General discussion of moderation procedures - Part οκτώ

Berberry, this is a difficult issue for me. I find n_j's comments deeply repugnant. I think you know me well enough by now to understand that. I have noted that n_j seems to drift ever closer to nasty personal affront; I have cautioned him in that thread once already, and I continue to watch closely.Let's look at the passage in question, where n_j responds to schrafinator: I read his comments as saying that he finds gay marriage wrong, and the marriage of adults to children or people to animals even more wrong: I, too, suspect his comments are intended to imply an equivalence I find even more offensive than his surface statements, but that is not explicitly what he said.I agree with jar that, by and large, it is better to allow the hateful and offensive access to full daylight, where their mean-spirited worldview can be seen by all for what it is.I care a great deal about free speech for two reasons: the truth-tellers must be heard, and the hatemongers must be exposed. If we ban all hateful speech, we help the hatemongers more than we help ourselves.I think the proper lines to draw at a public forum are these: the line between offensive opinion and personal insult/attack, and the line between an exposition of belief and an exhortation of criminal action.I'm sorry if that disappoints you, but I am trying to apply an even-handed policy that will inevitably offend everyone at one time or another, while still allowing strong differences to be sharply defined.I suppose I will inevitably call some wrong, but I don't think that is the case here. I will always welcome all perspectives on my performance.Edited by AdminOmni, : No reason given.

---

Trust me.

Yes, I saw it, but I didn't see how n_j could possibly be offended at being called a moron.Where I come from, moron is practically a term of affection--along with a nose twist and an eye poke.

---

Trust me.

Friends, someone start a thread.This is not the place to elaborate differences on the issues but rather to examine and question moderation actions.Please?

---

Trust me.

NWR, I'm not sure which rule Rule 10 is--from the main page, I find a link to a Forum Rule #10 that applies to cut-and-paste jobs.No matter.If what you are asking is whether or not Percy's posts and replies to you in this thread have been unnecessarily offensive, insulting, and condescending, then my answer is, simply, yes.Percy seems to feel that this was necessitated by a concern for the appearance of integrity. I don't understand why offensive and insulting behavior constitutes integrity merely because it is imposed on friend and foe alike, but there you are.I'm not going to engage in the absurdity of cautioning or sanctioning the owner of the site, but my own notions of integrity won't let me sit silently by, either.I think your indignant refusal to carry on any further in that thread was more than justified, and I offer you my sympathy.

Please note that passage you quote is not something that Percy was replying to--this is where NWR declared his refusal to continue the discussion. NWR did not "show up in front" of anyone to "vociferously...object to the conclusions of science" or to "devalue the life's-work of scientists." He expressed a lingering skepticism about the Big Bang theory, while acknowledging the evidential strengths of that theory, noting that he would remain skeptical until further confirmation. Skepticism is also an essential part of science; arm-twisting demands to submit are not.Percy's comparison of NWR's skepticism to creationism, and his resort to terms like "ignorant" were, in my opinion, unfair, invalid, and counterproductive--as are yours. These tactics represent an ad hominem turn from debate to scorn: neither science, nor the pursuit of truth, nor the seeking of mutual understanding, are well served by tactics that smack of orthodoxy prosecuting heresy. We all have different thresholds for retaining skepticism; science has benefitted many times from a stubborn refusal to yield to the prevailing winds. Right or wrong, skepticism does science no harm and often does it good, as fresh evidence and more persuasive arguments are sought.Address the argument, not the person: that is a founding principle of good debate and this forum. There are many varieties of bad faith, but skepticism is much further from it than scornful replies.

I realize that I may have left an erroneous impression: I agree that the suspension was not strictly necessary. I often disagree with brief suspensions in both directions--those I would not have imposed and those I would have.We generally treat a 24-hour suspension as a relatively minor thing. Though I wouldn't have imposed one here regardless of who the member was, it does not seem wildly inappropriate either. In other words, it seems within the normal range of diverse admin perspectives.Edited by AdminOmni, : No reason given.