Too much moderation on these boards?

quote:

---

I'm a creationist and I don't go around viciously abusing people and breaking all forum guidelines

---

Perhaps not.Your "sister" does, though.Support of her and silence in the face of her actions is the same as saying what she does.

Ah, I describe a general garment and you and iano claim it was cut to fit you. You Faith have been one of the primary beneficiaries of the lax standard that Biblical Creationists are held to here at EvC. You constantly and continually attack individual members personally, and are allowed to get away with it.For example, in Message 97 you say: When that assertion is politely challenged in Message 98... ... instead of supporting your misrepresentation of my personal position, you respond not by providing evidence in support but by continuing your personal attack on me and asserting that I am not a Christian. from Message 99.Instead of supporting your assertions and misrepresentation of my position, you resort to whining and crying about how you have been smeared. You also make yet another factual error as I have been suspended and sanctioned. Further you conflate my position as an Admin here with what I post as a regular member even though you were recruited as an Admin here and refused to act as one.I ask you, how is pointing out that YOU Faith misrepresent my position and what I have said here at EvC smearing you?Once more Faith you are showing support for my assertion. I honestly think that you believe the personal attacks you and iano and other fundamentalists make, even though they cannot be supported, even though they are false, even though they are unwarranted. Because we understand that you are not capable of any other behavior, we allow such flagrant violations to continue, solely to allow you the greatest possible opportunity to make your best argument for your position.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I support her because overall I think her a tenacious, brave and skilled debator - although not the only one here on either side of the divide. She is prone to losing her rag at times - but there are none here who attract the same quantity or virulence of oppostion as she - so there is that to take into account.I stay silent because blood is thicker than water. She is my sister Schraf. One doesn't have to agree in the least with what a family member does in order to stand by them no matter what. As it happens I frequently see those who receive the tongue lashings tramping every bit as much on the spirit of forum guidelines as Faith does.

Nor does one have to stand by and do nothing when somebody is being abused. Your family members are the first ones that you should be correcting.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

even if you try to correct them and push against their ideas, you still stand with them.

---

-I believe in God, I just call it Nature
-One man with an imaginary friend is insane. a Million men with an imaginary friend is a religion.
-People must often be reminded that the bible did not arrive as a fax from heaven; it was written by men.
-Religion is the opiate of the masses

I am trying to come up with my response to this, but it's (mostly) not going to be until at least tommorrow.The short version (pending later refinement and elaboration):1) I remind all that this is a topic about moderation procedures.2) As such, I would have preferred that Jar had posted his message as being from AdminJar.3) I do have a certain agreement with what Jar said, but disagree with how he said it. Also see my other messages upthread.Adminnemooseus

quote:

---

I support her because overall I think her a tenacious, brave and skilled debator - although not the only one here on either side of the divide. She is prone to losing her rag at times - but there are none here who attract the same quantity or virulence of oppostion as she - so there is that to take into account.
I stay silent because blood is thicker than water. She is my sister Schraf. One doesn't have to agree in the least with what a family member does in order to stand by them no matter what. As it happens I frequently see those who receive the tongue lashings tramping every bit as much on the spirit of forum guidelines as Faith does.

---

Like I said.Staying silent on her views while voicing your support for her indicates to everyone else that you share her views and endorse her way of presenting them.

It would be useful is you could comment on the 'we' bit that Jar referred to in his message. He seemed to imply that there exists an Admin Central two-tier approach to posters here. An idea backed up by Schraf in personal poster mode too. Seeing as she is an admin too we must suppose that her personal statement of 'fact' is something she holds while in working in admin mode.The nub of the assertion is that Admin take a different approach when dealing with 'fundi' (as they are called). I gather it revolves around there being an inherent weakness in whatever argument they put forth - but in order to ensure that they don't all bugger off were they held to the same standards as everyone else, the standards are lowered for them. This might be supposed to occur in various ways, I don't know - Jar wasn't specific. Perhaps:- more abuse from fundis is be tolerated because if held to account they get shirty and have to be suspended?- poorer standards for backing up a point with reasoned argument might be tolerated because the base reasoning: Godidit, cannot be demonstrated in a way considered "it is demonstrated" in the 'accepted' sense of the word as defined by Admin.There might be others - I don't know and I'm a little in the dark - only hearing about this "special treatment for fundis" very recently from two admin-level members. SoIs it official policy?Why is it policy if the above guesses at reasons for it are not the reasons for itIn which fora does it apply and if not in any particular forum, to which class of topics does it applyI dread to hear that it is indeed the policy for it opens a veritable hornets nest which impinges negatively on both fundi and non-fundi alike in terms of the grounds of debate here. Indeed it would seriously undermine the whole tenet of the site in my viewCould you comment?

I can only speak for myself, other Admins can speak for themselves. I have constantly said when talking with other Admins that every member here should be allowed to present their best case possible in support of their position. In addition I have spoken out against longer term suspensions or bannings in all but the most extreme cases (spammers get banned immediately though with no recourse).This includes special treatement for many members, specifically including you.I am responding to you as jar and not AdminJar for a reason. Your personal attack was on the user jar. In Message 102 you said that I should be shot. You said that I am not a Christian. You claimed that "Smear: Jars bread and butter".That My post was in response to a simple request that Faith either backup her assertions of my position, or withdraw the assertion.That Your post is a personal attack on another member. There are no two ways to look at it.BUT, you were not suspended for your behavior. All that happened was a mild rebuke that was general in nature and not even addressed specifically to you but only a response to your message.TTBOMK, no member here at EvC other than yourself has ever been allowed to suggest that another member should be shot and not banned permanently. I did ask several Admins not to take action, and I will explain why.I believe that you were sincere in that post. I believe that is really what you think. It was without a doubt one of the clearest examples of the mentality of the average Fudie/Evangelical Christian I have ever seen. And I think it is important that it be out there for all the world to see, so that they understand the threat presented by people who could hold and express such views.It is so important, IMHO that it is reproduced here in it's entirety. Read this, everyone. This is the heart of the Fundamental/Evangelical Christian.Edited by jar, : Change "that" to (your/my) post for clarity.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No week would be complete without you forthright views on such people There is no doubt that mine was a personal attack on you but it is fair to say that you indulge in them too. Personal attack seeks to attack the person and not the argument if my recall of the guideline is correct and it is an area in which you excel. What you make up for in lack of virulance you compensate for admirably (if that is the correct word) with frequency. I couldn't be bothered to go look through your posts but if you would like some examples then I would open to obliging you. Mostly you hide the insults in such a way so as to remain within the letter of the law. But the spirit of it...oh my word. For one who indulges in insult so frequently though, even the letter of the law can be expected to be broken. Kettles and all that Jar This is one of those examples where the aim is to insult in such a way so as to hide behind the rule. But the issue in bringing it up is to find out whether this is a Admin policy for if it is it raises a number of questions which I feel are detrimental to the very tenets of EvC. If it is your own policy (which you don't imply it is) then I fail to see how implementing it then complaining about the consequences of it is a reasonable position to takeFar simpler to have a stated level playing field so we can really judge the lay of the land. It would stop you running for this bolt hole everytime someone stepped outside some arbitary boundary of yours Yup. Righteous hatred at work (the kind of thing that led Jesus to name call a little more vigorously than this). Not hatred of you of course. But of the sin overflowing from your heart. I don't like it all that much when it overflows from my heart - if its any comfort to you

quote:

---

Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

---

quote:

---

Mat 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

​

Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

---

iano, and every other fundamentalist christian on this board: don't go around saying that other members are not christians. it's not for you to decide, and people take personal offense at that sort of charge. wouldn't you, if someone told you that you were lying about that sort of thing? religion is a very touchy and personal and sensitive issue -- and telling people they're not saved isn't very christian either. remember, we are all saved by grace and grace alone.jar: stop portraying fundamentalists as mentally handicapped. it's not exactly nice either, and hopefully not accurate.now play nice guys. oh, and with the accusations of wolves in sheep's clothing, i leave you with the latest from my favourite comic strip, "the perry bible fellowship," entitled "woolves."
http://70.86.201.113/imageserv2/stilltemporary/Edited by arachnophilia, : typo

---

You are right, I should probably not say that they are mentally handicapped (although I do believe I have only said they are handicapped, not that they are mentally handicapped) and will try to refrain from portraying them as such in the future.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hi Folks,I started writing this message reluctantly because I was convinced that looking into the So let's look at why the Islamic world might be annoyed by the West? thread would require that I issue some stern criticism of Jar. Instead, just the opposite has happened. If Jar has misbehaved it doesn't appear anywhere in this thread.Jar begin the thread like this: He followed it with messages like Message 3: And like Message 92: You get the idea. Pretty straight forward just-the-facts approach.Now here's Faith's first post, Message 4: Jar requested a retraction, and Faith graciously granted one, but she continued posting to the thread from the standpoint that Jar was conducting a whitewash (for example, Message 46), and as far as I can see she never added anything factual to the discussion, while Jar posted one jammed-with-facts message after another. He included his opinions and interpretations, and so far as Faith and Buzsaw and Iano the only replies were that this was a typical blame the west interpretation without foundation, and I could find few facts in their arguments.Finally, after all the sniping, Faith goes over the top in Message 96: Iano followed this a short time later with this in Message 102 with this indirect reference to Jar: If I were Jar and had put all the effort into presenting the factual background for the discussion and had it not only ignored (indendent of the proper interpretation of the facts), but had to do yeoman's work trying to keep the 300-post thread to a manageable period of history, and then I got this, I think I might have completely lost it. Maybe Jar is only reaping what he has sown in other threads, but the Forum Guidelines require that you address the content of a thread and not bring in issues from other threads, especially feelings and animosities, which is exactly what this looks like to me. It seemed like Faith and Buzsaw and Iano felt they knew exactly where Jar was going with his historical recitations, and even if they were right then the proper approach was the same one Jar had taken, and same one that everyone should take at EvC Forum: argue from the facts. Leave your personal feelings about others out of the discussion.I find Jar to often be overly ascerbic, confrontational and cryptic in his discussion at times, and that's what I expected to see in this thread, but I saw very little of this. I also wish he would turn the other cheek a bit more when posting as a regular member since he's also a moderator, but he seemed to do a lot of cheek-turning and ignore-the-sniping in this thread.I have limited time to investigate concerns about moderator misconduct. The complaints about Jar have probably wasted about all the time I have for such issues for the next month. Next time concerns about moderator misconduct are raised I encourage people to find a thread that actually exhibits the problem. Jar has made a number of the conservative Christians here angry with him, but the things that made them angry didn't happen in this thread - they happened somewhere else.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

For the record, we've had quite an extensive discussion/debate in the PMT on this Jar/Islamic thread problem, I AdminBuzsaw being the sole IDist creo admin and the only supporter of those of us who had a problem with Jar in that thread. In all due respect of Admin I have to beg to differ with him and others who see Jar as squeeky clean/correct on that topic issue.Imo, Admin and the others who agreed with his assessment failed to refute any of my arguments in PNT, with total disregard to the specific points of just about all of my arguments relative to topic which I weighed in on. I don't understand how I can be so wrong in so much, given that for the most part we have in the past been able to resolve things quite smoothly in PNT. Do we need to move some of those arguments to the public forum for all to see? I dono. Like not a crumb or bone went the way of us who had a problem with Jar in that topic matter.Maybe we need to define "topic" when it comes to Jar at the onset of his threads. One of my key points was that Jar's title and OP as well as comments he made about the "aggressors" in subsequent posts set up a debate as to who agressed when and whether the aggressors were solely the West, the Ottoman Islamics et al. Jar set up the debate on aggression but insisted throughout the thread on limiting topic to his own interpretation of the aggression history.Imo, for determination of truth regarding aggression, you don't begin with the late 19th and early 20th century to determine where the aggression originated as Jar was attempting to do so as to propagate his pro Islamic, anti West viewpoint which ultimately will no doubt bedevil the West for just about everything bad in the region of the ME both then and now.

"Why they might be annoyed with us" implies that Muslim terrorist attacks on the West have good cause -- their "annoyance" with "us" (implying among other things that the WTC attack was justified revenge, although the US had nothing to do with the historical developments uhder discussion).The thread was begun in response to the previous thread about Islam, where some of us argued that Islam itself teaches and has historically practiced aggression against "infidels" or nonMuslims. It is hard to ignore the obvious intent to dispute that claim and give historical political justification to Muslim attacks, in other words a whitewash. Otherwise the title is meaningless, since everybody has reason to be annoyed with everybody else if you get into all the hsitorical particulars of any conflict. The US could certainly be "annoyed" that Muslim pirates kidnapped and enslaved American "Christian" sailors in the time of Washington and Adams for instance.If the thread were neutrally titled, something like "History of East-West conflict since ......" this wouldn't have to have come up until it's actually stated or implied in the thread later.Edit: Even on that thread at the time, I made it clear that it was the tendentious TITLE that invited objections. Edited by Faith, : To add link to thread under discussion