How long?

[Obvious Leo]

Lacewing. I was denied due process and given no opportunity to put my side of the story. I'm still unable to communicate with Scott but have no intention of pleading my case at this late stage. I have been subjected to all manner of offensive preaching throughout this site, a flagrant breach of the rules which appears to go unpunished. This preaching has often been accompanied with gratuitous personal attacks which suggest that my standards of personal morality are inferior to others because I don't share their infatuation with the supernatural. However the day you see me complaining about it to the thought police will be the day that hell freezes over. That's not the way we do things downunder.

Regards Leo

[Harbal]

That's not the way we do things downunder.

Good on yer cobber.

[Sy Borg]

Theists take note, this is how to do it:

1. Come to the forum and preach. Don't worry about the no-preaching rule, it's not enforced because people tend to respond rather than report (so far).

2. If someone provides a potent counter-argument that makes you look bad, tell them they are immoral due to their lack of divine guidance.

3. If the arguer responds to the slight in an intemperate way, report them and get them banned or moderated.

So I would like to start reporting theists when they preach and reduce the slack that they have been cut.

However, I will need guidance as to the interpretation "preaching" in the rules to avoid wasting time and effort. Obviously we can't, and don't want to, report theists for stating what they believe, but I'd like to know even roughly where the line is drawn so future potential conflicts can be short circuited by philosophically problematic posts.

[Obvious Leo]

Greta. From a strictly personal point of view I don't particularly care what anybody wants to say about anything. I just don't think that anybody has the right to call me an inadequate human being just because I don't agree with them. Why not just call me an idiot instead, like we do in this country?

[Sy Borg]

Leo, many secular-minded posters who come into conflict with theists at some point are accused by theists that as a non-believer they are necessarily morally deficient. I think at one stage in and old thread someone said I was a demon.

The accusations tend to come after one makes a point that threateningly probes the core of their beliefs and then the theist lashes out as protection and distraction. We can treat these kinds of accusations as proof that we are doing a good job, because that's what they are.

[Obvious Leo]

I think at one stage in and old thread someone said I was a demon.

You're in deep ****, Greta, so bolt the doors and hide.

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"...Exodus 22:18

[Sy Borg]

Leo, if I'm a demon then shouldn't others lock their doors? Not that will help. Locked doors are no impediment to us demons, eh?

Seriously, I would like an example of preaching that warrants moderation. I see what appears to be a great deal of preaching on the forum but, seemingly, it's considered to be okay. Either that, or it's assumed that moderation occurs naturally via debate.

This begs the question as to why the goose and not the gander? Is it that only directly abusive comments involving epithets are considered to be a dealbreaker and all other rules are only effectively a guideline?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

(Nested quote removed.)

I think you have answered your own question.

But Scott, I have a LOT of questions!

My point is that there are other people who have repeatedly shown that they cannot moderate themselves, and they have not received the same "corrective" outcome. And yes, reports have been filed. But the results seem inconsistent. Some end up in the moderation queue while others don't. Some seem to get a warning that they might be sent there, while BAM!, others just land there. And there seems to be no understanding about how long that might last... and it seems to vary. People who invest a lot of energy here... and even people waiting to get onto the site... really deserve a little more feedback about what to expect. It feels terribly disrespectful and "blown off" to be on the receiving end of such extended silence. Simple standard messages that say, "Here's what you can expect..." could alleviate a lot of frustration. It just seems like a considerate thing to do. I would even be willing to help craft the standard messages... since I'm a writer and that's what I do.

I am very grateful for this website, and all of the enjoyment and insights that I have gained from it. And I know that it must surely be a huge, often thankless, job to set up and maintain such a thing. As a User, I'm offering feedback (which has been encouraged by the site), and I can only hope that it will be considered to be helpful... rather than just seen as an irritation.

Leo has been on his best behavior, and yet he remains locked up without any idea of how long it could go on? Would any of us want to be in that position? It seems unkind... and I'm not understanding why that's necessary.

I appreciate the feedback.

If the specific poster you mention wants me to share with you personally or publicly the record of previous warnings before this I can. Otherwise, I will not discuss the specifics like this unless it follows the Procedure for Complaining about Moderator Actions.

If I am to come up with a specific clear policy on how to handle this kind of situation of repeated rule violations and what the member can expect, the policy will be to ban the members who have repeatedly violated the rules. The seeming arbitrariness and lack of clarity is due to my extreme generosity.

How many times would you invite me over to your home under the condition I take my shoes off, because in this hypothetical you do not allow people to wear shoes in your house, if each time I ignore your request and enter your home with muddy shoes and get dirt and mud all over your nice furniture? How many times would you allow this to happen before you just said simply that I cannot come over anymore?

-- Updated 11 May 2015 01:02 pm to add the following --

a flagrant breach of the rules which appears to go unpunished

Unless you reported the posts containing said "flagrant breach of the rules", then complaining about it as such is inappropriate, per the Procedure for Complaining about Moderator Actions.

You have to follow the rules and report--not complain in general--when others break the rules per those same rules. That's how it works here.

If you don't like the rules and procedures here, you are free to not use this website.

[Lacewing]

The seeming arbitrariness and lack of clarity is due to my extreme generosity.

I understand, Scott. And that generosity is indeed appreciated! I was guessing that such flexibility is actually to our advantage. I really do not wish for more rules or strictness. I very much enjoy the colorful conversations and honest exchanges on this site!

In the case of someone being put into the moderation queue -- I was basically thinking of it as a sort of "time out" or "sit in the corner" kind of thing. And without having the ability to contact you for clarification, or to find out how long their sentence might be, it seemed a bit cruel to throw them into an indefinite black hole. But maybe that's the error on my part -- as it sounds like you may be saying it's INTENDED as an unfriendly and isolating deterrent, just short of being banned? Sort of like locking someone out of the house, but not kicking them out of the town.

In which case, I'm sad it may be that serious in this situation. Admittedly, I find it refreshing sometimes when someone blurts out something inappropriate (which others seem to be thinking too). But, clearly, it carries a high risk.

[Harbal]

Couldn't we have a separate forum, exclusively for abusive behaviour?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Couldn't we have a separate forum, exclusively for abusive behaviour?

That is what almost all of the internet is.

[Harbal]

That is what almost all of the internet is.

I take your point, Scott. Sorry.

[Sy Borg]

And my question?

[Obvious Leo]

If you don't like the rules and procedures here, you are free to not use this website.

Do you want me to take my bat and ball and go and play elsewhere, Scott? Is that what you're trying to do? If so I suggest you first take a closer look at what I'm trying to say around the joint. There are a lot of people very interested in what I have to say, and I in turn am very interested in what they have to say about what I have to say. There is some serious high-octane philosophy going on on your website which you appear to be unaware of. It might never have crossed your mind that a philosopher might turn up one day who has actually written his own philosophy but are you quite certain that showing such a philosopher the door is such a smart idea?

Before you do something you might later on regret I suggest you consult with some of the people who are actually reading my stuff.

Regards Leo

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

The rules don't require posts be made with high-octane. They require other things. I'm happy to welcome anyone including you in these discussions who will follow those rules, just as I am happy to have people over my home for coffee so long as they take their shoes off before walking on my carpet.

Incidentally, as a general rule of thumb, I have found that those kind of posters who do not resort to petty, off-topic personal attacks and ad hominem arguments against other posters usually have much better, stronger and more philosophical arguments. Those kind of rule violations tend to be a symptom of one's weak argument, I find. That's generally speaking of course.