(October 30, 2017 at 1:36 pm)Lutrinae Wrote:(October 30, 2017 at 1:29 pm)emjay Wrote: I've only read up to about page three on that thread, but it looks perfectly reasonable; you can't police people's opinions so even the OP disrespects and strawman's atheists, what's new? I was more talking about the actual rules of the site; here you wouldn't get banned for strawmanning someone, so the question is, would you there? But from what I've seen so far, there were plenty of atheists having a go at him, and presumably they're still there? (ie I'll concede the point if all of them get banned by the end of that massive thread). I'd also concede the point if there was a similar thread from an atheist that was banned. But from first impressions, that looks a fairly reasonable, civil site; not what I was expecting at all... but I haven't looked further into it.
Even though I had a personal problem with the OP of that thread and the way she approaches atheists, the main point of my thread here was how the mods there were, from my perspective, wrongly policing me because of the content I had in my signature. I was always posting within the rules on the forum, but it seemed to me that they kept trying to find little silly reasons to give me warnings.
Did you have all that actually in a signature on that site, or just post those things? And did you actually get banned? Basically, if you did, and it was within their stated rules, then it's no different really from any site; the bias of the forum can create bias in the proceedings even if it's within a framework of rules; ie if the staff is all made up of theists then you might expect them to be more aggressive towards card carrying anti-theists, but basically if you can say to yourself, it was within the rules, them banning you/warning you... then it's just human nature I guess... though I still think it's much fairer here; people are banned here not for opinions at all really, but just solid rules of conduct.
