Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Unfair ban from Christianity forum.
Options
Comments
-
Join Date:Posts: 9542
white_falcon wrote: »I have a question....
If you go into the mustard forum and say to everyone...Mustard is is just a bottle of sh1te and should be sent to hell...would you get banned? Because all of the people in the mustard forum pretty much go in there and worship mustard.
so technically that would be the same fault as Hivemind but most likely you would not get banned?
Is there a set limit to the humour that you can use in each forum? Personally if I even believed in all that bible bashing sh1te I would find that absolutely hilarious, but most Christians being power abusing, sad, child molesting, pedofiles, they don't really understand the whole humour thing i suppose. I suppose its the whole brainwashing once a week thing that causes that.
The ban was bull****. Just catholics trying to censor crap and use the power in misguided places...pack of fanny bandits
Some people take their Christianity seriously. Why should they have to put up with mockery for a minorities entertainment?
Request a forum to take fun of such religions should you wish. I don't understand why people go into forum to mock the regulars. Sure, go in and put a question in a mature fashion if you've a genuine query.
You've high-lighted a problem right there by using the mustard forum as your example "so technically that would be the same fault as Hivemind but most likely you would not get banned?" you would be banned so fast your head would spin. If you spent 10minutes familiarizing yourself with the forum, its charter and the general tone of the forum a lot of these problems would be avoided. It's all about context.0 -
context is completely open to ones perception and understanding of that context. it is not something set in stone and that has clear guidelines. it doesn't say in the forum charter "do not call Jesus names". If I had a religion that thought Jesus was a "Zombie Jew" and went in there and said "jesus was a zombie jew" and was banned, then that would be an offense against my religion would it not?0
-
Someone employs light-hearted sarcasm towards you, and you interpret as personal abuse.
You employ light-hearded sarcasm towards Christians, and are outraged it gets interpreted as abuse.
Can you explain how your reaction is acceptable, but that of the Christianity mods not?
One is a personal attack the other attacked the intellectual dishonesty of a ideology.
Yes, I think that pretty much sums it up.0 -
you were banned for taking the piss. If you went onto the Dr Who forum and said "this show is a load of cack and you're all losers" you'd be gone too, because, whilst you are entitled to your opinion/belief, putting it up on a Dr Who forum is just taking the piss, nothing more.
Just as an aside, I could, but dont post on the Christianity Board - mainly because I wouldnt want to needlessly offend the regulars there by my username - they would probably think I'm also taking the piss. At the moment I'm having a good discussion about the many different rites of the Catholic Church (I never knew there were so many) and the re-admission of LeVervre (Sp, sorry) with my local priest over a few pints every so often. I maybe should post there but that is just me being nice and thinking about other peoples feelings by the way. I read it though and finds it to be a very interesting and intelligent forum.
Zombie Jesus is funny, though.0 -
popebenny16 wrote: »you were banned for taking the piss. If you went onto the Dr Who forum and said "this show is a load of cack and you're all losers" you'd be gone too, because, whilst you are entitled to your opinion/belief, putting it up on a Dr Who forum is just taking the piss, nothing more.
Just as an aside, I could, but dont post on the Christianity Board - mainly because I wouldnt want to needlessly offend the regulars there by my username - they would probably think I'm also taking the piss. At the moment I'm having a good discussion about the many different rites of the Catholic Church (I never knew there were so many) and the re-admission of LeVervre (Sp, sorry) with my local priest over a few pints every so often. I maybe should post there but that is just me being nice and thinking about other peoples feelings by the way. I read it though and finds it to be a very interesting and intelligent forum.
Zombie Jesus is funny, though.
Personally I think you have it the wrong way around. If they are offended by your name then that is there problem not yours - did you choose that name specifically to offend Christians? I doubt it, otherwise you would be posting in there all the time.
Fact is, if you read the thread, I referred to Christ as a "Jewish zombie" because he was a herbrew who rose from the dead. I asked to see his fossil because claims were made that there was historical and archaeological evidence for the biblical Jesus but no one was showing what that evidence was. I did not, for example, sat "Jesus is a decrepit old rotting corpse and rightly so for justifying a religion populated by paedophiles!" I could of, but I didnt and I wouldnt, mainly because that kind of thing isnt funny and its nothing to do with the conversation.
It is an argument of absurdity, as I have stated.0 -
Advertisement
-
Its just Catholics doing what they do best. Ignoring the truth, covering up the facts, and lacking all sense of humour and logic....oh sorry yea and touching children too...0
-
Hivemind although it was a argument of absurdity, it was against the charter. And because it was against the charter there is no valid reason why the ban should be overturned. You must have comprehended this by now, so what are you really looking for?0
-
Hivemind although it was a argument of absurdity, it was against the charter. And because it was against the charter there is no valid reason why the ban should be overturned. You must have comprehended this by now, so what are you really looking for?
Show me where it is against the charter?
I did not engage in name calling. Description is not name calling.
I did not make a personal comment about anyone involved in that conversation. Invoking of the holy spirirt not withstanding.
I did not intend to flame or cause "a disturbance in the force" or whatever other rubbish is being claimed.
I have also pointed out that if it really offended that many people, I would have retracted it but I was not given the option.
I would remind the thread that I was banned for "name calling of the worst sort" and nothing else according to BC when he informed me of the ban.
BC has admited that he did not seek any alternative measure, nor explanation nor retraction.
I cant make it any clearer. I have been resonable in the face of some unbelievable nonsense because of this (and you neednt bother with the "poor baby" bull**** alright?) and I have even agreed to drop my request if BC admits it was personally, rather than professionaly, motivated.
(note, most of this is not directed at 8's but at the thread in general)0 -
The facts are:
1) The charter does not specifically apply to what I said.
2) No individual forumite was targetted by my comment.
3) No one was called any names (which I would point out negates the reasons given by BC).
4) It was an argument of absurdity based on the biblical account of the character of Jesus - I also compared him to a helenic (or pagan if you will) demi-god in Hercules but no one is bothered by that. No one has contested this point - other than making unusually crotch centric comments like "you're a dickhead" or "you were taking the piss".
5) Asking for Jesus' fossil is a humourous way of saying "show me the evidence" and if anyone was that upset, why didnt they ask me to retract it? Haebeus Corpus "You should have the body". There were claims of archaeological evidence and historical evidence yet none was being produced. Has no one the right to ask for proof now? I can show a few hundred posts on that forum that would say otherwise.
6) No specific warning was given. I have stated that had I been asked I would have retracted it in favor of something else.
7) There were alternatives to the ban. Alternatives which have been applied before which lead me to believe that BC is showing favoritism. If not, why did he not seek alternative redress (warning, PM, infraction etc)? Note: BC has admited this.
edit 8) The comment was made in a thread entitled (to the effect of) "Proof that Jesus walked the earth" and whose topic was the evidence (or rather than lack thereof) for the existance of the Biblically accounted Christ.
For my part
I posted this before contacting BC. I admit that I was ignorant of the requirement to do so. However, I would point out that he made no similar effort othe than to send me a PM indicating I was guilty of "name calling of the worst kind"
I have been blunt, perhaps unusually so by the standards of some, however I do not see where there is a rule against it or that demands people be subtle.0 -
white_falcon wrote: »Its just Catholics doing what they do best. Ignoring the truth, covering up the facts, and lacking all sense of humour and logic....oh sorry yea and touching children too...
Hey Brain ever done a pre emptive ban ?
Oh and white_falcon how astute of you to figure out that all the christians, nay all the poster who post on the christianity forum are catholic, do you have catholicdar ?0 -
Advertisement
-
Hey Brain ever done a pre emptive ban ?
Oh and white_falcon how astute of you to figure out that all the christians, nay all the poster who post on the christianity forum are catholic, do you have catholicdar ?
yup...u can buy em on ebay for about 9.99. u can get them in Knock too i think...0 -
Hivemind187 wrote: »One is a personal attack the other attacked the intellectual dishonesty of a ideology.
Right. So you admit it was an attack. We're making progress.
Now, looking at the charter, I see the following:
"you can challenge ideas all you like but don't go outside boundaries of taste or decency".
You challenged (attacked) the core of the Christian religion. Now all thats missing is an explanation as to how calling Jesus a zombie is inside these boundaries. So far, all I've seen you do is insist that it was meant humoursly and wasn't meant to offend, but you haven't explained what is tasteful or decent about it.
I would argue that its humour resides strongly in the fact that its not tasteful and not decent and that this makes it humorous as a comparison.Yes, I think that pretty much sums it up.
If your intent is to prove that you have the same degree of self-righteousness as you are levelling at the Christianity mods, then yes, you've summed it up nicely.
You see it as allowable for you to take offence at people casting aspersions at you, but that its fair game for you to treat Christian belief the same way. The Christians said otherwise, you're not happy about it, and now you're trying to argue that the letter of the law says you did nothing wrong.
There is no suppression of dissent in that forum. There is no suppression of people being scathing and disapproving of Christian beliefs in that forum. There is, however, a line in terms of what is considered 'taste' and you stepped over it.
But hey...if it makes you feel better, you can just add this treatment to the begrudgery you hold towards Christianity.0 -
white_falcon wrote: »Its just Catholics doing what they do best. Ignoring the truth, covering up the facts, and lacking all sense of humour and logic....
You're a catholic, then?
*I've deleted the last part of your comment, because whatever about your own personal standards, I'd never be so vile as to suggest that of anyone.0 -
Can we create a forum where we can talk about religion and call Jesus a zombie jew so?0
-
You're a catholic, then?
*I've deleted the last part of your comment, because whatever about your own personal standards, I'd never be so vile as to suggest that of anyone.
...ehh im not being funny but what about all those catholic priests and their escapades?
sorry. this is not the place to be talking about this. can we have a religion forum where we can call jesus a Zombie Jew and not get banned?0 -
Except Jesus. While you may reject Christianity, that has nothing to do with the fact that he is very, very real for the Christian believers in that forum, and you called Jesus a zombie.Hivemind187 wrote: »3) No one was called any names
As for all your insistences as to what constitutes funny....I will still point out that you don't apply the same criteria when you are the butt of the joke. Then, its not the intent of the joker which applies...its how you feel. But when you're being funneh...then hey...if someone doesn't get the joke, its their problem.
Classic bully mentality, now that I think about it, as is the self-righteous letter-of-the-law proclamation of innocence***
*** This is meant humorously. If you don't see it that way, its not my problem, right?0 -
Right. So you admit it was an attack. We're making progress.
Now, looking at the charter, I see the following:
"you can challenge ideas all you like but don't go outside boundaries of taste or decency".
You challenged (attacked) the core of the Christian religion. Now all thats missing is an explanation as to how calling Jesus a zombie is inside these boundaries. So far, all I've seen you do is insist that it was meant humoursly and wasn't meant to offend, but you haven't explained what is tasteful or decent about it.
I would argue that its humour resides strongly in the fact that its not tasteful and not decent and that this makes it humorous as a comparison.
If your intent is to prove that you have the same degree of self-righteousness as you are levelling at the Christianity mods, then yes, you've summed it up nicely.
You see it as allowable for you to take offence at people casting aspersions at you, but that its fair game for you to treat Christian belief the same way. The Christians said otherwise, you're not happy about it, and now you're trying to argue that the letter of the law says you did nothing wrong.
There is no suppression of dissent in that forum. There is no suppression of people being scathing and disapproving of Christian beliefs in that forum. There is, however, a line in terms of what is considered 'taste' and you stepped over it.
But hey...if it makes you feel better, you can just add this treatment to the begrudgery you hold towards Christianity.
For once I would like to come across a rant by you Bonkey that doesnt set out with the intention of being contrary and needlessly pedantic.
Firstly, the rule of thumb is attack the post not the poster. I attacked the lack of evidence for the existance of christ. End of.
Second. Taste and decency are arbitrary concepts and no examples given to illustrate where that boundary lies. I would say that calling Christ a "shylock" or something along those lines might be a little too far considering the anti-semitic undertones but refering to someone who rose from the sodding dead as a zombie? Climb down of the high horse and be objective for five seconds. He rose from the dead -> zombie. He was a hebrew -> jewish. Ergo, "Jewish Zombie".
Third, I didnt get upset or nasty with Fanny Craddock (though I would have been well within my rights). Harmless sarcasm as you make it out to be implies your own double standard in that its fine for someone to flame me for a minor comment taken out of context but its not ok for someone to comment, within context, over something patently absurd.
It is your claim and therefore the onus is on you to show how it is beyond the realm of taste and decency. I think you'll find it rapidly becomes about your own personal conceptions rather than any universal trait.
At the end of the day Bonkey, BC banned me for "name calling of the worst kind". I didnt call anyone any names. A ban for the reason given is wrong.0 -
white_falcon wrote: »...ehh im not being funny but what about all those catholic priests and their escapades?
What about them?
Are you suggesting they did it because they're catholic?can we have a religion forum where we can call jesus a Zombie Jew and not get banned?
No, because thats not religion.
Go **** off to the Thunderdome if thats what you want to be at, and leave the Christianity forum to those interested in a more serious critique or support of the religion.0 -
Except Jesus. While you may reject Christianity, that has nothing to do with the fact that he is very, very real for the Christian believers in that forum, and you called Jesus a zombie.
All this does is prove you didnt read the thread.
*sigh* firstly, the topic was the evidence for the existance of christ. It doesnt matter that they think he is real, the context was the evidence or lack thereof.
Name calling refers to other posters nu? At least to real people? If belief is all that is required for somethign to be real then can I sue Santa Claus for breaking my sodding bike in transit?As for all your insistences as to what constitutes funny....I will still point out that you don't apply the same criteria when you are the butt of the joke. Then, its not the intent of the joker which applies...its how you feel. But when you're being funneh...then hey...if someone doesn't get the joke, its their problem.
You keep banging on about this but I dont see where I am being hypocritical. I attacked no person as an individual (not even Jesus). I gave an absurdist description of what ammounts to a fictional character within the context of a conversation. Desperate attempts to undermine my argument by resorting to straw men isnt really good form Bonkey and frankly, you are too intelligent for that so I will put this down to a misunderstanding.Classic bully mentality, now that I think about it, as is the self-righteous letter-of-the-law proclamation of innocence***
*** This is meant humorously. If you don't see it that way, its not my problem, right?
*golf clap*
/sweeps Bonkey back under the rug.0 -
5) Asking for Jesus' fossil is a humourous way of saying "show me the evidence" and if anyone was that upset, why didnt they ask me to retract it? Haebeus Corpus "You should have the body". There were claims of archaeological evidence and historical evidence yet none was being produced. Has no one the right to ask for proof now? I can show a few hundred posts on that forum that would say otherwise.
Then do it.
You have been pitching that through the entire thread.
Show us these posts.0 -
Advertisement
-
white_falcon wrote: »Can we create a forum where we can talk about religion and call Jesus a zombie jew so?
Conspiracy theories
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=5760 -
Hivemind187, have you realised you've all but lost the argument? You know it's extremely unlikely that an admin is going to come and side with you on this issue, right?
The only thing you're doing is giving the Christianity mods reason to believe you haven't changed your ways and thus giving them less reason to let you back.
Charters are guidelines, not entirely binding. You've nearly 2,000 posts, I'm sure you're aware of this. As Thaed says, you'd get banned for referring to kids as "crotchdroppings" in Parenting. You have to respect each forum's bylaws. You referred to Christianity's God in an inflammatory and demeaning manner and were fairly judged to have overstepped the mark. That's not going to change.0 -
Hivemind187 wrote: »For once I would like to come across a rant by you Bonkey that doesnt set out with the intention of being contrary and needlessly pedantic.
I've been a moderator. I've had no end of people taking the same approach you do, which is complaining that the letter of the law doesn't quite fit your crime, so you've been wronged. There's boards cards about it too...I'm amazed no-one has played them yet.
Moderators aren't asked to be lawyers. They're not asked to write up full-and-complete charters that explicitly cover every possible situation. If thats what your grievance is - that every last little nuance of what you can and cannot do is not spelled out for you - then you'll just have to add that to the list of things you want and can't have.
I would suggest that it should have occurred to you that it will be the moderators who make the decision, then. You should have known that it is their understanding of taste and decency that would be applied to your post.Taste and decency are arbitrary concepts and no examples given to illustrate where that boundary lies.
Zombie...reanimated, but not alive. Mindless, or controlled by a master. Generally associated with evil.but refering to someone who rose from the sodding dead as a zombie? Climb down of the high horse and be objective for five seconds.
Christ....came back to life. Alive. Not mindless. Not controlled by a master. Not associated with evil, particularly in a Christian context as we had in the forum.
I can see where the humour lies. It lies in the superficial similarities between what are - in reality - two diametrically opposed concepts. It lies in the lack of taste of such a comparison.
That is objective....but it doesn't help your case. The humour is in the bad taste. The bad taste is what was unacceptable. Humour isn't a carte-blanche excuse for bad taste.
The mods banned you for it. They do not ban people for being critical or outright dismissive of Christianity, nor for engaging in humour. Ergo, they didn't ban you for that either.It is your claim and therefore the onus is on you to show how it is beyond the realm of taste and decency.
They accused you of name-calling, which is exactly what you engaged in - you called Jesus (who to Christians is very real) names. They decided that the name calling was distasteful (which, as I've already argued, is the root of the humour you were using) and that it was beyond the realm of taste and decency.
By their judgement it was over the line, and you got banned. Moderation is all about the moderator's judgement. It can only be about their judgement.
You called Jesus names. To the person issuing the banning, and particularly within the boundaries of the forum in question, Jesus is most certainly "someone". Not a poster, I'd agree, but "someone" and "poster" are not the same thing.At the end of the day Bonkey, BC banned me for "name calling of the worst kind". I didnt call anyone any names.0 -
Hivemind187, have you realised you've all but lost the argument? You know it's extremely unlikely that an admin is going to come and side with you on this issue, right?
The only thing you're doing is giving the Christianity mods reason to believe you haven't changed your ways and thus giving them less reason to let you back.
Charters are guidelines, not entirely binding. You've nearly 2,000 posts, I'm sure you're aware of this. As Thaed says, you'd get banned for referring to kids as "crotchdroppings" in Parenting. You have to respect each forum's bylaws. You referred to Christianity's God in an inflammatory and demeaning manner and were fairly judged to have overstepped the mark. That's not going to change.
I'm well aware of the unliklihood of that scenario Ibid.
As for giving them reasons ... I should roll over and grease myself up because its suits the mood of a moderator?
You're right. The charters may be guidelines, but it was BC and the other mods who saw fit to bang their chests about them I responded to their comments and argued my position.
My comment may be construed as "demeaning" if taken out of context. However, within the context of the response I gave it is not intended to be and taking it that way is basically looking for something get upset over. I re-iterate my point: other avenues could have been explored but were not, the alternative would have been a far more amicable solution on both sides.
I invite you to read the topic yourself. My response are blunt, I admit to that, however they are on topic and within context.0 -
Look, will you stop this "argument of absudity" line? Demonstrate how it is?I know it's only from wiki I am too lazy to look elsewhere:
There is a fairly common misconception that reductio ad absurdum simply denotes "a silly argument" and is itself a formal fallacy. However, this is not correct; a properly constructed reductio constitutes a correct argument. When reductio ad absurdum is in error, it is because of a fallacy in the reasoning used to arrive at the contradiction, not the act of reduction itself.
The reason why I dont post is because I employed one of the basic boards.ie guidelines "think before you post"
Look, you obviously found some really great and cool and funny thing to say on the christianity forum, you thought it'd get a laugh, hell, it might even annoy a load of people, you then went and posted it, knowing it would annoy a load of people. You got banned, unlucky.
Thats not a Crotch-centric comment, but for the record my crotch is a mighty fine piece of equipment, I can tell you.0 -
If you can find a court who believes Santa is real, then you most certainly can. Good luck with that.Hivemind187 wrote: »If belief is all that is required for somethign to be real then can I sue Santa Claus for breaking my sodding bike in transit?
Stop thinking about who the comment is made, and start thinking about who the comment is made to.You keep banging on about this but I dont see where I am being hypocritical.
If someone makes a poor-taste comment in jest, your position suggests that its only ok to get offended if its actually about them. If its about something they hold very dear, however, they can't. They've no grounds to be offended.
I don't agree with that reasoning. If someone makes a hateful comment that applies not to me but to my wife, my parents, my siblings, my dead brother, my friends....I am absolutely and totally entitled to be offended.
That the comment wasn't targetted specifically at me is not the issue.
Either you allow that it is the intention of the person making the comment that matters, or how the comment is received. You don't get to cherry-pick back and forth, depending on which suits you in a given situation best.
Again with the fallback that if you didn't attack an individual directly, its all ok.I attacked no person as an individual (not even Jesus).
(edit to add)
It reminds me so much of people coming on to the Politics forums making insulting comments about "some posters here" and then arguing that they never explicitly insulted anyone specific, and thus never attacked any specific poster. We banned them anyway.
(edit end)
Do what you like. Don't be surprised though, as you go through life, if you discover that other people also manage to take offence at comments that aren't attacking explicitly-named individuals. We'll just have to agree to disagree that thats the only way you can cause offence.I will put this down to a misunderstanding.0 -
-
-
I've been a moderator. I've had no end of people taking the same approach you do, which is complaining that the letter of the law doesn't quite fit your crime, so you've been wronged. There's boards cards about it too...I'm amazed no-one has played them yet.
They brought it up. Not me.Moderators aren't asked to be lawyers. They're not asked to write up full-and-complete charters that explicitly cover every possible situation. If thats what your grievance is - that every last little nuance of what you can and cannot do is not spelled out for you - then you'll just have to add that to the list of things you want and can't have.
No one asked them to be lawyers, but I was challenged using the chrater which they have interpreted to suit their needs, I have done the same. I realise that this ammounts to "they started it" but its genuinely the case.
Your argument amounts to "The charter is for us to use and you to obey, we can add mythical rules or say its says things it doesnt and you simply have to take it". Essentially that the charter can be interpreteded by them but not by others.
I realise that boards isnt a democracy but come on!I would suggest that it should have occurred to you that it will be the moderators who make the decision, then. You should have known that it is their understanding of taste and decency that would be applied to your post.
So I should be an empath capable of ascertaining their moods and their boundaries without personal knowledge of the individual? On the one hand you are demanding I except that mods and humans and with the other demanding that I aknowledge that I must be telepathic or not post at all.
How does one know where the line is to be drawn? If outright dismissal of Christianity is ok, then why should anyone assume that challenging the lack of evidence or the mythical standard of a godhead a crime?
What you are really saying is that I can say what I like at the sufferance of the mods mood.Zombie...reanimated, but not alive. Mindless, or controlled by a master. Generally associated with evil.
Christ....came back to life. Alive. Not mindless. Not controlled by a master. Not associated with evil, particularly in a Christian context as we had in the forum.
I can see where the humour lies. It lies in the superficial similarities between what are - in reality - two diametrically opposed concepts. It lies in the lack of taste of such a comparison.
Not necessarily. The actual practice of Voodoun, from which the zombie concept is taken, the zombie need not actually be "dead", merely under the control of another. The raised from the dead bit is part of the "dead man" ritualism that is associated with the practice (it involves putting a very drunk man in a grave etc).
The remark was superficial, intended to be taken in jest, an absurdity. It is the act of rising from the dead that was being referred to.That is objective....but it doesn't help your case. The humour is in the bad taste. The bad taste is what was unacceptable. Humour isn't a carte-blanche excuse for bad taste.
No. Its biassed. You have revealed that by taking a side. It is also unaware of zombie lore (although I think thats ok since its not exactly a leaving cert subject).
The humour is in the absurdity of the notion on both counts. Both zombies and Jesus (and further to Hercules - though he seems to be left out of this).The mods banned you for it. They do not ban people for being critical or outright dismissive of Christianity, nor for engaging in humour. Ergo, they didn't ban you for that either.
They accused you of name-calling, which is exactly what you engaged in - you called Jesus (who to Christians is very real) names. They decided that the name calling was distasteful (which, as I've already argued, is the root of the humour you were using) and that it was beyond the realm of taste and decency.
Again, the evidence of Jesus as a real person was what was being discussed (or are you trying to straw man me?) which to my mind puts his existance into question and therefore either angle can be true. He does exist. He doesnt exist. I did not see Jesus posting on the topic.
Again, I stand by my point on this one. It was not intended to insult or inflame. It was intended as a statement of absurdity, to highlight the absurdity of the story.
Taste and decency, as I have stated, being entirely arbitrary and requiring superhuman (jesus-like?) powers to ascertain the mood of a Mod or to gauge the level of the double standard in effect at that very moment.By their judgement it was over the line, and you got banned. Moderation is all about the moderator's judgement. It can only be about their judgement.
I havent a problem about Mods using their judgement, provided they show equal tolerance to everyone and use their modly powers with consideration.
As BC admitted, he had other options but chose not even to consider, much less pursue them. As I have stated, had he done so, I would have retracted the statement or altered the post to be less "offensive". A missed opportunity.
[QUOTE=bonkey;54492231You called Jesus names. To the person issuing the banning, and particularly within the boundaries of the forum in question, Jesus is most certainly "someone". Not a poster, I'd agree, but "someone" and "poster" are not the same thing.[/QUOTE]
I didnt call him names. I described him as a character. Thee is a world of difference between the two. I could have called him many things, instead I referred to he character as a "Jewish Zombie". I didnt, for example say "Jesus is a jew zombie nyeh nyeh!!!" .... see the difference?
As for him being someone ... well I'd debate that as a matter of principal. If he's not in the census he's not a person. At least not a living one.
I would have interpreted (something you and other mods seem to dislike - mainly because often times the interpretation differs from their own) name calling to refer to persons on the board or in the forum. No one bats an eye lid when people call Jade Goody a fat slag or Joe Duffy a pain in the ear - but a character whose exploits are unsubstantiated by any impartial or even credible source gets described (not name called) as something they dont like and its pogroms all round.0 -
Advertisement
-
popebenny16 wrote: »Look, will you stop this "argument of absudity" line? Demonstrate how it is?
The reason why I dont post is because I employed one of the basic boards.ie guidelines "think before you post"
Look, you obviously found some really great and cool and funny thing to say on the christianity forum, you thought it'd get a laugh, hell, it might even annoy a load of people, you then went and posted it, knowing it would annoy a load of people. You got banned, unlucky.
Thats not a Crotch-centric comment, but for the record my crotch is a mighty fine piece of equipment, I can tell you.
Aside from your nonsensical attacks and assumptions you made an error.
My argument wasnt to be silly, it was to highlight the silliness of something else. Please try to understand the difference.
And can we leave crotches out of it? Not that I dislike them, only they are irrelevant to the proceedings.0
Advertisement