why cant i ignore moderators ?

Saltmeister said:
Christian fundamentalism sees religion in terms of theology, not in terms of the social and political. The trouble with theology is that it is not grounded in real-world entities, real-world influences and phenomena, but in imaginary concepts. The Christian fundamentalist sees orthodoxy in terms of loyalty to these imaginary concepts, not to real philosophical ideas and virtuous thought and action in the reality of the social and political. Christian fundamentalism begins with one's imagination, rather than starting in the reality of the social and political.

The reason why I speak of the social and political is because when you understand the reality of the social and political, you will realise that non-Christians aren't really opposed, by definition, to Christianity. What Christian fundamentalists perceive as a threat isn't really a threat in reality. Not socially or politically anyway. They perceive a threat simply because of their theology and theology is driven by imagination.

The rational-minded Christian starts with the social and political (the real) and progresses to the theological (the imaginary). The fundamentalist has it backwards. Christian fundamentalists see imaginary enemies. When someone disagrees, they feel attacked. They develop a persecution complex. They believe that the world hates them. But alas, the world doesn't really hate Christians. It's just a perception.
Click to expand...

I wanted to rep you for that brilliant bit of writing unfortunately the rep system is still being a pain.
 
Quahom1 said:
Sacred Star did not bring enlightenment to, nor cared a lick about learning from a particular faith. She enjoyed throwing convoluted veiws mixing faith and astrology into people's faces, despite their asking her to stop bothering them. In short, she was a stalker, and would not let others express their views in any coherent or unbroken train of thought.
Click to expand...
I cannot remember her. She sounds interesting and I am sorry she was banned.
 
Saltmeister said:
I don't think that in the long term, or in terms of the Big Picture, that the banning of SacredStar was a good decision.
Click to expand...

I agree - so far as I remember it, the problem is that at the time the forum was a lot smaller, and almost all the site's community and activity was focused in the Christianity board.

SacredStar looking to add her various New Age input to every Christian thread disrupted the dynamics, and threatened the growth of the community. I did appeal to her in private, and both asked and then warned to cool down the posting, but unfortunately little changed.

That meant - with so many Christian members, then the core of the community - so riled about her contribution, it was a case of lose a significant section of the community while it was trying to grow, or else respond to the dynamics to protect them, and forum growth.

It was kind of sad, actually, because if she were here nowadays then there would probably have been far less of an issue - the community is far larger and more diverse, so there would have been plenty of other areas on the site to engage her.

However, when I moved the site from comparative-religion.com to interfaith.org, I did unban all previous members - partly as a general goodwill gesture in terms of starting again.

But also as a compromise to cyberpi - who had been banned by one of the staff while I wasn't here, creating an issue I wanted to ensure was resolved by addressing cyberpi's concerns, while not undermining a staff member who acted in what they saw as the best interests of the site.

It's just sad that, when given another chance to be a constructive member here, he didn't take it up. Others have faced temporary bans and been able to return as constructive members - heck, all I ask for is civility on this site, which isn't a great deal to ask for. It proves too much for some, though.
 
Tao_Equus said:
I cannot remember her. She sounds interesting and I am sorry she was banned.
Click to expand...
So am I...but the laws were clear, despite the months of staying the hand in hopes she would give quarter, for the sake of the forum...
 
greymare said:
STREWTH NO
what a thankless job. No thanks.
Wouldnt do it for quids.
But sometimes a good old fashioned "thick ear" is what i see some people need.:eek:
I say it like i see it.
Love the grey
Click to expand...

and if that does not work.....a thorough spanking? Please!!!:p
 
Sorry but SS was mee times 10 and she was asked over and over to tone it down and she wouldnt her name was kim btw.. mee is much more loveable in an annoying way i would not want mee banned.
 
Aside from the large number of Christian members at the time of SS's banning, from what I understood that was also during our "walled garden" days, right Brian?

I dunno. I think SS was before my time as a mod.

I've seen very few people banned except for people who do nothing but spam random WOW websites or whatever. I've actually done very little moderating at all, except to occasionally post a "hey, be nice" general post in a thread and try to answer some people's questions. Apparently, to some people I messed that up and that is grounds for disliking me a lot, but hey, I'm human. I do my best. :eek:
 
As someone who has recieved a few infractions, temporary and even a permanent ban I have to say that the moderation was always acceptable and impersonal. I have never felt witch hunted by any individual or group here. I did find the moderation actions taken by a mod I never talk to, in fact never see make any posts at all, unacceptable. I believe good moderation can only be carried out by those who understand the individual and the history of the ongoing debate. It may be that the Mods secret board(s) work on a system where behaviour is discussed and action is delegated to this person who I do not know?
But truth is I have pushed the limits at times and I have overstepped a boundary once or thrice knowing that I was doing so. Sometimes your individuality demands no compromise however, and especially so if i get home from the pub in a foul mood :p
I do recall feeling ashamed of my role in what led to the banning of Niranja. Several of us behaved like a pack of rabid dogs, cornering him and tearing pieces from him so that he was forced into anger and thus banned. I do not want to be a part of any repeat of that.
 
Thanx Tao,

This is valuable information, for those that are new, and those that have been here a while.

This is the kind of discussion that can help us move forward.
 
Tao, I want to second Wil in thanking you for your blunt honesty in your input- both about your own behavior and how moderator actions can be perceived by people moderated. It helps a ton.

There is currently a moderator board where we can discuss actions. I think there may be confusion over how this system works. When a member (any member, not just a mod) "reports" a post, we all get an email that a post was reported. We can then see the post and the remarks that whoever reported it made as to the request for moderation. Then we can discuss with whatever moderators happen to be around at the time- usually this is 2-4 people that are around. Then we can make a decision, but only one person sends the PM and actually takes the action.

Much of the moderating actions I have seen come as a result of the reporting system. So in a way, other non-mod members act as moderators as well, alerting us when they feel the CoC has been broken. If you think about it, all members act as cops on the beat, the CoC is the law, and mods are judges. The goal is civil conversation.

It's the best system Brian has come up with so far, but of course, like any system it has its flaws and always will. We are currently discussing potential changes that may improve things, but it takes time to do this and I hope that people can be patient.
 
As someone who hasn't recieved a few infractions, temporary and even a permanent ban I have to say... phew!

I must have caught the mods on a good day. :D
 
I said:
For a while I've been considering whether instead of moderators as stands at present, whether there should be an attempt to create community leaders who can represent member interests.
This means covering political/mainstream/liberal slants as well as denominational.
The idea could be that even minor concerns or issues could be raised in public or private, and a real sympathetic ear learnt to such issues - and then these can be breached directly with me as required.
Click to expand...

I'll skip the brown-nosing and go straight to my points. :)

This sounds like a goer in theory and perhaps it would be an improvement but I'm sure you've noticed that (to generalise outrageously) there's a lot of annoyingly individualistic folk here. To get leaders representing groups....:rolleyes:...if we agree on so much why are we always nit-picking!!! (Ask three Buddhists a question and you'll get four answers :eek:)

You would also need to ensure that you weren't simply translating grievances with individual moderators to grievances between groups. Look at the history of Europe. :eek:

s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top