View this page "On Owners and Moderators"

[OldMan]

The linked page is an initial attempt to define the responsibilities
of AvC owners and moderators. I will update this page as discussion
goes on.

Click on http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-forum/web/on-owners-and-moderators
- or copy & paste it into your browser's address bar if that doesn't
work.

[Brock]

Stating a position for the record, I believe there is a responsibility
gap between the terms articulated in the TOS and the legitimate group
enforcement of those terms. The TOS states, for example:

"6. Appropriate Conduct

You agree that you are responsible for your own conduct and
communications while using the Service ... you will not: ... * post
any inappropriate, defamatory, infringing, obscene, or unlawful
Content;"

Indicating that each individual poster bears responsibility for not
posting such content. But when individual posters abdicate that
responsibility and post such content to the group regardless, the
violation is usually (incorrectly, IMO) allowed to happen because the
TOS also indicates:

"Google does not pre-screen, control, edit or endorse Content made
available through the Service and has no obligation to monitor the
Content Posted via the Service. If Google discovers Content that does
not appear to conform to the Terms of Service, Google may investigate
and determine in good faith and in its sole discretion whether to
remove the Content. Google will have no liability or responsibility
for performance or non-performance of such activities."

So the gap between what is prohibited by the TOS, and what is
passively enforced by Google allows all sorts of inappropriate posts
to occur. Of course, that is why the TOS explicitly identifies group
owners as bearing a responsibility:

"In regard to Content, a Group Owner shall be responsible for the
maintenance and monitoring of the Content in the Group"

As a moderator, I propose that moderators can be helpful and assist
group owners in the performance of this activity, in a similar way
that moderators currently efficiently deal with spam, and I'm happy to
note that Google has provided mechanisms for the maintenance and
regulation of such content to group owners and moderators.
Understanding that such issues are sensitive, I respectfully ask that
group owners, moderators and members consider working together to over
time develop a practical, efficient and acceptable moderator policy to
simply enforce the already existing clauses articulated in the Google
TOS. As I read and understand the TOS, my opinion is a policy that
willfully ignores content explicitly rejected in the TOS is at odds
with the explicit position that group owners bear responsibility for
moderating content.

To the best of my abilities, I offer to play a part and work with many
diverse constituencies to help achieve this mandate.

[Dev]

Why don't you explain why you think you're a moderator in the first
place?

[Brock Organ]

On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 11:16 PM, Dev <thede...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Why don't you explain why you think you're a moderator in the first
> place?

It's not about me, Dev.

Regards,

Brock

[Dev]

The question I asked was about you, actually.

On Apr 20, 9:52 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

[trog69]

> It's not about me, Dev.

>>The question I asked was about you, actually.

Yes, I'd like to know your thoughts on that as well, Brock.

On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 9:05 PM, Dev <thede...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

On Apr 20, 9:52 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 11:16 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > Why don't you explain why you think you're a moderator in the first
> > place?
>

>

> Regards,
>
> Brock

--
Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand.
~ Kurt Vonnegut

[OldMan]

On Apr 20, 8:12 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Stating a position for the record, I believe there is a responsibility
> gap between the terms articulated in the TOS and the legitimate group
> enforcement of those terms.  The TOS states, for example:
>
> "6. Appropriate Conduct
>
> You agree that you are responsible for your own conduct and
> communications while using the Service ... you will not: ... * post
> any inappropriate, defamatory, infringing, obscene, or unlawful
> Content;"

I believe the Google TOS is dealing with content that is illegal,
content for which the poster could be sued in a courtroom, and Google
along with them. I believe the TOS is intended to protect Google from
lawsuit rather than restrict interaction on one of its groups. Being
an unmoderated group means that we do not tell people what they can
say or how they say it, so long as it is within the scope of our
charter and it is not illegal.

>
> Indicating that each individual poster bears responsibility for not
> posting such content.  But when individual posters abdicate that
> responsibility and post such content to the group regardless, the
> violation is usually (incorrectly, IMO) allowed to happen because the
> TOS also indicates:
>
> "Google does not pre-screen, control, edit or endorse Content made
> available through the Service and has no obligation to monitor the
> Content Posted via the Service. If Google discovers Content that does
> not appear to conform to the Terms of Service, Google may investigate
> and determine in good faith and in its sole discretion whether to
> remove the Content. Google will have no liability or responsibility
> for performance or non-performance of such activities."
>
> So the gap between what is prohibited by the TOS, and what is
> passively enforced by Google allows all sorts of inappropriate posts
> to occur.  Of course, that is why the TOS explicitly identifies group
> owners as bearing a responsibility:

We are responsible for illegal content. Point some out to me and I
will remove it.

>
> "In regard to Content, a Group Owner shall be responsible for the
> maintenance and monitoring of the Content in the Group"
>
> As a moderator, I propose that moderators can be helpful and assist
> group owners in the performance of this activity, in a similar way
> that moderators currently efficiently deal with spam, and I'm happy to
> note that Google has provided mechanisms for the maintenance and
> regulation of such content to group owners and moderators.
> Understanding that such issues are sensitive, I respectfully ask that
> group owners, moderators and members consider working together to over
> time develop a practical, efficient and acceptable moderator policy to
> simply enforce the already existing clauses articulated in the Google
> TOS.  As I read and understand the TOS, my opinion is a policy that
> willfully ignores content explicitly rejected in the TOS is at odds
> with the explicit position that group owners bear responsibility for
> moderating content.
>
> To the best of my abilities, I offer to play a part and work with many
> diverse constituencies to help achieve this mandate.

I'm sure I dislike the potty-mouth here as much as you do Brock. But
it is not against Google policy, nor is it contrary to the free speech
policy of AvC, or any other unmoderated newsgroup.

[Trance Gemini]

I agree with all of your comments OM.

In addition, I would like to say that we are not lawyers or the police and realistically are not in a position to determine whether certain things are illegal or not.

I believe that this is something that most courts *would* recognize.

I believe that this may also be the point behind having Google Abuse.

Google *does* have the resources to pursue this type of thing.

If someone believes that an illegal activity is occurring and we, as Moderators and Owners because of lack of knowledge disagree and don't act, that person *is* free to pursue their complaint with Google Abuse and if it is in fact illegal, Google Abuse *will* and has actually done so in the past, act on it.

There is no requirement, to my knowledge, by Google that Owners are obligated to prevent "cursing, invective, and vitriol" as per Brock's creative definitions of such based on the actual interpretations I've read in his posts in the past.
 

>
> "In regard to Content, a Group Owner shall be responsible for the
> maintenance and monitoring of the Content in the Group"
>
> As a moderator, I propose that moderators can be helpful and assist
> group owners in the performance of this activity, in a similar way
> that moderators currently efficiently deal with spam, and I'm happy to
> note that Google has provided mechanisms for the maintenance and
> regulation of such content to group owners and moderators.
> Understanding that such issues are sensitive, I respectfully ask that
> group owners, moderators and members consider working together to over
> time develop a practical, efficient and acceptable moderator policy to
> simply enforce the already existing clauses articulated in the Google
> TOS.  As I read and understand the TOS, my opinion is a policy that
> willfully ignores content explicitly rejected in the TOS is at odds
> with the explicit position that group owners bear responsibility for
> moderating content.
>
> To the best of my abilities, I offer to play a part and work with many
> diverse constituencies to help achieve this mandate.

I'm sure I dislike the potty-mouth here as much as you do Brock.  But
it is not against Google policy, nor is it contrary to the free speech
policy of AvC, or any other unmoderated newsgroup.

--
I want to dance. I want to win. I want that Bingo trophy! --Mrs. Mia Wallace (paraphrased)

[Answer_42]

Fuck you.

There, moderate that all you want, you dishonest biased bastard.

You know perfectly well that nobody in this group wants what you want
regarding moderation of content.

If this is so important to you, go and create your own group and
moderate the content until you get blue in the face, see if we care.
__________________________________________
The content of the teaching, as well as the form of social relations,
is set up so as to dig a psychological moat around the believers.
-- Edmund D Cohen

[Answer_42]

On Apr 21, 10:16 am, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:

> > You agree that you are responsible for your own conduct and
> > communications while using the Service ... you will not: ... * post
> > any inappropriate, defamatory, infringing, obscene, or unlawful
> > Content;"
>
> I believe the Google TOS is dealing with content that is illegal,
> content for which the poster could be sued in a courtroom, and Google
> along with them.  I believe the TOS is intended to protect Google from
> lawsuit rather than restrict interaction on one of its groups.  Being
> an unmoderated group means that we do not tell people what they can
> say or how they say it, so long as it is within the scope of our
> charter and it is not illegal.

Brock should know that.

It was explained to him several times already.

He always falls back on that stupid Google TOS argument like he alwasy
falls back on

1) The bible is..
2) The truth of the bible..

or

www.bible.org

He has serious reading comprehension problems, he is biased and he is
obtuse.

That spells trouble if he is kept as moderator.

[BlueSci]

On Apr 20, 8:12 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Stating a position for the record, I believe there is a responsibility
> gap between the terms articulated in the TOS and the legitimate group
> enforcement of those terms.  The TOS states, for example:
>
> "6. Appropriate Conduct
>
> You agree that you are responsible for your own conduct and
> communications while using the Service ... you will not: ... * post
> any inappropriate, defamatory, infringing, obscene, or unlawful
> Content;"

"5. Content

Your Responsibilities.

.....You understand that by using the Service, you may be exposed to
Content that is offensive, indecent or objectionable..."

[Brock Organ]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 1:37 PM, BlueSci <enzin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Apr 20, 8:12 pm, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Stating a position for the record, I believe there is a responsibility
>> gap between the terms articulated in the TOS and the legitimate group
>> enforcement of those terms.  The TOS states, for example:
>>
>> "6. Appropriate Conduct
>>
>> You agree that you are responsible for your own conduct and
>> communications while using the Service ... you will not: ... * post
>> any inappropriate, defamatory, infringing, obscene, or unlawful
>> Content;"
>
> "5. Content
>
> Your Responsibilities.
>
> .....You understand that by using the Service, you may be exposed to
> Content that is offensive, indecent or objectionable..."

Understanding that one may be exposed to prohibited content does not
mean that I condone or support its posting.

Regards,

Brock

[OldMan]

On Apr 21, 11:11 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

The important question is, are you able to impartially enforce and
explain existing rules that you do not agree with?

>
> Regards,
>
> Brock- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Walt]

This doesn't explicitly say that owners must enforce any part of the
TOS. And Google does have a mechanism for one user to report another
user for violations of the TOS directly to Google. Implying that
Google does not require owners to handle enforcement of the TOS.

I agree the owners could, if they so choose, decide to only allow
"appropriate" postings. Do you have a proposal for the set of
criteria that should be used to determine if a post is "appropriate"?
It would be very helpful if you highlight any differences from the
standard of appropriateness used on the failed ACRD group.

[Brock Organ]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 2:33 PM, OldMan <edja...@msn.com> wrote:
>> > .....You understand that by using the Service, you may be exposed to
>> > Content that is offensive, indecent or objectionable..."
>>
>> Understanding that one may be exposed to prohibited content does not
>> mean that I condone or support its posting.
>
> The important question is, are you able to impartially enforce and
> explain existing rules that you do not agree with?

Yes.

Regards,

Brock

[Answer_42]

On Apr 21, 2:11 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > "5. Content
>
> > Your Responsibilities.
>
> > .....You understand that by using the Service, you may be exposed to
> > Content that is offensive, indecent or objectionable..."
>
> Understanding that one may be exposed to prohibited

More proof that Brocko is a dishonest biased prick.

Where does the quoted text from Google provided by BlueSci mentions
that you may be exposed to "prohibited" stuff?

I will tell you where:
Nowhere!
You prick.

Trying to twist Google's statement to suit your agenda and bolster
your claims...
Indeed, it would be a lot easier to agree with you if we were
discussing prohibited/illegal material.
Too bad for you we are not discussing prohibited materials.

And you claim you are not biased?

> content does not
> mean that I condone or support its posting.

____________________________________________

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snipped>
 

This doesn't explicitly say that owners must enforce any part of the
TOS.  And Google does have a mechanism for one user to report another
user for violations of the TOS directly to Google.  Implying that
Google does not require owners to handle enforcement of the TOS.

I agree the owners could, if they so choose, decide to only allow
"appropriate" postings.  Do you have a proposal for the set of
criteria that should be used to determine if a post is "appropriate"?
It would be very helpful if you highlight any differences from the
standard of appropriateness used on the failed ACRD group.

I have directly asked Brock in the past to provide a specific and concrete proposal which could be discussed.

He has ignored such requests and it's for this reason I doubt his sincerity in making this proposal.

<snipped>

[Brock Organ]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
>>
>> This doesn't explicitly say that owners must enforce any part of the
>> TOS.  And Google does have a mechanism for one user to report another
>> user for violations of the TOS directly to Google.  Implying that
>> Google does not require owners to handle enforcement of the TOS.
>>
>> I agree the owners could, if they so choose, decide to only allow
>> "appropriate" postings.  Do you have a proposal for the set of
>> criteria that should be used to determine if a post is "appropriate"?
>> It would be very helpful if you highlight any differences from the
>> standard of appropriateness used on the failed ACRD group.
>
> I have directly asked Brock in the past to provide a specific and concrete
> proposal which could be discussed.

Not true, I have shared my position with Trance many times, and have
made productive inquiries for group owners and moderators; most
recently at:

http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-forum/msg/62cd0537828cb412

Regards,

Brock

[Trance Gemini]

And you have ignored my requests for a specific and concrete proposals which outlines the parameters by which you would make the decisions which you are proposing. I have attached one post as a reference, however if someone were to review that entire thread they would see that you have done that repeatedly through out the thread.

http://groups.google.ca/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/c0d2cb3c2d16df64?hl=en

Each and every time you are asked to provide a concrete proposal, you respond with how many times you have articulated your position as you did above.

It's a dodge.

And it's why I lack belief that you are actually sincere.
 

http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-forum/msg/62cd0537828cb412

Regards,

Brock

[khurra...@gmail.com]

I agree but we have to differentiate actual violations from allegations. Just because someone says I am spamming does not mean I am.

 

I mean we have people here on this forum who talk to their invisible friend and call it prayer. So how can we take their word for it if they claim anyone is spamming or doing anything that is violating the TOS.

 

Ciao!!!!!!

[Walt]

I am asking you a very specific question, how it will be decided if
content is appropriate? The longer you take to respond to this
question, the more you lend credence to Trance's complaint against
you.

On Apr 21, 6:51 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-foru...
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

[OldMan]

On Apr 21, 12:32 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 2:33 PM, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> >> > .....You understand that by using the Service, you may be exposed to
> >> > Content that is offensive, indecent or objectionable..."
>
> >> Understanding that one may be exposed to prohibited content does not
> >> mean that I condone or support its posting.
>
> > The important question is, are you able to impartially enforce and
> > explain existing rules that you do not agree with?
>
> Yes.

OK, thanks

>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

[Dev]

And that's all I need, other than the answer to my question: What
motived us to recruit you and simon and theist mods?

I'm not trying to remove you. Frankly, I see no evidence that you have
done shit as a moderator. I would like it if you answered the
question, thouh.

On Apr 21, 1:32 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Dev]

I think God blessed ACRD with a slow, painful death, whereas your
participation would have meant a more mercifully quick one.

> > diverse constituencies to help achieve this mandate.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Dev]

And I want Brock to admit why he's a moderator. simon should probably
try as well.

If not, I'll remind everyone of the irrefutable fact of why both of
them are on board. Fuck it.

On Apr 21, 5:07 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com>

> > wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > <snipped>
>
> > >> This doesn't explicitly say that owners must enforce any part of the
> > >> TOS.  And Google does have a mechanism for one user to report another
> > >> user for violations of the TOS directly to Google.  Implying that
> > >> Google does not require owners to handle enforcement of the TOS.
>
> > >> I agree the owners could, if they so choose, decide to only allow
> > >> "appropriate" postings.  Do you have a proposal for the set of
> > >> criteria that should be used to determine if a post is "appropriate"?
> > >> It would be very helpful if you highlight any differences from the
> > >> standard of appropriateness used on the failed ACRD group.
>
> > > I have directly asked Brock in the past to provide a specific and
> > concrete
> > > proposal which could be discussed.
>
> > Not true, I have shared my position with Trance many times, and have
> > made productive inquiries for group owners and moderators; most
> > recently at:
>
> And you have ignored my requests for a specific and concrete proposals which
> outlines the parameters by which you would make the decisions which you are
> proposing. I have attached one post as a reference, however if someone were
> to review that entire thread they would see that you have done that
> repeatedly through out the thread.
>

> http://groups.google.ca/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/c0d2cb3c2d1...

>
> Each and every time you are asked to provide a concrete proposal, you
> respond with how many times you have articulated your position as you did
> above.
>
> It's a dodge.
>
> And it's why I lack belief that you are actually sincere.
>
>
>

> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-foru...

>
> > Regards,
>
> > Brock
>
> --
> I want to dance. I want to win. I want that Bingo trophy! --Mrs. Mia Wallace

> (paraphrased)- Hide quoted text -

[Brock Organ]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Not true, I have shared my position with Trance many times, and have
>> made productive inquiries for group owners and moderators; most
>> recently at:
>
> And you have ignored my requests for a specific and concrete proposals which
> outlines the parameters by which you would make the decisions which you are
> proposing.

Not really. Every single person who would like to know my position on
the issue has a multitude of postings where I make it clear. Of
course, the fact that I am willing to work with group members,
moderators and owners to develop a policy over time that incorporates
both practical and efficient processes is an indication that groups
like this can develop a balanced, yet adequate policy on such matters.

Regards,

Brock

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:30 PM, Dev <thede...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

And I want Brock to admit why he's a moderator. simon should probably
try as well.

I doubt Brock will do it. I'm still trying to get him to make his proposal concrete and specific without much luck.

However, like you, I do believe him when he said Yes to OMs question.

As long as that's case I'm fine too.
 

If not, I'll remind everyone of the irrefutable fact of why both of
them are on board. Fuck it.

We all know ;-)
 

[Trance Gemini]

And yet you never specify those practical and efficient processes or the specific policy which you claim that you want us to consider.

Why is that? Why do you consistently dodge that particular question?

Is it because you know that you will have even less support? How that's possible I don't know since you have no support on the general suggestion.
 

Regards,

Brock

[simonsaysbye]

On Apr 22, 3:30 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> And I want Brock to admit why he's a moderator. simon should probably
> try as well.

'admit' seems a loaded word. I have been transparent from the start
about having a 'theist' mod. These are probably my first words on the
matter, posted before actually considering:
"I don't volunteer, but I wish there was some theist who would, if
anything to bring these tedious bullshit threads about moderating and
banning to an end. The mods do a pretty thankless job; getting a
theist on board would not change anything in terms of outcomes, but it
might in terms of perception."
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/7784d51807794b0d

I see my main role as helping remove spam. Every morning I do that
when I log on. There are always a few emails there to do that, I
suspect because I am on uk time so when I log on in the morning the
group has been unmoderated for a few hours. I check again over the
course of the day.

I attach no particular significance to being a mod for the group and
can relinquish it in a moment and think nothing of it. I am here to
help the group run smoothly, and in my opinion have done exactly that
since coming on board. I don't see myself as a 'theist mod'; I am a
mod like any other and my theist is meaningless in terms of how I go
about removing spam.

[trog69]

 Of
course, the fact that I am willing to work with group members,
moderators and owners to develop a policy over time that incorporates
both practical and efficient processes is an indication that groups
like this can develop a balanced, yet adequate policy on such matters.

This doesn't make any sense. Just because you pitch ideas to those entities is no guarantee that those ideas would be balanced, nor adequate, much less a certainty that the group would not suffer due to those suggestions.

[trog69]

I don't see myself as a 'theist mod'; I am a
mod like any other and my theist is meaningless in terms of how I go
about removing spam.

That's as things should be, SSB. Thanks for the work.

[Walt]

If you're willing to work, why not perform the small task of
collecting the multitude of posts of which you speak into a page, so
that everyone doesn't have to go searching for them. Or have you
already created such a page?

On Apr 22, 3:39 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Walt]

I actually tried to go over there for a awhile. But I missed you too
much.

[Trance Gemini]

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 2:04 AM, simonsaysbye <tahta...@live.co.uk> wrote:

On Apr 22, 3:30 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> And I want Brock to admit why he's a moderator. simon should probably
> try as well.

'admit' seems a loaded word.  I have been transparent from the start
about having a 'theist' mod.  These are probably my first words on the
matter, posted before actually considering:
"I don't volunteer, but I wish there was some theist who would, if
anything to bring these tedious bullshit threads about moderating and
banning to an end.  The mods do a pretty thankless job; getting a
theist on board would not change anything in terms of outcomes, but it
might in terms of perception."
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/7784d51807794b0d

I see my main role as helping remove spam.  Every morning I do that
when I log on.  There are always a few emails there to do that, I
suspect because I am on uk time so when I log on in the morning the
group has been unmoderated for a few hours.  I check again over the
course of the day.

I attach no particular significance to being a mod for the group and
can relinquish it in a moment and think nothing of it.  I am here to
help the group run smoothly, and in my opinion have done exactly that
since coming on board.  I don't see myself as a 'theist mod'; I am a
mod like any other and my theist is meaningless in terms of how I go
about removing spam.

Thank you SSB. I have noticed that when I come online in the morning, I no longer have to remove very much because the site is clean.

I also appreciate the fact that you have not given me any reason to regret asking you to volunteer for this very thankless job.

My reason for asking you was that you have consistently taken an unbiased stand on certain issues whether the issue was created by a theist or an atheist on the main AvC site.

That, in my opinion, should be the main qualification for a Mod on this site.

Dev does this as well and he's extremely principled about it.

It's Bias that builds mistrust on a site like AvC whether that bias comes from certain members who wish to stir things up or the Mods.

While we are all entitled to our opinions, as Mods we don't act on them.

We act on the actual Policies and we explain those policies when members require an explanation.
 

[simonsaysbye]

We sometimes say that all the mods to is remove spam. But this
oversimplification is not so helpful if we are working out a mod
policy. OM, I think the document needs to spell things out a bit
more, perhaps along something like this?

The mods need to read content for posts on the following basis:
A. privacy: the post reveals content regarding a member's details that
they have not shared on the site
B. spam (most of it obvious but with enough grey areas that a working
definition of spam would be useful, IMHO)
C. porn (99% of it obvious, but with the occasional grey area,
document already exists on this)
D. content is on moderation/ group admin issue and so should be posted
in the moderation forum
E: the post is being listed with a new subject line, and the person is
doing this frequently
F. off-topic: we accept off-topic posts from regulars, but not from
newbies if they do it a lot. Subject should start with OT but this is
not always moderated, because it does not happen that often, and I
think most of the members appreciate the occasional OT thread (?).

For these six content-based issues, we have six actions at our
disposal, apart from posting in this site or email each other
privately if there is uncertainty as to how best to interpret our own
guidelines. In order of severity they are:
1. Ban member from group
2. Add new person to banned list (person never became member)
3. Delete post (and maybe caution person who posted it)
4. Approve post / do not delete post, but continue to moderate future
posts
5. Approve post / do not delete post (and maybe caution member)
6. Approve post and add person to un-moderated members list

Current moderation actions *seem* to be as follows (I hope my letters/
numbers are clear):
A=1/2, regardless
B=1 (if not yet member), 2 (if already cautioned), 3 (if posting a mix
of some span and some not), 5 (if it seems to be one off or the person
seems confused about our spam policy)
C=1 (if not yet member), 2 (if clearly provided as spam), 3 (porn is
always deleted)
D=3 (if not yet member)/5 (if a member and this is the first time they
made this mistake)
E= 3/5, depending on the number of cautions
F= 3/5, depending on status of member, and how amusing / interesting
the content is

Sorry for the confusing presentation.
ssb

[Trance Gemini]

Why don't you write it out more formally, create a page, give others a chance to revise, and then once everyone accepts it we can add it to the end of OMs?

Just a suggestion but I agree it's nice to have specificity particularly for new Mods.

I would also like to see a good methodology laid out to ensure transparency.

When I take an action for example, I usually CC it to the Mod Team, mainly to protect myself from blatant liars who claim that I'm persecuting them or theists in general. At first warnings are informal, just a response to a post. Then they get increasingly formal, get CC'd, threads may be started, etc.

[Multiverse]

On Apr 22, 2:04 am, simonsaysbye <tahtah4...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 3:30 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > And I want Brock to admit why he's a moderator. simon should probably
> > try as well.
>
> 'admit' seems a loaded word.  I have been transparent from the start
> about having a 'theist' mod.  These are probably my first words on the
> matter, posted before actually considering:
> "I don't volunteer, but I wish there was some theist who would, if
> anything to bring these tedious bullshit threads about moderating and
> banning to an end.  The mods do a pretty thankless job; getting a
> theist on board would not change anything in terms of outcomes, but it

> might in terms of perception."http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/7784d51807...

>
> I see my main role as helping remove spam.  Every morning I do that
> when I log on.  There are always a few emails there to do that, I
> suspect because I am on uk time so when I log on in the morning the
> group has been unmoderated for a few hours.  I check again over the
> course of the day.

This seems to bring up a good idea.

Is there a need or would it at least be convienient to assign
Moderators based on their time zone for the best possible chance of
not having gaps in coverage.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Trance Gemini]

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Multiverse <cut...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

On Apr 22, 2:04 am, simonsaysbye <tahtah4...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 3:30 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > And I want Brock to admit why he's a moderator. simon should probably
> > try as well.
>
> 'admit' seems a loaded word.  I have been transparent from the start
> about having a 'theist' mod.  These are probably my first words on the
> matter, posted before actually considering:
> "I don't volunteer, but I wish there was some theist who would, if
> anything to bring these tedious bullshit threads about moderating and
> banning to an end.  The mods do a pretty thankless job; getting a
> theist on board would not change anything in terms of outcomes, but it

> might in terms of perception."http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/7784d51807...

>
> I see my main role as helping remove spam.  Every morning I do that
> when I log on.  There are always a few emails there to do that, I
> suspect because I am on uk time so when I log on in the morning the
> group has been unmoderated for a few hours.  I check again over the
> course of the day.

This seems to bring up a good idea.

Is there a need or would it at least be convienient to assign
Moderators based on their time zone for the best possible chance of
not having gaps in coverage.

Most of the Moderators prefer to leave it unstructured because it is an unmoderated group.

Spam is almost always caught before it posts to the site and all we have to do is delete it so there really isn't any reason why we have to maintain any coverage.
 

[Multiverse]

On Apr 20, 9:08 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> The linked page is an initial attempt to define the responsibilities
> of AvC owners and moderators.  I will update this page as discussion
> goes on.
>
> Click onhttp://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-foru...
> - or copy & paste it into your browser's address bar if that doesn't
> work.

On "suggestions".

Suggestions need to enjoy the same free speech as AvC. It just so
happens that there are lots of suggestions that if were to become
Policy, AvC would suffer. I believe there is a limit to the types of
suggestions acceptable to be pursued by Mods and Owners as I will
outline.

It's obvious that Brock would like nothing more than to end free
speech on AvC as it is currently enjoyed. Since he is at odds with
the overwhelming majority on that issue and the Owners have stated
that they intend to preserve the site in the interests of the
membership, this could not happen unless the group suddenly is faced
with an Ownership problem as before.

Any changes to Policy since the Owners gained ownership of the group
must be in the interest of preserving the group just as OM points out
that they are "holding in trust the keys to the castle".

THIS IS AN IMPORTANT POINT: The Moderators should also be selected on
their willingness to "hold in trust the keys to the castle". That
means that they should be able to set aside their own opinion as to
how they would administrate a group and administrate THIS GROUP
according to how the group was founded. Brock continues to
demonstrate that he is not interested in preserving THE KEY POLICY OF
FREE SPEECH on AvC. Free speech can only be enjoyed through the
least restrictive rules possible that can account for spam and other
issues that currently require moderation per the founding of AvC.
Those are the issues that suggestions can be acted on. Suggestions
OUTSIDE THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE CURRENT POLICIES are COUNTER TO THE
PRESERVATION OF AvC. Simply put, if the idea does not seek to assist
the enforcement of current policy, then it is seeking to change AvC
which is unacceptable.

The possibility of an ownership debacle occurring again is less than
before but cannot be discounted. Therefore it is bad Policy to
include in the Moderator pool, members who are profoundly objecting to
and advocating against the structures of the castle. Mods can state
disagreement but when they advocate for these types of change, they
are not the type of person that should be anywhere near the keys to
the castle. That is not free speech issue in regards to anyone of
the Mods. It is the same kind of judgement call requirement being
applied to selecting a Mod for appointment when determining if they
can act without bias when explaining or enforcing Policies. They
should also be required to demonstrate that they can act without bias
in regards to possibly being handed the Keys to the castle. Those who
demonstrate they cannot act in such a manner should also not be
allowed to be Mods to reduce the possibility for the group to be
destroyed by such a person in the event an ownership situation occurs
again.

With other eligible members to be Mods, it makes no sense to appoint
someone to Moderator who is against the very nature of this site.

This clearly demonstrates that there is a profound difference in
certain types of suggestions. There is no difference between Brock's
calls to end free speech and anyone else suggesting that the site be
open to Advertisements and spam in that they are calling for a radical
change to Policy and clearly ALL CHANGES should be for the purpose of
ensuring policies, Rules, and Procedures are capable of ENFORCING THE
CURRENT POLICY. In other words, making changes only for the purpose
of guarding the castle through current Policy are the only acceptable
changes.

To the purpose of protecting the castle, it should be a clear policy
that moderators who are not deemed capable of protecting the castle be
immediately removed, a Moderator hierarchy be established to indicate
and establish who can assume control of the group if needed.

In short:

I am against changes to Policy that are not for the purpose of
enhancing the ability of Owners and Moderators to carry out current
Policy.

I am against Moderators being retained who advocate for changes to
current Policy that are not for the purpose of enhancing the ability
to carry out the current Policy.

Sometimes it is difficult at first to realize the full impact of
suggestions. However once the suggestion is properly identified as to
the particular type of impact it would have, it should be dropped with
the full understanding of the Owners and Mods not to pursue it.

The suggestion that cursing etc... etc... be restricted is clearly
identified here as not serving any enhancement contribution in the way
of making current Policy enforceable. Only persons who are not
interested in guarding the castle continue to advocate for this
change, and they should not hold a position as a moderator.

Owners and Moderators must be able to identify the difference between
a suggestion that will continue to guard the castle and a suggestion
that seeks to tear down the castle. Absent that ability they should
be removed from a position of trust.

So what do you think of this assessment OM?

[Multiverse]

do you mean unstructured as in nobody is assigned time slots?

I already thought there were no assigned time slots but I was looking
at the idea that if there were certain times that usually there is no
coverage, maybe assigning someone who is normally awake in that time
zone is best shot at having coverage.

Just an idea.

I already think the Mods are doing fine getting rid of spam and stuff
so if it's not needed it's not needed.

On Apr 22, 4:23 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Trance Gemini]

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Multiverse <cut...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

do you mean unstructured as in nobody is assigned time slots?

Yes.

I already thought there were no assigned time slots but I was looking
at the idea that if there were certain times that usually there is no
coverage, maybe assigning someone who is normally awake in that time
zone is best shot at having coverage.

No. We don't have anything formal in place. People Moderate when they're online and we leave it at that since our main role is just to eliminate spam we don't need to have it covered all of the time.

It would need to be covered if we were a Moderated group and had restrictions in place like the one's that Brock is advocating because we would need to act immediately on violations.

Since there are very few things that people can do which would violate AvC policy it really doesn't matter.

At the moment we have so many Moderators and we're all well distributed and regular posters that we probably are covered 24/7.
 

[OldMan]

Good comments. I realize my document is not very detailed, and
intentionally so. I wanted to get something out to begin discussion
on. By making it a page I would be able to edit it as appropriate.
When I get a few extra minutes I will include some more descriptive
text similiar to what you have provided.

[OldMan]

I agree in principle. But let me chew on this for a bit.

FWIW, the reason we have two owners now is to try and avoid the
problem of the AWOL owner. As soon as it is obvious that an owner is
missing, the other one should find, with AvC input, a replacement. We
never want to get down to a single owner again. Maybe I should add
that to this doc as well.

[trog69]

Since he is at odds with
the overwhelming majority on that issue

I cringe a little at this. I personally have no idea as to the make up of all the members, though I'm pretty sure we have much more who lurk rather than post, so we don't know how a vote would conclude. Accordingly, since we enjoy total free speech here as a tenet of AvC, I would hope that this never gets put to a vote, as we atheists/free speechers might find ourselves voted out. 

[Dev]

And you are doing fine. Brock is doing as fine as can be expected,
since he is evidently doing nothing at all, which is for the best. My
agreement to the promotion of Brock was contingent on the fact that he
would either do stupid shit that would get him demoted or banned or
not act on his fucked up principles. Either way, I realized there
would be no long-term problem, providing that rappoccio was promoted
to "Owner" status.

In terms of moderation on this group, I have been uncharacteristically
political. I of course sympathize with those who have concerns about
those who have no consistent standards for distinguishing fact from
fiction in positions of authority, and share those concerns, but in
the context of this group I understand the exasperation with which
some of the mods have dealt with a superficial "uprising" of liars and
armchair terrorists on this group.

You and Brock were made moderators because theists aren't honest. A
bunch of theists lied, some moderators who revel in the chaos less
than I do were upset by the ordeal, so we made a few theists
moderators so one of the lies--the "moderators are discriminating
against believers in terms of freedom of speech" lie--would be harder
to defend. This is supported by the record. It's dumb, really.
Seriously, simon, were checkers and Liam providing good arguments that
atheists just couldn't handle? Come on.

On Apr 22, 12:04 am, simonsaysbye <tahtah4...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 3:30 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > And I want Brock to admit why he's a moderator. simon should probably
> > try as well.
>
> 'admit' seems a loaded word.  I have been transparent from the start
> about having a 'theist' mod.  These are probably my first words on the
> matter, posted before actually considering:
> "I don't volunteer, but I wish there was some theist who would, if
> anything to bring these tedious bullshit threads about moderating and
> banning to an end.  The mods do a pretty thankless job; getting a
> theist on board would not change anything in terms of outcomes, but it

> might in terms of perception."http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/7784d51807...

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Dev]

And I should qualify that simon is doing "fine" as a moderator. Not so
much as a poster or human.

[Dev]

You were rejected from ACRD?

I think there's a conspiracy of Martians on deserted islands making
literally everybody not like you. Maybe you should either suck less or
suck better? Friendly suggestion.

[Brock Organ]

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 12:03 PM, simonsaysbye <tahta...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>

Not at all, Simon! This feedback is very good, thank you for sharing
it. You've really captured an important truth, it is an
over-simplification to state that the only thing moderators do is
address spam, and you've outlined A-F nicely to support it.

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Multiverse <cut...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> It's obvious that Brock would like nothing more than to end free
> speech on AvC as it is currently enjoyed.

Not true, freedom of speech != unbounded speech.

> Any changes to Policy since the Owners  gained ownership of the group
> must be in the interest of preserving the group just as OM points out
> that they are "holding in trust the keys to the castle".
>
> THIS IS AN IMPORTANT POINT:  The Moderators should also be selected on
> their willingness to "hold in trust the keys to the castle".  That
> means that they should be able to set aside their own opinion as to
> how they would administrate a group and administrate THIS GROUP
> according to how the group was founded.  Brock continues to
> demonstrate that he is not interested in preserving THE KEY POLICY OF
> FREE SPEECH on AvC.

Free speech != a right to cursing, invective and vitriol as the google
TOS clearly indicates, for example:

"you agree that when using the Service, you will not:
* defame, abuse, harass, stalk, ... others;

* post any inappropriate, defamatory, infringing, obscene, or unlawful Content;"

http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-forum/web/google-terms-of-service-2008

> Free speech can only be enjoyed through the
> least restrictive rules possible that can account for spam and other
> issues that currently require moderation per the founding of AvC.

Such as the Google TOS.

> Those are the issues that suggestions can be acted on.  Suggestions
> OUTSIDE THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE CURRENT POLICIES are COUNTER TO THE
> PRESERVATION OF AvC.

They are certainly not counter to the protected, moderated speech that
is AvC's mandate via google TOS.

> Simply put, if the idea does not seek to assist
> the enforcement of current policy, then it is seeking to change AvC
> which is unacceptable.

There is nothing wrong with suggesting changes to AvC policy.

> Therefore it is bad Policy to
> include in the Moderator pool, members who are profoundly objecting to
> and advocating against the structures of the castle.

Its not advocating "against the structures of the castle" to suggest
gaps in coverage and offering to work with group owners, moderators
and members to improve the group's policies.

> They
> should also be required to demonstrate that they can act without bias
> in regards to possibly being handed the Keys to the castle.

> With other eligible members to be Mods, it makes no sense to appoint

> someone to Moderator who is against the very nature of this site.

That's hyperbolic.

> There is no difference between Brock's
> calls to end free speech and anyone else suggesting that the site be
> open to Advertisements and spam in that they are calling for a radical
> change to Policy and clearly ALL CHANGES should be for the purpose of
> ensuring policies, Rules, and Procedures are capable of ENFORCING THE
> CURRENT POLICY.  In other words, making changes only for the purpose
> of guarding the castle through current Policy are the only acceptable
> changes.

That can be misleading, since moderators can be incorrectly held to
unrealistic over-simplifications of a standard (ie "moderators only
fight spam", see Simon's excellent post about the issue) instead of
the actual standard, represented by the google TOS and appropriate
moderator policy documents such as OldMan has started working on ...

> I am against changes to Policy that are not for the purpose of
> enhancing the ability of Owners and Moderators to carry out current
> Policy.

I disagree, such a statement, for example, invalidly discriminates
against OldMan, who, by working with the group to author explicit
policy documents is not simply carrrying out current policy but
changing it by adjusting and making what have been unwritten, ad-hoc
(and not consistently applied) policies explicit.

Yet, OldMan is not doing anything wrong or "against the castle" by
working to establish changes.

> I am against Moderators being retained who advocate for changes to
> current Policy that are not for the purpose of enhancing the ability
> to carry out the current Policy.

I've certainly been clear to cite the currrent google TOS in my
position, so my suggestions do enhance the ability to carry out the
current Policy.

> The suggestion that cursing etc... etc... be restricted is clearly

> identified here as not serving any enhancement contribution in the way
> of making current Policy enforceable.

Of course it is, I've identified a legitimate issue that group members
have, over time, complained about, and have requested that a balanced
group of owners, moderators and members address the policy over time.

> Only persons who are not
> interested in guarding the castle continue to advocate for this
> change, and they should not hold a position as a moderator.

Its interesting that such a caricature of AvC's free speech as you
specify wouldn't apply to a moderator responding to member complaints
and seeking a quorum of participation to address those concerns. In
short, your caricature of a free speech policy is not free speech.

> Owners and Moderators must be able to identify the difference between
> a suggestion that will continue to guard the castle and a suggestion
> that seeks to tear down the castle.

A request that cursing, invective and vitriol be moderated, with
specific citations and references to the associated google TOS entries
defending it, is not "tearing down the castle". I object to any
characterization that implies AvC cannot continue to function unless
members have a "privilege" to curse, invect and use vitriol.

Regards,

Brock

[trog69]

 I object to any
characterization that implies AvC cannot continue to function unless
members have a "privilege" to curse, invect and use vitriol.

Well, of course you object. Religious right authoritarians cannot abide anyone arguing against their proscriptions of "sinful" behavior.

Not true, freedom of speech != unbounded speech.

And where exactly do you think the "bounds" should be demarcated?

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Brock Organ <brock...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Multiverse <cut...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> It's obvious that Brock would like nothing more than to end free
> speech on AvC as it is currently enjoyed.

--
Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand.
~ Kurt Vonnegut

 Read more >>   Options >>  

[Brock Organ]

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 11:19 PM, trog69 <tom.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>  I object to any
>> characterization that implies AvC cannot continue to function unless
>> members have a "privilege" to curse, invect and use vitriol.
>
> Well, of course you object. Religious right authoritarians cannot abide
> anyone arguing against their proscriptions of "sinful" behavior.

Rather, I object because practical examples of moderated, yet
productive discourse are the norm in society, whether it be the
courtroom, the corporate boardroom, the classroom, the government
forum, as well as other forums: cursing, invective and vitriol are not
permitted. And of course, by the terms of the google TOS, it is not
permitted here, either. That's why I'm so happy to offer to be a part
of a quorum of group owners, moderators and members to help develop a
policy that over time can provide a balanced, practical and efficient
means to work with such issues.

> And where exactly do you think the "bounds" should be demarcated?

See above.

Regards,

Brock

[Trance Gemini]

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 11:19 PM, trog69 <tom.t...@gmail.com> wrote:

 I object to any
characterization that implies AvC cannot continue to function unless
members have a "privilege" to curse, invect and use vitriol.

Well, of course you object. Religious right authoritarians cannot abide anyone arguing against their proscriptions of "sinful" behavior.

Not true, freedom of speech != unbounded speech.

And where exactly do you think the "bounds" should be demarcated?

It's a deep, dark secret.

Brock believes in making vague, generalizations and refuses to provide any specifics whatsoever.

Then expects that we should trust him to "work" with us.

Of course *he* doesn't have to do anything to earn that trust, we're just supposed to believe him.
 

[Multiverse]

On Apr 22, 11:08 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > It's obvious that Brock would like nothing more than to end free
> > speech on AvC as it is currently enjoyed.
>
> Not true, freedom of speech != unbounded speech.

Explain. I need a laugh.

>
> > Any changes to Policy since the Owners  gained ownership of the group
> > must be in the interest of preserving the group just as OM points out
> > that they are "holding in trust the keys to the castle".
>
> > THIS IS AN IMPORTANT POINT:  The Moderators should also be selected on
> > their willingness to "hold in trust the keys to the castle".  That
> > means that they should be able to set aside their own opinion as to
> > how they would administrate a group and administrate THIS GROUP
> > according to how the group was founded.  Brock continues to
> > demonstrate that he is not interested in preserving THE KEY POLICY OF
> > FREE SPEECH on AvC.
>
> Free speech != a right to cursing, invective and vitriol as the google
> TOS clearly indicates, for example:
>
> "you agree that when using the Service, you will not:
> * defame, abuse, harass, stalk, ... others;
> * post any inappropriate, defamatory, infringing, obscene, or unlawful Content;"

Oh well. Proving yet again that you have no reading comprehension
skills.

You should not be a moderator based also on your non-ability to read
and understand simple sentences.

Nothing here in this passage prohibits me from telling you to fuck
off. So, fuck off, by the way.

There you have it. Prove me wrong by contacting Google and having
something done about it.


>
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-foru...

>
> > Free speech can only be enjoyed through the
> > least restrictive rules possible that can account for spam and other
> > issues that currently require moderation per the founding of AvC.
>
> Such as the Google TOS.

Nope. such as the current Policy.

>
> > Those are the issues that suggestions can be acted on.  Suggestions
> > OUTSIDE THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE CURRENT POLICIES are COUNTER TO THE
> > PRESERVATION OF AvC.
>
> They are certainly not counter to the protected, moderated speech that
> is AvC's mandate via  google TOS.

Wrong again. You should not be a Moderator because you have no
understanding of Google TOS or AvC Policy.

If you believe you are obligated to enforce google tos via your
interpretation than delete my post for telling you to fuck off.

Or else admit that your a lying sack of uneducated shit that can't
read and interpret simple Policy statements.

>
> > Simply put, if the idea does not seek to assist
> > the enforcement of current policy, then it is seeking to change AvC
> > which is unacceptable.
>
> There is nothing wrong with suggesting changes to AvC policy.
>

And of course that is not what I said is it Brock. So now your either
a lying asshole yet again, or you are unable to read and interpret
simple sentences.

Which is it Brock? You can't read or you are a liar? Please explain
if you think I am wrong.

> > Therefore it is bad Policy to
> > include in the Moderator pool, members who are profoundly objecting to
> > and advocating against the structures of the castle.
>
> Its not advocating "against the structures of the castle" to suggest
> gaps in coverage and offering to work with group owners, moderators
> and members to improve the group's policies.
>

And of course that is not what I said is it Brock. So now your either
a lying asshole yet again, or you are unable to read and interpret
simple sentences.

Which is it Brock? You can't read or you are a liar? Please explain
if you think I am wrong.

I am not going to let you misrepresent what I am saying here Brock. I
don't appreciate that a moderator would take up the cause to argue
against my position and in the process lie about what my position is.

Brock, your lies and inability to comprehend simple sentences are not
helpful to this discussion at all.

You need to go back and verify to me that you understand what I am
saying or don't consider yourself to be helpful at all.

> > They
> > should also be required to demonstrate that they can act without bias
> > in regards to possibly being handed the Keys to the castle.
> > With other eligible members to be Mods, it makes no sense to appoint
> > someone to Moderator who is against the very nature of this site.
>
> That's hyperbolic.

It's the truth.

>
> > There is no difference between Brock's
> > calls to end free speech and anyone else suggesting that the site be
> > open to Advertisements and spam in that they are calling for a radical
> > change to Policy and clearly ALL CHANGES should be for the purpose of
> > ensuring policies, Rules, and Procedures are capable of ENFORCING THE
> > CURRENT POLICY.  In other words, making changes only for the purpose
> > of guarding the castle through current Policy are the only acceptable
> > changes.
>
> That can be misleading, since moderators can be incorrectly held to
> unrealistic over-simplifications of a standard (ie "moderators only
> fight spam", see Simon's excellent post about the issue) instead of
> the actual standard, represented by the google TOS and appropriate
> moderator policy documents such as OldMan has started working on ...

Demonstrating yet again that you are clueless. Were you looking for
some place to just put this useless statement you make here? Your
statement is not responsive to my point.

The point is, the only changes to Policy that are acceptable, are the
ones that make current Policy enforcement easier etc....

Simon's post is about PROCEDURES to eliminate spam, porn, and privacy
issues. So his post is actually addresses the point of the paragraph
that you are responding to yet you start your response off with "that
can be misleading....". What the fuck is your problem Brock? Are you
really this incapable of reading and understanding?

You are not helpful at all because you are not comprehending what I am
saying, you are misrepresenting what I am saying or you are just
outright lying. Take your pick Brock. None of your crap is helping
anything.

>
> > I am against changes to Policy that are not for the purpose of
> > enhancing the ability of Owners and Moderators to carry out current
> > Policy.
>
> I disagree, such a statement, for example, invalidly discriminates
> against OldMan, who, by working with the group to author explicit
> policy documents is not simply carrrying out current policy but
> changing it by adjusting and making what have been unwritten, ad-hoc
> (and not consistently applied) policies explicit.
>

Yet again you can't understand. Why do we have a Moderator that can't
comprehend?

Why don't you start your self off with reading OM's reply to my post
(the same one you are commenting on here) and see that OM AGREES WITH
ME IN PRINCIPLE.

So, no, dumb ass simply working on Policies, Rules, and Procedures
does not violate the point unless the Policy, rule, or Procedure seeks
to change the current Policies in regards to moderation.

So telling people you want to make it a banning offence to tell you to
fuck off would be changing the moderation Policy in a way that IS NOT
PERMITTED. To fucking bad huh!?

Brock, tell OM and Rapp you want to change the Policy on the use of
words like: Fuck you you piece of shit.

Please do so right here on this forum. I await the response you get.

And also I would like for you to reply here and prove that you can
even understand what I have said. You should not be a moderator if
you are going to lie, fail to comprehend, or misinterpret and
misrepresent what I or anyone else has said here.

> Yet, OldMan is not doing anything wrong or "against the castle" by
> working to establish changes.

Here you are again misunderstanding or misrepresenting my position.
Why do we have a Moderator acting the way you are?

>
> > I am against Moderators being retained who advocate for changes to
> > current Policy that are not for the purpose of enhancing the ability
> > to carry out the current Policy.
>
> I've certainly been clear to cite the currrent google TOS in my
> position, so my suggestions do enhance the ability to carry out the
> current Policy.

No actually your suggestions don't amount to shit. You don't
understand the google tos. Please explain how your suggestion has
enhanced anyone's ability to carry out policy. Time for me to have
more laughs.

>
> > The suggestion that cursing etc... etc... be restricted is clearly
> > identified here as not serving any enhancement contribution in the way
> > of making current Policy enforceable.
>
> Of course it is, I've identified a legitimate issue that group members
> have, over time, complained about, and have requested that a balanced
> group of owners, moderators and members address the policy over time.

You have not identified shit dumb ass. You are such a moron.

Only people who DO NOT UNDERSTAND AvC POLICY would complain about
cursing. All you have done is fail to recognize when someone does not
understand Policy and then you try to use that for your own self
serving purpose.

So why are you a moderator again?

>
> > Only persons who are not
> > interested in guarding the castle continue to advocate for this
> > change, and they should not hold a position as a moderator.
>
> Its interesting that such a caricature of AvC's free speech as you
> specify wouldn't apply to a moderator responding to member complaints
> and seeking a quorum of participation to address those concerns.  In
> short, your caricature of a free speech policy is not free speech.

In short your a lieing fuck that once again pretends not to understand
what I said.

Are you trying to say that Ken was complaining about cursing? Please
lie to us all some more Brock. Oh wait I know. Right now your not
lying moderator Brock. Your just plain ol lying Brock. So that makes
it ok for you to fail to understand simple sentences, lie and
misrepresent those simple sentences, and generally just blather on,
because you actually think you are helpful here right?

Thanks for the bag of laughs you call a post Brock.

>
> > Owners and Moderators must be able to identify the difference between
> > a suggestion that will continue to guard the castle and a suggestion
> > that seeks to tear down the castle.
>
> A request that cursing, invective and vitriol be moderated, with
> specific citations and references to the associated google TOS entries
> defending it, is not "tearing down the castle".  I object to any
> characterization that implies AvC cannot continue to function unless
> members have a "privilege" to curse, invect and use vitriol.

Fuck you Brock, moderate that! Prove to us all that your pathetic non-
interpretation of google tos requires you to do shit.

Your a lying fuck.

I object to your continued position as a moderator because you are not
capable of reading and interpreting simple sentences and or your a
liar. Feel free to explain which.

>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

[BlueSci]

On Apr 22, 3:03 pm, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> do you mean unstructured as in nobody is assigned time slots?
>
> I already thought there were no assigned time slots but I was looking
> at the idea that if there were certain times that usually there is no
> coverage, maybe assigning someone who is normally awake in that time
> zone is best shot at having coverage.
>
> Just an idea.
>
> I already think the Mods are doing fine getting rid of spam and stuff
> so if it's not needed it's not needed.

All posts from new members are held until one of us can look at them
and approve or delete them, so you won't see the spam even if none of
us are available. The only problem this could cause as far as
coverage is concerned is that a valid new member may have to wait a
few hours for their posts to show up on the board. Even that doesn't
seem to be much of a problem because so far I haven't seen any new
members that didn't get approved within an hour or so. If some of the
other mods are seeing valid posters who have had to wait an
excessively long time to get approved, then maybe we should consider
such a policy. Otherwise, I think we're good.

[simonsaysbye]

On Apr 23, 3:42 pm, BlueSci <enzinab...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 3:03 pm, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > do you mean unstructured as in nobody is assigned time slots?
>
> > I already thought there were no assigned time slots but I was looking
> > at the idea that if there were certain times that usually there is no
> > coverage, maybe assigning someone who is normally awake in that time
> > zone is best shot at having coverage.
>
> > Just an idea.
>
> > I already think the Mods are doing fine getting rid of spam and stuff
> > so if it's not needed it's not needed.
>
> All posts from new members are held until one of us can look at them
> and approve or delete them, so you won't see the spam even if none of
> us are available.  The only problem this could cause as far as
> coverage is concerned is that a valid new member may have to wait a
> few hours for their posts to show up on the board.  Even that doesn't
> seem to be much of a problem because so far I haven't seen any new
> members that didn't get approved within an hour or so.  If some of the
> other mods are seeing valid posters who have had to wait an
> excessively long time to get approved, then maybe we should consider
> such a policy.  Otherwise, I think we're good.
>

The other day someone had posted the same thing 12 times: all because
he/she was not seeing the post appear in the group. Is there some way
we could make it clearer to new people that their posts will be
moderated at first? That would probably reduce someone's frustration.

[Trance Gemini]

I believe that we tell them that in the Intro page. That's the only place we can do it.

If they don't bother reading it there isn't anything we can do about because we have no means of sending an auto-reply to them right now.

However, I know that has been asked for as a feature.

So maybe eventually it will happen.
 

[simonsaysbye]

On Apr 23, 4:31 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

It was an auto reply thing that I was wondering about. Thanks trance.

[Walt]

On Apr 22, 11:08 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > It's obvious that Brock would like nothing more than to end free
> > speech on AvC as it is currently enjoyed.
>
> Not true, freedom of speech != unbounded speech.
>
> > Any changes to Policy since the Owners  gained ownership of the group
> > must be in the interest of preserving the group just as OM points out
> > that they are "holding in trust the keys to the castle".
>
> > THIS IS AN IMPORTANT POINT:  The Moderators should also be selected on
> > their willingness to "hold in trust the keys to the castle".  That
> > means that they should be able to set aside their own opinion as to
> > how they would administrate a group and administrate THIS GROUP
> > according to how the group was founded.  Brock continues to
> > demonstrate that he is not interested in preserving THE KEY POLICY OF
> > FREE SPEECH on AvC.
>
> Free speech != a right to cursing, invective and vitriol as the google
> TOS clearly indicates, for example:
>
> "you agree that when using the Service, you will not:
> * defame, abuse, harass, stalk, ... others;
> * post any inappropriate, defamatory, infringing, obscene, or unlawful Content;"

You can report such issues to Google directly by finding the message
in the portal, clicking on "more options", then clicking on "report
this message".

>
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-foru...

[simonsaysbye]

Thanks. I have put together a working definition of spam, which could
also be included. I started a new discussion on it, though it does
not seem to be very contentious.

[Walt]

On Apr 22, 10:29 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> You were rejected from ACRD?

Nah, it was just even more boring than here.

>
> I think there's a conspiracy of Martians on deserted islands making
> literally everybody not like you. Maybe you should either suck less or
> suck better? Friendly suggestion.

Not Martians, just me. It's boring when people like you, under your
definition of like -- have zero deviation from your dogma.

[Answer_42]

On Apr 22, 11:08 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > It's obvious that Brock would like nothing more than to end free
> > speech on AvC as it is currently enjoyed.
>
> Not true, freedom of speech != unbounded speech.

Fuck off.
Is that an example of bound or unbounded speech?

> > Any changes to Policy since the Owners  gained ownership of the group
> > must be in the interest of preserving the group just as OM points out
> > that they are "holding in trust the keys to the castle".
>
> > THIS IS AN IMPORTANT POINT:  The Moderators should also be selected on
> > their willingness to "hold in trust the keys to the castle".  That
> > means that they should be able to set aside their own opinion as to
> > how they would administrate a group and administrate THIS GROUP
> > according to how the group was founded.  Brock continues to
> > demonstrate that he is not interested in preserving THE KEY POLICY OF
> > FREE SPEECH on AvC.
>
> Free speech != a right to cursing,

Yes, it fucking does.

> invective

Why the fuck not?


> and vitriol

You are a dishonest biased prick.

> as the google
> TOS clearly indicates, for example:

No, it does not.

> "you agree that when using the Service, you will not:
> * defame, abuse, harass, stalk, ... others;
> * post any inappropriate, defamatory, infringing, obscene, or unlawful Content;"

This was explained to you a gazillion times, and yet, you still bring
it up as an argument for your twisted need to curtail other people's
freedom of expression based on your own fucking standard nobody gives
a fuck about.

> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-foru...

>
> > Free speech can only be enjoyed through the
> > least restrictive rules possible that can account for spam and other
> > issues that currently require moderation per the founding of AvC.
>
> Such as the Google TOS.

No.

> > Those are the issues that suggestions can be acted on.  Suggestions
> > OUTSIDE THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE CURRENT POLICIES are COUNTER TO THE
> > PRESERVATION OF AvC.
>
> They are certainly not counter to the protected, moderated speech that
> is AvC's mandate via  google TOS.

You dishonest biased prick.

Google does not ask group owners to moderate on cursing on its behalf,
you fucking idiot.

> > Simply put, if the idea does not seek to assist
> > the enforcement of current policy, then it is seeking to change AvC
> > which is unacceptable.
>
> There is nothing wrong with suggesting changes to AvC policy.

True.
However, your particular asinine suggestion was rejected by all.
So enough already.

<snip>

> > I am against changes to Policy that are not for the purpose of
> > enhancing the ability of Owners and Moderators to carry out current
> > Policy.
>
> I disagree, such a statement, for example, invalidly discriminates
> against OldMan, who, by working with the group to author explicit
> policy documents is not simply carrrying out current policy but
> changing it by adjusting and making what have been unwritten, ad-hoc
> (and not consistently applied) policies explicit.
>
> Yet, OldMan is not doing anything wrong or "against the castle" by
> working to establish changes.

Still a dishonest prick, aren't you?
OldMan is not working to change the policy, but to clarify it so as to
avoid any misunderstandings, the likes of which you feed on avidly in
order to shove your own personal biased agenda down our throats.

> > I am against Moderators being retained who advocate for changes to
> > current Policy that are not for the purpose of enhancing the ability
> > to carry out the current Policy.
>
> I've certainly been clear to cite the currrent google TOS in my
> position,

And you were shown to be fucking wrong over a dozen times already.

> so my suggestions do enhance the ability to carry out the
> current Policy.
>
> > The suggestion that cursing etc... etc... be restricted is clearly
> > identified here as not serving any enhancement contribution in the way
> > of making current Policy enforceable.
>
> Of course it is, I've identified a legitimate issue that group members
> have, over time, complained about, and have requested that a balanced
> group of owners, moderators and members address the policy over time.

Citations?

> > Only persons who are not
> > interested in guarding the castle continue to advocate for this
> > change, and they should not hold a position as a moderator.
>
> Its interesting that such a caricature of AvC's free speech as you
> specify wouldn't apply to a moderator responding to member complaints
> and seeking a quorum of participation to address those concerns.  In
> short, your caricature of a free speech policy is not free speech.
>
> > Owners and Moderators must be able to identify the difference between
> > a suggestion that will continue to guard the castle and a suggestion
> > that seeks to tear down the castle.
>
> A request that cursing, invective and vitriol be moderated, with
> specific citations and references to the associated google TOS entries
> defending it, is not "tearing down the castle".  I object to any
> characterization that implies AvC cannot continue to function unless
> members have a "privilege" to curse, invect and use vitriol.

Fuck you, again.
Why don't you go over to ACRD?
I heard they were looking for a moderator.
__________________________________
No sign of purpose can be detected in any part of the vast universe
disclosed by our most powerful telescopes.
-- Hugh Elliot

[Answer_42]

On Apr 23, 12:01 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>  I object to any
> >> characterization that implies AvC cannot continue to function unless
> >> members have a "privilege" to curse, invect and use vitriol.
>
> > Well, of course you object. Religious right authoritarians cannot abide
> > anyone arguing against their proscriptions of "sinful" behavior.
>
> Rather, I object because practical examples of moderated, yet
> productive discourse are the norm in society, whether it be the
> courtroom, the corporate boardroom, the classroom, the government
> forum, as well as other forums: cursing, invective and vitriol are not
> permitted.  And of course, by the terms of the google TOS, it is not
> permitted here, either.  That's why I'm so happy to offer to be a part
> of a quorum of group owners, moderators and members to help develop a
> policy that over time can provide a balanced, practical and efficient
> means to work with such issues.

Why is this asshole still a moderator?

He still argues that Google TOS as rules against cursing.
He can't read to save his life and he is a moderator in a context
where the ability to read is the most important qualification a
moderator must have?

[OldMan]

On Apr 22, 8:08 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > It's obvious that Brock would like nothing more than to end free
> > speech on AvC as it is currently enjoyed.
>
> Not true, freedom of speech != unbounded speech.
>
> > Any changes to Policy since the Owners  gained ownership of the group
> > must be in the interest of preserving the group just as OM points out
> > that they are "holding in trust the keys to the castle".
>
> > THIS IS AN IMPORTANT POINT:  The Moderators should also be selected on
> > their willingness to "hold in trust the keys to the castle".  That
> > means that they should be able to set aside their own opinion as to
> > how they would administrate a group and administrate THIS GROUP
> > according to how the group was founded.  Brock continues to
> > demonstrate that he is not interested in preserving THE KEY POLICY OF
> > FREE SPEECH on AvC.
>
> Free speech != a right to cursing, invective and vitriol as the google
> TOS clearly indicates, for example:
>
> "you agree that when using the Service, you will not:
> * defame, abuse, harass, stalk, ... others;
> * post any inappropriate, defamatory, infringing, obscene, or unlawful Content;"
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-foru...

>
> > Free speech can only be enjoyed through the
> > least restrictive rules possible that can account for spam and other
> > issues that currently require moderation per the founding of AvC.
>
> Such as the Google TOS.
>
> > Those are the issues that suggestions can be acted on.  Suggestions
> > OUTSIDE THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE CURRENT POLICIES are COUNTER TO THE
> > PRESERVATION OF AvC.
>
> They are certainly not counter to the protected, moderated speech that
> is AvC's mandate via  google TOS.
>
> > Simply put, if the idea does not seek to assist
> > the enforcement of current policy, then it is seeking to change AvC
> > which is unacceptable.
>
> There is nothing wrong with suggesting changes to AvC policy.
>
> > Therefore it is bad Policy to
> > include in the Moderator pool, members who are profoundly objecting to
> > and advocating against the structures of the castle.
>
> Its not advocating "against the structures of the castle" to suggest
> gaps in coverage and offering to work with group owners, moderators
> and members to improve the group's policies.

There is nothing wrong with suggesting policy changes on AvC. It is
possible that some policy change could truely enhance the debate on
AvC. The problem that I am having now with what you are doing is that
even when it has been made abundantly clear that your suggested change
is stillborn, you continue to advocate it. I can sympathize with the
desire to reduce the amount of profanity on AvC. I personally don't
see that it offers anything of value. However we currently have no
policy against it, nor, (and here's the important part) with a very
few exceptions, any interest in creating one to deal with this. Nor
do I in any way support any attempt to legislate an end to profanity
on AvC, any more than I would support an attempt to do it at a
national level. It concerns me that you seem unwilling to drop this
issue and continue to advocate it. Yes, it is your opinion and you
are entitled to it. But hopefully you can see that continuing to push
it does not enspire confidence in your willingness to moderate
inpartially.

[Answer_42]

On Apr 23, 9:21 pm, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
<snip>

> > Its not advocating "against the structures of the castle" to suggest
> > gaps in coverage and offering to work with group owners, moderators
> > and members to improve the group's policies.
>
> There is nothing wrong with suggesting policy changes on AvC.  It is
> possible that some policy change could truely enhance the debate on
> AvC.  The problem that I am having now with what you are doing is that
> even when it has been made abundantly clear that your suggested change
> is stillborn, you continue to advocate it.  I can sympathize with the
> desire to reduce the amount of profanity on AvC.  I personally don't
> see that it offers anything of value.  However we currently have no
> policy against it, nor, (and here's the important part) with a very
> few exceptions, any interest in creating one to deal with this.  Nor
> do I in any way support any attempt to legislate an end to profanity
> on AvC, any more than I would support an attempt to do it at a
> national level.  It concerns me that you seem unwilling to drop this
> issue and continue to advocate it.  Yes, it is your opinion and you
> are entitled to it.  But hopefully you can see that continuing to push
> it does not enspire confidence in your willingness to moderate
> inpartially.

The really infuriating part is that he advocates his policy change by
basing it on what he believes is a statement from the Google TOS that
suppors his views.

It has been explained to him many times already that the Google TOS he
refers to all the time was not written with the intent of preventing
cursing as such, and that it does not imply that groupo owners are
somehow bound to adhere to this cursing prevention stipulation he has
dreamt up.

And this si why he should not be a moderator, it will lead to no good.

He cannot comprehend what he reads because he injects his personal
bias in all that he reads and remains conviced that he is right, no
matter how many times it was shown that he was in fact wrong, with
actual supoprting evidence to dismiss his argument.

When is the last time you read anything that Brock wrote that meant:
"I think I misunderstood you, sorry."
or
"I may have made a mistake here."
or
"My assumption might have been wrong."
or
"I had not considered that point of view."
etc.
Never.

You know why?

Because he has read tons of books/web pages that all point to the same
thing and he has convinced himself that these books cannot be wrong.
So, he confidently and arrogantly (He thinks he is being patient and
humble...) regurgitates what those books say without batting an eye.
He thought about it once, he was convinced, so no need to reconsider
anymore, he is right, and those who disagree are ill-informed or
wilfully rejecting his views because of some bias. Oh, the irony!

Sometimes, very articulate people try to show how some of his
arguments are fallacious (Like xeno did numerous times), but he never
even admitted that maybe they had a point.

Heck, once he even misunderstood a simple satirical political cartoon;
and, he was even using it as an a example of some argument he was
making, even though the cartoon was in no way related to his point.

So, let me ask you again:
Why do you want a moderator who is so biased and so stubborn, who
cannot comprehend simple texts and who sticks to his opinions no
matter what?
___________________________________________

[Dev]

Oh great, another e_space troll who posts post after post about how
boring it is for them to be doing what they're doing, oblivious to how
pathetic it is to log in, go to an Internet newsgroup and just whine
about being bored, as if it's a last resort. At least some of us are
sitting around posting on Internet newsgroups by choice, and not
because literally every other option has turned to dust in our lives.

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 6:55 AM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> And where exactly do you think the "bounds" should be demarcated?
>
> It's a deep, dark secret.
>
> Brock believes in making vague, generalizations and refuses to provide any
> specifics whatsoever.

If one would ask Trance for my position on an issue, then one is bound
to get a poor answer. If you would like specifics of my position,
there's no need to guess, or rely on Trance's "helpful"
interpretations:

http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-forum/msg/62cd0537828cb412

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Multiverse <cut...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Apr 22, 11:08 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> > It's obvious that Brock would like nothing more than to end free
>> > speech on AvC as it is currently enjoyed.
>>
>> Not true, freedom of speech != unbounded speech.
>
> Explain.  I need a laugh.

http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-forum/msg/62cd0537828cb412

>> Free speech != a right to cursing, invective and vitriol as the google
>> TOS clearly indicates, for example:
>>
>> "you agree that when using the Service, you will not:
>> * defame, abuse, harass, stalk, ... others;
>> * post any inappropriate, defamatory, infringing, obscene, or unlawful Content;"
>
> Oh well.  Proving yet again that you have no reading comprehension
> skills.

Do not taunt happy fun ball.

>> > Those are the issues that suggestions can be acted on.  Suggestions
>> > OUTSIDE THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE CURRENT POLICIES are COUNTER TO THE
>> > PRESERVATION OF AvC.
>>
>> They are certainly not counter to the protected, moderated speech that
>> is AvC's mandate via  google TOS.
>
> Wrong again.  You should not be a Moderator because you have no
> understanding of Google TOS or AvC Policy.
>
> If you believe you are obligated to enforce google tos via your
> interpretation than delete my post for telling you to fuck off.
>
> Or else admit that your a lying sack of uneducated shit that can't
> read and interpret simple Policy statements.

I'm clear to indicate where I think the gaps in coverage are, and my
willingness to be responsive to any group initiative that addresses
the mandate.

>> > Simply put, if the idea does not seek to assist
>> > the enforcement of current policy, then it is seeking to change AvC
>> > which is unacceptable.
>>
>> There is nothing wrong with suggesting changes to AvC policy.
>>
> And of course that is not what I said is it Brock.  So now your either
> a lying asshole yet again, or you are unable to read and interpret
> simple sentences.
>
> Which is it Brock?  You can't read or you are a liar?  Please explain
> if you think I am wrong.

I find your articulated exclusivity forced and affected. Group
policies may adjust over time to issues that affect the group, OldMan
has proven the value in such an approach with his leadership in the
AvC moderator forum, a "change" to policy that has improved group
participation and fueled useful policy discussions.

>> Its not advocating "against the structures of the castle" to suggest
>> gaps in coverage and offering to work with group owners, moderators
>> and members to improve the group's policies.
>>
>
> And of course that is not what I said is it Brock.  So now your either
> a lying asshole yet again, or you are unable to read and interpret
> simple sentences.
>
> Which is it Brock?  You can't read or you are a liar?  Please explain
> if you think I am wrong.

Its certainly what I've indicated:

http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-forum/msg/62cd0537828cb412

> Brock, your lies and inability to comprehend simple sentences are not
> helpful to this discussion at all.
>
> You need to go back and verify to me that you understand what I am
> saying or don't consider yourself to be helpful at all.

Or rather, I don't simply measure "helpfulness" by the levels of
agreement we may have on any particular issue.

>
>
>
>> > They
>> > should also be required to demonstrate that they can act without bias
>> > in regards to possibly being handed the Keys to the castle.
>> > With other eligible members to be Mods, it makes no sense to appoint
>> > someone to Moderator who is against the very nature of this site.
>>
>> That's hyperbolic.
>
> It's the truth.

I am not against "the very nature of this site"; in fact, I cite
specific support for my positions that indicate the contrary.

>>
>> > There is no difference between Brock's
>> > calls to end free speech and anyone else suggesting that the site be
>> > open to Advertisements and spam in that they are calling for a radical
>> > change to Policy and clearly ALL CHANGES should be for the purpose of
>> > ensuring policies, Rules, and Procedures are capable of ENFORCING THE
>> > CURRENT POLICY.  In other words, making changes only for the purpose
>> > of guarding the castle through current Policy are the only acceptable
>> > changes.
>>
>> That can be misleading, since moderators can be incorrectly held to
>> unrealistic over-simplifications of a standard (ie "moderators only
>> fight spam", see Simon's excellent post about the issue) instead of
>> the actual standard, represented by the google TOS and appropriate
>> moderator policy documents such as OldMan has started working on ...
>
> Demonstrating yet again that you are clueless.  Were you looking for
> some place to just put this useless statement you make here?  Your
> statement is not responsive to my point.

I'm sorry to hear that you feel that way; I'm clear to note the
reasons behind the positions, and am happy to articulate it
consistently over time in postings as the issue comes up. Improvement
in group policies over time benefits all, and I'm pleased to have a
voice in these matters.

> The point is, the only changes to Policy that are acceptable, are the
> ones that make current Policy enforcement easier etc....
>
> Simon's post is about PROCEDURES to eliminate spam, porn, and privacy
> issues.  So his post is actually addresses the point of the paragraph
> that you are responding to yet you start your response off with "that
> can be misleading....".  What the fuck is your problem Brock?  Are you
> really this incapable of reading and understanding?
>
> You are not helpful at all because you are not comprehending what I am
> saying, you are misrepresenting what I am saying or you are just
> outright lying.  Take your pick Brock.  None of your crap is helping
> anything.

I suspect the premise is loaded. The over-simplification of
"moderators only fight spam" is conceded by those on both sides, to
use the over simplification as a club against another member or
moderator to mis-enforce represents what I believe is an abuse of the
principle.

>> > I am against changes to Policy that are not for the purpose of
>> > enhancing the ability of Owners and Moderators to carry out current
>> > Policy.
>>
>> I disagree, such a statement, for example, invalidly discriminates
>> against OldMan, who, by working with the group to author explicit
>> policy documents is not simply carrrying out current policy but
>> changing it by adjusting and making what have been unwritten, ad-hoc
>> (and not consistently applied) policies explicit.
>>
> Yet again you can't understand.  Why do we have a Moderator that can't
> comprehend?

I am happy to contest premises that are oversimplifications, such as
an artificial and forced exclusivity for:

>> > I am against changes to Policy that are not for the purpose of
>> > enhancing the ability of Owners and Moderators to carry out current
>> > Policy.

> Brock, tell OM and Rapp you want to change the Policy on the use of

> words like: Fuck you you piece of shit.
>
> Please do so right here on this forum.  I await the response you get.
>
> And also I would like for you to reply here and prove that you can
> even understand what I have said.  You should not be a moderator if
> you are going to lie, fail to comprehend, or misinterpret and
> misrepresent what I or anyone else has said here.

Perhaps such accusations are designed to elicit an emotional response
or associate a stigma. Instead, I offer to make clear my position and
work with group members, owners and moderators to make things better.

>> Yet, OldMan is not doing anything wrong or "against the castle" by
>> working to establish changes.
>
> Here you are again misunderstanding or misrepresenting my position.
> Why do we have a Moderator acting the way you are?

Perhaps the question is loaded. :)

>> I've certainly been clear to cite the currrent google TOS in my
>> position, so my suggestions do enhance the ability to carry out the
>> current Policy.
>
> No actually your suggestions don't amount to shit.  You don't
> understand the google tos.

I was quite clear in the specific citations referenced:

http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-forum/msg/62cd0537828cb412

> You have not identified shit dumb ass.  You are such a moron.
>
> Only people who DO NOT UNDERSTAND AvC POLICY would complain about
> cursing.  All you have done is fail to recognize when someone does not
> understand Policy and then you try to use that for your own self
> serving purpose.

I (and the google TOS) disagree. Moderation of content is a mandate
of the google TOS. That the conditions are articulated in a manner
that allows responsible and edifying debate is to the credit of the
authors of the google TOS.

>> Its interesting that such a caricature of AvC's free speech as you
>> specify wouldn't apply to a moderator responding to member complaints
>> and seeking a quorum of participation to address those concerns.  In
>> short, your caricature of a free speech policy is not free speech.
>
>
> In short your a lieing fuck that once again pretends not to understand
> what I said.

Or rather, I simply illustrated through a consistent application of an
invalid principle that what you articulated is not tenable.

> So that makes
> it ok for you to fail to understand simple sentences, lie and
> misrepresent those simple sentences, and generally just blather on,
> because you actually think you are helpful here right?
>
> Thanks for the  bag of laughs you call a post Brock.

You're welcome.

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 9:21 PM, OldMan <edja...@msn.com> wrote:
>> Its not advocating "against the structures of the castle" to suggest
>> gaps in coverage and offering to work with group owners, moderators
>> and members to improve the group's policies.
>
> There is nothing wrong with suggesting policy changes on AvC.  It is
> possible that some policy change could truely enhance the debate on
> AvC.

That is my hope as well.

> The problem that I am having now with what you are doing is that
> even when it has been made abundantly clear that your suggested change
> is stillborn, you continue to advocate it.

I am only one of multiple participants in the "a question about
insults" thread and "On Owners and Moderators" discussion.

> I can sympathize with the
> desire to reduce the amount of profanity on AvC.  I personally don't
> see that it offers anything of value.  However we currently have no
> policy against it, nor, (and here's the important part) with a very
> few exceptions, any interest in creating one to deal with this.

I'm not sure that such situations always remain static. There was a
time when there was a sharply perceived imbalance in group dynamics
and moderator rules of engagement. Members expressed legitimate
concerns about these and other issues which were not necessarily well
received at first, but over time, substantial improvements occurred:

* the AvCM forum was created and credibly established
* the moderator group increased its number, representation and balance

I'm thankful for those changes, and believe that they have measurably
improved the group experience. I don't preclude that the group won't
be improved by such similar kinds of changes in the future, and
recognize that those improvements can entail discussions that get
intense about the issues. I am committed to maintaining my position
in those discussions, and whenever possible, working together with
group owners, moderators and members on any changes that may come from
such discussions, such as your "On Owners and Moderators" page.

Regards,

Brock

[trog69]

At least some of us are
sitting around posting on Internet newsgroups by choice, and not
because literally every other option has turned to dust in our live

Yeah, I have my online UNO tournament coming up next week, and I can't wait for...ohhhh, I wish I were dead.

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 7:21 PM, Dev <thede...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

Oh great, another e_space troll who posts post after post about how
boring it is for them to be doing what they're doing, oblivious to how
pathetic it is to log in, go to an Internet newsgroup and just whine

about being bored, as if it's a last resort. s.

[trog69]

> To the best of my abilities, I offer to play a part and work with many
> diverse constituencies to help achieve this mandate.

You are a liar. You have already rejected what most of us who
commented have proposed; that things be left the way they are.
Instead, you wish to ignore us, and put in place censorship of
comments whenever there is language to which you object.

[trog69]

* the AvCM forum was created and credibly established
* the moderator group increased its number, representation and balance

I'm thankful for those changes, and believe that they have measurably
improved the group experience.

Only in your mind, does the current mod situation seem an improvement, since only the whackadoodles, liars, and you, as their apologist, needed this crap.

 Again, none of these things entailed censoring of language. That's owned entirely by you, Capt. Authoritarian.

Also, the suggestion that you put up or shut up, in regards the ToS, is still in effect. So, either do your job as a good little Christian authoritarian would, and report the harassment and objectionable language to Google, or...

[Answer_42]

On Apr 23, 11:52 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 6:55 AM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> And where exactly do you think the "bounds" should be demarcated?
>
> > It's a deep, dark secret.
>
> > Brock believes in making vague, generalizations and refuses to provide any
> > specifics whatsoever.
>
> If one would ask Trance for my position on an issue, then one is bound
> to get a poor answer.  If you would like specifics of my position,
> there's no need to guess, or rely on Trance's "helpful"
> interpretations:
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-foru...

And there you go proving that everything Trance wrote was correct.

You were asked to provide specifics, particularly, how exactly would
you determine what is "appropriate" and what is not.
Trance replied by stating that you have never been able to provide
such specifics and that you always resort to vague generalities.
You post stating that of course Trance does not know what she is
talking about and then you provide a link to a post that is suppose to
illustrate your position regarding those specifics.

Surprise, surprise, what do we find when we read that post?
Vague generalities.

So Trance was right and once again you demonstrate without the shadow
of a doubt that you can't read AND simultaneously comprehend.
Which is why you should not be a moderator.
___________________________________
I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented
myself from Christian assemblies.
-- Benjamin Franklin

[Answer_42]

On Apr 24, 1:00 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> > I can sympathize with the
> > desire to reduce the amount of profanity on AvC.  I personally don't
> > see that it offers anything of value.  However we currently have no
> > policy against it, nor, (and here's the important part) with a very
> > few exceptions, any interest in creating one to deal with this.
>
> I'm not sure that such situations always remain static.  There was a
> time when there was a sharply perceived imbalance in group dynamics

Yes, PERCEIVED.
Real? No.
Factual? No.
Actual? no.
Legitimate? No.
Relevant? No.
Delusional? Yes.
Paranoid? Yes.
Irrational? Yes.
Idiotic? Yes.
Deranged? Yes.

> and moderator rules of engagement.  Members

You mean crazy delusional posters, who have since been banned for
being actual fucking assholes for getting someone fired over a stupid
disagreement over the internet, complained about delusional
schizophrenic fears.

> expressed legitimate

Totally paranoid rantings they were.

> concerns about these and other issues which were not necessarily well
> received at first, but over time, substantial improvements occurred:

Nope, the moderators are, and were already, doing a great job.
So the improvements you speak of are only in your own little fantasy
land, you know, the one where Jebeus is waving at you, even though you
are a dirty no-good sinner.

> * the AvCM forum was created and credibly established
> * the moderator group increased its
> number

Yes.

> representation

Nope.
Before the mods were members of AvC, and now the moderators are membrs
of AvC.
No change.
I think you are referring to the theist vs atheist stance.
This is total bullshit because the moderator job is not predicated on
their religious views.
When they act as moderators, they do so in a non-partisan ways, and
they were already doing that.

> and balance

Bull shit.
See above.

> I'm thankful for those changes,

The only real change, which incidentally has no impact on the daily
running of the group, that was necessary was the ownership transfer.

Everything else was done in order to appease the ludicrous paranoid
fantasies of a few deluded posters who where disturbing the group with
their inane rantings.

> and believe that they have measurably
> improved the group experience.

No they have not.

>  I don't preclude that the group won't
> be improved by such similar kinds of changes in the future,

Possibly, but anything that infringes on freedom of speech is totally
out of the question.
Again, you want "civilized" debate?
Start your own group or go over to ACRD, I hear it is a real blast of
civility and fun over there.

>  and
> recognize that those improvements can entail discussions that get
> intense about the issues.  I am committed to maintaining my position
> in those discussions, and whenever possible, working together with
> group owners, moderators and members on any changes that may come from
> such discussions, such as your "On Owners and Moderators" page.

More bullshit.
You are a broken record that only spits the same inanities over and
over.

[Walt]

Yes, you choose to be here, rather than sit on a hard bench in the day
room, staring at the parking lot through the barred, chicken-wire-
covered windows.

[Trance Gemini]

More vague generalities.

Please feel free to provide a specific and concrete proposal outlining the exact wording of the policy you wish to implement and how you wish to implement it.

This should contain specific criteria for determiniing "cursing", "vitriol", "invective".

Please also specify what action should be taken when each specific criteria is violated.

That is what is called a concrete and specific proposal.

Saying that "cursing, vitriol, and invective" is bad and things would be better without it does not constitute a concrete proposal and is a non-response to my request.

You are being dishonest and dodging the issue and therefore refusing to work with me productively to come to positive resolution of this issue.

 

Regards,

Brock

[OldMan]

On Apr 23, 10:00 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 9:21 PM, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
> >> Its not advocating "against the structures of the castle" to suggest
> >> gaps in coverage and offering to work with group owners, moderators
> >> and members to improve the group's policies.
>
> > There is nothing wrong with suggesting policy changes on AvC.  It is
> > possible that some policy change could truely enhance the debate on
> > AvC.
>
> That is my hope as well.
>
> > The problem that I am having now with what you are doing is that
> > even when it has been made abundantly clear that your suggested change
> > is stillborn, you continue to advocate it.
>
> I am only one of multiple participants in the "a question about
> insults" thread and "On Owners and Moderators" discussion.

How many support your efforts to curtain profanity?

>
> > I can sympathize with the
> > desire to reduce the amount of profanity on AvC.  I personally don't
> > see that it offers anything of value.  However we currently have no
> > policy against it, nor, (and here's the important part) with a very
> > few exceptions, any interest in creating one to deal with this.
>
> I'm not sure that such situations always remain static.  There was a
> time when there was a sharply perceived imbalance in group dynamics
> and moderator rules of engagement.  Members expressed legitimate
> concerns about these and other issues which were not necessarily well
> received at first, but over time, substantial improvements occurred:
>
> * the AvCM forum was created and credibly established
> * the moderator group increased its number, representation and balance

I did not at the time, nor do I now, believe that the increase in
moderators was necessary. 2 or 3 moderators are plenty to do what
needs to be done. And if the moderators do their job appropriately,
representation and balance should not be an issue. And I do not
believe it was, except in perception.

>
> I'm thankful for those changes, and believe that they have measurably
> improved the group experience.

The moderator forum has unloaded these kinds of discussions from the
main group and I believe was beneficial. But I do not see how the
addition of more moderators has improved the group experience.

> I don't preclude that the group won't
> be improved by such similar kinds of changes in the future,  and
> recognize that those improvements can entail discussions that get
> intense about the issues.  I am committed to maintaining my position
> in those discussions, and whenever possible, working together with
> group owners, moderators and members on any changes that may come from
> such discussions, such as your "On Owners and Moderators" page.

I am not asking you to change your position. I am asking you to
realize that continuing to actively advocate for a policy change, when
it is clearly not supported by the rest of the group is counter
productive and ultimately detrimental to the group experience. What
will be most beneficial to the group is to actively engage in reasoned
debate/discussion concerning our faith, or lack thereof.

>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

[Walt]

Would you be willing to provide a small (5 - 10 long) list of posts
you think need to be deleted under your proposed new policy, perhaps
with a short explanation of how they violate the policy?

On Apr 23, 11:52 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 6:55 AM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> And where exactly do you think the "bounds" should be demarcated?
>
> > It's a deep, dark secret.
>
> > Brock believes in making vague, generalizations and refuses to provide any
> > specifics whatsoever.
>
> If one would ask Trance for my position on an issue, then one is bound
> to get a poor answer.  If you would like specifics of my position,
> there's no need to guess, or rely on Trance's "helpful"
> interpretations:
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-foru...
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

[simonsaysbye]

>
> Please feel free to provide a specific and concrete proposal outlining the
> exact wording of the policy you wish to implement and how you wish to
> implement it.
>
> This should contain specific criteria for determiniing "cursing", "vitriol",
> "invective".
>

Trance, don't get me wrong: this is a road I don't think is worth
following. But various agencies have done this. I have pasted one
effort as regards obscene, indecent, and profane below. But whatever
you do will be problematic. For example: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Obscenity

What makes material “obscene?”
Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and
broadcasters are prohibited, by statute and regulation, from airing
obscene programming at any time.
According to the U.S. Supreme Court, to be obscene, material must meet
a three-prong test:
(1) an average person, applying contemporary community standards, must
find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest
(i.e., material having a tendency to excite lustful thoughts).
(2) the material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way,
sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law.
(3) the material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary,
artistic, political, or scientific value. The Supreme Court has
indicated that this test is designed to cover hard-core pornography.

What makes material “indecent?”
Indecent material contains sexual or excretory material that does not
rise to the level of obscenity. For this reason, the courts have held
that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot
be banned entirely. It may, however, be restricted to avoid its
broadcast during times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that
children may be in the audience.
Material is indecent if, in context, it depicts or describes sexual or
excretory organs or activities in terms patently offensive as measured
by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium. In each
case, the FCC must determine whether the material describes or depicts
sexual or excretory organs or activities and, if so, whether the
material is “patently offensive.”
In the FCC's assessment of whether material is “patently offensive,”
context is critical. The FCC looks at three primary factors when
analyzing broadcast material:
(1) whether the description or depiction is explicit or graphic
(2) whether the material dwells on or repeats at length descriptions
or depictions of sexual or excretory organs
(3) whether the material appears to pander or is used to titillate or
shock. No single factor is determinative. The FCC weighs and balances
these factors because each case presents its own mix of these, and
possibly other, factors.

What makes material “profane?”
“Profane language” includes those words that are so highly offensive
that their mere utterance in the context presented may, in legal
terms, amount to a “nuisance.” In its Golden Globe Awards Order the
FCC warned broadcasters that, depending on the context, it would
consider the “F-Word” and those words (or variants thereof) that are
as highly offensive as the “F-Word” to be “profane language” that
cannot be broadcast between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.


From: http://radio.about.com/od/sternindecency/a/blobscenityplus.htm

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 11:38 AM, simonsaysbye <tahta...@live.co.uk> wrote:

>
> Please feel free to provide a specific and concrete proposal outlining the
> exact wording of the policy you wish to implement and how you wish to
> implement it.
>
> This should contain specific criteria for determiniing "cursing", "vitriol",
> "invective".
>

Trance, don't get me wrong: this is a road I don't think is worth
following.

I agree. I'm simply making the point to Brock that if he's going to continue to push this then he should provide something concrete that people can actually discuss.

In addition, I think that the attempt to come up with a concrete policy as I've specified should show any rational person the problems associated with such a policy and the implementation of it.

I believe that this is precisely why Brock is ignoring my requests to do it.

And this is why I believe that he is being ultimately dishonest in his push for this policy.

He knows exactly how draconian it will be and knows how people will react.

[Answer_42]

On Apr 24, 11:38 am, simonsaysbye <tahtah4...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> > Please feel free to provide a specific and concrete proposal outlining the
> > exact wording of the policy you wish to implement and how you wish to
> > implement it.
>
> > This should contain specific criteria for determiniing "cursing", "vitriol",
> > "invective".
>
> Trance, don't get me wrong: this is a road I don't think is worth
> following.

So why are you doing Brock's work?

It is his pet project, let him do the work.

>  But various agencies have done this.  I have pasted one
> effort  as regards obscene, indecent, and profane below.  But whatever

> you do will be problematic.  3

No shit!

> For example:http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Obscenity

Before Brock sinks his little paws into this stuff and uses it as an
argument, let me show him why he could not do that.
Not that he won't anyway, we all know how challenged he is when it
comes to reading comprehension.

This is why I wish you had not brought this up.
Brock can't understand basic Google TOS statements, now you are
feeding him FCC regulations...

> What makes material “obscene?”
> Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and
> broadcasters are prohibited, by statute and regulation, from airing
> obscene programming at any time.
> According to the U.S. Supreme Court, to be obscene, material must meet
> a three-prong test:
> (1) an average person, applying contemporary community standards, must
> find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest
> (i.e., material having a tendency to excite lustful thoughts).

What is wrong with lustful thoughts?
They are thoughts... i.e. Personal.
In any case, it is al very subjective. SOme stuff may give you lustful
toughts but leave me totally unaffected in any way.

> (2) the material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way,
> sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law.

We already have porn rules.

> (3) the material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary,
> artistic, political, or scientific value.

So that should take care of about, I don't know, let's see, 98% of the
posts in this group?

> The Supreme Court has
> indicated that this test is designed to cover hard-core pornography.

We already have a porn rule.

So, so far, this "obscene" standard is useless for us.

> What makes material “indecent?”
> Indecent material contains sexual or excretory material that does not
> rise to the level of obscenity. For this reason, the courts have held
> that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot
> be banned entirely.

Case closed.

> It may, however, be restricted to avoid its
> broadcast during times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that
> children may be in the audience.

We have a rule that members have to be 18 years old.
So, again, case closed.

> Material is indecent if, in context, it depicts or describes sexual or
> excretory organs or activities in terms patently offensive as measured
> by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium.

We are not in a broadacasting situation, case closed.

> In each
> case, the FCC must determine whether the material describes or depicts
> sexual or excretory organs or activities and, if so, whether the
> material is “patently offensive.”
> In the FCC's assessment of whether material is “patently offensive,”
> context is critical. The FCC looks at three primary factors when
> analyzing broadcast material:

We are not under the jurisdiction of the FCC, which applies only in
the US in any case.
Case closed.

> (1) whether the description or depiction is explicit or graphic
> (2) whether the material dwells on or repeats at length descriptions
> or depictions of sexual or excretory organs

What is this fascination with sex and shit?
I know of many type of texts or depictions that have nothing to do
with sex and shit that would be way more indecent than anything having
to do with sex and shit.

> (3) whether the material appears to pander or is used to titillate or
> shock. No single factor is determinative. The FCC weighs and balances
> these factors because each case presents its own mix of these, and
> possibly other, factors.

So, 100% of this stuff on the concept of "indecent" does not apply
here.

> What makes material “profane?”
> “Profane language” includes those words that are so highly offensive
> that their mere utterance in the context presented may, in legal
> terms, amount to a “nuisance.” In its Golden Globe Awards Order the
> FCC warned broadcasters that, depending on the context, it would
> consider the “F-Word” and those words (or variants thereof) that are
> as highly offensive as the “F-Word” to be “profane language” that
> cannot be broadcast between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.

We are not in a broadcasting situation and are not regulated by the
FCC.
So, 100% of this stuff on the concept of "profane" does not apply
here.

> From:http://radio.about.com/od/sternindecency/a/blobscenityplus.htm

So, Brock, get something else.
____________________________________________

[OldMan]

On Apr 24, 7:15 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:52 PM, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 6:55 AM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com>

> > wrote:
> > >> And where exactly do you think the "bounds" should be demarcated?
>
> > > It's a deep, dark secret.
>
> > > Brock believes in making vague, generalizations and refuses to provide
> > any
> > > specifics whatsoever.
>
> > If one would ask Trance for my position on an issue, then one is bound
> > to get a poor answer.  If you would like specifics of my position,
> > there's no need to guess, or rely on Trance's "helpful"
> > interpretations:
>

> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-foru...

>
> More vague generalities.
>
> Please feel free to provide a specific and concrete proposal outlining the
> exact wording of the policy you wish to implement and how you wish to
> implement it.
>
> This should contain specific criteria for determiniing "cursing", "vitriol",
> "invective".

I'll take a stab at it. If you say a word I would not, or in a
context I would not, then it is bad. Now all you have to do is go
back through all of my old posts and index all of the words I have
used. Those are safe. Be careful of any others. ;-)

>
> Please also specify what action should be taken when each specific criteria
> is violated.
>
> That is what is called a concrete and specific proposal.
>
> Saying that "cursing, vitriol, and invective" is bad and things would be
> better without it does not constitute a concrete proposal and is a
> non-response to my request.
>
> You are being dishonest and dodging the issue and therefore refusing to work
> with me productively to come to positive resolution of this issue.
>
>
>
> > Regards,
>
> > Brock
>
> --
> I want to dance. I want to win. I want that Bingo trophy! --Mrs. Mia Wallace

> (paraphrased)- Hide quoted text -

[Trance Gemini]

Exactly my point. :-)

My father used to consider "damn it" an inappropriate swear word.

Good thing he can't hear how his grandchildren talk. Lol.

>
> Please also specify what action should be taken when each specific criteria
> is violated.
>
> That is what is called a concrete and specific proposal.
>
> Saying that "cursing, vitriol, and invective" is bad and things would be
> better without it does not constitute a concrete proposal and is a
> non-response to my request.
>
> You are being dishonest and dodging the issue and therefore refusing to work
> with me productively to come to positive resolution of this issue.
>
>
>
> > Regards,
>
> > Brock
>
> --

> I want to dance. I want to win. I want that Bingo trophy! --Mrs. Mia Wallace

> (paraphrased)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Brock Organ]

On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:52 PM, Brock Organ <brock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 6:55 AM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> And where exactly do you think the "bounds" should be demarcated?
>> >
>> > It's a deep, dark secret.
>> >
>> > Brock believes in making vague, generalizations and refuses to provide
>> > any
>> > specifics whatsoever.
>>
>> If one would ask Trance for my position on an issue, then one is bound
>> to get a poor answer.  If you would like specifics of my position,
>> there's no need to guess, or rely on Trance's "helpful"
>> interpretations:
>>
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-forum/msg/62cd0537828cb412
>
> More vague generalities.

I disagree, the citations are specific, the terms articulated in the
TOS as helpful. And of course, my commitment to such a process is
clearly articulated.

> Please feel free to provide a specific and concrete proposal outlining the
> exact wording of the policy you wish to implement and how you wish to
> implement it.
>
> This should contain specific criteria for determiniing "cursing", "vitriol",
> "invective".

Perhaps I don't have to be a Jefferson, just one of (many) signers. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Continental_Congress

> Please also specify what action should be taken when each specific criteria
> is violated.
>
> That is what is called a concrete and specific proposal.

Certainly my post was as clear in its objectives.

> Saying that "cursing, vitriol, and invective" is bad and things would be
> better without it does not constitute a concrete proposal and is a
> non-response to my request.

Its a great response, along with my explicit commitment to be a part
of the process. :)

> You are being dishonest and dodging the issue and therefore refusing to work
> with me productively to come to positive resolution of this issue.

Not at all, like the outcome of the creation of the AvCM list was a
great reflection of my desire for a "deliberative assembly" process,
so too could the group address this particular issue in a balanced and
productive way, and I would be happy to participate in it, just as I
was a (small and indirect) part of the many events that lead to AvCM.
Good things can happen when the group as a whole decides to
participate.

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 11:35 AM, OldMan <edja...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> On Apr 23, 10:00 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 9:21 PM, OldMan <edjarr...@msn.com> wrote:
>> >> Its not advocating "against the structures of the castle" to suggest
>> >> gaps in coverage and offering to work with group owners, moderators
>> >> and members to improve the group's policies.
>>
>> > There is nothing wrong with suggesting policy changes on AvC.  It is
>> > possible that some policy change could truely enhance the debate on
>> > AvC.
>>
>> That is my hope as well.
>>
>> > The problem that I am having now with what you are doing is that
>> > even when it has been made abundantly clear that your suggested change
>> > is stillborn, you continue to advocate it.
>>
>> I am only one of multiple participants in the "a question about
>> insults" thread and "On Owners and Moderators" discussion.
>
> How many support your efforts to curtain profanity?

I don't have formal numbers on what percentage of 5471 members would
approve the efforts if polled, nor what fraction of 76 "recent
authors" would do so either; of course, neither does anyone else
(special interests claims to the contrary aside) have such data; I
don't recall seeing any transparency or formal numbers for recent
similar items such as any vote taken to establish AvCM or add
moderators, to affirm, reject or amend policy documents etc; as part
of a deliberative assembly process, it might be worth a consideration.
I hope its clear that I am simply stating my opinion: My inclination
is to participate in and encourage more formal efforts; otherwise ad
hoc hyperbolic statements made by small cabals are more likely to
cloud and distort any representative deliberative assembly procedures.

Of course, if after this explanation you still simply want numbers,
then next time, I'll be sure to bring them. :)

>> * the AvCM forum was created and credibly established
>> * the moderator group increased its number, representation and balance
>
> I did not at the time, nor do I now, believe that the increase in
> moderators was necessary.  2 or 3 moderators are plenty to do what
> needs to be done.  And if the moderators do their job appropriately,
> representation and balance should not be an issue.

I suspect we do indeed perceive this issue differently.

>> I'm thankful for those changes, and believe that they have measurably
>> improved the group experience.
>
> The moderator forum has unloaded these kinds of discussions from the
> main group and I believe was beneficial.

I agree, though I don't claim anything but an indirect participation
in any events that lead to AvCM, the forum was a great answer to my
desire for a "deliberative assembly" for the group. :)

> But I do not see how the
> addition of more moderators has improved the group experience.

Here we may disagree. :)

>>  I am committed to maintaining my position
>> in those discussions, and whenever possible, working together with
>> group owners, moderators and members on any changes that may come from
>> such discussions, such as your "On Owners and Moderators" page.
>
> I am not asking you to change your position.  I am asking you to
> realize that continuing to actively advocate for a policy change, when
> it is clearly not supported by the rest of the group is counter
> productive and ultimately detrimental to the group experience.  What
> will be most beneficial to the group is to actively engage in reasoned
> debate/discussion concerning our faith, or lack thereof.

I appreciate your opinions on the matter, I've stated my opinion for
the record on the issue, and will for discussions on this topic in the
near future simply try in good faith to refer to that post for those
who solicit it.

Regards,

Brock

[trog69]

> Saying that "cursing, vitriol, and invective" is bad and things would be
> > better without it does not constitute a concrete proposal and is a
> > non-response to my request.
>
> Its a great response, along with my explicit commitment to be a part
> of the process. :)

Now we see the proof in that study that showed how ignorant people
definitely think they are smarter than they show themselves to be via
testing. Also the reason that Brock cannot concede a point, no matter
how asinine his position is shown to be. Those on the radical right
show themselves as liars and deluded authoritarians every time.

On Apr 24, 6:51 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:52 PM, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 6:55 AM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com>

> >> wrote:
> >> >> And where exactly do you think the "bounds" should be demarcated?
>
> >> > It's a deep, dark secret.
>
> >> > Brock believes in making vague, generalizations and refuses to provide
> >> > any
> >> > specifics whatsoever.
>
> >> If one would ask Trance for my position on an issue, then one is bound
> >> to get a poor answer.  If you would like specifics of my position,
> >> there's no need to guess, or rely on Trance's "helpful"
> >> interpretations:
>

> >>http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-foru...

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Brock Organ <brock...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:52 PM, Brock Organ <brock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 6:55 AM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> And where exactly do you think the "bounds" should be demarcated?
>> >
>> > It's a deep, dark secret.
>> >
>> > Brock believes in making vague, generalizations and refuses to provide
>> > any
>> > specifics whatsoever.
>>
>> If one would ask Trance for my position on an issue, then one is bound
>> to get a poor answer.  If you would like specifics of my position,
>> there's no need to guess, or rely on Trance's "helpful"
>> interpretations:
>>
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-forum/msg/62cd0537828cb412
>
> More vague generalities.

I disagree, the citations are specific, the terms articulated in the
TOS as helpful.   

And of course, my commitment to such a process is
clearly articulated.

More evasion.

You claim that you have a "commitment to such a process" and yet you refuse to engage in the actual process and work productively with me by responding to my request below which you ignored completely.

Why?

Now, I ask you again.

Please provide a specific and concrete proposal outlining the exact wording of the policy you wish to implement and exactly how you wish to implement it.

This should contain specific criteria for determining "cursing", "vitriol" and "invective" when it occurs on the AvC Main site.

It should also contain specific actions which the Moderation team will be required to take when these infractions occur.

If you are willing, as you claim, to "work productively" with me towards dealing with this perceived problem then this is required in order to activate this process.

Repeating the same thing over and over again and not activating the process by working productively with me simply shows, in my opinion, that you have no sincere desire to either work productively with me or activate this process.

Your inaction, in my opinion, indicates that you simply want to harp on the perceived problem and use it against the Owner/Moderator Team.

So, you seem to be saying that you are proud of the fact that you participated in the actions of immoral and unethical theists engaged in massive disruption of the AvC Main site based on nothing but blatant lies, which resulted in many serious debaters on both sides leaving and which could have resulted in the dissolution of AvC.

And you seem to be supporting the corrupt actions that they were defending which was to engage in personal attacks which had the potential of affecting the livelihoods of several posters and did affect the livelihood of one.

I am basing this conclusion on the following statement copied from your comments above;

Brock said:
"I was a (small and indirect) part of the many events that lead to AvCM."

It was that morally bankrupt activity which provided the rationale behind creating the Mod Forum which was my idea and discussed long before you made vague assertions about how it would be good to have an "assembly process".

OM had the same idea when he came on board as an Owner and implemented it.

The purpose of this Forum is to prevent further disruption of the main AvC site by morally bankrupt individuals who wish to use those disruptions to further their own agendas like recruit our members for their personal news groups.

I am a member of another news group too, but my group contributes members to AvC and while many AvC members are members of my group they have never been encouraged to leave AvC.

Only morally bankrupt individuals would engage in such activity to build their own groups.

MV, A42 and the others are right.

You have no business being a Moderator on AvC.

You should be removed.

Regards,

Brock

[Dev]

I'll support whichever concensus the mods tend to lean to on this
issue with the same kind of reluctant ambivalence I eventually
supported making him a mod in the first place, I suppose. Actually
"ambivalence" isn't really the right word in this situation, so much
as "apathy". Brocktard doesn't do shit as a moderator, except try to
use it as an excuse to lend credibility to his usual bullshit, which
doesn't work with anyone. If we remove him for just being useless and
expressing an interest in violating policy that he probably won't
carry out, there will probably be something like a backlash for that.
But it doesn't bother me one way or the other.

If Brock shows any sign that it will hurt his feelings to be demoted
from moderator status, then I will be more decisive in my support of
his removal for that reason.

On Apr 25, 5:20 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:52 PM, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 6:55 AM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com

>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >> And where exactly do you think the "bounds" should be demarcated?
>
> > >> > It's a deep, dark secret.
>
> > >> > Brock believes in making vague, generalizations and refuses to provide
> > >> > any
> > >> > specifics whatsoever.
>
> > >> If one would ask Trance for my position on an issue, then one is bound
> > >> to get a poor answer.  If you would like specifics of my position,
> > >> there's no need to guess, or rely on Trance's "helpful"
> > >> interpretations:
>

> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-foru...

> (paraphrased)- Hide quoted text -
>

> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Trance Gemini]

On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Dev <thede...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

I'll support whichever concensus the mods tend to lean to on this
issue with the same kind of reluctant ambivalence I eventually
supported making him a mod in the first place, I suppose. Actually
"ambivalence" isn't really the right word in this situation, so much
as "apathy". Brocktard doesn't do shit as a moderator, except try to
use it as an excuse to lend credibility to his usual bullshit, which
doesn't work with anyone. If we remove him for just being useless and
expressing an interest in violating policy that he probably won't
carry out, there will probably be something like a backlash for that.
But it doesn't bother me one way or the other.

If Brock shows any sign that it will hurt his feelings to be demoted
from moderator status, then I will be more decisive in my support of
his removal for that reason.

Well, I'm just expressing an opinion.

In the end, the decision is solely up to Rapp and OM as the Owners.

AvC doesn't have an organized structure and isn't a "representative assembly" and this forum was simply intended to get the bullshit off of the main site as well as give us a place to discuss issues that came up from time to time.
 
Irrespective of Brocks delusions of grandeur.

--
“You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates the same people you do.” --Annie Lamott (paraphrased)

[Brock Organ]

On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 11:21 PM, trog69 <tom.t...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Saying that "cursing, vitriol, and invective" is bad and things would be
>> > better without it does not constitute a concrete proposal and is a
>> > non-response to my request.
>>
>> Its a great response, along with my explicit commitment to be a part
>> of the process. :)
>
> Now we see the proof in that study that showed how ignorant people
> definitely think they are smarter than they show themselves to be via
> testing. Also the reason that Brock cannot concede a point, no matter
> how asinine his position is shown to be. Those on the radical right
> show themselves as liars and deluded authoritarians every time.

Again, trog, its not about me. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-forum/msg/62cd0537828cb412
>> >
>> > More vague generalities.
>>
>> I disagree, the citations are specific, the terms articulated in the
>> TOS as helpful.
>>
>> And of course, my commitment to such a process is
>> clearly articulated.
>
> More evasion.

Not at all, I'm simply citing the post that addresses the issue.

> You claim that you have a "commitment to such a process" and yet you refuse
> to engage in the actual process and work productively with me by responding
> to my request below which you ignored completely.

Its not a "refusal" to have responded to your requests.

> Please provide a specific and concrete proposal outlining the exact wording
> of the policy you wish to implement and exactly how you wish to implement
> it.

As I noted in:

http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-forum/msg/944741ff031c2f99

I'm happy to refer to:

http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-forum/msg/62cd0537828cb412

> Your inaction, in my opinion, indicates that you simply want to harp on the
> perceived problem and use it against the Owner/Moderator Team.

I'm part of the team, Trance. :)

>> Not at all, like the outcome of the creation of the AvCM list was a
>> great reflection of my desire for a "deliberative assembly" process,
>> so too could the group address this particular issue in a balanced and
>> productive way, and I would be happy to participate in it, just as I
>> was a (small and indirect) part of the many events that lead to AvCM.
>> Good things can happen when the group as a whole decides to
>> participate.
>
> So, you seem to be saying that you are proud of the fact that you
> participated in the actions of immoral and unethical theists engaged in
> massive disruption of the AvC Main site based on nothing but blatant lies,
> which resulted in many serious debaters on both sides leaving and which
> could have resulted in the dissolution of AvC.

No, I said I was happy to have been a part of the discussions that
ultimately lead to AvCM.

> Brock said:
> "I was a (small and indirect) part of the many events that lead to AvCM."
>
> It was that morally bankrupt activity which provided the rationale behind
> creating the Mod Forum which was my idea and discussed long before you made
> vague assertions about how it would be good to have an "assembly process".

I'm simply happy to have been a small and indirect part of what was a
very positive change. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Trance Gemini]

Your actions belie your words.

On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Brock Organ <brock...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snipped bullshit>

[Multiverse]

Your responses continue to demonstrate that you are a dishonest fuck.

Why are you a moderator?

You have not benefited the administration of this group in any way.

Your as useful as a football bat.



On Apr 24, 12:12 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 22, 11:08 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >> > It's obvious that Brock would like nothing more than to end free
> >> > speech on AvC as it is currently enjoyed.
>
> >> Not true, freedom of speech != unbounded speech.
>
> > Explain.  I need a laugh.
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-foru...

> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-foru...

> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity-moderator-foru...

>
> > You have not identified shit dumb ass.  You are such a moron.
>
> > Only people who DO NOT UNDERSTAND AvC POLICY would complain about
> > cursing.  All you have done is fail to recognize when someone does not
> > understand Policy and then you try to use that for your own self
> > serving purpose.
>
> I (and the google TOS) disagree.  Moderation of content is a mandate
> of the google TOS.  That the conditions are articulated in a manner
> that allows responsible and edifying debate is to the credit of the
> authors of the google TOS.
>
> >> Its interesting that such a caricature of AvC's free speech as you
> >> specify wouldn't apply to a moderator responding to member complaints
> >> and seeking a quorum of participation to address those concerns.  In
> >> short, your caricature of a free speech policy is not free speech.
>
> > In short your a lieing fuck that once again pretends not to understand
> > what I said.
>
> Or rather, I simply illustrated through a consistent application of an
> invalid principle that what you articulated is not tenable.
>
> > So that makes
> > it ok for you to fail to understand simple sentences, lie and
> > misrepresent those simple sentences, and generally just blather on,
> > because you actually think you are helpful here right?
>
> > Thanks for the  bag of laughs you call a post Brock.
>
> You're welcome.
>
> Regards,
>

> Brock- Hide quoted text -

[Dev]

Yup. It's crazy to choose to be on a Google Group. It is an experience
with which you cannot and will not relate with.