General discussion of moderation procedures - Part 7

NO it most specifically did not! If asked to clarify I would have identified who I specifically think is mentally ill. It just so happens that I was thinking of Kent Hovind when I wrote that statement.Is there a rule that we can't bash Kent Hovind?I am not asking admins to get into a public debate. I am asking another admin to clarify and support YOUR ruling of what I am and am not allowed to say on this forum about fundamentalism. Right now you are the lone authority coming down on me and I feel that it is NOT impartial.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Jazzns, the bulk of your message at large was not about Kent Hovind. That is a strawman. In the segment of your message which I cited, you used the pronoun it i.e. the stereotyped Biblical fundamentalist position Kent Hovind is not a position. Your poor choice of words used to describe the stereotyped fundamentalist position implicated members of this board holding those positions.We all are free to go at the positions of one another vigorously, but we can all do it in such a manner so as not to inflame as you have done. You're making a big fuss about a mild admonishment. I see no point in wasting more of our time and Admin's bandwidth on this. Let us discuss it in PAF and take up the matter after a cooling off here. If the concensus in PAF is to have another moderator make a judgement publically, you'll get that. Otherwise stand by until that is determined. Edited by AdminBuzsaw, : No reason given.Edited by AdminBuzsaw, : Go to Admin ID

At ca. 10pm Nwr posts a stop signAt ca. 11pm Lfen ignores/doesn't see the stop sign - not suspendedAt 1:12am I click on a link to Lfens response to a previous post and Lfens response appears - I have no reason to scroll up to the Stop sign above. I reply. I am given a short suspension for ignoring (as opposed to not seeing the stop sign). Poo happens.At 1:27am Lfen ignores/doesn't see either the stop sign or my banned tag and responds to my response. And isn't suspended. He is still on line at the time.Can you enlighten me AdminNwr

He did get suspended, even before you did.

Why not for the second offence? Surely this is flying in the face of Admin?

quote:

---

You're making a big fuss about a mild admonishment. I see no point in wasting more of our time and Admin's bandwidth on this.

---

Well many of us disagree - Jazzen feels he's done nothing wrong and many of us agree with him. In such a situation, it's clear that another admin needs to step into the breach. Edited by CK, : No reason given.

lfen received a 1 hour suspension for the first post you mention. The reason given (on the mouse-over message) was identical to what happened in your suspension.In the second lfen post, he at least acknowledged a problem in his edit addition to the message (before I saw the post). I chose not to suspend a second time, but it was a troubling decision and I am still not sure whether I should have handled that one differently.Shortly after that, I had to go offline. When I returned, the site was down so I was unable to see the post to which I am belatedly replying.By the way, putting in times is not very helpful without listing a timezone. The message number would have been more useful, since people could check that themselves and see the time in their own zone.

---

Maybe this would be the ideal situation for AdminFaith to get her feet wet.A creo admin admonishing another creo admin would be jolly PC.Brian.

quote:

---

But please carry on, you're doing more to dmaage the reputation of fundamentalists than Jazz's post ever could.

---

LOL!This thread has been very amusing, indeed.LOL!

No moderator is impartial, every moderator runs their own show, and under most circumstances it isn't customary for moderators to seek consensus.Here's my own opinion. Consider an equivalent statement from the other side, maybe something like this: To me this represents valid opinion, and I think it's okay.Here's an example of the same thing, but more personal and in my opinion not okay: I think the above is over the top and that an admin should bring it to the author's attention.And then there's a gray area, where something like the above is phrased non-specifically using non-personal language, but there is something in the context or presentation that makes it seem personal nonetheless. Different people, including moderators, will react differently. Some people let things roll off them, others can find offense in even the most innocuous statement. When someone has what you feel is an unwarranted reaction to something you wrote, unless you've suffered grievously as a result, the most reasonable reaction is, "Oh, well, I guess that's just the way he sees it."

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Overall I agree with Buzsaw that jazz' post was insulting to creationists, but also that Buz's admonishment was very mild and that jazz is overreacting.Thought I'd reproduce jazz's original offending statement to mull it over: While it is true that it is the fundamentalist "position" that is being described here, it is very hard to read this as anything other than an attack on personal character because of the terminology used. "Intellectual depravity" is a pretty personal concept. "Raw hate, racism and ... discrimination" are personal attitudes, motives or internal states imputed to a person. I found this probably the most offensive statement in the whole paragraph because of my own experience of arguing a straight objective point only to be called racist or the like. To me this is character assassination of "stereotypical" fundamentalists (whatever "stereotypical" means). This can only be a misuse of the term "stereotypical." What jazz actually means is not all that clear, but I suppose he means something like "most typically typical" or "most extremely fundamentalist" or some such. Maybe "classic fundamentalist?" {edit: maybe "quintessential?"}Upshot for me is that I would have let it go except for its getting enthusiastic POTM endorsement from so many. That made me feel obliged to register a complaint about it on the POTM thread.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Thank you Percy for that clarification. The first example is that I was going for. I just wanted to make sure I was not going to get suspended for saying anything else bad about fundamentalism. As I suspected, attacking the worldview IS far game as long as you are not attacking a particular person's incarnation of it.I started typing a more details response here that afterward I though would be better in the other thread. Message 99Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

I am sorry. I couldn't just let that sit there. How the heck can I straw man my own message. That is just plain rediculous.What I said was that Kent Hovind was my motivation for the particular comment about mental illness.I might suggest Buz that if you are going to moderate effectivly that you please make a better effort to understand the posts for which you condemn.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

I am asking you to please let this ride for awhile so that the issue can be discussed by the Admin staff.

Why was Jar's thread shut at 179 messages when every other thread normally runs to 300?Jar has another 20 posts or so to pretend he doesn't understand logic.Brian.