Not a fan

[Allahakbar]

I'm not a fan of steps at all. But otseng has just given steps a final warning for calling me "silly" for the silly post I lodged as a reply in this thread.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... highlight=

I received a warning for calling 99 a bigot in one of the homosexual threads, probably why I'm now on probation. Oh well.

Aren't some of these warnings getting out of hand?
I mean telling someone they are silly is grounds for a warning?
Well not in my world, what do others think?

I'm probably banned for this post anyway but I'd like to see what others think.

btw 99 wears the term bigot as a badge of honour in many of his posts. It's like calling steps a muslim.

[keithprosser3]

I'm probably banned for this post anyway but I'd like to see what others think.

I think your being silly.

Oops.

Actually, rules of the game do apply. Finding ways of calling people 'silly' or
'bigoted' without actually saying so in as many words is half the fun. Actually, unless you really enjoy debate the same 4 topics over and over, it's three quarters of the fun.

[Allahakbar]

I'm probably banned for this post anyway but I'd like to see what others think.

I think your being silly.

Oops.

Actually, rules of the game do apply. Finding ways of calling people 'silly' or
'bigoted' without actually saying so in as many words is half the fun. Actually, unless you really enjoy debate the same 4 topics over and over, it's three quarters of the fun.

Believe me I try, but if I use a word that I have seen others use and then I get penalised when they don't, my nose gets out of joint.
I just saw a post that should just by an honest application of the rules would warrant a warning. I will keep an eye on it and will be amazed beyond belief if it happens.
There is no consistency in the rulings. Steps has deserved multiple warnings ever since I got here, but he gets busted for"silly".
That is absurd IMHO
Finding ways? And then get warned for "implying" something.

[otseng]

Believe me I try, but if I use a word that I have seen others use and then I get penalised when they don't, my nose gets out of joint.

I try to clamp down on people calling others bigots. If it gets by me, it's most likely cause it was never reported by anyone. If you see someone calling another a bigot, please report it. If a post is not reported, most likely no moderator will respond to it.

Steps has deserved multiple warnings ever since I got here, but he gets busted for"silly".

He has gotten multiple warnings; the last one was his final warning.

Calling someone "silly" by itself will probably not result in anything other than a comment. But, in his case, he said more than that - "I admit no one can challenge you in the silly comments .You are the best at this section , but you are empty when it comes to serious subjects."

Strange though that you'd complain about me giving him a warning for attacking you...

[Allahakbar]

Believe me I try, but if I use a word that I have seen others use and then I get penalised when they don't, my nose gets out of joint.

I try to clamp down on people calling others bigots. If it gets by me, it's most likely cause it was never reported by anyone. If you see someone calling another a bigot, please report it. If a post is not reported, most likely no moderator will respond to it.

Steps has deserved multiple warnings ever since I got here, but he gets busted for"silly".

He has gotten multiple warnings; the last one was his final warning.

Calling someone "silly" by itself will probably not result in anything other than a comment. But, in his case, he said more than that - "I admit no one can challenge you in the silly comments .You are the best at this section , but you are empty when it comes to serious subjects."

Strange though that you'd complain about me giving him a warning for attacking you...

Why would you consider that strange? This whole thread is about justice and consistency of rulings.
I think that the warning you gave steps for that comment was unjust and not at all consistent.
I disagree with some of the rulings the mods have brought against me, but I cop it. Because I doubt that bitchin' will make an ounce of difference.
The rules preclude me publicly voicing my opinion of the decision concerning steps in the thread where it happened, so I did it here.
btw what I said about 99 calling himself proud to be a BIGOT still stands and really nullifies your decision. But hey. I've also admitted in this thread that I was being silly in the post that steps referenced.

[Wootah]

Hi AA,

Where are the posts that 99% calls himself a bigot? can you pm them to me please? Even so if a debater was called a bigot and even if they posted that they were a bigot - because the word bigot is negative and an ad hominem we would censure it if we saw it or if it got reported.

The belief here is that if we are to allow debate on controversial topics then civility is the only grounds that the debate will be able to proceed. Use the forum to air your views, perhaps to try to understand how others arrived at their views and I would humbly suggest that any more than that is a bit too hopeful.

There are probably thousands of forums out there where the concern for civility is valued differently. I've tried them, I don't like them and I don't want to be on them.

I think it is possible that this forum does not adequately stress this stance on civility strongly enough to potential new members and so they can find themselves on the wrong end of rulings here that they would not elsewhere.

So the weighting here is quite different to other forums. Steps for instance posts a lot of posts that in my view are reportable as 'violating preaching guidelines' but clearly they aren't all being reported and we suffer them longer than uncivility (but not permanently). You can even look at KP's post 2 and I would rather not have read it because I want to read people's opinions and debate with them. He basically labelled himself a troll here for the fun of seeing what he can get away with.

Anyway that probably helps to explain why you are feeling hard done by on this forum.

[Allahakbar]

Hi AA,

Where are the posts that 99% calls himself a bigot? can you pm them to me please? Even so if a debater was called a bigot and even if they posted that they were a bigot - because the word bigot is negative and an ad hominem we would censure it if we saw it or if it got reported.

The belief here is that if we are to allow debate on controversial topics then civility is the only grounds that the debate will be able to proceed. Use the forum to air your views, perhaps to try to understand how others arrived at their views and I would humbly suggest that any more than that is a bit too hopeful.

There are probably thousands of forums out there where the concern for civility is valued differently. I've tried them, I don't like them and I don't want to be on them.

I think it is possible that this forum does not adequately stress this stance on civility strongly enough to potential new members and so they can find themselves on the wrong end of rulings here that they would not elsewhere.

So the weighting here is quite different to other forums. Steps for instance posts a lot of posts that in my view are reportable as 'violating preaching guidelines' but clearly they aren't all being reported and we suffer them longer than uncivility (but not permanently). You can even look at KP's post 2 and I would rather not have read it because I want to read people's opinions and debate with them. He basically labelled himself a troll here for the fun of seeing what he can get away with.

Anyway that probably helps to explain why you are feeling hard done by on this forum.

Well actually the word I used was bigotry and it was used in relation to a certain subset of society, the fact that the two members mention as a part of the subset in no constitutes personal attacks or uncivility. If I say that some bible believers have really weird interpretations of the bible have I attacked anyone? There are many people and many subsets of society who demonstrate unrestrained bigotry and that is about as uncivil as it gets. But bigotry is permitted, but pointing out those groups demonstrate bigotry is warrant for a warning. Your right I don't understand that sort of inconsistency.

[Artie]

This is a forum for human beings and we can't help becoming personal or sarcastic or condescending or whatever once in a while. The only way to avoid that is to pretend we are robots writing for Encyclopedia Britannica. If a person has been offended he can just say so. The only reason why a person should be banned is if he consistently degrades other people over many posts and threads and doesn't contribute a single rational relevant statement to the debate. If we can't take being called silly or stupid or idiots once in a while we shouldn't be here in the first place. I don't like to admit it, but once in a blue moon I might actually say something silly or stupid or idiotic and I would hate it if a person was banned for telling me.

[Allahakbar]

Hi AA,

Where are the posts that 99% calls himself a bigot? can you pm them to me please? Even so if a debater was called a bigot and even if they posted that they were a bigot - because the word bigot is negative and an ad hominem we would censure it if we saw it or if it got reported.

The belief here is that if we are to allow debate on controversial topics then civility is the only grounds that the debate will be able to proceed. Use the forum to air your views, perhaps to try to understand how others arrived at their views and I would humbly suggest that any more than that is a bit too hopeful.

There are probably thousands of forums out there where the concern for civility is valued differently. I've tried them, I don't like them and I don't want to be on them.

I think it is possible that this forum does not adequately stress this stance on civility strongly enough to potential new members and so they can find themselves on the wrong end of rulings here that they would not elsewhere.

So the weighting here is quite different to other forums. Steps for instance posts a lot of posts that in my view are reportable as 'violating preaching guidelines' but clearly they aren't all being reported and we suffer them longer than uncivility (but not permanently). You can even look at KP's post 2 and I would rather not have read it because I want to read people's opinions and debate with them. He basically labelled himself a troll here for the fun of seeing what he can get away with.

Anyway that probably helps to explain why you are feeling hard done by on this forum.

Well actually the word I used was bigotry and it was used in relation to a certain subset of society, the fact that the two members mention as a part of the subset in no constitutes personal attacks or uncivility. If I say that some bible believers have really weird interpretations of the bible have I attacked anyone? There are many people and many subsets of society who demonstrate unrestrained bigotry and that is about as uncivil as it gets. But bigotry is permitted, but pointing out those groups demonstrate bigotry is warrant for a warning. Your right I don't understand that sort of inconsistency.

I should probability reassess some of my earlier objections and accusations brought against the mod team. I have spent quite some time reading other threads in this subforum and it's fairly clear that some theists have felt just as aggrieved as I and for the same reasons as I proposed. So I apologise to the mod team.
But you don't get off that lightly , I still find it almost impossible to determine what is considered uncivil and under what circumstances. It would appear to change randomly and without reason. I also have very serious problems understanding what a personal attack is, there seems to be no consistency in these rulings either. I've tried very hard to abide by the rules and am still wracking up warnings, I see others on here who break and flout the rules incessantly and at worst receive a Mod Comment. This inconsistency makes it almost impossible for a new member to understand where the lines are drawn, they appear to be drawn on shifting sand.

[otseng]

I still find it almost impossible to determine what is considered uncivil and under what circumstances. It would appear to change randomly and without reason.

Let me point that there are dozens of people who post here each day without this problem. Many people who post here do not get any comment or warning.

I also have very serious problems understanding what a personal attack is, there seems to be no consistency in these rulings either.

If you have a problem understanding what a personal attack is, then it's best to not say anything regarding another poster. Just address the topic and talk about the issues and do not comment on other posters.

I've tried very hard to abide by the rules and am still wracking up warnings,

I have not received the impression that you have been trying to abide by the rules. We have given you many warnings, yet your response has been to justify it or to blame and attack the mod team. I have yet to see anything from you saying, "Sorry for breaking the rules, I've been trying to follow the rules, I will do better next time."

I see others on here who break and flout the rules incessantly and at worst receive a Mod Comment.

There is no exact science on getting a comment or a warning. Sometimes it depends on what the moderator ate for breakfast. But, in general, if it's a serious violation, it will get a warning. If it's not so serious, it will get a comment. So, for example, personal attacks of any sort will usually get a warning; unsubstantiated claims generally get a comment.

But people should not post trying to guess if they could get by with just a comment. Rather, people should post with the intention of abiding by all the rules. If people try to toe the line, eventually they will get kicked off the forum.

This inconsistency makes it almost impossible for a new member to understand where the lines are drawn, they appear to be drawn on shifting sand.

The best course is to fully abide the rules. If you do so, you will have no problems here. And I do not think the rules are that complicated to follow.