Rule Change (New Staff Power)

[Rhondazvous]

Sometimes, they don't even really need us there at all

I'm just ribbing you guys

Well, think about it Rob. If a theist shits his pants and there’s no atheist there to smell it, will he still stink?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

This is not aimed at removing theists. In fact more often than not the people we'd have sought to remove were atheists.

We are not advocating the removal of people just for having different views, just to clarify. There is also no 'point' to this forum beyond whatever you as a member drawn from it. Some may view it as a crutch or an outlet, some (like me) just view it as a place to hang out.

I'm just saying. If you remove people for being lunatics well, you're missing an opportunity to learn how to pacify lunatics.
Considering some of the arguably radical responses the subject provokes across the world that seems like a loss.
Pacifying is a skill as much as debating is and in the cases where you're handling "negative influences" its vital. 
These people can't be banned from real life or the public discourse that often dictates policy.

Oh don't get me wrong I agree with you. But I need to iterate that it's not the purpose of this forum to do any of that. I really don't care what these people do on the Internet or in RL. On this forum I only care about the forum and its operation.

[Rhondazvous]

Why in the world would I list specific instances where I have incited some of you into a flaming rage if this sort of behavior is no long tolerated from theists?

I have also seen where huggie has beaten one person specifically with facts, and that person lash out against huggie with personal attacks.
So it's not just me.

This is what I mean by beat back into a corner: You can no longer defend facts as they pertain to the topic so you lash out at anything, or the more popular response is to try change the topic/red herring rather than speak topically.

An Awesome non member specific instance is in my last big thread about the exodus. The standard atheist argument was beaten back (no evidence/can't move the time line, because the movie provided a plausible argument and physical evidence for both) to which point the topic stalled.. then someone out of the blue posts a picture of the ark... as if one story in Genesis had anything to do with the exodus... So then ATR takes on the task of pushing back this topic. One that I ignore because another one of you brings up slavery, and as slavery is topical to the exodus I go through all you all cared to talk about with it. This is why you all feel you do not loose a argument... (Because you do not ever run out of stuff to argue.)

It doesn't even have to be about God. It can be about something as mundane as what dialog is given in a movie or book and or it's meaning. once the theist properly quotes the source material in question the topic generally turns. It's like with you content is irrelevant, it's who has the last word that wins...


Now on our side of the fence this can be a little frustrating, so the only way to drive a point home is to 'break the spirit' so to speak. to stop being friendly and force a concession or force the atheist to retreat and abandon the topic. "To have the last word, to redirect the subject on a specific member and what and why they believe what they do, do not allow a topical shift/way out, until the leave or have a melt down." (which again is old hat when an atheist argues with a Christian)
I've done this personally on a few occasions, and for my trouble in one instance was told if I were to continue to peruse this line of thought I would have "my brains beaten out"...

The younger guys tend to roll with the punches. The older more established people take great wounding offense to such a display.

So again my question is.. are we/theist meant to simply roll over and let the atheist have their 'victories?' _Or can we force an issue with an atheist, as Athiests Force issues with Theists when they feel they have them on their heels?

Not that I would each and every time... I just need to know what the policies are here now.

So, you define victory as your propensity to make people angry? Well, you’re very good at that. Totally in your element.

[Huggy Bear]

I think what Huggie is speaking about is the down right distain Atheists have when a theist has rightfully beaten them into a corner.

Give me one example. I don't consider fallacious bullshit arguments followed by an atheist's silence and the theist declaring themselves victorious to be the same thing as beating an atheist "into a corner".

I don't think fallacies and obfuscation can beat anyone into a corner.

Fallacies fail.

I'll give you an example.

There was one thread where we were discussing whether or not Denmark had a secular government. To this day not one "atheist" involved in the discussion has conceded that Denmark in fact does not have a secular government.

Don't bother. You could explain, in parsimonious terms, things like nominal ascriptions, codified constitutions, the nature of governmental structures, de jure defacto, and so on, and stay dry all night here would still fail to get it.

Give him a plastic toy gun and this guy would still manage to shoot himself in the foot.

You're seriously delusional.
This is a clear example of the mindset of an atheist, If you won't accept that Denmark's government is in fact NOT secular which is easily provable, how are you going to even begin to discuss spiritual matters?

Your own quote (in bold for clarity)
http://atheistforums.org/thread-30615-po...#pid835049

Secularism Gurantees what ive highlighted you suggest in the above post. It gives people the ability to chose a religion (or no-religion) without the state choosing for then. It prevents a state mandated religion from either existing or enforcing it's rules and dogmas on the body politic.

Now if that's not the 'freedom to chose' I don't know what is.

so according to YOU, secularism prevents a state mandated religion.
This link is taken from your own post.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-30615-po...#pid846133
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Denmark

Of all the religions in Denmark, the most prominent is Christianity in the form of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Denmark, the state religion.

Also according to YOU secularism "gives people the ability to chose a religion (or no-religion) without the state choosing for them"
This link is also taken from your exact same post
http://atheistforums.org/thread-30615-po...#pid846133
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Denmark

Let me briefly summarize what the State-church system implies:

• According to the constitution (§ 54), the Lutheran-evangelic Church is the Danish People’s Church (“Folkekirke”), and is, as such, supported by the State, which means that the Lutheran-evangelic religion and its institutions and churches are given a favored place among religions in Danish society. All tax-paying citizens, regardless of their personal religious beliefs, thus contribute to the priests and bishops of the “Folkekirke.”

•  Practically all citizens are automatically born as members of the “Folkekirke.” Not to be so demands that the citizens take the initiative to leave the church. At present 83 percent of the Danish population belong to the “Folkekirke.”

Denmark, then, from one point of view is clearly a Christian country—as are by the same standards the other Scandinavian countries.

This amalgamates into what I for want of a better label would label a secularised Lutheranism as a dominant cosmology in Denmark. Although Denmark (and Sweden) is a country in which most of the citizens by tradition belong to the State church, Christianity as a religion does not characterize the life of any large segment of the population.

Need I go on?
Denmark clearly does not have separation between church and state, yet you fail to acknowledge your own evidence proving this fact.

You're contradicting yourself dude.

I can't wait to hear your next excuse....

[Esquilax]

I'll give you an example.

There was one thread where we were discussing whether or not Denmark had a secular government. To this day not one "atheist" involved in the discussion has conceded that Denmark in fact does not have a secular government.

Your desperate hoarding of that incident continues to be as depressingly pathetic as ever, Huggy. You don't need to continue torpedoing your own credibility like that: you haven't had any for a long, long time.

That said, regarding the actual meat of the original question (comedic value inherent in what you theists consider victories aside) I don't think the new power has anything at all to do with the agreement/disagreement that we as staff have on specific threads. I know certain folks here love to push this button, as though any form of staff action is just persecution for your faith, lashing out because your god has "convicted" us or something, but as someone actually within the staff, who can see how we are when we make these determinations, the idea is laughable. You people, you literally have no idea how many votes, across how many reports, begin with the phrase "X is being a dickhead, but that's not actionable."

Hell, the idea of the nuke button being used on an established member is laughable: we give you people a truly absurd level of latitude, more than we probably should based solely on your post count or time here, but it happens because we know what you do add to the forum and you're (in a general sense, not anyone specifically) a part of the community. To characterize this new power as the end of christian disagreement on AF just showcases the position of ignorance as to our inner workings and who we are that such an accusation is levied from.

Because I'll give you a little hint at what happens when one of these premature theistic victory laps floats across our dashes: we roll our eyes, maybe have a little joke in private, and then send it to the archive with a nice, friendly "no action" label on it. If you really, truly think that we're looking to remove christians from the board simply for disagreeing vociferously, then you need to ask yourselves why that isn't unambiguously against the rules, despite us having several years to make this so. Why would we suddenly pop out something like this now, and why would we need to? If we truly wanted to do that we already have that power, and we have no need at all to tell you people about it first, either. Hell, religious forums do that all the time. But we don't, and that's not what's happening.

[Rhondazvous]

At the end of the day everyone has the right to free speech, noone has the right not to be offended. This applies to everyone.
I find the idea of a negative influence extremely subjective. You could successfully argue the case that someone is a negative influence regardless of who they are.
Besides, a negative influence is only a negative influence if you allow it to influence you. If every single person on the forum allows that then yes, a person has negatively influenced the forum but who is ultimately to blame? The block button exists for a reason, its not like it couldn't of been used at any point.

Another concern I have... Wasn't the point of this forum, to some extent, to counter negative influence? I mean if we're talking about some derailing troll then fine but if its some illogical, raving loon... isn't that kind of part of the target audience? People who are so entrenched in what they believe they think in circles? Isn't that kind of what we're struggling against ingeneral? I mean yes, it would be a better world if every religious person was thoroughly grounded but we know thats not the case plus they're not the problem. The people willing to listen to reason are not the ones in dire need of pacifying and countering.
I suppose what I'm saying is; the loonies need representation too. If you only learn to form a constructive dialogue with a reasonable theist up for an open discussion using logic you're not learning to form a constructive dialogue with the majority of theists. Infact you're not learning to form a constructive dialogue with most people, period. We're not learning to break those obsessive patterns of thought that lead people to become fanatical. Unless the objective of this place is to just stew in our own moral outrage I think thats abit of a problem.

I’ve only been at AF for 9 months, but I was not given the impression that our target audience is illogical loons.

You are correct in that it is ultimately the users’ responsibility not to pour energy into negative discussions. If we abdicate that responsibility to the staff, we lose a lot of what we came here to find.

Still, I think they should have some kind of safe guard. All it takes is one member to give energy to someone who wants to do damage without breaking a specific rule, and as I said before the notations the system adds whenever some you’ve blocked leaves a post are unsightly and disruptive in themselves.

[Huggy Bear]

Your desperate hoarding of that incident continues to be as depressingly pathetic as ever, Huggy. You don't need to continue torpedoing your own credibility like that: you haven't had any for a long, long time.

My, that's a strong reaction to me providing an example of an "atheist being backed into a corner" after Evie asked for it.....you kinda proved Drich's point.

Btw don't act like that's the only example, I'll be more than happy to provide other examples if you'd like.

[Edwardo Piet]

A: P-K4

T: Q x K WINNNN!!!

A: That's an illegal move. You promised you'd play properly this time.

T: Okay, okay. P-K4.

A: N-KB3

T: Q x everything!

A: No, you can't do that.

T: You don't get to say what the rules are!

A: Ugh.

Epic!

And here's how it ends.

T: Okay, okay. K castle both queenside and kingside at the same time, and simultaneously create 3 extra Queens.

A: Again, wtf that's not how you play dumbfuck. I'm not going to play with you anymore, you're either too stupid to play properly or are just being a complete dick on purpose.

T: Oh so you give up huh? I win!

[SteelCurtain]

Lol we know you will, Huggy. Because every thread you enter is destined to become derailed into some perceived pedantic victory you declared for yourself a year ago.

[Esquilax]

My, that's a strong reaction to me providing an example of an "atheist being backed into a corner" after Evie asked for it.....you kinda proved Drich's point.

Only if you presuppose that your position is the correct one, which I don't. Since I also don't buy Drich's posturing "all them atheists couldn't prove me wrong!" rhetoric, I'm not proving his point in the least. But then, the big weakness that both you and him share is that you both work from the position that what you say is necessarily right, all of the time, so...

Btw don't act like that's the only example, I'll be more than happy to provide other examples if you'd like.

Like I said before: we're all aware that you hoard these things, all the while refusing to be corrected on any point, as always, for years if necessary, just to get a feeling of self satisfaction whenever you trot them out. From outside of the Huggy echo chamber, where such things can be considered with a smidgen of objectivity, it just appears sad.