|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted April 09, 2010 08:22 AM |
|
|
Here is an issue for the moderation of this place. I'd be thankful, if the mods would take a look into this. I know, you won't like it because it will involve reading Elodin's and my "crap" over some two pages of the notorious religion thread, but the thread hasn't got anything to do with the problem.
I have no interest whatsoever to debate anything with forum member Elodin, and I don't care what he writes: with one exception: when he - or anyone else, for that matter - claims, that I've said things I didn't say.
Of course it is possible that someone errs, when they refer to the post of other people, but then a call and a check should be enough to rectify it.
In this case I registered a recurring problem (the claim was repeatedly made), and I pointed it out. On page 59 of the Religion thread I posted:
Quote:
it may make a modicum of sense to check, what is claimed I said, and what I actually said.
Claim:
Quote:
:
The statement was made that Christianity is composed of a group of denominations that are all hostile to one another.
Reality:
Quote:
:
Isn't it STRANGE, that not so long ago, that I couldn't remember anymore, friendship between Catholics and Protestants (especially) were frowned upon and marriage an anathema in Germany?
How is that possible? How can a religion that is supposed to advertise universal love produce so much enmity withthin the ranks of their own supporters?...
I repeat the point. It's not Christianity that is under siege here - it's more the fact that there basically IS NO Christianity, only a plethora of factions, supposedly all believing the same thing, but in such a radically different way that they frown upon each other...
Can you really believe in ANY official version of a religion that at its core suggests to love even your enemies, when the followers of that religion are split into an uncounted number of rivalling groupings which may even be hostile against each other?
I may have a fetish with language and the exact meaning of words and sentences, still it's bewildering in its very own way, that someone who is so fastidious, when it comes to distinctions like kill/murder or the exact phrasing of Bible passages and their correct interpretation and meaning is so God-forsakenly sloppy when it comes to reading and interpreting what others say.
Forum member Elodin's answer on page 59 now starts explaining, why I said, what I didn't say, by taking what I said and starts to highlight single words or phrases, and insists that I said what he says I said.
This goes on a bit until I ask him to stop saying this or quote the text:
Quote:
However, I HAVE a problem with you (or anyone else, for that matter) vandalizing, mutilizing, abusing, misusing, twisting, and maiming the "crap" I write and claim that I said things I never said.
Therefore I ask you in all kindliness and friendship to stop, if not quoting, at least false-quoting, intentionally and malign mis-interpreting of quotes and claiming of statements that were never made, all for the sake of conjuring an imaginary point out of thin air...
So I hope, we are clear now. Deny what you want. Quote me and tell everyone about the pink horse, no problem.
But stop THE HELL to assume what you would like to, and make false claims about what people say.
Do you have this much love for thy neighbour/enemy?
More denial by forum member Elodin: Quote:
I quoted exactly what you said.
I ask him again to stop: Quote:
someone has to tell you, that there is one way only to prove that someone said something: QUOTING it. You cannot quote a page of text, underline a couple of words here, bold print a couple there, italic a few on top and then glue them together any way you like to create Frankenstein's Monster.
I declare yet again: I did not say what you claim. And I ask you for the third, officially, formally and politely:
STOP IT.
But, of course forum member Elodin does NOT stop.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I think, that everyone here has a right to be quoted correctly, if quoted. There is nothing wrong per se with summing up, what someone said, to an easy formula, but when the original author protests against that, claimers should keep to what was said exactly and go back to that and not insist on an interpretation they can't back by a direct quote.
AT LEAST, a claimer should ask the original author about the quote in question and ask for a clarification, if he sees an interpretation he has a problem with. That is, of course, if there was a real interest in discussing a point.
So. I think, that everyone has at least a right of the inviolability of what they write.
The really bad thing about this malpractise is, that a point is absurdly warped in such a way that it is obviously wrong or terrible or mean or whatever, and then to attack what was never said, so the original poster suddenly looks like an idiot or worse.
I repeat, sometimes this may happen involuntarily and accidentally, and usually it should be no problem to rectify this.
But in this case it is. And it's no single occurence either.
So please get this straight.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 09, 2010 09:11 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 09:22, 09 Apr 2010.
|
In my post on posted April 07, 2010 07:52 PM I summed up what JJ had stated while responding to another poster who asked a question. The summary sentence was nearly identical to waht JJ had said and certainly sums up what he had stated in his post.
In another post I quoted a long paragraph oj JJ's as well as a couple of phrases from other paragraphs.
Quote:
Quote:
I think you then asked the wrong question.
I'm not asking the wrong question. The statement was made that Christianity is composed of a group of denominations that are all hostile to one another. I asked for proof of the claim.
First, I did not mention JJ by name.
Second, the bold part is my summary of what JJ said. As you notice, it is not in quotes and the word "that" is used, which clearly indicates it is a summary statement.
Below is what he said, in bulk:
Quote:
Take for example Catholicism, one of my favorites when it comes to religion and their sorry consequences. You can make a plethora of points against actual Catholicism and its highest representants, a lot of them serious and damning, but the simple people who ARE Catholics are - in my eyes - just victims.
The fact that there ARE so many different (and partly RADICALLY different) "versions" of Christianity is damning enough for the religion as a whole.
With the general decline of importance of religion in the Western World it has stopped to become a major issue, but isn't it STRANGE, that not so long ago, that I couldn't remember anymore, friendship between Catholics and Protestants (especially) were frowned upon and marriage an anathema in Germany?How is that possible? How can a religion that is supposed to advertise universal love produce so much enmity withthin the ranks of their own supporters?And before you start with, "that's the human factor", nope. You see, as there are certain crimes that every "straight" criminal frowns upon, there's this thing called "heresy" which seems to be the worst thing possible. It has more to do with the fact that religion in general doesn't come with "facts", and when it comes with what is supposed to be "facts", like manuscripts", these stuff is naturally open to interpretation.
The interesting thing is, that you will NEVER EVER see serious enmity on a large scale for differing interpretations of scientific "facts". Can someone imagine people called "Big-Bangers" and "Steady-Staters", hating each other, warring against each other...? After all, we can't really know, can we?
Quote:
there basically IS NO Christianity, only a plethora of factions, supposedly all believing the same thing, but in such a radically different way that they frown upon each other.
Quote:
Can you really believe in ANY official version of a religion that at its core suggests to love even your enemies, when the followers of that religion are split into an uncounted number of rivalling groupings which may even be hostile against each other?
My summary statment of what was said summarizes the above as "The statement was made that Christianity is composed of a group of denominations that are all hostile to one another." In his post he uses hate, enmity, and "frown upon" interchangabliy.
I'll not even bother to list the times he has directly insulted me since moderators warned against such things. I have been attempting to avoid anything that can be interpreted as an insult and have asked him to stop insuling me.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 09, 2010 09:24 AM |
|
|
It's times like this I wish I was a mod. I'd really give the OSM a good cleaning. But all I can do is hope our mods act wisely.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
watcher83
Supreme Hero
Child of Malassa
|
|
posted April 09, 2010 09:27 AM |
|
|
I can't believe that you continue this discussion here too, like the hc religion thread isn't enough just let him with his ideas and stop giving replies. You can't broaden the views of some people so forget about it.
and by you I mean the people vs Elodin
____________
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
posted April 09, 2010 10:16 AM |
|
Edited by angelito at 10:17, 09 Apr 2010.
|
The latest religion thread was closed today.
Feel free to open a new one if you like, but be sure that:
- We will punish ANY kind of CoC breaking issue without any warnings
- We do not judge if it is a hard insult or a soft insult when an insult appears. We do not judge if one felt insulted at all or not. Insult  penalty
- Lower your temper! (mostly directed to bixie!)
- Stop arguing with someone when you do not like your opponent's way of debating (mostly directed to jollyJoker!)
- Stop playing the innocent little boy (mostly directed to Elodin!)
- Stop filling threads like the religion thread with personal opinions how the debating should be done. Use the feedback thread for such things so the original thread can be kept on topic (mostly directed at all those backseat moderators!)
Questions?
Keep asking...
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted April 09, 2010 10:22 AM |
|
|
Are we allowed to point out how interprentions of text is misunderstood?
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 09, 2010 10:28 AM |
|
|
I don't argue.
I just don't want someone claiming I said silly things I didn't say. Everyone can quote me as much as they want, but if they do, isn't there an obligation to do it by the word?
Would you want to read constantly how someone tells you what you said and what not? After asking to stop that a couple of times?
What sense does it make to forbid insults, when you can make insults by claiming that someone said idiotic stuff?
Closing a thread doesn't solve that or any other problem. Or would you disagree?
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted April 09, 2010 10:41 AM |
|
|
Quote:
-Lower your temper! (mostly directed to bixie!)
there's nothing wrong with passion...
that wasn't what I was doing, I was off my meds.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 09, 2010 12:32 PM |
|
|
Ok, I sum up, what I've learned so far.
Insults are not ok, but in case someone misunderstands or misreads something it's completely ok to call the person an illiterate idiot. Moreover, instead of posters we can say creeps now, and instead of posts crap.
If you stumble about the illiterate idiot, since it doesn't matter whether a creep actually said the crap that's posted or not, it's of no matter anyway, so I took a bit of interpretational freedom to sum up, what was meant.
If push comes to shove, a thread can simply be closed, solving everything and saving some creeps the trouble to clear out the crap.
You will excuse me, but this isn't my world. So I wish everyone a fine spring and a nice summer.
|
|
watcher83
Supreme Hero
Child of Malassa
|
|
posted April 09, 2010 01:01 PM |
|
|
[quote
- Stop filling threads like the religion thread with personal opinions how the debating should be done. Use the feedback thread for such things so the original thread can be kept on topic (mostly directed at all those backseat moderators!)
What's a backseat moderator?
____________
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted April 09, 2010 01:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
a backseat moderator?
I suppose it's when someone tries to do the job of the moderator without being one. E.g. if you post a link someone thinks violates the CoC and they derail the thread into a discussion about that in stead of letting a mod deal with it and stay focused on the thread.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
watcher83
Supreme Hero
Child of Malassa
|
|
posted April 09, 2010 01:17 PM |
|
|
thanks
all I said was somebody please close this thread down so I guess I'm not the one being pointed out here
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 09, 2010 04:10 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 16:21, 09 Apr 2010.
|
Quote:
- We do not judge if it is a hard insult or a soft insult when an insult appears. We do not judge if one felt insulted at all or not. Insult penalty
Questions?
Keep asking...
I think what is going to be considered a "soft insult" needs clarification.
For example:
1) Is saying theism is a delusional belief a soft insult?
2) Is saying atheism is irrational an insult?
3) Is saying "That statement has no merit" an insult?
In other words, are people going to be allowed to present their points with "strong language" as long as they address the ideas presented rather than the person who presented them or is using strong language in critisizing an idea going to be considered a "soft insult."
Perhaps you could give some examples of "soft insults."
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted April 09, 2010 06:50 PM |
|
|
Let me just say.
Angelito, Closing the thread does not solve the problem. Ignoring it does not solve the problem. What is happening is that you are simply trying telling us to shut up about an important issue.
Yes, it gets nasty, Yes, we have trolls on, Yes, people get insulted. but that's the price we pay for freedom of speech, and for me, that is a price worth paying!
discussions about religion is a necessary discussion. It will be bloody, It will be offensive for many people, but people must understand that the truth will always win out. Knowledge will triumph over ignorance, and understanding will triumph over slander.
Closing it pleases no-one. the debaters are left without a hall, the moderaters feel like they have done a poor job.
You're only human, I understand that, and when things get too intense, It seems easy to simply shut everyone else up. But you have taken on the responsiblities of a Mod and you need to rise above those feelings. You need to call people out on their B.S and offer QP's and -QP's wherever necessary. The position of the moderator is something I have great respect for, and I ask you to please reconsider closing the thread.
If you honestly feel it's the right thing to do, then I will stand by you're decision.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
Geny
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted April 09, 2010 06:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Feel free to open a new one if you like
Angelito didn't tell you to stop the discussion, just to play by different and stricter rules. The closing of the old thread is just to stress the change better imo.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted April 09, 2010 07:03 PM |
|
|
Ah, but this change will not be permenant.
Look at the thread "I gave up believing in god", that quickly devovled into smearing and hatred. that's why the new thread was set up. and now that's been closed because of exactly the same reason.
The argument over religion is a necessary, but callous and brutal, argument to have. If it devolves into smear tactics, then it should be evident that it reflects poorly on the person who started it.
Take why this was closed down, it was because Elodin was posting homophobic websites and comments on it. it might be offensive, but surely it reflects on him badly if he stoops so low to try and win an argument.
These problems will not go away simply by closing the thread, it will reappear, uglier than ever. If this discussion with a troll must be done in order to prevent something truly sinister coming to the HC, then I say let's do it. It will show that we are unafraid of trolls, spammers, hackers, Homophobes, racists, sexists, bigots and religious fundie-mental-cases, depriving them of they're only source of power.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted April 09, 2010 07:13 PM |
|
|
I think one of the main problems are a lot of the stuff earlier said gets lost some 30 pages back, and no one is probably ever going to read that stuff again unless they've some serious masocistic tendencies as I doubt many would find most of the stuff we end up writing specifically inspiring in the long run.
That means there's a huge risk of debates/discussions going into circles and threads getting clouded by overly repeated points and arguments.
I think, maybe if we had a list or something, that stated each of our opinions, arguments for and others counterarguments, then I think it'd be nice and easy to find ones way around and likewise find if ones opinion have already been stated, be inspired by eachother and in general be able to make our points more clear, by deleting/editing any larger debate and set up the ending result.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted April 09, 2010 08:01 PM |
|
|
Closing the thread just is much easier then reading all 73 pages back and find penalty worthy things. That would be a hugh load of work...and not sure if that would be the more fair solution.
Maybe we should have reacted much more strictly after the first religion thread was closed. But as mentioned already, we Mods aer humans aswell. Sometimes we think "if we now start to penalize, maybe the whole mood will turn to a different side and the battles will start even more". And you can be sure, we (mods) are glad if the mood is "normal" in the OSM, especially in threads which extremely controverse topics like religion or politics.
So I assume you all take it as a third chance to debate in a "grown up" manner.
Instead of insulting the poster, point out in his post what you think is not correct.
And saying "You are a fool/ an idiot", is the same as "Saying this or that is foolish / idiotic".
And instead of taking EVERY little word as an insult and point that out at the start of every own posting, just send a HCM to a Mod and tell him/her about that issue. We will react as soon as possible, PROMISE!
I really want such difficult topics to be debated completely on topic without any personal issues. Be it from main debaters, or from those who just watch, contribute close to nothing but always have "good ideas" how a specific debater should change his habbits.
But to let a good debate going, it is important to answer questions which are directed to you. A debate has questions, answers and opinions. If one of those 3 is missing, the debate will fail sooner or later. If you are not willing to answer questions of specific members, feel free to point that out, so both know about that.
Now some clearing refering to the "soft" and "hard" insult.
I can only tell you from my point of view, and as you all know, I am not a native english speaker. So if a specific term is "known" by natives as an insult, don't expect the same knowledge on my side. This would be a job for Mytical then. Or a member tells me via HCM.
On the other hand, I may find a specific word / phrase to be insulting, which is probably common language usage in America. I will always try to talk to my Mod fellows if I am unsure in such things.
Hard insults from my point of view are direct insults like
- You idiot!
- F*** you!
- and so on
Soft insults from my point of view are either indirect insults or given "funny names" like:
- Don't talk crap!
- "Those 2 creeps..."
- etc...
What I do NOT see as an insult are things like:
- I think the bible is completely wrong, not worth to read
- Living without prayers is wasted life
- Extremists are dangerous
etc..
Those are personal opinions which are NOT directed towards a specifc person.
Of course I know how easy it is to "hide" insults behind so called personal opinions, but be sure that I will recognize this very soon and react appropriate. I hope you all won't try to find out if I am able to "detect" those hidings. Just discuss in a normal manner.
And if you want to avoid big quote wars, then I would suggest to keep your own posts quite short, so there isn't much to quote anyway.
And I know this board doesn't have the feature to show the poster's name in a quote, it would be good if all the quoters would add the name of the original poster of the quoted text, so it is easier for all of us to follow, and to see to whom you are talking currently.
I hope this all made at least a little sense to most of you. If not, feel free to post here what's not clear enough, and I will try to respond more clearly.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted April 09, 2010 08:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I think one of the main problems are a lot of the stuff earlier said gets lost some 30 pages back, and no one is probably ever going to read that stuff again unless they've some serious masocistic tendencies as I doubt many would find most of the stuff we end up writing specifically inspiring in the long run.
That means there's a huge risk of debates/discussions going into circles and threads getting clouded by overly repeated points and arguments.
I think, maybe if we had a list or something, that stated each of our opinions, arguments for and others counterarguments, then I think it'd be nice and easy to find ones way around and likewise find if ones opinion have already been stated, be inspired by eachother and in general be able to make our points more clear, by deleting/editing any larger debate and set up the ending result.
This is how the debate started...
and look where it ended up.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 09, 2010 08:18 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 20:21, 09 Apr 2010.
|
Quote:
Take why this was closed down, it was because Elodin was posting homophobic websites and comments on it. it might be offensive, but surely it reflects on him badly if he stoops so low to try and win an argument.
If you want to start a thread on waht is Christianphobic or homophobic feel free to start a thread. The link I posted was in response to a question about what harm homosexual sex caused and the article discussed health risks related to said activities and the author voiced his opinion about the morality of some things based on Biblical teachings.
I think the thread wsa shut down because of the behavior of multiple people.
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
