Christianity forum needs at least 1 Catholic mod!

JimiTime

vodafoneproblem wrote: »

Next morning, and on the very next page, Jimi insults every Catholic poster on the forum and nothing is said to him. Why does Jimi get away with murder all the time, and could this possibly explain why he feels free to have such an aggressive attitude? http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66588036&postcount=200 (pg 14)

Check out the Jimi/Jakkass smug-off for bonus points )

My word, the bitterness is strong with you. I'll add that to your list of lies, which is requiring catalogue numbers at this point. Bringing poor Jackass into it too now I see.

Still waiting on you to evidence all those accusations BTW. So what will it be vodafoneproblem?
Will you come through and show how you haven't just made stuff up?
Or will you show humility and recind all the accusations as baseless figments of your imagination?
Or will you simply continue silent on the lies you've been telling and keep coming up with more?

Will someone eat humble pie? Will Vodafoneproblem continue to be an idle gossip?

Tune in for the next installment of...........'Jimitime the aggressive bully, meets Vodafoneproblem the poor damsal thats being harassed' (Or don't bother if your smart. Its a very predictable show:) )
Ooooh, I love a good cliffhanger!

Seriously though, still nothing to substantiate all your accusations no?

sceptre

ISAW wrote: »

Lol Getting Catholic mods in a 90 per cent Catholic country is one thing even if pposters and mods are anti catholic but I submit they would NEVER allow a Fianna Fail mod in politics You must be kidding! ROTFLMOL

Not that it's anywhere near on topic for this thread... but actually, I wouldn't give a monkey's fiddle what someone's politics are as long as they're demonstrably capable of moderating to the standard the forum deserves. That's a view I'd apply to any forum. Then again, I don't give a monkey's rattle what a member's politics are as long as they're willing to post to the standard the forum deserves. Also a view I'd apply to any forum. Which makes my views on the thrust of this thread pretty obvious, I suspect.

Cabaal

I believe that unless the likes of vodafoneproblem can backup his accusations I believe he should actually apologise for his continued accusations which have no basis so far.

DeVore

I couldnt tell you what the politics of the Pol Mods are. I just simply dont care. I care that they are good mods, which they are.

I'm not bringing in caps and quotas for mods. its silly and bad even where there has been prior discrimination (like women in politics). Its even sillier in a system which is as blind and fair as it could be.

DeV.

looksee

ISAW wrote: »

Lol Getting Catholic mods in a 90 per cent Catholic country is one thing even if pposters and mods are anti catholic but I submit they would NEVER allow a Fianna Fail mod in politics You must be kidding! ROTFLMOL

ISAW

PDN wrote: »

But since no-one has actually demonstrated any such bias the question is somewhat moot.

The bias may be there but invisible and the subtlety of it be so the mods themselves are not aware of their own bias. I have pointed out this in the new thread about media bias against Catholics.

ISAW

sceptre wrote: »

Not that it's anywhere near on topic for this thread... but actually, I wouldn't give a monkey's fiddle what someone's politics are as long as they're demonstrably capable of moderating to the standard the forum deserves. That's a view I'd apply to any forum. Then again, I don't give a monkey's rattle what a member's politics are as long as they're willing to post to the standard the forum deserves. Also a view I'd apply to any forum. Which makes my views on the thrust of this thread pretty obvious, I suspect.

I'm very surprised at this reply. the moderating must have changed culture. Because around about when I was banned they seemed to be keeping an eye out for "undesirables" based on their political stance.
More and more you put me in a mind to appeal my ban.

sceptre

ISAW wrote: »

I'm very surprised at this reply. the moderating must have changed culture. Because around about when I was banned they seemed to be keeping an eye out for "undesirables" based on their political stance.
More and more you put me in a mind to appeal my ban.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=66636076#post66636076

Sentence beginning with "Aside". Keeps the thread vaguely on-point as well:)

TrueDub

ISAW wrote: »

The bias may be there but invisible and the subtlety of it be so the mods themselves are not aware of their own bias. I have pointed out this in the new thread about media bias against Catholics.

So the bias is so subtle and invisible that only you are aware of it? Is there any danger that there is no bias but you are reading into the mods' words something that simply isn't there?

Cabaal

ISAW wrote: »

The bias may be there but invisible and the subtlety of it be so the mods themselves are not aware of their own bias. I have pointed out this in the new thread about media bias against Catholics.

So its invisible bias?
So invisible you can't give any examples?

come on pull the other one.

ISAW

PDN wrote: »

It simply means those who share your religion.

i.e. it means "Roman Catholics"

I think your problem is that you seem to see anyone and anything as derogatory that doesn't actually agree with you. On an internet discussion board you are going to encounter people of various viewpoints.

I think you are a fair moderator as far as you know but I also think if you were subtly biased against Catholics you would not be aware of that. i have posted about subtle anti Catholicism in the thread about media bias against Catholics. But I don't think that requires a Catholic moderator to tell you that. ANY person can draw it to you attention and I trust you are big enough to acknowledge the accusation without being self righteous and whether or not you agree with the accusation.

I also think if anything you ( or other mods) let a lot be stated which people might take offence to. I actually think this is a good thing because I am anti authoritarian and don't like people using rules for their own ends. I'm happy to allow Nazis onto a stage in fact I defend their right to free speech. I think it is better to allow them to damn themselves then to suppress them and give them the chance of claiming they are victims.

In short, I believe you allow a lot more go than is allowed on other Fora but I also believe that is a good thing.

ISAW

Cabaal wrote: »

So its invisible bias?
So invisible you can't give any examples?

come on pull the other one.

I have referred you to a thread about it. Ther are about two hours of video involved in the anti Catholic videos. I refer to the parts in that thread e.g. my postings in messages 4 and 8 and the Fr Greely bit in 9.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055953099

ISAW

TrueDub wrote: »

So the bias is so subtle and invisible that only you are aware of it? Is there any danger that there is no bias but you are reading into the mods' words something that simply isn't there?

No This isnt a "What is the difference between no evidence of dragons and simply - no dragons"

see my link to the videos in the message above.

philologos

Subtly biased in opinion, or subtly biased on moderation is a key point.

I believe that PDN disagrees with Catholicism on an opinion level, but I have never seen him use the ban hammer or call someone out on a moderation decision unfairly. In fact I believe a few months ago he called out wolfsbane for being too sensationalist in his opposition to Catholicism.

It is how PDN moderates that is of concern, not how he expresses his opinion. Am I correct? Perhaps I am mistaken.

TrueDub

ISAW wrote: »

No This isnt a "What is the difference between no evidence of dragons and simply - no dragons"

see my link to the videos in the message above.

Neither of those posts is to do with the moderation of the Christianity forum. I asked you about your perceived bias in the moderation, not about bias in the world at large.

ISAW

TrueDub wrote: »

Neither of those posts is to do with the moderation of the Christianity forum. I asked you about your perceived bias in the moderation, not about bias in the world at large.

As in the general case so may it be true of any particular moderator. We are all probably guilty of bias. the important thing is in realising it. I also stated bias may be subtle.

Overheal

I'm going to step in for a second,

ISAW,

Cabal wrote:

So its invisible bias?
So invisible you can't give any examples?

come on pull the other one.

I read this and remember thinking back to when the RCC scandals hit the fan a few months ago, and boards at large (imo) went a little crazy for a few days. I even wrote about it here in Feedback in defence of Joe Catholic:

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055859252&highlight=overheal

With that in context I want to ask you this: During that same time frame, did the Christianity Mods treat you, or other Catholics, unfairly? And can you recall or provide any examples thereof?

TrueDub

ISAW wrote: »

As in the general case so may it be true of any particular moderator. We are all probably guilty of bias. the important thing is in realising it. I also stated bias may be subtle.

Another important thing is realising that your point of view might be biasing you towards finding bias where there is none.

And how does it work when the alleged bias is so subtle that only you notice it? Surely that's a problem with your perception?

You seem to be hiding behind the concept of subtle, imperceptible bias. Not sustainable, imo.

ISAW

Overheal wrote: »

I'm going to step in for a second,

ISAW,



I read this and remember thinking back to when the RCC scandals hit the fan a few months ago, and boards at large (imo) went a little crazy for a few days. I even wrote about it here in Feedback in defence of Joe Catholic:

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055859252&highlight=overheal

With that in context I want to ask you this: During that same time frame, did the Christianity Mods treat you, or other Catholics, unfairly? And can you recall or provide any examples thereof?

I posted quite a bit to A&A and to Christianity at that time. I would have to say as i have already stated that the Christianity mods (one of whom I believe is an atheist) were IMHO fair and this is aside of other people attacking the RCC. Parallel attacks on atheism were not as tolerated in A&A IMHO.

But I'm not suggesting the mods are knowingly unfair. I suggesting is all that is needed is for someone to say "you might consider this from a Catholic/black/womans/insert relevant group point of view" is enough to draw attention to a possible bias. A moderator will then be aware of this and hopefully will act accordingly. I mean for example if the halloween fancy dress competition in the School didn't want Osama Bin Laden or Mohammad look alikes and went about ensuring this don't you think it odd that it was won by the group two pregnant nuns and the priest who get them pregnant. If anyone had suggested Catholics might find that offensive beforehand it might have been reconsidered.
To be flippant you might suppose I am subtly suggesting moderators are bias but I'm not! I suggesting that to a degree everyone is baised or maybe racist. But moderators may not be aware of their own bias. Im not saying it exists in every case just that systems be there to fairly identify it and "exorcise" it.

To give you an idea of where i cam coming from we are maybe into the ethical territory of whether Jane Elliot is correct But remember we (on boards) are not children
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Elliott#Legacy_of_the_original_exercise

Have you ever heard of this?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

As i have atated i am anti authoritarian
I would be heavily influenced by Bob altemeyer's work on this
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

And in Leon festinger on cognitive dissonance or "cognitive conflict" as European academics call it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Festinger#Example_of_cognitive_dissonance

Note Festinger contextualised it especially with religious groups, my interest is in other groups such as scientists.

Another the BIG difference here is that minorities have to be considered but when you are talking about Christians, "Catholics" make up maybe 80 to 90 per cent plus of them!

ISAW

TrueDub wrote: »

Another important thing is realising that your point of view might be biasing you towards finding bias where there is none.

And how does it work when the alleged bias is so subtle that only you notice it? Surely that's a problem with your perception?

You seem to be hiding behind the concept of subtle, imperceptible bias. Not sustainable, imo.

I think I dealt with this in the reply i gave before I read you above message.

False negative and false positive errors occur in observations that is true.
And i agree that in some places we look for child abusers and racists where there might not be any. I also think we practice "health and safety" to an extraordinary degree of bureaucracy. But the whole idea it to have healthy and safe working environments isn't it.
Where you draw the line I do not know but I think maybe we have gone too far when mothers are screaming in the park when their child is gone out of site because they are afraid some "man" might have abducted them. I am not trying to incite fear or hatred only a healthy critique and suggesting a system where moderators can examine their conscience and i am certain the moderators in Christianity don't view this as a personal attack on any of them.

My point still stands. What do you do if a moderator is not of a specific culture e.g. Black islamic, woman, Catholic and isn't aware of the possible bias. Or even if they are of that culture and didn't think of it because they didn't realise it was there - like the pregnant nuns at the fancy dress party example above?

I don't think the solution is necessarily creating a separate forum for blacks/women etc. is it?

The question then is is this a "system of moderators" problem or a "demarcation of a forum " problem? Or something else?

looksee

Or is it a problem at all?

Overheal

ISAW wrote:

But I'm not suggesting the mods are knowingly unfair. I suggesting is all that is needed is for someone to say "you might consider this from a Catholic/black/womans/insert relevant group point of view" is enough to draw attention to a possible bias. A moderator will then be aware of this and hopefully will act accordingly.

Why does this Someone need to be a Moderator?

ISAW

Overheal wrote: »

Why does this Someone need to be a Moderator?

Because only moderators can sanction people to make sure a particular bias isn't being upheld.

The whole debate here is about anti Catholic bias or a need for Catholics to have their own forum. I suppose the idea is why would they need their own forum if only those who were not baised against them posted?

ISAW

looksee wrote: »

Or is it a problem at all?

A problem that one fails to recognise is still a problem in spite of the that failure, or maybe even because of it.

Overheal

ISAW wrote: »

Because only moderators can sanction people to make sure a particular bias isn't being upheld.

Is bias a bannable offense?

Also, that doesn't really answer my question, imho:

"all that is needed is for someone to say "you might consider this from a Catholic/black/womans/insert relevant group point of view" is enough to draw attention to a possible bias. A moderator will then be aware of this and hopefully will act accordingly."

If you want to search me under Help Desk I have on occasion already done that, as a User, not a Mod. Not to mention I am sure countless reported posts over the years; particularly in AH in them so-called Yank threads.

Like I asked: Why does this person trying to raise the attention of a Mod need to be a Mod? Why can't a user as I have done many, many times, simply use Reported Posts and other means such as PMs and Help Desk tickets to call attention to a problem?

It's funny you mention it actually, because its precisely why I never throw my hat in the ring when there's Askings for people to Mod AH. As an American who does often enough take offense to ultimately non-actionable posts, I wouldn't trust myself Not to act retributively, and Incorrectly, against those posts and those posters. For the same reason, its often always been seen as best practice that when a personal dispute develops between a User and a Mod; that a different Mod who is more impartial to the situation be the one to step in and do any necessary Moderation.

For the same reasons, I don't know why a Catholic Mod needs to be installed if its only to the defense of Catholics. I think it would only cause a complication down the road; namely, the very inverse of the complication you are saying exists... There would be a perceived bias against anyone who was Not a Catholic.

The whole debate here is about anti Catholic bias or a need for Catholics to have their own forum. I suppose the idea is why would they need their own forum if only those who were not baised against them posted?

I'm not sure I follow. You're using the creation of this thread as empirical evidence of a problem in the Christianity forum?

Again, I should point out Yank Bashing threads: they wouldn't be nearly as fun without biased people in them. And typically the Payoff is someone will start reading that thread with a particular bias will walk away without it, in the likely event that their bias gets debunked in a civil manner.

Isn't that also a large drive of Christianity? To go out, encounter people who (in view of Christianity or Catholicism) are misguided - even Biased - and enlighten them?

neuro-praxis

I just read this thread from start to finish. Seriously lads, what a load of whiny crap. The Christianity mods are very tolerant and fair, and do a great job. If anyone can highlight their actual alleged failures then I'm sure a far more unbiased and precise RC mod can be brought in to rectify everything and restore the scales of justice.