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.

[Ooberman]

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.

How do I report your use of the word-that-must-not-be-written?

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...

[/quote]

It's not strange! It's civil to let a little steam out when debating these topics, and we are all big boys and girls. We can take it.

steps was clearly not engaging in debate - ever. His use of the word silly seems incidental.


I like this forum and it is well moderated most of the time, but I'd like to see the mods, occasionally, write back to someone who flagged a post to say "that's really not a big deal. Ignore it, and stay on point. See how that works... turn the other cheek and debate the topic."


Personally, I'd like to know why we can't call people "the-word-that-must-not-be-written" when it appears that "the-word-that-must-not-be-written" exists in the world.

"the-word-that-must-not-be-written", homophobes, gay-haters, racists, misogynists, and other similar kinds of people exist in this world. Some of them post on this forum. We are asked to be civil to the uncivil for the sake of civil discussion, and that's fine. But to avoid certain words that aren't universally avoided (swear words, which I have a problem with, but agree to) seems excessive.

If we are going to ban the "the-word-that-must-not-be-written" can we also ban "fool"? I find that word offensive. How about "Jesus"? Many people find that word offensive. Or "spiritual". Or....

And let me guess, it's the people who are "the-word-that-must-not-be-written" who feel the "the-word-that-must-not-be-written" is offensive....


Anyhoo.... did I say I like it here?

[Allahakbar]

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.

Yes I've noticed that and I've also noticed that some are far more uncivil than I. That is part of the problem

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.

It is impossible to respond to a poster without responding to a poster. BTW I was warned for a personal attack for telling a joke. I mentioned a poster as a part of the joke. ie poster have you heard this one?

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."

You must have missed the portion of the post you have responded to here that you neglected to quote.

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.

Ooh such an indictment even if you are joking, given the content of the discussion is not terribly helpful. What do you think?

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.

Like jokes.

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.

I certainly hope that this is a typo on your part.

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.

As I said earlier, my problem isn't with following the rules it is instead with understanding the inconsistent enforcement of those rules. Thank you for replying, but I don't think that you have even considered my points much less conceded any of them.
BTW, because you missed it here is the apology I made and you rejected.

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.

Thanks for your reply.