Rule Change (New Staff Power)

[Thumpalumpacus]

Lmao at these paranoid theists.

Looks like they're going to get a lesson in tolerance ... whether they want it or not.

They won't notice it.

... or won't admit to noticing it.

[Drich]

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.

It's funny how you only see one side when I clearly point out that trying to evoke an emotional response, is typically how the atheist side of an atheist/theist debate works. Otherwise why would you point out an unfair take on what I just said?

Again, when atheists can't answer facts a theist provides, the topic is generally changed, if that new topic is refuted or better yet identified as a red herring and you all are generally made to stay on the original topic then then out come the paper graders/spelling and grammar checks, and if I push past that out come the personal insults, and in a few cases attacks on my wife's past. This is my experience in just about every topic I have ever posted here. My question was, as a theist can we do the same without reprisal? 

kinda like how you sought to turn the tables on me to again evoke an emotional response by claiming the only way I win an argument is to insight anger. I want to know if I can then take the facts of a given topic and beat you with them, till you acknowledge or concede/go silent, or  Can I set up illustrative scenarios showing atheist hypocrisy in a given senerio? Or are these things off limits to the theist?

In the end my only goal is truth, and how to get to it. if it means hurting some feelings then fine, if however it means working with kit gloves that's ok too.. I just need to know the operational parameters. I am not very good with all the unsaid rules of social interactions. I thought I had a fair understanding of the limits, but this new rule and Stimbo's ominous warning about 'always getting the last word' has me doubting my understanding of how this forum works given this new rule.

[Drich]

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.

Typical atheist response just as I pointed out!

Atheist can not refute the fact so they personally attack the theist.

So rather than admit huggy was right, huggy is identified as being trivial or foolish!

Why? because you don't want to admit your wrong? I do not understand this mentality if 'truth'/fact is what you all truly seek. what does it matter who is in possession of the truth if it is indeed the truth? If that is the case why not admit when your wrong and move on?

[Drich]

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.

No Im not posturing.. I am pointing out how 'atheist' think they win debates... It's like most of you truly think the john Stuart method of doing a fact dump, and insulting someone when they refute what you dump is a real way to win/have a debate. it's not. This is all you have done with huggie here. this is just burying your head in the sand to anything you do not want to hear by 'killing the messenger.' It's like "I don't have to listen to you, someone has made fun of you and all you say is now discredited." What a foolish way to try and determine fact/truth...

[Drich]

Would it be considered 'disruptive' if a theist 'sought the last word' in an argument or a civil disagreement? vise versa would an Atheist be considered 'disruptive' in a similar situation?

Not even close. I'm talking the human equivalent of a viral attack. Everything I have said about this has been on that point.

And yes, both theists and atheists (no need to capitalise it, btw) are addressed equally.

I have yet to feel the need to "ignore list" anyone, but my understanding is if you do this all of their 'crap' is hidden.. Why not just do this or simply up the sensitivity on the no trolling/flaming rule. That way the 'new rule' doesn't look like a probation on speech.

[Iroscato]

Not even close. I'm talking the human equivalent of a viral attack. Everything I have said about this has been on that point.

And yes, both theists and atheists (no need to capitalise it, btw) are addressed equally.

I have yet to feel the need to "ignore list" anyone, but my understanding is if you do this all of their 'crap' is hidden.. Why not just do this or simply up the sensitivity on the no trolling/flaming rule. That way the 'new rule' doesn't look like a probation on speech.

Ignore lists don't 100% remove the presence of the person from the forum. They also don't hide the shocked and upset reactions from members the poster considers friends.

The bar for this new 'nuclear option' is pretty much set at the level of DespondentFishDeathMasochismo (the fact that I can remember his name is a testament to how utterly toxic that little cunt was) from what I can gather. He single-handedly dragged the forum down several notches and his erasure would have actively been a good thing. I have a feeling this new measure may be in some way influenced by his unparalleled trolling and shit-flinging. Correct me if I'm wrong, mod-squad

D-Fish was also an atheist, from what I recall. Though he may have had a shrine to Hatred in his bedroom. Personally I'll take a creationist any day.

[Cyberman]

Yeah, we've been over all this. Now we're retreading old ground. I suggest going back to page one of the thread and reading through it.

[Drich]

As has also been noted, the rule could have been created and used without telling us. I don't see how being honest with us is creating less confidence.

I'm surprised at some people not just worrying about the staff being abusive, but just telling them they will be. You must already think they are abusive, if that is the case.

A simple argument against this would be to look into the future and ask what would be the member response when people just started disappearing or showing up as bann..

It would be like:

* what happened to Minnie??

-He was Bann

*Did he break a rule?

-No

*What happen??

-Secret staff power...

We were told because that is what responsible people do when they make a change. That however does not mean that change is good. Like a year ago the people of flint were told they would be getting their tap water from the lead laced river rather than a lead free source...

[Cyberman]

Okay, now you're simply trying to incite paranoia. Please list the names of every member 'disappeared' under the new rule.

[Thumpalumpacus]

[...] I push past that out come the personal insults, and in a few cases attacks on my wife's past. This is my experience in just about every topic I have ever posted here. My question was, as a theist can we do the same without reprisal? [...]

You certainly have. When I corrected you on your claimed "uncle's" military experience, and belittled your loathsome attempt to wrap yourself in the honor accorded veterans when you wouldn't enlist yourself (because the money wasn't there!), you launched personal attacks against me included alleging that I lied about my service, both publicly and via PM. You were never warned, and certainly never banned.

You need to pull on your big boy pants and appreciate that we here don't do what Christian sites do every minute to atheists, which is ban you for who you are and nothing else.

Quit whining. If you don't like it here --