~~~ WHO Was Banned Today??? ~~~

[Birds Away]

As long as the people who make snide remarks about the "book of fairy-tales" are still the protected class around here everything should be fine, right?

 

[chezuki]

As long as the people who make snide remarks about the "book of fairy-tales" are still the protected class around here everything should be fine, right?

That's what the last guy was banned for. (Well, "dark age superstition", but same type remark right?)


I really don't see the problem.

People complained when they thought rules weren't being enforced strictly enough, and now they complain that they are.

 

[Birds Away]

Who was banned for that? I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[chezuki]

Who was banned for that? I'll believe it when I see it.

Well believe it.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...e-bans-wi-unconstitutional-5.html#post5271648

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...e-bans-wi-unconstitutional-6.html#post5271717

 

[Birds Away]

Didn't mean to imply, or infer rather, that you were lying. I thought, perhaps, you might have been mistaken. I stand corrected.

 

[jamil]

Here's how I see it and this is just the perspective of an observer who hasn't spent as much time on INGO as some of you, so take it for what it's worth. It's also from a perspective of not hating or liking religion.

For a long time it seems people on both sides have gotten away with forbidden topics as long as they didn't say hateful things that got the attention of mods. It seems now "management" has decided to enforce the rules more strictly than in the past. Now members are getting banned for what they used to get away with saying. The reality that mods have changed how strictly they moderate shouldn't be an issue as much as how evenly they apply enforcement.

Until very recently, the people making the "fairytale" type remarks have gotten away with it, except occasionally getting a general warning to both sides not to talk about religion. I've seen "fairytale" type remarks quite often from 3 particular highly regarded INGO regulars, two of which were only recently temp-banned, and only after a mod was questioned about equal standards.

Given the comments of PaulF about his high regard for those two he temp-banned, and what seems like a historic reluctance to ban those highly regarded members for saying such things--warnings were occasionally issued so they've at least seen the comments--it's hard not to perceive some bias. Granted, the "fairytale" comments are usually levied more subtlety than the some of the language of someone like billt or trooper. Certainly directly accusing a whole race or religion for the actions of some is a clear violation. But so should subtly saying the same thing be. Certainly the direct comments seem more obvious than the subtle fairytale snark. But I can see why people have their doubts about equal enforcement.

All that said, I think the mods do try to be fair, but I also thing it's impossible for people to be completely unbiased. Mods are people too. Since it's been brought to their attention, and given the recent bans, they've obviously taken that seriously.

 

[churchmouse]

Here's how I see it and this is just the perspective of an observer who hasn't spent as much time on INGO as some of you, so take it for what it's worth. It's also from a perspective of not hating or liking religion.

For a long time it seems people on both sides have gotten away with forbidden topics as long as they didn't say hateful things that got the attention of mods. It seems now "management" has decided to enforce the rules more strictly than in the past. Now members are getting banned for what they used to get away with saying. The reality that mods have changed how strictly they moderate shouldn't be an issue as much as how evenly they apply enforcement.

Until very recently, the people making the "fairytale" type remarks have gotten away with it, except occasionally getting a general warning to both sides not to talk about religion. I've seen "fairytale" type remarks quite often from 3 particular highly regarded INGO regulars, two of which were only recently temp-banned, and only after a mod was questioned about equal standards.

Given the comments of PaulF about his high regard for those two he temp-banned, and what seems like a historic reluctance to ban those highly regarded members for saying such things--warnings were occasionally issued so they've at least seen the comments--it's hard not to perceive some bias. Granted, the "fairytale" comments are usually levied more subtlety than the some of the language of someone like billt or trooper. Certainly directly accusing a whole race or religion for the actions of some is a clear violation. But so should subtly saying the same thing be. Certainly the direct comments seem more obvious than the subtle fairytale snark. But I can see why people have their doubts about equal enforcement.

All that said, I think the mods do try to be fair, but I also thing it's impossible for people to be completely unbiased. Mods are people too. Since it's been brought to their attention, and given the recent bans, they've obviously taken that seriously.

Well said and agree.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I agree that there has been a observable shift in the degree to which the religious discussions have been moderated. There were always threads and posts that were allowed to exist as long as "they didn't go too far" or get too heated. We've now entered a phase where no mention of any kind is allowed. And as people get stepped on, it's only natural for those observing people of certain beliefs getting reprimanded( and probably those that got stepped on) to question why the "fairytale" or "spaghetti monster" posters aren't getting equal treatment. Now, it appears they are. While I'm all in favor of equal treatment and I believe we should all follow the rules, I believe zero tolerance rules on such subjects are a bane.

So, in consideration of the explicit language of Paul's recent post:

Originally Posted by PaulF
Posting about religion will get you banned from INGO. Period.

Ignoring (or arguing with) a moderator's warning will also get you banned from INGO. Period.

Here's a really simple procedure to follow if you want to avoid the Banhammer:
1) Don't post anything religious in nature to INGO.
2) See step 1.

I have issued enough warnings about religion to people with post counts in the thousands to see that this isn't ignorance of the rules, these are intentional violations of the rules. The FIVE rules we have here.

So, in short...no more warnings, no wiggle room, no "benefit of the doubt". Post religious content of any type to INGO and risk being banned...without additional warning, even for your "first offense".

We are not kidding about this.

Are Christmas and Easter threads now forbidden. You can say there are those that observe those days in secular ways but that is a bastardization of the days' meanings. They are expressly religious in their creation as observed holidays. I know I've read writings from atheists bemoaning the fact we observe them at all.

What about prayer request threads? Those almost necessarily imply religion is afoot. Yeah, there are those that will reply "best wishes", "positive vibes sent", etc. but the majority will wish "[religious entity]'s blessings" or some such.

What's next? There have been jokingly asserted references that people that have religious and anti-religious items in their sig-lines and/or screen names be subject to the same scrutiny.

Zero tolerance certainly makes the rule making and enforcement easier. But I hate it in real life and I hate it on the web because in either, it's really never "zero tolerance"...there are always those that are allowed to skirt the rule but it's always there to "hammer" the offensive, the non-favored, that "kid nobody likes", when those enforcing the rule decides it's time or complaints become sufficient.

How would I handle it? I would enforce the ever-loving-**** out of it. The rules are the rules. If my screen name now falls on the wrong side of the fence--I'm fine changing it to comply.

 

[bradmedic04]

You can be ModFearinGunTotin.

 

[churchmouse]

I agree that there has been a observable shift in the degree to which the religious discussions have been moderated. There were always threads and posts that were allowed to exist as long as "they didn't go too far" or get too heated. We've now entered a phase where no mention of any kind is allowed. And as people get stepped on, it's only natural for those observing people of certain beliefs getting reprimanded( and probably those that got stepped on) to question why the "fairytale" or "spaghetti monster" posters aren't getting equal treatment. Now, it appears they are. While I'm all in favor of equal treatment and I believe we should all follow the rules, I believe zero tolerance rules on such subjects are a bane.

So, in consideration of the explicit language of Paul's recent post:



Are Christmas and Easter threads now forbidden. You can say there are those that observe those days in secular ways but that is a bastardization of the days' meanings. They are expressly religious in their creation as observed holidays. I know I've read writings from atheists bemoaning the fact we observe them at all.

What about prayer request threads? Those almost necessarily imply religion is afoot. Yeah, there are those that will reply "best wishes", "positive vibes sent", etc. but the majority will wish "[religious entity]'s blessings" or some such.

What's next? There have been jokingly asserted references that people that have religious and anti-religious items in their sig-lines and/or screen names be subject to the same scrutiny.

Zero tolerance certainly makes the rule making and enforcement easier. But I hate it in real life and I hate it on the web because in either, it's really never "zero tolerance"...there are always those that are allowed to skirt the rule but it's always there to "hammer" the offensive, the non-favored, that "kid nobody likes", when those enforcing the rule decides it's time or complaints become sufficient.

How would I handle it? I would enforce the ever-loving-**** out of it. The rules are the rules. If my screen name now falls on the wrong side of the fence--I'm fine changing it to comply.

Is the P/C world creeping in here.

I have been the churchmouse since my little brother hung that handle on me over 50 years ago. There are people who only know be as the churchmouse. Any one remember the TV show "Timothy Churchmouse".....Well, my 1st name is Timothy. Brother thought he was being mean calling me that in front of friends and family. It stuck and I wear it with pride. That handle was on my racing helmets/tool boxes over the years and still is. It has zero religious meaning. None. It is my aka in more ways than I can say. I suppose i could go by -CM- but why. I am the churchmouse.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

You can be ModFearinGunTotin.

I was thinking about "Fred" or "Omar" or "Sue".

 

[churchmouse]

I was thinking about "Fred" or "Omar" or "Sue".

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Is the P/C world creeping in here.

I have been the churchmouse since my little brother hung that handle on me over 50 years ago. There are people who only know be as the churchmouse. Any one remember the TV show "Timothy Churchmouse".....Well, my 1st name is Timothy. Brother thought he was being mean calling me that in front of friends and family. It stuck and I wear it with pride. That handle was on my racing helmets/tool boxes over the years and still is. It has zero religious meaning. None. It is my aka in more ways than I can say. I suppose i could go by -CM- but why. I am the churchmouse.

Too bad. As we've read on hear many times, people and their beliefs change, words' meanings change, your name may no longer be acceptable in polite company any longer. You might want to be working on a backup.

 

[churchmouse]

Too bad. As we've read on hear many times, people and their beliefs change, words' meanings change, your name may no longer be acceptable in polite company any longer. You might want to be working on a backup.

I have a back up but head will not fly here either.

Hehehehe....I do not hang out in polite company.......

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I have a back up but head will not fly here either.

At least you have an animated gif for your backup first name -- sort of like Prince

 

[churchmouse]

At least you have an animated gif for your backup first name -- sort of like Prince

As to your comments.....It is sad when folks can not rely on casual conversation to make a point or share an opinion/belief. Religion/politics in discussion have caused the hate to come out in those with no other way to express a point. Those folks are the reason we are suffering the P/C that has us struggling. Serious issues with these folks. They go beyond snark and push all boundary's causing the rest of us to even have to endure some wise butt suggesting we change our handles. The usual nut jobs. Brave behind the key board and stirring the pot to release and satisfy some inner anxiety they can not share FTF under fear of actual reprisal. Sad, just sad.

 

[PaulF]

Speaking only for myself here:

I don't give two lumpy poos about usernames. Same for avatars. Same for signature lines...why? I view these as statements of personal expression. I don't see GodFearingGunToting or Churchmouse as any attempt to insult or demean another persons spiritual beliefs. I don't see listing a quote from your favored scripture in your signature as a way of holding yourself above other users. If your Username, Avatar, or signature offends me I will place you on my Ignore List. I expect other users will do the same. Unless something is SO over the top that it produces repeated complaints there is no reason to intervene.

Avatars, usernames, and signatures do not (generally) create a problem.

Easter threads? Prayer request threads. Yes, they violate the rules. Do I care? No, not one bit. I think it is pretty easy to guess what I'll find when I open a thread titled "Happy Easter". I'm going to find like-minded people wishing each other well on their chosen holy day. These threads do not create problems...so I leave them alone.

Prayer request and holiday wishes threads do not (generally) create a problem.

Let's speak plainly here: the problem exists almost exclusively in the General Political Discussion forum.

Passions run high in that forum. Users there are unusually willing to attack each other on any front. I think this behavior is counter-productive, and casts our forum in a very ugly light.

In that forum warnings are pointless. In-thread warnings get ignored in the following post. I have issued Infraction after Infraction (a glorified PM), only to watch that very same user go immediately back to a thread and resume their asshattery.

The only effective "warning" in the General Political Discussion Forum is the 48-hour temp ban.

It works. It stops the offending user, and often changes the tone of the conversation entirely.

I'd like to point out that ALL of the bans I have handed out for breaking the "No Religion" rule have been temporary. I'm not trying to remove users from the discussion, I am trying to effectively remind users to remove religion from the discussion.

These are my thoughts only. Other moderators see things from different perspectives, and will act as they see fit. Most of us don't enjoy visiting that forum at all.

 

[bmbutch]

Speaking only for myself here:

I don't give two lumpy poos about usernames. Same for avatars. Same for signature lines...why? I view these as statements of personal expression. I don't see GodFearingGunToting or Churchmouse as any attempt to insult or demean another persons spiritual beliefs. I don't see listing a quote from your favored scripture in your signature as a way of holding yourself above other users. If your Username, Avatar, or signature offends me I will place you on my Ignore List. I expect other users will do the same. Unless something is SO over the top that it produces repeated complaints there is no reason to intervene.

Avatars, usernames, and signatures do not (generally) create a problem.

Easter threads? Prayer request threads. Yes, they violate the rules. Do I care? No, not one bit. I think it is pretty easy to guess what I'll find when I open a thread titled "Happy Easter". I'm going to find like-minded people wishing each other well on their chosen holy day. These threads do not create problems...so I leave them alone.

Prayer request and holiday wishes threads do not (generally) create a problem.

Let's speak plainly here: the problem exists almost exclusively in the General Political Discussion forum.

Passions run high in that forum. Users there are unusually willing to attack each other on any front. I think this behavior is counter-productive, and casts our forum in a very ugly light.

In that forum warnings are pointless. In-thread warnings get ignored in the following post. I have issued Infraction after Infraction (a glorified PM), only to watch that very same user go immediately back to a thread and resume their asshattery.

The only effective "warning" in the General Political Discussion Forum is the 48-hour temp ban.

It works. It stops the offending user, and often changes the tone of the conversation entirely.

I'd like to point out that ALL of the bans I have handed out for breaking the "No Religion" rule have been temporary. I'm not trying to remove users from the discussion, I am trying to effectively remind users to remove religion from the discussion.

These are my thoughts only. Other moderators see things from different perspectives, and will act as they see fit. Most of us don't enjoy visiting that forum at all.

I can't argue with that, I can't think of anything better. Very well written!

 

[MisterChester]

I was thinking about "Fred" or "Omar" or "Sue".

You should be DogFearinGunTotin. Same letters!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Speaking only for myself here:

I don't give two lumpy poos about usernames. Same for avatars. Same for signature lines...why? I view these as statements of personal expression. I don't see GodFearingGunToting or Churchmouse as any attempt to insult or demean another persons spiritual beliefs. I don't see listing a quote from your favored scripture in your signature as a way of holding yourself above other users. If your Username, Avatar, or signature offends me I will place you on my Ignore List. I expect other users will do the same. Unless something is SO over the top that it produces repeated complaints there is no reason to intervene.

Avatars, usernames, and signatures do not (generally) create a problem.

Easter threads? Prayer request threads. Yes, they violate the rules. Do I care? No, not one bit. I think it is pretty easy to guess what I'll find when I open a thread titled "Happy Easter". I'm going to find like-minded people wishing each other well on their chosen holy day. These threads do not create problems...so I leave them alone.

Prayer request and holiday wishes threads do not (generally) create a problem.

Let's speak plainly here: the problem exists almost exclusively in the General Political Discussion forum.

Passions run high in that forum. Users there are unusually willing to attack each other on any front. I think this behavior is counter-productive, and casts our forum in a very ugly light.

In that forum warnings are pointless. In-thread warnings get ignored in the following post. I have issued Infraction after Infraction (a glorified PM), only to watch that very same user go immediately back to a thread and resume their asshattery.

The only effective "warning" in the General Political Discussion Forum is the 48-hour temp ban.

It works. It stops the offending user, and often changes the tone of the conversation entirely.

I'd like to point out that ALL of the bans I have handed out for breaking the "No Religion" rule have been temporary. I'm not trying to remove users from the discussion, I am trying to effectively remind users to remove religion from the discussion.

These are my thoughts only. Other moderators see things from different perspectives, and will act as they see fit. Most of us don't enjoy visiting that forum at all.

I don't have any problem with what you said here, Paul. But I think you can see it doesn't jibe with your previous post (ref. post 950). I'm really not trying to be obstinate but this points out the problem with zero tolerance rules such as not posting anything of a religious nature on INGO. What you just wrote seems "fair" but strictly speaking, it doesn't comply with the policy.