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?

[Slopeshoulder]

To clarify, my main concern is not that of bias, but of hyposcrisy. Moderators are the "police officers". It does not reflect well on the department if they are out picking up prostitutes or brawling in the street when they are off the clock.

Brawling I get. But how is cavorting with ho's germaine?

Anyhoo, I don't think a mod should comment as a mod in any thread they have participated in. They should recuse themselves and get another mod in. And I'm pretty sure they do. And yes, they should set an an example. But we're all human. I wonder if there isn't a little hint of non-christian perfectionsism in this thread. I find the sinner who does beautiful things to be more beautiful and of god than any self-righteous high handedness.

[EduChris]

...i have never once disagreed with a probation or banning decision and have instead applauded each of them...

I don't disagree with probations or bannings either. In general the rules are enforced appropriately. The problem is the poor example recently set by some of the moderators in their own posts (and my inability to put them on my Ignore List).

...I once mentioned it to you in an otherwise friendly PM exchange, and I recall that you responded rather pugilistically...

I remember that exchange, I appreciated it, and I saved a copy. I didn't intend any pugilism then, and I don't see any in it now after going back and re-reading it. I guess it's just one of those things that don't transfer well over electronic medium. But thanks anyway, and I apologize for any misunderstanding.

...Go hug an atheist maybe...

I don't know if she's an atheist, but I agree with Theopoesis that Adamoriens would be a good moderator.

[fewwillfindit]

I don't know if she's an atheist, but I agree with Theopoesis that Adamoriens would be a good moderator.

FWIW, I would cast the third vote for that choice.





.

[micatala]

I am a bit reluctant to put an oar in as a moderator in a thread which should be a platform for expressing concerns about moderators, but I do want to say a couple of things.



I can understand the idea that moderators should be entirely above the fray, perhaps not engaging in debate at all. I think someone used the term "robotic."

I'll freely say that I don't expect that ever to happen, and I personally would not want it to happen. I think all of us who are now mods are not really interested in participating in the forum if our only participation is to enforce the rules. I think all of us, except otseng, were members for several months if not years before we became moderators. We want to participate in debate, just like any other member.


Secondly, I would echo Jester in acknowledging we all have our biases. I would also say that the perception that the moderating team does not seem to "represent" the fundamentalist segment of Christianity is somewhat valid. I personally would say otseng is conservative enought to "count" as representing that viewpoint, but I wouldn't expect anyone to consider me as such. I would guess many are aware that I have had what could be considered contentious debates with conservative Christian members, including Winepusher who has commented in this thread, and otseng (with whom I debated Flood Geology for many dozens of pages, and I think you can find that thread in the top 15 on the forum).

However, I don't think it should follow from these "facts" that the moderators are not, or cannot do their job of enforcing the rules. Unless we moved to a "moderators do not debate" format, whoever acts as a moderator is going to have to be able to "change hats" when they are enforcing the rules.



As a final comment, I can understand EduChris' concern about what he perceives as debating errors or fallacies, like straw men, etc. However, there is a difference between moderating to enforce the rules of civiity, and acting as a sort of debate referee. Fallacies are not against the rules. Also, I don't think I would want to get into the position of deciding who is "winning" a debate or even who is employing better debate tactics or making fewer "debate" errors.

Those issues are for the members to point out with respect to themselves and other debaters, doing so, of course, as civilly as possible.

As far as the mods, it is certainly possible we engage in fallacious reasoning. However, I am not sure how it follows that we cannot enforce the rules because of this.

Anyway, I hope I have not spoken out of turn. Please don't let anything I've said here derail further discussion.

[Adstar]

BTW, I asked EduChris to create this thread. And I'm also going to be giving a bit of a leeway for people to express their thoughts here. Please be as honest as you can about your perception of how things are run here.

Really? How much leeway?



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

[otseng]

BTW, I asked EduChris to create this thread. And I'm also going to be giving a bit of a leeway for people to express their thoughts here. Please be as honest as you can about your perception of how things are run here.

Really? How much leeway?

If you want to go 30 mph over the speed limit, you can post here without getting a ticket. If you want to drive on the autobahn, send me a PM.

[EduChris]

...As far as the mods, it is certainly possible we engage in fallacious reasoning. However, I am not sure how it follows that we cannot enforce the rules because of this...

I'm not sure how I can stress strongly enough that the problem is not with "rule enforcement." The problem is that as McCulloch has recently begun engaging in uncivil vitriol that then becomes the model for other atheists here. Moderators are supposed to work to tone down the vitriol, not encourage it by their own behavior.

Beyond that, there is the occasional snide remarks from Cnorman, who claims to have received partial seminary education but who gives no real evidence here of ever having had any exposure to the views of Christian theologians. He tries to smear the Christian faith by pointing out the problems with "folk" Christianity. As a moderator and as a former seminary student, he should know that you don't attack an entire system just because some adherents don't exhibit careful thinking. For example, I'm sure there are Jews today who want to exterminate gentiles etc, reintroduce animal sacrifice, and all manner of things, but I would never attack Judaism as a whole just because of these folks.

And beyond everything else, we now have Murad--a plagiarist, spammer, propagandist, and deceiver--as a moderator. The fact that he is a moderator can only mean that there is no workable system for selecting moderators.

Murad's claim that 3/4 of American converts to Islam are women

McCulluch's response to Murad's claim

McCulloch's second response

Murad repeats his claim but fails to provide a source


Murad agains claims that "homosexuality is completetly legal" in Indonesia

My response that in Indonesia homosexuality will get you whipped or imprisoned

Murad's response that my source was wrong or old; reiterates claim that homosexuality is completely legal in Indonesia

My response stating that the source was only one year old; ask Murad to back up his claim or retract

Murad's response that he had already provided evidence (a false claim, since he had not actually provided a source)

My response stating that I had found his "source" (from my own searching) and had discovered his claims to be completely opposite to what his "source" had said; again I ask Murad to retract

Murad's response refusing to retract and instead engaging in dissimulation

Notice that Otseng's response failed to address the key issue. Murad claimed that homosexuality and homosexual marriage is "completely legal" in Indonesia. I produced evidence that shows just the opposite. Murad then claimed he had never said that homosexual marriage was "recognized" in Indonesia, only that there was no law against it at the federal level. This is chicanery of the worst sort, for if homosexual marriage is not recognized, it is not "completely legal" even if there is no specific law criminalizing it. Under Murad's reasoning, marrying a boiled lobster would be "completely legal" simply on the basis that there was no federal law specifically criminalizing marrigage to boiled lobsters. And beyond all this, I provided evidence that homosexual behavior is subject to criminal punishment in Indonesia, so therefore it cannot be "completely legal."

[johnmarc]

To clarify, my main concern is not that of bias, but of hyposcrisy. Moderators are the "police officers". It does not reflect well on the department if they are out picking up prostitutes or brawling in the street when they are off the clock.

Brawling I get. But how is cavorting with ho's germaine?

Anyhoo, I don't think a mod should comment as a mod in any thread they have participated in. They should recuse themselves and get another mod in. And I'm pretty sure they do. And yes, they should set an an example. But we're all human. I wonder if there isn't a little hint of non-christian perfectionsism in this thread. I find the sinner who does beautiful things to be more beautiful and of god than any self-righteous high handedness.

Absolutely correct. (both posts)

The issue is not bias, but hypocrisy. Moderators can be anything that they want to be as far as I am concerned, so long as they are both civil and fair. Fair, yes. Civil, no. I absolutely do not believe that all moderators have been outstanding examples of civility.

Murad stays as far as I am concerned. It is silly to think that different cultures will value exactly the same things. He brings to the forum a different and healthy perspective. And as far as I can tell, he has moderated in an exemplary fashion. What more do you want out of free help?

[micatala]

...As far as the mods, it is certainly possible we engage in fallacious reasoning. However, I am not sure how it follows that we cannot enforce the rules because of this...

I'm not sure how I can stress strongly enough that the problem is not with "rule enforcement." The problem is that as McCulloch has recently begun engaging in uncivil vitriol that then becomes the model for other atheists here. Moderators are supposed to work to tone down the vitriol, not encourage it by their own behavior.

We all have our own understanding of what counts as uncivil or as vitriol. If a member feels a post is uncivil, they are free to report it. Of course, the moderators may not agree with the assessment of the person reporting the post. Oftentimes, we will discuss particular cases to see if we agree with the reporter or not before taking action, and that action is sometimes simply clearing the report without any comment in the thread.

Sometimes we will PM the reporter as to why we did not take action on his or her report, but that does not always happen. In my case, it sometimes is just a matter of having the time at that point.

I am not expecting to convince you that your impression of what is uncivil is invalid, but you also cannot expect others, including the moderators either individually or as a group, agree with how you look at things.

Beyond that, there is the occasional snide remarks from Cnorman, who claims to have received partial seminary education but who gives no real evidence here of ever having had any exposure to the views of Christian theologians. He tries to smear the Christian faith by pointing out the problems with "folk" Christianity. As a moderator and as a former seminary student, he should know that you don't attack an entire system just because some adherents don't exhibit careful thinking. For example, I'm sure there are Jews today who want to exterminate gentiles etc, reintroduce animal sacrifice, and all manner of things, but I would never attack Judaism as a whole just because of these folks.

Again, you should report instances of this as you see them. My impression is that cnorman has always been careful to not to equate all Christians with any particular subgroup, like Fundamentalists. Maybe you could, even via PM, give me an example of where you think cnorman has "attacked the entire system" of Christianity.

And I should repeat, the mods don't adjudicate fallacies or even over-generalizations, unless they are stated uncivilly or unless repeated challenges to back up such assertions with evidence are not responded to.

And beyond everything else, we now have Murad--a plagiarist, spammer, propagandist, and deceiver--as a moderator. The fact that he is a moderator can only mean that there is no workable system for selecting moderators.

First, I will note that the posts you provide examples from is getting close to 6 months old.

Second, while you might have some good points to make here from a debate standpoint, a lot of your objections are at the level of whether Murad's evidence is reliable. Some has to do with him not responding to all of your points.

If your objection has to do with Murad not following Rule #5, then let me make a couple of comments. Our practice has been not to allow posters to challenge each other on Rule #5 for a time before stepping in as moderators. While we would ideally be able to review ALL claims and adjudicate all instances of evidence not being provided, you need to understand that would be a full time job for several moderators. We typically are not going to step in unless a poster has repeatedly refused to provide any evidence despite being challenged several times.

Also, we do not really have the time to see that all unsubstantiated claims are retracted. Oftentimes, a poster who is challenged will simply drop the claim if they don't have any evidence for it.

Finally, no member is obligated to address every point or questions posed by debate opponents. The Rule #5 obligation is only to support their own claims. Having provided evidence for their claim, they don't necessarily have to keep providing additional evidence at every request or challenge. Sure, part of debate is challenging the validity, accuracy, relevance, etc. of the evidence provided by one's opponents. BUt you can't expect every one of those issues to be addressed, and certainly not adjudicated by the moderators. Again, that would be a full time job for an army of mods.


Your beef with Murad on the thread you allude to is largely one of his not having supported his case adequately. You very well may have a good point. You might have a case that Murad is not a very good debater or that he is not very good at discerning the value or truthfulness of his sources. It is possibly true that he or any of the rest of us who are moderators have made false assertions in debate. Feel free to challenge any of us should you feel that occurs.



However, I am not sure how you can make a case that any of this makes Murad unfit to be a moderator.


Anyway, I hope I am not being too defensive about our group of mods. My main goal in this post is to clarify our goals and practices as mods to hopefully allay any misperceptions.

If your plea is to have the moderators as a group hold to even higher standards of civility as an example to the forum at large, I would certainly accept that as a constructive suggestion. But I would reiterate that I don't think any of us would agree to be moderators if it meant we had to forego any other participation in the forum, and that this inevitably means we will sometimes make posts which can be criticized for any number of reasons.

[ChaosBorders]

I think there has been some great posts by Theopoesis and Micatala in this thread. I would like to throw my two cents in before burying my head back in a business law book.

I will go on record as saying that:

1. McCulloch engages in incivility, strawman arguments, red herrings, stereotyping, and condescension. He is unfit as a moderator.

I realize I haven't been around lately, but I never noticed any strawman arguments by McC. Nor any incivility, stereotyping, or condescension that came even close to being sufficient such that it violated the rules. Is he occasionally a little arrogant? Maybe so. It's often a hazard of being brilliant and highly educated.

2. Cnorman wears his "I was a (partially) seminary trained preacher before converting to Judaism" on his sleeve, and has engaged in smear tactics against the Christian faith. He is unfit to be a moderator.

The worst I've ever seen Cnorman do is get a little over-emotional and slightly less than civil in debates where he is usually actively fighting against propaganda by opponents (aka DeBunkem) who are not acting in good faith themselves. Though this may be unfortunate, and probably not the best example to set as a moderator, 95+% of the time I think he's done a better job than anyone else who could conceivably be gotten to replace him.

3. I have just been told that Murad is now a moderator. Murad is deceitful and spends most of his time here engaging in spamming the forum with anti-Christian polemical Islamic website drivel. He is unfit to be a moderator. The fact that the current group of moderators admitted Murad is proof enough to me that the moderators (as a group) are dysfunctional and incompetent.

I admit I disagree with the choice of picking Murad as a moderator. I do not know how he's been doing as one, but based on his debating history it is my perception that some serious affirmative action was going on when they chose him. Though I think your personal attacks against him are rather farther reaching in nature than can be backed by reality.

4. Darias appears to have a bias against Christians who believe that there is a genuine spiritual dimension in the world--one that can impinge at times within our physical reality and our spiritual thoughts. This is nothing more than cultural arrogance disguised as modernism. It's too early to tell whether his biases will affect his moderating.

The point of having a balanced moderating team is recognition that sometimes individual biases are unavoidable.

In short, I contend that the moderating team has become a self-perpetuating system for ensuring that civil debate is diminished on this forum.

Unless things have changed very dramatically in the last few months, I think your assessment is highly inaccurate.