hi i just joined

[davado]

hi i just joined.
Im not an atheist but i figure this would be the right place to share my hatred of jesus who is a psychopath.

He wants us all to be obsequious sychophants or he will torture us for eternity.
And who wants eternity anyway?
Even an eternity of wonderful things would soon pall.

That sick bastard created us to entrap us in his twisted game.

i have other things im interested in discussing too, naturally.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Hating Jesus is like hating the Easter Bunny. Better to look at the people who exploit myths like Jesus.

[Inkubus]

Hello.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-64726.html

Goodbye.

[Thumpalumpacus]

... and yet a lying, misogynist rape apologist is A-OK!

[Szuchow]

... and yet a lying, misogynist rape apologist is A-OK!

But he's looking at things from many angles and preventing forum from becoming "echo chamber" not committing heinous crime of being banned on another forum. 

[Gwaithmir]

What did he get banned for doing? 

[abaris]

Folks, this is still the introduction part of the froums, even though OP is banned. Take it to the peanut gallery, if you want to debate it.

[Inkubus]

It's open again then? A little consistency would help.

[abaris]

It's open again then? A little consistency would help.

It was only closed for one or two days. It was only closed in the first place because members did nothing but flinging feces at each other, calling each other out and not discussing any ban that happened.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

... and yet a lying, misogynist rape apologist is A-OK!

I honestly don't understand why the forum has rules when moderation seems to be by fiat, on whim.

[abaris]

I honestly don't understand why the forum has rules when moderation seems to be by fiat, on whim.

Give it a rest. Noone here bans anyone on a whim and without prior discussion. Apart from spammers, which members don't even notice, since we do away with them before their accounts have been activated.

[Thumpalumpacus]

... and yet a lying, misogynist rape apologist is A-OK!

But he's looking at things from many angles and preventing forum from becoming "echo chamber" not committing heinous crime of being banned on another forum. 

Ah, I see.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I honestly don't understand why the forum has rules when moderation seems to be by fiat, on whim.

Give it a rest. Noone here bans anyone on a whim and without prior discussion. Apart from spammers, which members don't even notice, since we do away with them before their accounts have been activated.

So are you saying the staff discussed this banning and is in agreement that a post on an entirely different forum is a ban-worthy offense here?

[abaris]

So are you saying the staff discussed this banning and is in agreement that a post on an entirely different forum is a ban-worthy offense here?

The only thing that I can and will tell you, is my own position. Having a bad feeling, when accepting their first post, although I was the one activating their account. The rest stays among the team.

[airportkid]

... The rest stays among the team ....

Given that this particular ban and what prompted it has raised questions, I think "stays among the team" does a disservice in that it obscures what reasons applied that could be relevant to other posters.  What does keeping the reasons secret achieve?

[Bucky Ball]

Dude, turn off your computer and get some help.
There was no Jesus, and you need to read "The Origins of Satan" (Elaine Pagels, Princeton).

[abaris]

... The rest stays among the team ....

Given that this particular ban and what prompted it has raised questions, I think "stays among the team" does a disservice in that it obscures what reasons applied that could be relevant to other posters.  What does keeping the reasons secret achieve?

So, look here.

https://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/sho...#pid387648

Or tag some admin.

[Thumpalumpacus]

So are you saying the staff discussed this banning and is in agreement that a post on an entirely different forum is a ban-worthy offense here?

The only thing that I can and will tell you, is my own position. Having a bad feeling, when accepting their first post, although I was the one activating their account. The rest stays among the team.

You did write "Noone here bans anyone on a whim and without prior discussion." Your refusal to answer my question directly, when coupled with this, certainly implies that all the staff who discussed this agreed that banning a member for a post elsewhere is A-OK.

It's a shit decision, and clearly you guys cannot justify it. If you could you would already have done so in order to quell the criticism.

[abaris]

Your refusal to answer my question directly, when coupled with this, certainly implies that all the staff who discussed this agreed that banning a member for a post elsewhere is A-OK.

No, it doesn't mean that. I'm just the only one in red, who's still around taking the flak. I won't, however, betray the trust of others. It's up to them presenting their reasons. It certainly isn't up to me spilling the beans.

And I link again to this post.
https://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/sho...#pid387648

But I may add, I find it rather peculiar that all of you root for someone shitposting right from the start while almost everyone is happily ousting and downrepping other members based on a single post. The reason why the peanuts thread had been temporarily closed.

[Thumpalumpacus]

No, it doesn't mean that. I'm just the only one in red, who's still around taking the flak. I won't, however, betray the trust of others. It's up to them presenting their reasons. It certainly isn't up to me spilling the beans.

And I link again to this post.
https://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/sho...#pid387648

Of course I saw that link. It doesn't explain anything other than what folks here are already complaining about. This is a non-answer, just a polite evasion and nothing more.

But I may add, I find it rather peculiar that all of you root for someone shitposting right from the start while almost everyone is happily ousting and downrepping other members based on a single post. The reason why the peanuts thread had been temporarily closed.

I'm not rooting for any shitposting. You're smart enough to know that what I'm complaining about is how you staff handled this. You can try to distort my point all you want, but I will not permit you to do so. Stop being disingenuous. If I wanted to defend shitposting, I'd defend @Vorpal, but apparently I'd have to stand in line behind the forum's administrator.

You'd be better off simply admitting error and learning from it, rather than offering up this milquetoast and transparently ineffective defense of a bad decision. Somehow I doubt that is going to happen.

[Vera]

God almighty, the pomposity and sheer up-my-own-assness, like we're talking about the Nuremberg trial or something. What a pathetic joke.

And "the trust of others"? What balderdash! It is patently obvious that Mathilda and Aliza are barely here (and I don't blame them, they seem to actually have lives).

And that ban commentary thread got locked the moment someone dared make a derogatory comment about one of our (slightly less) glorious leaders. That the was the one and only reason and all those piles of pompous words are doing nothing to obscure a simple and oh-so-petty fact.

Jesus Christ! Imagine taking oneself so laughably seriously, as if you're presiding over an international court or something *and* simultaneously sucking so laughably at your job.

I said it before and I'll say it again - I bloody miss momsurroundedbyboys.

As it is, for all the protestations, we have one admin forming snap judgements (much as we all do, granted) and then defending them to the death and to the point of telling us to stop misjudging a blatant rape-apologist and misogynist and move on, refusing to admit they were wrong even after it has become even more patently obviously and then locking threads when they get criticised for what many consider an extremely bad call.

[Szuchow]

God almighty, the pomposity and sheer up-my-own-assness, like we're talking about the Nuremberg trial or something. What a pathetic joke.

And "the trust of others"? What balderdash! It is patently obvious that Mathilda and Aliza are barely here (and I don't  blame them, they seem to actually have lives).

And that ban commentary thread got locked the moment someone dared make a derogatory comment about one of our (slightly less) glorious leaders. That the was the one and only reason and all those piles of pompous words are doing nothing to obscure a simple and oh-so-petty fact.

Jesus Christ! Imagine taking oneself so laughably seriously, as if you're presiding over an international court or something *and* simultaneously sucking so laughably at your job.

I said it before and I'll say it again - I bloody miss momsurroundedbyboys.

As it is, for all the protestations, we have one admin forming snap judgements (much as we all do, granted) and then defending them to the death and to the point of telling us to stop misjudging a blatant rape-apologist and misogynist and move on, refusing to admit they were wrong even after it has become even more patently obviously and then locking threads when they get criticised for what many consider an extremely bad call.

Power (even tiniest, most insignificant bits of it) corrupts. It's beyond obvious here.

[abaris]

You'd be better off simply admitting error and learning from it, rather than offering up this milquetoast and transparently ineffective defense of a bad decision. Somehow I doubt that is going to happen.

I admitted and owned up to my error. In the peanuts thread. I won't own up to something I didn't do and didn't decide and it's very much up for debate, if this even was an error. Personally I don't think so, since, as I said, I had bad feelings about someone joining with a shitpost right from the start.

But, why not put the issue to a vote? If a majority wants their darling back, I can unban them in a second. And I promise, I won't be the one moderating them either. Just don't you dare to post any reports, if my evaluation of that guy turns out to be right. Hell, why not put it to a vote, if we should lift the approvals? Why not? Have fun with all the spammers and socks, we take care of on a daily basis.

[Vorpal]

I am glad we have some sane people running the asylum. This snap judgment appeared to be a good one, but I see how such a practice could go wrong in the future.

Side Note:
I will face anyone who thinks I am a rape apologist in the collesium. No one will dare face me there on this because the case is so absurdly weak. Yet people continue to allude to it for months after resolution.

[Inkubus]

I am glad we have some sane people running the asylum.

If sane people were running the asylum you and that other worthless prick Cameo Christian would have been shit canned long ago.