Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
A&A Feedback
Options
Comments
-
I'm a believer in free speech.
If the free speech offendeth thee, there is a personal ignore list available.
If the speech offendeth the moderator, there is a ban-hammer.
But "asking" a person to banish themselves into a kind of self imposed exile smacks of vigilante justice, especially when refusing a moderator request is an offence in itself.
Its a contrived kind of dilemma which lacks any kind of appeals process.0 -
Just so I'm clear about what's happening here: some people are lobbying to have J C banned from the forum?0
-
Would you consider that this 'request' is any different to the 'request' to 'not post in this thread again' which happens all over boards and is an effective way of getting the attention of someone who is nuisance posting without actually infracting them?0
-
Its like the difference between 1% and 99%, ie its a pretty big difference.Would you consider that this 'request' is any different to the 'request' to 'not post in this thread again' which happens all over boards and is an effective way of getting the attention of someone who is nuisance posting without actually infracting them?0 -
I'm a believer in free speech.
If the free speech offendeth thee, there is a personal ignore list available.
If the speech offendeth the moderator, there is a ban-hammer.
But "asking" a person to banish themselves into a kind of self imposed exile smacks of vigilante justice, especially when refusing a moderator request is an offence in itself.
Its a contrived kind of dilemma which lacks any kind of appeals process.
But this isn't a free speech issue. JC's sanction doesn't arise out of what he says. It's not because his views are unpalatable or offensive or threatening. It's not as if we haven't had those in spades over the years, people who want to justify not giving rights to LGBT people, who want to control women's reproductive rights, who want to maintain a system of religious indoctrination in schools. A&A is more than capable of handling contrary views, the problem with JC is that he uses A&A (and Christianity to arguably an even greater degree) as his own personal pulpit, promulgating his worldview while ignoring or otherwise failing to meaningfully engage with anyone who refutes his posts. Hisbehaviour has the effect of stifling discussion because once JC starts ignoring counter arguments then all posters want to do is call him on it and any discussion of the actual topic is frequently lost.
Yes, the sanction lacks an official process but it isn't without recourse. JC could, if he were of a mind to, PM one of the cMods or Admins if he felt he were being treated unfairly. However, as his posts in the feedback thread on Christianity goes to show, JC seems to prefer his pseudo-persecution as if it somehow vindicates his viewpoint as threatening or dangerous to A&A.oscarBravo wrote: »Just so I'm clear about what's happening here: some people are lobbying to have J C banned from the forum?
No, Absolam made the point that JC is being sanctioned for his behaviour outside the normal card/ban process meaning that he is unable to plead his case in DRP and that this is unfair since a) it circumvents due process and b) the only thing JC is really guilty of (in Absolam's opinion) seems to be not going along with the prevailing opinion and that he (Absolam) hasn't personally noticed JC refusing to engage in discussion.0 -
Advertisement
-
No, Absolam made the point that JC is being sanctioned for his behaviour outside the normal card/ban process meaning that he is unable to plead his case in DRP and that this is unfair since a) it circumvents due process and b) the only thing JC is really guilty of (in Absolam's opinion) seems to be not going along with the prevailing opinion and that he (Absolam) hasn't personally noticed JC refusing to engage in discussion.
I get that, but the confinement to a single thread was a compromise between allowing J C to be a disruptive influence on the whole forum one the one hand, or banning him outright on the other. It seems that that compromise is what is specifically being criticised here, with the argument that J C should either be given free rein or banned outright.
The argument against the compromise seems to be that it's out of kilter with the general way of doing things on the site, which would be to ban him if it's felt that he's having a detrimental affect on the quality of discussion in the forum, which frankly strikes me as a long-winded argument for banning him.
I'm not unhappy to have him confined to the specious nonsense thread, if for no other reason than the fact that he provokes some of the most informative posts I've ever read, notably from your good self, but if the compromise itself is offensive to people who would rather have him banned outright, I guess that's a perspective.
Put another way: I can understand why someone would argue to give him free rein in the forum (I wouldn't agree, but I could understand). I can also understand why someone would argue for banning him outright. What I can't quite understand is why someone would argue for one or the other extreme, but against a compromise.0 -
If you don't mind, I think the summary of your objections here is not that JC engages in constant repetition of a single viewpoint while refusing to entertain discussion on it, but that the discussion he engages in fails to be meaningful, as far as you (and I'd agree, probably many others) are concerned. But I think that's just tacking on personal preferences to the idea of soapboxing in order to make it fit what some posters want from it. I don't think JCs post fall within the definition of soap boxing without amending it, and I think the efforts to amend it are more to a purpose than because it needs amending.I've highlighted the sections of your post which I feel constitute the core of the problem.
Similarly, tacking on the idea that he shows unwillingness to engage in further debate once his points have been refuted (an amendment of refusing to entertain discussion). I simply don't think that's true; I think he tends to take the debate in a direction you'd prefer he didn't when you feel you've refuted his points (and I suspect he'd say you haven't refuted them at all), but I've really never noticed an occasion when JC was unwilling to engage in further debate, quite the opposite. In fact, whilst there are posters who, finding their argument stymied, resort to ad homs or arguing the style of the argument instead of the point, JC in my experience absolutely engages in further debate; often pivoting frustratingly I'll agree, but if posters want to argue about how he's arguing rather than what he's arguing I really think that's more down to them than JC. I simply don't think not engaging is an accusation that can be levelled at JC.
As for presenting large chunks of c/p text, link dumps et al.... well, it's not soapboxing, not against the rules, and JC isn't the only poster to do it; you yourself are pretty famous for posting enormous walls of text. That you present sources for much of that text isn't a terribly substantive difference; you make it slightly easier on the reader to check your work but I don't think not doing so should be considered behaviour which causes any poster to incur sanctions. I'm still bemused at the recent spat about plagiarism tbh.
That problem is not one that I think JC should be sacntioned for though; if a poster is provoked into doing something they're still the one that did it, and the one that should bear the sanctions. And I simply have no idea why a database of 'counterapologetics' is in any way useful to a forum that, by charter, welcomes those of all faiths or beliefs in any discussion. Keeping tabs on people with particular beliefs would seem rather more adversarial than the charter intimates the forum should be, after all it's still Atheism & Agnosticism, not Anti-Theism.The problem, such as it is, is the response that JC's behaviour provokes. <...> As Rob has explained, the type of sanction which has been applied has other useful side effects like being a useful database of counterapologetics.0 -
I am afraid you have played your role as Devil's Advocate too often for me, at least, to take your argument seriously Absolam.0
-
JC has been caught plagiarizing on a number of occasions, as have most creationists who've posted in A+A. It's a small aspect of a larger problem which creationists have with the concept of honesty as the rest of us understand it.I'm still bemused at the recent spat about plagiarism tbh. That problem is not one that I think JC should be sacntioned for though; if a poster is provoked into doing something they're still the one that did it, and the one that should bear the sanctions.
The definition of soap-boxing is clear enough and judgement concerning it lies with the moderators and to a much lesser extent, with the long string of forum members who've come to similar assessments concerning JC's posting style.But I think that's just tacking on personal preferences to the idea of soapboxing in order to make it fit what some posters want from it. I don't think JCs post fall within the definition of soap boxing without amending it, and I think the efforts to amend it are more to a purpose than because it needs amending.
If you don't believe it's soap-boxing, then I'd be fascinated to learn what you believe might constitute it. Not that this is going to make much difference though, since - as before - the decision is not yours to make, and that decision has already been made for the time being.0 -
If you don't mind, I think the summary of your objections here is not that JC engages in constant repetition of a single viewpoint while refusing to entertain discussion on it, but that the discussion he engages in fails to be meaningful, as far as you (and I'd agree, probably many others) are concerned. But I think that's just tacking on personal preferences to the idea of soapboxing in order to make it fit what some posters want from it. I don't think JCs post fall within the definition of soap boxing without amending it, and I think the efforts to amend it are more to a purpose than because it needs amending.
No, it's both. There are times when JC fails to meaningfully engage with posts (i.e. he posts glib one-liners or writes a response which ignores anything in the post he is responding to) but there are also times when he explicitly refuses to engage with posts. I have explained this in more detail in examples below.
On the overall topic of JC's soapboxing, even if there were no clear-cut examples of said behaviour, there are two problems with your suggestion that the definition of soapboxing needs to be amended. Firstly, the Boards FAQ states in relation to rules lawyering:
"You can challenge a decision using the Dispute Resolution Process, but don’t think for a moment you can use the guidelines above to find some semantic loophole to excuse your behaviour (people who do this are known as “rules lawyers” and are seen as a small step above trolls)"
Moreover, the FAQ also covers discretion of the moderator (covered in detail below) and the expectation that users contribute positively to a discussion.Similarly, tacking on the idea that he shows unwillingness to engage in further debate once his points have been refuted (an amendment of refusing to entertain discussion). I simply don't think that's true; I think he tends to take the debate in a direction you'd prefer he didn't when you feel you've refuted his points (and I suspect he'd say you haven't refuted them at all), but I've really never noticed an occasion when JC was unwilling to engage in further debate, quite the opposite.
You see, there's the problem. That is a fallacious argument, specifically the argument from personal incredulity. Just because you've never noticed it, doesn't mean there aren't examples of it and I've already posted several in my last post. But just to reinforce the point here's an example. In the old "specious nonsense" thread Delirium posted an article about a possible earliest common ancestor (post #8330). In response to this JC asked (post #8442) the following question:
"Could I ask for evidence for how we all evolved from a worm."
In post #8600 I provided an answer showing how we could trace our lineage from this early ancestor to modern humans. Despite this hopefully comprehensive and well-referenced response, JC went on to say:
"Can you provide any unambiguous evidence Evolution from our supposed single-celled common ancestor to us?
If you can, please provide it.
... and if you can't, please stop making unfounded criticism of my scientific abilities!!!"
completely ignoring my post which provided evidence for what he sought. When challenged by Delirium and others JC (in post #8634) replied:
"Life is too short to wade into those long posts of oldrnwsr ... that haven't provided any substantive evidence for Evolution ... despite the mutual admiration society that has grown up around them."
So we have an explicit refusal to engage with a counterargument which is as close to a textbook case of soapboxing and explicitly banned in the charter.
Similarly in the BCP megathread on Christianity JC made a (fairly rambling) post (#21188) talking about supposed inconsistencies in evoutionist dating of the beginning of life. Then in post #21191 ISAW (fairly patiently I thought) explained all of the mistakes and missteps in logic in JC's argument along with references. JC's only response to this post is:
"..yes indeed when it comes to Evolution, it does seem to be a matter of picking a figure ... any figure, as long as it has the word 'billion' after it ...
... and apparently the latest Evolutionist fashion is to have the word 'Giga' written after it??? "
At no point does JC either engage with ISAW's individual points, respond to the central premise of ISAW's argument or offer any meaningful response. Instead we have a glib, provocative one-liner which contributes nothing to the discussion. This is, at best, low-level trolling.
Now, between the two specious nonsense threads on this forum and the BCP thread on Christianity there have been more than 43,000 posts on the topic so if you'd like I can continue to present examples of what I'm talking about all day long. However, the two examples already show that JC does in fact, drag threads off topic by refusing to engage with other poster's arguments.As for presenting large chunks of c/p text, link dumps et al.... well, it's not soapboxing, not against the rules, and JC isn't the only poster to do it; you yourself are pretty famous for posting enormous walls of text.
OK, several points here. Firstly, while I understand the comparison between me and JC it's not one I appreciate. The "enormous walls of text" that I post are my words and where I can I do my best to explain concepts as simply as possible. Where I do include copied quotes I try to keep it as concise as possible. Sometimes when that quote is a bible passage it's not always possible but if I have to include a larger quote I try to highlight relevant sections. However, it's not possible to compare what I write with something like this. This post from the "Michael Nugent vs. WC" thread exemplifies what I am talking about. It is a quote dump from three passages in the bible. There's no commentary from JC, nor is there any attempt to highlight relevant sections or explain how it acts as a refutation to the points which I had made previously. When challenged on this point by looksee, JC declared that it was self-explanatory. Such behaviour is, despite your claim, against the rules, specifically (from point 3 of the charter):
"While posting of controversial questions to stimulate debate is acceptable, soap boxing, i.e constant repetition of a single viewpoint while refusing to entertain discussion on it, is both disruptive and annoying, and will not be tolerated. You are expected to contribute something other than placard proclamations."That you present sources for much of that text isn't a terribly substantive difference; you make it slightly easier on the reader to check your work but I don't think not doing so should be considered behaviour which causes any poster to incur sanctions. I'm still bemused at the recent spat about plagiarism tbh.
Well, yes it is a substantive difference. Firstly, not providing sources for your claims stifles discussion because it prevents readers from assessing the truth of your claims. Secondly, providing a "wall of text" which makes a counterargument and explains something in detail is vastly different from a block of c/p text offered without any input or discussion from the person posting it. In fact such behaviour is contra-charter in Politics and the old Politics Cafe:
"Please remember that we are not a blog, a news feed nor an announcement forum - if you are not willing to discuss what you post, then please don't post it."That problem is not one that I think JC should be sacntioned for though; if a poster is provoked into doing something they're still the one that did it, and the one that should bear the sanctions.
OK, let's clarify one point before we begin. We're not talking about posters being abuseful here. If a poster crosses the line into personal abuse then of course that should be actioned by a warning/infraction/ban. We're talking about someone taking the thread off-topic by refusing to engage with points made to them which then causes other posters to call them out on it and the consequence of this is that discussion of the actual topic grinds to a halt. The idea that the poster doing the provoking has nothing to answer for is wrong.
Wikipedia defines troll as:
In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion, often for the troll's amusement.
So the person doing the provoking is guilty of an actionable offence. Even if we restrict our search to fora in the Society & Culture section we see that trolling and "disruptive behaviour" are both actionable offences in Legal Discussion, trolling and "thread spoiling" are actionable offences in Philosophy, off-topic posts are subject to deletion in Humanities, consistent off-topic posting warrants a permanent ban in History and Heritage etc. etc.
Of course on top of this, in the Boards FAQ, there is a section titled "Discretion of the Moderator" which states:
"The moderators have discretion to react and moderate as they see fit, in the best interests of the forum they take care of."And I simply have no idea why a database of 'counterapologetics' is in any way useful to a forum that, by charter, welcomes those of all faiths or beliefs in any discussion. Keeping tabs on people with particular beliefs would seem rather more adversarial than the charter intimates the forum should be, after all it's still Atheism & Agnosticism, not Anti-Theism.
What does keeping tabs on people with certain beliefs have do with anything? I was talking about counterapologetics. Apologetics is the collection of stock arguments used by religious people to support the truth claims of their religion. Counterapologetics are the responses to these arguments. There are, in fact, several counterapologetics wikis which outline traditional theological arguments and their rebuttals like Rational Wiki, Iron Chariots and Secular Web.
However, the point I was making is that a lot of forums discourage or actively prohibit duplicate threads and have measures in place to prevent the same topic appearing over and over again in the form of new threads. Sometimes this takes the form of megathreads, sometimes there's a forum FAQ, sometimes users are encouraged to search the forum before beginning new threads, either way the same topic popping up again and again on multiple threads is generally seen as a negative. While the specious nonsense thread exists it acts as a repository of arguments surrounding creationism and evolution. This means that the forum won't get clogged up with multiple threads each with their own take on creationism. So, useful.
As an aside, the scientific evidence for evolution isn't counterapologetics per se. It's just that there's quite a few creationists out there who consider evolution to be inextricably linked to atheism and therefore proving the truth of their religion means attacking evolution. So it falls under the overall umbrella of counters to religious arguments.0 -
Advertisement
-
oscarBravo wrote: »I get that, but the confinement to a single thread was a compromise between allowing J C to be a disruptive influence on the whole forum one the one hand, or banning him outright on the other. It seems that that compromise is what is specifically being criticised here, with the argument that J C should either be given free rein or banned outright.
The argument against the compromise seems to be that it's out of kilter with the general way of doing things on the site, which would be to ban him if it's felt that he's having a detrimental affect on the quality of discussion in the forum, which frankly strikes me as a long-winded argument for banning him.
I'm not unhappy to have him confined to the specious nonsense thread, if for no other reason than the fact that he provokes some of the most informative posts I've ever read, notably from your good self, but if the compromise itself is offensive to people who would rather have him banned outright, I guess that's a perspective.
Put another way: I can understand why someone would argue to give him free rein in the forum (I wouldn't agree, but I could understand). I can also understand why someone would argue for banning him outright. What I can't quite understand is why someone would argue for one or the other extreme, but against a compromise.
Well, the crux of the matter seems to be indignation by proxy. Of all the posters arguing that JC's punishment is unfair, JC doesn't seem to be one of them. As I already mentioned, from his posts on the Christianity feedback thread he seems to regard his sanction as some kind of vindication that his views are too dangerous or threatening to the worldview of A&A posters that he must be confined.
On the idea of a compromise, IMHO, the whole thing reminds me of the character traits in Falllout New Vegas. Each choice comes with a positive argument but also with a significant negative consequence. Allowing JC free rein is fine but it risks stifling discussion in multiple threads as JC derails them. Banning JC just feeds his persecution complex. Restricting JC is outside the normal Boards DRP process but reduces the impact on the forum while still allowing JC to promote his views and for some kind of discussion (even if it's between posters arguing with JC) to take place. I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with any of the choices but the current status quo seems to suck less than the other choices.0 -
The answer to that is; it isn't a genuine compromise because he is being barred from all threads except one. While circumventing due process.oscarBravo wrote: »Put another way: I can understand why someone would argue to give him free rein in the forum (I wouldn't agree, but I could understand). I can also understand why someone would argue for banning him outright. What I can't quite understand is why someone would argue for one or the other extreme, but against a compromise.
You may as well describe the internment camp at Guantanamo Bay as "a compromise", because after all its a very similar idea, and nobody there has been convicted. And not having a conviction has to be a good thing, right?
But I'm sure if you asked anyone dumped there whether they would rather stand trial and get a "full" conviction they would be delighted to accept the full treatment instead of the compromise.0 -
-
-
You may as well describe the internment camp at Guantanamo Bay as "a compromise", because after all its a very similar idea, and nobody there has been convicted. And not having a conviction has to be a good thing, right?
But I'm sure if you asked anyone dumped there whether they would rather stand trial and get a "full" conviction they would be delighted to accept the full treatment instead of the compromise.
Please tell me that was an attempt at humour and you're not seriously comparing a virtual slap across the wrists in a chat forum with internment in Guantanamo?0 -
I'm comparing the principle of the situation, which is indeed comparable.
And I'm bitterly disappointed that my sense of humour is considered so poor around these parts, that something so unfunny might be mistaken for my attempt at humour.0 -
I'm not clear on why that's not a genuine compromise, or what form a genuine compromise would take.The answer to that is; it isn't a genuine compromise because he is being barred from all threads except one.
I'm sure if J C wants to be banned in order to avail of due process, he can make it happen.While circumventing due process.0 -
I'm comparing the principle of the situation, which is indeed comparable.
Not really though, unless you think you could convince a detainee of Guantanamo that the two were comparable, even if only in principle. Picking an example as extreme as you did for a matter as relatively trivial as this is rather laughable, hence me concluding it was an attempt at humour. Or maybe we rather than carding posters for infractions we should waterboard them? :pac:0 -
That's about the height of it. There are three main options - leave JC free rein of the forum, but that annoys lots of other posters, so that's not fair on them. Ban JC, but possibly lose the excellent responses that his posts generate, and hand him the most minor of propaganda victories, so that's not great either. Or take the middle road which is allow him free rein, but only within a restricted area - not perfect, but it balances most of the wishes of most of the forum posterhood about as well as can be done.I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with any of the choices but the current status quo seems to suck less than the other choices.
If somebody has a fairer solution given past history and reasonable expectations for the future, I'm certainly all ears
0 -
Thanks looksee.I think it is only reasonable that since JC is being discussed here he should be able to respond in this thread if he so wishes. If the views could be expressed in more general terms rather than focusing on one individual I think that would also be more appropriate.
Firstly, I don't see how I can be accused of 'soapboxing' ... unless holding my opinions consistently, when I have seen nothing to make me change my mind is 'soapboxing'.
I engage in debate on every issue put to me ... and indeed I used to post almost exclusivley in the old 'creationism thread' ... and I was criticised then for not posting in other threads ... and I was accused of being some kind of 'one trick creationist pony' back then (with accusations of 'soapboxing' thrown in for good measure). Now when I post in other threads, I find myself confined back in a creationist-type thread.
... and if my posts are 'soapboxing' then nearly every atheist on the A & A, who continues to be an atheist ... and post in favour of their athesim (after my amazingly convincing posts over 12 years) is also 'soapboxing' against me.:)
... I hope that you get the irony of claiming that I'm soapboxing by holding to my views ... whilst the persons accusing me of 'soapboxing' are equally implaccable in both holding to their views and posting accordingly!!:)
On the plagarism issue, I quoted stuff from fellow Creationists who are happy to have their work freely used, as long as it's being used to a Creationist purpose ... so I can't see how that is plagarism ... and the sight of Atheists defending the copyright interest of creationists, in their work against other creationist's legitimate use of their work ... is a sight to behold !!!:)
I am always very careful (and only too happy) to attribute any evolutionist quotes to their authors.0 -
Advertisement
-
I have no wish to gratuitously annoy anybody ... but since when is somebody else's annoyance a reason to discipline/silence a poster? People get annoyed by seeing views contrary to their own all the time ... it's probably the single greatest reason for elevated blood pressure in people who aren't suffering from chronic hypertension.That's about the height of it. There are three main options - leave JC free rein of the forum, but that annoys lots of other posters, so that's not fair on them.
Indeed being able to appreciate opposing opinions is what the boards.ie and debating, in general, is all about ... and the old adage of 'staying out of the kitchen, if you don't like the heat' applies to such 'annoyance' IMO.
Banning somebody because you don't like what they say or for some other equally flimsy self-serving reason ... smacks of totalitarianism. I post courteously, on-topic and within both the letter and spirit of your charter. Indeed if you ban me and others like me ... you will simply end up with a 'mutual admiration society' ... and where is the fun in that ... or indeed, dare I say it, where is the possbility for the 'evolution' of your ideas, (by developing them in debate) there either.:)Ban JC, but possibly lose the excellent responses that his posts generate, and hand him the most minor of propaganda victories, so that's not great either.
I can see that you guys may want to have a 'safe space' on your forum where nobody is allowed to seriously question your ideas, so that you can develop them sans interruption ... and I accept, that if I were to post there, I probably would question your ideas quite vociferously ... so, as a guest on your forum, I will do as instructed by you.Or take the middle road which is allow him free rein, but only within a restricted area - not perfect, but it balances most of the wishes of most of the forum posterhood about as well as can be done.
However, it would seem, that many of the ideas held by atheists on your forum can't be up to much, if one Christian can metaphorically 'run a horse and four' through them.:)0 -
I am pleased you have contributed to this thread JC, I am not convinced by your responses, nor am I even remotely concerned that you have driven a coach and four though any arguments, but you have at least made your point.
So, Absolam, on your behalf seems to suggest that you either are banned from the forum totally and thus have access to due process, or otherwise continue as we are with you in just the creationist thread - and you do still have recourse to cmods and admins. Or of course you could decide that you did not need anyone to speak for you and just disregard this whole discussion and we will continue as we were.0 -
However, just be aware, that many of the ideas expressed by atheists on your forum can't be up to much, if one Christian can metaphorically 'run a horse and four' through them.:)
Christians have been running horses through things since the crusades, trampling through all and sundry. Does this strike a chord?0 -
I very much appreciate Absolam's defense of me, when I couldn't defend myself on this thread.I am pleased you have contributed to this thread JC, I am not convinced by your responses, nor am I even remotely concerned that you have driven a coach and four though any arguments, but you have at least made your point.
So, Absolam, on your behalf seems to suggest that you either are banned from the forum totally and thus have access to due process, or otherwise continue as we are with you in just the creationist thread - and you do still have recourse to cmods and admins. Or of course you could decide that you did not need anyone to speak for you and just disregard this whole discussion and we will continue as we were.
Sincere thanks Absolam, for that ... and sincere thanks to you for making a good Mod call and graciously allowing me onto this thread to have my say.
Being banned would be far, far more discommoding than my current position .... and asking for a ban (to allow me to appeal the ban) would be like a 'turkey asking to attend Christmas dinner' ... so that it could feel the heat of the oven !!!:)
I have no wish to increase my current state of persecution on the A & A ... so I'll go with being confined to the mega thread and this one ... until the Atheists develop their arguments to the point where they become confident enough to debate me again, in other threads on your forum!!!
Even if their confidence doesn't return ... they could always try 'fakin it until they make it' ... just sayin' !!!:D0 -
-
I very much appreciate Absolam's defense of me, when I couldn't defend myself on this thread.
You were able to post from 7 posts in and within a few hours of Absolam's post, which considering that was 3am meant that by 10 am you could have posted.
Mod
Anyway, it appears that JC is willing to accept the status quo so this specific discussion is closed. Discussions on new topics are welcome.0 -
Hence my opening statement; I'm aware some people view posts through a lens of their opinion of the poster. That can be enough to change what is really engaging in a discussion into a perception of soapboxing or whatever their offense de jour is regardless of what the poster actually posts.I am afraid you have played your role as Devil's Advocate too often for me, at least, to take your argument seriously Absolam.
I myself would characterise it as proselytizing, and restrict the constitution of soapboxing to those who refuse to entertain discussion of what they've repeatedly posted, but as you say, such decisions are not mine to make.If you don't believe it's soap-boxing, then I'd be fascinated to learn what you believe might constitute it. Not that this is going to make much difference though, since - as before - the decision is not yours to make, and that decision has already been made for the time being.
Hence the feedback; as oldrnwisr points out Mods have considerable leeway when it comes to rules, including how they are interpreted and whether they need follow them. So when something seems out of kilter, as this behavior does to me, feedback is the proper place to offer an opinion on it.0 -
To be honest, that's not what I'm suggesting; JBs specific case is really an illustration of something that I think is not right in the forum.So, Absolam, on your behalf seems to suggest that you either are banned from the forum totally and thus have access to due process, or otherwise continue as we are with you in just the creationist thread - and you do still have recourse to cmods and admins. Or of course you could decide that you did not need anyone to speak for you and just disregard this whole discussion and we will continue as we were.
Though JC has made his peace with what is being done (and I'm not arguing on his behalf, he's well able to do so if he wishes), with regard to his specific circumstances my suggestion would have not been what you suggest, but that such sanctions be applied as they are warranted per the Charter, with all steps being subject to normal due process, and that a more lenient perspective be taken on what is or isn't soapboxing, especially when a mods own views are at odds with the poster they're judging. In such a case, I don't think he would be banned.0 -
I am sorry you are unhappy with the process in A&A Absolam, and your feedback is noted. If you wish to pursue it further I suggest you take it to site feedback.0
-
Advertisement
-
Wow. A two for one on your delusions. That you are being persecuted and that you are "winning" as opposed to embarrassing yourself and other christians. Well played sir, well played..
I have no wish to increase my current state of persecution on the A & A ... so I'll go with being confined to the mega thread and this one ... until the Atheists develop their arguments to the point where they become confident enough to debate me again, in other threads on your forum!!!
Even if their confidence doesn't return ... they could always try 'fakin it until they make it' ... just sayin' !!!:D
MrP0
Advertisement