why cant i ignore moderators ?

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Nothing of the sort is going to happen - if you want to run your own forum, by your own rules, you're welcome to.





Interestingly enough, we have representations from most of the world's religions and faiths here that I can think of - and yet very few have ever made it their policy to be a member just to witness at others here. Go figure.

In the meantime, this thread appears to have run its course - if anyone wishes to build a community using their rules, they are welcome to - but here at IO we have our own simple rules, and merely ask members to observe them.

it has run its course for you because you dont like it and dont want to hear it.

here you are again, not listening to what people are saying as usual. keep closing the threads & feedback you dont like and dont want to hear about and you will always have civil unrest.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by wil

Namaste Bandit.

I'm seriously confused. First over the years I've appreciated your input and discussion. I've enjoyed our conversations and look forward to continuing to do so.

But your continuing without offering some constructive solutions and specifics on your problem gets us nowhere and provides exactly the situation you indicate you'd like to eradicate.

If you were to say, I have a problem with X and the way s/he does things, and I have a problem with this rule and the way it is administered.

And if those things were not addressed, discussed, modified. You'd have a valid argument and more ammo than you need to actually state your case.

But this tit for tat does not fit my perception of you.

I'm confused.

just because i agree with someones feedback does not mean I expect the problem to change. Now, if i were paying taxes, I would be pounding all over your desk at city hall demanding a solution.

[17th Angel]

Change is inevitable.... If "perceptions" also changed it would make the switch over more comfortable..

What has how bandit would of acted, who bandit was or any of these previous states of the Bandit metamorphosis got to do with his issues?

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Bandit

-and you just fall back into your general invective-
you did that because you were personally also fed up with SS & everyone complained about that including yourself. stop trying to charge me alone with that crap as you listening.

I'm sorry - I've asked for specifics to support your arguments, you can provide none. Instead, you continue a mindless tirade.

SacredStar? It wasn't me who had a problem with her, but people like you who appealed to have her postings on the Christianity board restricted. I acted then, and I'm answering your claim that I never listen.

Even now, you accuse me of not listening, but you aren't saying anything - you're going round and round in circles, throwing out criticisms and complaints in an off-hand manner, and refusing to specify or justify any of them when raised.

Then you wonder why your anger is perceived as wanton and unwelcome.

Bandit, why are you still posting here if you obviously have such a low opinion of IO?

[GlorytoGod]

before this thread gets closed.

Brian what did you think of my suggestion ?

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I'm sorry - I've asked for specifics to support your arguments, you can provide none. Instead, you continue a mindless tirade.

SacredStar? It wasn't me who had a problem with her, but people like you who appealed to have her postings on the Christianity board restricted. I acted then, and I'm answering your claim that I never listen.

Even now, you accuse me of not listening, but you aren't saying anything - you're going round and round in circles, throwing out criticisms and complaints in an off-hand manner, and refusing to specify or justify any of them when raised.

Then you wonder why your anger is perceived as wanton and unwelcome.

Bandit, why are you still posting here if you obviously have such a low opinion of IO?

and so are you doing the same exact thing with your mindless tirade, going around & around in circles with your own anger when you don't like the feedback people leave.


what part of I DON'T CARE HOW YOU RUN YOUR FORUM ,do you not get?

[dauer]

Bandit,

you don't appear very apathetic.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by GlorytoGod

what did you think of my suggestion ?

I think it is a great idea.

[wil]

Originally Posted by GlorytoGod

before this thread gets closed.

Brian what did you think of my suggestion ?

Namaste GtG,

I imagine you lived in your parent's forum for awhile...do you think you could put them on ignore.

Or maybe if you have children, would you let them put you on ignore.

How can a moderator moderate, how can one inform you of items that need attention if you are on ignore?

"err you never told me that"

"yes we did, we warned you ten times"

"oh, I had you on ignore, how was I to know?"

[17th Angel]

I am sure what Glory means is a way to divide the moderator part of the person and the personal part of the person.

Which can only be done if a moderator had two user accounts on this type of forum format.

Say simply like a user named: Moderator. And you log on to that to dish out laws... Any of the mods can access it with the password. That is one solution to his/her problem, but I doubt they will do that, but that is doable.

I guess the good thing with that part if the user was named: Moderator then there would be no human "connection" to it.. So you wouldn't feel like someone is picking on you, or on the other hand you could also be like "well I don't want to warn this dood cause he is like my buddeh eh."

[ciberpy]

Originally Posted by greymare

FAIR DINKUM!!!
If you dont like what someone has written, and you want to ignore them, just do it.
dont respond.
its not hard.
Ignore them the old fashioned way.
Or go crying to mama, your choice.
Plenty ignore me all the time, and I have ignored some as well. i know there are some ignoring me right now, yes, you know who you are. and thats fine.
JUST GIVE IT A REST OR SHOULD I CALL THE WAAAAAHMBULANCE.

Thats right... IGNORE MEE if she bothers you so much... don't ban her. Shame on you moderators... as individuals you each behave as hypocrites.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by GlorytoGod

before this thread gets closed.

Brian what did you think of my suggestion ?

I don't think it's going to work, but as we've tried to relax the forum somewhat and that means we're moderating less, then the need for moderators as moderators becomes less urgent.

For a while I've been considering whether instead of moderators as stands at present, whether there should be an attempt to create community leaders who can represent member interests.

This means covering political/mainstream/liberal slants as well as denominational.

The idea could be that even minor concerns or issues could be raised in public or private, and a real sympathetic ear learnt to such issues - and then these can be breached directly with me as required.

I'm still mulling it over - but an interesting side-effect is that members should hopefully feel less intimidated by any individual moderator, because they would effectively - in theory - have another moderator who can help protect their interests and work with their concerns constructively.

Still considering how any such changes would need to be applied, and possible issues resulting from it.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Alex P

I am sure what Glory means is a way to divide the moderator part of the person and the personal part of the person.

Which can only be done if a moderator had two user accounts on this type of forum format.

Say simply like a user named: Moderator. And you log on to that to dish out laws... Any of the mods can access it with the password. That is one solution to his/her problem, but I doubt they will do that, but that is doable.

I guess the good thing with that part if the user was named: Moderator then there would be no human "connection" to it.. So you wouldn't feel like someone is picking on you, or on the other hand you could also be like "well I don't want to warn this dood cause he is like my buddeh eh."

That is an interesting thought...

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Bandit

what part of I DON'T CARE HOW YOU RUN YOUR FORUM ,do you not get?

Hmm, the part where you keep posting complaints in this thread about our apparent inability to take feedback.

Originally Posted by ciberpy

Thats right... IGNORE MEE if she bothers you so much... don't ban her. Shame on you moderators. As individuals you each behave as hypocrites.

mee isn't banned, and new members here should never be subjected to proselytising the moment they arrive. You might want to read posts before rushing onto your rent-a-condemnation soap box again.

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I'm sorry - I've asked for specifics to support your arguments, you can provide none. Instead, you continue a mindless tirade.

SacredStar? It wasn't me who had a problem with her, but people like you who appealed to have her postings on the Christianity board restricted. I acted then, and I'm answering your claim that I never listen.

Even now, you accuse me of not listening, but you aren't saying anything - you're going round and round in circles, throwing out criticisms and complaints in an off-hand manner, and refusing to specify or justify any of them when raised.

Then you wonder why your anger is perceived as wanton and unwelcome.

Bandit, why are you still posting here if you obviously have such a low opinion of IO?

Well, I'd not only like to get my own two cents before this thread closes, but also to give Brian a reason to keep it open, because I have a few things to say.

Taking into consideration what people are saying here about the banning of SacredStar, I don't think that in the long term, or in terms of the Big Picture, that the banning of SacredStar was a good decision.

I personally don't like the idea of a person being banned just because he attacks or makes remarks that aren't favourable to a particular religion, especially when the reason for banning was because adherents of that religion were complaining about that person and vehemently called for his/her removal.

I don't like it because 1) I don't necessarily agree with the people who are complaining and 2) it suggests that a religion or its adherents can't take criticism.

By point (1), I would like to say that Christianity isn't monolithic. Was I complaining about SacredStar? Not all Christians are the same. With point (2) it makes me uncomfortable that if adherents of a religion can't explain their beliefs in a way that allows them to maintain their dignity, the solution is to ban the person asking for the inexplicable or exclude them from one's native forums. What would this say about my religion?

If a person should be banned, it's because they're not serving or pursuing a constructive agenda. In the case of SacredStar, if he/she demonstrated any intention of learning, he/she should not have been banned despite how threatening, insulting or offensive his/her remarks to Christians.

Moreover, if the Christians calling for the banning of SacredStar weren't willing to help SacredStar learn or educate him, then their agenda wasn't constructive either. The argument that SacredStar won't listen isn't necessarily reasonable. It assumes that the Christians trying to explain things are the best people around for explaining Christianity. What I mean is this. SacredStar hadn't talked to every single Christian on the planet. SacredStar's hunger for answers was not being satisfied because the responses were inadequate.

I personally do not believe that administrators and moderators should yield to the intimidation or bullying of the adherents of any religion. This is ideological hegemony. Are we going to give up democracy or civility to terrorists and criminals?

To me these complaints are most frequently those of fundamentalists. We all have our varying definitions of fundamentalism, but my concept of fundamentalism is a phenomenon where adherents of a religion feel threatened by anything different to their own ideology. They see life as a cosmic battle against all those who do not conform or adhere to their ideology. Anyone who is not for them is against them.

Christian fundamentalism sees religion in terms of theology, not in terms of the social and political. The trouble with theology is that it is not grounded in real-world entities, real-world influences and phenomena, but in imaginary concepts. The Christian fundamentalist sees orthodoxy in terms of loyalty to these imaginary concepts, not to real philosophical ideas and virtuous thought and action in the reality of the social and political. Christian fundamentalism begins with one's imagination, rather than starting in the reality of the social and political.

The reason why I speak of the social and political is because when you understand the reality of the social and political, you will realise that non-Christians aren't really opposed, by definition, to Christianity. What Christian fundamentalists perceive as a threat isn't really a threat in reality. Not socially or politically anyway. They perceive a threat simply because of their theology and theology is driven by imagination.

The rational-minded Christian starts with the social and political (the real) and progresses to the theological (the imaginary). The fundamentalist has it backwards. Christian fundamentalists see imaginary enemies. When someone disagrees, they feel attacked. They develop a persecution complex. They believe that the world hates them. But alas, the world doesn't really hate Christians. It's just a perception.

I have to admit, that yes, I'm trying to make up a straw man here, but IMAO, those Christians who complained did so because they felt their religion was under threat because their theology was being violated. It wasn't because they were being threatened socially and politically. It was because their imaginary reality was being violated.

If I may state this without unsettling people, I'd like the say that I believe that Bandit was, in the past, a part of this fundamentalist phenomenon.

Was the banning of SacredStar a good decision? In my view, it wasn't in the long term. If I am correct about the goals of CR/IO, the banning of SacredStar were not compatible with those goals. The Christians who called for his banning were not thinking rationally.

If I could use an analogy, I'd say that the Christians who called for his banning were like an unruly, uncivilised mob. If the authorities in any society consistently give in to mobs, it will probably lead to chaos in the cities and the general decline in the level of civilisation there.

Ok, that's the secular view. But I could also provide a religious one, more in line with Christianity itself.

To me, the Christians who called for the banning of SacredStar were just like the people who called for Jesus' crucifixion. Jesus called some of the Pharisees snakes and vipers. These Christians were very much like those vipers with their legalistic approach to theology, their persecution complex, their hatred and sense of being violated.

Ultimately, the old Bandit was a viper.