Daystar

[CoxRox]

Daystar, in the hope you will be checking posts during your cooling off period I post this now. You are a bit of a mystery. You are obviously intelligent and study things you feel are important. You've made some interesting points that have made me think about things pertaining to God (and the guys here are enlightening me about the things pertaining to science.) Why do you get so worked up? I read your threads and I don't see anyone being unfair or unreasonable. They are getting frustrated at how you react to them- it's a vicious circle. Dissecting something may not be pretty, but it may be necessary to discover the truth of the matter. I can't believe someone here has not made you stop and think 'shit, they've got a point there'. Bring back the calm man in the soothing, cooling rain.

[Edwardo Piet]

@ Purple Rabbit: If he doesn't answer questioned claims. Wouldn't you be mad NOT to put him on the ignore list? So what's the difference between him having no one to debate with and him being banned?
I guess perhaps there could be some here who actually don't mind him claiming stuff that he doesn't expect to be questioned and then questioning everyone else. Which is hypocritical. Is that sort of what you were referring to PR? Someone people mind not want to ignore his relentless hypocritical double-standards. I can see where you're coming from but doesn't he just completely disrupt the forum with that kind of behavior? If everyone decides to ignore him whats the point of him being on here?

[Kyuuketsuki]

The ban on Daystar is too restrictive to my taste. Stubborn behaviour and hard headedness can't be enough reason to ban someone. That behaviour is how the person portrays himself on the forum open and plain, for everybody to see. When you don't want to respond to the same rhetoric anymore, just don't or put him on your ignore list. I think it is the wrong choice on the issue of free speech. If on a forum dedicated to atheism free speech is restricted like this, then where can we truly find free speech?

In my view the right to freedom of speech is fine but it also implies responsibility (all rights do) the primary one being that if you possess a given right (such as freedom of speech) then you are expected to guarantee other's that very same right. In a forum that is essentially dedicated to debate however I believe things change a bit, there is an implied responsibility that if you claim something that is not self-evident (generally accepted) or is indefensible you must defend that POV or withdraw the assertion, furthermore if you are called on a given point you must be prepared to defend it or accept the possible consequences.

That's just the way I see it but it seems to me that, if these things aren't so, you risk total anarchy which kinda makes the place pointless.

Kyu

[Purple Rabbit]

The ban on Daystar is too restrictive to my taste. Stubborn behaviour and hard headedness can't be enough reason to ban someone. That behaviour is how the person portrays himself on the forum open and plain, for everybody to see. When you don't want to respond to the same rhetoric anymore, just don't or put him on your ignore list. I think it is the wrong choice on the issue of free speech. If on a forum dedicated to atheism free speech is restricted like this, then where can we truly find free speech?

In my view the right to freedom of speech is fine but it also implies responsibility (all rights do) the primary one being that if you possess a given right (such as freedom of speech) then you are expected to guarantee other's that very same right.

Daystar has affected some emotions here but in no way has he hindered you in your right to free speech.

In a forum that is essentially dedicated to debate however I believe things change a bit, there is an implied responsibility that if you claim something that is not self-evident (generally accepted) or is indefensible you must defend that POV or withdraw the assertion, furthermore if you are called on a given point you must be prepared to defend it or accept the possible consequences.

That's just the way I see it but it seems to me that, if these things aren't so, you risk total anarchy which kinda makes the place pointless.

You expect from believers to think and debate rationally as defined by your criteria. Well, all we can say is that it is your expectation. Restricting debate to these rules seems rational but it ain't FREE speech (~ speech in which there are no boundaries or restrictions). I think that non rational behaviour primary backfires on the person himself. In a truly open society the price to pay for freedom is the room to differ in opinion even in the face of all rationality.

[Raymond]

The ban on Daystar is too restrictive to my taste. Stubborn behaviour and hard headedness can't be enough reason to ban someone. That behaviour is how the person portrays himself on the forum open and plain, for everybody to see. When you don't want to respond to the same rhetoric anymore, just don't or put him on your ignore list. I think it is the wrong choice on the issue of free speech. If on a forum dedicated to atheism free speech is restricted like this, then where can we truly find free speech?

In my view the right to freedom of speech is fine but it also implies responsibility (all rights do) the primary one being that if you possess a given right (such as freedom of speech) then you are expected to guarantee other's that very same right.

Daystar has affected some emotions here but in no way has he hindered you in your right to free speech.

In a forum that is essentially dedicated to debate however I believe things change a bit, there is an implied responsibility that if you claim something that is not self-evident (generally accepted) or is indefensible you must defend that POV or withdraw the assertion, furthermore if you are called on a given point you must be prepared to defend it or accept the possible consequences.

That's just the way I see it but it seems to me that, if these things aren't so, you risk total anarchy which kinda makes the place pointless.

You expect from believers to think and debate rationally as defined by your criteria. Well, all we can say is that it is your expectation. Restricting debate to these rules seems rational but it ain't FREE speech (~ speech in which there are no boundaries or restrictions). I think that non rational behaviour primary backfires on the person himself. In a truly open society the price to pay for freedom is the room to differ in opinion even in the face of all rationality.

From what i have seen there are two complaints aganst daystar. The first is that he was rude and disrespectful. I have seen many others here be rude and disrespactful to him as well and they are not banned because they are atheist. the second reason is that he didn't back up some things that he said. There are two things i notice about this, that he had a lot of people against him and it would take forever to answer them all more so when people keep asking him the same questions.

the other thing of that last part is that i noticed the day that i signed up here that no one was answering his questions on evolution as much as he was answering their questions.

i think that is a lie.

I tried to talk to him on the other board but he has been banned from there to. and why ?! i have emailed him and hope to hear from him soon. i hope you think about how this makes atheist look like. PurpleRabbit is right on this. i was hoping to get to discuss with him.

[CoxRox]

Hmmm, I'm feeling a bit troubled about Daystar. For all his 'faults' in debating, I don't know if it would have been better to warn him first, privately? His posts were undoubtedly becoming 'unbeneficial' in which case surely say something like: 'Ok Daystar, I can't continue to debate this with you anymore because we can't get past this point or that point. I am moving on.' It's kind of like ignoring them. I've done it with someone on here. I didn't say anything to them, I just no longer bother to respond to their posts because I know they will not answer me in a rational way.

[Purple Rabbit]

@ Purple Rabbit: If he doesn't answer questioned claims. Wouldn't you be mad NOT to put him on the ignore list? So what's the difference between him having no one to debate with and him being banned?
I guess perhaps there could be some here who actually don't mind him claiming stuff that he doesn't expect to be questioned and then questioning everyone else. Which is hypocritical. Is that sort of what you were referring to PR? Someone people mind not want to ignore his relentless hypocritical double-standards. I can see where you're coming from but doesn't he just completely disrupt the forum with that kind of behavior? If everyone decides to ignore him whats the point of him being on here?

You can place him on your ignore list for a number of reasons. If you think he is beyond debatable, that seems a good reason to me. But underneat is your urge to play the game of free speech by your rules. Rules btw that are by all means acceptable and preferable to me.

When everybody puts him on the ignore list, the poster himself still is in charge of his choice on free speech. No restrictions from the community prohibit him to comply to the accepted debating rules at any time. I prefer the exposure to free thoughts of others to any possible restriction on personal thought.

[LukeMC]

I prefer the exposure to free thoughts of others to any possible restriction on personal thought.

What thought is this you speak of? I often enjoyed the tireless debates when thought was present. But recently, the thought and reason have been replaced by troll-like behaviour. Or, beserker as some may put it

However, I'd be hypocritical if I were to imply that he was the only person guilty of this crime. I'm still awaiting my warning for the "must...quote...kyu" comment I made towards Daystar. Suppose I got off lightly, although in effect I was making a blatent ad-hom attack (however slyly).

Sigh. Did Daystar receive any form of warning? I know one of the red-named guys told him to steady on with his abusive tone, was that all?

[Ace Otana]

Sigh. Did Daystar receive any form of warning? I know one of the red-named guys told him to steady on with his abusive tone, was that all?

That was me.

Personally I find it hard to just ban since maybe I'm just too soft. I agree with the ban though.

Sometimes I do feel that I am too soft. I've only ever banned one person throughout the time I've been an admin, and that was ,imans who openly and directly attacked another member.

I've mostly been the tap on the shoulder kind of guy. A private word or maybe a simple "ease off" approach. But then again this rarely happens.

[CoxRox]

I've sent Daystar an email. Will it get to him?