explanations given.

Brown Bomber

Jernal wrote: »

Top right corner beside your name has a number in red. Place the mouse pointer over it. Click 'followed threads'. That's what I was talking about. .

Thank you, though apparently we have a different setup. I have no red button though I did find the CP thing and it says "no threads to follow"

Jernal wrote: »

TI won't. They were in private PMs betweens users. Of which I think there weren't many (two?) but I expect Rob and Dades have encountered many many more.

I don't expect that at all. However, it has happened to me numerous times here and again always at the hand of Robin. Here is another example. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056786903

Jernal wrote: »

As has been said to you before the reason it was dumped into an already locked is because you effectively attempted to start the same discussion over again. That's a no no. Once a thread is closed you generally don't start another thread in attempt to keep a particular line of discussion going.

It was clearly two separate threads. I don't know any other way to say this.

Jernal wrote: »

Edit : I honestly don't see how the above feedback thread is comparable here. A thread that was in CT moved to A&A then moved to Hazards. This is about the closure of a firebomb of a thread and the dumping of another potential one.

Like I said before the issue that I have is the same. Robin is handing out unique treatment to me without even having the manners to notify where he is burying the threads. It's poor moderating. I have to put up with all kinds of disrespect and trolling here. I've given up reporting posts as I had maybe 10 completely ignored at the very least I'd expect the mods to be professional enough to at least feign respect and not abuse their powers to join in thus encouraging further personal abuse and trolling from his chums.

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

It has been explained to you what happened. What you post above indicates that you didn't read the explanations given.

On the contrary, it appears I have read it better than you.

This so called explanation involves Thatchell saying I didn't know they were kiddy-fiddlers!...honest! and also lying,

"explanation"

My Guardian letter did say very clearly that paedophilia is "impossible" to condone - meaning that I don't condone it.

Text of actual letter

While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia,

Can you tell the difference? And of course this so called "explanation" completely ignores his most troubling statement..

it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.

Though again this is neither the time nor the place.

Turtwig

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Though again this is neither the time nor the place.

Yes it most certainly isn't. Please stop now both of ye. Thanks.

Edit: Just noticed that letter is from 1997! As far as I'm concerned unless the person has stated or reiterated a opinion in the last 6 months it's not their opinion. My opinions in '97 and 2007. . . Eek!

smacl

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Nope. Different threads. Different people.

Thread 1: Dawkins comments on "mild paedophilia"
Thread 2.: The secularist of the year's affilitaions with paedophilia groups.

And this thread on the main page of the forum is the first ever thread on clergy/sexual abuse right? Must be, all things being equal yeah?

"US Priest Sentenced to 50 Years for Child Porn, bishop convicted for not reporting it"

With respect, I think you get the flak that you do by by using emotive language in an attempt to smear people. In the case of the Dawkin's comment, your condemning Dawkin's for using the term 'mild paedophilia', and then move on to comparisons between rape and gang rape.

Similarly above, comparing a thread with Dawkin's comments with one on the conviction of a priest done for child pornography is patently ridiculous. One relates to a comment that some would find distasteful, the other a crime for which someone has been convicted. The two aren't even in the same spectrum, so any comparison on that basis is specious.

Drawing Dawkins' name into a discussion about clergy and sexual abuse could also be seen as a rather reprehensible technique to create an association in the mind of the reader where one doesn't exist, in much the same way as the rape and slavery comments in the previous thread. I for one don't believe for a moment that this is done by mistake. It is a cynical use of an association fallacy in an attempt to confer guilt by association, which is essentially a rather unpleasant form of ad hominem attack.

I think moderation in this forum is actually carried out with a very light hand indeed, and you've escaped lightly.

Brown Bomber

smacl wrote: »

With respect, I think you get the flak that you do by by using emotive language in an attempt to smear people. In the case of the Dawkin's comment, your condemning Dawkin's for using the term 'mild paedophilia', and then move on to comparisons between rape and gang rape.

Yes. It was to make a point. Apparently it went over your head. There is no such thing as "mild paedophilia" any more there is such a thing as "mild rape". An instance of gang rape doesn't make rape anymore "mild".

smacl wrote: »

Similarly above, comparing a thread with Dawkin's comments with one on the conviction of a priest done for child pornography is patently ridiculous. One relates to a comment that some would find distasteful, the other a crime for which someone has been convicted. The two aren't even in the same spectrum, so any comparison on that basis is specious.

I'm quite sure you are aware that child molestation is in fact a crime, and rightly so. Perhaps we differ on this point. Do you believe that not all sexual contact between a man and a child is harmful?

smacl wrote: »

Drawing Dawkins' name into a discussion about clergy and sexual abuse could also be seen as a rather reprehensible technique to create an association in the mind of the reader where one doesn't exist, in much the same way as the rape and slavery comments in the previous thread. I for one don't believe for a moment that this is done by mistake. It is a cynical use of an association fallacy in an attempt to confer guilt by association, which is essentially a rather unpleasant form of ad hominem attack.

I think moderation in this forum is actually carried out with a very light hand indeed, and you've escaped lightly.

Let me break this down for you really simple. Discussing issues around child abuse and the religious = knock yourself out. Discussing issues around child abuse and atheists = threads locked and deleted.

Can you see any inconsistency there? While we are at it I am under the impression that you are a Dawkins fanboy. Why don't you show me wrong and condemn him for his sick comments?

Brown Bomber

Jernal wrote: »

Yes it most certainly isn't. Please stop now both of ye. Thanks.

Edit: Just noticed that letter is from 1997! As far as I'm concerned unless the person has stated or reiterated a opinion in the last 6 months it's not their opinion. My opinions in '97 and 2007. . . Eek!

Right, but if you had made that statement publically at any point in your life I ain't leaving you alone with my kids, ever.

MagicMarker

Brown Bomber wrote: »

There is no such thing as "mild paedophilia" any more there is such a thing as "mild rape".

Pedophilia and rape are not the same thing. Do you know what pedophilia is? A pedophile who does not act on his impulses would be considered mild, if not harmless, wouldn't you think?

Nodin

....is this "A&A Feedback" or "Dawkins Trivialises paedophilia" round two?

coffee_cake

MagicMarker wrote: »

Pedophilia and rape are not the same thing. Do you know what pedophilia is? A pedophile who does not act on his impulses would be considered mild, if not harmless, wouldn't you think?

Exactly

Yes, I did have to quote it to say exactly. Just in case anyone missed it the first time

Turtwig

Any more direct discussion on the Dawkins Paedophilia issues in this thread will result in the following for the poster:
- Deletion of the post.
- A red card and a possible mass card.

Discussing it further may also lead to a ban.

/hat off.

bluewolf wrote: »

Exacty

Yes, I did have to quote it to say exactly. Just in case anyone missed it the first time

Missed what?

Nodin wrote: »

....is this "A&A Feedback" or "Dawkins Trivialises paedophilia" round two?

Round three actually.

Bannasidhe

Dear A&A Mods.

Reading the latest posts on this thread has caused me to speculate that it is possible to have a circle jerk of one. I would welcome your feedback on this supposition.

smacl

Jernal wrote: »

Round three actually.

Mea culpa, apologies. Ever have a scab or your knee that would have healed ages ago if you'd stopped picking it?

Brown Bomber

smacl wrote: »

Mea culpa, apologies. Ever have a scab or your knee that would have healed ages ago if you'd stopped picking it?

The personal attack helps prove my point of one rule for insiders and one rule for outsiders .

Thanks.

Turtwig

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The personal attack )

I'm not having the best of days so please point out whatever personal was made. It's only by an odd coincidence I actually read this thread. In future, please, pretty please, report a post you deem to be out of order.
Thanks.

helps prove my point of one rule for insiders

Yeah, be civil

and one rule for outsiders .

Oh yeahhh, it's also be civil.

robindch

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The personal attack helps prove my point of one rule for insiders and one rule for outsiders

For heaven's sake, that's not a personal attack. If you have an issue with a post, then as Jernal points out, report the post and it'll be dealt with equitably, and in accordance with the forum rules. If you have an issue with the moderation, then you can go start yet another thread in feedback.

If, on the other hand, you construe that post as a "personal attack" then -- as before -- you should really consider devoting your posting time to somewhere less free-wheeling than A+A.

.

Cabaal

Hey guys, on the basis of some recent abortion discussions,
Any chance the charter can be amended in relation to posters claiming other posters should be sterilized or neutered if they want to have sex and not have children?

Its pretty insulting but its also seriously childish

Turtwig

Cabaal wrote: »

Hey guys, on the basis of some recent abortion discussions,
Any chance the charter can be amended in relation to posters claiming other posters should be sterilized or neutered if they want to have sex and not have children?

Its pretty insulting but its also seriously childish

Personally don't see the need. If we added that we'd have to add tonnes of other pedantic things that can be all be covered by the "Don't be a dick" boards rule. Also possibly comes under the "don't give medical advice" rule too.

Nodin

I don't understand why all that content was deleted from the abortion thread......