Modding conflict of interest.

JustHalf

syke wrote:

Where did I make false claims?

Come on syke, I've pointed them out already.

syke wrote:

I simply state that you deleted a view of christianity that you didn't agree with (I used the word oppression, which is a stronger way of saying that, perhaps).

This is a false claim. As I've repeatedly pointed out, Keu deleted her posts, in the new thread. Splitting a thread does not constitute deleting posts, because at no point are any posts deleted.

Here is the complete, unedited content of the one post I deleted:

---

amp wrote:

..it made baby jebubs cry.

---

This does not describe a view of Christianity, and if you think deleting obviously spammy posts counts as "oppression" then you're an idiot.

syke wrote:

If you are going to say its because its off topic then why is your off-topic offensive post still there? (besides as the corinthian pointed out, if you are explaining your views from a different version of christianity then its quite on-topic).

Just can you clarify this. If I post an ontopic insult on your board, and then say its a joke. You won't edit, delete or move the post (or ban me). Is this correct, because otherwise you are basically allowing one set of rules for you and another set for everyone else.

No, I'd delete the insult and any discussion about the insult. But it's different if a moderator of the board does the same thing, deleting his own work after the fact and stamping out criticism of his actions.

It screams of "how dare you criticise me!". This in turn screams of "oppression", don't you think?

syke wrote:

Incidently, there is no need for abusiveness in your posts. I'm being quite civil in trying express myself, I have not name called. I have merely expressed my view of events and am puzzled as to what the rules are in your board.

You've certainly made false claims about me, and misrepresented actions of mine. I'm obviously not flattered.

JustHalf

keu wrote:

"yet you continue to slur my character. Stop this nonsense."

isn't this what he did to me?..but its ok because he's a mod.

maybe he should ask the holy spirit for discernment.

Come on Keu, don't start.

I did not "continue to slur [your] character". I made a bad joke which in hindsight was a case of really poor judgement. Although this could reasonably be perceived as slurring your character, I have definitely not continued to do so.

And it was not okay for me to do it in the first place, which is why I apologised. If it was okay for me to do it, I wouldn't have apologised. As I've said quite a few times already, I made a mistake. I'm sorry for it.

Sounds like I'm admitting fault, doesn't it? That it's not okay?

keu

Splitting a thread does not constitute deleting posts, because at no point are any posts deleted.

the posts didnt make any sense after you split the thread, they were taken out of context..because THEY WERE ON TOPIC in the original thread.

"..it made baby jebubs cry"
consdiering your actions, I thought this response to them was apt. (I could have b!tched about it..instead I made a joke)

This does not describe a view of Christianity

again I'll ask you with whos authority you speak.

considering these people acted freely in taking this topic up here, they must have seen or felt some form of obvious oppresion. I didn't put anyone up to it. I did feel like I was being fùcked over, I could have shouted about it but after being around boards this long, I'm quite used to the dictatorship it subscribes to and I didn't see the point in complaining.

As far as I'm concerned I couldn't give a sh!t..the rest of this is between you and the other mods who have taken up the issue.

JustHalf

syke wrote:

Ok JH, having read your PM, I apologise for suggesting you were oppressing Keu, you were merely ridiculing her beliefs.

Yep. Poor form on my part. I can come up with a ton of excuses for doing so, but that choice of words was frankly inexcusable.

syke wrote:

However you have posted on your board that her beliefs are crazy talk. You can be as sorry as you like for the incident, but leaving an offensive comment sitting there is poor form unless you are happy to set a precident that such abusive comments are OK in christianity once you say it was a joke.

I don't see this as setting that type of precident. I simply want to avoid crushing dissent like a Stalinist.

GuanYin

JustHalf wrote:

Come on syke, I've pointed them out already.

OK, I already apologised for saying your opressed her and I was wrong to say you deleted her posts.

You moved them to another thread which you entitled crazy talk, and marked as crazy talk in the original thread. Now, some may say thats oppressing someones beleifs, but in hindsight I think ridiculing is a better term.

JustHalf wrote:

No, I'd delete the insult and any discussion about the insult. But it's different if a moderator of the board does the same thing, deleting his own work after the fact and stamping out criticism of his actions.

It screams of "how dare you criticise me!". This in turn screams of "oppression", don't you think?

No, it looks to me like you are too stubborn to realise that the link in the original thread is quite offensive. You of all people should know that belief and spirituality are very sensitive subjects and some people don't like having them questioned.

You are "continually" slurring Keu by having the term "crazy talk" there in the thread. If you were to be consistant then you just need to edit out crazy talk and put in a reason for edit saying "offensive remark removed". Which I'm sure is what you would do for anyone else.

JustHalf wrote:

You've certainly made false claims about me, and misrepresented actions of mine. I'm obviously not flattered.

Which I re-addressed, you however have now called me an idiot (or implied as much) and told me to F*ck off.

Why do you need to resort to that?

JustHalf

keu wrote:

the posts didnt make any sense after you split the thread, they were taken out of context..because THEY WERE ON TOPIC in the original thread.

I disagreed. As mod, I made the call. I stand by that decision.

keu wrote:

"..it made baby jebubs cry"
consdiering your actions, I thought this response to them was apt. (I could have b!tched about it..instead I made a joke)

I thought it was spammy and added nothing to the discussion, so I deleted it. Bear in mind that your only contribution to this particular post was a smiley.

JustHalf: This does not describe a view of Christianity
Keu: again I'll ask you with whos authority you speak.

I speak with the authority of someone who has a reasonable command of the of both the English language and his mental capabilities.

The subject of my statement was a post containing only the phrase "..it made baby jebubs cry" followed by . This does not describe a view of Christianity. It does not, in fact, really describe anything.

keu wrote:

considering these people acted freely in taking this topic up here, they must have seen or felt some form of obvious oppresion. I didn't put anyone up to it.

Obviously they did. I never claimed you put anyone up to it.

keu wrote:

I did feel like I was being fùcked over, I could have shouted about it but after being around boards this long, I'm quite used to the dictatorship it subscribes to and I didn't see the point in complaining.

I told you that you could take it up on Feedback. Boards is a dictatorship, but there are lesser and greater dictators.

keu

I speak with the authority of someone who has a reasonable command of the of both the English language and his mental capabilities.

I rest my case.

GuanYin

JustHalf wrote:

JustHalf: This does not describe a view of Christianity
Keu: again I'll ask you with whos authority you speak.

I speak with the authority of someone who has a reasonable command of the of both the English language and his mental capabilities.

The subject of my statement was a post containing only the phrase "..it made baby jebubs cry" followed by . This does not describe a view of Christianity. It does not, in fact, really describe anything..

You are either being deliberately obtuse or don't have as good a grasp as english as you think.

justhalf wrote:

Your response was off-topic. It was proposing a radically different interpretation of Christianity, one that isn't actually Christian.

You originally stated that her belief system was not describing christianity, and I think anyone who read the thread would be in agreement.

Keu was asking who were you to judge. You seem to have seriously changed your story since this all started. A closed mind remains empty you know.

keu

You originally stated that her belief system was not describing christianity, and I think anyone who read the thread would be in agreement.

eh..../
y'know I've been banned from spiritual forums for having a christian view (I mentioned Jesus once and they all scuttled off and hid under rocks)..me confused.....if I wasn't describing christianity..how do you percieve was I was talking about?

(genuinely curious)

am I that radical?

JustHalf

syke wrote:

OK, I already apologised for saying your opressed her and I was wrong to say you deleted her posts.

You moved them to another thread which you entitled crazy talk, and marked as crazy talk in the original thread. Now, some may say thats oppressing someones beleifs, but in hindsight I think ridiculing is a better term.

Yeah, unfortunately I didn't see that post of yours before I made the post that you just quoted.

syke wrote:

No, it looks to me like you are too stubborn to realise that the link in the original thread is quite offensive. You of all people should know that belief and spirituality are very sensitive subjects and some people don't like having them questioned.

Yes, I do know this. Not from my own attitudes, I might add. To be honest, I have very little time for people who don't want to state their opinions and yet don't want them questioned; religious or otherwise.

It's central to the ideal of freedom of speech that we can question the opinions of others.

I get questioned all the time about Christianity. I seriously don't mind. Abuse on the other hand I do, and I can see why someone would see my actions as abusive. Basically because it's the only reasonable interpretation. It was unreasonable for me to expect it to be taken as a joke, which is what I intended.

Still, it was an inexcusable choice of words. Poor judgement on my part.

syke wrote:

You are "continually" slurring Keu by having the term "crazy talk" there in the thread. If you were to be consistant then you just need to edit out crazy talk and put in a reason for edit saying "offensive remark removed". Which I'm sure is what you would do for anyone else.

Right. I'll consider this. I'm not going to take any action on this until tomorrow, though... I'm going to think about it first.

syke wrote:

Which I re-addressed, you however have now called me an idiot (or implied as much) and told me to F*ck off.

Why do you need to resort to that?

You readdressed them, but I didn't read your post until after I posted the one to which you are replying. (grammar is failing me now).

The implication was there only if you genuinely believed my action of deleting that particular post containing a quote and a smiley constituted oppression. And if you did think so, then quite frankly you would be being an idiot

I think you can understand the F*ck off line, considering how antagonistic you appeared.

keu

Yes, I do know this. Not from my own attitudes, I might add. To be honest, I have very little time for people who don't want to state their opinions and yet don't want them questioned; religious or otherwise.

Isn't this exactly what you did though?
I would have been very happy to have people question my opinions on the topic. actually you did question them, did my response not suffice?
So you removed my responses, rather than have someone question your authority.

JustHalf

syke wrote:

You are either being deliberately obtuse or don't have as good a grasp as english as you think.

I'm not being obtuse. The subject of the sentence was a particular post. I can

syke wrote:

You originally stated that her belief system was not describing christianity, and I think anyone who read the thread would be in agreement.

Keu was asking who were you to judge. You seem to have seriously changed your story since this all started. A closed mind remains empty you know.

I'm the mod of the Christianity forum, and I've been a Christian for over two and a half years now. I'm know enough about the subject to notice several glaring "warning signs" in Keu's original post that ran completely at odds with any reasonable interpretation of the Bible. Now, she's entitled to have these beliefs, but I'm also entitled to question them.

Of course, it's difficult to talk about them now since my reference material has been blanked. If it had simply been deleted, I could have restored it or referred to it. I can't now.

And quite frankly, I have been put in place to judge such things. Islam is not Christianity. Gnosticism is not Christianity. "The one true source, of which Jesus was merely an avatar; all religions lead to God"-type belief systems are not Christian beliefs systems. Scientology is not a Christian belief system. Despite the fact that all of these belief systems make reference to Jesus, they are most certainly not Christian. Keu's belief made reference to Jesus, but didn't seem to be Christian.

If the mod of the Christianity forum is not permitted to decide what is Christian and what is not, then there's no point in calling it the Christianity forum.

keu wrote:

eh..../
y'know I've been banned from spiritual forums for having a christian view (I mentioned Jesus once and they all scuttled off and hid under rocks)..me confused.....if I wasn't describing christianity..how do you percieve was I was talking about?

(genuinely curious)

am I that radical?

If you're genuinely curious, start a thread on the Christianity forum. Certainly, the feedback forum is no place for such a discussion.

I was interested in such a discussion. This was the reason I replied to your original post, and for splitting the thread (as opposed to deleting off-topic posts).

JustHalf

keu wrote:

Isn't this exactly what you did though?
I would have been very happy to have people question my opinions on the topic. actually you did question them, did my response not suffice?
So you removed my responses, rather than have someone question your authority.

Woah, dubious claims abound here.

You're the one who deleted your posts. I did not remove your responses, I moved them. You removed them from the board (actually, just from being visible; I and any admin can still see them).

"rather than have someone question your authority"? What the heck?

This is the place to question my authority. I was the one to suggest people go here in the first place.

keu

"I'm making an effort to help you out, why don't you make an effort to help yourself? - JustHalf"

and you think taking away my rep points helps the situation?

I didnt bring the fùcking subject up, but for what its worth I agree with the other posters.

NinjaBart

JustHalf wrote:

If the mod of the Christianity forum is not permitted to decide what is Christian and what is not, then there's no point in calling it the Christianity forum.

I'd be inclined to think the mod of he christianity forum is there to ensure that there are no abusive posts or trolling. Certainly not to contribute to these things.

I don't think you have any right to decide what is classified as christianity. Keu was sincere in her post, she is entitled to believe in chirst and her take on christianity. For you to dismiss and ridicule these beliefs as you are continuing to do here, make you an unfit mod for any forum.

keu

phlematic wrote:

I do not agree that sin means wrong doing. To me, sin represents the dispicable illusion that God has dictated to us what wrong doing is. I find the idea that God would use such a preposterous and easily misinterpreted means as prophets (aka the bible) to be laughable. Surely if God truly did not want us to act in certain ways, and wanted to make this known to us, we would simply KNOW already. And this does not mean he controls us, we still have the ability to choose to sin or not, but at least all of his flock would be free of the ambiguity that comes with using a fallible human being to convey His most exalted mandates. Unfortuneatly I must bring this to my main point. Sin is not wrong doing, but the attempt by some members of the human race to control others through lies guilt domination and fear. The bible is the greatest insult to human rights I can concieve of. And it's depressing that so many cannot see it for what it is.

I like the idea of a God. I truly do. An all powerful being that loves us all and is infinately compassionate. However, I find it all too convenient that God has happened to agree with whatever insecure male theocracy that ran nations, be it the bigoted male centric world that spawned the old testament or the church controlled europe that rewrote it to suit themselves over the entire last few centuries in europe.

"Sin" comes from the insecurities of man, not God. Religion has little to with God.(Can you taste the irony?)

and I spose this is christian too? incidently this is from the same thread.
is phlematic not defining his own beliefs here?
(apologies to phlematic, just using your post to make a point)
so, how exactly did my posts get removed and phlematics are perfectly ok?
as far as I'm concerned I've just been singled out. Why?

keu

phlematic wrote:

To say that homosexuality is genetic would be misleading. To be precise, everything to do with a human being is given potential by their genes, but not dictated by it. Ie, your genes have provided the potential to get cancer during your life, but you don't neccessarily get it.

Most (scientists that is)agree that homosexuality is decided pre birth however. One theory is that if a woman has several boy children in a row then there is too much of a build up of male hormones in the womb lining. The body counters with too much female hormones thereby causing the brain to develop in some areas as a womans would.

To assume it was genetic would be to say that someone was born with it. To say that would mean that God created a person with the urge and temptation to sin. "

Speaking of which why has it been thousands of years since any seas parted or cities exploded (Sodom and Gemorrah, I'm looking at you.)?

oh ...very christian/...

justhalf wrote:

And quite frankly, I have been put in place to judge such things. Islam is not Christianity. Gnosticism is not Christianity. "The one true source, of which Jesus was merely an avatar; all religions lead to God"-type belief systems are not Christian beliefs systems. Scientology is not a Christian belief system. Despite the fact that all of these belief systems make reference to Jesus, they are most certainly not Christian. Keu's belief made reference to Jesus, but didn't seem to be Christian.

does anybody else see the hypocracy?

/stupid fùcking arguments about nothing.~let it go

Crash

Em, i'm not quite sure how you're second quote there relates to anything, if as such your post was defining your views for a lot of it (as is my understanding of this as none of us who arent regular christianity forum readers have anything to go by thanks to the removal of Keu's posts by (from what i understand) Keu) whereas the second post of Phlematics that you quoted is a debate upon the genetic issue of homosexuality which was raised in Flogens post prior to it. so all you've actually done is taken a post thats in the thread which shows someones views on a topic, not their religious views on a whole, and use it to back up an argument.

If there is a copy of Keu's original post knocking about i would be interested to read it - You dont have the text you typed anywhere Keu? it'd help put a lot of things in context as this argument just seems to be turning in circles over the same points with a complete lack of evidence either way.

Gordon

keu's a she?
Ah that's refreshing.

keu

no..I don't have the text, I deleted them.

so all you've actually done is taken a post thats in the thread which shows someones views on a topic,

exactly.
my posts were my views on the topic, according to the mod my views didn't correlate with the christian view and so they were removed.
In context..I don't find that phlematics views are comming from a particularly "christian perspective" either. Sounds very scientific to me.

(just btw..I don't have issues with phlematics perspective..I would just like to think I'm entitled to my opinion too)

Crash

you completely missed my point there. and in fairness from what i understand Justhalf moved the posts, you REMOVED them. so dont go deciding to play with your words.

Admins is there anyway to recover said text? i think its the only way that this argument can go outside of those who read it prior to editing.

keu

think maybe I did..whats your point?
those who were following the thread know what happened, I don't particularly care to try and justify it for you.

Crash

Well if you bring something to feedback you're bringing it to the general public of boards, of which i am a card carrying member last time i checked.
I'm not having a go at you here, but the simple fact is that if you're using a play on words like that it comes across as a very sly trick. if you didnt intend it then fair enough, if you did it on purpose then its really a little shot at JH.

If you'd actually care to READ any of my posts what i'm stating is that if you're gonna post on feedback then generally its a general view of users that'd be wanted. cept instead you just got a little trinity of yourself, syke and justhalf going at it with NinjaBart popping in from time to time. I'm not having a go at you and tbh i've only pointed out my opinions from reading this thread and reading what is left of the christianity threads.

If you dont particularly care to try and justify it to me then who do you care to justify it to? what are you arguing for?

Only reason i posted here was because it caught my eye and i was interested as to what the post you edited said. you instead took this all to mean i was having a go at you which i really dont understand.

Neil

keu

Well if you bring something to feedback you're bringing it to the general public of boards

I DIDN'T BRING IT TO FEEDBACK.

If you dont particularly care to try and justify it to me then who do you care to justify it to? what are you arguing for?

perhaps you should start reading the thread at the beginning.

I entered this lovely discussion because it centred around my posts..and as much as I DIDN'T want to enter the discussion I felt I had to.

I'm not having a go at you here, but the simple fact is that if you're using a play on words like that it comes across as a very sly trick.

I don't understand this truely i don't..the issue wasn't about the removal of the threads if thats what you mean. read back.

Only reason i posted here was because it caught my eye and i was interested as to what the post you edited said. you instead took this all to mean i was having a go at you which i really dont understand.

probably had something to do with the negative rep and comment you gave me.

as far as I am concerned the argument is null and void.. the mod was out of order.

The end.
I request that this thread be locked please.

Crash

Keu wrote:

probably had something to do with the negative rep and comment you gave me.

can you spell conspiracy theorist?

actually ecksor if you wouldnt mind pointing out if you get the chance that i never gave anyone rep on this thread? and that thats a completely random accusation thats just been thrown in their for the sheer ****s of it?

keu

k. I got repped at the same time as you posted. I assumed it was you.

now why are you having a go at me?
what part don't you understand?
its unfair of you to judge the issue if you haven't read the thread and thats not just not available.

do me a favour and just leave me the fùck alone. ok.

JustHalf

Well, in my very first post here I admitted to being out of order. I just wish Keu would stop shooting herself in the foot... for all the positive rep she's getting (and the negative I'm getting -- much appreciated) it's hard to map what a lot of what she says to reality. I raise a point, and she replies to it as if I'm talking about something else, something that my words obviously have nothign to do with. I've given up trying to follow her train of thought.

I'm reminded of Back to the Future Part III for some reason. Something about brightly coloured smoke.

Moriarty

As an aside from this lovely civil conversation, I find that anyone that edits out their posts a few minutes/hours later to be most annoying.

Just saying.

monkeyfudge

JustHalf wrote:

I'm the mod of the Christianity forum, and I've been a Christian for over two and a half years now.

2 and a half years? I'm sure most of us have had it rammed into our heads since we were born.

JustHalf

So did I, but I wasn't a Christian. I didn't really believe the stuff, I just accepted it as fact and didn't care less about it.

It's amazing the stuff you find out when you actually have an interest