Do we have a well functioning moderating team here?

[EduChris]

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this question. Does the moderating team overall exemplify and encourage civil debate and discussion? Are there some notable exceptions? Is the moderating team well representative of various viewpoints? Does it seem that thoughtful arguments are being presented an atmosphere that is free from condescension, stereotyping, strawman arguments, red herrings, and even insults?

Most importantly, are serious and thoughtful people leaving (or discouraged from joining) the forum due to moderator bias?

[Kuan]

EduChris, you claim that the moderators are smearing the christian faith. I guess I could agree, although I would replace smearing with criticizing. Murad creates a lot of threads where he points out what are (or are not) problems with christianity. Topics to be debated. Isnt it a possibility that you might be over reacting? I believe in a sppiritual dimension in this world, yet I have not had any problems with Darias. As for what you said regarding Cnorman, yes he does remind people of his history with christianity sometimes. Yet, why does this matter? It gives us a history of his religous beliefs. I have no idea really what you said about McCulloch so I cant comment on that. I have never really understood those terms....

As it is, I am not you EduChris. I do not know what you have experienced. This is from my POV.

[Fisherking]

I just need to remember that a lot of these debates are personal and do involve some emotion.

A moderator should not engage in a topic if it becomes personal or emotional whatsoever (imo), other than to enforce civil debate.

But members can? The moderators are members to, they came here to be in these discussions. If we kick them out of discussions, why would they stay? They are doing this in their free time, they arent paid.

If they can't stay out of debates that are emotional or personal to them, or remain unemotional or impersonal while debating these issues, they shouldn't be moderators (imo).

[Kuan]

I just need to remember that a lot of these debates are personal and do involve some emotion.

A moderator should not engage in a topic if it becomes personal or emotional whatsoever (imo), other than to enforce civil debate.

But members can? The moderators are members to, they came here to be in these discussions. If we kick them out of discussions, why would they stay? They are doing this in their free time, they arent paid.

If they can't stay out of debates that are emotional or personal to them, or remain unemotional or impersonal while debating these issues, they shouldn't be moderators (imo).

I did say control their emotions, anyway, I wouldnt leave this to just moderators. I expect this of every member.

[EduChris]

EduChris, you claim that the moderators are smearing the christian faith. I guess I could agree, although I would replace smearing with criticizing...

Reducing a complex faith tradition to a few sentences of a caricatured version of the least educated members is unacceptable, and McCulloch and Cnorman have done this repeatedly.

Murad creates a lot of threads where he points out what are (or are not) problems with christianity...

A large part of Murad's posts are cut-and-paste spams from anti-Christian polemical Islamic websites. Moreover, I have caught him red-handed in outright, persistent deceit (claiming that homosexual marriage is completely legal in Indonesia, for example). Moreover, he engages in gratuitous insults. The fact that he is a moderator is absolute certain proof that the current moderator board (who voted him in) is irreparably broken.

Isnt it a possibility that you might be over reacting?...

I am not the only one who has observed these problems. We have lost good, capable, intelligent debaters because it is simply too difficult to fight against the overwhelming bias of the moderators, who in turn grant free license to the majority of people here who simply want to ridicule Christianity rather than engage in serious debate.

[Kuan]

Well, I cannot comment on what you said EduChris, because I have not experienced that.

Maybe they could find a fundamentalist christian to add to the moderating team?

[otseng]

Maybe they could find a fundamentalist christian to add to the moderating team?

Though I do not call myself a fundamentalist, I do not think there are many that are more fundamentalist than myself. I believe in a young Earth, a literal flood, infallibility of scripture, existence of the devil and angels, eternal hell for the unregenerate, virgin birth of Jesus, Jesus' literal resurrection from the dead, and even the Earth is at the center of the universe. Who can beat that?

[EduChris]

...Maybe they could find a fundamentalist christian to add to the moderating team?

"Fundamentalist" is all too often a term of derision, and lacking an agreed-upon definition it should be avoided except when used as a clearly defined self-designation.

Adding one moderator to a team that is already stacked with folks like McCulloch and Cnorman and, apparently now Darius and Murad, is not going to work. We need to remove bad moderators and add good ones. I don't care what their background or beliefs are, but they need to stop the slander, stop the double standards, stop the strawman arguments, and make sure that only good moderators are chosen in the future.

[Kuan]

Maybe they could find a fundamentalist christian to add to the moderating team?

Though I do not call myself a fundamentalist, I do not think there are many that are more fundamentalist than myself. I believe in a young Earth, a literal flood, infallibility of scripture, existence of the devil and angels, eternal hell for the unregenerate, virgin birth of Jesus, Jesus' literal resurrection from the dead, and even the Earth is at the center of the universe. Who can beat that?

True, you would fit that I guess. And you are all correct, maybe I shouldn't have used the term fundamentalist. It does come across to some as a negative.

[Kuan]

...Maybe they could find a fundamentalist christian to add to the moderating team?

"Fundamentalist" is all too often a term of derision, and lacking an agreed-upon definition it should be avoided except when used as a clearly defined self-designation.

Adding one moderator to a team that is already stacked with folks like McCulloch and Cnorman and, apparently now Darius and Murad, is not going to work. We need to remove bad moderators and add good ones. I don't care what their background or beliefs are, but they need to stop the slander, stop the double standards, stop the strawman arguments, and make sure that only good moderators are chosen in the future.

Just making suggestions. As I have said, I have no problem with any of the moderators at this time. I cannot contribute anymore so I will probably stop here at that.

[theopoesis]

I'll just add a few points to the discussion:

(1) I am completely unfit to be a moderator. I've responded in poor anger in a post to Goat on several occasions and also to Cathar1960, I've intentionally been incendiary toward Murad in a recent debate on the hypostatic union, and a recent discussion between Darias and I seems to have deteriorated to a point where we both ought to be indicted as having violated the rules. I also tend to be uncharitable to Shermana. I become too emotionally invested in my posts. These are all problems, and I cannot believe that I would do a better job as a moderator. I want to be clear up front, I could not do a better job.

(2) When I arrived at this forum, I believed it had a tremendous moderating team. Micatala and Jester seem to be impervious to emotion. McCulloch, despite how significantly and how often I disagree with him, was one of the few atheists here who would attempt to understand my posts if they are unclear rather than just insulting and dismissing me. Lucia/Lux seems to be an angel of an individual, and I have no objections to her. I had only minimal contact with Confused or with Otseng, but I have no reason to object to either as members of the moderating team. Cnorman has his incendiary moments, but mostly because Debunkem (amazingly) is allowed to continue to post his propaganda. As a whole, I found him competent and friendly.

(3) Several recent developments on the moderating team have been surprising to say the least. Two recent moderator selections seem to have been made at a poor timing from my perspective (I'm not quite ready to fully reject either selection). Murad and I were in a debate over the hypostatic union where it turns out that his OP was largely based on (and I maintain plagiarized from) an outside internet source, and where he persisted in using the term "oxyMORONIC" to describe the hypostatic union. Even after I requested he desist, he refused until a moderator forced him to. I responded in a completely unjustifiable fashion as well. Let that be clear. But the day after our debate came to a head, I learned that Murad was made a moderator. Perhaps he will be a good moderator, but the fact that the selection was made a day after he used incendiary language and borderline plagiarized makes his elevation seem unfortunate to say the least. Likewise, I just learned in this thread that Darias was made a moderator. Perhaps Darias will be an excellent contributor to this forum. However, I have to note that the last conversation I had with Darias before his promotion involved both of us acting fairly negatively. I also believe that he used incendiary language of a higher magnitude than almost any individual I have seen on this forum. And when I called him out on it, he said he just tells it like it is and uses strong language because that's the way he is. He did not retract his language. Again, this may not mean he should not be a moderator, but I find it frustrating that my last contact with these two individuals before their promotion was completely unbecoming of what I consider moderator worthy character. I believe these conversation should have cast doubt on myself as well as on these two individuals, but it seems the opposite was the case.

(4) The increasing conflict on this forum is not solely the responsibility of the non-Christians or the new moderating team. We Christians have a huge responsibility in this turn as well. I'll start by accusing myself. I came here and after a short while decided to try to tip the scales by putting the non-theists on the defensive. I attacked secularism repeatedly, and I believed I contributed to a general rhetoric of aggression among the theists. However, I believe this aggression is merely a counterbalance to much of what we see already present here among the non-theists. It is possible to be hostile without violating the rules, and such elements are quite common in the rhetoric of non-theists here. I believe since I have come here (and certainly not only because of my action) the rhetoric has now spread to be shared by theists as well. Last September/October most of the theists I saw who were aggressive did so outside of the rules and were banned. This is no longer the case. EduChris told me he was leaving the forum, and I let him know clearly he should stay. However, I have to say to you, EduChris, that your rhetoric is also a contributor to the increasing hostility in this site. I think this rhetoric may be necessary given the nature of things, but we cannot put all of the blame on the moderating team. That being said, in times like these we must be especially vigorous concerning who we ask to join the team.

(5) The hostility has spread to the older moderators in ways that were uncharacteristic of them in the past. For example, McCulloch is one of the atheists here that I respect the most. I think he is an intelligent individual, logical, law abiding, and his interactions with me have been a breath of fresh air compared to what I consider harassments by other non-theists. However, in the past month two posts by him have caught me by complete surprise. First, in a moderator intervention to a post where I used all caps to accuse Grump of poisoning the well (which was flagged by someone - I assume Grumpy) he overturned the challenge but still inserted his opinion that my use of all caps was "revolting." I don't see that this is appropriate at all from a moderator, and especially not in a moderator intervention. Second, in a recent post where I suggested that the M.Div. was the only graduate degree with reduced expected earnings, McCulloch posted a response that was a quote from someone else essentially saying, "That's because no one wants a pastor around." Again, this tone seems inapprorpiate from a moderator, but it was able to technically meet the letter of the rules. Still, I am surprised at seeing something like this from McCulloch. Likewise, Otseng, I think the recent discussion between you and Goose was surprising. Though I cannot say that I agree with his full accusation, I do think that you handled the situation in a less clearly right way than other situations I observed you handle in the past. Why is it that administrators of the highest caliber are suddenly beginning to slip a bit? I think it is because the theists are becoming more aggressive, moderators are joining the team who are more incendiary and who post more divisive threads, and the non-theists are escalating their game in response to our escalations and in response to the general sense of hostility felt by particular changes in moderating.

(6) I believe there are incredible candidates for moderator out there. Adamoriens would be a great candidate, if he was able to contribute the necessary time. He is a non-theist of impeccable manners and logic, a great equivalent to Jester. Likewise, if you want a Christian of this persuasion, I have to say Slopeshoulder is a good pick. He is certainly a variant to mainstream theology, but he seems to be involved in controversy less frequently than the two recent additions i mention above. If you want a non-Christian religionist, Bernee seems (for the most part) to fit the bill. I'm not going to put forward an evangelical Christian nomination (though some fit the bill) because I don't want to make that the basis of my objection. I'd like to think I'd stay here without any Christians on the moderating team, so I don't care if the balance isn't even or if we're short an evangelical.

All these factors together make me think that the quality of this forum is headed in the wrong direction. I am considering a stategic withdrawal to head to head debates, book discussions, random ramblings (working on a doozie now), theology, and the holy huddle. The subforum rules and my own stretegic selection for debate partners would protect me there. But to be honest this forum is bordering on becoming a source of vice instead of virtue. I can only be subject to inflammatory speech for so long before my patience and my calm begins to crumble. This is why I should not be a moderator, but inflammatory speech is why they should not be, either.

I think a comprehensive solution would involve some modifications to the moderating team, but it would also need to entail a grass roots movements among those of all religious persuasions to modify the tone of things around here. The rhetoric would need to change, as would the nature of some OPs. However, it will be difficult for any one group to back down without the promise of reciprocity. For example, I would find myself hesitant to stop being aggressive against secularism until aggressive posts accusing Christianity of being delusional, insane, and evil were toned down as well.

As a final note, I understand why this was started in the Holy Huddle Room, but I am a bit uncomfortable voicing this where Murad or McCulloch could not respond in defense of themselves. If they read this (and perhaps we should ask all moderators to read this?) and wish to have their response posted, please PM me and I'll post it for you. I also apologize for anything that might drive moderators to anger. I speak what I believe to be the truth in as clear of a manner as possible. That being said, I could quite possibly be wrong.

Thanks,

theopoesis