Posts by Steven Clark2

Threads like this are textbook examples of how someone assumes that because they’ve learned to read and write, they suddenly have the expertise to perform neurosurgery. On Reddit, there are far too many self-proclaimed experts trying to do exactly that. And if you actually attempt to explain things to anyone, you end up being labeled a "clever apologist," a "liar," or worse.

It is perfectly natural and logical to recognize that the State of Israel operated under its own civil laws, health regulations, sacrificial systems, and even specific military codes or rules of engagement—to say nothing of the rest. It was a sovereign nation with its own social structure, which often stands in stark contrast to our postmodern culture (which differs significantly from modernism, for instance). In fact, we must view the entire ancient world through the lens of its own context. Today, it is clear to any rational person that Christians are not a theocratic people, and that many of those ancient laws are no longer in effect. Those laws were designed to regulate individuals within that specific society; since that society has changed, there is simply no need for those mandates anymore. That is the simplest way to put it.

The constant attacks on Christianity regarding stances on homosexuals represent a total disregard for what I have stated and what Roger Barrett2 has pointed out. This style of debate has been a recurring trend on Reddit for as long as I have been following it. Critics seem unable to accept the fact that the Bible says absolutely nothing about stoning homosexuals as a requirement for the Christian world, so they constantly troll with the same tired topics. It becomes utterly senseless and pointless. The reality is quite simple to grasp—provided one actually intends to understand it. 🙂

Roger Barrett2 said:Look, I agree that under the laws of the USA, being gay isn't a choice, a crime, or an infraction—there's no debate there. However, from the perspective of Christian revelation (as it stands), being gay and xyz2 other things are considered sins by God. But—and I feel like I've said this seven or eight times now—just because something is a sin (in this case, being gay) doesn't mean it's a criminal offense.

Essentially, God said one thing in Christian revelation, and the laws of the USA say another. Fine, I get both, but I just don't understand why someone is penalized for expressing what is written in Christian revelation (in this case, me), provided they aren't claiming that a state's civil laws must align with religious ideals?

Again, I'm appealing to the distinction between expressing religious views and actually inciting or advocating for illegal actions based on those same religious views. Those two things are fundamentally different. For example: Saying that being gay is a sin is perfectly fine from a believer's Christian perspective. Saying that gay people should be stoned or thrown in jail because they are "wrong" is illegal and subject to sanction.

In my case, Twitter got it wrong, the admins confirmed it, and honestly, it’s a shame.

That's pretty much it. I've had enough of gays and corruption for one day...

🙏 Praise Jesus, Allah, Moon, Darwin, and all that is holy—that is precisely the point. Expressing an opinion and calling for something unlawful cannot be treated as the same thing; I believe exceptions must be allowed.

Those who are intelligent will understand. 🙂

Roger Barrett2—your only real fault was that you expressed yourself somewhat clumsily in that post which earned 100 points. I understood your meaning, but Twitter did not (even though they certainly shouldn't have slapped 100 points on it regardless; it isn't as if you started writing this yesterday or possess such outbursts, but still), nor did the administration. However, I have the impression that this will now be taken more seriously and reviewed carefully to prevent similar misunderstandings from occurring in the future. 🙂

hollowtrucker77 The user states:
Look, Nick, you could quote the Bible, the Quran, or even several Vedas, and claim that homosexuality is equivalent to a crime, but it won't change reality. The simple fact is that being gay is not a criminal act. Making assertions like that on this forum is a surefire way to get yourself banned.

Boss, if you can find even a single instance where I’ve stated that homosexuality is equivalent to a crime, then please, feel free to dock me 1,000 points right now—we can consider the matter settled. But that isn't my point, and frankly, homosexuality isn't the only issue at hand here.

Please, tell me honestly—how am I actually expected to express my views when I know there’s a metaphorical punch coming from around the corner just for having them? 🤷 It is true that most religions view homosexuality as a sin, though the degree of that condemnation varies from one faith to another. However, the real issue isn't the doctrine itself; it’s the way people choose to present it. There is this palpable sense of disgust directed toward homosexuality, as if our society were somehow purer or more sanctified than it actually is. It feels deeply hypocritical to me. People seem to forget how many children are growing up without parents, how many marriages are shattered by infidelity, or the sheer prevalence of drug addiction and countless other struggles in our communities. To me, it all comes down to pure hypocrisy. Homosexuality is a sin, just like any other sin in this world—it carries no more weight than the act of looking upon someone else's spouse with lust. 🤷 Look, if you have any individual—anyone at all—who makes overt, offensive remarks regarding homosexuals, then that behavior is subject to sanctions.

If I had my way, we would apply those same standards to any posts that are offensive to the religious community. It would only be fair. 🙂 Is expressing distaste for religion permitted? I mean, why wouldn't it be? I am simply asking the question. 🙂

The exact same principle applies to those who have been advised on how to handle their wives, along with several other specific details.
Simply hiding behind the authority of holy scripture does not inherently mean that what has been written is correct.

Look, boss, I realize I’m not speaking on behalf of all Christians or those who follow the Religion by the book, but I truly believe that the vast majority—and I mean the overwhelming majority—have never actually made statements calling for violence or seeking to discredit women, the LGBTQ+ community, or anyone else like that. Let's try to be fair here.

And one more thing—there is a massive distinction between making a sweeping, general statement about how a man should hit his wife every day, and actually telling a specific female user that she deserves to be beaten, or calling for such violence against her. Please, try to understand my perspective here. Why would you argue that both types of statements should be treated identically? A man can beat his wife in his private life every single day, yet he can post on an online forum without anyone ever sanctioning him. Why? Because he isn't breaking any rules. Am I wrong? If he breaks the rules, then he faces consequences. He can hide behind the authority of holy scriptures all he wants—that is his business—as long as he doesn't start publicly propagating misogyny, hatred toward women, or anything that violates the principles enshrined in our Constitution and the forum's own guidelines.

I am not entirely sure if I made myself clear. My only intention here is to prevent any misconceptions or misunderstandings from taking root. I simply don't want us to end up in a situation where discussions regarding Religion are relegated strictly to casual social gatherings—and even then, one might wonder if that would actually happen. I fear we might reach a point where one feels unable to speak freely, lest a third party decides to misinterpret my words and cast unfair accusations against my character.

Locus classicus for you seems to be this relentless assertion that Christians are anti-Semitic, or that the New Testament itself is inherently anti-Semitic. If I were living in the US, if I were an American citizen, I would feel compelled to file a formal complaint against such rhetoric. These are incredibly heavy accusations. Now, look—I realize anyone can blurt out something foolish once or even three times, but when someone repeats these claims repeatedly across various topics, it becomes a genuine issue. This pertains directly to your next point:

if something is enshrined in the US Constitution, there is absolutely no need for it to be explicitly stated in the forum rules
the forum is obligated to respect the laws and the Constitution of the United States

intolerance is truly undefined and therefore remains at the discretion of the forum administration

That is precisely the crux of the matter. Fine, perhaps you believe the New Testament is anti-Semitic (which, frankly, defies all common sense given it was written by Jews, but that is beside the point here), but when you begin insulting Christians based on these alleged anti-Semitic sentiments in the New Testament—what are you doing if not violating both the rules and the Constitution via intolerance? 🤷 There is ample evidence of such occurrences and similar patterns; in fact, I have started a thread regarding Antisemitism and the New Testament.

Do you realize how far we have fallen? We have reached a level even lower and more intolerant than we have ever been before. It is painfully obvious that despite all your efforts, your time, your energy, and your good intentions, users still need to grasp that changing their writing style isn't necessarily a bad thing. However, there needs to be a collective awareness that you all have the power to elevate this forum's quality through clearer rules and slightly better moderation. It makes no sense for Lastan to leave Religion just because he received an unfounded and rather silly ban from Veronika—even though he is an atheist—nor should anyone else feel forced to depart. In my experience, it is quite rare to see forum members stop posting quite like they do on Religion. I myself have refrained from writing on multiple occasions, as have many other users. Let us try to curb this behavior, or at least reduce it to a minimum.

Nicholas King said:

I suppose I should address this—though I’m really not sure why anyone would even bother bringing it up at this point. There's absolutely no Nick to be found here. Honestly, it feels like we're just spinning our wheels now, isn't it? I mean, if you're looking for him, you're out of luck—he's nowhere to be seen. It’s all a bit pointless, I guess. The user says:
...why on earth should we even consider sanctioning the reading of world literature just because it mentions certain unpleasant things? I mean, really—shouldn't we be allowed to engage with these works without some moral police breathing down our necks? It seems to me that penalizing someone for exploring the darker corners of the human experience through classic prose is a slippery slope, perhaps even a dangerous one. I guess what I’m trying to say is that literature serves as a mirror to reality, however grim that reality might be, and suppressing it feels like a step toward censorship that we simply shouldn't entertain. Maybe there's a way to balance sensitivity with artistic freedom, but jumping straight to sanctions seems entirely disproportionate—don't you think?Religious books—or whatever you want to call them—are such a massive, complicated category that I feel like people rarely take the time to actually sit down and categorize them properly. I mean, when you're browsing through a bookstore or looking online, you’re hit with this overwhelming wall of titles ranging from deep theological studies to those much lighter, more inspirational devotionals. It’s all a bit much, isn't it? I guess what I'm trying to say is that there's a huge difference between someone digging into the Bible for serious study and someone just looking for a bit of daily comfort. One requires a certain level of intellectual rigor—you have to be prepared to wrestle with the text—while the other is more about finding a moment of peace in a hectic day. Maybe some people prefer one over the other, or perhaps they need both to get a full picture. I don't know. It seems to me that we often lump everything together under one umbrella, which doesn't really do justice to the depth of the material. There is so much nuance to consider, whether it's historical context, spiritual guidance, or even just philosophical reflections on faith. It's quite a broad spectrum, really.They’re actually writing—get this—about such absolute filth. I mean, really, what is even the point? Is there any actual necessity for it? 🤷 I mean—if I’ve understood this correctly, at least—it seems like only the absolute filth found within religious texts is actually subject to any kind of sanctions...

Whether it was done by accident or out of some misguided sense of good intentions—I honestly can't tell—there has been a massive, serious substitution of arguments happening here. We're talking about a complete pivot from the actual point. Sanctioning... This is just absolute filth. Honestly, I don't even know where to begin with this level of depravity—it’s just pure, unadulterated garbage.Look, regardless of where someone actually comes from—which is one thing entirely—to start implying that they are out here advocating for sanctions (nothing more, nothing less) is just... I don't even know. It’s a massive leap. I suppose I should probably touch upon the subject of religious texts—those various volumes people hold so dear. It’s a topic that always seems to spark some kind of intense debate, isn't it? I mean, when you look at how much weight people place on certain books, it really makes you wonder about the sheer influence they wield over our society and individual lives. Whether we are talking about the Bible or other sacred writings, there is an undeniable gravity to them—though, of course, one's perspective on that gravity varies wildly depending on who you ask. I guess it's just one of those things that defines so much of the American experience, for better or worse. That's an entirely different matter altogether—even when you throw in that little "at least that's how I figured it out" qualifier at the end.

By the way—you’ve completely missed the mark here—and I’m not talking about some legalistic hair-splitting or playing lawyer, but rather a basic, elementary interpretation of the sentence provided: the point being made is that just because certain filth originates from a religious text (rather than some other "secular" source), it doesn't mean those things shouldn't be sanctioned.

Disclaimer: I really shouldn't be getting myself dragged into some heated debate about whether or not certain... let's call them "unpleasantries"... actually exist within religious texts.

Did you actually read my entire post? Perhaps there was a misunderstanding between the two of us—certainly between him and me as well. Honestly, I would much prefer to hear an explanation directly from Tyndall. My intention isn't to shift the subject (I assure you, that wasn't the goal), but rather to address a specific statement of his that I find quite problematic.

Take a look at this statement:

If the Bible dictates that homosexuality is a crime, then we should certainly enforce it as such.

I prefer to think for myself, which is exactly why I find myself wondering—what specific consequences or sanctions are actually on the table in this situation? 🤷 But I am truly interested in the WHAT. Please believe me, I mean no harm whatsoever when I ask this. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the Bible actually contains such a thing— What? Are we actually issuing punishments here? We can’t exactly penalize the Bible itself—it’s just ink on paper, after all. But what about the users? Should we be sanctioning someone for sharing verses or direct quotes from the Bible? If we are going to discipline a user for making those kinds of statements, I have to ask: on what specific basis or rule are we doing this? 🤷

Now, if there is a user who already holds offensive views and has posted them—surely they ought to be sanctioned? In my estimation, we are dealing with what appears to be a minor misunderstanding, yet one that could carry incredibly significant implications. Statements of this nature often trigger a massive chain reaction. That is why I am truly eager to hear an explanation from Tyndall. Ultimately, I believe gaining clarity on this issue would be quite beneficial for me as well, given that I work in a similar field. I simply want to ensure he isn't being unfairly misunderstood. 🙂 I am well aware that he doesn't tolerate any kind of insults, but I would hate for anyone to misinterpret his statements—even if I happen to be one of those people. That is precisely why we are all here: to engage in meaningful discussion.

I would also like to take a moment to address one more statement:

There are certain actions that might be perfectly legal under the laws of the United States, yet remain strictly prohibited by the editorial policies of Reddit. This is because we are dealing with a private platform where the owner—acting through their designated representatives—retains the absolute discretion to establish and enforce their own rules. If they were to suddenly decide, for instance, to ban every single member whose username starts with the letters E or T, they would be entirely within their rights to do so.

If certain actions are perfectly legal and within the bounds of American law, yet they remain prohibited here due to the specific underlying philosophy of this forum—which I prefer to call our "guiding principles" rather than just "rules"—does that logically imply that things which are illegal under US law might actually be permitted on this platform?

The specific PDF doesn't even matter. I am honestly not sure if Article 39 of the Constitution of the United States is still in effect, which states:

It is prohibited and punishable to incite or call for war or the use of violence, or to promote national, racial, or religious hatred or any other form of intolerance. (link)

Spreading national and racial hatred—I have noticed quite a bit of that on this forum, and the moderators have stepped in directly in most instances. However, what about religious hatred? What about "any" form of "intolerance?" 🤷 Granted, perhaps I don't fully grasp the nuance of the word "intolerance." I know roughly how it sounds here in the States, so if it carries the same weight for you, then this forum—specifically the Religion section—has violated your Constitution countless times without anyone being held accountable in the vast majority of cases. These are matters that truly warrant reflection. Freedom of speech is one thing, but any form of "intolerance" is, in my view, a genuine abuse of that freedom. If these types of issues were approached with more seriousness, I have a feeling that at least some of our problems would be resolved. That is my point. I believe this forum needs slightly clearer guidelines regarding certain topics, though I am certainly not the one to decide that; I am merely noting these observations, much like many of us do. 🙂

Matthew Grant9 As requested:
He is the administrator.

Precisely, and that certainly doesn't give him any right to make statements like those.

Tyndall As specified by:
I must respectfully disagree. The offensive content found within religious texts remains just as objectionable today as it ever was, and such material should be held to the same standards of accountability and sanction as anything else.

Listen, Tyndall, I would genuinely appreciate it if you could specify exactly which atrocities we are discussing here. As a Christian myself, I don't claim to be any more objective than you are, nor do I believe you possess any greater moral standing than I do. Furthermore, in my capacity as an administrator and moderator, I have certain responsibilities to uphold. I would truly value an explanation as to why reading works of classic world literature that depict various depravities should remain unsanctioned, while "religious texts" that actually write about such things are subject to censorship? 🤷 If I am interpreting this correctly—and please correct me if I'm wrong—it seems that only the offensive content within religious texts is subject to these sanctions. However, I am still struggling to grasp exactly how such sanctions would actually be implemented in practice. 🤷 I would truly love to know that as well.

Please don't misunderstand my intentions. It isn't my goal to aggressively hunt down justice or push for an absolute, scorched-earth verdict—that’s just not how I operate. However, I truly believe it is fundamentally unfair to penalize someone for their "misdeeds" simply because they hold a different worldview. To be blunt, making statements like that is unjust, especially considering how much weight such words carry and the serious implications they can have. I am afraid I have nothing to say on this matter. I truly believe there should be legal measures to sanction the "filth" found within certain books, but I find myself hesitating on how that would actually work in practice. Statements. Regarding those forum users who are actively calling for the spread of religious, nationalistic, gender-based, or any other forms of discrimination, hatred, and intolerance—I believe we can all agree on one thing. We don't even need to quote them to know that such behavior is strictly prohibited on a decent, high-quality forum. Isn't that right? I say this with some degree of humility, but having personally written rules for various online communities and even helped build several platforms from the ground up, I feel I have sufficient experience to speak on the matter. 😉

Secondly, as I have previously inquired, what specific mechanism do you intend to employ when addressing the more objectionable elements found within religious texts? 🤷 How exactly do you plan to implement this? I’m not entirely sure, but frankly, what you’re describing sounds uncomfortably close to a dictatorship. By making such a statement—and you certainly aren't the only one to have said something similar here—you are sending a rather negative signal my way. Please, don't take this personally; I have absolutely no reason to doubt your integrity, and that isn't what this is about at all. I simply feel that you are overreaching with these kinds of assertions, nothing more. I would much prefer to believe that you simply misspoke, and I truly hope that you don't actually mean everything you've written just as it stands.

Just so you are aware, I study the Bible in whatever language I choose—I even delve into the Hebrew and Ancient Greek texts. Because of that, I don't find myself in any need of an education on this subject from an admin, a moderator, or any other user on Reddit. If anything, I am more than capable of offering my own advice on the matter.

Furthermore, I believe that the Religion sub on Reddit has long served—and perhaps still does—as a playground for mocking faith and the worldview of religious people. There have been countless statements claiming that believers are narrow-minded or that religion is strictly for the primitive. Then, you see photos specifically designed to ridicule faith and its followers, suggesting their minds are clouded. It feels as though the moderators, through their own biases, have fueled the resentment of believers, who are almost always portrayed as fanatics or fools. Consequently, one rarely feels inclined to give any serious weight to a critique of moderation if it comes from a religious user. A perfect example is the harsh disciplinary action taken against Roger Barrett2. His only "sin" was expressing himself somewhat clumsily, yet he was slapped with a direct ban for a relatively minor comment. Meanwhile, on the other hand—when users call believers backward, attempt to paint them as intellectually deficient, or characterize them as irrational—it’s a different story. To put it bluntly, I’ve observed posts where the implication is that believers are simply mentally incompetent obstacles to human progress, a "great evil" that ought to be stopped. Yet, dozens upon dozens of posts that directly disparage religious sentiments and core beliefs are permitted under the guise of democracy and freedom of speech. Is that really acceptable to you?

Because of such incredibly primitive attitudes—which were essentially a massive trend on the Religion subforum for a long time (the more you belittled religion, the more of a celebrity you became)—you dealt with a very difficult situation. You had stubborn and biased moderators, users who were indoctrinated regardless of their actual ideology, millions of unnecessary warnings and bans, and various other issues that could have been avoided if there had just been better forum policy.

I am not particularly interested in your personal worldview, even though it is clearly decisive when it comes to making decisions; I certainly noticed that whenever the Religion subforum was involved. What I care about is which objective criteria are being used. Is it actually permitted on the Religion subforum to mock the religious sentiments of truly good, honest, and intelligent users? Or is any form of primitivism that drags faith and religion down to a rather pathetic and vulgar level something that is actually encouraged, all in the name of "democracy" and "freedom of speech?"

Finally, please clarify this for me. Is it possible for someone to serve as a moderator for any subforum here while simultaneously harboring a certain animosity—at the very least—toward the views of users who disagree with them? Do you honestly believe that any of those six moderators on the Martial Arts subforum would be able to stay there for long if they mocked martial arts, called them stupid sports, or otherwise belittled and ridiculed the discipline? What do you think—would such a moderation team be acceptable? And how long would those kinds of mods actually last?

Look, these aren't problems that I personally have to deal with. I understand you as the admin, and I know it isn't easy to solve everything, but these are matters that have been swept under the rug for years. They probably won't be solved because you simply cannot grasp that the Religion subforum is actually the Religion subforum. 🙂

I am not blaming you for anything, nor am I judging you; I simply believe that theists are far too intelligent to be humiliated and mocked by atheists, yet that is exactly what has been happening on the Religion subforum for years. I haven't posted there in a few weeks, and I am not sure if this sickness has ever truly been eradicated. 🙂 It is a total paradox—Roger Barrett2 gets banned (unfairly, too, since you didn't even deign to reply to my private message when I pointed it out, which isn't fair, let's admit it), yet at the same time, any random person can show up and mock believers. Is that considered a "fair" approach, objective and all? 😂 It is no wonder I stopped posting on that Religion subforum; I have no desire to receive warnings from moderators who harbor animosity toward religion—how can you expect me to trust them?

How can you expect me to trust you?

There is nothing malicious in my words—I am simply being open and sincere. 👍

Why don't you just start a "Paganism 1000" thread or something similar? Who is stopping you? 🤷 Whether it becomes a top-tier discussion really depends on how you title it. I have been active over in the Religion section for nearly four years now, so if you are asking for my perspective, I am happy to provide it. Regardless, there is absolutely nothing preventing you from launching such a thread; time will eventually tell if it earns its place among the most popular discussions on the site.

Maiba, if —how many posts and threads do you actually have under the Religion category? 🤔 😁

My friend, please do not misunderstand me, as I mean no offense, but I find it somewhat pretentious for someone who hasn't made a significant impact in the Religion section—someone who mostly lingers in the Off-topic area—to weigh in on what is happening over there. Isn't that a bit strange, honestly? 😕

In my view, this specific thread you've started is entirely off-topic. Usually, when a thread is flagged as off-topic (!), it's because of the content itself. However, if you intend to convince me that I am mistaken, I would be more than willing to hear your reasoning (provided the moderators don't lock the thread first, of course). I believe I have gained enough experience to understand certain nuances, so perhaps I can clarify anything that seems unclear to you, though I remain quite open to hearing your logic. 🙂

Is there actually any way to get a clear picture of how much money is being used to artificially inflate ratings and manipulate rankings?

mellowseal27 said:No 🙂

Facebook isn't going to take over the forum 🙂

Well, before Facebook arrived, we already had those like/unlike posts, and many forums still offer that option, so—it really isn't anything new.

I am neither "for" nor "against"; frankly, I don't particularly care. 😁

I don't see where we're contradicting one another; if anything, it seems our perspectives are quite aligned. But, fair enough.

Look, just browse through the topics in that PDF and you'll realize how many of them really ought to be locked. They either don't fit the scope of the document, they aren't properly structured, or they are just plain nonsensical. A certain amount of order needs to be brought to this chaos.

Jacob Foster11 said:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29

So, what I wrote there is the exact definition of trolling.

It is accurate, certainly, but perhaps not exhaustive. We don't need to get overly pedantic about it, but we might as well try to gain some clarity. 🙂 Trolling is primarily about derailing a conversation, disrupting the flow of discussion, or intentionally sabotaging a thread. While I agree with the method you mentioned, I would add that it isn't always strictly "writing specifically to provoke an intense emotional outburst from an interlocutor," even though that is often implied. A troll is also someone who spreads misinformation (usually off-topic) and someone who thrives on the "audience's" reaction to their posts (though they will never admit this publicly). What most moderators fail to realize—as do many regular users—is that simple ignorance or being uninformed is NOT trolling. You see this all the time in classic arenas for mocking people with different worldviews (take a subreddit dedicated to Religion, for example), where if you aren't aware of a certain fact, you find yourself under a barrage of ridicule from those who fancy themselves more enlightened than you, all while being branded a troll. If you are simply uninformed, you are not a troll. You are a troll only if you are deliberately steering the discussion in a completely different direction to undermine the subject at hand.

Similarly, merely disagreeing with another user is NOT trolling, even though my disagreement with you, for instance, might be labeled as trolling from my perspective, which is fundamentally incorrect. It is entirely possible to hold differing views without being trolls.

Taking a sharper tone regarding a topic is also NOT trolling. One can defend their positions with forceful language or firm stances without being classified as a troll.

I have frequently witnessed disciplinary actions justified by claims of "trolling" and similar labels. When one actually examines a post cited for such reasons, it is often laughable (or tragic, depending on how you look at it). Regardless, even though the golden rule states that "the best response to trolling is NOT to respond," we rarely follow that unwritten rule. However, in my experience serving as a user, moderator, and administrator, I know that staying silent is the most effective solution. When you refuse to engage with a troll, they sometimes walk away thinking they’ve backed you into a corner or left you speechless, but sooner or later, you eventually win them over through composure. It is a tried and true method that has never failed me once.

Furthermore, to ensure we stay on track, I believe some form of education or a "Decalogue of Internet Communication" would benefit both users and moderators alike. It would help establish clear distinctions between insults, spamming, trolling, and off-topic remarks, rather than having people rely on mere assumptions or having moderators cave to pressure from a user who has over-analyzed someone else's words. No one loses by gaining more knowledge on this matter; while trolls will always exist and erroneous penalties will occur, we could at least reduce those numbers to a more reasonable level.

hiddensailor14 said:I honestly believe we are entering an era where a theocracy might be introduced.😁

...which is something I personally dread. In my humble opinion, perhaps now would be an appropriate time to take this entire site offline for a week; truly, no one will suffer if we all just take a brief hiatus. A collective realization regarding our own excesses would likely benefit everyone on these forums.

Jacob Foster11 said:The definition of trolling is engaging in writing specifically designed to provoke intense emotional reactions from others (or to otherwise disrupt productive, on-topic discussion). Therefore, this is textbook trolling, and as such, it is unwelcome and should be subject to sanctions.

Actually, I don't think that is quite the most accurate definition of trolling. Trolling usually aims to divert attention away from the main topic by focusing on trivialities or side issues.

Richard Nelson2 said:He didn't miss the point. Since I spend quite a bit of time in the Religion subforum, I can see clearly how things work there. In Politics, they tend to be much more blatant about their tactics, which makes it easy to spot them and just avoid getting into a fight with those types. However, on the Religion board, it’s far more subtle; it’s incredibly easy to accidentally veer into off-topic discussions, spamming, or even end up being insulting when you aren't careful.
The battlefield of ideologies that exist solely for their own sake is most prominent in the Religion section, and you really can't grasp the full scope of it unless you've been lurking there for a while.

And let's not forget the latest announcement from the Religion moderators. They collectively decided that any kind of personal analysis will now result in a 100-point penalty and a three-day ban. Just imagine how incredibly delicate you have to be now when you try to call someone out on something. 😂

I am joking, of course (in that last sentence). Honestly, I think shutting down the Religion board for an entire week might actually help the users realize they've crossed a line. In my experience, increasing the dictatorship of the moderation team is never going to solve the underlying issues. We need something much more radical than a 100-point deduction for saying something to a fellow user that isn't even particularly egregious or offensive.

shadowseal12 said:I honestly cannot wrap my head around how someone could possibly be framed like that. It seems fundamentally impossible to plant such evidence on an individual without some serious level of corruption or systemic failure. 🤷

steelskipper5 essentially laid out the dirty tactics being used over at Religion, and I find myself in complete agreement with his assessment. Honestly, I’m struggling to see the point in posting on Religion under these current conditions. It doesn't feel like a proper discussion board anymore—it's not even a forum in the traditional sense. Instead, it has devolved into a series of lobbying efforts where everyone is just trying to tip the scales, manipulate who gets banned, or figure out how to be subtle enough to dodge a suspension. High-quality contributions are becoming an increasingly rare sight. Perhaps if that entire thread were locked down for a week or two, it might actually cool things off and give some of these users a much-needed reality check.

This thread is primarily focused on the Religion PDF, though I have a nagging feeling that similar issues might be cropping up in other sections of this forum.

To be specific, I’ve noticed lately that a rather petty game has been gaining momentum among users: "who can get who banned first." I would sincerely appreciate it if the moderators over at Religion could exercise a bit more discretion regarding how penalties are handed out. The entire point of moderation shouldn't be to issue a strike simply because you know the reporter belongs to the "other" ideological camp. It shouldn't matter which side they represent or which user is involved; such behavior is fundamentally senseless.

Furthermore, I believe there needs to be much more scrutiny applied to the justifications provided for certain bans. Honestly, some of these explanations are borderline laughable—they feel almost juvenile. I have encountered a few instances recently that were quite frankly absurd. Moderation shouldn't be about issuing a penalty just because someone pressured a moderator, knows them personally, or maintains a friendly rapport online. The objective should be to facilitate productive discussion, not to engage in a tactical game of "who can trigger a ban first." Currently, when someone from an opposing viewpoint receives a strike (or gets banned after accumulating just three), they essentially just tally up their "points" and claim an away victory. It is utterly pointless.

As users, we really ought to reflect on why we participate in this unnecessary power struggle. What is the purpose of manufacturing grievances or lobbying for a moderator to "punish" someone? I truly urge everyone to relax and move past this constant maneuvering and lobbying. This community—specifically the Religion section—loses its very purpose if moderation is handled this way, or if posts are reported solely out of spite. I don't believe there is any need for this kind of conduct, both from the users and from the moderators, who might want to reconsider their approach to oversight (moderation involves much more than just handing out strikes).

Kevin Williams56 said:But the solution is actually quite straightforward... you simply have to stop accumulating points. 😉

There is an even simpler way to handle this—just don't post on the forum at all. If you stay silent, you certainly won't end up with warnings or a ban. While what you mentioned holds true in most scenarios, I am personally aware of certain moderators who have handed out warnings to users when it wasn't strictly necessary. It seems that if someone decides they simply don't like you, they can weaponize the rules against you. Fortunately, those instances are the exception rather than the rule. 🙂

Roger Barrett2 said:Aha, I see where you're coming from. So, I'm allowed to call Step Out and Contra criminal organizations because they happen to work against the interests of the state (regardless of what that entails), but I can't say anything about gay people as individuals? Is that really the point you're trying to make?

So, if I say being gay is a sin in Godly eyes, just like XYZ2 other things (regardless of whether those things are illegal or not), that counts as discrimination. Yet, when he calls the entire Catholic Church a criminal organization (which, by definition, means a group of people organized to commit crimes), that somehow isn't discrimination? Clearly, I need to head back to school because I'm obviously an idiot.

"Demonization"? Please, let's not throw labels around so lightly. Not every disagreement constitutes demonization, and just because we view something as bad doesn't automatically mean we're demonizing it.

It isn't illegal to be gay in America, so there’s no such thing as discrimination on my part; I haven't forbidden anyone from being who they are, nor am I calling for them to be prosecuted. I simply stated that I believe it’s detrimental to society (much like XYZ2 other issues) and that I don't believe they should be granted the right to marriage or any other kind of marital union. To me, it just doesn't make sense.

You don't need to, because you aren't an idiot. Your mistake was simply a clumsy choice of words, which resulted in you being docked 500 points you didn't truly deserve. Even if you did earn them, someone could have been more reasonable and said, "Alright, we went a bit overboard there; just be more careful with your phrasing next time."

In truth, I would be quite interested to see whether, based on some standard in Rhode Island or similar, statements claiming the Catholic Church is a "criminal organization," or calling the cross "the greatest evil," could be considered serious offenses. There have been similar remarks made quite nonchalantly under the Religion category, where people seemingly felt they were being more popular by making the most provocative statements regarding Christianity (though that really just refers to Catholics, whereas Roger Barrett2 is, incredibly, a Protestant). I am genuinely curious if there are any legal grounds to view such comments as insults or as speech that incites intolerance and hostility.

steelskipper5, there is no point in labeling things that way, because you aren't correct. You cannot justify making those kinds of statements just because of your personal views on faith, especially not under the rather flimsy excuse of "free speech." Of course, you might even be right on the facts—but that isn't the main topic here—and that style of rhetoric only serves to discredit you. I honestly don't care how you take this, or if you get angry; I certainly don't harbor any ill will toward you, nor should you feel the need to lecture me on what does NOT belong in a conversation accepted by civilized society (furthermore, such speech can actually be actionable) or within this forum (personally, as an admin, I would delete posts like those without a second thought).

Brenda Cook4 said:Well, look, someone could technically sue steelskipper5 for libel (if what he said was untrue) through a private lawsuit, but he has every right to express his opinion regarding an organization (rather than individuals), especially within the context of the thread he's responding to. On the other hand, you can't engage in discrimination or demonize people based on their sexual orientation—that's illegal under U.S. law, and it violates forum rules too. So, as far as I'm concerned, no points deducted and no ban for you.

Why, then, hasn't some gay rights organization filed a lawsuit against Roger Barrett2, for instance? Why was he penalized—on what grounds? Was it simply because he phrased something clumsily? Meanwhile, comments that rank at the exact same level as Roger Barrett2's go unpunished because they are considered "someone's right to say"? I truly couldn't imagine a bigger joke, though I wasn't expecting anything more substantial. Still, it is helpful that Rob Roy's post is transparent, much like John Doe's right to his opinion:

Rob Roy said:Of course, this raises the question of whether the Church serves the national interest—that is, does the country as a whole benefit from something like the Catholic Church? Does it benefit all citizens in some way, or just Catholics? Personally, I believe the Church is a great institution that benefits the entire nation, not just Catholics, and because of that, it is appropriate for the state to provide partial funding for its work. The only positive aspect I see regarding that tax is the provision of real, honest statistics.

Rob Roy wasn't even addressing him directly, but he did say:

steelskipper5 said:Personally, I think we are talking about a criminal organization that works against the people. For that reason alone, I refuse to fund them.

I suggest everyone judge for themselves whether this style of writing is acceptable. The point isn't to punish John Doe—doing so in this case would be both pointless and unfair. Why wasn't there an immediate reaction? Instead, now that someone has started a thread, suddenly—just to keep the peace—is someone going to slap him with 500 points, or maybe less? Not even a single point. But this is simply a sign that you have no idea how to moderate; when a post like this is allowed in the Religion section (!)—where at least 60% of the users are Christians, most of whom are Catholic—well, no comment.

Even if it were just one person. There have been many posts where, had an atheist said them, a Christian would have received 500 points or more. Such cases have existed. Why is mockery directed at believers not considered discrimination or demonization in the Religion section, yet when a Christian says something, it is scrutinized down to the smallest detail and labeled as discrimination or demonization to derail a larger conversation?

I would honestly suggest that I turn all of you into a PDF . 🙂 It's just how things are going for you all, so there you have it. 🙂

neonfalcon16 said:Now Nick is crawling his way in because he’s got his eyes on that moderator spot 🤣

I remember asking how one actually earns that kind of status on another forum once, and they told me straight up that I'd need some high-level clearance from the CIA and a direct blessing from the Vatican 🙂

No, I am not being evasive; I am simply stating the facts based on my own experience. Having already served as both an admin and a moderator, and having handled responsibilities far more significant than mere bickering on internet forums, I truly believe it is the admins who should be answering to me, rather than the other way around. 🙂

cosmicskipper39 said:I'm honestly not even sure if I count as a new member yet, since I've been lurking around here as an unregistered guest for a while. But hey, I'll give myself a pass for missing a ton of stuff—this place is absolutely massive, and there are way too many members and mods to keep track of everything! 🙂

I honestly had no clue that guy was actually a mod. And look, regarding hollowtrucker77 and the spec board—it was just a joke, okay?

Great post, and killer username. 👍 👏

I hope this helps all the wannabe mods out there.

Cheers. 👋

Thank you. 🙂

Dana Reyes5 said:I am not suggesting all the mods are geniuses🤷, because if I did, everyone else would have to be an idiot by default.😁

And, let me know if they got what they wanted.🤣

My assertion that moderators need to be intelligent doesn't logically necessitate that everyone else is foolish—that's simply flawed reasoning. But, I suppose that's exactly what being a moderator entails, isn't it? 🙂