I don’t know whether that’s the case or not, but i think the OP has a point.
In moderating that thread, tomndebb said that Qin Shi Huangdi and Condescending Robot’s posts were “off topic .” It seems to me that a discussion of the role played by black churches, and of the ways that black churches work, is pretty damn “on topic” in a thread about black atheism.
Especially since the OP of that thread specifically quoted a paragraph about black atheists being marginalized and excluded by the rest of the black community. It seems to me that discussing this issue without at least touching on the issue of black churches would be very difficult, and how you can call comments about black churches “off topic” in such a thread is a complete mystery to me.
Also, in his moderating, tomndebb suggested that those two poster take their comments to another thread, “where i would hope you would provide support for your beliefs.” I was under the impression that it was not, in fact, board policy for moderators to acts as arbiters of evidence and accuracy in Great Debates. They have made quite clear, on a number of occasions, that they’re not going to police the accuracy of claims or request citations on behalf of the board. Doing this stuff is the job of the people involved in the debate. As least, that’s how i’ve always understood board policy.
Personally, i have no time for the comments made by Qin Shi Huangdi and Condescending Robot in that thread. If i were interested in joining the thread, i would definitely be arguing against their assertions. I also tend to agree with tomndebb’s claim that they are venting their prejudices. But that sometimes happens in GD, and they haven’t broken the rules, and they are not, despite his claim, “off topic.”
Poor moderation, IMO.