why cant i ignore moderators ?

Discussion in 'Feedback' started by GlorytoGod, May 9, 2009.

  1. Bandit

    Bandit New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2005
    Messages:
    3,172
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  2. Bandit

    Bandit New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2005
    Messages:
    3,172
    Likes Received:
    0


    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.
     
  3. 17th Angel

    17th Angel לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    9,437
    Likes Received:
    3
    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?
     
  4. iBrian

    iBrian Peace, Love and Unity Admin

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    Messages:
    6,532
    Likes Received:
    8
    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?
     
  5. GlorytoGod

    GlorytoGod There is a River

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Messages:
    943
    Likes Received:
    0
    before this thread gets closed.

    Brian what did you think of my suggestion ?
     
  6. Bandit

    Bandit New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2005
    Messages:
    3,172
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  7. dauer

    dauer Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2004
    Messages:
    3,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bandit,

    you don't appear very apathetic.
     
  8. Bandit

    Bandit New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2005
    Messages:
    3,172
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think it is a great idea.
     
  9. wil

    wil UNeyeR1 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    21,869
    Likes Received:
    1,963
    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?
     
  10. 17th Angel

    17th Angel לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    9,437
    Likes Received:
    3
    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."
     
  11. ciberpy

    ciberpy Interfaith Forums

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  12. iBrian

    iBrian Peace, Love and Unity Admin

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    Messages:
    6,532
    Likes Received:
    8

    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. :)
     
  13. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    That is an interesting thought...
     
  14. iBrian

    iBrian Peace, Love and Unity Admin

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    Messages:
    6,532
    Likes Received:
    8
    Hmm, the part where you keep posting complaints in this thread about our apparent inability to take feedback. :)

    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. :)
     
  15. Saltmeister

    Saltmeister The Dangerous Dinner

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,130
    Likes Received:
    2
    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.
     
  16. Saltmeister

    Saltmeister The Dangerous Dinner

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,130
    Likes Received:
    2
    Bandit,

    I had something to say to Brian, but now I think there's something I should say to you. Before I begin, I would like to say that I have no intention of destroying the sense of freedom and individuality that you now feel. Let me make that as clear as I possibly can.

    But I have to say that I do believe that Brian has a point there.

    Nobody here has a jurisdiction over you life. You can do whatever you like with your life. Nobody can judge you on your life. For those of us who have personal problems, have been in embarrassing situations, or done things we later regret or find embarrassing, there comes a time when we have to run and hide. I have been in such a situation. I am in one now. Nobody has the right to chase me, follow me, and find me when and where I am in trouble, trying to figure out how best to reform. It is my life.

    But this isn't about you. This isn't about your life and your personal issues. This is about Brian's web site.

    You were, in the past, what I would call a fundamentalist Christian. You felt that you could demonstrate and act out your loyalty to the Christian faith by protecting the theology of Christianity. The Christian life was a cosmic battle to protect that theology.

    SacredStar might have said something unfavourable to that theology. You called for restrictions on the Christianity forum to keep him/her out. You fought him/her.

    But now you've not only turned against that mentality. You've turned against religion in general. You want to dissociate yourself from your old self. You denounce the old Bandit. But that's not all. You're now also directing your anger at his beliefs. Ok, fine denounce your old self, but let's get to the point.

    Your "old self" got SacredStar banned on Brian's message board. That isn't just your life anymore. You did that on someone else's property as well as to someone else (ie. SacredStar). The thoughts and actions of your old self had consequences. The problem here is that because of the consequences of your old self's fundamentalism, you need to acknowledge your responsibility.

    Your old self was a part of your history, your life story. As part of your history, you got someone banned. Now you're saying it wasn't your fault. Is that fair?

    Your sin wasn't the stuff Christians called sin. Your sin was being a fundamentalist. Can you walk away from your sin forever? Well, the question here is whether your cause is justified here. Is staying on this message board a part of being justified? Will you or should you blame Brian if he bans you? Sin: maybe one day you have to face it. I have to face mine too -- in this life -- in this world. But right now I am running. Running away. From the people I know. There are some whom I trust, and some I do not trust. Choosing my friends is tricky.

    Who was the viper? Brian or you? Was it both? Is it right for you to ignore the consequences of your fundamentalist past? The difference here is that I didn't "sin" on a message board. I did it somewhere else. Maybe you don't care about this message board. Fine. But don't blame Brian because being a fundamentalist had consequences. You know what they are. Brian wasn't being a fundamentalist when this happened.

    If you've been misunderstood, there are two choices: 1) explain and justify yourself, 2) run away and hide or 3) blame Brian for these banning problems.

    Option (3) doesn't make sense because of your fundamentalist Christian past and its involvement in the wrongful banning of SacredStar. This is your skeleton in the closet. Option (1) is reasonable when you are ready to completely discard your fundamentalist past. You are a new person, completely reformed. I mean, how can you be justified in blaming Brian if you aren't completely reformed? Also, why then would you have to vent anger at religion?

    Then there's option (2). Are you ready to stop hiding? Do you need a few more years to work things out before you come out or are you ready to confront your opponent?
     
  17. Quahom1

    Quahom1 What was the question?

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Messages:
    9,906
    Likes Received:
    5
    Sacred Star did not bring enlightenment to, nor cared a lick about learning from a particular faith. She enjoyed throwing convoluted veiws mixing faith and astrology into people's faces, despite their asking her to stop bothering them. In short, she was a stalker, and would not let others express their views in any coherent or unbroken train of thought.
     
  18. greymare

    greymare New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Messages:
    3,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would apreciate it if youdidnt put words into my mouth
     
  19. 17th Angel

    17th Angel לבעוט את התחת ולקחת שמות

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    9,437
    Likes Received:
    3
    Q Hey I felt like trying to help *scrolls back through* Glory with a solution to chew on. Dunno if that would be taken on but it's like an officer of the law. You put your badge on, and you are john law, take it off, and try to be a human ;)
     
  20. Saltmeister

    Saltmeister The Dangerous Dinner

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,130
    Likes Received:
    2
    I did a bit more reading on this thread (well, actually I'm refamiliarising myself with it, having been monitoring it these last few hours) -- and fair enough, this wasn't specifically about banning SacredStar, but keeping the Christianity forum Christian-oriented.

    If SacredStar did that, then it obviously wasn't constructive.

    From my personal experience of this message board, that is what happens. If you're not being constructive, you're being disruptive, you're banned.

    So what then is the problem? Brian doesn't give Bandit exactly what he wants. But that's the reality of life. You don't always get what you want.

    Whether it's the government, the company who pays you for the work you do or the local judge, or your parents, it's the same thing. Their hands are tied by the politics, economics and finances of giving you what you want.

    The perfect democracy, perfect government, perfect life, perfect family, perfect country, perfectly just society are a pipe dream.

    Apart from that, the people in society can have so many opinions on what a government, company, court or country should do. This complicates matters.

    It's not necessary corruption. Very often it's just politics, economics and finances.

    Can't we just be grateful for what we have?

    Some of us work hard for this stuff. The rest of us wait for mana to come down from heaven.
     

Share This Page