Rule Change (New Staff Power)

[Whateverist]

Where was the apology? That read like a barrage of insults.

Definitely more orange than pink.  (Felt more like getting hosed than receiving an apology.)

[Edwardo Piet]

Orange? That looked red to me. The retired staff color looks orange.

Am I color blind?

[SteelCurtain]

Am I color blind?

Or you were having a stroke. One or the other, definitely.

[ignoramus]

Evie's always having a stroke.
The mayo ain't gonna make itself, is it mate?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Where was the apology? That read like a barrage of insults.

Straight out of the passive-aggressive playbook. "I'm apologizing, but here's why I'm right, and by the way, I never did apologize".

What a cuntmuffin.

[Longhorn]

Lol that didn't take long...

Vic I owe you $20...

Yusss

[Brian37]

I think the fact that you felt the need to retroactively make up a new rule after abusing your powers in my case speaks volumes as to the inpracticality of this rule and raises multiple concernes regarding censorship of speech, mob rule, overreaching of authority and so on. Congratulations, Atheist Forums. You have essentially become what you despise, if only in name.

I am awaiting instructions and/or explanations, privately or publicly, whatever the staff thinks appropriate, as to what I did wrong or may do wrong in the future so as to avoid running foul of this despicably authoritarian rule.

I already know I'll get banned no matter what I say. What you seem to fail to realise is the long-term effects of enforcing such an unthinkable constrain of free speech. Banning people for not agreeing with them? For not liking them? Does this sound familiar at all to any sound mind around here? So just because all staff agrees that a certain individual is "disruptive"(whatever that means) and a "negative influence"(whatever that means) that justifies banishing them, despite not being able to come up with sound reasons for why that might be or why those reasons are justifiable for doing so? You are basically telling everyone you are the ultimate authority on what is right to do around here, based merely on that, your authority. No evidence of wrong doing or sound reasoning employed to make a good case with that evidence, just unanimous agreement. Doesn't this strike you a little odd, seeing how theists use the same kinds of mechanisms(and have done so for millenia) to arive at what most of you here hold to be unfactual descriptions of the world?

I rest my case with the casual reader who is not staff.

Yes the staff has become the Gestapo and so much so you don't have a line through your name. So much so that the rule states no one can act by themselves and one dissenting vote negates the action of  ban. You got em, it's now summary public execution..........

First off this is a PRIVATELY owned website. When we talk about free speech, that is a government aspect, this is not government owned media. Now even given that, having been on this website for years now, they do a far better job allowing different viewpoints and blasphemy and strong language, than even TV and newspaper websites. 

I have been on tons of social media, and have experienced both theist and atheist pages that boot people at the first peep they don't like. This website from what I see goes way out of it's way, being privately owned, to allow a variety of voices. If I thought for one second they were PC kneejerk reactionaries which boot at the firs peep, I would not be here at all. I have left plenty of atheist pages on social media that do that on par with some theist websites. TRUST ME, 15 years of being on tons of social media, this page can hardly be accused of having a staff full of power mongers.

[Excited Penguin]

I think the fact that you felt the need to retroactively make up a new rule after abusing your powers in my case speaks volumes as to the inpracticality of this rule and raises multiple concernes regarding censorship of speech, mob rule, overreaching of authority and so on. Congratulations, Atheist Forums. You have essentially become what you despise, if only in name.

I am awaiting instructions and/or explanations, privately or publicly, whatever the staff thinks appropriate, as to what I did wrong or may do wrong in the future so as to avoid running foul of this despicably authoritarian rule.

I already know I'll get banned no matter what I say. What you seem to fail to realise is the long-term effects of enforcing such an unthinkable constrain of free speech. Banning people for not agreeing with them? For not liking them? Does this sound familiar at all to any sound mind around here? So just because all staff agrees that a certain individual is "disruptive"(whatever that means) and a "negative influence"(whatever that means) that justifies banishing them, despite not being able to come up with sound reasons for why that might be or why those reasons are justifiable for doing so? You are basically telling everyone you are the ultimate authority on what is right to do around here, based merely on that, your authority. No evidence of wrong doing or sound reasoning employed to make a good case with that evidence, just unanimous agreement. Doesn't this strike you a little odd, seeing how theists use the same kinds of mechanisms(and have done so for millenia) to arive at what most of you here hold to be unfactual descriptions of the world?

I rest my case with the casual reader who is not staff.

Yes the staff has become the Gestapo and so much so you don't have a line through your name. So much so that the rule states no one can act by themselves and one dissenting vote negates the action of  ban. You got em, it's now summary public execution..........

First off this is a PRIVATELY owned website. When we talk about free speech, that is a government aspect, this is not government owned media. Now even given that, having been on this website for years now, they do a far better job allowing different viewpoints and blasphemy and strong language, than even TV and newspaper websites. 

I have been on tons of social media, and have experienced both theist and atheist pages that boot people at the first peep they don't like. This website from what I see goes way out of it's way, being privately owned, to allow a variety of voices. If I thought for one second they were PC kneejerk reactionaries which boot at the firs peep, I would not be here at all. I have left plenty of atheist pages on social media that do that on par with some theist websites. TRUST ME, 15 years of being on tons of social media, this page can hardly be accused of having a staff full of power mongers.

That I might be wrong or not about this doesn't concern whether I can criticise them or not. Naturally, they can disallow me from criticising them, but as long as they won't, I will. While they are under no pressure to accept my criticism and change I will nevertheless criticise when I see fit that I do so. A flawed website that isn't willing to change its problematic policies is likely to lose at least part of its membership due to those flaws. I am determined to point out said flaws wherever I perceive them in the hope that my criticism might either be addressed accordingly or taken to heart.

[Brian37]

Yes the staff has become the Gestapo and so much so you don't have a line through your name. So much so that the rule states no one can act by themselves and one dissenting vote negates the action of  ban. You got em, it's now summary public execution..........

First off this is a PRIVATELY owned website. When we talk about free speech, that is a government aspect, this is not government owned media. Now even given that, having been on this website for years now, they do a far better job allowing different viewpoints and blasphemy and strong language, than even TV and newspaper websites. 

I have been on tons of social media, and have experienced both theist and atheist pages that boot people at the first peep they don't like. This website from what I see goes way out of it's way, being privately owned, to allow a variety of voices. If I thought for one second they were PC kneejerk reactionaries which boot at the firs peep, I would not be here at all. I have left plenty of atheist pages on social media that do that on par with some theist websites. TRUST ME, 15 years of being on tons of social media, this page can hardly be accused of having a staff full of power mongers.

That I might be wrong or not about this doesn't concern whether I can criticise them or not. Naturally, they can disallow me from criticising them, but as long as they won't, I will. While they are under no pressure to accept my criticism and change I will nevertheless criticise when I see fit that I do so. A flawed website that isn't willing to change its problematic policies is likely to lose at least part of its membership due to those flaws. I am determined to point out said flaws wherever I perceive them.

The irony is strong in this post. I haven't felt this much irony since............

[Excited Penguin]

That I might be wrong or not about this doesn't concern whether I can criticise them or not. Naturally, they can disallow me from criticising them, but as long as they won't, I will. While they are under no pressure to accept my criticism and change I will nevertheless criticise when I see fit that I do so. A flawed website that isn't willing to change its problematic policies is likely to lose at least part of its membership due to those flaws. I am determined to point out said flaws wherever I perceive them.

The irony is strong in this post. I haven't felt this much irony since............

Let us not devolve into tangents here, especially not into ad-hominems unrelated to the matter at hand.