Celsus

Hi all,

I'm posting a poll in which to draw feedback. Because of the fractious nature of previous discussions on the subject, it will be moderated extremely closely. I will not hesitate to delete whole posts (and their responses) if broadbrush accusations are made in a post. I hope we can thrash out the issue politely and rationally. Please vote accordingly. I will only (at most) be playing devil's advocate to any position on this issue, and keep my personal opinion to myself. Please state your reasons if possible.

Cheers,
Joel

Family Man

I think it depends on who it is. If it's a raving fundamentalist, no. If it's a Christian that takes a reasonable stance on historical and biblical criticism issues, I'd have no problem with it.

In short, if you have someone in mind, you need to come out with it so we can make an informed decision.

Celsus

The idea is that the selection of moderators will be according to the usual standards, with the exception that religious beliefs are not taken into account.

Joel

Magus55

Isn't this gonna create some problems? It would make sense to have a Christian moderator since this is about the Bible ( a Muslim moderating a Bible forum doesn't make much sense to me), but then if you use someone too liberal, how is that any different than an atheist since they basically ignore the Bible anyway?

Obviously i'm not saying someone like me should do it, since i'm like the most hated person on the board, but what benefits does having a theist moderator offer?

Celsus

As I said, beliefs would not be taken into account. Therefore, if a Wiccan Polytheist Celt happened to be a world expert on the Bible, and also posted here, and was always civil and level-headed, such a person could be considered (if you agree with the polled question). If you are looking for this to become a friendly-to-a-specific-interpretation-of-the-Bible place, then it's not likely to happen any time soon.
That's a good question. Perhaps our theists might shed some light on this. Obviously, the perennial complaints about bias would be addressed in a stroke. Other issues may be less clear. For example, in what way would a theist (should s/he accept a position) be compromising their beliefs and stance by becoming a moderator at a secular site?

Joel

Layman

Sure, why not.

We're told that Moderators do not act on their personal views when Moderating. For the most part I'd say this holds true. I see no reason to believe that a theist would be any less able to be fair than a non theist.

Layman

Unfortunately, I think it is likely to increase complaints of bias. If a few theists complain about the bias of atheist moderators, then I suspect many non theists matched with a theist moderator will result in even more complaints. This, of course, might be alleviated given time and the choice of the right theist.

Regarding a conflict, I see little threat. The Moderator's job is not to promote the secular agenda, it is--as I understand it--to create and maintain a fair discussion forum so that all perspectives can get a hearing. Perhaps other theists would disagree. They may see the mere affiliation with such a great foe of their faith that any support is aid and comfort to the enemy.

Perhaps the most practical benefit would be increasing the potential pool of moderators. There are several theists familiar with the basics of biblical criticism.

Godless Wonder

What's the job of the moderator? From what I've observed, it seems they mostly step in when the flames start popping up, or if things are getting off topic too much, or edit things down if a post might cause some legal hassles. Most of what I've seen moderators do when moderating are things unrelated to which side of the debate they might agree with, so I think it's highly likely a theist could do the job just fine. But I don't get in this forum all that much, maybe it's different here and I just didn't notice.

BTW, I was slightly confused for a bit by the adjective "Moderate" in the poll, taking it as a verb . . . . "Moderate agreement, Moderate disagreement?", is that like some kind of arbitration process? Is that what moderators do, moderate disagreements? OH, they mean "slight-to-middling agreement"

Goliath

This is the Secular web, not the Every-knee-shall-bow web. Therefore I see no need for theist moderators here, neither now, nor ever.

Sincerely,

Goliath

sodium

What would the change be intended to accomplish? Is it that there are too few non-theist moderators? Is it that the current moderation has been unfair, and theist moderators should be added to somehow counterbalance this? Or is it symbolic?