Biased warnings

[TheTruth101]

This is a copy and pasted messege that I have sent to Micatala. He closed a thread "Conciousness without the brain" and gave me a warning for no apparent reason.


Don't understand your warnings. Other debators are doing the same. A link for a "youtube" was given by the creator of this forum for a reason.
On another thread, you are handing out warnings to me when I am reporting the warnings myself. This is your personal vendetta and I want an explanation.
This is a Debating christianity site. I am debating with sources to back up my claims. "Youtube" video is a source that is there to back up my claims.

I am aware this is not a preaching site, I am debating Atheism from a stance as a christian. If you reach to a conclusion that I am preaching, then all christians that back up their claims that offer sources from the bible are "preaching".

This is noted as rather a personal vendetta. This isnt the first time you've done this. You've done this atleast 2 times.

I also want an explanation as to why you closed "concioussness without the brain" thread. The Atheists that claimed otherwise from what I said has offered no sources as to what they claim is true. Every post that they posted, if it was relevent to the topic, I responded with my views of such subject with sources to back up my claims.

This messege will be copy and pasted to every moderator on this forum.

In reply, please send it to all moderators as well.


Please advise moderating team.

[Angel]

I have to commend you for starting and engaging in lively debates by going head on with many atheists and even some theists. If you ask me, I believe you've attracted more business to this forum because you have a lot of creative views and you're good at tying them to theism. Many of your views I don't agree with but I won't go as far as saying that you're making them up to troll, especially when you are defending your views when you can. And there are some of your views that I do agree with or that gets me thinking, so to that I say keep up the good work!!

Admittedly, I have not looked at all of the reasons to conclude that the moderators have a hyperfocus on you to give you a hard time. If you ask me, I don't think saying "case closed" should warrant a moderator comment and I saw you got a moderator comment just for saying that. It's not a negative comment and you're just expressing that you feel like you made a strong case, big deal! Having too many moderator comments especially for minor things that aren't offensive or disrespectful can be discouraging to debaters.

[otseng]

Don't understand your warnings. Other debators are doing the same. A link for a "youtube" was given by the creator of this forum for a reason.

Again, posting a youtube video is not against the rules. But, as micatala stated, "Using a video in a cryptic way to make what appears to be a personal attack is not wihtin the rules." And your comment "thats exactly what you're doing on a daily basis. You should note what you'll be facing in eternity" are considered to be directed at the person.

On another thread, you are handing out warnings to me when I am reporting the warnings myself. This is your personal vendetta and I want an explanation.

We are here to enforce the rules, there is no personal vendetta against posters.

"Youtube" video is a source that is there to back up my claims.

To back up the claim "what you'll be facing in eternity" is not debating, but a personal attack.

I also want an explanation as to why you closed "concioussness without the brain" thread.

It was devolving into an uncivil exchange.

[TheTruth101]

Don't understand your warnings. Other debators are doing the same. A link for a "youtube" was given by the creator of this forum for a reason.

Again, posting a youtube video is not against the rules. But, as micatala stated, "Using a video in a cryptic way to make what appears to be a personal attack is not wihtin the rules." And your comment "thats exactly what you're doing on a daily basis. You should note what you'll be facing in eternity" are considered to be directed at the person.

On another thread, you are handing out warnings to me when I am reporting the warnings myself. This is your personal vendetta and I want an explanation.

We are here to enforce the rules, there is no personal vendetta against posters.

"Youtube" video is a source that is there to back up my claims.

To back up the claim "what you'll be facing in eternity" is not debating, but a personal attack.

I also want an explanation as to why you closed "concioussness without the brain" thread.

It was devolving into an uncivil exchange.

Understood. Please note I did create a second thread, it was not done in a disrespectful manner to the moderators, but simply to point out the evident factors of whats out there scientifically being interwined with the Bible to begin with.

[stubbornone]

Don't understand your warnings. Other debators are doing the same. A link for a "youtube" was given by the creator of this forum for a reason.

Again, posting a youtube video is not against the rules. But, as micatala stated, "Using a video in a cryptic way to make what appears to be a personal attack is not wihtin the rules." And your comment "thats exactly what you're doing on a daily basis. You should note what you'll be facing in eternity" are considered to be directed at the person.

On another thread, you are handing out warnings to me when I am reporting the warnings myself. This is your personal vendetta and I want an explanation.

We are here to enforce the rules, there is no personal vendetta against posters.

"Youtube" video is a source that is there to back up my claims.

To back up the claim "what you'll be facing in eternity" is not debating, but a personal attack.

I also want an explanation as to why you closed "concioussness without the brain" thread.

It was devolving into an uncivil exchange.

It was devolving into an uncivil exchange and once again ... its the Christian on the line. Interesting.

How many more of these do we have to get before we acknowledge the trend of atheist flame baiting and emotionalism? Its pretty dambed odd that no atheists are making this complaint.

Check your standards.

[LiamOS]

I must apologise for the rhetoric, but what are the chances that a group of 7 individuals of widely varying ages, cultures, and religious positions would all unknowingly discriminate against Christians?

Isn't it much more likely that - in situations we're concerning ourselves with - the atheists are merely arguing strongly, as opposed to being overtly offensive, and that this is being construed as worse than it is due to the vast difference in opinion?

[stubbornone]

I must apologise for the rhetoric, but what are the chances that a group of 7 individuals of widely varying ages, cultures, and religious positions would all unknowingly discriminate against Christians?

Isn't it much more likely that - in situations we're concerning ourselves with - the atheists are merely arguing strongly, as opposed to being overtly offensive, and that this is being construed as worse than it is due to the vast difference in opinion?

It isn't seven, its one - only one of the 'seven' is taking the vast majority of the actions isn't he?

Now, as I already pointed this out, and have been summarily ignored about it, when three atheists call me a bigot, and then report me after making a generalized statement that all Christians sources (which merely means data compiled by Christians) is automatically biased ... why calling that a form of bigotry is of course right out.

And when one of seven steps in and issues a warning, blows off the presentation of evidence with a series of dismissive one liners about what happened, and insists, publically, on accusing the Christian of 'dragging the phrase in' repeatedly when the evidence clearly contradicts that claim?

Perhaps you can explain why the remaining six, when appealed to, simply ignored the same evidence and allowed the vacuous allegations, in defiance of clearly presented evidence, to stand without comment?

Perhaps you could tell me why there are now several threads started here all pointing, from a range of posters whose sole similarity is that they are Christians who actively stand up to atheists, are all reporting the EXACT same problem? Who are using the term 'vendetta' is regard to O's actions?

Simply put, after watching an atheist violate EVERY rule I inadvertently violated over the course of month, in less than two days, with no action whatsoever, while being placed on probation (a decision that was appealed and summarily ignored buy the remaining six moderators who appear unwilling or unable to stand up to O) I think its pretty clear that one mod in particular has a pride problem, wherein he thinks he himself is the perfect Christian and tolerant of atheists - and all the strong Christians who come in get to deal with his pride and sense of superiority.

Its pretty simple, why, if there is no bias, are there several threads, all from Christians, pointing out the same problem? Why are ALL the discipline problems apparently Christians? Even as its clear that atheists are violating the same rules? Tell me why three atheists could call me a bigot, but reversing the comments results not only in a warning, but the three atheists actions were simply skipped? Tell me why atheists out number Christians on a Christian debate forum?

No bias because facts do not matter when we have 'six' others who won't actually address the specifics?

Its pretty simple, as on other debate forums, you have several atheists whose sole contribution to the forum is trolling and flame bait - wherein they attempt to illicit a 'rule violation' and report, adding absolutely nothing to the actual discussion save an attempt to illicit said response so they can report you .... and mighty, mighty O will run in to their rescue because several of these posters are 'most improved', and then stick his head in the sand when someone attempts to say, "Whoa, that is not what is happening in the least!"

It could be as simple as making reporting public so we can see the atheists flame baiters doing it ... but then that might embarrass the mighty O, that might mean he would have to discipline atheists to level the playing field rather than playing the erudite and superior Christian judge of all those who stand up to atheists (just not as good as he does apparently) ... and that might actually lead to actual debate rather than a series of atheists doing nothing but flame baiting Christians and O happily enabling them.

Or I suppose you can just come up with more excuses and pretending that it isn't happening and that atheists, universally, are pure blind and innocent victims of nefarious Christians? Yep, clearly such sentiments are not the result of any kind of bias? Christians who stand up to atheists are ALL bad and uncivil, atheists who stand up to Christians are all innocent victims?

But heh, there are seven of you ... so, clearly ... what exactly?

[LiamOS]

It isn't seven, its one - only one of the 'seven' is taking the vast majority of the actions isn't he?

The majority of warnings you've received have come from people who aren't otseng. If you were speaking more generally, then of course otseng is more prevalent on the forum; it's his forum.

Now, as I already pointed this out, and have been summarily ignored about it, when three atheists call me a bigot, and then report me after making a generalized statement that all Christians sources (which merely means data compiled by Christians) is automatically biased ... why calling that a form of bigotry is of course right out.

I can't comment on that as I don't know what incident you're referring to. I would wager a guess, based on my faith in the judgement of other mods and personal experience that you may be interpreting the posts of others in an overly self-offending way.

Perhaps you can explain why the remaining six, when appealed to, simply ignored the same evidence and allowed the vacuous allegations, in defiance of clearly presented evidence, to stand without comment?

Have you considered, again, that six people of widely varying backgrounds and positions did not deem your evidence to be such?

Perhaps you could tell me why there are now several threads started here all pointing, from a range of posters whose sole similarity is that they are Christians who actively stand up to atheists, are all reporting the EXACT same problem? Who are using the term 'vendetta' is regard to O's actions?

The sole similarity is actually that they violate the rules.
The general trend I've noticed is that asking a question such as "Have you any evidence for that?" is considered inflammatory by some of these Christians.

Its pretty simple, why, if there is no bias, are there several threads, all from Christians, pointing out the same problem?

I believe it is because this specific type of poster perceives a problem where none exists.

Its pretty simple, as on other debate forums, you have several atheists whose sole contribution to the forum is trolling and flame bait - wherein they attempt to illicit a 'rule violation' and report, adding absolutely nothing to the actual discussion save an attempt to illicit said response so they can report you ....

Perhaps some, or even most, of these posters are honestly debating, and that people are seeing flamebait where it does not exist?

It could be as simple as making reporting public so we can see the atheists flame baiters doing it ...

Trust me when I say you don't want that.

Or I suppose you can just come up with more excuses and pretending that it isn't happening and that atheists, universally, are pure blind and innocent victims of nefarious Christians? Yep, clearly such sentiments are not the result of any kind of bias? Christians who stand up to atheists are ALL bad and uncivil, atheists who stand up to Christians are all innocent victims?

otseng and micatala are Christians who stand up to atheists. You can easily find many of their debates to confirm that, particularly o's H2H debates. What they do not do is post empty rhetoric, preach, or otherwise break the rules.

You, and generally the other Christians to whom you refer, have received multiple comments and warnings for personal comments and profanity(and many of the atheists you're talking about have, too). There is obviously some animosity on both sides of a debate, but in the instances you're talking about, one side is overtly breaking the rules, and inducing the same in the opposing side.

[stubbornone]

It isn't seven, its one - only one of the 'seven' is taking the vast majority of the actions isn't he?

The majority of warnings you've received have come from people who aren't otseng. If you were speaking more generally, then of course otseng is more prevalent on the forum; it's his forum.

Now, as I already pointed this out, and have been summarily ignored about it, when three atheists call me a bigot, and then report me after making a generalized statement that all Christians sources (which merely means data compiled by Christians) is automatically biased ... why calling that a form of bigotry is of course right out.

I can't comment on that as I don't know what incident you're referring to. I would wager a guess, based on my faith in the judgement of other mods and personal experience that you may be interpreting the posts of others in an overly self-offending way.

Perhaps you can explain why the remaining six, when appealed to, simply ignored the same evidence and allowed the vacuous allegations, in defiance of clearly presented evidence, to stand without comment?

Have you considered, again, that six people of widely varying backgrounds and positions did not deem your evidence to be such?

Perhaps you could tell me why there are now several threads started here all pointing, from a range of posters whose sole similarity is that they are Christians who actively stand up to atheists, are all reporting the EXACT same problem? Who are using the term 'vendetta' is regard to O's actions?

The sole similarity is actually that they violate the rules.
The general trend I've noticed is that asking a question such as "Have you any evidence for that?" is considered inflammatory by some of these Christians.

Its pretty simple, why, if there is no bias, are there several threads, all from Christians, pointing out the same problem?

I believe it is because this specific type of poster perceives a problem where none exists.

Its pretty simple, as on other debate forums, you have several atheists whose sole contribution to the forum is trolling and flame bait - wherein they attempt to illicit a 'rule violation' and report, adding absolutely nothing to the actual discussion save an attempt to illicit said response so they can report you ....

Perhaps some, or even most, of these posters are honestly debating, and that people are seeing flamebait where it does not exist?

It could be as simple as making reporting public so we can see the atheists flame baiters doing it ...

Trust me when I say you don't want that.

Or I suppose you can just come up with more excuses and pretending that it isn't happening and that atheists, universally, are pure blind and innocent victims of nefarious Christians? Yep, clearly such sentiments are not the result of any kind of bias? Christians who stand up to atheists are ALL bad and uncivil, atheists who stand up to Christians are all innocent victims?

otseng and micatala are Christians who stand up to atheists. You can easily find many of their debates to confirm that, particularly o's H2H debates. What they do not do is post empty rhetoric, preach, or otherwise break the rules.

You, and generally the other Christians to whom you refer, have received multiple comments and warnings for personal comments and profanity(and many of the atheists you're talking about have, too). There is obviously some animosity on both sides of a debate, but in the instances you're talking about, one side is overtly breaking the rules, and inducing the same in the opposing side.

BS. As in utter bullocks.

I started a thread and presented the evidence., and then walked when I got the same stupid excuses. Its not incivil to say that lame excuses are just that.

I walked, and months later I come back and several other Christians are reporting THE EXACT same pattern with the EXACT same moderator.

Its pretty simple:

#1 - I am in the Army, where apparently the bluntness that saves people's lives has been deemed unchristianally uncivil. Neverthless, do you think when the Generals say something that is disagreeable that all the little lieutenants and sergeants immediately point out what is wrong? Or does the US military also suffer from group think?

As is, we ALSO come from all walks of life, so therefore, everything we do with such a diverse background is kosher and free of bias and cultural procivility? There were no illegal killings in either Afghanistan or Iraq because we have thousands of different people from all over the world and walks of life and we all share a common regard for the rule of law? None of Generals ever made a bad decision as a result?

#2 - You keep making the same stupid, and I will repeat that term in the most civil way possible, stupid accusations.

I will say this again, when three atheists use the term bigot - all of them established long term members of this forum - and then report it when they are called bigot in return (while actually being a bigot no less) ... you have a problem.

Perhaps the moderators could have been forgiven for 'only' seeing one - but to willfully ignore the presentation of evidence, with citation mind you, and pretend that it didn't happen? To go so far as to make the same accusation that 'I' was the one who drug it in .... to continue to claim that such 'warnings' were fair and impartial ... while summarily ignoring the appeals process?

And now you make the same stupid accusations? Which of course, calling accusations stupid is uncivil right?

Well, the bottom line is you have several posters all pointing out the same problem. You have a mountain of evidence presented of clear bias.

However, "We are right because you are a jerk," is apparently a wonderfully excuse of a paint brush to paint every Christian who dares to disagree with O and his frankly rude behavior.

Seriously, you can look at my PM's and see O summarily ignoring the initial presentation of evidence with, "Gee, I don't have any idea what you are talking about!?!" and then turning around and making the same accusations about my dragging in conduct that established members of the forum actually drug in, in a clear case of DELIBERATE FLAME BAIT.

Flame Bait fully enabled by the continuing excuses and dodgy accusations of moderation team who appears totally subordinated to O, who just happens to be the owner.

Ergo, enjoy the slamming of Christians by atheists flame baiters, and having one poster after another come in and publicly ask why O has a vendetta against them.

Right, its because we are all uncivil jerks and liars ... not people who think that being attacked for being Christian and called a bigot based merely on your faith choice is worth rebutting ... in a debate forum.

That, as I pointed out, would just be stupid and uncivil, right?

I wonder how many more bad Christians will have to show up before you realize that the same atheist posters are doing the flame baiting and reporting in a perverse game of exclusion rather than actual debate in order to maintain their illusion of logical atheism?

Well, as long as O remains the self styled 'strongest' Christian on the forum, it should all be good.

[Wootah]

It isn't seven, its one - only one of the 'seven' is taking the vast majority of the actions isn't he?

The majority of warnings you've received have come from people who aren't otseng. If you were speaking more generally, then of course otseng is more prevalent on the forum; it's his forum.

Now, as I already pointed this out, and have been summarily ignored about it, when three atheists call me a bigot, and then report me after making a generalized statement that all Christians sources (which merely means data compiled by Christians) is automatically biased ... why calling that a form of bigotry is of course right out.

I can't comment on that as I don't know what incident you're referring to. I would wager a guess, based on my faith in the judgement of other mods and personal experience that you may be interpreting the posts of others in an overly self-offending way.

Perhaps you can explain why the remaining six, when appealed to, simply ignored the same evidence and allowed the vacuous allegations, in defiance of clearly presented evidence, to stand without comment?

Have you considered, again, that six people of widely varying backgrounds and positions did not deem your evidence to be such?

Perhaps you could tell me why there are now several threads started here all pointing, from a range of posters whose sole similarity is that they are Christians who actively stand up to atheists, are all reporting the EXACT same problem? Who are using the term 'vendetta' is regard to O's actions?

The sole similarity is actually that they violate the rules.
The general trend I've noticed is that asking a question such as "Have you any evidence for that?" is considered inflammatory by some of these Christians.

Its pretty simple, why, if there is no bias, are there several threads, all from Christians, pointing out the same problem?

I believe it is because this specific type of poster perceives a problem where none exists.

Its pretty simple, as on other debate forums, you have several atheists whose sole contribution to the forum is trolling and flame bait - wherein they attempt to illicit a 'rule violation' and report, adding absolutely nothing to the actual discussion save an attempt to illicit said response so they can report you ....

Perhaps some, or even most, of these posters are honestly debating, and that people are seeing flamebait where it does not exist?

It could be as simple as making reporting public so we can see the atheists flame baiters doing it ...

Trust me when I say you don't want that.

Or I suppose you can just come up with more excuses and pretending that it isn't happening and that atheists, universally, are pure blind and innocent victims of nefarious Christians? Yep, clearly such sentiments are not the result of any kind of bias? Christians who stand up to atheists are ALL bad and uncivil, atheists who stand up to Christians are all innocent victims?

otseng and micatala are Christians who stand up to atheists. You can easily find many of their debates to confirm that, particularly o's H2H debates. What they do not do is post empty rhetoric, preach, or otherwise break the rules.

You, and generally the other Christians to whom you refer, have received multiple comments and warnings for personal comments and profanity(and many of the atheists you're talking about have, too). There is obviously some animosity on both sides of a debate, but in the instances you're talking about, one side is overtly breaking the rules, and inducing the same in the opposing side.

BS. As in utter bullocks.

I started a thread and presented the evidence., and then walked when I got the same stupid excuses. Its not incivil to say that lame excuses are just that.

I walked, and months later I come back and several other Christians are reporting THE EXACT same pattern with the EXACT same moderator.

Its pretty simple:

#1 - I am in the Army, where apparently the bluntness that saves people's lives has been deemed unchristianally uncivil. Neverthless, do you think when the Generals say something that is disagreeable that all the little lieutenants and sergeants immediately point out what is wrong? Or does the US military also suffer from group think?

As is, we ALSO come from all walks of life, so therefore, everything we do with such a diverse background is kosher and free of bias and cultural procivility? There were no illegal killings in either Afghanistan or Iraq because we have thousands of different people from all over the world and walks of life and we all share a common regard for the rule of law? None of Generals ever made a bad decision as a result?

#2 - You keep making the same stupid, and I will repeat that term in the most civil way possible, stupid accusations.

I will say this again, when three atheists use the term bigot - all of them established long term members of this forum - and then report it when they are called bigot in return (while actually being a bigot no less) ... you have a problem.

Perhaps the moderators could have been forgiven for 'only' seeing one - but to willfully ignore the presentation of evidence, with citation mind you, and pretend that it didn't happen? To go so far as to make the same accusation that 'I' was the one who drug it in .... to continue to claim that such 'warnings' were fair and impartial ... while summarily ignoring the appeals process?

And now you make the same stupid accusations? Which of course, calling accusations stupid is uncivil right?

Well, the bottom line is you have several posters all pointing out the same problem. You have a mountain of evidence presented of clear bias.

However, "We are right because you are a jerk," is apparently a wonderfully excuse of a paint brush to paint every Christian who dares to disagree with O and his frankly rude behavior.

Seriously, you can look at my PM's and see O summarily ignoring the initial presentation of evidence with, "Gee, I don't have any idea what you are talking about!?!" and then turning around and making the same accusations about my dragging in conduct that established members of the forum actually drug in, in a clear case of DELIBERATE FLAME BAIT.

Flame Bait fully enabled by the continuing excuses and dodgy accusations of moderation team who appears totally subordinated to O, who just happens to be the owner.

Ergo, enjoy the slamming of Christians by atheists flame baiters, and having one poster after another come in and publicly ask why O has a vendetta against them.

Right, its because we are all uncivil jerks and liars ... not people who think that being attacked for being Christian and called a bigot based merely on your faith choice is worth rebutting ... in a debate forum.

That, as I pointed out, would just be stupid and uncivil, right?

I wonder how many more bad Christians will have to show up before you realize that the same atheist posters are doing the flame baiting and reporting in a perverse game of exclusion rather than actual debate in order to maintain their illusion of logical atheism?

Well, as long as O remains the self styled 'strongest' Christian on the forum, it should all be good.

Moderator Warning


Please do not swear while on the forum.

I would like to add that if you see a reportable post please report it.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.