Moderation dispute from "Do humans look like God"

Feedback and site usage questions

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1917
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: Manassas, VA
Has thanked: 681 times
Been thanked: 470 times

Post #1

Post by bluegreenearth »

Zzyzx wrote: .
Willum wrote:
God could breed with Mary.
I assume at least some parts were compatible.
He obviously didn't scare her off, and we didn't hear any complaints.

Of course, what would she say?

It's god, no one's going to complain about stamina or good looks, I suppose.

So, it is safe to say, he looks human, since Mary didn't say he looked like Kang or Kodos.
:warning: Moderator Final Warning

This post goes well beyond the limits of civility, is offensive, demeans unnecessarily.


Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
I must disagree with the moderator's judgement in this case. Willum was obviously and clearly responding to someone's question about God's physical characteristics including reproductive capabilities given the Biblical claim that humans were created in God's image and the Biblical claim that God impregnated Mary. Since the precise purpose of this forum is to debate such legitimate speculations, restricting that capability will only render the forum unproductive at best and as a Christian echo chamber at worst. If the moderator's decision to penalize Willum is based on a personal opinion rather than an unbiased assessment of the post's content, then the moderator should be obligated to refund Willum any penalties which were imposed upon him.

If moderators are permitted to penalize specific contributors to the forum because the content of a post happens to unintentionally offend their personal worldview, then everyone's ability to collaborate towards an intellectually honest pursuit of the truth is being unjustly inhibited. Nothing in Willum's post can be considered a direct personal attack on another member of the forum or unnecessarily demeaning. While it is true that real people deserve dignity and respect, their ideas and beliefs do not. There can be no sacred claims lest we abandon logic and reason for undeserved obedience.

User avatar
OnceConvinced
Savant
Posts: 8969
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:22 pm
Location: New Zealand
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 66 times
Contact:

Post #2

Post by OnceConvinced »

bluegreenearth wrote:
I must disagree with the moderator's judgement in this case. Willum was obviously and clearly responding to someone's question about God's physical characteristics including reproductive capabilities given the Biblical claim that humans were created in God's image and the Biblical claim that God impregnated Mary. Since the precise purpose of this forum is to debate such legitimate speculations, restricting that capability will only render the forum unproductive at best and as a Christian echo chamber at worst. If the moderator's decision to penalize Willum is based on a personal opinion rather than an unbiased assessment of the post's content, then the moderator should be obligated to refund Willum any penalties which were imposed upon him.

If moderators are permitted to penalize specific contributors to the forum because the content of a post happens to unintentionally offend their personal worldview, then everyone's ability to collaborate towards an intellectually honest pursuit of the truth is being unjustly inhibited. Nothing in Willum's post can be considered a direct personal attack on another member of the forum or unnecessarily demeaning. While it is true that real people deserve dignity and respect, their ideas and beliefs do not. There can be no sacred claims lest we abandon logic and reason for undeserved obedience.


Moderator Comment


If you have a problem with forum rules or how moderation is run then contact one of the administrators. It is not appropriate to argue with moderator decisions and warnings here in the forums.

Also note this warning you are complaining about was made 4 years ago and Willum is still an active member here. So going by that and the fact this forum has been running productively for over 15 years now, you might want to rethink your criticisms.



Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
Last edited by OnceConvinced on Sun Aug 25, 2019 11:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Society and its morals evolve and will continue to evolve. The bible however remains the same and just requires more and more apologetics and claims of "metaphors" and "symbolism" to justify it.

Prayer is like rubbing an old bottle and hoping that a genie will pop out and grant you three wishes.

There is much about this world that is mind boggling and impressive, but I see no need whatsoever to put it down to magical super powered beings.


Check out my website: Recker's World

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Post #3

Post by Willum »

[Replying to post 35 by bluegreenearth]

Thank you for the endorsement, but please don’t wreck your rep on my account. What I had been too glibly I assume, trying to point out was that obviously Jesus grew from... an embryo... or had to have a spirit flesh interface at some point, coupled with some substance to the immaculate conception.

An immaculate conception does not tell us any biological details... and those must have begun somewhere on the date... and if we further assume a 9 month gestation...?

Actually I thought I handled it quite tactfully considering what could have been stated more overtly.

Anyway, this was 2015...

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1917
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: Manassas, VA
Has thanked: 681 times
Been thanked: 470 times

Post #4

Post by bluegreenearth »

[Replying to post 36 by OnceConvinced]

Well, the reason this caught my attention was because the notice of Willum's probation is listed in the "View unanswered posts" section with the date, Wed Aug 21, 2019 6:49 pm. So, it appeared to me as if the action occurred recently. As a relatively new contributor to the forum, I'm still not entirely familiar with all the nuances of using the system. Upon further reflection, I probably should have examined the date of the post itself. In any case, it doesn't make my comments any less relevant. I certainly hope that sort of biased moderation isn't still being practiced.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Post #5

Post by otseng »

I've split the thread from Do humans look like God? so that we can have a discussion about the ruling.

Though the dispute is about a very old thread, I want to address bias in the mod team.

I cannot guarantee there is no bias on the mod team in all our decisions, but we do try to be unbiased in our rulings. We have a diverse group, ranging from fundamentalist Christians to liberal Christians to non-Theists to atheists. We do not always agree with each other and I try to encourage all the mods to be free to express themselves if they disagree with another mod. When we do decide to place someone on probation, it requires a majority vote.

Also note that the final warning given to Willum was from a non-Theist. So, it would be hard pressed to say there was some sort of bias against Willum.

If you are worried about the fact that Willum was recently placed on probation, we have been very lenient since it only takes one warning after a final warning to be placed on probation, but he's had much more than that.

I would challenge anyone to find any religious forum that is more unbiased than this one. I would love to learn from them and make this forum even better.
Last edited by otseng on Mon Aug 26, 2019 11:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Post #6

Post by Zzyzx »

.
The Forum being unbiased can also be termed ‘a level playing field where no point of view (or individual) is given favorable treatment’.

Another primary characteristic of the Forum is civility. Although topics often trigger emotional responses, all are required to show respect and civility toward others.

The Admin / Moderating Team is evenly divided between Theists and Non-Theists. In a separate Moderator sub-form, team members are free to request input from other Moderators or Administrators, to express disagreement, to vote on Probation, Suspension, Banishment, etc. We do not avoid ‘calling out’ another team member if an action (or one of their debate posts) seems out of line.

Based on years with the team and more years as a debating member, I am impressed by the impartiality. Otseng is a fine Administrator (Theist) as is Marco his co-administrator (Non-Theist).

Also based on experience I observe that those who claim to find ‘bias’ are those who fare poorly in debate.
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1917
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: Manassas, VA
Has thanked: 681 times
Been thanked: 470 times

Post #7

Post by bluegreenearth »

I appreciate receiving additional information from the moderators regarding their guidelines and procedures. As previously mentioned, I'm not yet fully accustomed to the inner workings of this forum but am learning through experiences such as this.

User avatar
OnceConvinced
Savant
Posts: 8969
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:22 pm
Location: New Zealand
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 66 times
Contact:

Post #8

Post by OnceConvinced »

Moderator Action

Warning for bluegreenearth downgraded to a comment as per Otseng's request.


______________

Moderator actions indicate that a thread/post has been locked, moved, merged, or split.

Society and its morals evolve and will continue to evolve. The bible however remains the same and just requires more and more apologetics and claims of "metaphors" and "symbolism" to justify it.

Prayer is like rubbing an old bottle and hoping that a genie will pop out and grant you three wishes.

There is much about this world that is mind boggling and impressive, but I see no need whatsoever to put it down to magical super powered beings.


Check out my website: Recker's World

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #9

Post by Danmark »

OnceConvinced wrote:
bluegreenearth wrote:
I must disagree with the moderator's judgement in this case. Willum was obviously and clearly responding to someone's question about God's physical characteristics including reproductive capabilities given the Biblical claim that humans were created in God's image and the Biblical claim that God impregnated Mary. Since the precise purpose of this forum is to debate such legitimate speculations, restricting that capability will only render the forum unproductive at best and as a Christian echo chamber at worst. If the moderator's decision to penalize Willum is based on a personal opinion rather than an unbiased assessment of the post's content, then the moderator should be obligated to refund Willum any penalties which were imposed upon him.

If moderators are permitted to penalize specific contributors to the forum because the content of a post happens to unintentionally offend their personal worldview, then everyone's ability to collaborate towards an intellectually honest pursuit of the truth is being unjustly inhibited. Nothing in Willum's post can be considered a direct personal attack on another member of the forum or unnecessarily demeaning. While it is true that real people deserve dignity and respect, their ideas and beliefs do not. There can be no sacred claims lest we abandon logic and reason for undeserved obedience.


Moderator Comment


If you have a problem with forum rules or how moderation is run then contact one of the administrators. It is not appropriate to argue with moderator decisions and warnings here in the forums.

Also note this warning you are complaining about was made 4 years ago and Willum is still an active member here. So going by that and the fact this forum has been running productively for over 15 years now, you might want to rethink your criticisms.



Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
But isn't THIS, the "Comments, Suggestions, and Questions" forum exactly the place to discuss the subject?

If not here, where does one appropriately discuss policy issues re: moderation? We are not even allowed to criticize public figures on this forum. If this forum existed in 1930's Germany and I stood up and told the truth, that der Führer was a liar, a mass murderer and a racist, I would risk getting banned for doing the right thing.
I'm fully aware that this is a private forum and that the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not the final authority, but we should make exceptions for exactly what Bluethread is saying and for criticizing public figures. When we can irrefutably establish that Drumpf is an inveterate liar and even doctors weather reports, we should be allowed to call hm a liar.

Online
benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2284
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 1957 times
Been thanked: 737 times

Post #10

Post by benchwarmer »

Danmark wrote: When we can irrefutably establish that Drumpf is an inveterate liar and even doctors weather reports, we should be allowed to call hm a liar.
I think the best way forward in this type of case is to simply lay out the facts. It will be obvious who is or isn't lying at that point without actually labeling anyone as a 'liar'.

As far as I know, there are no rules in this forum against listing facts and supporting them with evidence. i.e. President Trump claimed X and here is a link to the tweet. Here is a link to the actual facts about X from source Y.

IMHO, there is no need to flirt with labeling anyone when everyone can judge the facts for themselves.

Post Reply