thief of fire

I think Toto has done a great job here over the years (I've posted here under other handles since 2003). A lot of the time Toto has been the only active moderator with countless hobby horses and personalities to deal with.

Another fairly active and even minded Mod or two might help.

This might have some merit.

If it was me :devil1: I'd have one month ban on all hobby horses, just to see what transpired.

And yes, I'd just autocratically choose them :devil1:

Iskander

It is more complicated than that.

steve_bnk

As to 2 &3.

This in genral was discussed a ways back on the manager forum.

The issue from the user view is a point at which the moderation becomes a thought police regulating the flow of debate. Who says when something is soundly defeated?

As to claims of an earlier time of a higher level of debate I'd have to disagree On the contrary there are some who presume some intellectual high ground and pound on those they think inferior.

As to chili and the like, from the manager forum debate on tightening rules it was pointed no one has to respond to anyone and there is always the ignore function. If you think a thread is useless or not worthy of debate, then simply do not respond. Unless you just want to say you think it is a bullshit thread.

It is a bit condescending on a public anonymous forum where we really do not know each other to presume to judge someone as not worthy of being allowed access and the freedom to express.. keep in mind the roots of the forum are in a place for those fleeing the constraints of relgion. Become exclusive and it becomes like theists on their boards where little refutation of theism is allowed and atheists are evil in the flesh. A mutual admiration society where those not in the clique are ostracized..

It takes two to to tango. In one of the times when people are locked in an infinite 'I proved you wrong...No you didn't' loop, if you have made the case and the other side refuses to relent, then just stop engaging when it is clear the other side will not budge

How many times has the endless loop of Jesus is true because of NT eyewitness....But there is no evidence been run?


Over on the science forum after the 4th or 5th go round with someone who refuses to see the science of things I put him on ignore. There is no point in engaging.

Over on science there is always a new topic that can be kicked off. This forum may have just run its course. How many times can the same questions be rehashed by the same people?

You could break out subforums on a half dozen topics like HJ vs MJ and cover most of the topics.

thief of fire

I'd agree with Toto , here. Joel and Dean Anderson being two who spring to mind, but there were many others, even the beloved Doctor.

mountainman

I would like see those people who engage in personal attacks like the following be given a public MODERATOR WARNING.

outhouse

Id agree.


Most of what im posting that may appear as negative, Is nothing more then constructive criticism.

thief of fire

I agree with you. I have that poster on ignore so generally don't see the rubbish he posts.

Robert Tulip

As a new member here, but one who has been interested in the subject matter for some time, I think this thread opens useful questions to improve the discussion. The status of this forum is ambiguous, in its efforts to apply reason to matters generally perceived through the lens of faith. Scientific consensus finds no evidence for the supernatural or miracles, or for the historical Jesus, but these are routinely assumed on most religion boards. To suggest apologists should be welcome here is like saying unscientific opinions should be welcomed on a science board.

I am well aware that mileage will vary on interpretation of the boundaries of legitimate discussion. Who gets to define what is scientific? For example, I consider astrotheology to be a scientific explanation of the Christ Myth, but this is vehemently rejected by others. I see this forum as a good place to test out such new ideas.

I suggest stronger use of an infraction and suspension system would help to indicate and reduce unacceptable comments, such as insults, repetition, hijacks and off topic rambling. I like the way this is managed on the astronomy discussion forum Cosmoquest.

Toto

The intent here is not to stifle discussion or censor ideas. The intent is to manage an orderly discussion and keep things interesting.

Apologists who attempt to post in a reasonable manner have always been welcome because we are not afraid of their (often pathetic) attempts to base their faith on rationality.

The rules forbid personal insults, but this is often a difficult call. There are words that some people consider insulting that others would not. There is inflammatory language that inflames some but not others.

You are encouraged to report language that you consider offensive rather than reply to it.

sotto voce

On the part of management, yes. But there are regular posters here who apparently have no intention to debate, but propagandise in the same direction; who post on frivolous subjects that surreptitiously contain their propaganda; and they talk to each other, ignoring the debating points that would expose their fraudulence. There is apparent intention to stifle. It seems to be a sort of non-violent thuggery that makes a mockery of the terms 'free thought' and 'rationalism'.

The resulting distortion might take some in, I don't know. The upside is that this agenda is obvious to passing readers who matter academically, and actually 'proves' the case against them. Though it must be tedious to read it all.