Please use this thread for alerting admins to moderation issues and for discussion or complaints arising from particular decisions.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
Please use this thread for alerting admins to moderation issues and for discussion or complaints arising from particular decisions.
Flagrant use of logic.
There’s also no rule banning people who post porn — as long as they post that porn somewhere else and not here.
You are trying to make a false equivalence.
Now we just need a definition of what is porn.
Are monkey tits porn?
I don’t mean specifically just Richards, but any monkey tits?
I propose The Moderation Zone – a site whose sole purpose is to discuss the way it is run.
LoL! Robin doesn’t know what logic is
Then it is good that no one posted porn here
It wouldn’t contain the same irony in the title as this site does, though.
phoodoo,
Don’t be daft – you express skepticism, I express skepticism – not necssarily of the same things, but there wouldn’t be much point then. The “Everyone Agreed? Zone”.
It’s already been pointed out to you that not all unethical behavior is illegal. The only option at the moment is to point out that what Sal Cordova does in his “teaching” constitutes child abuse.
Unless you’d care to argue otherwise?
No one has accused Sal of child molestation.
Erotica that I don’t personally like.
It’s too bad your buddy Joe Gallien is too much of a coward to post that image on his own blog and ask some of the UD regulars if it meets the definition of porn.
<
blockquote cite=”comment-161909″>
Patrick:
LoL! Why is that even necessary? Why don’t you just stomp your feet and have a good cry.
Post the definition of porn that you accept, Patrick. Then show how the image meets the definition. Don’t blame me for your failure, you little baby
You are all mouth until it comes time to ante up. Why is that?
LoL! If that picture aroused your sexual desire then you are sicker than I thought- you do know what “erotica” means- don’t you?
I will just point out that indoctrinating children with evolutionism amounts to child abuse for the same reasons
Patrick,
Agreed. His parents must be so disappointed.
phoodoo- Now we just need a definition of what is porn.
So if it’s erotica that you personally like then it isn’t porn. 🙄
Frankie,
It’s a question of choice, Joe. Everyone is (or should be) in control of their own private life. What you do in the privacy of your own home is your own affair. What you shove in other’s faces without warning is not (here at least) your choice.
@ phoodoo
I don’t see a problem with “my portly friend”. Maybe it’s worse in context. Can I repeat that if you want an admin to rule on whether some rule was broken, you provide us with a live link. And if you put it in a PM, it’s got more of a chance of being noticed.
Now you are asking me to PM you every time another atheist breaks the rule, because you just can’t see any such infractions?
Slobbering pussy friend won’t be a problem either then right?
Scratchy rectum Richie? Club-footed DNA JockStrap. Toe sucking Tom English? Finger-fucking Furry Foxes Alan?
Chlamidya-Laden Liddle PiddlingHerFiddle?
OhMyGaydainOmagainBigBlackTranniesHeBeSlayain?
RichieHugeButtCrackTwoBlowjobsForABigMac?
RumraketDon’tWhackitUnlessYouAreAFaggot?
FigNewtonAin’tCuteinIfYouAin’tPayingForTheSpewtin.
AdapaGotTheClappaCauseDaBitchDon’tWearDaWrapper.
OMFG, I love me some creatard meltdowns, hahaha
phoodoo,
Congratulations, you outdid Joe.
Because we want to see the moderator responses [or lack thereof] in public, in keeping with the goal of the site. It might be easier to see the complaints in this thread if the current group of admins could get together and implement a simple rul reserving this thread for discussion of moderation issues without waiting for Elizabeth to weigh in. You’ve done such things before, right Alan?
Plus, it’s hardly the individual cases that are the point, it’s the overall perception that it happens all the time and the mods do nothing to put an end to it.
In addition, the moderators themselves could help out by not accusing other members of child abuse or of being a child abuser. And yes I complained here, and no nothing was done about it.
So what’s your opinion on that Alan? Do you need to see the context to know that accusing another member of child abuse, or being a child abuser, is against the rules?
Nothing was shoved in anyone’s face, Alan. No one forces anyone to read my comments and no one forces anyone to click on a link provided in those comments
Other than the fact it’s a bald-faced lie, of course
But as long as he doesn’t actually smell like shit …
dazz loves to eat shit. So it must be hungry and looking
When these phrases crop up in comments other than in noyau and here, the admins will consider whether they break rules. Thankfully, generally speaking, our members can manage without them.
What was done was that you were challenged to support the case that Sal Cordova’s admitted behavior does not constitute child abuse. You have not met that challenge.
Yeah Mung, you screwed up again.
My take on the central aim of this site is to facilitate free exchange of ideas between people of disparate viewpoints. I maintain that the vast majority of our members for the vast majority of their contributions have no need of moderation. I’ve had a few lapses myself and I see that other members all have different ideas on what is offensive to themselves and others. Pitched exactly fairly, moderation ought to be a least unsatisfactory compromise
This is the current state of affairs. This thread is for discussing moderation issues and not general banter. Lizzie has said that she expects admins to act on their own initiative rather than wait for clarification and where admins disagree, the majority view among them should be followed.
You (collectively, our members) are not naughty children. Ultimately the site will stand or fall by its utility. People will vote with their feet.
I saw that complaint and I commented. A child is perhaps the most precious thing you or I can have and contemplating any form of abuse: mental, physical, sexual is abhorrent. The context of Sal being accused of abusing children was clear. It related to the teaching of Creationist claims and the rejecting of clear and well-supported facts about reality. Lying to kids. There was no suggestion Sal was physically or sexually abusing children.
I saw the context and I maintain that the point being made was that lying to kids is a form of mental abuse. Young children begin by believing what their elders tell them. It is wrong to abuse the trust of children by lying to them.
You have to show that is does constitute child abuse. And then you have to show that teaching evolutionism doesn’t also constitute child abuse. You have not met that challenge.
As a matter of fact you have failed to meet several challenges to your drooling spewage
All evidence to the contrary, of course
Bullshit- your position has nothing to do with reality. Teaching evolutionism is just as much child abuse as teaching Creation- even worse.
What evidence is that? That we host your contributions? Publish your comments? Man up and defend one of your assertions for a change!
This is yet another reason why you, Patrick, should not be a moderator here. You follow one bad deed with another in attempting to defend the indefensible. Now you’re rewriting the rules. Bad Patrick.
Assume all other posters are posting in good faith. For example, do not accuse other posters of being deliberately misleading.
But it’s ok to violate this rule if you really think they are not posting in good faith or if you really think they are being deliberately misleading.
The Patrick amendment:
A claim that an accusation is factual exempts it from the rules of the site.
Address the content of the post, not the perceived failings of the poster. This means that accusing others of ignorance or stupidity is off topic. As is implying that other posters are mentally ill or demented.
But perhaps the perceived failings are actual failings. Perhaps the person really is ignorant, stupid, mentally ill, or demented.
The Patrick amendment:
This rule is not violated if the accusation is deemed to be factual by the person making the accusation.
I don’t have to meet that challenge. It’s a red herring. The rules don’t change just because you think your accusation has a basis in fact. Such accusations violate the rules. That you think the accusation is factual doesn’t factor into the equation.
Major moderator fail. Bad Patrick.
It’s what I do. 🙂
Yeah Patrick, take that. Did you even consider those possibilities?
Thanks for backing me up here Mung, you’re a pal!
Sure. Ignore all the facts to the contrary.
Perhaps you could convince DiEb to chart that.
So?
That’s patently false. By accusing someone of child abuse you are, by definition, suggesting physical maltreatment or sexual molestation of a child.
That doesn’t make it child abuse.
Don’t be an idiot Alan.
Look at my most recent opening post- not one evolutionist has addressed it. Look at your nonsensical opening post- what are you, 5 years old?
Then look at the thread with my post ID is not anti-evolution- again not one of you actually addressed the argument.
So far from promoting the free exchange of disparate ideas you and your try to stifle it.
And I always support my claims, Alan. OTOH, you and yours, not so much.
What rule do you think I’m rewriting?
This is confused. As I’ve stated before, I think that the “assume good faith no matter what” rule is flawed. Lizzie disagrees. Her site, her rules.
I have not suggested that simply claiming an accusation is factual exempts it from the site rules. I have shown, with evidence from Sal’s own words, that what he does constitutes child abuse. If you disagree, make your case.
I’ve never said this either. If you convince me that what Sal Cordova has admitted to is not child abuse, I will retract my statement and apologize.
Not at all. You are going on about how horrible it is that I am pointing out how Sal Cordova’s admitted behavior constitutes child abuse without ever addressing the evidence that leads to that conclusion. You apparently don’t like someone on your side being called out for reprehensible behavior. Too bad.
What rule am I violating by saying “that behavior that Sal Cordova admitted to constitutes child abuse”?
Yes.
That’s not true. I have provided references to the behavior Sal himself has admitted to that constitutes child abuse and explained why it does. Emotional and intellectual abuse are still abuse.
Sal Cordova is taking advantage of the tendency for children to believe adults and using it to harm their critical thinking and reasoning abilities. He is doing so with strawman arguments and lies that he knows are wrong. That is child abuse.
That’s a flat out lie FrankenJoe. Numerous people including myself addressed you asinine OP claims and shot holes in it big enough to sail an aircraft carrier through. You chickened out and ignored all the criticisms you couldn’t address. You always run when challenged. Always.
There are some things we all ought to be able to agree on, else the existence of this site is a complete and utter farce.
That at least two of the four moderators here think it’s within the rules to accuse another member of child abuse makes my head explode.
The failure of those mods to manage to think and act rationally about this makes for great theater. Who could ask for a more glaring indictment of the incompetence of the moderators.
That’s not true.I have provided references to the behavior Sal himself has admitted to that constitutes child abuse and explained why it does.Emotional and intellectual abuse are still abuse.
Sal Cordova is taking advantage of the tendency for children to believe adults and using it to harm their critical thinking and reasoning abilities.He is doing so with strawman arguments and lies that he knows are wrong.That is child abuse.
Ahem- the same can be said about you and yours and for the same reasons.
noun: child abuse
physical maltreatment or sexual molestation of a child.
But accusing someone of child abuse, according to Patrick and Alan, carries with it no implication of physical maltreatment or sexual molestation of a child.
Wow. Just wow.
Except they supported the accusations by showing Sal did advocate abusing children by teaching them lies about science. That you choose to be an asshat and support lying to children says lots about your personal ethics too.