So why was Ammonius Saccus banned?

[Skywatcher]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

You don’t mean to suggest, in the alternative, that Tom has actually identified an active and pernicious troll operating freely on the SD, and yet has kept this information to himself despite his best beliefs, do you, Sam? Not even checked to see if anyone agrees with his positive and certain identification of this troll?

Don’t we all want trolls banned? They’re worthless disruptors of honest discourse, and I certainly hope all Mods are doing their level best to suss them out, and when they’re certain they’ve found one, to ban him ASAP.

Do you mean to suggest that Tom is laying down on the job?

tom’s own words from the aformentioned failed attempt to incite a pileon, as it appears you need your memory refreshed:

I have already pointed out that despite his troll-like behavior, I have resisted efforts by both posters and other staff members to brand him a troll.

As to my “Christian fan-club,” you might want to wander over to the (extremely long) Pitting of badchad to note the quite large number of atheists, agnostics, and unbelievers of various stripes who condemned his actions and accused him of trolling. It is hardly a “Christian” phenomenon.

It would appear that you are letting your own emotions color your remarks.

There have been several believers (some Christian, some not Christian) who have tangled with badchad on the subject of their beliefs and his derision of them. None of them have ever come to me complaining that badchad was picking on them, (and, given that his style is well known, I would be disinclined to run to their aid, in any case).
I have not interrupted any thread in which badchad has been ramping around for the purpose of challenging his beliefs (even when, as happens, he displays logical errors).
I have not rushed in to “save” any poster who has been (in the view of some number of posters) “losing” a debate with badchad. You have been asked to provide evidence for this or similar claims on several occasions in this thread and you have resolutely chosen to ignore those calls for evidence. (You seem to be taking lessons from Bible man on that score.)
In fact, I have, on a couple of occasions, posted my opinion that badchad has made no secret of his views or his “logic” and that, if a person chooses to debate him on his own turf, they need to look out for themselves.

On the other hand, on three separate occasions, I have told badchad to refrain making direct personal attacks on other posters. These have been the result of specific statements that he has posted which I have pointed out in my address to him. On one occasion, he interrupted a thread with a comment that was wholly off-topic and I told him to keep it for another thread. Such are the rules of GD and it is not hard to discover where I have urged other posters to demonstrate similar restraint. On none of those occasions did I issue a formal warning that could be used in later staff discussions to determine whether we should ban badchad. (And, while staff discussions are not visible to the TM, I have already mentioned that I have spoken against banning him until he actually breaks rules.)*

In contrast to my actions, you have specifically stated that I should judge Christian posters more harshly than non-believers, simply because I am Christian (while making no similar call for Gaudere or MEBuckner to judge non-believers more harshly since they are not believers). So, basically, you have called for a staff that will specifically tilt the playing field in your direction, even though you have provided no evidence that the field is currently other than level.

---

• Furt raised an interesting point that might be a good topic for debate, although I cannot see us ever coming to a resolution, much less a consensus.
  It is clear that badchad is aggressively hostile. A sizable number of posters–including many non-believers as well as believers–regard badchad as a jerk. On the other hand, there appears to be some number of posters who believe that he is not behaving as a jerk.

So, how do we decide? At what point do we choose to throw a bum out to keep order in the house? It is true that a disruptive poster can cause us to lose good patrons. It is also true that culling the herd too sharply results in a homogenized group of bland posters nodding their heads in agreement, then wandering off to other pastures to find boards that are actually interesting. In general, I would prefer that the culling be done according to bright line definitions. This tends to avoid giving the impression that all decisions are based on personal whim or partisan bias (although there have been plenty of those charges–from both sides–in this thread, so there does not appear to be a way to avoid such complaints completely).
No one is compelled to respond to another poster. Why should the staff bear the onus of deciding outside the rules who should go or stay, then suffer the abuse for being “capricious” or “arbitrary”?
By what guideline should we ban badchad when substantial numbers of posters disagree on whether he is an obnoxious jerk or simply an aggressive proponent for a single issue?

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@Lute Skywatcher

Maybe not but chad does have a history of inciting emotional reactions–from Polycarp, in particular–and intentionally misleading others while attempting to incide an anti-tom pileon.

Which gets us back to that staff report. “Trolling aims to elicit an emotional reaction from those with a hair-trigger on the reply key.” “The main point about trolls is that they intentionally mislead others.”

I submit you are talking out your ass.

I don’t know who said that “Read on, MacDuff…” portion of your quote, but it wasn’t me, despite your (dishonest or incompetent?) suggestion that it was.

badchad is usually pretty calm and pretty rational, far from emotional in either his tone or in this desired response. Are you blaming him for the fact that people tend to go crazy around here when they feel intellectually challenged? That’s hardly his concern, as long as he’s not eliciting such a response, which he is not. And even some of badchad’s more honest adversaries grant that he is not misleading people on purpose.

[Guinastasia]

Oh, and if pseudotriton ruber ruber and badchad can stop fellating each other’s egos for a few minutes, they might want to do a search on the following names:

-Wildest_Bill
-lekatt
-His4ever and/or Lynn73

I’d advise searching them as terms, rather than as users, since it’d be easier to find them.

Then come back here and tell me the mods have a hard-on for persecuting atheists.

You guys are JUST LIKE the fundies, like Pat Robertson and Jack Chick, only you’re the atheist version. Does that make you happy? Is that your entire goal?
(There are probably others I’m forgetting, so if someone else can think of them, feel free to post them as well)
I don’t know why the fuck you expect us to believe your claims about Tom, pseudotriton ruber ruber, if you won’t even bother to back them up. Why should we believe you, when you’ve gone out of your way to insult a great many here at the Dope that we consider friends?

So quit talking out of you ass-put up or shut up, asshole.

[Skywatcher]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

I don’t know who said that “Read on, MacDuff…” portion of your quote, but it wasn’t me, despite your (dishonest or incompetent?) suggestion that it was.

Simple coding error. I’ve asked for it to be fixed.

badchad is usually pretty calm and pretty rational, far from emotional in either his tone or in this desired response.

I’ll take your word for it being as I try to stay out of religious debates, but this gets into what I said earlier about people coming off as a troll on occasion not meaning they are a troll. Trollish behavior is sometimes unintentional; for example, caused by drunkenness.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@Guinastasia

I don’t know why the fuck you expect us to believe your claims about Tom, pseudotriton ruber ruber, if you won’t even bother to back them up. Why should we believe you, when you’ve gone out of your way to insult a great many here at the Dope that we consider friends?

So quit talking out of you ass-put up or shut up, asshole.

Thanks for the suggestion, Guin.

As I’ve said, I don’t expect or even want people to believe what I suspect about Tom’s confusing his roles as Mod and as a virulent defender of Xianity. On tjhe contrary, I expect that I will be doubted, which is fine with me. if he continues his (so far) subtle attempts to intimidate non-Xians from participating in GDs , eventually I’ll gain some support, but I expect none right now.

The greater likelihood is that he’ll clean up his act, or that someone will chastise him. But I’m not interesting in getting into a big pissing contest with cites, and counter-cites, and so on–I’m just telling you what I think. Believe me or don’t, it’s all the same. If I’m right, maybe this will make for a better board. (Personally I think it’s an error to assign someone like Tom, with a dog clearly in the fight, to moderate GD, but what do I know? Better to find someone a little more neutral and avoid this whole issue of bias.) And if it should turn out I’m wrong about Tom (stranger things have happened), I’ll apologize for besmirching his name and wasting everybody’s time.

[Guinastasia]

So, in other words, it’s just as I thought-you want to be a martyr. Well, go right ahead-I hope you’re flexible enough to nail yourself to that cross.

[MEBuckner]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

Personally I think it’s an error to assign someone like Tom, with a dog clearly in the fight, to moderate GD, but what do I know? Better to find someone a little more neutral and avoid this whole issue of bias.

Just how are we supposed to find someone with no opinions on religion or politics, who nonetheless has enough brain function to operate a computer, and what makes you think such a person would be a good moderator even if we could find one?

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

“someone with no opinions on religion or politics, who nonetheless has enough brain function to operate a computer”= “someone a little more neutral”

Talk about either/or reasoning!

[Monty]

pseudotriton ruber ruber,

Conspiracy nuts could look at your posts here and say, “Dude, that’s whacked out.” You may wish to take one of the following suggestions:

[ol][li]List all the members of the SDMB, followed by their religion, and then put a “yes” or a “no” after if for “Mods persecute them.” Finally, tally the total “yes” and “no” counts and realize you’re whacked out.[/li]Or just give it a rest.[/ol]

[wonky]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

“someone with no opinions on religion or politics, who nonetheless has enough brain function to operate a computer”= “someone a little more neutral”

Talk about either/or reasoning!

What beliefs are acceptable for moderators to have in order to qualify for your vaunted “more neutral” status?

[E-Sabbath]

@Monty

I’d honestly be stunned to discover that the majority of the CIA, the BSA, and the FBI are LDS.
I’ll wait for a cite, if you don’t mind.

Well, as soon as I find a solid cite on the CIA’s recruitment policies over the last thirty years, I’ll start a thread. It’s a bit difficult.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@jsgoddess

What beliefs are acceptable for moderators to have in order to qualify for your vaunted “more neutral” status?

You do such beautiful snide.

The best moderator of GD, I suppose, would be someone who in all his posts has never revealed a position one way or the other on GD hot-button topics. But, as this would probably reduce the pool too far, and yield candidates utterly unfamiliar with GD issues, I’d say a better description would be “someone whose views on hot-button GD topics has never revealed a strong tendency towards one extreme or the other.” That should give you several strong candidates, but would clearly rule out Tom.

Really not all that tough a call. Mods with overt biases are obviously undesirable. This isn’t rocket surgery.

[Monty]

@E-Sabbath

Well, as soon as I find a solid cite on the CIA’s recruitment policies over the last thirty years, I’ll start a thread. It’s a bit difficult.

Go for it. Since it’s illegal to discriminate for or against job applicants on the basis of religion, that should be a fun hunt. If you start a thread on it, I’ll be happy to participate there instead of carrying this hijack on here.

[/hijack]

[E-Sabbath]

Can anyone find a copy of “The Darker Side of Virtue: Corruption, Scandal and the Mormon Empire”? It seems to have a lot of references to the FBI’s ‘Mormon Mafia’. I don’t have the academic credentials to get at the JSTOR site.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,986794-2,00.html
says

The FBI and CIA, drawn by a seemingly incorruptible rectitude, have instituted Mormon-recruitment plans.

This article is from a VERY BAD website, but they claim it matches a Salt Lake Tribune article. The original article is not available through the archive search, but was here.
http://www.sltrib.com/utah/ci_2648350

WebMD - Better information. Better health.

This says,

Mormons are disproportionately represented in the
Central Intelligence Agency, which has long sought out
Latter-day Saints with language skills.
This link started with LDS Apostle Neal A.
Maxwell, a former CIA employee who set the example for
future Mormon agents. It was an easy fit, says a
Mormon who recently retired as a senior official in
the agency. Mormons are patriotic in the extreme,
accustomed to respecting authority and not too likely
to have secrets or embarrassments in their history.
Plus, the official says, they can pass the
polygraph and drug tests.

It’s not much, I’m afraid.

(really, honestly, ending the hijack now.)

[wonky]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

The best moderator of GD, I suppose, would be someone who in all his posts has never revealed a position one way or the other on GD hot-button topics.

So a cipher who is secretly a fundie is better than Tom?

But, as this would probably reduce the pool too far, and yield candidates utterly unfamiliar with GD issues, I’d say a better description would be “someone whose views on hot-button GD topics has never revealed a strong tendency towards one extreme or the other.” That should give you several strong candidates, but would clearly rule out Tom.

Really not all that tough a call. Mods with overt biases are obviously undesirable. This isn’t rocket surgery.

I don’t think a person without overt biases exists. I have an overt bias (mine’s even more demonstrable when it comes to abortion debates). Your bias is so overt it casts a shadow on Cleveland. Since I can’t think of any candidates, can you name a name or two? I doubt I would agree with who you name, but I’d think it interesting to learn who they are.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@jsgoddess

So a cipher who is secretly a fundie is better than Tom?
.

At this point, I would say a retarded cocker spaniel would be better than Tom. Oh, give the stupid bitch a chance.

I don’t think a person without overt biases exists. I have an overt bias (mine’s even more demonstrable when it comes to abortion debates). Your bias is so overt it casts a shadow on Cleveland. Since I can’t think of any candidates, can you name a name or two? I doubt I would agree with who you name, but I’d think it interesting to learn who they are

What’s interesting is that you seem to think that everyone but you and I are qualified. I have no idea who would do a good job, but I’ll accept the starting point of “anyone but me, jsgoddess, Tom, Badchad, Polycarp, Jimmy Swaggart, the Pope, and Der Trihs.”

[wonky]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

What’s interesting is that you seem to think that everyone but you and I are qualified. I have no idea who would do a good job, but I’ll accept the starting point of “anyone but me, jsgoddess, Tom, Badchad, Polycarp, Jimmy Swaggart, the Pope, and Der Trihs.”

I said that no one was qualified under your standards. Under my standards, few are qualified. I don’t require “no overt bias” which is an impossible standard to meet. I’d prefer to know exactly where mods stand.

So, what am I supposed to glean from your answer? If there are “several strong candidates” that should have leaped instantly to my mind, where are they? I know you certainly aren’t being serious with your tiny little list of exclusions. In this thread, you’ve accused way more people than that of persecuting you, atheist and believer alike.

When I ask for names, you evade.

When you were asked for cites, you evade.

If your case is so slam dunk, and these names so obvious, why are you being coy?

[tomndebb]

@badchad

Well clearly any discussions in this thread as to whether or not I am a troll is off topic as to my original post and sure looks like the latter flavor. So where are your admonishments? Where are your instructions for these posters to start their own thread?

Serious lack of reading comprehension? Or more of your dishonesty?

The issue of hijacking as jerk behavior was raised in connection with posters entering a thread for the explicit purpose of disrupting the thread or of responding only to tangential issues to the OP. My initial contribution to this thread was simply to point out the exact answer to you question–an answer that has been confirmed by Lynn Bodoni and other staff. All subsequent participation on my part has been in response to attacks by you and you fan club of one.

Since no reasonable person could construe my responses to you and your buddy as an attempt by me to hijack “your” thread, it is clear that you are simply making stuff up.

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

We disagree on the meaning of “troll,” then.

To you, as to Tom, it’s close to meaningless: it’s basically “someone who really pisses me off.”

But to me, and the rest of the board when they’ve got their heads screwed on just right, it’s very specific. It means “Someone whose purpose here is to provoke, with insincere but outrageous OPs or responses, who typically attempts only rarely to engage in genuine discussion, and to whom resolving issues is an undesirable end.” Or something to that effect. That’s what it means, pretty much, and that seems to be the definition that gets people banned for being trolls.

Your second quoted sentence is simply a lie.

Here was my initial explanation for my position that badchad is trolling:

He very definitely holds and expresses certain views with the deliberate intention of pissing off his targets. He never argues a philosophical position in a detached way. That he thinks all religious belief is foolish is his right and is a position held by a significant number of Dopers. However, he does not enter an argument to challenge generalized beliefs, rather, he always makes it a point to attack the person in his crosshairs. In fact, he even pretends that it is necessary:

@badchad

It has to get personal. Nominal Christians all claim their beliefs as somewhat unique and as such the more personal the inquiries the more effective my criticism.

Now, to pretend this, he has to claim that his targets are “nominal” Christians (so, apparently, he is not even attacking “real” Christians), and, as his attacks on AHunter3 and cosmosdan demonstrate, he is quite willing to go after posters who are not even “nominally” Christian (in contradiction of his claim that I have quoted) as long as the poster happens to express any form of belief.

Sorry. To me that is consistent with trolling (looking for a fight for fight’s sake). That he may actually hold some of the positions he argues usually keeps it from being out and out trolling, but it remains consistent with trolling behavior, (which I how I usually express it). However, when he does his little victory dance, then his need to declare “I win” seems to trump his actual opinions and move it into the realm of actual trolling.

As for any animus I bear toward badchad, there are few posters who actually anger me (and I am generally surprised at the number of posters who allow themselves to get mad about message board encounters). badchad is simply a minor irritant because he so successfully lures other posters into fruitless discussions in which he makes personal attacks. Since he does not do that on a daily basis and since (slowly) other posters are realizing that he never debates in good faith, he is less of an irritant than he used to be. “Pissing me off” is such an overwhelming exaggeration of the mild contempt in which I hold him that your definition could not be a valid one even lacking the specific actions he has undertaken that have moved me to consider his actions trolling.

And then there was this exchange:

@badchad

@Polycarp

Whatever else he may have accomplished in this world, he has made a place I derived great pleasure in repartee from for over six years into a place I tend not to spend much time in. I hope that accords with his goals in life.

Believe me, it does.

in which badchad announced his pleasure, not in silencing a believer, but in causing that poster to choose to lose pleasure in participating on this board. I’m sure that you bought the rationalization he later provided, but he had a clear opportunity to say that he was happy that Polycarp posted less on religious topics, but, instead, announced his pleasure that Poly posted less, period.

[Frank]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

As I’ve said, I don’t expect or even want people to believe what I suspect about Tom’s confusing his roles as Mod and as a virulent defender of Xianity. On tjhe contrary, I expect that I will be doubted, which is fine with me. if he continues his (so far) subtle attempts to intimidate non-Xians from participating in GDs , eventually I’ll gain some support, but I expect none right now.

You’ve gone fucking insane. Tom a “virulent defender” of Christianity? Nonsense.

He is entitled to his personal views of posters, as are all we moderators. He doesn’t like you, he doesn’t like badchad, so what? What you have singularly failed to do (to this point) is demonstrate that his personal feelings have affected his actions as a moderator. Can you demonstrate that?

[badchad]

@tomndebb

Serious lack of reading comprehension? Or more of your dishonesty?

No, just your hypocrisy, AGAIN.

The issue of hijacking as jerk behavior was raised in connection with posters entering a thread for the explicit purpose of disrupting the thread or of responding only to tangential issues to the OP. My initial contribution to this thread was simply to point out the exact answer to you question–an answer that has been confirmed by Lynn Bodoni and other staff. All subsequent participation on my part has been in response to attacks by you and you fan club of one.

Any responses regarding my trollness should have been taken to another thread, assuming your not a hypocrite and really care about preserving the integrity of the original subject of a thread. Since they weren’t, and you gave no admonishments to others who also took my thread off topic, I’m happy to rest my case, thank you very much.

Also, I don’t think anyone but you, and perhaps dangermom think Valteron, Cisco, TokyoPlayer, etc. were exhibiting jerk behavior in the thread you were throwing your moderator muscle around. In the future I would suggest you appeal to rules that are less subjective when you try to curtail the discussions of others. Thanks in advance.