FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Why not unlock moderators now!





Bluedoll
@bondings
please don’t think I am not for positive change. I would like to see frihost forum improve and attract all kinds of new people. Why not allow other members the opportunity to moderate if they want. Some members have shown devotion, initiative and quality posts and might just be able to improve things. Think about new people coming into the forum who take the time to post or read in the forum - they might have already decided to go elsewhere.

@anyone
There are some big issues on the board – one has only to look at the philosophy/religious section to see it but that isn’t the only place. I see members using xxx for foul language and personal insults “you must be an idiot” or ‘retard’. Are people not aware that some people that use the internet may just have a mental disability. It doesn’t make them less a person or less a good member, it just means that they are a little different.

Think of the implications, if the attitude of a mod is to even encourage this kind of posting. Imagine opening a new person section and when some one new posts a question the reply is “you must be a retard.” Would that attract new members or trash them? Reporting becomes meaningless.

I realize to be a mod can not be easy but what I see happening (ok, not in every section) is a very fine ruling on some rules and total absence on other rules. I suggest, there may just be a need for some new ideas with different philosophies that are presently being demonstrated on how to mod a section so to give Frihost forum members an even better forum.

Anyone?
ocalhoun
Which forum sections are particularly bad?
The philosophy/religion section has a lot of people pointing out stupid viewpoints, but rarely calling actual people stupid.
The politics section can get out of hand sometimes, but there's usually a quick moderator response.

These problems that you speak of must be mainly in certain sections I don't go to much, because I haven't seen too much of a problem...


When you see something bad, report it.
Personally, if I were running the show, I would only recruit new moderators if there was a back-log of reports going investigated, or if the current mods were complaining about their workload.


*edit*

I would make greater use of phpbb's ability to assign moderators for only certain sections though... It makes sense for some who are active only in one or two sections to perhaps be moderators of only those sections, not globally.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Which forum sections are particularly bad?
The philosophy/religion section has a lot of people pointing out stupid viewpoints, but rarely calling actual people stupid.
The politics section can get out of hand sometimes, but there's usually a quick moderator response. These problems that you speak of must be mainly in certain sections I don't go to much, because I haven't seen too much of a problem...
I can only imagine that it is because you have never been at the tail end of this stuff that you have failed to notice the obvious?

I may not have been called "stupid" in direct words, but I have had plenty of negative character assessments come my way publicly with the very obvious intent of discrediting me as a poster. At one point (in the Philosophy and Religion Forum) it was suggested I should rather post in the General Chat Forum, as I am not a suitable poster for the Philosophy and Religion Forum. This Summer in particular I got "stalked" (word coined by LittleBlackKitten but spot on) everywhere, and IRONICALLY even in the General Chat Forum. Posting by posting. Almost as though this guy was relentless to get me out of the way by proving beyond a shadow of doubt what a hopeless poster I am. This summer was probably one of the most uncomfortable posting periods in my history with Frihost yet. Every time when I saw his name against a thread that I had been posting in I just knew what to expect, and it was not a nice feeling. I could not relax for a second.

As for the Politics and World News Sections, both jmi and I have been in that category as well. Maybe you have missed those postings? As for a quick turnaround. I did not see any Moderators coming to our assistance. Which Moderators have come to the assistance of the Politics Forum, as remember, that Moderator maintains he is posting as a poster, not as a Moderator.
ocalhoun wrote:
When you see something bad, report it.
I used to, and it did not work. I stopped reporting after the incident in the Philosophy and Religion Forum when I was told to rather post in the General Chat Forum. That was in January of this year. The behaviour was not sanctioned and I accepted that it must be condoned then. After that the only complaint I have made was on the poor management of the "God is Good" thread, that should never have been allowed to go on as long as it did. Also to no avail. After that I gave up fatalistically. I just did not see the point.
ocalhoun wrote:
Personally, if I were running the show, I would only recruit new moderators if there was a back-log of reports going investigated, or if the current mods were complaining about their workload.
I don't think it is my call to comment on whether new moderators are needed. That is Bondings' call. There is a lot of what I like about Frihost and the way Bondings runs things. For example, I really don't like too many stringent rules and too much policing, and if as a consequence there is the odd spam that does not get attended to, that is not a biggie in my opinion. Bottomline for me is Bondings is very flexible, patient and totally dedicated to his Website. He is also incredibly loyal to his staff and I admire that. The positives for me heavily outweigh the negatives. I don't post in any other Forums, but can't imagine a better place to post.
Bluedoll
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-119950.html
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-74727.html
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-119892.html
I just want to make this post crystal clear! This my personal opinion, a suggestion. I am frustrated yes, but I my intention is to appeal and hopefully be helpful not “run a show”. If bondings tells me that this is not really my business, I will certainly refrain from giving opinions about forum internal affairs.

In my humble opinion
In general, it would be an improvement if somehow the overall atmosphere could change to a more ‘healthy’ discussion forum and not a hostile debating place going on anywhere within it.

I suggest the philosophy/religion section should be separated into two distinction sections - philosophy and religion or perhaps renamed using some another name other than religion, something like spirituality for instance. It might help create a fresh approach. Most importantly however both sections could definitely benefit with a new moderator who is less of a forceful postee’ (in science – fantastic).
deanhills
Bluedoll wrote:
In my humble opinion
In general, it would be an improvement if somehow the overall atmosphere could change to a more ‘healthy’ discussion forum and not a hostile debating place going on anywhere within it.

I suggest the philosophy/religion section should be separated into two distinction sections - philosophy and religion or perhaps renamed using some another name other than religion, something like spirituality for instance. It might help create a fresh approach. Most importantly however both sections could definitely benefit with a new moderator who is less of a forceful postee’ (in science – fantastic).
Agreed with the suggestion of atmosphere. I do believe however if we could get more Philosophy threads going so that we can move away from an overemphasis on Religion, that that could happen by default. We probably need someone who is really good in Philosophy to take the lead and for new posters to join in, new blood to stimulate different discussions instead of the same ol' religion topics that seem to have become repetitive as well.
Bluedoll
I can only offer up my personal abstract. If the posts are philosophical speaking, “why do beans fall from the sky?” I can join in and happily discuss it. I find though if in topics the postee’ wants to pull the wool over my face with philosophical and scientific jargon to “say cruel things about a loving God that I cherish”, it is difficult to want to belong. I am sure others feel the same.
Yes, I think the two subjects philosophy and religion are separate though I can see the connections philosophy – science – religion – governments – spirituality and back around.
LittleBlackKitten
I agree completely. There either needs to be some major change regarding the rules dictating conversation and what it means to respect others, or have "religion" in it's entirety banned from conversation on the site. I'm finding it ever harder every day not only to post something I'm thinking, but I cannot honestly say without a shadow of a doubt that I will not get attacked, degraded, insulted, verbally abused, hated, or argued with based off ANYTHING I write. I understand the importance of freedom of speech, but when someone is part of a minority (be it religion, gender, race, preference, area of the world, or scientific beliefs [referring to evolution, creationism, or other like theories of belief]). It's disgusting that I as an unemployed white female christian cannot talk freely on a forum without feeling like I don't matter, like a child being chided for saying something silly or dumb, or like I just plain DON'T BELONG. Take Dementei's topic "Living in the Old Testament" for example, when his commentary and the genuine, honest replies of others (myself included) were judged, attacked, taken to pasture, and thoroughly HIJACKED by those who disagree and constantly argue with those who might think differently. Those in question should not have the right to attack the thread of someone who thinks and believes differently and tell them to "prove it" when they themselves cannot do the same thing. This forum is actively ignoring the symptoms of a dying society, and it is killing the goal; of active, healthy, happy members, who love to share their words and thoughts, who can comment positively on the posts of others, without feeling judged, hated, attacked, or in a courtroom. I agree that everyone should say what they like, but not EVERYWHERE they like. It's going to kill the board, when a brand new user comes on, declares they love God, Allah, Marx, whoever - and asks a simple question of those who believe and think the same, can get attacked, and feel like they don't belong, that they're wrong, that they have no right to believe what they do, it's going to destroy everything this site is meant to stand for.

It is also against the law in most areas of North America to openly attack someone's religion or to harrass them past a first request to stop the negative action or speech they are offering. It is also against the law to ignore requests to begin with. If someone in North America, the UK, or South America says something mean or nasty to the other person, it is considered HARRASSMENT to continue if they are asked and told to stop. What is "mean" and "nasty" depends on the individual's opinions, and NOT the one committing the offense.

This being said, the website in question MUST uphold the laws of the land it is BASED IN, not the land it wishes. If the site OWNER is based in, say, Ohio, they MUST uphold the law of the united states of america - NOT the user in, say, France.

That also being said, there are international laws against cyber bullying, and the issue I just mentioned.

There are a few members who already have grounds to sue Frihost, Bondings, and Bikerman (amoung other users whom have committed the same offense), myself included. I have asked the users in question to cease their pattern, and they have not. It is not in my desire or scope of interest to sue anyone under ANY circumstance unless I am pushed and pushed.

So, here are my suggestion(s) for resolving this issue.

1) Users may NOT join the thread of disagreeing thoughts to your own solely to tell them they are wrong.

2) Users may not tell other users to "prove" their religion. This is not fair on ANYONE.

3) Users are expected to communicate with respect and a non judgemental manner.


These are just my thoughts.
ocalhoun
It would be a good thing to separate the philosophy and religion section(s)...

...It might help with preventing every religion-based-topic from becoming a Theists vs. Atheists debate. (Which is where I guess most of this 'abuse' happens.)





As for the claims of reports being made, but no satisfactory solution to the reported problem...
It may be better to give more feedback to people who make reports, especially when it is determined that nothing needs to be done. (Just a quick PM from the moderator who handles the report would be fine... Let them know who handled the report, and why the reported problem does not violate Frihost rules.)




And if anybody is having problems with one particular moderator (I have my suspicions), they should inform other moderators or Frihost admin.
Bikerman
ocalhoun wrote:
It would be a good thing to separate the philosophy and religion section(s)...

...It might help with preventing every religion-based-topic from becoming a Theists vs. Atheists debate. (Which is where I guess most of this 'abuse' happens.)

Hmm....I have some sympathy with that but I'm not sure it would have the effect you think. If the aim is to stop atheists responding robustly to religious postings (which seems to be the gist of the complaints here) then i would question that motivation, and I would also question whether splitting philosophy and religion would achieve that goal since there would be nothing to stop posters contributing as they do at present, regardless of the actual title of the forum.
Quote:
And if anybody is having problems with one particular moderator (I have my suspicions), they should inform other moderators or Frihost admin.
LOL...no need to be coy - it is me, I have no doubt. Where complaints have been made about me I have referred them to the moderators forum promptly so that other moderators can consider such complaints and see if they have merit. I honestly don't know what more I can do. It is a mistake to think that I am 'the moderator' of the forum. I am a moderator and I happen to post a lot in that forum. I have no special remit to moderate that particular forum and in fact have rarely put the 'mod' hat on in that forum to tbe best of my recollection.

The fact is that there are 4 (possibly 5) posters who have made it clear that they dislike my style of posting - which actually means that they dislike the fact that I challenge their views, often quite robustly. I see nothing to apologise for, and I am subject to moderation just like any poster on these forums - in fact I insist that any complaint or issue involving me is dealt with by the other moderators to avoid any appearance to the contrary.
Quote:
There are a few members who already have grounds to sue Frihost, Bondings, and Bikerman (amoung other users whom have committed the same offense), myself included. I have asked the users in question to cease their pattern, and they have not. It is not in my desire or scope of interest to sue anyone under ANY circumstance unless I am pushed and pushed.
Nonsense. You have no grounds to sue anyone at Frihost and if you genuinely think otherwise then I suggest you consult a lawyer. You have not been abused - your views have been challenged, there is a difference. Neither has anyone told you that you have 'no right to believe' whatever you wish to believe, to my knowledge. I think that most people posting on the forums are pretty clear that anyone has the right to believe anything they like - certainly I am of that opinion and have repeatedly said so.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
As for the claims of reports being made, but no satisfactory solution to the reported problem...
It may be better to give more feedback to people who make reports, especially when it is determined that nothing needs to be done. (Just a quick PM from the moderator who handles the report would be fine... Let them know who handled the report, and why the reported problem does not violate Frihost rules.)

And if anybody is having problems with one particular moderator (I have my suspicions), they should inform other moderators or Frihost admin.
Good advice Ocalhoun, and I would imagine everyone has tried that, they also received feedback, but the kind that condones the behaviour of that Moderator. It is probably OK to report it once, but if it has been condoned once, it sort of makes it pointless to report the same thing again.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
As for the claims of reports being made, but no satisfactory solution to the reported problem...
It may be better to give more feedback to people who make reports, especially when it is determined that nothing needs to be done. (Just a quick PM from the moderator who handles the report would be fine... Let them know who handled the report, and why the reported problem does not violate Frihost rules.)

And if anybody is having problems with one particular moderator (I have my suspicions), they should inform other moderators or Frihost admin.
Good advice Ocalhoun, and I would imagine everyone has tried that, they also received feedback, but the kind that condones the behaviour of that Moderator. It is probably OK to report it once, but if it has been condoned once, it sort of makes it pointless to report the same thing again.

So do you think that this is
a) Because there is a conspiracy amongst moderators to defend me against justified complaints, or
b) Because the complaint was found to be groundless
?
truespeed
LittleBlackKitten wrote:


1) Users may NOT join the thread of disagreeing thoughts to your own solely to tell them they are wrong.

.


Then whats the point of a forum,if all you have is a happy clappy bunch agreeing with each other then every other post will resemble

Quote:
"^^This Smile "


Bikerman is clearly knowledgeable,and passionate about what he believes/thinks,the fact that he is a mod shouldn't restrict his postings,providing his postings don't contradict the TOS he has as much right to post as everyone else.

Maybe there should be a sub-forum,a GOD Appreciation section,where like minded people can get together and talk about all things Jesus/Mohammed with strict instructions that it is a fans only section.
tingkagol
truespeed wrote:
Maybe there should be a sub-forum,a GOD Appreciation section,where like minded people can get together and talk about all things Jesus/Mohammed with strict instructions that it is a fans only section.

ocalhoun wrote:
It would be a good thing to separate the philosophy and religion section(s)...

...It might help with preventing every religion-based-topic from becoming a Theists vs. Atheists debate. (Which is where I guess most of this 'abuse' happens.)

I've always thought this the moment conflicts started to rise in the Philosophy & Religion forum.

I'm not really suggesting to separate the two, just creating a new sub-forum (I've seen other phpbb boards do this) specifically and exclusively for religion where atheistic challenges (note that that doesn't mean atheists) are not welcome. But should a self-proclaimed atheist post, he should not challenge the topic. The rules need more work, I admit, but just a basic template, if you would.

This can then be moderated by someone else. Personally, I actually believe Bikerman can- if his hands aren't too full already. But I guess due to current events it will have to be another moderator.

The existing forum remains for other theists who still want to debate with atheists, with Bikerman as mod.

Structure would probably look something like this:

Frihost Forum Index
--> Lifestyle and News (category)
------> Philosophy and Religion (forum. The existing forum where atheists and theists can debate)
----------> Forum Thread 1
----------> Forum Thread 2
----------> Religion / Theist Sanctuary (subforum. Exclusive. Where theists can post without worrying about being challenged by atheists)
--------------> Subforum thread 1
--------------> Subforum thread 1

That is, I think, agreeable and I think this solves the problem.


*edit*

wait... I think if Bikerman is the mod of the root forum, he's also a mod for its sub-forum by default. Correct?
Bikerman
Well, by default ALL mods are root mods, but that need not be an issue. If this structure were agreed (and I'm not in favour personally, but I'd rather stay out of any debate and let the posters work it out for themselves) then I would simply undertake not to post or moderate in the forum specified. It is no big deal.
I actually did propose something not too disimilar to this in the mods forum some while back, but I was persuaded that it was not a good idea and I currently remain of that opinion. My view, however, should not be seen as a barrier.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
I honestly don't know what more I can do.
I can't understand that you don't know what to do. For me it is crystal clear. Since you are a "passionate robust posting" Moderator (I doubt there is another Moderator on this Forum that posts 5% of what you post in a day nor to the same level of "passionate robust" intensity - you are a TOTAL exception), there should be a rule that you can't moderate the threads that you are actively involved in, particularly the threads where you are passionately robust with the person you are debating with. That would definitely be most helpful Bikerman. That would be my request to Bondings as well.

Bikerman wrote:
The fact is that there are 4 (possibly 5) posters who have made it clear that they dislike my style of posting - which actually means that they dislike the fact that I challenge their views, often quite robustly. I see nothing to apologise for, and I am subject to moderation just like any poster on these forums - in fact I insist that any complaint or issue involving me is dealt with by the other moderators to avoid any appearance to the contrary.
Quite wrong here Bikerman. You are most definitely not unique in challenging other people's points of view (does look good in writing however doesn't it????), what gets people's backs up is the way you engage in discussions with them. You do it in the tackle-mode. You don't always confine yourself to debating the topic either, you seem to feel you have to discredit the person who is posting as well, by making personal references to youthfulness, poor quality of postings, etc., etc. Making those remarks are COMPLETELY unnecessary and I thought against the rules as well? They are definitely against the general rules of conduct on the Internet anyway. AND you know it!

And while we are on this topic, I would like to get something very straight with you publicly. I did NOT put a complaint in about you and I most certainly am not about to sue Frihost either. So stop lumping everyone together as you are good at doing that Bikerman. At a quick glance if a person did not read your posting properly, the inference would be that four (possibly 5) people are going to sue Frihost. You did not say that, but by dropping a quote in about suing it ties up neatly together for others to come to their own "Bikerman-approved" conclusion. There is only one poster in this thread who talked about suing.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
And while we are on this topic, I would like to get something very straight with you publicly. I did NOT put a complaint in about you and I most certainly am not about to sue Frihost either. So stop lumping everyone together as you are good at doing that Bikerman. At a quick glance if a person did not read your posting properly, the inference would be that four (possibly 5) people are going to sue Frihost. You did not say that, but by dropping a quote in about suing it ties up neatly together for others to come to their own "Bikerman-approved" conclusion. There is only one poster in this thread who talked about suing.
I know who talked about suing and I never said it was you - in fact I quoted the posting so that there was no misunderstanding, and yet you still misunderstand. There is no inference of the sort that you appear to detect - as is clear from both my use of paragraphs and the big QUOTE in between. It is clear who mentioned suing because the posting is in this thread, so any misunderstanding is yours alone.

And yes, you have put several complaints in about me, so why deny it?

As for not moderating threads I post in - I'm still waiting for an example of where I have done so in this forum. I'm not saying that I haven't, but I can't remember doing so and I do try to avoid it....If that is all you want then I see no problem at all with it. I will happily relinquish the task of moderating any threads in which I am active in this forum - it makes my life much easier.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
And while we are on this topic, I would like to get something very straight with you publicly. I did NOT put a complaint in about you and I most certainly am not about to sue Frihost either. So stop lumping everyone together as you are good at doing that Bikerman. At a quick glance if a person did not read your posting properly, the inference would be that four (possibly 5) people are going to sue Frihost. You did not say that, but by dropping a quote in about suing it ties up neatly together for others to come to their own "Bikerman-approved" conclusion. There is only one poster in this thread who talked about suing.
I know who talked about suing and I never said it was you - in fact I quoted the posting so that there was no misunderstanding, and yet you still misunderstand...there is no inference of the sort that you appear to detect - as is clear from both the use of paragraphs and the big QUOTE in between. It is clear who mentioned suing because the posting is in this thread, so any misunderstanding is yours alone.

And yes, you have put several complaints in about me, so why deny it?
YES, when YOU read every detail in your posting I agree. But how many people in Frihost really read every word of all of the postings of a thread? There is a good chance that your fan club may only zero in on YOUR postings, and scan through its contents. I've seen that happening before.
Bikerman
This is surreal. So now you expect me to second guess my postings in case someone doesn't read them properly? Why don't YOU read them properly then the issue won't arise, since nobody else seems to be having a problem?
Bluedoll
I am really sorry this is so long. Sad


“Users may NOT join the thread of disagreeing thoughts to your own solely to tell them they are wrong.” [/i]- LittleBlackKitten
“Then whats the point of a forum,if all you have is a happy clappy bunch agreeing with each other then every other post will resemble” - truespeed
@truespeed It is not the way I read it. Yes, it is a problem if a forum gets over regulated. (no easy solution) Everyone can disagree but is it not about the way the posts are being generated not about whether someone disagrees or not? Discuss, disagree, debate, hashitout makes a lively forum but on the other hand, if all members do is insult and make slap silly posts then that just will give you an angry bunch of tyrannical bully’s.

@tingkagol “subforum. Exclusive. Where theists can post without worrying about being challenged by atheists)” -tingkagol
Well an idea. I just would like the opportunity to declare that titles and categories do have some merit. Not every person with certain beliefs is an atheist nor is everyone with certain beliefs a theist. The issue might not be about being challenged so much as it is about being labeled and treated as such. In fact, the issue might not even be about religion at all but about common respect for one another.

@Bikerman“LOL...no need to be coy - it is me, I have no doubt...... I have no special remit to moderate that particular forum.” - Bikerman
Thank God.
I do disagree on your current philosophy. How you can pop the mod hat on and off. Mods are a mods period. Posting ‘robustly’, anywhere in the forum, I would not describe as challenging as you say but arrogant, in such, that it generates hostility and promotes an atmosphere of contempt which is enhanced by the fact you are a moderator and will be setting an example and having some influence on the boards. The latter has nothing to do with organizational or rule application tasks.
I think you have stated that you will not respect anyone until you personally think they merit it. This philosophy might work in a purely science curriculum but in my opinion will never work in a social setting.
Although, I think you have every right to post without restriction, it is my opinion (a members opinion and suggestion) that with your superior science capabilities you should try to at least a little have consideration, to the possibility, that in some areas, you just might be wrong?

Nonsense.” - Bikerman
This is endless no sense. I think creating that verb - less - sentence over and over again in your posts actually reads to be somewhat rude and self assuming. It is not against tos. I just feel you should consider ending that practice. Your choice.

You have not been abused - your views have been challenged, there is a difference.” - Bikerman
From my personal reflection on my attempt to make quality posts, I do beg to differ.

Hmm....I have some sympathy... ” - Bikerman
I can only pray that statement is sincere, then there still may be hope.

If the aim is to stop atheists responding robustly to religious postings (which seems to be the gist of the complaints here) then I would question that motivation.” - Bikerman
It seems that every post is about atheists that . . . The aim of this post, I tried to clearly state is not about “complaining” or about atheists – please read the post at the top again to determine the purpose of this post.
tingkagol
Bikerman wrote:
If that is all you want then I see no problem at all with it. I will happily relinquish the task of moderating any threads in which I am active in this forum - it makes my life much easier.

That's probably the best and easiest way to go about it.

I think you're having it hard just for being a mod who posts, and all the while the other resident atheist 'bad-ass', Indi, has got everything easy. That would be a relief, I suppose.
Bikerman
Bluedoll wrote:
@Bikerman“LOL...no need to be coy - it is me, I have no doubt...... I have no special remit to moderate that particular forum.” - Bikerman
Thank God.
I do disagree on your current philosophy. How you can pop the mod hat on and off. Mods are a mods period.
Moderation is mostly routine - checking for spammers, answering queries and dealing with reports. It is fairly rare to have to actually intervene in a thread. As I've already pointed out, I can't remember the last time I moderated a posting in the philosophy/religion forum.
Quote:
Posting ‘robustly’, anywhere in the forum, I would not describe as challenging as you say but arrogant, in such, that it generates hostility and promotes an atmosphere of contempt which is enhanced by the fact you are a moderator and will be setting an example and having some influence on the boards. The latter has nothing to do with organizational or rule application tasks.
I think you have stated that you will not respect anyone until you personally think they merit it. This philosophy might work in a purely science curriculum but in my opinion will never work in a social setting.
Well, I haven't said that at all. I challenged the notion that every viewpoint should be respected since I believe that is a fundamental mistake, as I explained in some depth. I did NOT say that I would only show respect to people I deemed worthy of it. Rather the reverse, I don't feel it necessary to show respect to those who clearly don't put effort and thought into their postings since they don't show any respect with their postings. That does not mean I abuse them and most of the supposed abuse that I have been accused of is nothing of the sort. Respect is a much over-used and over demanded quality. It is earned, not automatically assumed. Good manners I have no issue with, but respect means much more and requires much more.
Quote:
Although, I think you have every right to post without restriction, it is my opinion (a members opinion and suggestion) that with your superior science capabilities you should try to at least a little have consideration, to the possibility, that in some areas, you just might be wrong?
But are you not the person who said I was scared of debating you? Or was that perhaps someone else?

Of course I may be wrong, and believe it or not I find great satisfaction in being proved wrong - I welcome it. If I am wrong and somebody points out my mistake then I have learned something new and increased my knowledge - what is not to like?
When I AM wrong, though, that will be demonstrated by proving it, not simply by asserting it.
Quote:
Nonsense.” - Bikerman
This is endless no sense. I think creating that verb - less - sentence over and over again in your posts actually reads to be somewhat rude and self assuming. It is not against tos. I just feel you should consider ending that practice. Your choice.
I actually don't use it over and over - only when there is something which is obviously either not thought out or rather obviously wrong. The word is succinct and expresses what I mean it to - it says nothing about the poster and everything about the passage/posting. I don't worry if the word is used about a point I make - so long as it is then demonstrated to be nonsense. However, since I am in a conciliatory mood I will try to avoid using it in future postings - though I don't make any promises.
Quote:
You have not been abused - your views have been challenged, there is a difference.” - Bikerman
From my personal reflection on my attempt to make quality posts, I do beg to differ.
Well the postings are all still extant so all you have to do is point out where I have abused you and the evidence will speak for itself. You might also consider whether your own postings have been abusive at all, while you are in a reflective mood.
Quote:
Hmm....I have some sympathy... ” - Bikerman
I can only pray that statement is sincere, then there still may be hope.
Now I see THAT as a patronising comment....funny how people's perceptions differ isn't it?
Quote:
If the aim is to stop atheists responding robustly to religious postings (which seems to be the gist of the complaints here) then I would question that motivation.” - Bikerman
It seems that every post is about atheists that . . . The aim of this post, I tried to clearly state is not about “complaining” or about atheists – please read the post at the top again to determine the purpose of this post.
What I read was a thinly veiled attack, insinuating that I somehow encourage foul language and personal abuse when I do nothing of the sort. Find me a posting where I use the word 'retard' or 'idiot' - I'll be astonished if you can. Find me a posting where I use or encourage others to use foul language - I can state confidently that there is no such posting.

You don't like the way the philosophy and religion forum works, as you have previously stated. I don't like the way you would like it to work. You perceive a big problem, whereas I perceive a few users who would like the religious posters to have a much easier ride. It is a difference of opinion that will not be resolved in this or any other thread that I can imagine, but, since I have already said that I will not moderate threads that I am active in, then moderation is no longer something you should be concerned about.

My own take on the matter is quite simple. There is an almost complete lack of intelligent theist/Deist postings. I would be delighted to read some well considered and well researched postings from any theist/Deist in the forum, but what is normally posted are ill-considered opinion pieces which often demonstrate a fundamental lack of knowledge - even of the religion being prostelytised. The fact that atheist posters do tend to dominate the forum is, I think, largely down to the poor quality of postings by those introducing religious topics, and there is little I can do about that.
LittleBlackKitten
Here's the thing, Chris - deanhills is NOT the only one to have the perspective that your posts come off as argumentative and confrontational. I do, bluedoll does, Dementei does; deanhills is not alone, and it's about time you shut off that security gate that lets everything in through the Chris filter and pick and choose what you will comprehend and what you won't. You don't always have to be right; and before you argue that you claim you don't, prove US wrong and stop correcting and challenging everything we say.
Bikerman
As I said there is a group of 4 posters. I comprehend pretty well, but what that has to do with challenging postings I'm not quite sure. I challenge many postings - you are nothing special in that regard. Most people understand that since they are posting on a debating forum that they can expect people to debate their postings. The fact that you don't want this, or don't think I play fair, or whatever, is really your problem not mine. If I AM wrong then point it out and I'll learn something. If I am right then what is the problem? You will have learned something for free....
The only possible objection I can see would be to offensive or insulting postings, and I have no intention of posting such, so I cannot really see an issue....
watersoul
I'd say Bikerman is pretty consistent in most of his posts - mostly objective opinions, and mostly sticking to quantitative points of argument. A lot of the time I see discussions where his posts certainly are difficult to disprove or undermine due to his scientific line of reasoning.

Would I suggest that perhaps sometimes statements such as "nonsense" could have been reconsidered first to avoid the inflamed passions of some posters here? Certainly. Would I suggest that his scientifically considered definition of a view defined as "nonsense" is incorrect sometimes? Not always.

...but after a long time of reading Bikermans posts here, if asked the question "is he offensive and do his own views affect his ability to be a fair mod?", my answer would have to be no. Let's remember, no-one ever likes the referee in any sport, and in this sport of public debate, I do think he walks that tightrope of impartiallity (making mod decisions) quite well.
I've seen perceived "examples" of "bad decisions" here, and after reading through the topics, I fail to see any examples of impartiallity. I guess if he was a Theist then others might argue differently, but then I wonder would they, as most of his arguments and points are based on provable/unprovable information from what I've seen.

PS, I aint no teachers pet, and I don't really like ref's either although we need them, but I will comment if I've seen personal opinions affect a mod's decisions (as that could also potentially affect me as well in future), to date though it seems pretty impartial in the "red" mod text, and usually well reasoned in the "black" poster text.
Bikerman
Right - consider yourself modded for creeping ...
ROFLMAO Wink
watersoul
Bikerman wrote:
Right - consider yourself modded for creeping ...
ROFLMAO Wink


Lol, I never liked the ref on the rugby pitch, but they were always needed, and a decent ref would always command some respect - letting an equal number of punches get thrown from both sides for example.
The difference on a public forum though is the ref/mod is allowed to kick the ball/post their own comments as well and it seems to be thought of as a conflict of interest to some people - especially with opposing views.
How thats resolved I don't know - just maybe hold the "nonsense" lines back a bit sometimes! LMAO Wink
Bikerman
No, I'll stick to what i agreed earlier - I will not moderate any thread in the phil&relig forum that I am active in. Since people know that up-front then they cannot accuse me of using or threatening to use mod status during any debate.

If, on the offchance, anything does need moderation then I'll invite one of the other mods to take a look and leave them to it - can't see it happening though (and of course anyone else can do the same with the report button so that isn't me exercising some special privilege).
watersoul
Bikerman wrote:
No, I'll stick to what i agreed earlier - I will not moderate any thread in the phil&relig forum that I am active in. Since people know that up-front then they cannot accuse me of using or threatening to use mod status during any debate.

If, on the offchance, anything does need moderation then I'll invite one of the other mods to take a look and leave them to it - can't see it happening though (and of course anyone else can do the same with the report button so that isn't me exercising some special privilege).


Probably a good move for you fella, at least then you can concentrate on debating the issue that is important to you as an individual and not a mod, without questions of impartiallity etc. Maybe it will be something some folk might regret though, as I'm sure you'll stick to the TOS, but perhaps be more vociferous in your arguments - as a dog with a bone, free to chew it without the shackles of a mod trying to avoid accusations of any conflicts of interest.

Good luck though, I still reckon it won't satisfy some folk! lol
Bikerman
watersoul wrote:
Good luck though, I still reckon it won't satisfy some folk! lol

Of that I have no doubt at all Smile
Bluedoll
I just want to restate the purpose of this post. Sincerely, it was only meant to be helpful. I wanted to try to bring something positive to the board and help improve it so it would be even more inviting to new members.
It was not meant to denounce a mod as being unfair. It was meant to suggest that perhaps some of the posters (mod/poster) on this board are stepping over the wrong side of a line when it comes to making quality posts. I did honestly think the mods and ‘season debaters’ in any capacity set an example for the board but in this I could be wrong because I am not fully versed in message board dynamics.

I was hoping this post could have been a good recommendation and that something could have come out of it that would suggest an improvement. Perhaps, I was wrong for thinking that.

I am not satisfied with this post because what I do see is this post is degenerating to some kind of slizzy chat room where hoodlums of the English language use internet slang and ham things up. Perhaps, to recommend such a board to someone as a great board to post in is nonsense.
mOrpheuS
Bluedoll wrote:
Most importantly however both sections could definitely benefit with a new moderator who is less of a forceful postee

Let's state it clearly -
You think it's a problem that a "forceful postee" is also a moderator ? If yes, why ?

OR, (as I believe is the case)
Do you think "forceful postees" are a problem in general ? If yes, why ?

LittleBlackKitten wrote:
There either needs to be some major change regarding the rules dictating conversation and what it means to respect others, or have "religion" in it's entirety banned from conversation on the site. I'm finding it ever harder every day not only to post something I'm thinking, but I cannot honestly say without a shadow of a doubt that I will not get attacked, degraded, insulted, verbally abused, hated, or argued with based off ANYTHING I write.

This is a "discussion" board - all discussions are open to all members. A sanctuary for anyone's beliefs it is not. There are certain other forums that might fit that bill, not FriHost.

Sure, people argued with you.
But grouping "arguing" with "attacking, degrading, insulting, verbally abusing, hating" in the same sentence doesn't validate the claim that you've been subjected to all of them.
Arguing with you is not the same as attacking, degrading, insulting, verbally abusing or hating you.

We discourage and punish attacking, degrading, insulting, verbally abusing and hating.
We encourage and reward arguing.

LittleBlackKitten wrote:
It's disgusting that I as an unemployed white female christian cannot talk freely on a forum without feeling like I don't matter, like a child being chided for saying something silly or dumb, or like I just plain DON'T BELONG.

I'm not sure what your being "an unemployed white female christian" has anything to do with any of this.
Also, the rest of your post is full of threats that, you will find, have little basis in real law.

LittleBlackKitten wrote:
You don't always have to be right; and before you argue that you claim you don't, prove US wrong and stop correcting and challenging everything we say.

I don't see why you think you deserve such immunity in a debate. Unless it's really a sanctuary for your beliefs, and not debate, that you're looking for.


Bluedoll wrote:
I was hoping this post could have been a good recommendation and that something could have come out of it that would suggest an improvement. Perhaps, I was wrong for thinking that.

Suggestions have come up, surely.
And, like any other suggestion, they should be discussed.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
As I said there is a group of 4 posters.
Let us keep it real here Chris. There could be many others who have not come forward. There could be those who were upset with you and left the Forum without making a comment or complaint about it. There could be those who decided it was too hot for them where you are and who either decided to post somewhere else or just leave the Forum.

Again, I don't understand why you have to be robust at all in order to get to the truth. Why do you have to tell a person he is a liar? Why can't you just simply say that you don't agree with his point of view as others do when they are challenging other posters.
Bikerman wrote:
I comprehend pretty well, but what that has to do with challenging postings I'm not quite sure. I challenge many postings - you are nothing special in that regard. Most people understand that since they are posting on a debating forum that they can expect people to debate their postings. The fact that you don't want this, or don't think I play fair, or whatever, is really your problem not mine. If I AM wrong then point it out and I'll learn something. If I am right then what is the problem? You will have learned something for free....
The only possible objection I can see would be to offensive or insulting postings, and I have no intention of posting such, so I cannot really see an issue....
You are not the only one who challenge other posters Bikerman. But do you have to cut the debater down as well? Why are the personal references necessary? Why do you need to cut people down? What has that got to do with the challenge?
deanhills
mOrpheuS wrote:
Bluedoll wrote:
Most importantly however both sections could definitely benefit with a new moderator who is less of a forceful postee

Let's state it clearly -
You think it's a problem that a "forceful postee" is also a moderator ? If yes, why ?
mOrpheuS, I will let Bluedoll answer this on her own, but would like to give you my comment on this question as well. There is a difference between a forceful postee and a "postee who climbs into the character of the other person forcefully". For example call the other person a liar etc., or tell that person that he should rather post in the General Chat Forum. That is TOTALLY unacceptable and not only unnecessary, but it detracts completely from the discussion. I thought that was against the rules as well? It is definitely not Netiquette either. There is room for forceful postees, but not room for people who cut other posters down. That is just so very wrong.

The worst part of that is when new posters "venture" into the Philosophy & Religion Forum and then get a grilling of the "forceful" kind. Now that should not be how Frihost welcomes its new posters. I am hoping for us to get to 1-million postings, and of course not "junk/spam" postings, but if a poster at least tries to present an opinion give him a little bit of lattitude, even when the "forceful postee" feels like beating him to a pulp with his "forceful words". Why is there a need to be forceful anyway?
Bluedoll
@Morpheus
This is suggesting, I hope you see it that way. Forceful postees are a problem in general. I am not sure where all the solutions are but I do think encouraging and rewarding arguing could be reassessed?
I understand, a math argument has two different values on each side of the equal sign and I understand discussion involves deliberation (debate). What I do not understand is promoting arguing or put downs? It solves nothing and only creates a foul atmosphere.
Maybe, immunity is too strong a word but is a little general respect and consideration too much to ask for?

Build your sand castle but play nice.
LittleBlackKitten
IMO, here's the difference.

Poster A says "God is a turnip, and so is my mother. This is my belief system."
Poster B comes along and says "It might be important to note that turnips are inanimate objects, so let me understand your beliefs a little better?"

In that scenario, poster A makes a religious claim, that poster B disagrees with. While not arguing or attacking, poster B has opened up the other person for gentle, HEALTHY debate, that might end up like this:

Poster A says "Oh, well my father always said turnips were heaven sent, and that God was a turnip. It's just what I was raised to believe."
Poster B can now debate, healthily. "But, did you know that turnips don't live like people do? They don't have brains or souls, they're not people. What would you say if I said it was impossible?"

That kind of debate is fine - but here's what Bikerman does (and how he comes across).

Poster A says "God is a turnip, and so is my mother. This is my belief system."
Chris comes along and says "This is totally implausable. Where do you get your information? Don't you know anything about vegetables? (insert scientific jargon and theory here) is why you're totally wrong, and so you must believe exactly what I believe, or I'm going to post like this again."

This not only shuts someone down, makes them feel defensive and attacked, but unwilling to converse, listen, and change. If Chris just started being far more gentle, less like the latter and more like the former, I believe NO ONE would have an issue with him.

In fact, I will REWRITE his last arguing post to make it sound the way I'm meaning;

Quote:
As I said there is a group of 4 posters. I comprehend pretty well, but what that has to do with challenging postings I'm not quite sure. I challenge many postings - you are nothing special in that regard. Most people understand that since they are posting on a debating forum that they can expect people to debate their postings. The fact that you don't want this, or don't think I play fair, or whatever, is really your problem not mine. If I AM wrong then point it out and I'll learn something. If I am right then what is the problem? You will have learned something for free....
The only possible objection I can see would be to offensive or insulting postings, and I have no intention of posting such, so I cannot really see an issue....


Translation: As I said there is a group of 4 posters. I get what you mean, but what's that got to do with the real issue here. You're not the only one I talk to here on this board, why are you the special one out? In my opinion, everyone's posts are open for conversation, and its not just me that does this. I don't understand why I'm the bully and no mone else is. If you don't like how I reply, then go somewhere else. If I'm right, awesome. If I'm wrong, just tell me, no big deal. I don't mean to offend anyone, including yourself. There's no issue here at all.


See, that might be what you MEANT; but here's how that comes off: Get over yourself. You're seeing stuff that I don't, so you're wrong, go away. I'm usually right, you're usually wrong. Offchance I am, well, good. Whatever. Otherwise, I don't give two hoots about the issue 5 other people seem to have, they're all making it up. There's no issue. I'm blocking out the sun with my finger, here.


Bluedoll; I'm sorry for the thread hijack, in that case. I guess I misunderstood the intentions of your topic. I will try not to do that again. Smile
Bikerman
LittleBlackKitten wrote:
Quote:
As I said there is a group of 4 posters. I comprehend pretty well, but what that has to do with challenging postings I'm not quite sure. I challenge many postings - you are nothing special in that regard. Most people understand that since they are posting on a debating forum that they can expect people to debate their postings. The fact that you don't want this, or don't think I play fair, or whatever, is really your problem not mine. If I AM wrong then point it out and I'll learn something. If I am right then what is the problem? You will have learned something for free....
The only possible objection I can see would be to offensive or insulting postings, and I have no intention of posting such, so I cannot really see an issue....


Translation: As I said there is a group of 4 posters. I get what you mean, but what's that got to do with the real issue here. You're not the only one I talk to here on this board, why are you the special one out? In my opinion, everyone's posts are open for conversation, and its not just me that does this. I don't understand why I'm the bully and no mone else is. If you don't like how I reply, then go somewhere else. If I'm right, awesome. If I'm wrong, just tell me, no big deal. I don't mean to offend anyone, including yourself. There's no issue here at all.
That is a translation only in the sense that you THINK that I meant something other than I wrote. In that you would be wrong. It requires no translation since it expressed exactly what I meant to say. It is up to each individual how they interpret what is written but I try to use language which is as unambiguous as possible.
Now, let's examine what you interpreted my original posting to mean:
Quote:
See, that might be what you MEANT; but here's how that comes off: Get over yourself. You're seeing stuff that I don't, so you're wrong, go away. I'm usually right, you're usually wrong. Offchance I am, well, good. Whatever. Otherwise, I don't give two hoots about the issue 5 other people seem to have, they're all making it up. There's no issue. I'm blocking out the sun with my finger, here.
Promising start - yes, I certainly did intend the implicit 'get over yourself'. Anyone who posts about suing Frih, me, Steve or anyone else is a little too far up themselves to be taken seriously, so you read that exactly as intended.
Next sentence is completely wrong though, and is in contradiction to what I wrote. My post contains the explicit recognition that I can be wrong - and in fact welcomes people proving me wrong. To interpret that in the way you have is perverse. Third sentence is not what I intended to convey and I don't see how you could get that from the text - I think it may be an impression generally gained from my postings. Whether it is accurate or not I will leave to others to decide. The next two sentences don't make any sense to me so I can't comment on them. Next sentence is partly true and partly deliberately misleading. You change 4 into 5 and insert the 'making it all up' - neither of which is reasonably inferred from the text. The inferrence that I am saying I don't give two hoots is close, but not accurate. If I didn't give two hoots I wouldn't bother wasting time responding, but I certainly don't take your opinions too seriously, so to that extent it is accurate. 'There is no issue' is nearly right - but I think I said it more clearly in the text - the issue is yours not mine.
The last sentence is bizarre - it implies that I am ignoring some crisis when I have already explicitly said that I don't perceive any crisis in the first part. This must be because you think there is some crisis that I am missing - I repeat that the opinion of 4 posters doesn't seem to me to be any such thing.
Bluedoll
Thank you everyone for joining this discussion it was appreciated.

This post originally started out to identify an issue if there was one and work towards a possible solution, once found, it could serve as a suggestion for the purpose of creating a better board. This post was not intended to be solely about one moderator but rather about a general attitude and how that translates to what establishes good posts and what doesn’t. Can any conclusion be drawn?

Bikerman – there isn’t an issue – business as usual

Bluedoll – I wish for more respectful posts

LittleBlackKitten - major change needed regarding attacked, degraded, insults

ocalhoun -something bad, then report it or use of phpbb's ability to assign moderators

deanhills - there is obvious intent to discredit members in posts

truespeed - the point of a forum is to have debate

tingkagol – sees some conflicts in p/r section – rules could need work

watersoul – in a public forum mods can be seen to have a conflict of interest

mOrpheuS - arguing is encouraged but not abusiveness










__________________________________________________________________________

@Bikerman - how you interrupt this, I am not sure however I really do hope it comes agross as a helpful suggestion please believe that - if it contains anything not approiate please feel free to let me know.
I can read and would like to comment on your last post starting with . . “LittleBlackKitten – That is a translation only in the sense that you THINK that I meant something other than I wrote.”
I do agree your language is unambiguous but also borders on being somewhat rude to her in my opinion.
For example you use, “you are nothing special”
This is insulting as you and I both know what it is inferring. Yes, in a court of law it could be disputed but I am not implying, this is a court of law, indeed we both understand this is only a little message board tucked away in some remote corner of internet. Do you think you might need to be more realistic about that fact? You did say point things out didn’t you? Well, I am doing that now and suggesting some solutions.
In this last post you seem to want to continue to snap at LittleBlackKitten
“is a little too far up themselves to be taken seriously, so you read that exactly as intended.”
Is that really needed? It doesn’t really matter if you are right or wrong. The general tone of this most recent post is extremely poor, unfriendly, pushy and perhaps most importantly very finely written, in my opinion.
You say, “If I didn't give two hoots I wouldn't bother wasting time responding” but the fact is Bikerman you are responding with a fine tooth comb slashing at little points but failing to see the bigger picture. You did say something to the effect “well just point it out to me then!” What if you didn’t actually say that? What if you said instead, you can make your views known? Would you then respond back into the thread, slice up the post, insert your comments to draw everyone’s attention to the fact that you did not actually say that and therefore insist that all that postee’ says is inaccurate and leave some comment behind like “To interpret that in the way you have is perverse”. Do you think that actually adds to the thread? This is my suggestion. You see, I, like falling up on postings as you do and do care a hoot enough to offer up a suggestion to you? What you do with my suggestion is really up to you for it has been made crystal clear by an admin that you can post in this forum and I do agree with that. Though, I think the admin was saying . . .. well it would be better if you interrupted it? The bigger picture is something I think you don’t see. This happens to many teachers, scientists and even professionals as they get so absorbed in their work they fail to understand the message of what the people around them are trying to convey. The admin was good enough to leave a message for both of us and others to read which I thought made perfectly good sense. If you do not want this “bikerman” post to continue on and on and on, I would suggest and of course this is only a suggestion to you, you can do as you please but isn’t it logical to end this debate and start another that promises to be more interesting? This is not what this post was suppose to be about. Oh, I do understand if someone is posting something that pertains to your post, you do want to comment on it. I think you should definitely do so, I know I would as well however does it not make sense as well that someone has to at some point end the dialogue and start a new one? I am not making a suggestion that someone should close this post, but that perhaps we (including myself) could discuss more about what the post is about? I am suggesting that perhaps you might be thinking on the lines that you need to debate your role on the board completely until there is no doubt that you are right but in doing so you are missing the point that perhaps and please consider this as a possibility there may be other descussions besides just that. What you do with this information is entirely up to yourself.
Bikerman
I would say that mods should certainly not set a bad example and would hopefully set a good one, so to that extent i agree. The problem then becomes what you regard as good and bad. To me a good posting is one which doesn't make unsupported accusations or assertions, is logically argued, and is informative.

As for my earlier posting. Yes, I agree that it was a bit 'snappy'. I had got tired of reading baseless allegations and personal insults and was not in a particularly generous mood when I wrote it. I don't think that it was 'personally insulting' however. The observation that one is 'nothing special' is not one that I would be insulted by, and it is a statement of fact in this context, containing no personal observation other than the generally applicable. Yes, it is brusque, that I would agree with - but compared to what was coming the other way I think it was pretty measured....If you read back through this thread and compare what was said about me to how I responded then I think you might agree that I tried to respond factually and dispassionately to the allegations and comments being made (despite your intent it did indeed largely settle on my role and postings).

I am happy to let this thread drop, but I'm not happy to leave accusations and misrepresentations unanswered.
LittleBlackKitten
Everyone else is taking everyone else into account, is learning, willing to change, and looks at oneself - except you, Chris. Everyone else ISN'T the problem. The simplest answer is usually the true answer. Chris needs to change his approach and wording, along with attitude and aggression.
watersoul
LittleBlackKitten wrote:
Everyone else is taking everyone else into account, is learning, willing to change, and looks at oneself - except you, Chris. Everyone else ISN'T the problem. The simplest answer is usually the true answer. Chris needs to change his approach and wording, along with attitude and aggression.


...or alternatively "everyone else" could perhaps learn to be a little less sensitive sometimes and practice more at debating with more reasoned arguments in defence. Maybe then "they" can use this feeling of empowerment to shoot the perceived aggressor down with the power of their well considered words - just a thought Wink
Bikerman
LittleBlackKitten wrote:
Everyone else is taking everyone else into account, is learning, willing to change, and looks at oneself - except you, Chris.
Really? I didn't know you spoke for everyone...I change my opinion quite frequently but I do so in response to reasoned, logical debate.
Quote:
Everyone else ISN'T the problem. The simplest answer is usually the true answer.
No, that is not correct. The simplest answer might well be wrong. The simplest correct answer is the one to go for.
Quote:
Chris needs to change his approach and wording, along with attitude and aggression.
No, Chris is happy with his approach and generally happy with his wording. Chris is not aggressive and his attitude is his own business.
deanhills
LittleBlackKitten wrote:
Everyone else is taking everyone else into account, is learning, willing to change, and looks at oneself - except you, Chris. Everyone else ISN'T the problem. The simplest answer is usually the true answer. Chris needs to change his approach and wording, along with attitude and aggression.
Good point LittleBlackKitten and totally agreed. But what worries me now, is this statement by Chris/Bikerman:
Bikerman wrote:
Chris is not aggressive.

Now that is a REAL problem, if Bikerman cannot be sensitive to the impact of his "robust" posting on other posters in a social forum, perhaps there cannot and will not be a remedy. After all of us trying to explain to him what the problem is, what a waste of time that was in retrospect!
Bikerman
Well it is your time to waste so blame yourself not me. I haven't got a problem and I'm not worried.
tingkagol
LittleBlackKitten wrote:
Poster A says "Oh, well my father always said turnips were heaven sent, and that God was a turnip. It's just what I was raised to believe."
Poster B can now debate, healthily. "But, did you know that turnips don't live like people do? They don't have brains or souls, they're not people. What would you say if I said it was impossible?"

That kind of debate is fine...

Smile

That gave me a chuckle because that's exactly how Bikerman answers some of those assertions.

Perhaps you automatically read sarcasm off of it just because it's Bikerman's post? Give it a try- read it again and imagine the reply being sarcastic.
mOrpheuS
This "issue" has already been addressed over Reports/private messaging. I remember explaining our position to all the members who keep complaining about it.
You're not going to change anything by posting about it all over the forum.

I'll repeat it here once again, for the record.


LittleBlackKitten wrote:
here's what Bikerman does (and how he comes across).

Poster A says "God is a turnip, and so is my mother. This is my belief system."
Chris comes along and says "This is totally implausable. Where do you get your information? Don't you know anything about vegetables? (insert scientific jargon and theory here) is why you're totally wrong, and so you must believe exactly what I believe, or I'm going to post like this again."

Highlighted is the part which I consider a complete fabrication.
In addition, you overlooked the real argument presented by someone as "scientific jargon and theory", and perceived the whole thing as an attack.



LittleBlackKitten wrote:
but here's how that comes off
Bluedoll wrote:
arguing is encouraged but not abusiveness


I have gone through a few threads in the "Philosophy and Religion" section in the past few days.
Here's the flow I've observed -
1. You make a statement.
2. Someone (usually Bikerman) points out flaw(s) in said statement. (If you think the argument is valid, you should accept it. If you think it's not, you should present your case against it.)
3. Instead, you start crying foul/making personal remarks. (Which just shows that you're either so sensitive or insecure in your own beliefs that, to you, any argument against it "comes off" as an attack.)

I've seen this happen too many times to not think of it as typical.

Crying foul for nothing but a genuine argument against your premises -
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-980621.html#980621
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-985014.html#985014
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-982730.html#982730

Do take time to notice that the posts you were complaining about were not offensive/attacking at all.
This is the reason why your complaints were summarily dismissed.

This is what I consider personal attack -
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-985225.html#985225
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-985265.html#985265
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-985276.html#985276
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-986492.html#986492
Clearly, you have been getting away with many TOS violations just because Bikerman has refrained from moderating you. This shall go on no longer.



deanhills wrote:
After all of us trying to explain to him what the problem is

It was unwise of me to let this go on for this long. This will now -close- .
Any more posts about it and the they'll be trashed and the thread will be locked.
Any new complaints about any forum member - please take them up with a Report or Private messaging with Bondings.


(Bikerman may have chosen not to do it, but I do moderate the threads I participate in.)
Related topics
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> Suggestions

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.