[continued from part 1]


Recently I posted a couple of articles from some social/political commentators [1] [2], both born and bred in the Middle East, on the growing problems of islamisation and its impact on the west, particularly focussing on the issues of freedom of speech and liberal values in light of the dramas and outrage surrounding Salman Rushdie, the Danish cartoons, and most recently, draw mohammed day. Both authors lay the blame squarely for the current status quo of blasphemy hysteria not with Naom Chomsky's favourite whipping horse, US foreign policy, but with western leaders who have allowed responses to the stupidity to be dictated by sections of the liberal/humanist left. The resultant policies of muslim appeasement at any cost and "tolerance" that borders on kowtowing rather than mitigating the problems have only exacerbated them. Instead of seeking true and open dialogue on a foundation of equanimity, they have legitimised and empowered the voices of maniacs allowing them to drown out the real voices of the actual western islamic communities. It is an example of "survival of the whiniest" - the loudest most shameless voices are the ones that get heard, and not the voices that actually count; and they are spurred on by the liberal/humanist left who mistake all the noise for progress. Thanks to their meddling and social experimentation, it is hard to imagine how the situation could possibly be made any worse. The continual pandering and bending over backwards to accomodate the demands of the islamists that have been given a stage and an audience, through the very best of liberal/humanist intentions, has now made the situation throroughly intractable and has benefited absolutely no one - least of all the moderate muslim majority in the west who are now starting to feel the first stirrings of a true backlash. Raymond Ibrahim summarises it quite nicely -

Muslim outrage—as with all human outrage—is predicated on how well it is tolerated. Continuously appeased, it becomes engorged and insistent on more concessions; ignored, it deflates and, ashamed of itself, withers away.

In other words, if our policies did not allow maniacs to have the air time and did not respond to the childish tantrums, chances are the issues we have would have fizzled for a while and then vanished. But they haven't - what was a tiny wound that could have healed naturally, thanks to the well meaning appeasement and coddling, has been picked at and picked at and has now become a festering sore bordering on septicemia.

So how fucking depressing is it to see this soap opera of global islam get played out as microcosmic mirror image right here in our community? With islam, the catalyst that started it all was Rushdie's Satanic Verses, and in hindsight, it looks less that the book actually caused any real offense and more that at the time there was a power struggle between Pakistan and Iran to see who could claim to be the voice of global islam, and they did so by having a hysterical shrieking contest (Iran won; the book was just unlucky for Rushdie; it was the right thing at the right time to enable the idiocy). Here, the catalyst seems to have been the repugnant noise-fest that preempted the departure of Ms. RU486 and our own contest to see who could be the most caring and understanding and demand the most and strictest site rules. Both scenarios served as prime manure for opportunist whiners to flourish like mushrooms. Instead of islam appeasers running around howling about "islamophobia", we're running around howling about people "being dicks". Instead of dissecting media for offence against the prophet, we're sifting every post and comment for offense against absolutely anything people damn well feel like; and, instead of facing it like a vertebrates, the faux offendees are urged to click the complaint button for anything that can be considered even remotely dick-like. Click, don't think. Click often, click hard. Click, click, click. Complain, complain, complain. All driven by the very best of intentions, which also happen to be what the path to hell is paved with.

This well meaning, inclusive and sensitive "New Atheist Nexus" that is being rammed down our throats, just like the efforts of the islam appeasers, achieves nothing other than empowering the stupid, entrenching "survival of the whiniest" and enabling the loudest and most negative voices here. A pure culture of complaint - the most reprehensible amongst us are sanctified and urged on to vent their tantrums free of any strictures of responsibility or accountability. Superficially it appears there is progress. Complaints can be quantified and there's a steady stream of scapegoats to divert attention to at the expense of real issues. Genuine complaints and abuses are lost amongst the noise, but that is irrelevant - it is the appearance that something is being done that really counts.

Whilst the rest of the civilised planet remains proud of it's foundations on human rights charters and affords such basic, inalienable protections as habeus corpus (variations on the right to present to court, confront your accusers and see the evidence presented against you) to even the vilest of terrorists, it is perverse that in this "enlightened" community such basics are entirely dispensed with. Typically, accusations here are anonymous and follow the format of "someone said you did something bad somewhere for some reason and you had better stop doing it or else". Evidence consists of "I can't find it now", "It was so horrid I deleted it" or a completely psychadelic miscontextualisation and misrepresentation of what was actually said that is never, ever verified. Where people's feelings are concerned, hearsay, rumour and even outright fabrication is perfectly acceptable evidence. Add to this the hyperbolic exaggerations of the extent of alleged abuse that goes on here and the relentless urging to report any and all issues immediately via the complaint button without a second thought and we have effectively divorced ourselves from the real world and entered the surreal universe of hyperreality. Enlightened, rational freethinkers my hairy ass. And if anyone thinks this is an absurd observation, all they need to consider is the following -

* Problems that threaten the very existance of a|n, cause the earth to stop spinning on its' axis, the seas to boil and the heavens to rain acid -

Calling someone an idiot.

* Problems that aren't really problems at all because they help maintain sensitivity and awareness of people's feelings -

Everything else mentioned above.


The supreme mother of all nonsense being peddled here is that a|n has somehow become dysfunctional due to all encompassing harrassment, abuse and intimidation. That all civil discussion has ceased and it is all raw wall to wall internecine warfare. This impression is actively being pushed as undisputed fact by this "Stop the madness!" post and many, many before it. It is a campaign to embed it as a self-replicating meme, and unfortunately it's working.

Well here's some harrassment for you - please provide us with some corroborating data and evidence that supports this proposition. As an exercise, anyone that has read this far, go and start browsing the site and make a realistic estimate for yourself. I do all the time. And the trouble is, this alleged level of abuse simply does not exist. This is a toxic self-hating and self-denigrating meme who's purpose and function benefits absolutely no one, other than the professional victims amongst us who can revel in it, exploiting and abusing our good natures. For the sake of misguided efforts to promote tolerance, a monstrous level of intolerance is being promoted and directed at those that are painted with the very wide brush of being "dicks" - it is effectively open season on "dicks" and there are no rules. People can lie, exaggerate, fabricate, defame, slander and abuse in any manner they please, as long as their target is a "dick". Fantastic community building.

The only excuse I can come up with for pushing this melodrama and catastrophism is an inexcusable naiveté - an absolute lack of wordliness or experience with social networking and forums. As it stands, this place could lay claim to being the most innocuous and non-threatening of it's kind anywhere, godless or not. And it's still not good enough. It has to be shit-talked and denigrated, all to placate a minority of professional whiners pushing their own selfish agendas or those who simply lack the ability to stand on their own hind legs and need to squeal for pity with every gasp.

From a historical perspective a certain series of events happened about a year ago when there was an enormous and spiteful shitstorm (over what exactly I still don't know, other than inevitably being blamed for a lot of it, despite having nothing to do with anything) that resulted in several members staging grandiose and noisy exits and quite a number of others being banned. Let's call it "D Day" ("D" for dick). It should be noted that all involved were at the time relatively new members; the older members, wisely, stayed clear of it. All that needs to be said was that it was massively nauseating and unpleasant, and has ultimately resulted in all manner of other lunacy infecting and poisoning the whole site. The main reason to raise D Day is that it is a point in time for reference. The manner, style and content of discussion and interaction before and after D Day has not fundamentally changed in any way. At all. Discussions were always vigorous, often got heated, occassionally even triggered spikes of anger. But before D Day, there never were any issues serious enough to merit anyones complaint. Situations were always amicably resolved and even the most heated disputes usually concluded with a "well played sir/madam" and folks got onto the next subject. Not so after D Day, when we began to have it drilled into us that there was abuse here, that we must all be more tolerant and must under no circumstances tolerate the now apparently rampant intolerance, and most importantly of all - to complain.

And here we are now. A self-fulfilling prophecy if ever there was one. How to Manufacture a Problem 101.


Where we are now -

We are all being held hostage by a small, but very vocal, minority of people who have essentially made a career of being professional whiners and victims. This hostage situation has been a self-created problem initiated by a combination of the very best of intentions, a stunning degree of naiveté and a deeply ingrained, and unhealthy, habit of overestimating people's integrity and decency. This hostage situation should really not come as a suprise either. "Survival of the whiniest" has pretty much dominated the last 50 years of human history. Similar hostage situations are eternally being played out by "family focus" groups, right to lifers, morality crusaders, animal rights crusaders, fringe feminists, the Louis Farrakhans of race politics and countless others. It is always a case of a small minority who out of sheer loudness and relentlessness create an illusion that they are of greater import and impact than actual reality merits. The tolerant, average person is their natural prey - appeasement and accommodation is after all the first response you will get from them. As such, it is breathtakingly easy for the ethically bankrupt professional whiners to take root and control of groups of otherwise ordinary people. Atheist Nexus has done pretty much everything you can think of to accelerate this process.

The expectations too are fairly clear. What needs to be done is that all discussion and interaction must be dumbed down to a PG-13 level. Criticism of any kind must be discouraged, especially if that criticism involves humour that goes over the whiner's heads, or involves concepts and ideas that demean them by making them feel stupid because they don't know what you are talking about. Similarly, demands for people to provide evidence for outrageous statements are tantamount to assault - you hurt people's feelings by not believing them.

Whether this is the world that we want a|n to be is besides the point: this is the only world that is possible if we are to successfully meet the demands for a "dick free" community.

What it means is that the folks that make this place entertaining - those that push conceptual boundaries in an effort to make people think in ways they have not thought before; those that provide meticulously researched information that dispel accepted preconceptions; those that refuse to buy into accepted memes and are prepared to challenge their validity - all have to go. They do nothing other than foster conflict which breeds resentments and in turn tears.

To a large extent this process of weeding out has been underway successfully for quite some time. Valued contributers have been silently departing in large numbers and it shows in the deterioration of quality content as compared to 18 months ago. Median IQ is plummeting and it's bell curve distribution is shifting markedly to the left. This degradation has had an inverse relationship to the volume and frequency of members bitching about other members. Funny that. It's what usually happens when adults behaving as adults is frowned upon and children squabbling in a sandpit is promoted.

With current site policies and attitudes this will continue until we reach the point where we are a sheltered workshop of bubble wrapped mediocrities that have a list of topics on which there is universal agreement and the most controversial thing to be discussed is the weather or the latest Disney Pixar flick. The site will finally be safe and no one will be offended.


Of course it doesn't have to be this way. All it really takes is for people to stand on their hind legs and grow a spine and a hide. Atheism by its very nature is individualist - by rejecting the supernatural as having dominance over your life means you should be accepting of the fact that the responsibility for your own life lies with you and you alone. The culture of complaint spits on this idea by abdicating autonomy and responsibility and demanding that others be there to deal with all your petty hissy fits and tantrums. The correct, and only, valid response to this should be: "Well screw you pal. If you don't like the party you can leave". However it's not, and we have the mollycoddling that is the source of all our grief.

If there is any will left whatsoever to try and resuscitate this site's dignity and merit, there have to be some pretty radical attitude readjustments. I am pessimistic, we may have passed the point of no return in that it may no longer be possible to entice back those that have already left in disgust. But that's not an excuse not to try. Some of the critical issues are -

Complaint: As it stands, for all complaints the de facto position is that you are guilty as charged - the complaint itself is all the evidence that is required. If you are innocent, the onus is on you to prove your innocence and even if you can there is no guarantee you will be listened to. Of course this assumes you even know what it is that you have been charged with to begin with, and that if any evidence actually exists, it has need not been deleted or tampered with. It's all so Kafkaesque that there is no point in defending yourself anyway.

This has to STOP. And it has to stop IMMEDIATELY. The burden of proof lies entirely on the accuser and the evidence must be of acceptable forensic standard. No more deleting content prior to complaining, thereby destroying the evidence. If it has to be deleted, then follow the same procedures as with email abuse - save the source of the original web page as evidence, that way it will retain all original unique Ning message ID stamps. A screencap WILL NOT suffice - given the level of disgusting behaviour I have witnessed here, the idea of people doctoring a screencap with Photoshop would hardly surprise me. No more concealing the nature and the facts of the complaints from the target either - habeus corpus, you have a right to know who hates you, why they hate you and what evidence there is against you. As it stands, often the target of the complaint is the victim of the actual abuse.

If it is found that a complaint is spurious, exaggerated or entirely fraudulent, then it is the responsibility of a|n to raise the issue with the complainer and take the appropriate action. Fabricating a complaint against another member, regardless of the justification, is not a trivial matter and needs to be acted upon appropriately. Lying about other members should be treated with far greater gravity than common abuse and name calling. Until this situation is seriously addressed, there will be zero confidence in the a|n complaint process.

Nonsense: No more diplomatic immunity for gibberish. Ask a person nicely once to substantiate any suspect claims. If they refuse, ask again. If they refuse again, declare open season on the crank. Drag them into the town square, put them in stocks and pelt them with rotten tomatoes until they promise to not open their mouths until they have verified their facts ever again. What is unfair about this? Why should gibberish mongers be protected from accountability when they bring atheists as a whole into disrepute by spouting unsubstantiated rumour and hearsay? In order to make this tolerance of nonsense acceptable, we need to cease and desist from criticism of creationists too. You can't have it both ways.

Application of Rules: What a no brainer. Either apply all the rules consistently with all members consistently, or don't apply them at all. No more convenience store policing, or worse, selective agenda driven policing. Allow the moderators to actually moderate by allowing them to address the mother of all gripes - violations of rule 9. Sit back and watch the huge volume of other issues vanish if they are allowed to actually do so.

Police the police: This is just basic responsibility. Any and all moderation action MUST be logged along with a copy of any content that is removed and the justification for taking action. Selective and partisan content deletion has been an issue in the past. This is the only way to maintain integrity of the moderation process and to ensure there can be a defense against accusations of bias.

"You do not have the right to not be offended": Don't atheists just love repeating this one over and over at theists? It's quite a different matter when they actually have to apply it to themselves though isn't it? Hypocrites and chickenshits going clackety-clack-clack on the complaint button when someone goes and tramples on *their* petunias. Grow a spine people. No one should have to be told this one, least of all the folks that run this place. And how many pointless complaints does this generate? More importantly, why are they even listened to?

The list by no means ends there, but there is nothing startling about any of it and there's certainly nothing on it that should not be self-evident to anyone who's rational and wants to sit down and think about. The question still remains - is there any will to address any of this? Or do the professional whiners win and the rest of us abandon this sinking ship as a lost cause? My pessimism does not see any kind of light on the horizon. Because what is the point of posting anything here when there is no telling what kind of random idiotic complaint lays waiting - and you are defenseless against it. And if there is no point posting, what is the point of even being here in the first place?


I often wonder what would happen if Christopher Hitchens himself arrived here under a nom de plume? Assuming he could wade past the inanity without immediately recoiling in disgust and proceeded to participate in debate here, it is pretty certain he would get run out of town, leaving a trail of devastated hypersensitive carcasses in his wake. It would happen, I have absolutely no doubt. This is how far this place has degenerated. When the lowest common denominator is elevated to being the benchmark to which everyone has to aspire, anything that is exceptional has to be purged. We are no longer allowed to be adults, we cannot laugh at absurdity and above all else, we cannot criticise. Precious, precious feelings everywhere.

Myself, I was swept in here by chance via StumbleUpon some time in July 2008, liked what I saw and stayed. What I found was a site full of like-minded, freethinking adults, that spoke like adults and behaved like adults, without fear and without restraint. In the early days, the greatest crime you could commit was to be inane or boring. Discussion was no more outrageous than now and no less fiery, yet complaints simply did not exist. Why? Because stupidity was not rewarded, nor was tantrum throwing, nor fabricating offense by twisting words. In fact all of this idiotic behaviour was stomped on and discouraged by the community as a whole. This was the world before D Day, and it was good. There are still pockets here where adults can still be adults without fear and there's no professional victims around around to ruin the party. For a taste of adults being adults and harming no one, you can browse the comment wall in Sacha's no nonsense group and have a taste of what a world is like without the presence of relentless complaint and bitching and fabricated offense of deranged peecee politics. It is a very enjoyable place to be when there are no whining fuckwits around. And I can imagine how much that wall would be ruined and ground to a halt were the a|n general public to witness it.

What it all comes down to is this - why should I (or anyone) invest my time and energy here, gratis, to entertain all of you if all that I get in return is a tiny minority of mediocrities and professional whiners, who themselves contribute nothing, that churn out spurious, unsubstantiated complaints for petty reasons and have no other reason for doing so other than to make everyone else as miserable as themselves? 6 months ago, due to these pointless noise makers, I said I cared less about this place than a year ago. 3 months ago I cared less again. Now I have reached the point that I no longer care at all.

[*] - Rule 9. Do not spam the groups, forums, chat, or other members. Any and all commercial or fraud spam should be reported immediately, using the "report issues" function. The following types of posts may be subject to removal without warning:

1. Web links with no adequate accompanying description or explanation.
2. Embedded media with no adequate accompanying description or explanation.
3. Posts promoting personal websites and projects in inappropriate places. Your own profile is a good place for promoting your endeavors.
4. Repetitious posts.
5. Flooding the forums or groups with several posts in a relatively short period of time.

[**] - for anyone that seems to think this is not an issue, and an extremely nasty one at that, needs to be referred to Larry Carter Center who took a particular comment of mine about the nastiest and most vicious management style I had ever seen as being that of a large software company's all female marketing team and managed to reinterpret it to mean that I think most women that get raped and murdered deserve it anyway so it's no big deal. Larry has long since been banned from this site (for unrelated reasons), and many, many others. In fact, he can't seem to last more than 2 weeks anywhere except facebook without getting booted to the curb. Larry still keeps reposting this twisted bastardry around the place, often refering to me by name, to this day. The salient point is that when he did it here, no one batted an eyelid.

Views: 112

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

And, this is the othe blog post, where Jo and I patiently responded to the person in question: http://www.atheistnexus.org/profiles/blogs/travel-the-stars-with-noah
The only thing missing is that posting such a link may not be for the purposes you just described. I have posted a link to a couple of posts on my blog (which is not very active and not at all commercial) because the A|N conversation touched on something I had already written about. The link was to allow folks to read my thoughts if they were so inclined without copying a few hundred words into the thread, particularly if my blog post was not 100% on topic. I'm not claiming to be a PZ Myers by any means but once or twice I have written something that a couple of people (literally) have found interesting, informative, or entertaining.
It's a question of balance which should be self-evident to anyone who has even the slightest vestiges of self-respect and personal integrity. There is nothing inherently wrong with referencing personal material elsewhere, even if it is promotional. The balance part is - are you adding value to the discussion here ? Is that value of greater substance than your promotion? If it is, great. If it is not, then IT IS SPAM. If no effort is made to create content here, then such content is little more than an ad billboard.

AL-KADIM made an interesting observation - ever since removing latest blogs and forums from the main page, Examiner spam has effectively vanished. Now where are all those assholes that were squealing indignantly that they were NOT spamming? Moved on to another site no doubt where spam exposure policies allow better penetration.
Amen. If there were to be a list of commandments, so to speak, for atheists to follow in debate, the top two should be the scientific method and logic. These are the only things I hold dear to. "Don't be a dick", while well intended, should be consigned to the same, deep, dark hole as belief in an afterlife. Just because it makes you feel warm and fuzzy all over, does not mean it's worthy of espousing. Cut it from your thinking, and cast the cancerous mass aside. If you can't defend what you post here with logic and/or evidence, then go do your posting at the Huffington Post, where your feelings will be hurt much less often.
I have removed the offensive "small print" from my blog post and replaced it with Brother Richard's quote:

"The only qualification to be a member of Nexus is to be a nontheist. Other than that we are a community. Civil debate is welcome in the forum, but should not be tolerated in individual groups (unless this is the purpose of the group), and on member pages."

I don't care if it make me look thin-skinned that I don't want to deal with your negative comments. I have a life outside of Atheist Nexus; so, I really can't spend all day responding to comments. And, it really does ruin my day when someone calls me "a piece of shit." I do have the right to delete any further comments from that person. And, to enlist other friends to go after me is really nasty.
This is, of course, utter nonsense. What is happening is that you are posting personal theories to blog posts and then claiming that they are immune to scrutiny, either because "I really can't spend all day responding to comments," or that the people should read your book instead. This, after making the remarkable claim that after studying ancient history/archeology, you have learned things that are not generally known to the public. In other words, you are claiming to have a unique perspective that is not commonly known, and that perspective should be absolved from all intellectual scrutiny. Are you by chance a Scientologist?

Actually, that means that you want to use the blog function here to preach your ideas (which, I add, would not be so kindly received in a more academic setting) and be immune from criticism, or that you should even have the authority to remove any criticism. That tells me that you see the blog function here as a pulpit, which affords your ideas safety. I would venture to say that this is not a courtesy most people on this site would afford to Velikovsky or von Danniken, nor is it a courtesy we should afford to anyone (by anyone, I include you).

Oh, but you are too busy making dinner to respond (you actually said that) and too thin skinned. You then go on to conflate attacks against your (remarkable) claims with ad hominem attacks against you. Unfortunately, you resort to ad hominem attacks in response. For example, you claim that in some previous incarnation, I called you a "piece of shit." Perhaps, though I certainly do not recall that. I do, however, recall thinking it after you called Matt VDB a troll, not only for his challenges to your blog, but for all of his comments on this site. To cite: "I find it odd that an atheist like yourself spends all of his time on Atheist Nexus defending Christianity and the Bible. That type of behavior is represented by another mythical character, rumored to live under bridges." And it's not even an accurate assessment of Matt's arguments.

You then go on to insinuate (and insinuation is a great technique, because it absolves you from charges that you actually said something) that I have enlisted other friends to go after you. That's really a bit over the top, don't you think? What it means is that you believe that I am going after you for personal reasons, and since there is no other reason why people would go after you, it must be because I have enlisted them. First, I must thank you for assuming I have that much power. I don't, but it is nice to know that people think I do. Second, it ignores the very basic premise that someone other than me would challenge what you wrote because it is unsubstantiated drivel.

Frankly, I think it is commendable that between cooking pasta and pork chops, you found the time to write a book. On the other hand, even if it is self-published through a vanity press (and yes, unlike David Mills, I don't think very highly of self-published books--there is a benefit to having teams of professional editors, copyeditors, and fact checkers go over your work, as they did in any of the dozen or so professionally published books that I have written and/or edited). Be that as it may, by publishing a book, you have put your ideas out in the public arena, you can expect them to face scrutiny. You may even benefit from that scrutiny. Serious scholars do. Since you are fascinated with biblical archeology, I can assure that Israel Finkelstein has publicly rejected his earliest work. It's part of the refinement of ideas, which lasts a lifetime. Without it, your ideas become stagnant.
Hi Diana,

I don't know if you violated any rules or not. That's for the moderators to decide. Personally, as long as you're not harming anybody else, I really don't care what you do.

It's unacceptable for any member to traipse around the site crapping on other members. If somebody called you "a piece of shit", you should report it via the "Report an Issue" link at the bottom of every page.

Moderators are charged with ensuring rules are followed. The level of their enforcement of the rules determines the "atmosphere" of this site. When wanna-be moderators (i.e. mere members) attempt to enforce the rules, problems will likely arise for several reasons. First of all, they have no authority to enforce the rules and no responsibility either . . . thus they might use offensive, aggressive or otherwise rude language that moderators would not use. Secondly, "enforcing the rules" can become an excuse to crap on other members. Why would somebody want to crap on other members? Most likely because they're insecure and/or hateful. If they left moderation to the moderators, they wouldn't have a convenient excuse to crap on other members. Thirdly, by circumventing the moderators, these "self-anointed moderators" usurp the role that the legitimate moderators play in controlling the atmosphere of this site.

As far as I'm concerned, NOBODY but moderators have any authority to tell us what to do. If somebody has a complaint about one of us, they can use the "Report an Issue" link. If I'm violating some rule or other, I wouldn't mind being informed of the rule I'm violating . . . but any extraneous commentary will always be unwelcome and I will probably dismiss the commentator with extreme prejudice.

But calling ANBODY "a piece of shit" goes beyond the pall. That person should be reprimanded by the moderators and banned if it's repeated. We don't need ANY page on this site sullied by such hateful and cowardly language.
Your choice of the term "mere user" is very unfortunate. Sites such as this are made up of users, with moderators simply being trusted users who make sure things flow smoothly. It is not that is is a site of moderators that deign to allow users to use it.

Furthermore, rules here or anywhere are not mono-directional. They are not simply imposed from on high to be followed down below. That is, ironically, a very religious understanding of rules. Rules are, in fact, bi-directional. Some are imposed by the founders of the site (or of Ning--most of this site's rules are identical with Ning rules, but others are the result of a groundswell of support within the community in response to particular circumstances and imposed bottom upward. This is true of most social networking communities, and the illusion that it is true is common to all social networking communities (a careful distinction--I don't think it is true of Facebook, for example, though Facebook makes the effort to make it seem true). In that sense, moderators are subject to trends within the community, no less than to rules imposed from on high. Indeed, for any community to succeed, its members have to feel a sense of participation, not only in creating content, but in establishing the contours within which the site operates.
Free Thinker, I have to agree with Al-KADIM here. Your interpretation leaves no room for etiquette, the self-policing of a community. If a person is out of line, they need to hear it from the people that they are offending. If an accommodation cannot be reached, then perhaps the mods need to be involved or perhaps both sides can simply agree to disagree and ignore each other.

Regardless, leaving all feather unruffling duties to the mods only serves to infantilize us "mere users". But we are adults, and as adults, we are perfectly capable of letting people know when they've crossed our boundaries. In fact, that is one of the responsibilities of adults. And it is one of the things that makes an adult conversation more invigorating than a conversation among children.

Again, this is the great big scary internet. People say what they think. If they are muzzled by authority, they are less likely to put forth their honest thoughts. Obviously, even an adult conversation can go too far, but that is always a judgment call amongst the participants, and if necessary, outside arbiters. But arbitration should never be the first resort. It would waste the time of the arbitrators and it would be childish.
If we are to police ourselves, we need to be able end conversations on our blogs. I spent several days, patiently responding to comments and questions from one member. Other members were making comments that he was being annoying on my blog. I gave him a warning that I would begin deleting his comments. Which preciptated Al-kadim's comment, that I deleted. Which preciptated the whining session from this crew about me deleting comments. I then explained the reasons why I deleted comments. I should not have bothered with an explanation.
Why not just report them? If they were just being annoying.
Nonsense. Matt (I suppose that is the user in question) made one comment questioning a statement you made and responded to your response, for which you called him a troll. All of this happened, not in the course of several days, but of one day. There are no records on the blog of people complaining that he was annoying, and in fact, the person who was following the story was Jo Jerome, who did not make such a comment and who, in fact has been carrying on a 90+ page discussion about the same topic with Matt on several other forums here.

All of this leaves two possibilities. Either you are unknowingly misreading written texts by people here and misrepresenting what they write. In that case, I would call into question your abilities as a researcher and writer. Alternately, you are willfully misrepresenting what occurred, in which case you are full of it.



Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today



Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon


Nexus on Social Media:

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service