Ego, explain your bias to me.

LOL, I see we’re already diving into the amateur psychoanalysis phase here.

Just like everything else on Reddit so far, it seems people are protected from criticism—it's just their beliefs that aren't. If someone is looking for a space where their convictions are treated like some untouchable, sacred relic, they can find plenty of niche forums for that elsewhere.

Nicole James said:LOL, I see we’re already diving into the amateur psychoanalysis phase here.

Just like everything else on Reddit so far, it seems people are protected from criticism—it's just their beliefs that aren't. If someone is looking for a space where their convictions are treated like some untouchable, sacred relic, they can find plenty of niche forums for that elsewhere.

What are you even talking about? You’re a moderator over in the Religion section, yet you’re claiming that faith itself is offensive to you. Does that actually sound sane to you? Does it seem "normal" to suggest a moderator in History and Historical Topics should find history itself offensive? Or that a moderator in the Movies section should find a film offensive? Doesn't that strike you as completely detached from reality? 🤷

I mean, if faith is offensive to you as a moderator for Religion, then what are we even doing here? There are people here who hold you in contempt for whatever reason—and sure, insulting religion is generally permitted on this platform—but it is fundamentally broken for a moderator in the Religion section to find faith itself offensive. By that logic, any actual religious stance becomes an insult to you, which means you'll always be biased when handing out punishments.

You might feel powerful behind a screen, wielding your little bit of digital authority to hand out warnings or bans just because someone doesn't share your exact perspective... but you really ought to take a hard look at the convictions you're defending. They seem pretty shaky if you have to resort to these kinds of tactics to maintain them.

Nicole James said:LOL, I see we’re already diving into the amateur psychoanalysis phase here.

Just like everything else on Reddit so far, it seems people are protected from criticism—it's just their beliefs that aren't. If someone is looking for a space where their convictions are treated like some untouchable, sacred relic, they can find plenty of niche forums for that elsewhere.

🤦

"If he had his head straight and believed in something that wasn't as pathetic as what he believes now, it wouldn't bother him."

http://www.reddit.com/showpost.php?p=4...9&postcount=36

First. It's not just beliefs being insulted here, it's the people. Look, Nicole James, Christians are people too.

Second. You think saying "...as pathetic as what he believes..." is part of a normal, reasoned debate? 😲🙂

Third. Are you really reducing this entire forum to just an attack on someone's beliefs?

Fourth. Come on, tell me honestly... what exactly makes you think you're qualified to be a supermoderator?

Jason Clark7 said:
I find myself wondering... what if we appointed the Pope or the Hodja to moderate the erotic and sex subreddits? They would likely spend every waking moment reminding everyone that ninety percent of the content posted there—which is essentially just the constant, crude joking of the local users—is deeply offensive to their sensibilities... 😵

In other words, most of us reading through the Religion PDF get the distinct impression that Nicole James has been placed there like a fox guarding the henhouse... 😍

Are you seriously suggesting they’d put a Hodja in charge of moderating a forum where Catholics are the ones doing all the talking? ☕

Nicole James said:Are you seriously suggesting they’d put a Hodja in charge of moderating a forum where Catholics are the ones doing all the talking? ☕

Maybe we should just put an imam or a rabbi in charge of the food subreddits and have them ban anyone who mentions non-kosher or non-halal options, just to balance things out. 😁Though I highly doubt they would actually act that way.

Morgan Ruiz3 said:Maybe we should just put an imam or a rabbi in charge of the food subreddits and have them ban anyone who mentions non-kosher or non-halal options, just to balance things out. 😁Though I highly doubt they would actually act that way.

Or how about putting a Christian in charge of a thread where Muslims are busy arguing that it’s a massive sin to even suggest that Jesus could be God... 🤷

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:Not much happening on Reddit, nothing new from Nicole James... ☕

Nicole James, honestly, I’d be pretty embarrassed if I were in your shoes—doing such a biased, subpar job... you can tell yourself you aren't alone, but trust me, you're definitely among the worst...

signed

Nicole James, seriously, you're doing a lousy, biased job and getting more radical about it every single day... You aren't any "better" in your posts than those people you call radical believers. Honestly, why are you even still moderating Religion? You can't separate moderating from your atheist views anymore... it's just bad, really bad.

Nicole James said:Or how about putting a Christian in charge of a thread where Muslims are busy arguing that it’s a massive sin to even suggest that Jesus could be God... 🤷

There is a fundamental difference between stating that something is a sin and disagreeing with it, versus being offended by the mere existence of a different faith. I know people from various religious backgrounds, and I’ve maintained good relationships with many of them; they have never taken offense at the fact that I am Catholic, or vice versa—at least, that’s my experience. Not every believer is as narrow-minded as you seem to think; people of different faiths talk to one another all the time. If a Christian were to sanction Muslims simply for claiming that Islam holds the sole truth or that believing in anything else is a sin, that wouldn't be moderation—it would be religious discrimination on the forum. Someone like that shouldn't be a moderator.

Nothing ever changes on this Reddit thread, so I’ll just ask—is anyone from management actually reading this, or can someone finally weigh in?

Is there some grand theory where a supermod will eventually step in and explain this mess? Do you guys even grasp what the guy wrote? Basically, according to the moderator, Religion is some deeply offensive faith.

Nicole James said:From where I stand, your faith is deeply offensive. So, what happens now?

Asking Nica, Strillet, or whoever sits above Nicole James—do you honestly think it’s normal for someone who finds a certain faith offensive to moderate the Religion thread? You know, the very thread where people discuss exactly what they find offensive?

Steven Wood72 said:Nothing ever changes on this Reddit thread, so I’ll just ask—is anyone from management actually reading this, or can someone finally weigh in?

Is there some grand theory where a supermod will eventually step in and explain this mess? Do you guys even grasp what the guy wrote? Basically, according to the moderator, Religion is some deeply offensive faith.

Asking Nica, Strillet, or whoever sits above Nicole James—do you honestly think it’s normal for someone who finds a certain faith offensive to moderate the Religion thread? You know, the very thread where people discuss exactly what they find offensive?

Where on earth did you dig up this idea that my faith is generally offensive to me?

Nicole James said:Where on earth did you dig up this idea that my faith is generally offensive to me?

I just quoted you. It’s pretty straightforward—a moderator for the Religion board can't claim that. Look, you might find my specific faith offensive—which is totally fine by me, I don't care which religion someone follows, nor am I against atheism... but if that's actually the case, how in the world are you supposed to moderate that sub?

Can't you see how many people are constantly pushing back against you? Does that tell you anything at all?

I have nothing against you personally, but since you're this ultra-extra-super-moderator—or whatever title you're holding—it’s possible you're getting paid, which might be why they won't let you go. But you know as well as I do that any sane person would ban someone from moderating the Religion section if they found certain faiths offensive. It’s a direct conflict of interest... because every single ban or strike you hand out could be interpreted as being motivated by your own religious biases.

Steven Wood72 said:I just quoted you. It’s pretty straightforward—a moderator for the Religion board can't claim that. Look, you might find my specific faith offensive—which is totally fine by me, I don't care which religion someone follows, nor am I against atheism... but if that's actually the case, how in the world are you supposed to moderate that sub?

Can't you see how many people are constantly pushing back against you? Does that tell you anything at all?

I have nothing against you personally, but since you're this ultra-extra-super-moderator—or whatever title you're holding—it’s possible you're getting paid, which might be why they won't let you go. But you know as well as I do that any sane person would ban someone from moderating the Religion section if they found certain faiths offensive. It’s a direct conflict of interest... because every single ban or strike you hand out could be interpreted as being motivated by your own religious biases.

On the Religion subreddit, you have all sorts of different people claiming that "other" faiths are offensive. You have some who worship Jesus as God, while others find that very idea to be sacrilegious. There have even been those who worship Satan... The way my moderation could be interpreted isn't any different from how the moderation of any user, regardless of their religious convictions, could be interpreted.

Nicole James said:On the Religion subreddit, you have all sorts of different people claiming that "other" faiths are offensive. You have some who worship Jesus as God, while others find that very idea to be sacrilegious. There have even been those who worship Satan... The way my moderation could be interpreted isn't any different from how the moderation of any user, regardless of their religious convictions, could be interpreted.

Look, people can worship whoever they want. No problem there—but as a moderator, you should at least be tolerant toward everyone instead of claiming certain faiths are offensive. Tell me honestly, doesn't that sound a bit clumsy? The moderator of Religion saying faith itself is offensive.

See, for example, I have extremely negative views regarding homosexuals, but for that reason, it wouldn't be right for me to moderate an LGBTQ+ forum because every single warning I issued could be challenged based on my bias.

When a regular user writes that a religion is offensive, fine—that's just an opinion. But you are someone with the power to punish on this forum, the power to issue warnings, to ban... Anyone can challenge your disciplinary actions using nothing more than that one sentence you just wrote.

Steven Wood72 said:Look, people can worship whoever they want. No problem there—but as a moderator, you should at least be tolerant toward everyone instead of claiming certain faiths are offensive. Tell me honestly, doesn't that sound a bit clumsy? The moderator of Religion saying faith itself is offensive.

See, for example, I have extremely negative views regarding homosexuals, but for that reason, it wouldn't be right for me to moderate an LGBTQ+ forum because every single warning I issued could be challenged based on my bias.

When a regular user writes that a religion is offensive, fine—that's just an opinion. But you are someone with the power to punish on this forum, the power to issue warnings, to ban... Anyone can challenge your disciplinary actions using nothing more than that one sentence you just wrote.

By that logic, all moderators would need to be completely devoid of any personal stance just so their rulings couldn't be called into question. 🤷

Nicole James said:By that logic, all moderators would need to be completely devoid of any personal stance just so their rulings couldn't be called into question. 🤷

No, but you clearly have no idea what you're doing... which shows right here in this thread. ☕

Where on earth did you dig up this idea that my faith is somehow offensive...

So, basically Christianity... Christianophobia...? 😕

Nicole James said:The real issue here is how I diagnose other users on Reddit. I didn't ban the person above, nor have I banned anyone else who has voiced theories regarding criminal atheist regimes.

You have every right to think whatever you want, just like everyone else, but if you keep calling people on this site "sick," "disordered," or anything similar, you're going to get a ban.

As far as I'm concerned, this discussion is over.

According to internationally recognized standards—homosexuals are still considered deviant individuals. That is simply the reality of the matter.

jadeseal4 said:According to internationally recognized standards—homosexuals are still considered deviant individuals. That is simply the reality of the matter.

And what "standard" are we even talking about here?

Nicole James said:LOL, I see we’re already diving into the amateur psychoanalysis phase here.

Just like everything else on Reddit so far, it seems people are protected from criticism—it's just their beliefs that aren't. If someone is looking for a space where their convictions are treated like some untouchable, sacred relic, they can find plenty of niche forums for that elsewhere.

But... did anyone actually ask for or demand immunity from the rules or special treatment? No. From what I can see, that’s never been the issue. What people are actually asking for is an objective, fair moderator who possesses at least a basic understanding and fundamental respect for the subject matter this subforum covers—namely Religion—along with a level of consideration (respect) for both religious beliefs and religious individuals, obviously. The argument was simply that someone who lacks that inherent knowledge cannot be an adequate moderator for such a niche topic. It all comes down to the fact that biased or non-objective moderation encourages bad, biased discussions rather than preventing them.

I suppose that's where the responsibility lies for any moderator. If they fail at the job they were entrusted with, it ultimately degrades the quality of the debates and the caliber of the users participating in those discussions.

The bottom line should be this: why would anyone want to engage in a discussion on a subreddit or thread that's crawling with trolls, provocations, or argumentative posts left by people for whatever motives? The goal should always be constructive dialogue. If that isn't being encouraged or maintained, then a large part of the blame—or responsibility—lies with the moderator first, and then with the users participating in it.

Nicole James said:By that logic, all moderators would need to be completely devoid of any personal stance just so their rulings couldn't be called into question. 🤷

Of course they can have opinions, and honestly, they should. But if someone holds an strongly (or even extremely) negative view regarding the very subject this sub handles, it raises a perfectly valid question: why are they even here? Whether you're a regular user or a moderator—especially a moderator, given the extra responsibility involved—it matters.

Also, why are you jumping from one extreme to the other with these examples? 🤷 Isn't there a middle ground between strict fair play and special treatment (like the first example you gave)? And isn't there a difference between "having an opinion" and using moderator tools to force that opinion on others? I believe there is, and we usually call that common sense.

Are you suggesting someone like Hodja should moderate a forum where Catholics are the ones posting?☕

If Hodja is reasonable and moderate in his beliefs, then naturally, there’s no issue. But if he were, say, an extremist or a fanatic, then yes, that becomes a problem. It isn't about what people believe; it's about character and conduct..

(I don't know about everyone else, but these excuses feel incredibly cheap and pathetic to me. Plus, the insults toward intelligence are almost unnecessary; the point was made several times already in this thread.)