This is all sounding very much like, "A violent response was not justified, BUT..."

Please stop trying to put a "but" in.

(January 17, 2015 at 11:12 pm)Stimbo Wrote: you've cited one example of improper behaviour but conveniently haven't supplied any information useful to checking it.

Which one? I made a broad reference.

---

(January 18, 2015 at 3:18 am)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote:

(January 17, 2015 at 6:16 am)fr0d0 Wrote: No one is ever forced to retaliate. However, laws are set out differently to our high morals. There is such a thing as mitigating circumstances where you you can be judged less severely if you are provoked. Do you disagree with this law? How much? Would you like to see it abolished?

If the provocation is is in the form of words that do not constitute a direct or implied threat of danger or harm to others, then there are simply no mitigating factors to consider here. Under any other circumstances, physical violence is disproportionate retribution.

Charlie Hebdo did not provoke a violent response.

#1 The law (therefore your peers) disagrees with you.
#2 That is factually incorrect

---

(January 18, 2015 at 5:39 am)robvalue Wrote: This is all sounding very much like, "A violent response was not justified, BUT..."

Please stop trying to put a "but" in.

"Sounds like" but never ever said and actually explicitly denied. Please stop reading what you want to read.

Fuck the pope

OK, I apologize if that wasn't your intention frodo. That was the vibe I got from your posts, but it seems I was mistaken.

(January 18, 2015 at 6:14 am)h4ym4n Wrote:




Fuck the pope

And Muslims and Jews and Buddhists and even atheists who think being insulted is worse than being murdered for opening your mouth.

Awesome video. Couldn't agree more. If those are the pope's exact words, it's utterly vile.

(January 17, 2015 at 6:12 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: A group of individuals will reach consensus spanning their opinion. A democracy it isn't. Infallible it isn't either.

A group of individuals will reach consensus? Man, you must not pay a lot of attention to politics or religion, if you think that.

Quote:Sometimes staff have acted in isolation. Maybe not on your watch. Non staff aren't privy to the processes so can't know if they're being carried out fairly or not. I believe you try to be fair.

Some staff often express their dislike of certain members. We're expected to trust that those prejudices don't carry over into staff discussions.

Once again, this is one of those times that the things I know, behind the scenes, absolutely show your suspicions to be false, but I can't talk about that. Yes, we dislike certain members, but we're human beings, that happens. And yet those members are still here. They haven't been banned, they don't get warned an excessive amount, they don't even get reported that much. The majority of the reports we get, in fact, are about new members who are spamming or potentially socks. Anyone who's been here over a year generally doesn't feature in reports at all.

It's all well and good for you to stoke suspicions, but when the people who we routinely have disagreements here, for all to see, are some of the members who have been here the longest, it's pretty clear whether or not the users can trust us to keep our personal opinions on you guys out of our deliberations.

Quote:It's bad enough when rule enforcers act in full view. As your deliberations are private you must allow for question.

But the rules are enforced in full view. Every ban we make is logged for every one of you to see, every mod edit and thread change comes with a text alert stating what has been changed and a PM to the user in question telling them we've made a change... what else do you want? The only parts of our work that are obscured from view are the discussions we have before carrying out any action, and that's for a simple pragmatic reason, and it's the same one that cops have for not discussing arrest action right in front of the person they're going to arrest, or why juries are sequestered.

Quote: In my opinion, if you want to appear to be fair, you should answer criticism calmly and with reassurance. Anything else doesn't help anyone. You want to silence any criticism? How do you think that looks?

Who's trying to silence you? We're having a discussion about this in the open forum. Nobody has tried to censor you, we're just disagreeing with you. How do you even get the idea that we're trying to silence you when multiple times you've been asked for additional details about what you're claiming?

What kind of censorship begins and ends with the "censors" asking you to do more of the thing we're apparently trying to censor?

(January 18, 2015 at 5:50 am)fr0d0 Wrote: #1 The law (therefore your peers) disagrees with you.

So? There are plenty of bad laws based upon stupid thinking.

Quote:#2 That is factually incorrect

If I were to kill you for disagreeing, would that mean you provoked me, and that you share in the blame for your own death?

Quote:"Sounds like" but never ever said and actually explicitly denied. Please stop reading what you want to read.

Never said, explicitly denied, obviously implied in every post you've made.

(January 18, 2015 at 12:39 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(January 17, 2015 at 6:12 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: A group of individuals will reach consensus spanning their opinion. A democracy it isn't. Infallible it isn't either.

A group of individuals will reach consensus? Man, you must not pay a lot of attention to politics or religion, if you think that.

You misunderstand of course. I didn't say that they had to agree. The "will" is if they must.

By the way, why is the number of staff needed to make a decision as you say: 6? Surely there needs to be an odd number?

---

(January 18, 2015 at 12:39 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

Quote:Sometimes staff have acted in isolation.

Once again, this is one of those times that the things I know, behind the scenes, absolutely show your suspicions to be false,

You might want to check your facts.

---

(January 18, 2015 at 12:39 pm)Esquilax Wrote: It's all well and good for you to stoke suspicions, but when the people who we routinely have disagreements here, for all to see, are some of the members who have been here the longest, it's pretty clear whether or not the users can trust us to keep our personal opinions on you guys out of our deliberations.

How can I "stroke suspicion" if, as you say, nothing is hidden? You're double speak is showing.
Poet said repeatedly that he "stood up for me" but would no longer (since our spat). So are you saying that he is lying? Or is he saying that you are lying?

---

(January 18, 2015 at 12:39 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

Quote:It's bad enough when rule enforcers act in full view. As your deliberations are private you must allow for question.

But the rules are enforced in full view. Every ban we make is logged for every one of you to see, every mod edit and thread change comes with a text alert stating what has been changed and a PM to the user in question telling them we've made a change... what else do you want? The only parts of our work that are obscured from view are the discussions we have before carrying out any action, and that's for a simple pragmatic reason, and it's the same one that cops have for not discussing arrest action right in front of the person they're going to arrest, or why juries are sequestered.

I don't "want" anything. I'm merely pointing out the reason you must accept a measure of suspicion.

(January 18, 2015 at 3:21 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(January 18, 2015 at 12:39 pm)Esquilax Wrote: A group of individuals will reach consensus? Man, you must not pay a lot of attention to politics or religion, if you think that.

You misunderstand of course. I didn't say that they had to agree. The "will" is if they must.

By the way, why is the number of staff needed to make a decision as you say: 6? Surely there needs to be an odd number?

---

(January 18, 2015 at 12:39 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Once again, this is one of those times that the things I know, behind the scenes, absolutely show your suspicions to be false,

You might want to check your facts.

How you think they should run this board is still not up to you.

Froodo, no one here has been unfair to you. You are here by choice, not by force. You have also been around long enough to know what goes on here.

I think there are certainly are many atheists here that like you even if they blast your claims. I certainly like I have said before, cannot hate a fellow ABBA fan. But that does not mean your claims deserve a taboo.

When I see reactions like this, it says to me you are feeling uncomfortable. That feeling isn't do to any of us being wrong. That feeling is called cognitive dissonance. You are not used to what you hold to be true being challenged. Instead of thinking everyone is out to get you, maybe you need to consider that you got it wrong.

If this board banned people merely because they didn't like their positions. there would be no theists allowed here at all. And I am also sure that I have ruffled the feathers of other atheists here as well.

Just stick to debate, worry about your own arguments, stop worrying about our blasphemy. No one is going to have you arrested or murdered merely because we attack the claims you make. You really are in safe hands here. Your arguments may not be, but you froodo are.