General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 14.0

For the confused, Berberry is referring to the opinion that since I am not straight - but am not offended by NJ's argument, I must therefore be self-hating.Perhaps it might be wise to simply disallow certain topics from being re-opened for discussion for a certain amount of time - but some might argue that that is too much admin intervention and limiting the free exchange of ideas is bad precedent. Then again, while some new ideas are getting exchanged they are being dwarfed by old ones.Do any members have any input on the concept of a topic moratorium? It does seem feasable since it is such a hot topic. This time the OP was well written and was an attempt to extract the debate from another thread - so maybe it's one of those ugly realities we can either bury or confront. I think this might make for an interesting topic in its own right, if others are suitably interested in a lengthy meta-discussion - sounds like a perfect coffee house thread.Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

No, it isn't. If I thought that any member was declaring gays to be rapists or paedophiles or incestuous, I'd take immediate action. I appreciate you think that one of our members did this, but the issue is not how to handle someone calling gays rapists but instead it is did someone call gays rapists?We've argued this latter point at length so I don't think it does us good to go over it any more. However, I think it important to clarify that we agree on the former issue.

Yes, we do agree that if someone was to declare gays are incestuous or paedophiles then action should be taken. Where we disagree is whether or not someone has done this. We have debated where we disagree ad nauseum, and I see nothing new to add to it. If you really want my answer to the questions you put forward, simply refer to General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 11.0 where most, if not all of them are addressed.

I will state this one final time: If I thought NJ was declaring that gays are incestuous or paedophiles then I would be taking action. I do not think that NJ is declaring that gays are incestuous or paedophiles. It is self-evident from reading both this thread and that one, that you were unimpressed with my responses. My answers remain essentially the same: there is no need to repeat the argument. Fine: do not discuss raping NJ's son again or I will suspend you. I will further suspend NJ should I see him discussing raping his son more than I have seen you discussing raping his son. Complaining about moderator actions regarding NJ's behaviour (which I understand you find reprehensible) can be done without such distasteful comments.

This is all entirely reasonable, though we need to keep in mind that evidence is not the only qualifier under rule number 4. Reasonable argumentation for the position is also fine (and this is where it becomes a qualitative judgement as to what suffices as 'reasonable'). NJ has already agreed that to continue posting in the thread would involve him merely repeating his points - which would be a violation of rule 4 and has now left the discussion (See Message 157).