Pope Opens Mouth; Inserts Foot

[Cyberman]

Seriously staff, what the fuck are you all whining about in this thread? I've tried to sustain calm and reasonable discussion on the topic and you're wading in with the drama.

How about if I were to throw around loose insinuations of child rape, purely because you are of the theist persuasion? How much drama would you "wade in" with in your defence?

[Brian37]

Froodo, the cops here have turned their lights on me and pulled me over, just so you know. I know you do not want to believe it but they ARE NOT giving anyone any special treatment.

My only beef is that their background isn't pictures of barbecue kittens and ABBA songs. And they never record the NFL without their permission, that really boils my buttons.

[Cyberman]

It just occurred to me that it was an illogical number to make any decision.

It's a question of logistics more than anything. We don't really sit in an office atop an ivory tower; strange as it may seem, we're placed across several time zones. Fewer than six votes would be far less fair than the current count, but enable quicker action. More would slow down the operational process - unnecessarily, as CD pointed out.

However, like everything else this system is under constant review; should it become necessary, it can and will be revised.

[Jackalope]

What is banning of it isn't censorship?

It isn't censorship. Freedom of speech does not mean that anyone has right to be provided a soapbox and a megaphone. One is free to post elsewhere, start one's own blog or forum, or countless other options.

Nobody is prevented from speaking. They're prevented from speaking here, which absolutely no one has an unfettered right to do.

What are the (valid) reasons for banning? You say them. Perhaps the staff will accept it if it comes from you.

Huh? You overestimate the power of my position. When it comes to staff decisions, I'm just one more asshole with an opinion.

http://atheistforums.org/rules.php

We consider the poster's contribution to discussion in decision making. We weigh the poster's contribution to discussion vs. their detraction from it.

Frequently we take no action at all. Sometimes we issue a verbal, or an official warning, or a temporary ban to give the poster an opportunity to reflect on their behavior.

Those who are found wanting are invited to post elsewhere.

What we don't *ever* do is ban posters for unpopular opinions, not since I've been on staff. Nor are unilateral actions ever allowed, except for trivial tasks, and banning obvious spammers and socks.

Everyone has bias. Even God like staff. No biggie. If anyone thinks that they don't then they have a problem. Fact remains, we're all biased.

No shit - which is why it takes a quorum to do anything of significance.

[fr0d0]

So if you're prevented from saying something in the UK then that's not censorship because you can go to another country and say it there.

I don't think you have power, I think you have respect. Respect as someone batting for the same side. Someone without the potential for ulterior motive that may cause people to be cagey/ guarded in what they agree to.

[Ryantology]

If you read through the thread cthul, you'll see how my words were misrepresented. Ryan, I believe, is deliberately trolling me. What is banning of it isn't censorship? What are the (valid) reasons for banning? You say them. Perhaps the staff will accept it if it comes from you.

I'm pointing out that you're casting aspersions about the integrity of a system you have a history of abusing.

I believe that you're attempting to provoke the staff to take action against you because you can't reason your way to a coherent point on this topic, and you think that if you provoke a response, it will prove you right.

[Jackalope]

So if you're prevented from saying something in the UK then that's not censorship because you can go to another country and say it there.

Moving to another country is several orders of magnitude more difficult.

You'd have a point if AF was a sovereign nation with the power to silence you. Our rules don't have the force of law, they are merely the rules for participating in our house.

Another outlet for your speech is a simple click away - and again, anyone is free to start their own forum or blog. Don't like our rules, or how things are run? You're free to do whatever the hell you want in your own "house".

[fr0d0]

So limiting speech in your house isn't censorship, because you're free to go to many other houses and be free.

Here the first paragraph from Wikipedia:

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions."

We are a 'group' so I think that includes us.

[Minimalist]

I think Frods has a secret wish.

[fr0d0]

You can see in my 2nd and 3rd posts in this thread what I meant by censorship Cthulu. I'm sorry that I've responded to the trolls. I got drawn in. It's hard when they're wearing green to remember to ignore them.