Kenny

To Whom It May Concern,

I would like to register the following complaint concerning a member of this board, namely Koyaanisqatsi. According to your “Forum Rules and Policies” document, the following policy characterizes these boards:

I believe that Koyaanisqatsi is in violation of this policy as illustrated by the following selections from his post which can be found <a href="http://ii-f.ws/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=002564&p=3" target="_blank">here</a>

It should be noted that this post of Koyaanisqatsi followed a post of mine in which I made the following statement which may explain, in part, some of the hostility which ensued:

This statement, however, contains no insults or pejorative language on my part, and was simply a summery of what I have been led to conclude about Koyaanisqatsi through my interactions with him on that thread as well as my observations of his interactions with other posters. I believe his response was unwarranted and beneath the standards that the Secular Web claims to uphold.
My interaction with other posters on that thread as well as elsewhere, I believe, demonstrates my willingness to dialog and interact with various issues and objections which are raised in response to my posts, but I am unwilling to wade through insult after insult in order to get to the legitimate issues involved. My claim is not that Koyaanisqatsi here and elsewhere raises no legitimate points of discussion, but that the tone of his responses makes meaningful and fruitful dialog with him impossible.

This is also not the only thread in which Koyaanisqatsi has engaged in such behavior as I have observed similar behavior toward Christian posters in numerous of posts. Frankly, I believe that it reflects badly on the Secular Web that this sort of behavior is being allowed to continue unchecked. Regardless of the outcome, I thank the moderators in advance for addressing my concerns.

God Bless,
Kenny

[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: Kenny ]</p>

-DM-

Kenny:

In response to your post here, I have looked at the thread in question and the specific post which you mention. I can certainly understand the reason that you might complain. At the same time, I can understand that it might be frustrating for Koy to get what he considers to be nonanswers to his questions and nonresponses to the specific points which he has made.

Although we do strive "to be an intellectually stimulating environment in which discussants exchange ideas in the spirit of discovery" and "poisoning that environment with acrimony is highly discouraged," in the absence of a clear violation of our <a href="http://www.infidels.org/infidels/forumrules.html" target="_blank">Forum Rules and Policies</a>, we also try to avoid unnecessary throttling of the free expression of different points of view and different posting styles. (Keep in mind that the quoted portion of our <a href="http://www.infidels.org/infidels/forumrules.html" target="_blank">Forum Rules and Policies</a> is from the preamble and is not one of the listed standards which participants agree to respect and abide by.)

Do I condone Koy's posting style in the post in question? No, I don't. Personally, I would much prefer that all discussion met my own standards of civility (which are fairly high). But to officially enforce my own personal standards of civility (or yours) would be unreasonable.

At this point, I don't feel that official administrative action is called for but rather that the forum moderators should do as little or as much as they feel appropriate. I would suggest, therefore, that you direct your concerns to them. Unless you have already done so, and unless you want me to continue to officially pursue this complaint, we'll leave it at that.

If you have already contacted the forum moderators and feel that their response has been less than it should be, and you want us to officially pursue the complaint, I'll take it up with the other Administrators. If you would be more comfortable doing so, please feel free to e-mail me: DM@infidels.org

Regards,
--Don--

P.S. Thanks for your own civility. I think that your "DNFTT!" post in might take care of it in terms of your dialog with Koy.

Kenny

Donald Morgan,

Thank you for taking the time to address my concerns. The following is merely a final commentary on my part, not a request that further action be taken against Koy; although there are certain suggestions directed toward the administration of this board in general which may be taken or left as that administration sees fit. I have notified Koy by private message of this complaint and if he wishes to respond in his own defense, then I will allow him the last word on this matter

I understand that it might be frustrating to get what one considers nonanswers, but is it really necessary to use the type of language, series of insults, and disrespectful tone manifested in the quotes given above? Is it not better simply to ask for clarification or to point out why one considers the answers given to be inadequate without adding a series of insults and pejorative remarks? Furthermore, my tendency to be terse with Koy stems from my observation of his long history of hostile behavior toward Christian posters as well as the pejorative tone of his posts toward me in the aforementioned thread. I call to attention the fact that I willingly engaged in extended detailed dialogs with the other posters in that thread and found it quite enjoyable to do so because of the level of civility and respect shown by these other posters. Koy might find his dialogs with those who disagree with his opinions more fruitful and find his philosophical opponents much more willing to engage with him if he adopts a similar attitude to that of these other posters.

I realize this and the position in which it places you. I also realize that deciding when the line has been crossed is a highly subjective endeavor. I understand your reluctance to take action where no explicit violation of the listed standards have occurred. In my opinion, however, the fact that such pejorative language and lack of disrespect on the part of Koy cannot be pinned down to an explicit violation of the official standards might suggest that those standards are not as clear or extensive as they should be. I understand the reluctance to stifle various styles of expression by making the standards too restrictive, however.

True, but seeing that this is a private message board which tries to promote intellectual discussion, perhaps the official standards of civility should be a little higher or at least more clear than they currently are. Of course, that’s only a suggestion on my part. I understand that it is the right of the administrators to set the standards as high or as low as they wish.

I have noticed that this type of lack of civility is not confined to this thread. I have seen it in numerous other places as well, from both theists and atheists alike. Although, from my perspective, it seems that such behavior (which I do not condone no matter who does it) is more tolerated when it comes from atheists than when it comes from theists. I understand that to a certain extent that is to be expected as this is an atheist message board and to a certain extent we theists are “guests” here. However, if the II wishes to attract and retain theists who are willing and able to participate in quality intellectual discussion, it might be advisable to watch out for this in the future. Perhaps a suggestion could be made to the moderators to be more attentive to such matters.

Once again, I thank you for taking the time to address my concerns.

God Bless,
Kenny

Koyaanisqatsi

If I may...?

I would gladly accept any reprimand for my post.

I'm so tired of being falsely accused by tinplate demagogues as an evasion tactic from my legitimate arguments, that if my "martyrdom" for the cause (as it were) can serve as a catalyst for honest counter-refutation and direct, point-by-point (supportable) deconstruction of anyone's arguments here, so be it.

IMO, I am not alone in this regard.

I have always felt this site's primary goal was to seek out the truth; not obfuscate it with repeated non-answers and baseless declarations as a thinly veiled effort to proselytize and I feel my approach addresses that honestly and according to my own conscience.

I acknowledge that others do not agree with my approach and have freely apologized whenever called to terms in the past, but then, that's to the credit of this site, not to its detriment.

The only thing I'd like to say in my defense is that, IMO, in this instance, Kenny has taken my comments deliberately out of context and disingenuously conflated them in order to make it appear as if I were the transgressor instead of the transgressed; a common theme of late from theists who post here.

After all, this is the secular web--where baseless, cult-oriented proclamations and arguments from assumed authority are anathema to what I have always thought this site stood for--and if stark terminology (within accepted parameters and according to the context of the individual threads) can in any way cut through the disingenuous rhetoric, then I feel it is justified.

If that is not the consensus of the board, then I will, as always, acquiesce to my hosts' wishes. I am a guest here and as such will abide happily to the house rules.

But I will state this: if anyone is afraid of words (within reason), then I would contend that this is not the place for them to post.

Respect is earned and it works both ways, Kenny, so by consistently avoiding my arguments, exploding invective ancillary commentary and providing deliberate non-answers as a means to evade direct counter-refutation not just once or even twice, but three and four times in a thread after it has been demonstrated (not just fasley claimed, but directly shown to be true) repeatedly to you that this is precisely what you are doing is disrespectful to the arguments, which is far more detrimental than being disrespectful to the poster, IMO.

If you can't take the heat, then answer the questions and directly address the arguments and earn my respect.

Thanks.

Koy

(edited for addendum)

[ January 04, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

joedad

Kenny,

Sounds like you expect people to be somehow "perfect." Well, they ain't, they never have been and they never will be. I think this is where you err. It's an outgrowth of your theism, you know, gods, perfection, immortality, souls, etc.

Just grow some skin, stop expecting perfection, and do not assume that you will get a satisfactory response to every query. But it doesn't mean there isn't one. Be resourceful. If you are not here to learn something, then why are you here?

Civility is a matter of degree, just like free speech. Are you being threatened?

Just because you personally take offense at something does not make it uncivil. If you are seriously pursuing knowledge and understanding, I'd think you'd be more than willing to give up some skin towards that end. If you are pursuing dominance or being triumphalistic, that's another issue. Which is it?

Just my opinion. No response needed.

joe

Dog

I have always felt this site's primary goal was to seek out the truth; not obfuscate it with repeated non-answers and baseless declarations

More than enough reason to show you the door.


Cultly Cultishly Cultilishly You're-in-a-Cult, yours,

Dog

MeBeSmart

Kenny:

I think if you plan on hanging around here for a while you will have to realize a few things. They are quite simple although rather depressing, particularly for a website that claims to encourage open dialogue and the pursuit of truth. Let me proceed with what you will have to know to better equip yourself to handle the many posters.

(1) The moderators and people posting on the boards constantly hide behind the term “reason”, which basically means if you don’t agree with them you’re unreasonable, since, while they’ll say they will easily change their mind if they are shown to be wrong, they almost never do. Rather, the majority will eventually start calling you names, saying your “unreasonable”, and basically anything else if you directly focus on their points. This is a sad but true fact, as you can see from looking through the majority of the boards. “Do as I say, not as I do” is basically the underlying philosophy around here.

(2) Koy is close minded, as you can see from looking at the majority of his/her posts. If you don’t agree with Koy, you simply end up being wrong, and if you show him to be wrong, he’ll simply start implying you’re dumb, full of “shit”, and things of that nature, or that you‘re going around the issue or bringing up something irrelevant. I would encourage you to simply not correspond with him, since if anyone on these boards leans towards not being open to other viewpoints, it is Koy, but you can easily see that by his comment “…as if I could give a rat's ass about you or your beliefs…” These are not the words of a rational person obviously. To provide another example, many people on the boards have pointed out to Koy that his use of the word “cult” is unfounded, and he still refuses to alter it, but rather, as I believe he posted in one forum, he makes up his own terminology, which led one user to respond, somewhat reasonably it seems, that he/she couldn’t continue any discussion since they would be at a loss what Koy means. You can judge for yourself obviously, but if Koy’s remarks to you already haven’t shown you he isn’t worth discussing items with, maybe reading other forums that they have posted in will.

(3) The Secular Web, like almost any site, organization, etc., is biased and at a very deep level a bunch of hypocrites. For example, under their “Forum Rules and Policies”, rule one says “you will not post material that is knowingly defamatory, etc.” It is rather odd that they have this rule, yet they obviously allowed Koy to post a “knowingly defamatory” comment about you. Another example is rule four, which states : “You will not post material that is sexually or otherwise obscene and has no educational purpose or any significant relevance to an ongoing and legitimate discussion.” This is an odd rule, considering if you look around the secular web you will find plenty of “discussions” focusing on sexually obscene behavior. One such example is a recent one on “penis size” and another on bestiality, which, at least to most, would seem to be rather “obscene”.
Going back to rule two, it states that you basically shouldn’t be a jerk, yet it’s okay for many posters to call someone an “asshole” over a joke (the recent joke told by “M.J.”), yet it’s not okay for he/she to tell a joke, even a tasteless one. It’s okay for “Bill”, an administrator, to steal a line off of the comedian Sinbad and say “Too bad; so sad”, and then tell the person to “grow up” of course. It is also okay for Jeff Lucas, the “president” of the infidels, to say “This is our press and this is as free as it is going to get. If you can't live with that, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.” But, he’s not a “jerk” or anything, he just seems like one.

Overall, if you want a good place to explore your views, challenge them, etc., I would recommend books or journal articles. Two books I would definitely recommend are “The Miracle of Theism” by Mackie, and “Atheism: A Philosophical Justification” by Martin, at least to get started. I think you may find in here that atheists talk a good game, but they rarely play a good game. I think you’ll find Martin, Mackie, Gale, Flew, Drange, and a host of other atheistic philosophers play a good game. But, that’s just my opinion. Take care. Now then, I hope these pointers have helped, and if you decide to stay around have a good time on the wide world of the secular web discussion forums.
Love,
Me.

Ihatecheese

Me be smart
I love a guy that whines from the obscurity of the alter ego screen name. I can hear your meek little voice as you were about to post
"Sure I have had my spine surgically removed but thats not going to stop me"
Bravo little soldier bravo

-DM-

MeBeSmart:

The mere fact that you can post what you did and do so without either being banned or having your post deleted is one of the characteristics which tend to separate the Internet Infidels Discussion Forum from the majority of Christian discussion forums.

Regarding our <a href="http://www.infidels.org/infidels/forumrules.html" target="_blank">Forum Rules and Policies</a>, the application of those rules and policies is necessarily subjective and it would be impossible for any moderators, whether theists or atheists, to do so completely devoid of bias.

In any case, feeling the way that you do about our site, I assume that your first post will be your last.

--Don--

Pantera

Kenny,

I'm pretty much in agreement with Don, but I'll add a few of my own thoughts.

You are correct, as we say in the preamble to the forum rules, we do strive "to be an intellectually stimulating environment in which discussants exchange ideas in the spirit of discovery" and indeed "poisoning that environment with acrimony is highly discouraged". At the same time, the preamble to our moderation policy says "the Internet Infidels have a strong philosophical stance in favor of the maximum amount of "free speech" possible under the circumstances." These are both aims which I find entirely laudable, and reconciling the two is not always easy. Where possible, we prefer the moderators and administrators to try to lead by example rather than actually deleting acrimonious posts.

There are, however, some forms of behaviour which are beyond the pale, as laid out in our registration agreement. We generally allow the moderators of the individual forums a fair amount of latitude in determining exactly where that line is, based on the standards of the forums in question, the context of the threads, and their own interpretation of the registration agreement. For example, when I was moderator of Evolution/Creation I tried to keep the forum on a fairly tight rein, largely because I thought the reception the creationists were getting was at least partly responsible for the complete lack of credible opposition for people like Patrick, Jesse and the rest. Had a post like Koy's been made on on that forum at that time I would in all probability have edited out some of the nastier remarks, or at least made a public request for restraint. We have also tightened up the moderation policy in the political forum recently, because the moderators and many of the regulars were worried that the forum was in danger of getting completely out of control. I would not necessarily be averse to doing something similar in Existence of God, but the issues in that forum are not always the same as in the other two forums I mentioned, and I would probably have to be convinced that there was (a) a need for it and (b) a desire for it among our members and (particularly) the moderators of the forum, who after all must be comfortable with the policy which they have to implement.

So, do I dislike the use of acrimonious and insulting tactics in debates? Yes I do - and particularly in the philosophical forums. Do I wish they would stop? Yes. Am I willing to use my authority as an administrator to force them to stop? No - not at this point anyway.

I suggest that if you think that a member is being unnecessarily rude in debating you, the best response is something like "I will not respond to your post until you can put it in a less insulting manner", and find somebody else to debate with instead. If enough of your fellow Christians deal with an individual in such a style, he may soon find that he has nobody left to argue with. Readers will, of course, form their own opinions on whether you are being reasonable or over-sensitive, but I can say that in this instance I personally found your DNFTT post an entirely reasonable response. In your position, I probably wouldn't have bothered replying either.

It concerns me that you think like this Kenny, because while I might not agree with you about exactly what standards should be imposed, I certainly believe that they should be applied in the same way for theists and non-theists - and that even handed moderation is particularly important in the debate forums. All I can do is assure you that, from my perspective at least, moderation standards are not biased. I've been looking through the Admin forum and my Email records, and while I don't like to discuss the specifics of member sanctions in public, to give you a general idea, at a rough count since I became an administrator in mid-November we have taken some sort of substantive disciplinary action (suspension, or a formal warning from a mod or admin) against fourteen individuals - eleven atheists, two Christians and one alledged Christian who was a very obvious atheist troll. I will add that both of the cases involving Christians involved inappropriate posting on the Secular Lifestyle and Support forum, where special rules apply, and not the regular forums. Given that we have taken action against so many more atheists than Christians, I find it hard to believe that we are pulling up Christians for things which we would let go from non-Christians. It is an important point though, and we will continue to be watchful for possible hints of bias.

Finally Kenny, I'll assure you that I do value your opinions. The views of our members are important to us, and give them due consideration when deciding on issues like this. And I will add on a personal level that I enjoy reading your posts, and apprectiate your own consistent politeness, even when it is not reciprocated. I think there are many people on the board who would do well to follow your example a bit more.