questioning moderator decisions

xamination
xamination's picture
Posts: 420
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
questioning moderator decisions

Unban St. Michael, if you haven't already. While you may disagree with everything he says, he does respond to everything in-depth, and does follow a logical path. If you truely want to debate and eventually defeat theists, why ban the one who has written the most? Don't be a prick.

Oh, and if you have unbanned him, ignore this. In fact, feel free to make fun of me.

I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13545
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
xamination wrote: Unban

xamination wrote:

Unban St. Michael, if you haven't already. While you may disagree with everything he says, he does respond to everything in-depth, and does follow a logical path. If you truely want to debate and eventually defeat theists, why ban the one who has written the most? Don't be a prick.

Oh, and if you have unbanned him, ignore this. In fact, feel free to make fun of me.

Long winded statements in elaborate form doesnt make them true. Writing the most? So what? He is basing everything he says on a book written over 1,000 year period by over 40 authors who contridict themsleves. Based on an unscientific fantastical claims which he refused to defend when called on. He had no intrest in debate. 

BTW you must have thought it was a kneejerk reaction which is wrong on your part. Both Tod and Brian explained why already. I'm sorry if you missed it.

If you think St Micheal was honest you must not have been paying attention. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


xamination
xamination's picture
Posts: 420
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
Long-winded explanations

Long-winded explanations take SOME effort in his part, even if you think they are stupid or even deceptive.  Besides, I did read what caused for his ban, and his "lying" could be refuted easily.  Example:  "I answered that clearly here.  (quote)  If you want to continue saying I didn't, go ahead.  I'll just edit your comment to be a link to this."  Shuts him up, makes you look smart and wise.  Like Solomon.(couldn't resist it- now its just a matter of time before someone refutes this claim.  People are so predictable)

I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
xamination wrote:Unban

xamination wrote:

Unban St. Michael, if you haven't already. While you may disagree with everything he says, he does respond to everything in-depth,and does follow a logical path.

No, he does not. In fact, numerous posters on this board noted how irrational he was: he asserted without arguing, he redefined words to suit his needs, and so on...

 However, he wasn't banned for being irrational, it was his constant lying on the board that earned him a ban. 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
xamination wrote: (couldn't

xamination wrote:
(couldn't resist it- now its just a matter of time before someone refutes this claim. People are so predictable)

 

I love the smell of troll in the morning. 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
xamination

xamination wrote:
Long-winded explanations take SOME effort in his part, even if you think they are stupid or even deceptive. Besides, I did read what caused for his ban, and his "lying" could be refuted easily.

No, it can't. His constant lying has been demonstrated - he claimed, over and over, that no one was responding to his assertions, when in fact, it could be demonstrated that he simply ignored the arguments before him. In fact, it can be demonstrated that he mainly began making this fraudulent charge in response to the fact that others were telling him that he wasn't giving us any arguments.

So his lying was a tit-for-tat response. And after being warned, he merely increased his lying.

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
I'm a witness.

I'm a witness.Laughing


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
I'm not sure that it was

I'm not sure that it was 'lying'.
I think he genuinely believed that he wasn't being answered.
It often happens in forum debates that it gets to the point where the debatees are just talking past each other and find themselves repeating their points as they don't find the answers satisfactory.
In such cases, one person would say "I think we're just going around in circles so lets call it a day, perhaps come back to the topic another day."

These debates often involve a lot of multi-dependent details and many points take a long while to sink in.
Having said that, although I don't like the look of the banning I didn't read the entire thread in detail so there's a chance I missed important details. It might be I'm naive and giving too much benefit of the doubt but I think it's genuine misunderstanding rather than dishonesty.
Philosophical language can be so diverse and ambiguous.
It's really easy to for two sides to completely shout past each other.

What he stands accused of is:
a) Repeating rebutted arguments which might just mean he hasn't understood the rebuttles. Surely whoever gets fed up repeating themselves could just say "I've explained it as best as I can. I'll stop now because I'm just repeating myself."
b) Making accusations at Todagnst which was a bit of a silly thing to do and a bit of a breach of forum ettiquette but I think that was just natural 'debate frustration' rather malign intent. Besides, I don't think it was ever going to do any harm to Chris' reputation! Smiling

Just my 'impartial outsider' 2c. Smiling


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Strafio wrote: I'm not sure

Strafio wrote:
I'm not sure that it was 'lying'.
I think he genuinely believed that he wasn't being answered.

I don't, and my evidence is in the fact that he edited out the part of the argument that in fact responded to his  point.

He did this multiple times. 

He was warned.  

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


AL
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
I think we should

I think we should temporarily unban StMichael, and then let xamination debate him.  Wink


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
AL wrote: I think we should

AL wrote:
I think we should temporarily unban StMichael, and then let xamination debate him. Wink

And then xamination himself would be calling for a ban....

 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
While in the interest of

While in the interest of freethought it's nice to have discussions like this on how the board should be run, it's considerate to send the mod a private message instead of a public request for an unban.

We didn't create this forum to have to justify how we run it, we created it to unite atheists who want to speak out against religion and other irrational claims. 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10549
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
xamination wrote: Unban

xamination wrote:

Unban St. Michael, if you haven't already. While you may disagree with everything he says, he does respond to everything in-depth, and does follow a logical path. If you truely want to debate and eventually defeat theists, why ban the one who has written the most? Don't be a prick.

Oh, and if you have unbanned him, ignore this. In fact, feel free to make fun of me.

I may not be a moderator or administrator here, but as a former moderator elsewhere and a current administrator elsewhere, I think it's not a matter of disagreement. It's a matter of him presenting the same argument over and over without any evidence to back him up, then his claiming he presented evidence when he didn't. It's his dodging every question he is unable to answer, and claiming he didn't dodge(even worse, he then claims the other person dodged questions to deflect away from his own dodging). It's his presenting fallacy after fallacy and then claiming he posted truth. It's his constant and continuous redefining of terms that he has no authority to redefine.

He has accomplished nothing on this site. When doing an overall look at his posts, all he's really done is spam with more text than most spammers spam with. Which means he's not a benefit to the site, he's a detriment to rational discourse. Which means the site is better off without him. Which means I agree with his banning.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
This is kinda sad though.

This is kinda sad though. Hellfiend, him, and me were going to talk about pagans and I was kinda looking forward to it. Oh well... Sad


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Banning st micheal probably

Banning st micheal probably saved me from ripping all my hair out. I recently started a thread in which I challenged him to prove his idiotic assertion that morality could not come from evolution. I work in the biological sciences, so I was confident that my knowledge of neuroelectrochemistry and cognitive evolutionary neuroscience would give me the upper hand. I should have realized that using science on a theist is like trying to obtain blood from a stone. You can destroy it, but you won't get it to yield a drop. You saved me.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13545
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: Banning

deludedgod wrote:
Banning st micheal probably saved me from ripping all my hair out. I recently started a thread in which I challenged him to prove his idiotic assertion that morality could not come from evolution. I work in the biological sciences, so I was confident that my knowledge of neuroelectrochemistry and cognitive evolutionary neuroscience would give me the upper hand. I should have realized that using science on a theist is like trying to obtain blood from a stone. You can destroy it, but you won't get it to yield a drop. You saved me.

You dont get it, their magical sky daddy and standard "God did it" trumps all your pesky science. But have no fear, when you call them on it they bastardize science to try and create the illusion that their magic is possible.

If you cant convince a person that a oiji board is just a peace of painted wood how can you convince someone that the earth is billions of years old? 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Point very well taken,

Point very well taken, Brian37.

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I actually tended to skip

I actually tended to skip over much of his posts because of hoe extremely long winded they were.


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
I still don't see a need for

I still don't see a need for banning.
Surely you can just say "I've tried to explain it, you clearly didn't understand. I'm done repeating myself." and then ignore him?
I personally see banning as an extreme action that should be saved for more extreme situations...


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Strafio wrote: I still

Strafio wrote:
I still don't see a need for banning.
Surely you can just say "I've tried to explain it, you clearly didn't understand. I'm done repeating myself." and then ignore him?
I personally see banning as an extreme action that should be saved for more extreme situations...

And people have done that. In return, those people were accused of being non-responsive to St. Mike.

Personally, I dislike banning becaus it allows the theist to claim martyrdom and persecution while concealing their part of the discussion.

That and I'm usually too late to take part in the action - the chew toy gets banned before I even know they're there. Smiling 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: Banning

deludedgod wrote:
Banning st micheal probably saved me from ripping all my hair out. I recently started a thread in which I challenged him to prove his idiotic assertion that morality could not come from evolution. I work in the biological sciences, so I was confident that my knowledge of neuroelectrochemistry and cognitive evolutionary neuroscience would give me the upper hand. I should have realized that using science on a theist is like trying to obtain blood from a stone. You can destroy it, but you won't get it to yield a drop. You saved me.

 

Anyone who wishes to converse with him can do so through email. 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: I

MattShizzle wrote:
I actually tended to skip over much of his posts because of hoe extremely long winded they were.

Me too. I really like to write, but dayum!  Those posts were beyond the pale!  

I don't know how I feel about the banning of StMichael.  As far as I was concerned he was already effectively "banned" in that I just skipped over his posts. 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13545
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: xamination

Vastet wrote:
xamination wrote:

Unban St. Michael, if you haven't already. While you may disagree with everything he says, he does respond to everything in-depth, and does follow a logical path. If you truely want to debate and eventually defeat theists, why ban the one who has written the most? Don't be a prick.

Oh, and if you have unbanned him, ignore this. In fact, feel free to make fun of me.

I may not be a moderator or administrator here, but as a former moderator elsewhere and a current administrator elsewhere, I think it's not a matter of disagreement. It's a matter of him presenting the same argument over and over without any evidence to back him up, then his claiming he presented evidence when he didn't. It's his dodging every question he is unable to answer, and claiming he didn't dodge(even worse, he then claims the other person dodged questions to deflect away from his own dodging). It's his presenting fallacy after fallacy and then claiming he posted truth. It's his constant and continuous redefining of terms that he has no authority to redefine. He has accomplished nothing on this site. When doing an overall look at his posts, all he's really done is spam with more text than most spammers spam with. Which means he's not a benefit to the site, he's a detriment to rational discourse. Which means the site is better off without him. Which means I agree with his banning.

Thank you.

I do admire people with the patient deconstructionist attitude. But you give a defender of magic an inch they take a universe. I simply cut to the chase and challenged St Micheal to prove the core claims that his religion depends upon.

I continually stipulated that he didnt have to prove his claims but if he didnt I did not have to buy his claims.

I told him what he could do to convince me, but even he admited he couldnt do that. 

St Micheal came here, not for debate. He came here to sacrifice himself to his perception of "the lions den" to make himself look like a maryter.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


xamination
xamination's picture
Posts: 420
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
[quote = brian37]St Micheal

[quote = brian37]St Micheal came here, not for debate. He came here to sacrifice himself to his perception of "the lions den" to make himself look like a maryter.

Then why satisfy his goals by banning him?

I don't agree with banning unless someone is spamming or blatently insulting someone.  People shouldn't just be banned because they're weasly idiots. 

I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10549
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
xamination wrote: [quote =

xamination wrote:
[quote = brian37]St Micheal came here, not for debate. He came here to sacrifice himself to his perception of the lions den to make himself look like a maryter.
Then why satisfy his goals by banning him?]
I don't agree with banning unless someone is spamming or blatently insulting someone.  People shouldn't just be banned because they're weasly idiots. 

Except his goals were not satisfied. He has no justification to claim martyr status, as all of his posts remain intact and uneditted. Conclusive and empirical evidence that further discussion would not resolve anything.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.