Satanism And Blasphemy How Much Is Too Much?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='22 December 2009 - 03:27 PM' timestamp='1261513642' post='2024578']
I can't read your warn list anymore but I kind of remember it. Did I ever give you a reduction or two?[/quote]
[Edit: Oops, misread that. You did give me reductions. I was thinking of warnings, sorry] Like I said, this has nothing to do with you - you're cool. It's all good, brother.
I actually like most of the mods, though a few of them seem to have issues.

I'm mostly talking about the double standard. It seems to take a lot less for Catholics (particularly if they're "conservative") to get in trouble, than for anti-Christians.
If we're going to penalize swearing, rudeness, etc., then allowing anti-Christian blasphemy should be out of the question.

[quote]Oh, I would not cross dUSt on the issue of Michael Jackson, not a good idea. haha. A LOT of people on this site are carrying around Jackson-related warns, believe me.

That's a special case that has nothing to do with PC or any of that. [spoiler]
Maybe you never noticed, but dUSt's little sister in an epic MJ fan. Need I say more?
[/spoiler]
[/quote][quote][/quote]
Yeah, learned that the hard way.

Edited December 22, 2009 by Socrates

[Laudate_Dominum]

Yeah, that happens. Do a search for the word "bastard" and you'll get a ton of results. You can find threads teeming with the word and posts by mods using the word is borderline inappropriate contexts. This highlights one of the reasons why I believe in warn reductions for manifest excellence (i.e., charitable posts, saying sorry, posts that are epic win, et cetera) - just seems like it helps make things more balanced.

I'm tempted to elaborate on this theme but there is technically a guidelines against public criticism of moderators and it would be difficult to pursue this topic without potentially going there.

For the record I think the mods are cool and appreciate the difficulties of fair moderating.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Socrates' date='22 December 2009 - 02:39 PM' timestamp='1261514378' post='2024593']
Nah. Like I said, this has nothing to do with you - you're cool. It's all good, brother.
I actually like most of the mods, though a few of them seem to have issues.

I'm mostly taking about the double standard. It seems to take a lot less for Catholics (particularly if they're "conservative") to get in trouble, than for anti-Christians.
If we're going to penalize swearing, rudeness, etc., then allowing anti-Christian blasphemy should be out of the question.


Yeah, learned that the hard way.
[/quote]
I guess I agree, in general. There should be one standard. If you get warned for swearing, so should I. If I get banned for being crude about what I believe, so should you. The rules should be clear and so should the consequences, for everyone.

Perhaps a different method for deciding bans, for example, needing the agreement of 2 or more mods. (In the case of a really bad spammer or whatever, banning right away is appropriate. But for the rest of us, perhaps there needs to be more communication and analyzing of why someone was banned and whether it is fair.)

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote]...needing the agreement of 2 or more mods. (In the case of a really bad spammer or whatever, banning right away is appropriate. But for the rest of us, perhaps there needs to be more communication and analyzing of why someone was banned and whether it is fair.)
[/quote]
This is basically how it works now. Most often an edit/warn is decided by two or more mods. The warn system (basically the inbox for reports) has discussions attached to each thing where mods decide what to do.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='22 December 2009 - 02:44 PM' timestamp='1261514659' post='2024597']
This is basically how it works now. Most often an edit/warn is decided by two or more mods. The warn system (basically the inbox for reports) has discussions attached to each thing where mods decide what to do.
[/quote]
Yes, and I can see that on mine. But it still doesn't seem like there is good collaboration, even with that form of communication. Different mods have different levels of tolerance, which isn't necessarily fair. Of course, that's life.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='22 December 2009 - 01:40 PM' timestamp='1261514405' post='2024594']
. . . For the record I think the mods are cool and appreciate the difficulties of fair moderating.
[/quote]
I think that the hands off approach taken by the moderators in the Debate Table is a good thing.

They tend to step in when things become petty, which is what they should do, but they - at least as I see - try to allow for a real debate between the opposing sides.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='22 December 2009 - 03:46 PM' timestamp='1261514774' post='2024598']
Yes, and I can see that on mine. But it still doesn't seem like there is good collaboration, even with that form of communication. Different mods have different levels of tolerance, which isn't necessarily fair. Of course, that's life.
[/quote]

There is also something called bias.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='22 December 2009 - 03:46 PM' timestamp='1261514774' post='2024598']
Yes, and I can see that on mine. But it still doesn't seem like there is good collaboration, even with that form of communication. Different mods have different levels of tolerance, which isn't necessarily fair. Of course, that's life.
[/quote]
That's just the warn comments, it is different than the reporting system. Only the mods can see the reports and the little thread attached to each one. Then mods have to give the report a status and all that. The warn and warn comments are made elsewhere.

And before anyone accuses me of revealing secret mod stuff I should point out that anyone can go to the IVP website (the company who makes this phorum software) and check out all these features.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='22 December 2009 - 03:46 PM' timestamp='1261514817' post='2024599']
I think that the hands off approach taken by the moderators in the Debate Table is a good thing.

They tend to step in when things become petty, which is what they should do, but they - at least as I see - try to allow for a real debate between the opposing sides.
[/quote]
+1 I completely agree Todd. And I also believe that this approach is more in keeping with the expressed will of dUSt.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='22 December 2009 - 02:49 PM' timestamp='1261514942' post='2024602']
That's just the warn comments, it is different than the reporting system. Only the mods can see the reports and the little thread attached to each one. Then mods have to give the report a status and all that. The warn and warn comments are made elsewhere.

And before anyone accuses me of revealing secret mod stuff I should point out that anyone can go to the IVP website (the company who makes this phorum software) and check out all these features.
[/quote]
Regardless, it's still very subjective. And now the position i'm in is that no matter what I say or do, if I anger the wrong person, I'm one click from a ban. That's not fair, especially when a lot of the previous warns were because someone took something the wrong way, not because it was truly offensive. I rarely say things just to offend people.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='22 December 2009 - 03:50 PM' timestamp='1261515058' post='2024605']
Regardless, it's still very subjective. And now the position i'm in is that no matter what I say or do, if I anger the wrong person, I'm one click from a ban. That's not fair, especially when a lot of the previous warns were because someone took something the wrong way, not because it was truly offensive. I rarely say things just to offend people.
[/quote]

I don't know but it's not really the topic of this thread.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='22 December 2009 - 02:52 PM' timestamp='1261515157' post='2024608']
I don't know but it's not really the topic of this thread.
[/quote]
If you haven't noticed, I'm not the only one talking about this. The topic of this thread has become offensive behavior and the consequences, including "satanism" and "blasphemy."

[Apotheoun]

Human judgment is always subjective even when it is based upon objective qualities.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='22 December 2009 - 11:24 AM' timestamp='1261509892' post='2024516']
She's right, though... if you draw 'blasphemous' cartoons of mohammed you'll be lynched, but if you draw blasphemous cartoons of Jesus you'll be put in the New York Times.
[/quote]
or in my case warned/banned.

[quote name='HisChildForever' date='22 December 2009 - 12:14 PM' timestamp='1261512896' post='2024570']
A member of this forum called God a rapist, and my comment to him got me banned for a week. It was an honest comment. Look at that, I get banned for my honesty too.
[/quote]
to be fair, Varg was banned for a week for that comment as well. fire was fought with fire i guess, and the mods wetblanketed the whole thing.

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='22 December 2009 - 12:19 PM' timestamp='1261513151' post='2024574']
My question is, if you don't want me to say bad words, why aren't they filtered? Apparently we'd rather waste the time filtering j-aime, c-heese and other stupid words but swear words are just fine—more ammunition to ban people.
[/quote]
yeah i dont understand that at all.
if WT* is a bannable word, and it sure as hell was when i posted it, why isn't it either filtered or more comprehensively modded? the day i came back after that week out in the cold, i saw at least 3 uses of "WT*" and the only difference i could discern between their posts and mine, was theirs where made by catholics.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Well if you ask me best to keep that under your hat, otherwise whatever mods remain might read that and start issuing warns for abbreviations again.