RufusAtticus

First, Hamster, I just want to thank you for having the guts to come here and give us your opinion of the issue. I also want to inform you that for most of us here on IIDB our interaction with TW has been restricted to the E/C forum, which I suspect has a slightly different moderation procedures than your Religion forums. For one I suspect that Socrates, the "evolution eviscerator" (sic), was recruited to be creation champion of that forum. (The tag line of the biology forum used to include "go get 'em, Socrates.") That is why I suspect that the administration has a higher tolerance for his antics than other posters.

The examples are from PMs exchanged between me and a TW staff member, so I cannot post a link to them.

I never claimed that it did.

This is an example of the double standard, SPLx is placed on "moderated status" for continuely breaking the rules, but Socrates who is typically abusive and breaks rules even after receiving public warnings is not.

Hamster

what the rule is protecting is not their privacy

Yes, it is. If George Clooney (who is undoubtedly a "public figure") wanted to post privately at the forum without people knowing his identity, then he would have his privacy protected.

Tweb.con 'rule' does instead is to enable the creation of personas that people can hide behind.

What sort of silly definition equivocation is this? All manner of privacy is technically "hiding," therefore all manner of privacy is dishonest and unnescessary? Give me a break.

TheologyWeb members -- Atheist and Christian -- are protected by the same rule. If you do not want your private information discussed on the forum, it will not be discussed regardless of your motive. If someone doesn't want their first and lasts names used in reference to them because they are afraid that witches and goblins will track them down and eat them, then they are still protected by the rule.

The issue that you keep dodging is that this is not preferential or "special" treatment, it is available for everyone from Leonardo DiCaprio to a nameless hermit living on monster island.

You have shown no such thing.

Nor have you responded to the great bulk of my post. I have already proven (and I can get even more threads if you like) that Jim Eisele has no problems with being inflammatory, and that TheologyWeb has not "censored" him save for occasions where he has broken the rules.

So can I conclude that TheologyWeb is protecting Jim Eisele?

Duvenoy

Hamster, I agree.

As a nameless hermit living on Monster Island, I don't care if I'm outed, but others don't feel that way. Their privatcy should be protected.

It's one thing to speculate on Soc's ID over here, but we should keep it here.

As for this Jim Eisele fellow, I'm not familiar with him. But, if he's as discourtious and disruptive as Socrates, he needs to be 'touched up' (no, not slapped up 'side the head with a dead muskrat, but..... Hmmm. Never mind ).

doov

Sauron

Wrong.

These people have surrendered their privacy by being public figures, posting their information all over the internet, etc.
Someone who posts their name, address, workplace, picture, essays, etc. on the internet - for pete's sake - has obviously decided that they aren't concerned about privacy. If they actually had any legitimate privacy concerns or worries, then they would never have done that. They've posted more than enough breadcrumbs for someone to backtrack and find out whatever they would like to know about them.

Privacy? No.

What Sarfati and Turkel want to do is not preserve their privacy, but create a sock-puppet persona, for their own non-privacy-related reasons.

Irrelevant. The only people who are using your 'rule' are fundies who want to hide their true names/agendas/ministry affiliations, in the first place. You created a rule that you are willing to apply to both sides, but only one side in the debate even wanted or needed the rule in the first place. You don't see the skeptics trying to dis-associate themselves from their affiliated organizations, do you? Or writing allegedly 'unbiased fan' reviews of their own essays, under pseudonyms?

It is not privacy that you are creating - since both of these clowns have already given that away, in spades - but their anonymity while posting on your forum. An anonymity that is useful for them, in order to hide their true names, agendas, ministry affiliations, etc.

"Great bulk" is a good word for it.

However, the fact is that Socrates is far worse than Eisele. Providing links to Eisele's posts doesn't refute that point.

There is a difference of degree. Moreover, most of Eisele's comments are generic "christians are so stupid...", while Socrates directs far more of his flames at specific individuals.

As I indicated: the two situations are not the same. You have failed to demonstrate that they are.

Doubting Didymus

Hampster:

I, too, would like to commend you for comitting time to defend your board practice here. I am not registered at theologyweb, and so I am not familiar at all with any goings on there, save what has been relayed in the occasional thread in this forum.

As a bystander, I will not be making any claims or assertions about your board practice, but there are assertions made by others here that I would like to see you address, if you are inclined to do so.

Primarily, this record of events, delivered in this thread, gives a prima facie appearance of bias.

Is this a simple mistake, DeeDee having never read socrates' original post? Even if it is, doesn't this relay of events demonstrate that users who are specifically criticising socrates are held to a more strict standard than socrates himself?

It seems to me that the issue at hand is not an allegation of theist/atheist double standards on your board, but specifically that the detractors of a single specific poster are unevenly moderated with respect to that poster. Your 'Jim Eisele' counterexample is not the same thing. It is the unbalanced moderation of socrates critics, not the moderation of socrates himself, that I see our members here have a grievance against.

Hamster

BTW - thanks for the compliments

And still I wait for Sauron to tell me why so and so are getting special treatment which (by definition of the term) is not offered to anyone else.

Someone who posts their name, address, workplace, picture, essays, etc. on the internet - for pete's sake - has obviously decided that they aren't concerned about privacy.

Which has little to do with proving that TheologyWeb is giving these people special treatment. TheologyWeb does not care if:

1. Your privacy concerns are inconsistant
2. You are famous

The rule:

9. Participant Anonymity

In conjunction with our Privacy Statement please respect the anonymity of other posters on TheologyWeb. Unless otherwise stated only registered screen names are to be used when referring to participants. Personal information of another participant is not to be disclosed in any of the public forums. Requests for personal information such as name or location may be done but any refusal of the information by other participants is to be honored.

still applies to them, just as it applies to everyone else.

There is no inconsistancy, and your accusation that this is "special protection" afforded to them is nonsense. All you are posting is complaints as to why you hate this rule, but frankly I don't care wether you or anyone else with your papparazzi-like mentality like it or not. These complaints do not prove that these two people are being given special privelages.

The simple fact of the matter is that this is not "special treatment," nor will you be able to show that it is.

the fact is that Socrates is far worse than Eisele. Providing links to Eisele's posts doesn't refute that point.

But simply stating otherwise matter-of-factly is.

Most of Eisele's comments are generic "christians are so stupid...",

Oh, okay, that's not vitriolic and slanderous at all!

No, actually Eisele's comments are often directed at individuals. In fact, usually glib statements such as the above are made in posts where he is specifically responding to people. If I conclude this post with "Why are Atheists such idiots?" (Something I do not believe, btw) , is there really a distinction between this and Socrates' inflammatory comments?

there are assertions made by others here that I would like to see you address, if you are inclined to do so.

I will adress what I can. Though, keep in mind the following:

1. We allow riposte, satire, strong language, etc. "We recognize that the nature of spirited debate may include the use of satire, humor, and strong statements of position; however, gratuitous name-calling, bullying, stalking, abusive/threatening language, or outright rudeness will not be tolerated. If a strong and potentially inflammatory characterization is used, it must be backed up as to the truth of the matter. Even with such substantiation, such characterizations shall not be used to such a degree that they are unnecessarily disruptive and cease to contribute to or assist in meaningful dialog. Additionally, refrain from the changing of a person's name or username into a parody of that same name. " This is somewhat of a subjective call to make on the part of the moderators, so if there are inconsistancies, they need to be pointed out to the mods. I have no doubts that there have been some even on my part but I am more than willing go back and correct any inconsistant dealings I've made in the past. All TheologyWeb moderators are.

2. I don't have access to all information regarding certain specifics on certain incidents, so please allow me some time to contact the mods and get the story straight.

3. Other moderators or admins may disagree with my interpretations of events.

That said, with regard to SLPx's supposed threat of banning, here is what Dee Dee Warren actually said to him via private message:

"You were never threatened with banning. You were not put on moderation until you began the identity game and continued with it. It is more than one post but your entire and continued demeanor and behaviour that led to your position. If you wish to cherry-pick, knock yourself out. My email to you remains our position. I never argued for nor would I ever argue for the perfection of the system. But you are not the subject or target of a censoring simply because of what you believe as you try and portray. Quite simply put, sir, there are others of your position on our forum which are more much articulate and do a better job at defending evolution and rebutting Socrates than you do, and they remain, and are uncensored which would be rather odd if that were are goal. I am through arguing this with you. If you feel better as a martyr, I will not rob you of that pleasure."


Is this a simple mistake, DeeDee having never read socrates' original post?

I will have to contact Dee Dee Warren to get more information.

Hamster

Dee Dee's Reply:


Here is what Dee Dee actually wrote:
I go on to list side by side comments that he complained about with Soc and comments of his which were also on the board showing his gross hypocrisy. Notice that I told him that it was because his post was the “sum and substance” of his entire post is an example of why he was on moderation. That is significant. He is on moderation because he willfully on several occasions violated the privacy policy and was posting short (two or three sentence) posts that had NO substance but only comments like that above. The rest of my PM demonstrated that he went tit for tat with Soc on many comments and they were all allowed to remain so he must be championing his own censorship. Never once was he threatened with banning. He then justified his posts with a “he did it first” defense. And I made it clear to him that I was not objecting to his strong defenses, just his hypocrisy. He would very often report a post and shortly afterwards before it could be reviewed post a resonse that went beyond that of which he was complaining. And for the record, I never saw Soc’s original post. Was it reported? Do I view every post in Biology? No. Do I approve of every single thing that Soc says? No. If Soc’s post was a simply few sentencer with those words, it should have been edited.


And how is this for picking nits, Rufus says in response to a JOKE of Boom’s

Boom you gave away the plot.

And as for this from one of the more fair posters in that thread:

My list to SLPx showed that whatever he complained of Soc’s that was allowed to stand unedited, SLPx did far more. SLPx and Gamble were the only ones heavily moderated, and SLPx got himself into that pickle primarily for vilating the privacy rule… something he conveniently forgets.

Jayjay

The point was that there's no rule that if I report a post, I somehow appoint myself as an impartial reviewer of the whole forum. If I find that Socrates breaks the rules in a post, I report it. If someone else finds that Jim Eisele breaks the rules, then he can report that one. To ask that I should review Eisele's posts before I have a moral right to report Socrates' is like saying that before a person can file a law suit against company A he should do the same with companies B to Z just to be fair.

That being said, the examples you gave about Eisele's conduct were nowhere near Socrates' level. Perhaps he has posted something worse in the forum which I have missed, since I also don't read the apologetics forums that much. The complaints and the oversights that we whine about here apply mostly to what's going on in the Biology Department and not the forums you moderate.

EDIT: In any case, the moderation seems to be catching up. The recent rule changes look very much as if they're motivated to weed out one of Socrates' worst habits, the "funny" name changing. So all in all, the criticism of TWeb's staff is closer to than .

Dr.GH

Do to the very high level of "moderator" bias I have limited my involvement with theologyweb. I am tired of cencored posts merely because they oppose the YEC mania of the admins.

What I found most hypocritical was "moderators" openly criticizing posts that they had chopped, and then fussing that I "publically" responded in protest.

The only way that YECs can appear to hold their own aginst real facts is if they can censor, and take advantage of the ignorance of an audience. We have all been down the same road before: OCW, ARN, CARN, BaptistBoard, RaptureReady, etc ...

Jimmy Higgins

Hey Hamster, welcome to our home. I just wanted to relate my feelings on the whole TWeb issue.

First off, there are some quality Mods there, favorite being Pilgrim who has been spot on all the time, relating virtually no favoritism to anyone where he moderates. Dee Dee Warren seems to be very consistent as well.

Then you have Rightidea and former mod, I think, Calvinist treated me very roughly in one of my first correspondances in the Political Section, click here. So my experience with moderators at Tweb are mixed.

Then take Socrates. I sent him a few PM's, being extremely polite regarding a source issue on a thread on Haldane. Socrates was decently nice, though very secretive even then regarding sources, this being a book. After he went to my webpage, he went nuts and has treated me with great disrespect ever since. But more to the point, he has joyfully treated me with disrespect. Every other member here has had pretty much the same experience with Socrates. If you disagree with Socrates, then that means you've unequivocably earned his disdain and vile. Virtually every post Socrates makes, say about 90 to 95%, includes childish remarks, childish icons, and unrespectful comments especially regarding a persons background.

This should not be a warrant for such actions to be taken against Socrates, however, let it be known, Socrates is the bad apple and despite all the assurance we've gotten from moderators that Socrates has been asked to curb his behavior, none of us have noticed any change in behavior. Yet, the largest comments are made against the visitors, they are the ones who are put in moderated mode, they are the ones with the most red on their posts, even after Socrates posted a vile racial slur, I got more red on my post because I called him on it.

This is my experience and the experience of most of us there. [Gump]And that's all I have to say about that.[/Gump]