Unfair ban from Christianity forum.

Hivemind187

I have been banned by Brian Calgary from the Christianity forum for what he has dubbed "name calling".

Apparently referring to Jesus as a "jewish zombie" warrants a ban.

Exactly what else would you call a creature raised from the dead of the Hebrew religion?

Is he implying that I am an anti-semite?

Can he justify this statement or ban in any other respect than a prejudice to my points refuting the assumption of the default position of Christs existance?

Surely open debate and a sense of humour or not frowned upon now as well?

Requesting the ban be lifted.

edit: I also would point out that there was a picture in the forum recently of Christ making the same point I did and I do not believe that earned a ban.

BrianCalgary

Charter rule 7:
Do not post anything intended to inflame or insult. This is meant to be a place of debate where you can challenge ideas all you like but don't go outside boundaries of taste or decency and don't get personal.

You broke it. You insulted.
You went outside the boundaries of taste and decency.

Time Magazine

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Apparently referring to Jesus as a "jewish zombie" warrants a ban.

Exactly what else would you call a creature raised from the dead of the Hebrew religion?

Lol, piss off.

super_furry

What about turning the other check?

tuxy

super_furry wrote: »

What about turning the other check?

I think most Christians prefer the older "Eye for an eye" philosophy.

Karl Hungus

I don't see why the religious forums should have to put up with such jibes. Let one smart-ass make trollish remarks, and you have to let them all... And there's a lot of smart asses who think they're far funnier than they actually are on this site, so people who want to discuss their forms of religion would be swamped out of it by this "Humour" you're talking about.

You broke the rules, you got banned, suck it up.

Hivemind187

Intended to inflame or insult would suggest that I deliberatly set out to upset you.

I did no such thing.

Frankly, your attitude towards myself and certain other posters could be construed as breaking that same rule.

And what of the picture that appeared? Did that not deserve a ban by your view of the rules?

I again state that you are either over-reacting or you are offended by something else I said but you couldnt get me for. Remember the topic was, "did jesus really exist" and my post should be construed in way it was meant, light humour over the inherent absurdity of the story when viewed objectively.

Hivemind187

Karl Hungus wrote: »

I don't see why the religious forums should have to put up with such jibes. Let one smart-ass make trollish remarks, and you have to let them all... And there's a lot of smart asses who think they're far funnier than they actually are on this site, so people who want to discuss their forms of religion would be swamped out of it by this "Humour" you're talking about.

You broke the rules, you got banned, suck it up.

Please see the context of the comment.

AlmightyCushion

Surely it should be excommunicated instead of banned.

RoundyMooney

Wow.

100 posts a month, and this is the best troll you can offer us?

0/10: Must try harder.

Time Magazine

tuxy wrote: »

I think most Christians prefer the older "Eye for an eye" philosophy.

Whatever about Christians, I certainly think most atheists prefer it.

Terry

Hivemind187 wrote: »

I again state that you are either over-reacting or you are offended by something else I said but you couldnt get me for. Remember the topic was, "did jesus really exist" and my post should be construed in way it was meant, light humour over the inherent absurdity of the story when viewed objectively.

Objectivity doesn't come into it as far as Christianity is concerned.

Christians believe that Jesus existed, therefore saying he was a zombie on a dedicated Christian forum is out of order.

Hivemind187

Terry wrote: »

Objectivity doesn't come into it as far as Christianity is concerned.

Christians believe that Jesus existed, therefore saying he was a zombie on a dedicated Christian forum is out of order.

How so?

Again, the discussion was based on whether or not Christ really existed, my comment casts the story of a man who was raised from the dead in the light of absurdity which is, I believe, fair comment in the context.

Further; this ban came without warning. BC gave no public or PM warning, he simply banned me.

While I accept that they wish to maintain a certain level of respect towards certain theological concepts there is no justification for an over reaction or a ban without warning. Especially in the contxt of an intellectual argument.

Nevyn

That wasn't an intellectual argument that was pulling the píss.

Hivemind187

Thaedydal wrote: »

That wasn't an intellectual argument that was pulling the píss.

Argument of absurdity.

Again, as I said, it wasnt intended to offend.

Owen

Actually, the ban is deserved. Because if you didn't get banned, you wouldn't have created this thread, and I wouldn't have seen the phrase 'Jesus as a Jewish Zombie' and laughed very hard indeed.

leninbenjamin

i'm going to go out on a limb here...

on all other forums on boards, one would typically only get an infraction for a first insult. Assuming this is a first offence i think the instant ban is harsh, Brian perhaps let his personal beliefs get in the way of objectional modding and that he over reacted a bit... and considering the nature of thread itself, with heated arguments from both sides, i would think the ban should be reviewed.

Terry

Hivemind187 wrote: »

How so?

Again, the discussion was based on whether or not Christ really existed, my comment casts the story of a man who was raised from the dead in the light of absurdity which is, I believe, fair comment in the context.

Further; this ban came without warning. BC gave no public or PM warning, he simply banned me.

While I accept that they wish to maintain a certain level of respect towards certain theological concepts there is no justification for an over reaction or a ban without warning. Especially in the contxt of an intellectual argument.

You were trolling and causing a disturbance.

You basically insulted most of the people who use that forum too.

Also, since when is a warning expected?

monkeyfudge

You should have said 'a zombie who happens to be Jewish'

Hivemind187

Terry wrote: »

You were trolling and causing a disturbance.

You basically insulted most of the people who use that forum too.

Also, since when is a warning expected?

I wasnt trolling. I post there regularly. As I do in the Atheism forum etc and I have been involved in similar discussions on that same board without an incident.

If people were insulted then I apologise for that. I dont believe most people would be offended by such a comment. If that is the benchmark, then why not ban everyone who disputes the existance of a biblical Jesus?

If one mod has given a warning then surely it has set a precedent. I believe such a precedent has ben set on the forum in question.

Hivemind187

monkeyfudge wrote: »

You should have said 'a zombie who happens to be Jewish'

Sorry. I didnt mean to characterise the subject as a "jew" or person of jewish extraction" as a defining quality, it was the "zombie" aspect that was most important.

Vexorg

Did you discuss the ban with the moderator before posting here?

V.

GerryRyan

Just read over the thread in question - and (imho) the ban was overly-zealous ...

He didn't break any charter rules per se, just challenged the mods (and other posters) religious stand point. What happened to debate?

definition - 'A zombie is purportedly a dead person whose body has been re-animated' ... and is that not just another way of phrasing one of Christianitys central beliefs?

I prefer common sense over a book (that is both out-dated and full of inaccuracies) dictating my actions.

(http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Mezzanine/1855/atheistbible.html)

But what do I know?

Hivemind187

Vexorg wrote: »

Did you discuss the ban with the moderator before posting here?

V.

There was very little to discuss.

I was banned for what was called "the worst kind of name calling". I believe that summed up BC's position entirely.

I was not aware that I needed to "discuss" a ban that came without warning like this.

Nevyn

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Argument of absurdity.

Again, as I said, it wasnt intended to offend.

But it did and the mod banned you inline with the charter and I doubt very much
the mod did so with personal prejudice.

If you came into parenting and referred to children as crotchdroppings you would also be banned.

Owen

Thaedydal wrote: »

If you came into parenting and referred to children as crotchdroppings you would also be banned.

There's my new word for the week, right up there. This thread is gold! And yes Mods, if this is an offensive post, pm me, and I'll delete it. After I finish rofling.

Hivemind187

Thaedydal wrote: »

But it did and the mod banned you inline with the charter and I doubt very much
the mod did so with personal prejudice.

If you came into parenting and referred to children as crotchdroppings you would also be banned.

Thats not an argument of equivalency. There is no context.

The fact is that BC and I have come to blows over things before, its just this time he has chosen , for some reason, to defend the rights of what many (on that forum as well) believe to be a fictional character rather than engage in a debate. He made no warning. He simply banned me and referred to it as "name calling of the worst sort" ...

... I would point out that name calling and flaming are generally used in reference to other posters etc and not in the defence of a theological concept.

As far as it goes, I have apologised for anyone who is offended by mildly irreverent humour based on an objective view of the Christ myth but that was the context of the debate.

Going by this kind of retributionary response, then everyone on that forum who has argued against the existance of god or who has poked fun at some of the inconsistencies of Christianity should be banned. Fairs fair, unless its a double standard.

(edit: on a personal note, crotchdroppings is hilarious, mind if I steal that?)

Vexorg

In my experience being a little more diplomatic gets better results.

It has always been our view that a user discuss a moderators actions with the moderator before coming here, perhaps we have not made that clear, probably much the same way that you would have expected a warning before you were banned, I am not aware of an obligation on a moderator to issue a warning before banning.

If we step back from this complaint and consider the position of any moderator who is put in the spotlight, In my opinion it makes it difficult for them to come to a mutual agreement and to review their actions when confronted in this way.

Hivemind187

Vexorg wrote: »

In my experience being a little more diplomatic gets better results.

It has always been our view that a user discuss a moderators actions with the moderator before coming here, perhaps we have not made that clear, probably much the same way that you would have expected a warning before you were banned, I am not aware of an obligation on a moderator to issue a warning before banning.

If we step back from this complaint and consider the position of any moderator who is put in the spotlight, In my opinion it makes it difficult for them to come to a mutual agreement and to review their actions when confronted in this way.

Fair point.

I shouldnt have used BC's handle in my original post.

The tone of the PM informing me of the ban left a lot to be desired and I admit that i may have posted while a little incensed. I apologise for putting him "in the spotlight".

However, I still do not agree that it is a fair ban.

Owen

Hivemind187 wrote: »

However, I still do not agree that it is a fair ban.

And no Mod on boards will ever agree with you. I've argued the merits of having a 1 warning, then a ban system, but the Mods pretty much stood up in unison and said they didn't have the time to implement it. The irony is that they have the time to enter into pointless debates time and time again in the feedback/helpdesk forums when users question the bans.

Hivemind187

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Apparently referring to Jesus as a "jewish zombie" warrants a ban.

Hah, that's brilliant. 5 stars for the thread!