These two comments were made by a moderator in post 70 and 73:
They are misguided or hopelessly undereducated.
To dismiss it because a group of shallow, ignorant, and undereducated dunderheads insist on taking it as the literal and absolute 'word of God' is to deny oneself...
I reported the comments and pmed the admin about them, yet no action has been taken. I also note that plenty of moderators have been active since the reports were made and that the admin already received my pm but refused to do anything about it.
Are these comments not uncivil? Is it ok for people on here to call others shallow, ignorant, undereducated dunderheads and accuse them of being misguided and hopelessly undereducated?
Do these types of comments disqualify someone from being a moderator and making judgments about what is and is not civil?
WinePusher wrote:
These two comments were made by a moderator in post 70 and 73:
They are misguided or hopelessly undereducated.
To dismiss it because a group of shallow, ignorant, and undereducated dunderheads insist on taking it as the literal and absolute 'word of God' is to deny oneself...
Winepusher is correct. I should not have made those remarks. Moderators are not above criticism and should set a good example. I would not have complained about a 'warning'. I deleted the offensive remarks in an edit. I also realize my rule violation distracted from my point, which makes the message less effective, and ineffective writing is to me the greater sin.
Making those remarks undermines weakens the status of the moderator team. I apologize to them. I would not object to being dismissed or suspended.
When I confronted you about it via PM, you did not shift the blame. You have apologized and have edited out your comment. I wish more people would behave like this.
WinePusher wrote:
These two comments were made by a moderator in post 70 and 73:
They are misguided or hopelessly undereducated.
To dismiss it because a group of shallow, ignorant, and undereducated dunderheads insist on taking it as the literal and absolute 'word of God' is to deny oneself...
Winepusher is correct. I should not have made those remarks. Moderators are not above criticism and should set a good example. I would not have complained about a 'warning'. I deleted the offensive remarks in an edit. I also realize my rule violation distracted from my point, which makes the message less effective, and ineffective writing is to me the greater sin.
Making those remarks undermines weakens the status of the moderator team. I apologize to them. I would not object to being dismissed or suspended.
Thanks for apologizing, that's very honorable of you. I don't necessarily have a problem with what you said, even though your attack was targeted at people like me who do see the Bible as the word of God.
I have a problem with how unfairly the rules are applied and enforced. For example, instead of giving you a public comment/warning otseng chose to pm you? Excuse me? I've never received a pm, and I doubt anybody else has when they violate the rules. Why should you or anybody else be different?
WinePusher wrote:
Thanks for apologizing, that's very honorable of you. I don't necessarily have a problem with what you said, even though your attack was targeted at people like me who do see the Bible as the word of God.
I have a problem with how unfairly the rules are applied and enforced. For example, instead of giving you a public comment/warning otseng chose to pm you? Excuse me? I've never received a pm, and I doubt anybody else has when they violate the rules. Why should you or anybody else be different?
That is a reasonable question and complaint. I can only speak for my own understanding, not official policy. The point of warnings and other moderator actions is not to punish, but to correct. Perhaps moderators are expected and understood to accept a PM correction as at least as important as a public warning. I do. There is precedent for private corrections to be considered more appropriate for those in judicial or quasi judicial positions. Among issues is the fact that one is stung harder by the admonitions of one's peers. The moderation of forums will never be perfect and the perception of its fair application will likely always be seen as unfair by many with disagreements as to which way the unfairness fell.
However, I am not aware of any forum that tries as hard, or has more checks and balances to approach fairness. It is also my observation that most, if not all the moderators on this forum, would not mind being relieved of the duty. It is not an easy matter to switch hats between being a moderator and being an active debater. You may have noticed that most moderators end up debating less after assuming their duties. Both time considerations and role conflict are likely factors.
WinePusher wrote:
I've never received a pm, and I doubt anybody else has when they violate the rules. Why should you or anybody else be different?
Just because you've never received a PM doesn't mean nobody else has. There have been many instances since the founding of the forum that PM has been used in response to a post report.
Yes, he should not have said it, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt by sending him a PM. Now, if he said that YOU are a shallow, ignorant, and undereducated dunderhead, that would clearly be a personal attack and be worthy of at least a comment, even a warning.
Since this incident has been opened for comments I would like to offer my thoughts.
I was actively participating in the conversation in question. I not only saw Danmarks comments, but I even quoted them and commented on them within the context of the exchange.
My assessment is as follows:
To begin with I think it is crystal clear that Danmark's remarks were not intentional incivility by any stretch of the imagination. On the contrary his remarks appear to have been an expression of sympathy and support for a theist who was apparently under duress.
The comments made by Danmark were actually in support of less caustic interpretations of the Holy Scriptures. I agree with Winepusher than the exact wording Danmark used to describe those who demand literal interpretations of the Bible does not represent the epitome of civility toward that particular view. A more diplomatic description would have sufficed to be sure.
None the less, I think it's clear from the context that it was not a blatant act of incivility aimed at any particular person or even a specified particular group actually. It was more of a rejection of a particular extremist view.
I think the intent behind the words is worthy of consideration when moderating a post. And therefore I don't believe that this represents a blatant act of incivility. It's more of an unfortunately slip of the tongue in attempt to sympathize with someone who was under duress at the time.
So, if anything, I think the intent was honorable even though the wording used could be labeled as technically uncivil.
It's not like Danmark is running around trying to insult people on purpose.
I'm all for civility on a debate forum. But I also feel that it can actually become detrimental to debate if everything that appears to be a derogatory view is labeled as "uncivil".
A lot of atheists, including myself object to the Biblical doctrines precisely because we feel that they represent ignorant, immoral, and unintelligent principles and directives. This in-turn suggests that we feel that the God depicted in these texts is also ignorant, immoral, and unintelligent. One could push this even further and claim that this entire view is "uncivil" because it implies that anyone who believes in these text must also then be ignorant, immoral and unintelligent.
I mean, if we allow the concept of incivility to be defined solely on descriptions that are deemed less than complimentary to a particular view or interpretation that would place a large burden on those who debate that this is precisely why they reject these doctrines and this religion.
So I think there needs to be a distinction between terms that appear to be uncivil versus obvious acts of incivility toward other members.
Having said this, I agree with WinePusher than using a term like "dunderheads" to describe those who potentially hold a particular view is encroachment on the line that defines incivility. But still, I don't think that was Danmark's intent. I think he was almost just mumbling to himself as he was typing rather than intending to actually insult someone. And his actual intent in context appears to be one of support for a member who was clearly under duress.
[center] Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
Divine Insight wrote:I'm all for civility on a debate forum. But I also feel that it can actually become detrimental to debate if everything that appears to be a derogatory view is labeled as "uncivil".
Oh, I absolutely agree with this point and I've expressed my views on this to otseng many times. However, he disagrees and has chosen to comment/warn every little statement that can be perceived as derogatory.
Well, this isn't necessarily true. It seems that him and his moderators are selective in who they choose to comment/warn. For example, Danmark received a PM for his rule violation, and the moderators have refused to sanction the many personal remarks made by cnorman18, yet, a Christian debater received a warning for this statement:
I know how the distance basically could be calculated. The problem is that at the moment I don’t have equipment for measuring angles and distance so that I could get accurate result for the distance from Earth to the Sun.
I think Newton can be correct. And therefore I think it is possible that Sun is really smaller than it is claimed.
So, a Christian debater receives a warning for NOT making a personal attack, but Danmark and cnorman18 make personal attacks and otseng chooses to not even give them so much as a comment.
."
