Tomndebb: clarification please?

The BBQ Pit
1

RE:http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7804528#post7804528

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Well, what this question says about badchad is that you appear to be more interested in insulting other posters than actually carrying on a debate. This is the sort of crude hostility that got you Pitted and has raised your name among the staff as to whether you are worth keeping around.

If you would like to stick around and “prove” the terrible opinions of believers, then stick to the issues and leave the personailities out of it.

[ /Moderating ]
[/QUOTE]

Insult? If my question was an insult, it certainly was not direct, as per the rules of Great Debates. If a person (Bible Man) worships a god who he truly believes will kill lots of people, what is wrong with questioning that persons morality, and why does that question not belong in great debates?

So objectively speaking, what rule did I break? Please note that I am asking this in the Pit, exactly where the rules say that I should.

2

Which word is giving you trouble?

Far be it from me to nourish the bridge-dwellers, but anyone else getting a Reverend Mykeru vibe here?

Ah well. Enjoy your melt-down, and here’s hoping it turns out as most of us have been wishing.

Regards,
Shodan

3

IANA mod, so please take this for what it’s worth.

It’s your use of the word “you.”

You (badchad) can make all the arguments you want about religion being bad and the followers of religion being sheep being lead by a murderous sky-pixie. However, the use of the word “you” in the referenced post goes beyond the general (‘I think religeous people are evil.’) to the specific (‘I think Bible Man is eeeviil.’) This is an insult to a singular person, and thus not allowed.

You certainly have a provocative posting style. (On purpose, I surmise.) There is of course a blurry line that delineates ‘provocative’ and ‘jerkish.’ You bring much knowledge (and rather a lot of responses) to the threads you have entered. Sometimes, though, you are too much on the jerkish side. (‘Jesus is a cunt.’)

I do hope that you continue around here to challenge peoples’ beliefs. OTOH, I also hope that you learn what direct confrontation is allowed (attacking people’s beliefs) and what is not (attack the people that hold them).

Hope I’ve answered the question. (Do I get a prize if I do?)

-Geek

4

As noted, you turned a general attack on the views of one group of believers into a personal attack on the ethics and person of a specific poster. I will grudgingly allow some forms of personal questions when a thread has gone on for a while and various posters are getting on each others’ nerves. Challenging another poster for reading comprehension or sincerity when there have already been a dozen posts with each side misunderstanding the other occasionally resulting in frustration and elevated tempers gets a limited pass–although you will note I frequently tell them to knock it off, as well. Asking a (supposedly) rhetorical question such as “Why are you a monster?” has no place in GD. Since that was included in your first response to Bible man, there is no reason to believe that you are acting out of a sense of mid-argument frustration. You are doing it deliberately to yank his chain–that is being a jerk and trolling.

You are advised to refrain from personal attacks (even when you are trying to hide them in “questions”).

5

[QUOTE=JustAnotherGeek]
You certainly have a provocative posting style. (On purpose, I surmise.)
[/QUOTE]
He has admitted as much.

6

Personally, if I were a mod (fat chance of that ever happening!), I’d make it a rule of thumb to bear down harder on those posters with whose philosophies I happened to agree, and cut some extra slack for those I disagreed most strongly with, in the interests of even-handedness, but that’s a position Tom is reluctant to assume.

The sheer slack cut for Christians in particular and theists in general for disregarding the need for exceptional evidence for their admittedly exceptional claims is one of the few lacunae (if not the only one) in the SDMB’s handling of its posters, and is the only tendancy of this place I heartily disapprove of.

7

[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
Personally, if I were a mod (fat chance of that ever happening!), I’d make it a rule of thumb to bear down harder on those posters with whose philosophies I happened to agree, and cut some extra slack for those I disagreed most strongly with, in the interests of even-handedness, but that’s a position Tom is reluctant to assume.

The sheer slack cut for Christians in particular and theists in general for disregarding the need for exceptional evidence for their admittedly exceptional claims is one of the few lacunae (if not the only one) in the SDMB’s handling of its posters, and is the only tendancy of this place I heartily disapprove of.
[/QUOTE]

Oh bullshit. The only “slack cut” is for those whose conduct is polite and civil.

8

[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
Oh bullshit.
[/QUOTE]

I’ll be sure to record that under “polite and civil phrases” to employ freely in the future.

9

[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
Personally, if I were a mod (fat chance of that ever happening!), I’d make it a rule of thumb to bear down harder on those posters with whose philosophies I happened to agree, and cut some extra slack for those I disagreed most strongly with, in the interests of even-handedness, but that’s a position Tom is reluctant to assume.

The sheer slack cut for Christians in particular and theists in general for disregarding the need for exceptional evidence for their admittedly exceptional claims is one of the few lacunae (if not the only one) in the SDMB’s handling of its posters, and is the only tendancy of this place I heartily disapprove of.
[/QUOTE]

That amounts to: It’s a shame that the SDMB doesn’t moderate in accord with my personal belief system. And I disagree. When I began posting here, Great Debates was moderated (solely, at first) by David B, head of the Illinois skeptics association (not sure of the correct name for it, but the state affiliate of the group that puts out Skeptical Inquirer.) Atheists and Jodi, RT Firefly, Liberal, Triskadecamus, and myself got held to exactly the same standard.

By the way, both David B himself and pldennison, whose presence is missed here, were quite capable to skewering a theist claim deftly while remaining the souls of courtesy. It’s for being uncivil that badchad, Der Trihs, and quite possibly soon yourself get pitted, not for your views. (Note that I argued on the same side as you and jjimm in the “Atheists have more faith” thread – largely as a result of what I learned from the two gentlemen mentioned above back in 1999-2000.

10

[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
Personally, if I were a mod (fat chance of that ever happening!), I’d make it a rule of thumb to bear down harder on those posters with whose philosophies I happened to agree, and cut some extra slack for those I disagreed most strongly with, in the interests of even-handedness, but that’s a position Tom is reluctant to assume.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, my job is not to bear down on or cut slack for anyone based on beliefs. Every once in a while someone posts the claim that I am favoring one side or another, but no one has actually demonstrated that to be the case.

If you’d like, I can go back to the two recent occasions when I have had to address badchad and change my admonitions to Warnings (thereby jeopardizing his membership) just to make you feel better about your own prejudices, but I suspect that that might be a bit unfair to badchad.

11

Claiming that the SDMB is even mildly biased against atheist or skeptical-agnostic viewpoints is akin to complaining that the place is slanted towards right-wing social conservatism and that no one with a liberal social perspective can get a decent shake in here.

:dubious:

12

[QUOTE=Polycarp]
It’s a shame that the SDMB doesn’t moderate in accord with my personal belief system.
[/QUOTE]

But the SDMB does moderate in accord with your personal belief system, Poly.

You make the extremely exceptional claim that your God, whose existence you cannot begin to prove, certainly exists, you refuse to provide anything resembling evidence beyond your own personal beliefs and a text whose authenticity as a historical document is dubious at best, and yet the official SDMB position is to give you a pass on this, and to bust the chops of those who ask for either evidence or your dialing back a tad your assertions contrary to reason and proof.

Whether you or he know it, Tom is your bitch.

13

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Actually, my job is not to bear down on or cut slack for anyone based on beliefs. Every once in a while someone posts the claim that I am favoring one side or another, but no one has actually demonstrated that to be the case.

If you’d like, I can go back to the two recent occasions when I have had to address badchad and change my admonitions to Warnings (thereby jeopardizing his membership) just to make you feel better about your own prejudices, but I suspect that that might be a bit unfair to badchad.
[/QUOTE]
You seem pretty even-handed to me, tomndebb…I actually haven’t noticed any bias on this board in terms of moderating/warnings/bannings. I think it’s a wonderfully liberal board in this regard, which is one of the reasons I like it so much.

Certainly, the idea of a moderator operating with some premeditated bias, even if it is some kind of weird reverse-bias, as pseudotriton ruber ruber seems to suggest would be appropriate, is completely out of place on this kind of board.

14

[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
Personally, if I were a mod (fat chance of that ever happening!), I’d make it a rule of thumb to bear down harder on those posters with whose philosophies I happened to agree, and cut some extra slack for those I disagreed most strongly with, in the interests of even-handedness, but that’s a position Tom is reluctant to assume.

The sheer slack cut for Christians in particular and theists in general for disregarding the need for exceptional evidence for their admittedly exceptional claims is one of the few lacunae (if not the only one) in the SDMB’s handling of its posters, and is the only tendancy of this place I heartily disapprove of.
[/QUOTE]

Oh really? We’ve had threads run for hundreds of posts about 9/11 conspiracy theories, Bush is an asshole, Clinton is an asshole, Cheney’s hunting accident was a massive coverup, the oil companies are screwing us, abortion, gay marriage, racism and plenty of other hot buttons. Calls for cites (also known as “put up or shut up”) are made on every single page of those threads – usually by posters on both sides of the issue. And unless the thread degenerates into name-calling or turns into such a trainwreck that no one remembers the original topic, the response of the mods is normally just to let the participants shout themselves into exhaustion and let the thread die of natural causes.

But let the subject turn to religion - specifically Christianity - and you’re right there calling on the mods to rule the whole thing out of order.

Maybe you haven’t followed the Boards long enough to remember the times the fundies decided to descend en masse and try to convert the SDMB into their own pulpit. It was liberal Christians (especially Polycarp and a few others) who fought them long and hard, until they gave up and went away.

How stupid they must have been not to realize that their point of view opened the boards to a different type of fundamentalist. The new fundies also demanded literalism – how could someone call themselves a believer and not take every word of the Bible literally? How dare they not insist that each phrase be linked completely and inextricably with every other phrase with exactly the same weight. How intellectually dishonest – or lazy – they are to presume that they can actually interpret what they read.

And worse, how hypocritical these liberal Christians are to have claimed to read the Bible, and yet not come to the same conclusions as the new fundies.

The new fundies rationalize their extremism in the name of logic: everything must be given equal weight; if a certain word or phrase is not literally true, then everything is literally untrue; that the word “Christian” is meaningless, because some people somewhere choose to claim the title for their own selfish reasons. Since some have debased the word, it must obviously follow that no one can now find a richer, deeper meaning in it.

Having tried and failed to reconcile knowledge with belief; having tried and failed to prove that all who call themselves believers are the same; having tried and failed to convince others that a book’s overriding message should be judged on the merits of a handful of carefully chosen inconsistencies – the new fundamentalists have only one argument left.

The moderators aren’t being fair.

15

And let’s not forget the countless religious posters who claimed this board was biased against religion, either their’s or religion in general.

16

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
I think it’s a wonderfully liberal board in this regard, which is one of the reasons I like it so much.
[/QUOTE]

Sarahfeena

At least you’re willing to admit this is a “wonderfully liberal board.”

The rest of 'em seem to think they’re fighting igornace, but are perpetuating ignorace, instead.

17

[QUOTE=Carol Stream]

The rest of 'em seem to think they’re fighting igornace, but are perpetuating ignorace, instead.
[/QUOTE]

Indeed. Your posts here are clearly proof of that.

Oh, and it’s spelled ignorance, dear. In fact, all you have to do is look up above you, at the logo.

18

[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
Sarahfeena

At least you’re willing to admit this is a “wonderfully liberal board.”

The rest of 'em seem to think they’re fighting igornace, but are perpetuating ignorace, instead.
[/QUOTE]

At least we can spell it.

19

[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
Sarahfeena

At least you’re willing to admit this is a “wonderfully liberal board.”

The rest of 'em seem to think they’re fighting igornace, but are perpetuating ignorace, instead.
[/QUOTE]
I think you misunderstand my meaning of the word “liberal.” I am personally a conservative, myself, on most issues. I meant liberal in the sense that the mods pretty much leave us alone, and posters are allowed to say what they wish, outside of direct attacks on other posters (which is actually allowed in the Pit). Many boards are much more heavy-handed on what is and isn’t allowed, and you have to be so careful in picking & choosing words, that it isn’t worth trying to express your opinion.

20

[QUOTE=kunilou]
But let the subject turn to religion - specifically Christianity - and you’re right there calling on the mods to rule the whole thing out of order.
[/QUOTE]

That’s a modest enough request, isn’t it? “To rule the whole thing out of order” --no big deal there.

Or maybe you’re exaggerating?

All I’m inquiring about is why Christians are exempt from the standards that other claimants of the extraordinary are subject to. If I claim, as a Scientologist, that beings from another planet came to earth with powers and abilities beyond those of mortal man, I’m quite reasonably asked to provide some evidence other than Scientology tracts to support my claim, or else to please shut up, and no one here vigorously defends the Scientologists because they are violating SDMB protocol in making extraordnary claims while refusng to provide extraordinary evidence. But when Christians make similar unsupportable claims, the people who question their claims are vilified, and labelled trolls, and handed out admonitions and warnings like they were bubble gum.

Why? Because the mods are mostly theists themselves, plain and simple. I’m not advocating they violate their own beliefs, but simply moderate with an awareness that this is an area in which some of them (clearly Tom) hold strong personal biases, and try to apply the same sort of rulings regardless of their own individual and personal beliefs.

But that’s plainly too much to ask, and I don’t really expect things to change any time soon.