Ha - got your attention!!

I am not for censorship of ideas, or for that matter, how they are expressed. I’m for freedom in that way.
I am for censorship of personal attacks. I would like to see the Forum to have Freedom from that type of thing.

Now I’m not talking about Cindy wearing ‘a severe bun’ as someone put it, or scowling moderators, or prudish overseers.

I am talking about every post being read before it’s posted, by someone with the power of the bleep - leaving the post intact, except that any personal attack, or name-calling, or intentional disrespect would be removed, or starred ********************************** or whatever - ideas could still flow freely - which is the concern, right? - and everything else would stay in place, except for the one thing - the calling of names, the showing of disrespect, the impugning of motives. Ok that’s three things.

I personally would give a sigh of relief looking at hotly contested threads, knowing that it would be the arguments and the facts that would be driving the discussions; I think droppers-in would appreciate it also.

PM’ing would be a good place to call someone an idiot.

I suppose the moderator’s time would be the issue?

I’m actually going to value this opinion at $.03!!

It’s worth every cent!

I just don’t know that I’m that wise, Stef and Dave. Someone posts something that seems to me slightly “on edge,” but I figure that you males just talk to one another that way, and so I sit back and watch to see what happens. Sometimes, for example, Tod responds back to Joe and I think, “OUCH!” But then Joe writes back to Tod quite happily, carrying on the conversation, and I realize they’re getting along just fine. Other times Curt responds back angrily to Keith or vice versa and I realize that once again I’ve missed out on that British subtlety and that people are hurt and unhappy and not likely to be speaking to one another anytime soon. And what’s worse, I’m not even sure what it was that Keith said that was so nasty.

That aside, even if I were smart enough, censoring every single post isn’t really a possibility. IMO it would put a strait jacket on the conversation, but beyond that, there just aren’t enough moderators. We don’t have shifts – we’re just here when we’re here like everyone else. I did write to the parties involved in the thing that’s troubling you, but I haven’t heard back. One good thing is when people who aren’t official moderators step in and try to make peace. They sometimes get blown out of the water, but their hearts are good and I certainly appreciate them.

Love you both, Cindy

Hey Dave, you old ************* *******

I think I get where you’re ******* coming from, but I ******* don’t like it, and I ******* don’t think it’s gonna ******* work. **** me, I would have thought that a ******* Yankee ********** would be all for the first ******* amendment and all that ****.

Personally, the day this forum prevents me from speaking my ******* mind, as long as I don’t do it ***** with a *****, then it’s over for me. I ******* and ************* stick it ****** **** ************ ** with a melon.

Johnny

Yeah, I was just fluffing Dave up. I actually think it is a terrible idea (Sorry Dave ). But it was worth 3 cents, at least!

If something said is truly offensive, then there is a button to report such a thread. I have used this before. Other than that… christianity is a set of values and standards that need to be learnt. They don’t come “instantly”. We need to be patient for the Spirit of God to work on some of our unsavory ethics and language. Some will not grow and develop under any circumstances. No one, not a moderator or a councilor, is equipped to judge a person’s heart, as they cannot know when the Spirit of God will convict of sin, righteousness and judgment. Paul needed Christ to intervene is a spectacular way, and even then some people couldn’t believe that Paul could change.

Sometimes, I think, bad behavior is better than culturally refined behavior. Bad behavior offers a starting point. People with culturally refined behavior can give the appearance of spiritual development when there may actually be none. It is very difficult to tell if some people are sincere and genuine when they have learnt to speak a certain refined way, like Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs. A persons mannerisms can disguise an otherwise very corrupt nature. Conversely, a rough and ready speech will often disguise the greater depths of a person’s heart, as in Oliver Twist. This is all part of our Christian eduction, and if you take that away from us, how will we learn? Just my 2 cents.

Steve

Refined?? I ain’t talkin’ no REFINED.

Ok, I’m SURE you guys know best, and anybody dropping in, screw 'em.

What Cindy says is so true! Any moderating has to be done when things pretty much “blow up”. That being said, Johnny in his subtle (or not so subtle) way is absolutely right. (bleeping himself out) As Dave says:

Who has the “power of the bleep”? We all do of course! Read your posts before submitting them and look at your motives. If you think someone is attacking you or intentionally misrepresenting you, try and avoid responding in kind. Many times it’s just a misunderstanding and if it’s not, isn’t it better to turn the other cheek? Don’t look too hard for personal digs (even if they are there). Think the best of each other, even if we don’t deserve it, and maybe we can actually live up to that.

Hasn’t that always been the ‘rule’?
Well, then again, we could have peace in the middle east any day now.

Ok, I’ll go back to being “good”…

Or just peace on this forum to start with. BTW, my comments weren’t directed at you. I reread what I’d written and it could be taken that way, and if you did, I apologize. I really just meant it as suggestions for us all.

Oh that’s okay, don’t you worry about me…

Aww… Dave, I’m* always* worried about you.

I think I can find the true nature of this forum depending on whether this post goes through. Reading through the rules on this forum I found this.

Moderation Guidelines

1. If a member with no history of warnings breaks a board rule, then any moderator has the discretion to edit all or part of the post while formally or informally warning the member by PM
2. If a member with two formal warnings in the previous six months breaks a rule, then any moderator has the discretion to implement a ban lasting from 1 day to 1 month
3. While a member with repeat bans is under a 1-month ban, then any moderator has the discretion to post a poll for a permanent ban; and a quorum majority vote would permanently ban a repeat offender
4. Permanently banned members may request “unbanment” after one year, provided they write an explanation of how they plan to follow the rules; and a quorum majority vote to unban would unban the member; if the vote does not result in unbanment, then the member may request unbanment after another year, and so on.
5. Moderators, when voting on banning a particular member, should consider how much time and action has already been spent moderating that member
6. The presiding moderator for the vote is the first administrator; if the first administrator is unavailable, then the second administrator; if the second administrator is unavailable, then the third administrator; if the third administrator is unavailable, then the moderator with most forum seniority may assume the position of presiding moderator or appoint another as presiding moderator

It has been my experience however that I was banned with no warning or explanation. I am curious to see if all moderators get to read this post or if this actual post is banned.

I want to start off with saying I do not need this to be posted. I would be satisfied with a PM explaining what I did wrong and if I could become unbanned and what I would have to do.

Now it is true that I am not a Universalist but this is not because I am against Universalism. That is I am very against the idea of Hell. So I am not a Christian trying to show that the Bible supports Hell. Nor am I an Atheist trying to debate God.

That is the only way I could see that I could directly break the rules by as I understand them. But I was not given a chance to understand the rules. Instead a thread I was posting on was changed to a thread that completely undermined everything I was trying to say by the change in title.

It was so bad that other members couldn’t understand anything I said because of the new title of the new thread.

When I pointed this out and thanked a member for trying to understand… 2 things happened.

1. An Admin Alec Forbes offered to change the title of the thread
2. I was signed out automatically and banned with no PM or explanation as to what happened.

I did mention I was researching a book but I see no where in your rules that a member can not debate or use your forum for research.
Perhaps I missed something?

Just saw this one in the queue to approve…

As mentioned on the other thread, you are not banned. I can delete this post if you want now that the issue is clearer --there’s a glitch somewhere causing you to have problems with your account.

It’s rare we ban someone what was your username?

It was “SpiritualAnarchist”, [tag]Alex Smith[/tag]

Ah, ok - no one banned him as far as I know but I got an email from him this morning saying he was having trouble logging in - so I’ve reset his password, confirmed it works & let him know. Glad it was just a technical glitch.

We very rarely ban anyone (except spammers, people creating an account to sell shoes or Warcraft gold etc. And spambots, which SA actually isn’t.)

In fact the administration here is notorious for letting troublemakers go on for months while we’re receiving pms every week from members begging (pretty reasonably) for us to ban people, citing the criteria we put up for doing so.

And I’m fairly sure the other ad/mods will quickly testify that I’m among the most lenient of us in that regard! Nor would I ever go into someone’s post and replace large portions of it with gibberish to amuse myself or even to make a point – though I might threaten to do so to make a conceptual point.

Seemed like this might be a good place to mention that.