Did Mod cause the collapse of evcforum?

Thanks! The prodigal son has returned

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

Hey Straggler,Well, the master manipulator part is a little silly. We are talking about Hyro/NJ afterall. Sheesh.But . . .. . . how do you harmonize this:

Hyro/NJ writes: ​ But I meant then, as much as I do now, that I never hated them. That is the honest truth. And back then it was very much about my fascination for absolutes vs relativism.

with this?:

Hyroglyphx Message 182: ​ I was a homophobe and a typical fundy. ​ And I engaged in a shit-ton of controversial topics that pissed a lot of people off. ​ I didn't give a shit then and I don't care now.

And the self-declaration that Hyro/NJ could have been an even bigger dishonest jerk if he only committed to it:

Hyro/NJ writes: Message 190 ​ If I was an incredibly disingenuous and despicable person, I probably wouldn't have told the forum who I was.

It is evidence that Hyro/NJ is the type of person who would repeatedly bait Berberry with hate speech, yes?

It is evidence that Hyro/NJ is the type of person who would repeatedly bait Berberry with hate speech, yes?

Make the deduction yourself.I admittedly was homophobic, and it's evident that my omission of who I really was could be reasonably construed as a form of deceit. I'm obviously not a perfect person (I know, shocking, eh?) but all I can do is point to the evidence which is well documented and have you judge that.(I find my quote at the time very prophetic)If you feel that I was baiting Berb, then okay. While I realize that I was construed as offensive, I was not trying to intentionally hurt Berb personally. By the very nature of my moral stance with homosexuality at the time, it was inevitable that he, being a gay man, would be offended on some level.The issue is whether or not I was equivocating homosexuals as being pedophiles or zoophiles. I wasn't. I think it is overwhelming that my arguments had more to do with moral relativism than it did with anything else.In those days I really thought that I had a good apologetic argument. I just used that argument in tandem with something like gay marriage.Since people felt more impassioned about gay marriage than they did with moral relativity, the subject of gay marriage and homosexuality would overlap on numerous occasions. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : Embedded link

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

Hi, Purpledawn. I had already read the "OMG, I'm an Atheist!" thread, both of the moderation threads that discuss it, and everything NJ said in both Haggard threads. There were no instances in any of those threads of NJ equating homosexuality with rape.It seems like that part was added on in a game of telephone.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

People were saying that the argument on moral relativism that mentions both homosexuality and rape means that the poster is saying that homosexuality is equivalent to rape.You're not left-minded enought to get it.

Eh, I don't think about it like that. I mean I'm heartened that you've come around to a more tolerant way of thinking, but it was nothing I was responsible for. Your own good sense is responsible, and you deserve all the credit. I was thinking I might stick around for the summer, thought I might try to keep to actual evolution threads. I'd like to produce more light than heat. Not sure I've accomplished that in this thread, but...

quote:

---

Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.

---

We had a really interesting discussion, Paul. It's too bad you were too busy needlessly hectoring me to participate. Any other abuse you'd like to send my way is best directed to my email address.

No, Crash. We have our answer. I'm done here.And since I have not said so before ... welcome back.

Hi, Crashfrog.

crashfrog writes: ​ It was always very clear precisely to whom NJ was directing his comments.

I've read all the threads I could find, and I don’t see anything that could be viewed as intentionally and unambiguously insulting or offensive to any one person in particular. I think there is a lot a sensitivity among NJ's opponents (which I don't think is unwarranted, mind you), and it was more the sensitivity, rather than what NJ actually said, that turned this whole thing into the fiasco that it became.This is the theme that I've read from NJ's posts:

Nemesis Juggernaut writes: ​ I feel that homosexuality is wrong. And going by inference from what I've seen, living in sin does not produce happiness. It produces moments of fleeting joy, as does all sin, but I don't believe that a long, lasting peace can be found in it. You can call that me "judging you," or you can look at it realistically as me simply not agreeing with your lifestyle. I think you'd prefer that I hate you in order to feel sufficiently martyred, but I don't Berb. ​ Source

See also this post (I realize that it's a response to you, and that you thus are probably already familiar with the content).This is a very clear pattern in NJ’s comments throughout the two Haggard threads and the "I'm an Atheist!" thread. I see a lot of controversial opinions that a lot of people find despicable, and a lot of questionable reasoning used as support for them, but I don't see any insults directed at anybody in particular.I don't have anything against your cause, and I agree that NJ was being rather callous and insensitive (it's just that blunt personality of his). But, to me, the precedent your requested moderator action would set is entirely too similar to the moderation style at EvolutionFairyTale, where merely citing TalkOrigins is grounds for suspension because it offends the membership there.I don’t think it was capricious or cruel of Modulous to divy out the suspensions the way he did: I think it was pretty well thought-out and basically in line with what his office required of him.Edited by Bluejay, : DbCodes againEdited by Bluejay, : ...and again

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Ok, I guess, but literally more than a dozen of us saw what you say isn't there.Were we delusional? Conspiring behind the scenes to feign offense at perfectly innocuous statements?Can you honestly imagine Rrhain, Holmes, and I agreeing to conspire about literally anything at all? I don't think we would be able to get past deciding on the name of the secret organization without killing each other. I'm pretty sure I put at least one of those guys in my email blacklist.Might this just be a case of being called a "round-heeled doxy", and not being insulted simply because that works on a level where you lack the certain specific knowledge to appreciate? (For instance Rrhain can read that phrase and tell me exactly what role I played in my high school's production of "The Music Man." Can you? Without Googling it? Do you think most people could?)I told Hyro I wouldn't get into his conduct in the past any more, and I should keep that promise. Let this be my last word on the subject. But let me just leave you with this - do I strike you as the type to be oversensitive? Especially about the feelings and sensibilities of other people? I think a walk through my back catalogue should give you an idea about how concerned I usually am about people's feelings.

I think you could apply the second two of those sentences to many people here to some extent. Including myself at times.But with regard to reconciling the two pieces you quote - Well I would start by quoting NJ in full rather than by selecting individual sentences and piecing them together in the way that you have. I think this has a very different meaning to the one you are implying. Being intentionally controversial even to the point of not caring who gets offended is not the same as being intentionally or overtly hateful.Isn't this in many respects the debate raging in the gender and comedy thread already? What is? The fact that he has hidden his identity? If that is what you are referring to then - No I don't think it is indicative of that.Did NJ relentlessly pursue a point with a gay member on a controversial topic in language that the member in question clearly found deeply offensive? Yeah I think we all agree that he did.Did he call the guy an animal fucking homo who deserved to be hated? I honestly don't see it.What else is there to say on this?

quote:

---

There were no instances in any of those threads of NJ equating homosexuality with rape.

---

Exactly, but that's where it began. Then old baggage was added in the Moderation thread and it escalated.

Should only take a minute.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Marvelous. It seems Hyro/NJ agrees to this too. This item was "Part A" that Crash seemed to have some difficulty convincing others.Since you agree with the above . . .Then "Part B" (the million dollar question) is:The next time a member relentlessly pursues (in different threads?) a point on a controversial topic in language that a member finds deeply offensive, what action do YOU think the moderator(s) SHOULD take, if any?For the good of the forum, I am also addressing other participants with this question? What do YOU think?

Nothing. There's no obligation on the part of the offended one to read any of it.If he pursues the offended one, and comments on all his posts with the material found offensive, then I think he should be asked to cease that behaviour, and perhaps open up a thread to discuss his views. A thread the offended ne has no obligation whatsoever to read. Of course if he persists, then I think a suspension should be in order, ever longer, until there is no way back and we'll have to say goodbye to that member. In this case he was being a bit of an asshole.Being offended does not make you special, however, there's some limit to civil discourse that should be taken into account.Note that I only think action should be taken when a member actively pursues the offended member. Not if he posts to a thread the offended one also posts to.