I get the same complaints from posters on the Left and atheists.
You appear to be saying that anyone out there can post their feelings without substantiating them and I am simply supposed to take their word that it is true. Given the complaints I see from both sides in threads, e-mails, and PMs about how I am “favoring” one side or another, I see no reason to accept either claim without some sort of actual evidence.
So you want to throw stones and we are supposed to simply accept your word, even though you have demonstrated an irrational hostility on numerous occasions?
I’m disinclined to acquiesce to your request.
In GD a thread about the religion of atheism has been locked and 2 warnings given just now to the OP just because the mod does not agree with OP. There is no fight or trouble, and look at the last post of the 84 for the totally innocent post that got him a second warning!!
This is in GD, just where it belongs, but you better not say atheists have faith in evolution, it made the mod go crazy and close the thread. The best example of abuse I have seen here, especially with 2 warnings saying you can’t have this view, then closing it so no one else can. Wow!
If that isn’t steering the discussion, there could never be a better example.
So…wait. Just to be clear, if I take D.T.'s posts, change the “evil righty” references to “evil lefty” references and start posting them at the same rate he spews them in political threads (so they’re on topic), I have nothing to fear about being admonished?
That doesn’t sound like a good idea for improving the content of GD. But frankly, if he can get away with that sort of spew, everyone else can/should be able to as well. And his spew is a lot quicker than actually thinking and writing intelligent responses.
Well, that and the OP admitted he was trolling and then went on to troll after Warned.
Sure you can say it in GD, it’ll show that you’re ignorant and advancing a painfully stupid argument, but you can say it. The OP got in trouble when he admitted that he was trolling.
We’re not exactly talking brain surgery here… or should that be Faith Healing? Eh, eh?
I do not honestly believe that you don’t understand the issue. Especially since Marley specifically warned the OP after the OP admitted to trolling. Unpleasantly, offensively willful ignorance like your on the topic of evolution is quite allowable. Trolling isn’t.
I’m sure you can see the distinction.
Are you joking? Paleface admitted he was trolling, which is against the rules here. (You’d know this if you read them.) That’s why he was warned.
The political slant doesn’t matter. But we’ve got a couple of threads going about possible ways to improve the forum, because I do think we have too much of this.
Well Finn, then since I have now read that the majority here is atheist, won’t that mean anytime I take the other side I too must be silenced, that I must be trolling to have any view like that? Why have GD if only one side is allowed? I don’t get what was trolling, him just saying atheists have faith in their theory, therefore it is like a religion. Makes sense to me.
I thought it humorous some even tried to say their side is now all fact and not a theory. I laughed at that and I actually do believe in the big bang since it matches scripture quite well.
Wasn’t he silenced just for his opinion, and it seems to fit the thread title, so why do we need it closed? I did not agree with his bang premise but I do support his right to say it in GD, even if he knows many there do not agree. So does any unpopular idea get one a closed thread to “fight ignorance” with now?
You really don’t understand the difference between admitting to trolling and arguing an unpopular viewpoint, or the scientific usage of the word “theory” and the layman’s definition even though you’ve been repeatedly educated, and so on?
Stop this game.
From the registration agreement:
We already know you don’t understand the meaning of the word theory. But you’ve got a real problem with reading comprehension and the more you keep it up the more I think you’re doing it on purpose, which we’re not going to put up with indefinitely. If you aren’t being dense on purpose, I suggest fixing this.
Thank you very much for saying that plainly, I didn’t want to draw a Warning for it. 
So in order to get you folks to at least reflect or do a modicum of due dilligence on the issue as board administration, do we need x number of posters to come in here, announce their political/religious affiliations and say “Yes, the moderation squelches unpopular views?”
Cuz all you’re doing now is stonewalling and saying “You’re making it up. It doesn’t exist” It’s a Dio hand-wave. Shouldn’t there be the tiniest bit of respect for the peanut gallery?
…and before we go any further let me retract “squelches unpopular views”… cuz that’s a bit strong… Let’s try “holds unpopular views to a higher standard” to be more PC
We’ve reflected over the years. Getting a bunch of posters to march in and complain would be about as useful as organizing a Teabaggers rally or a Million Man March; it would only show who was able to drum up popular support at this minute.
If you think there is bias, provide evidence. (I’m almost tempted to yell CITE! )
Let me ask you this. If we had several users come in here individually and say the board is running slowly. Would you make one of us go out and do a data performance analysis on the board to PROVE it was running slowly? Or would you get someone to take a look and see if there IS demonstrable board performance problems?
Well, if it was running slowly, it would be running slowly for us too, wouldn’t it?
Now, I have heard complaints from the Right and the Left and from theists and from atheists that either “the staff” or that I, personally, constantly favor their opponents.
Why should I take the opinions of any of them–given that I have about as much contrasting testimony from their opposition–without actually seeing evidence? There is a thread open, right now, seeking exactly the sort of anecdotal evidence that you are proposing and the two specific claims against me (so far) in that thread utterly fail.
Speaking as a liberal, speaking as an atheist, I think you constantly favor us (i.e. liberals and atheists), and I’m not fond of it.
It might or might not. It might be the those people are all… making it up… Comcast users and Comcast has some network problem. Maybe you are used to dial-up and the speeds of an ISDN line are lightning fast, even slowed down. There are myriad reasons why it wouldn’t be slow for you.
You mean to say you wouldn’t even reach out to a tech guy and take a peek. Your answer would be, :shrug:, " I’m not slow… You are making it up."?
Undoubtedly so, but one would think that with a little bit of effort you could put the issue to rest.
Because, I assume, that’s part of what a moderator does. Not just interpret the warning rules, buy new jackboots and polish your coffee mug, but to listen to and represent the peanut gallery (you are, after all, one of us) and investigate… even a little… if nothing else to reassure and reaffirm yourselves and your constituents and give yourselves a pat on the back or an attaboy.
Thank you for posting this. I hope its taken to heart.
Marley23, there seems to be a disconnect between what megellan01 is saying and what you are saying.
megellan01 (and others) is complaining about the tone of Der Trihs’s posts. Not the subject, the tone.
So far, the examples you cite of moderating him all cite him for hijacking the thread topic. Not “stop posting hateful, contentless posts”, but “take the contentious right/left debate out of this thread”.
That is the problem in a nutshell. If what you are trying to control is hateful, contentless posts, then don’t warn people for hijacking the topic, warn them for posting hateful, contentless content.
If you really are trying to cut down on DT’s shit, then actually state “This shit won’t fly, stop it”, not “keep it out of this thread, take it to another thread”.
Because as long as all you say is “you all stop hijacking”, then it’s going to look like DT’s content is acceptable. But it’s the content that is what is being complained about, not which thread it happens to interrupt.
Let me put it this way, would you let stand if DT started a thread in GD titled “I’m going to insult Republicans now”?
A warning about hateful, contentless posts is probably too vague to be useful, and people would probably object to that amount of editorializing from a mod. There’s a separate thread to deal with that as a broader issue. Dealing with an individual hijack is a lot simpler.
I’d most likely send it to the BBQ Pit.