General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 14.0

I go away for a few months and come back (for an entirely different reason, I was going to ask for travel advice from some members who live in areas I'll be visiting soon) to find a nearly exact duplicate of the argument that was raging when I left. It seems a certain stupid who's also an admin on this board has repeated his usual base insults against gay people by directly comparing them morally to rapists, pedophiles and bestials, a practice which has always been encouraged here at EvC. The stupid is never, ever required to show any logical or reasoned justification for his insults against gay human beings, but those responding are always required, usually by AdminPD, with the enthusiastic support of the Larry Craig-like AdminModulous, to stop responding. The stupid is always encouraged by his fellows on the admin tag-team to make his anti-gay insults at will, while those responding are without fail condemned by AdminPD as "off-topic" or somehow otherwise unacceptable.All of you should have learned by now: only bigots are allowed to hurl insults on this board, and such insults are only allowed against gays. If you have any questions, simply remember that when I responded to insults from the stupid, I was suspended and, while unable to post, was made the object of Percy's ridicule when he portrayed me as an hysterical, menstruating woman.You people should now this by now. The stupid will never be required to justify his insults against gays. This is unwritten but fundemental board policy. There's no excuse for not observing this fact.(When I dropped by early Saturday morning, the thread was locked by - who else but? - AdminPD. It appears that some members were taking issue with the stupid, and AdminPD is always on guard against that.)Edited by berberry, : No reason given.Edited by berberry, : corrected link

AdminPD writes:

quote:

---

Since the originator had already noted, in very large lettering, that those issues were off topic; there was no need to act. In a situation like that I tend to wait and see if others heed the originator.

---

That is an absolute, bald-faced LIE. You waited to see if anyone dared challenge the stupid, that's what you waited for! The stupid said, after the originator had made that large-letter post, the following: ...without any justification whatsoever. Any high schooler knows that there is no law that recognizes anything as an abomination. This is just another tactic the stupid uses to get in his insults against gays, insults which you continue to refuse to see but are determined to defend at all costs.Also after the large-letter post, the stupid said, in response to an assertion that straights have the right to marry for love while gays don't: ...thus further insulting gays by comparing them to child-rapists. Of course, you had no problem with that. You did, though, make an interjection into the thread soon after that. Not to admonish the stupid in any way, no no no. Never that. Rather, it was to warn molbiogirl, who had dared to challenge him. Still later after the large-letter post, the stupid writes: thereby comparing gay relationships to incest. It is the responses to that insult that you are now taking issue with. If you have ever, in your entire history as an admin here at evc, taken issue with one of the stupid's insults, please cite the instance. I don't believe you ever have. It is only with the responses that you ever have a problem.Why not try something different, AdminPD? Why not, just once, ask the stupid to support his comparisons in a logical, reasoned fashion. If he can do so, then fine, let him keep making them. If he can't, then insist that he stop making them. Why wouldn't it be easier on all of you on the admin tag-team to simply require him to discontinue any insulting comparisons that cannot be supported through logic and reason rather than chasing after anyone and everyone whoever dares challenge him?

So rather than deal with the original insults - which you yourself have acknowledged here; therefore you've managed to recognize them - it'd be better to just punish everybody? Why is it that the person who made the original insults is so sacrosanct as to be above even the mildest admonishment as an individual?The only reason that "threads on gay issues have a long history here of careening out of control" is because certain idiots are allowed to hurl unsubstatiated insults against gays, while the admin tag-team concentrates all its efforts on defending those making the unsubstantiated, unjustified insults against any reproach by those who justifiably consider themselves insulted.If these people want to say they consider gays immoral then fine, let them say it flat out. But stop with the insulting comparisons to rapists and pedophiles. Why are they necessary? And why the hell is it that those responding to the insults are always considered to be the trouble-makers by the admin tag-team here?The only thing that clearly wasn't working here is the old rule that allows this situation to exist: the one that says individual members cannot be insulted but that groups of members can be. Changing that rule to forbid insults against both individual members and groups of members has never been tried here, and apparently never will be. It would probably work, but it would clearly be so out of character for this forum that I can see why it has never occurred to you.

It seems to be your position that creationists will not participate on this forum unless they are allowed to compare gay people to rapists and pedophiles. I'm not sure I understand why that would be. Can you explain it a little more?And for the record, I never said anything about "getting rid" of anyone.

I have a proposal that might settle this. First, though, I want to repeat something I said a long time ago in one of the Haggard threads and repeated at least once to (I think) Percy the last time round: that the argument comparing gays to pedophiles and rapists, as presented repeatedly by n, clearly runs afoul of point 4 in the Forum Guidelines. Again and again, evidence to support the argument has been requested from n, but the most anyone can get out of him is, in convoluted language, that it is his belief that gays are immoral just like rapists and pedophiles, therefore legitimizing one will legitimize the others. That's not clear evidence, it's nothing but a statement of belief worded in a way to thinly veil an insult toward gays. He has never presented one shred of real evidence. He usually drops out of the thread once he can't get past the challenge to show evidenceThe last time round, I think it was Crashfrog (or perhaps Dan Carroll, I can dig up a link if you need proof) who managed to get an agreement from Percy himself that, indeed, if n was refusing to support the argument with evidence that it would constitute a violation of point 4. For some reason, though, Percy never actually enforced that rule. But I don't think Percy ever contested the point that n's comparison was insulting. He just thought I was being thin-skinned, and illustrated his feelings by portraying me as an hysterical, menstruating woman.I need to mention that I do not endorse one particular aspect of Rrhain's argument, although I completely agree with his logic (in fact, I wish I'd thought of it). I would not myself have turned the argument back on n quite so directly. I would have been a bit more general, so that I could feebly claim to have not had n in mind at all. I believe that Rrhain should be asking - in direct response to one of n's posts - why fundie xians can't think of same-sex relations without fantasizing about raping a child, not why n specifically can't do it. In my view, this would be more consistent with n's style.That said, here's my proposal: while you watch, I'll go to the current gay marriage thread and respond to message 3 - the one Rrhain quotes just upthread. In a dispassionate tone, I'll challenge n to support, with real evidence, his contention that allowing gay marriage would either be the same as or lead to allowing rape, pedophilia and incest.If he cannot support his argument with clear evidence, will you (or any other admin who happens to see this) fault him for a violation of point 4 of the Forum Guidelines?I understand that point 4 is sometimes relaxed in the case of fundies because they so often have no clue how to observe it. But n is an intelligent man (which is precisely why his comparison of gays to rapists and pedophiles is so very insulting - he's not one of the usual fundie dumb-asses). I hope you will agree with me that in light of the fact that n himself is an admin, and that he is in fact quite intelligent, he should not get the same sort of pass regarding point 4 that would be granted to, say, the desdemonas of the world.What do you say?

brennakimi writes:

quote:

---

sounds reasonable to me.

---

Thanks very much! I appreciate that. But I'm going to wait until I hear from an admin before I address n directly.

quote:

---

the clencher is, though, every time he does it in the future, they'll have to suspend him. that will get tiresome since it happens so often.

---

That may be, but maybe not. I think he might get the message quickly.